TNAG-2962-FCO40-4241-Future-of-Hong-Kong-British-Consulate-General-building-incl-1993 — Page 72

Suppose the 150k

during construction and suitably qualified site control staff,

reporting to PM, will be resourced from within the existing

consultant team.

8.

Your letter of 22 July to Alan Wootton asked us to review the

question of financial arrangements with the British Council. The

background to the assumption that the British Council should not

pay rent stems from the Ministerial decision in 1990 that co-

location in a high quality building was the best way to demonstrate

Britain's commitments to and interest in Hong Kong after 1997. We

understood that Treasury acceptance of our total PES bid for the

co-location of the Consulate-General and the British Council Thelest in praed o

ensured that the capital cost of creating the British Council space

would be funded from capital to be dedicated to the Council's

specific purpose in Hong Kong after 1997 and that no rent would be

payable by the British Council.

X insert?

[ on the costs of Reir gerations in their present premises]

9.

were

J

to

However, as you pointed out in your letter under reference,

would the Council will be making a saving if they only pay for their

share of running costs once they moved into the new accommodation.

wou

This saving would, in effect, be an additional subsidy to the

British Council and we recognise that this should not occur. RFD

and OED have therefore had several discussions with the British

British commeil

have

Council.

They accept that they should not make savings and agree

to pay outgoings of not less than at present, which will include a

rent element as well as their full share of ground rent and running

costs. We are still in discussion with them about how future

Abt/payments should be negotiated. The main difficulty for the

Council is that colocation, although clearly in wider HMG

PJADS1.92