21
SECRET UK EYES A LOCSEN
16. In giving the PCO view, Mr Paul said he was in almost complete agreement with what Mr Hatfield had said.
He agreed Hd Sec (0) (C)'s proposed way ahead and, in response to a question from the Chairman, added that there had been consultation between the Hong Kong Government (HKG) and the PCO and that the HKG considered that there was indeed a military case for the retention of the vessels. He believed that a future RN presence should be funded from the DCA in the normal way.
17.
DDNSD made the point that, even if the problem of financing a continued presence was solved, there was still no manpower available. This would mean that a task would have to be shed elsewhere. The Chairman acknowledged this as an important element of the factors which would have to be considered in arriving at a solution. DROW was asked to report on his visit to Hong Kong in Oct 89 with representatives of DN Plans and Sec (0) (C), the objective of which_was to consult with the HKG and CBP and add a broader base to the previous internal study. It was clear from the visit that there remained a requirement until 1997 for a naval presence to demonstrate sovereignty. He agreed with Hd Sec(O) (C) that this requirement was essentially political. However, once a commitment to retain a military presence had been made it would have to, on military grounds, afford CBP an adequate range of response. believed that the Naval study was entirely correct to identify the BIRD Class as a possible minimum capability but given the uncertainties that the future might hold, the PEACOCK Class represented the only militarily realistic option of those available, Local advice had been that the problems involved in building a new capability from scratch would be considerable and might outweigh possible savings. He stated that, in all the circumstances, having taken account of the Naval report and his team's visit, it was the view of the Commitments Staff that the 3 x PEACOCK Class HKPC should be retained until 1997 and he urged that the Committee recommended accordingly to CDS.
that
He
18. DN Plans stated that the facts had been exposed. There was no provision for a continued presence. He acknowledged the requirement was driven by political considerations, however, he was concerned about the manpower and resource programming implications. believed that if the political imperatives were overwhelming then the reality was that it was PEACOCK Class - or nothing. This would be briefed to COS in due course.
19.
He
AUS (C) stated that the
the position that had emerged appeared to be a pragmatic solution to the problem, although he recognised that it would cause the Navy some
LOCSEN
UK EYES A SECRET
Redacted
lunder FOI exemption 27(1)
5
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.