Mr C O Wood
Ihann
SHIPPING POLICY DIVISION la
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE
Mr. Robins,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H OET
(
Telex 8811074 DTHQ G
Telephone Direct Line 01-215 5161
Switchboard 01-215 7877
Telegrams Advantage London SW1
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Maritime, Aviation & Environment
Department
Government Offices
Great George Street
London SW1A 2AH
Dear
الخليج
is
1/4.
Dr. Sidle - for hf.
el
ん
then in Finder's
and also
сорік і boy to Hong Kong
sent then i telegram
Inday evening.
Your reference MRP/021/1
Our reference
Date 29th August 1980
m
@s
19/80.
Letter to
Дот сс. Нус
G019.
INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUNO: HONG KONG
Thank you for copying to me your letter of 26 August to John Collins about the delay in the submission by Hong Kong of its report on contributing oil receipts for the calendar year 1979.
We are very concerned that this situation should have arisen in view of the United Kingdom's responsibility in the eyes of the Fund for the actions of Hong Kong. It is most unfortunate that the Director's earlier letter should have gone astray; for we would then have expected you to make immediate representations to your contacts in Hong Kong, in the hope that a reminder letter from the Fund would not have been necessary.
As it is, we have lost three months and, with just over one month to go before the next Assembly, we are likely to face considerable embar- rassment then on two counts. Firstly, it is the practice of the Director, in his report to the Assembly, to refer to any difficulties he has had with member States in collecting the necessary information on oil receipts and the states in question are then expected to make a statement. Secondly, the UK has been very prominent in criticising the French for the problems they caused the Fund in failing to submit their reports on time. Moreover, you will be aware that at the last Assembly we agreed informally with a couple of other States to seek legal advice within our respective administrations on whether an action could be brought
against the French for damages. Whilst your advice that such an action was not feasible, came as no surprise to us, we would certainly have liked the matter to be raised again, if only to repeat our expressions of concern and to seek other states' views on whether provisions should be made to deal with future cases of this kind.
However, the problems caused by Hong Kong have now put us in a very delicate position, since we can hardly criticise other countries for causing the Fund difficulties when we cannot put our own house in order.
I therefore hope that your contacts in Hong Kong will be able to expedite the situation as soon as possible. However, if you do not hear anything by the end of next week, I should be grateful if you would take the matter up again with them, if necessary at a higher level.
For if
C2591