TNAG-0307-FCO40-343-Costs-of-extra-services-provided-by-armed-forces-of-UK-in-Ho-1971 — Page 12

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

SECRET

have

paid

This is just

NOT

true

What ever

G1 P. Sail

F

purpose of the fence was to cope with a possible

influx of refugees. In other words the fence

was really constructed as an anti-illegal immigrant

measure and indeed it is described as such in

paragraph 7 of Annex B to the Hong Kong paper

"Implementation of the Land Border Policy" sent

to us with Pierce's letter of 11 January 1971.

(I am grading this letter 'secret' because of

this reference.) The MOD will certainly not agree

to accept any part of its cost as a charge against

their vote and we feel bound to share their view

Indeed we do not consider it to be a

on this.

proper charge against HMG at all and we do not

expect to get much sympathy from the Treasury

when we broach the subject with them.

6. At the same time, regardless of the above

comments and of what your own views may be on the

subject, we are only too conscious of the likely

reaction of your Finance Committee to any

application for the necessary funds - assuming that

such an application could not be avoided. Coming

so soon after the conclusion of the negotiations

over the defence contribution, any such request

would, we assume, encounter the most jaundiced

reactions from the members of that Committee.

7. Work on Border Posts (Operation "Highland

Bonnet"). The second of the outstanding items

involves a sum of £20,691 spent by the Services

on stores required for refurbishing certain border

posts in connection with the 1967 disturbances.

This item has been the subject of correspondence

SECRET

/between

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.