HMA Bristow Esq
TOP SECRET
- 2 -
25 Cetober 1976
(b) There are no longer, as you know, either sea transport officers in Hong Kong, or a regional shipping officer; and there would thus appear to be no suitable officers of the UK Government in the area to whom the functions of a Secretary of State could be delegated under operative Article 3 of the Order in the event of an invasion of Hong Kong becoming imminent. The question is, therefore, to whom should functions be delegated? In my view, which is shared by the Department of Trade, the most suitable and obvious candidate is the Governor (r the officer administering the goverment at the time). Either could, if they wished, work through subordinate officers of the Hong Kong Government. I would be glad to know your views. The DOT have dropped one marker to this proposal: although the substitution of the Governor as a delegate in place of the overseas officers at the Board of Trade would not theoretically change the frame- work for decision-making, the DUT would like to be certain that, in the event of such powers being exercised, they themselves would be in a position to inform the owners of the ships simul- taneously; and
(c) while the 1969 Order gives powers in respect of ships only aircraft would be at least as necessary in the event of any partial evacuation of Hong Kong. when the 1969 Order was first considered it was decided to ouit powers to requisition aircraft as negotiation rather than requisition was felt to be the more practical way of obtaining the aircraft needed. The DOT adhere to this view and have commented that the charter market is a competitive one, geared to providing a quick response to any enquiries. They are convinced that aircraft resources could be provided under this process in a time-band very little different from that required for requisitioning. Do you agree?
copies:
T J David
Hong Kong Department
Mr D F Riley CIVIL AVIATICH, DOT
No 4
Mr JKT Frost SHIPPING FOLICY, DOT Noś Mr Wickson DEFENCE DEPT
NO J
TOP SECRET