CONFIDENTIAL
merely proposing to implement the withdrawal plan agreed with the
FCO and the Hong Kong Government and my objective is to avoid an additional burden on defence resources rather than to make savings. I was, however, surprised at your suggestion that the money should be found from compensating savings elsewhere in the defence
programme. When we agreed in the spring to proceed on the basis of Options for Change, we were clear that the force structure (which I
have since announced) was the minimum consistent with our future
commitments and I also emphasised to colleagues that LTC 91 was the minimum necessary to equip, sustain, and properly support those forces. In addition, in the case of Hong Kong, our Defence Costs Agreement with the HKG already assumes that we will make further economies, over and above those already identified, in the running of the garrison.
4.
As I have said before, if compensation can be found from elsewhere outside the defence budget then I am prepared to consider retaining some or all of the patrol craft after 1992. In view of what you have said about the position of the Hong Kong Government, and of the Chief Secretary's minute, however, this does not appear to be possible. I therefore conclude that we must proceed with the withdrawal plan and I would propose to do this by a response to a Parliamentary Question which has been put down by Lord Chalfont asking us to confirm that the craft will be retained in Hong Kong until 1997. I know that you would regard it as important that the Chinese are informed prior to an announcement and I understand that if we delay replying until Thursday afternoon, (which is the last possible moment as the Lords rises that day) arrangements can be made to inform those in Hong Kong on Thursday morning. I would therefore be grateful if this can be set in hand.
100% Recycled Paper
CONFIDENTIAL
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.