TNAG-0542-FCO40-637-Strength-of-garrison-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 182

248

CONFIDENTIAL

Mr Lewis, G & GD

Mr Smith, Finance Dept

Mr O'Keeffe, HKIOD

Mr Preston, Caribbean Dept

Miss Rycroft, Planning Staff PS/PUS

cc Mr Sykes

Deputy Chief Clerk

separate copies

ра

B

28/8

MOD CHARGES FOR SERVICES TO THE FCO

1.

The first of Sir D Henley's two qualifications in his มา 207)-/letter of 8 August, of which you have copies, is really a point

for us rather than MOD, and I think we could usefully ask the PUS to reply to it. I do not see that we can reasonably dispute that there might still be one or two cases where we could reasonably look to the local government to meet the cost of IS operations, and I suggest that we should say we would of course be willing to examine this possibility if and when any IS operations took place. Subject to the views of Mr O'Keeffe and Mr Preston, who have not seen the earlier correspondence and to whom I am therefore sending copies of Sir M Cary's letter of 1 August to Sir D Henley, I do not think we need discuss at this stage whether or not Hong Kong and Bermuda would be candidates for payment.

(246)

2. The fact that the PUS and Sir M Cary will probably not now be seeing Sir D Henley deprives the PUS of the opportunity of making orally the three points mentioned in Mr Thomson's minute of 23 July to Mr Kerr (not to all). Subject to the Finance Officer's views, I doubt whether this matters as regards the proposed reminders that (i) any request for supplementary funds should be MOD's responsibility (this is I think already clearly enough implied by para 4 of Sir D Henley's letter) and (ii) that we should not be responsible for any indirect costs of IS operations.

3.

"

As regards the third point, viz the question of responsibility for the operations, I am glad to see that the final version of Sir M Cary's letter of 1 August indicated that such operations would

probably stem from a decision taken jointly by the Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary.....' This seems to me to preserve our formal responsibility so that, as suggested by Mr Thomson, we can tell the Secretary of State that the new arrange- ments will not affect responsibilities before Parliament. But I

11

/think

CONFIDENTIAL