TNAG-2658-FCO40-3854-Future-of-Hong-Kong-British-Consulate-General-1992 — Page 17

A

B

Mr Savage, OED

CONFIDENTIAL

HONG KONG FUTURE CONSULATE GENERAL

Reference

HKD 406/1

Ale ZB

as

1. Mr Jarvis of the BTC telephoned me on 18 February, foreshadowed in his fax (attached) He told me that Jim Hughes of Hong Kong Buildings and Lands Department had telephoned him to discuss the following matters concerning the future Consulate General:

PTG Letter

2.

Mr Smith-Laitton's letter of 13 February to Mr Ng did not in HKG's view constitute "an acceptance" of the terms of Mr Ng's letter of 31 January. Our repetition of the disclaimers in Mr Ng's original letter was evidently the problem. Mr Jarvis wanted to know if we would be on legally safe ground to write a further letter,

-

or

(a) Simply accepting the offer in which case would we be protected by the mutal disclaimer in Mr Ng's letter?

(b) Accepting the offer but restating our own

acknowledgement of the disclaimer, as in Mr Smith-Laitton's letter of 13 February?

(c) Or was there a third alternative?

Kennedy Road Link

3. Mr Hughes had confirmed that Buildings and Lands Department had no plans to build and no possibility of any early commencement of construction on the strip of road adjacent to the Colvin House site. Our architects would need to design on the basis that the land on that perimeter of the site would not be available in the near future. Some sort of interim design solution would need to be applied. He hinted that the only possibility of overruling this position was by the Governor's personal instruction. "A very high level" of lobbying would be required to achieve this. We shall need to advise Lord Caithness.

PTG Negotiation

4. Mr Hughes had suggested that there was an inherent problem in negotiating via the BTC. Neither side had sufficient authority to be able to agree individual terms on the spot.

He suggested that there would be an advantage in the FCO sending a team of negotiators (possibly including a Legal Adviser) with sufficient authority to be able to agree the terms of the PTG as they were negotiated. If we were to do so, Buildings and Lands would guarantee to be able to obtain a similar authority on their side.

PTG for US Consulate General

5.

Mr Jarvis had received a letter from the local firm of solicitors whom the BTC are consulting, containing a copy of the PTG for the US Consulate General. This was signed on the 14 April 1960, and while it does indeed give sweeping powers to the Director of Buildings and Lands, the acceptance of such terms in 1960 is not remotely comparable with the stand

JM3AAT

CONFIDENTIAL

(30)

CODE 18-77

SLM