4.
Following this
CONFIDENTIAL
initial
response
from the
Treasury,
B
Finance Department had agreed to push
the
reasury to agree
to the proposal that Hong Kong retain the full fee, as now, for a variety of reasons, technical as well as political. A
detailed letter,
therefore, issued from the Assistant
Finance Department to the Treasury on 16 December 1985.
in
C 5. Unfortunately, the Treasury were not convinced by our arguments, maintaining the line that Hong Kong could keep
its
is sued
but costs
that in
under elsewhere
with common
the
the fees for passports
Consular Fees
Order,
the
remainder must be surrendered.
argument.
6. During these deliberations
Hong Kong into
picture
political
NTD
Our inclination was
to bring
the
to
and
lend their weight
Finance Department
to
the
resisted
for
With
UK Government departments.
approaches we were on the point of
failure of the
this however on the ground s that this was purely a matter
these
seeking Hong Kong's
the use with
Treasury
draft of
letter to the
made have
issued
advice anyway
on
further
to arguments
D in
January when NTD
Treasury pointing
out
produced
that the
а
a
Treasury may
fundamental
error
in
equating
to
BD TCs
passports
(as BN(O) s will,
a
in
a
of course,
a
Dependent territory remain until 1997) with passports issued not in
in a Dependent
Territory, and that what we were seeking was merely continuation of present arrangements in Hong Kong concerning
to BD TCs. In view of this passports issued
we (HKD) agreed to hold off bringing Hong Kong into the argument officially
received from
the reasury, although we
of the
when problem
home was
According to Finance Department this latest chase the
until a
response was
did
inform
Carter
consultations.
letter will
issue
he
today (20 February). We will
Treasury for a reply.
for
CONFIDENTIAL