Mr Collecott (MED)
Reference.............
CONFIDENTIAL
GULF SHIPPING: ARMILLA PATROL PROTECTION FOR HONG KONG SHIPS
1.
Mr Henes of the Department of Transport rang this morning about a problem that has arisen about the arrangements for notifying the RN about the presence in the Gulf of ships eligible for naval protection.
2. As you know, the current agreed system is that the DTp advise the MOD on which ships, in addition to British-registered ones, are considered to have a clear majority British ownership and are thus eligible under present rules for protection. The DTP base their decision on what constitutes an entitled ship on the information available to them through Lloyds Confidential Register and other shipping sources.
3. The Hong Kong Shipowners Association (HKSOA) have recently been in touch with DTp about ships on the Liberian Register which they claim have a majority Hong Kong ownership, but about which they were reluctant to divulge sufficient details for the DTp to corroborate this. Hitherto HKSOA have been content merely to notify the names of these ships and their dates of passage through the Gulf "for information" but without any commitment as to RN protection. The HKSOA have now asked whether in the case of a specific ship shortly due in the Gulf, namely the "World Truth", an affidavit sworn by the majority owner, Sir Y K Pao, could be taken by the DTp as sufficient evidence of the ship's eligibility for full RN protection. Mr Henes wanted to know the FCO view.
4. My initial reaction, which Mr Henes shares, is that accepting a sworn affidavit, however distinguished the swearer, could be setting a dangerous precedent in terms of our control over the eligibility of ships for RN protection. Having once accepted such a device, without requiring sight of corroborating information, it would be difficult to turn away future applicants prepared to provide such affidavits whose claim for eligibility might be more dubious. On the other hand, of course, to say no to Sir Y K Pao could cause problems given the latter's powerful connections eg with British Ministers. Hong Kong Department may wish to comment on this, although I should have thought a way could be found of presenting a decision to Sir Y K without causing undue offence - perhaps by citing the precedent argument. I should be grateful for your views to enable me to revert to Mr Henes reasonably quickly.
CODE 18-77
H G Hogger
Maritime, Aviation and Environment Department WH MZ 14
270 2629
15 October 1987
cc: Mr Smith, HKD
CONFIDENTIAL