but
PW
would
requir Chirene/IR.
agreement
Mr N Parker
Legal Advisers
K 275
LAST PAPER
ふ
HKA 406/1
1JULC 1993
TXA 400/45
HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE IN LONDON AFTER 1997
1.
Your understanding in paragraph 1 of your manuscript
minute dated 12 November in reply to Miss Bouch's minutes of 16 and 17 September is correct. In accordance with Article 9
of the Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1985 (SI 1985/1983), the HKGO pays only the beneficial portion of rates on its office at 6 Grafton Street and on the Commissioner's residence at Cowley Street. (In 1993/94 the HKGO will pay £26,960 instead of £166,400, a saving of £141,440). This benefit will of course cease when Hong Kong leaves the Commonwealth.
As Hong Kong is not a State, it cannot fall within the ambit of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations (ie. VCDR and VCCR respectively) nor within the parameters of the International Organisations Act 1968, since it is obviously not an international organisation.
2.
The Inland Revenue say that the other existing privilege, exemption from UK income tax for Hong Kong based staff, is an extra-statutory concession, again due to Hong Kong's Colonial status. It has however been suggested to me that, should Hong Kong acquire "foreign" status post-1997, staff of the HKETO may be eligible for exemption under Section 321 of the Income & Corporation Tax 1988 which apparently allows exemption "for an official agent of a foreign Government".
3. Hong Kong's future status vis a vis the IMO remains unclear. Will it be accorded full membership? Notwithstanding that fact, most Permanent Representatives to the IMO double up as diplomatic agents at their countries' Embassies and therefore enjoy full diplomatic immunity and privileges. Only 4 States, Kampuchea, North Korea, Panama and the Russian Federation, maintain independent Missions to the IMO. These enjoy official acts immunity, immunity from personal arrest or detention, inviolability of documents, exemption and privileges in respect of personal baggage, exemption from taxes and rates, exemption from customs and excise duties on goods imported for their families' personal use, refunds of duty and VAT on petrol and exemption from social security contributions.
4. I agree that the privileges and immunities in the list annexed to Miss Bouch's minute of 17 September go too far, particularly if one considers what they presently receive. The relief from rates, as detailed in paragraph 1, is granted on a statutory basis, and I would imagine that only DOE and/or HM Treasury could decide. In my limited experience, they do
/not