TNAG-0307-FCO40-343-Costs-of-extra-services-provided-by-armed-forces-of-UK-in-Ho-1971 — Page 54

Mr. Gaminara

with

Reference...

7

Mr Gammon has avoided any comment on the arguments

in your letter at 4 I take this to indicate that MOD do not intend to be drawn into argument over the distiction

between cost for external defence and those for internal security. In their view none of the "increased expenditure' arising out of the 1967 disturbances can be met from MCD Votes, and it must therefore be paid either by Hong Kong or someone else; the onus being on us.

To ask Hong Kong to pay at present would be to point out to the "Unofficials" that the Defence Contribution is only for a defence presence, actual defence comes extra.

It would hardly encourage them to up the ante.

In view of your minute at 6 I presume there is no

hurry to answer this.

?B.U. in one month?

2

MsBEN

ワメ

Mr Bull;

Judging by Hr While's ministe et

12) on

the 1970 file,

the answer

to 7 harrow

is

a Remow.

Howwi,

1

that

wt

адти

if

The main issue

پاچی

By one water

>

must

forst despise

of the define

We also chornst

D

کالا

2/6

contribution.

a reply to .

Br. one month

B.V. one more

ING

J. 4,

м шёвых

mouth pl. wish.

6

B.J. mother mouth pl. mib 716.

B.V. Another worth pl. mis.B7/7.