TNAG-1281-FCO40-1632-Chinese-visa-office-in-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 126

CODE 18-77

Reference....

3.

to Mr Glover's views, I do not think that we should object to the substance of this paragraph, whilst seeking consistency and clarification of the terminology, as I have indicated above.

(6) This is slightly more restricted than VCCR

Article 50(3), as it does not permit a search where it is suspected that unauthorised articles (eg. articles not intended for private use) are being carried, but only where it is suspected that the luggage contains articles whose import or export is illegal or are covered by quarantine regulations. However, I think that if Hong Kong are prepared to accept this, then I see no reason for us to object subject again to Mr Glover's views. Again, I would like to see consistency in terminology, with the substitution of "officers" for "officials".

I agree with Mr Glover's comments on personal protection. Clearly, whatever extent of personal protection is accorded to Chinese personnel and their dependants in Hong Kong ought likewise to be accorded to UK staff in Shanghai.

4.

As we discussed, I think that perhaps the next step is for you to collate all the various comments into a draft letter, telegram, or whatever. to go to Hong Kong and Peking, and then to clear it with all interested parties.

30 June 1983

C.A. Whomersley

CA Whomersley Legal Advisers 233 3946

Cc:

Mr Burrows (Legal Counsellor) (o/r) Mr Glover (NTD)

Mr Thomson (FED)