TNAG-0348-FCO40-384-Costs-of-extra-services-provided-by-armed-forces-of-UK-in-Ho-1972 — Page 69

Even

In February, 1971, the Fco rawl by it. HK. G. Chat.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

НК

1/10/17

CONFIDENTIAL

In

six of these positions were reconstructed. By this time

the undertaking of works services at the border had been

put on to a formal basis following a policy decision

taken by the Hong Kong Government in March 1968.

accordance with that decision, the Hong Kong Government

agreed to accept responsibility for the maintenance of all buildings required for operational reasons in the border area, whether they were occupied by the Army or

the police. Work to be done was discussed and agreed

between the Government and the Army; the latter provided

(at no cost) such technical advice as was necessary and

Superorsion sometimes prevision and labour; and the Hong Kong

Government met the cost of all stores required. Under

these arrangements, that Government agreed to meet the costs of works services required for operation "Spring

Clean".

10. In the view of the Ministry of Defence, the atti-

tude of the Hong Kong Government is illogical, since there was no material difference between "Highland Bonnet

and "Springclean".

Since that Government agreed to meet

the cost of the latter, than in the view of the Ministry

there is no reason why it should not likewise meet the

costs of the former operation. It appears to the Mini-

stry of Defence that the Hong Kong Government is basing

its case simply on the fact that it was not consulted before the works required for "Highland Bonnet" were put

in hand.

11.

The Hong Kong Government's case is as follows:-

(1) The border positions occupied by the Army under "Highland Bonnet" were old military positions

/which had

5

CONFIDENTIAL