TNAG-0348-FCO40-384-Costs-of-extra-services-provided-by-armed-forces-of-UK-in-Ho-1972 — Page 14

〆

又

Secret

which, apparently, derives from figures quoted in folios 1 and 9 of HKK 10/17 (1970). As it is not essential to the argument it might be better to omit it altogether and to rephrase the paragraph to read "As we understand the position some reimbursement has been made by the Hong Kong Government to the Services but

• • •

#1

Paragraph 3

The Ministry of Defence appear to differentiate between 'materials' and 'stores'. To be accurate perhaps we should

similarly differentiate and amend "stores" in line 4 to "materials".

Paragraph 7

I think that the latter part of this paragraph might be better rephrased on the following lines: "....designed

to prevent. As you will be aware, the accepted principle is that the cost of internal security operations and

local defence is the financial responsibility, and

should be the first charge on the budget, of a territory. Since illegal immigration was a threat at the time and the fence clearly assisted to counter this, it seems right that at least part of the cost of the fence should fall on the Hong Kong Government. On the other hand, we have been able to obtain acceptance in Whitehall of the view that since external military aggression was also felt to be threatened and UK forces were there to meet the threat, and since the fence countered this threat too, part of the cost should fall on UK Defence Votes."

Paragraph 8

Amend to read:

"In all the circumstances we think that it would not be unreasonable to share the total cost equally between the two Governments and we suggest that the total cost of the fence should be divided into two equal parts. Since the total cost was £173,340 for materials and some £69,000 for labour and compensation this would mean that the Ministry of Defence would bear £121,170 of the disputed sum of £173,340 and the Hong Kong Government £52,170 (i.e. £121,170 less the £69,000 already spent)."

Paragraph 9 second sentence

Amend to read: "However, in the hope of clearing the way for a satisfactory solution of the Snake Fence dispute the Ministry of Defence are prepared to withdraw this claim."

Paragraph 10

Amend to read: "After a long and arduous battle on your behalf we have, I think, achieved the best possible compromise from your point of view. Although I fully realise that you may still have some difficulty in persuading your Finance Committee to vote the funds required I hope therefore that you will feel able to do your utmost to bring them to accept the proposed solution in the interests of disposing of this time consuming and irritating problem.

12 October 1972

SE CRET

#1

Shapte

$. Stephenson (Finance Department)