TNAG-2661-FCO40-3857-Future-of-Hong-Kong-British-Consulate-General-1992 — Page 117

CONFIDENTIAL

ہیں

105).

HKD 406/1.

معلمان

FROM: J C Morris

Date: 14 July 1992

CA

CC:

Mr Bertram, OED Mr Pugh, British Council

A.

B.

Retts

Mr Ricketts

Rick Mr Hum

MEETING ON CONSULATE GENERAL, 17 JULY: OTHER CONCERNS RAISED BY MR DAY

Questions and concerns raised in BTC Telno 198 are dealt with in the attached paper. Mr Day also raised related concerns in other correspondence.

1.

2. BTC Telno 200 covers a lot of ground, some of it relevant to the Consulate General:

SCOPE

-

BTC must have an input into the refinement of the design brief and the continuing review of, eg staffing levels. But we do not need to delay a decision on the choice of architect meanwhile.

PROCEEDURES

A Committee of interested parties in Hong Kong is a good idea, but should the Home Office Nationality Team be a member? The best sources of input on nationality/immigration/consular concerns are ✔ the relevant FCO departments. But the

ARCHITECTS

But the whip hand must be in London.

-Whichever architect is chosen will have a suitably manned office in Hong Kong. But any instructions involving changes to the design. will be fed in by OED.

COSTS

- OED will wish to comment on the role of BTC and others in Hong Kong in cosidering the containment of costs "both capital and recurrent".

STAFFING IMPLICATIONS

- Mr Day makes a request for an additional LEII "devoted to this project". He notes that this is independent of the other recommendations he will make in due course.

ADMINISTRATION

- OED will wish to comment on the advisability of Mr Day's proposals; but they look sensible.