Mr Morris
HKD
HKD 406/1
03 MAR 1992
RECEIVED
SINY
on Take:
31
FROM:
Miss S Brooks
Legal Counsellor
DATE:
19 February 1992
→
FUTURE BRITISH CONSULATE-GENERAL:
PROPOSED PRIVATE TREATY GRANT (PTG)
I
1. You asked me to look at two points to do with the proposed PTG. First of all, the Hong Kong Government apparently do not consider that Mr Smith-Laitton's letter of 13 February to Mr Ng constitutes an acceptance of the terms of Mr Ng's letter of 31 January. Mr Jarvis appears to think that the problem was our repetition of the disclaimers in Mr Ng's original letter. I cannot understand why this should be a problem. I think the real problem is that the first paragraph of Mr Smith-Laitton's letter does not clearly state that HMG is accepting the terms in Mr Ng's letter. suggest that a fresh letter is sent by the BTC which clearly states that HMG accept the terms set out in Mr Ng's letter. As to the point about the disclaimers, I think the new
letter from the BTC should state simply that HMG note the statement in the penultimate paragraph of Mr Ng's letter that it is not the intention of the Hong Kong Government to create any legal obligations for the British Trade Commission or for the British Government unless or until the legal documents necessary to give legal effect to the proposed treaty grant are executed and registered.
2. As to Hong Kong telno 439 of 14 February, this raises the problem of how best to ensure that the consular status of the future British Consulate-General will be fully protected after 1 July 1997. If the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 were to apply to the Hong Kong SAR, the Convention would safeguard the position of the future Consulate-General, even if there were no comfort language. However, I see no disadvantage and some advantage in including a provision in the lease, as proposed by the Hong Kong Government, that notwithstanding the terms of the various conditions laid down in the lease, the Government (ie, the HKG) shall, in exercising its powers, act at all times in conformity with any international obligations that may be applicable, bearing in mind the approved use of the premises. I agree that this would avoid any difficulties over the Hong Kong Government appearing to confer consular
on the premises of the future Consulate-General: this, of course, is a matter between the UK and the PRC and such status could only exist after 1 July 1997. If the
AE1AEN
Page 15Page 16