TNAG-2120-FCO40-3026-Hong-Kong-Garrison-future-of-the-Royal-Navy-presence-1990 — Page 40

From: Sir David Wilson KCMG

bcc Pus

16

Redacted

lunder FOI

香港總督府

exemption

27(1)

HKC 062/1

21

SECRET

chael,

Mr. A.

OVERNMENT HOUSE CS

HONG KONG

a

13 December 1990

14. Paultri)

Stors

тя пиртватев

4.5 20112

Vec275/ card

Canthiran

Mililan

withoed

алмассў

Наш ле

hada

arport from TUMOD

and how they ansaity'

•A. Byons,

Auss

FS

It was very kind of you to spare the time to see MOD

me during my visit to London last week, particularly when you have so many other pressing matters on your mind.

As I told you then, I am extremely concerned at the lack of progress that has been made on agreeing the financing arrangements for the retention of the Royal Navy patrol craft in Hong Kong beyond 1992. We see genuine military need for these ships This vicw do endorsed by the Commander British Forces.

tam?

R+?

11/1

These reasons point clearly to a need to retain the patrol craft well beyond 1992. But any arrangement that meant HKG contributing a larger share than that agreed in the Defence Costs Agreement (DCA) would mean having to seek the approval of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. This in turn would run the risk of reopening the whole question of the DCA which is, as you know, a very sensitive subject in Hong Kong. Already there are several members of the Council who dispute the annual payments we make under the DCA. A change in the arrangements would provide them with all-too-welcome ammunition to attack HMG and denounce the DCA as a whole. With elections due next year we can be sure that this ammunition would be used.

In these circumstances it would not make sense, either in domestic political terms or in the interests of relations between the UK and Hong Kong, for me to put to the Legislative Council any proposal for the patrol craft which changed the distribution of costs in the present DCA.