/have
Power
Mr Powe, HKD
MOD PROPERTY IN HONG KONG
·
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference...
HKK 040/23
notted
to Mr.
3
(M)
"Panello/r.
2 y
1. In considering the papers attached to your minute of 8 March we should avoid making the classic error of confusing sovereignty over territory with titles to land. In 1842 and 1860 sovereignty over territory passed under international law to the United Kingdom, but domestic law titles to land acquired before then ran on. In 1997 sovereignty over territory will revert under international law to China, but domestic law titles to land will, subject to what is said in para 7 below, run on.
2.
Where the title to land is vested in the Crown the latter may either (i) have possession of it, e.g. where land and buildings are used for public purposes (roads, law courts, etc), or (ii) without having possession/the reversion on a Crown lease or on some other arrangement whereby the Crown has parted with possession. suppose that in all, or virtually all, these cases the Crown's title was obtained by virtue of its exercise of sovereign powers in the territory.
3.
The Chinese could be forgiven for claiming that after 1997 the Crown should give up all, or most of its land titles so acquired in favour of the PRC, or one of its local authorities. It was partly to deal with this situation that the idea was conceived of a Hong Kong Land Authority, having the capacity of a body corporate. The Crown would before 1997 transfer all, or most of, its land titles to the Authority, the Authority would in due course become part of the machinery of government in the SAR, and it would continue to hold the title to such lands after 1997. Thus the stroke of midnight on 30 June 1997 would bring no noticeable change so far as concerned land holding. In short the Land Authority would simply be a convenient repository for the title to land in the territory, which could not appropriately be left vested in the Crown after 1997.
4.
After 1997 it might be appropriate for the Crown to continue to hold some land in Hong Kong, e.g. to house its consular office and consular officials, but this would be the exception rather than the rule.
5.
From the memorandum of Mrs Young (Hong Kong) dated
17 January 1985 and Mr Gleeson's covering letter of 28 January it seems that all legal title in what is referred to as MOD property remains vested in the Crown. To analyse the position further it seems to me that so far as it consists of land (which term includes buildings), this is property the possession of which has been granted by the Crown acting in right of Hong Kong to the Crown acting in right of the United Kingdom. This has been achieved by administrative arrangements. If therefore the MOD gives up possession of any such property any question of compensation is again a matter for administrative arrangement between the two arms of the Crown. Throughout this procedure title will have been vested in the Crown. If title is to be vested in a Land Authority MOD may need some different arrangements.
16.
CODE 18-77
CONFIDENTIAL