Go

nor of the Caymans had asked for an extension to give him an opportunity to discuss the matter with the CAA. TCI was a particular problem since its airports lacked even the basic expertise and equipment necessary to guarantee minimum safety standards. We should bear in mind that TCI airports were used by Panam. The Governor had now agreed with MAED that TCI would produce quarterly safety reports;

in this way, it was hoped, the authorities could be made to treat this question as a matter of high priority,

particularly as HMG would be held responsibile for any major accident at a DT airport. As things currently stood, we were very vulnerable.

17. Mr Halley then turned to aviation security. DTP had drawn attention to the obligation incumbent on the DTs to satisfy ICAO requirements by producing national aviation security programmes. Moreover, a recent US Federal Aviation Authority ruling required that details of last port of departure security arrangements be lodged with the US authorities. This ruling had implications for several DTS eg Cayman Islands, Bermuda. The UK's Department of Transport had agreed to act as the body to which the US authorities would turn for the required information. But it was necessary for the DTs concerned to draw up detailed security programmes.

18. Mr Mills observed that the CAA nowadays found itself pressed for funds to pay for necessary visits by its officials to the DTS. Miss Robinson considered that this was not in fact a problem. In recent discussions with CAA officials, she had learned that an appropriate pocket of funding was available. Mr Turner asked whether an air safety certificate should not be required from the US-operated airport on BIOT. Mr Halley undertook to look into this matter

19. Finally, Mr Halley referred to the Air Navigation (Overseas Territories) Order, "the Bible of Civil Aviation." The DTs were still operating under the 1977 order which had not been reviewed in 1985 when the UK Order was redrafted. The matter was

A now being rectified. revised order for the DTs was now in its final redraft. Hong Kong had now been issued with its own separate Order.

Item 5 Aid Matters

20.

Miss Cooke raised the question of the OCT Decision. She had been concerned to notice that a recent paper prepared by ODA's European Community and Food Aid Department had appeared to rule out Pitcairn from receiving aid from OCT sources. She had received an oral assurance from ECFAD that the paper had not intended to convey such an

DT5AET

RESTRISTED

ས་

RESTRICTED

implication, but she was not entirely convinced. Pitcairn had a subsistence economy and was dependent on aid (eg for new dispensary, mobile crane). New generators were needed from OCT sources. Miss Robinson advised that SPD should contact the appropriate geographical desk in ODA to seek support. Miss Eddis thought that Pitcairn may have been omitted from the paper purely for convenience of argument. Since the Territory's very smallness meant it was

not a relevant factor in the major question of allocating shareouts in OCT funds between UK, French and Dutch DTS.

Item 6

21.

Constitutional and Legal Matters

Nothing was raised under

raised under this item.

Item 7 AOB

Telegrams

Governors' Personal Series

22. Mr January reported that in response

in response to the recent questionnaire both HKD and WIAD had expressed a wish to retain the Governors' Personal telegram series. Hence there were no plans to abolish it.

Extension of Territorial Seas

the

23.

Dr Harkin pointed out that FID planned that a draft Order in Council extending territorial waters around the Falklands would be submitted to the Privy Council in November. They had hoped that, to serve as cover, territorial waters round Caymans, Ascension, St Helena would be extended at the same time. FID hoped for WIAD's support in this matter. Mr January replied that he was aware of these plans which WIAD supported. the matter up with WAED.

He undertook to follow

DT5AET

RESTRICTED

33

t.i

CI

XIXDAN 9254

SEC

FY FOOLY

C

1700

Mr, Staré

There are

One

previous pp.

COVIAN LEFF you, just to note.

HOKON

052 JUL

439

HONG

05Z JULY 29

I don't know whether

the Govemar Las

eplied (I assume Le must have done).

вролодой

11KB 020 17

EXTER

-

+

Push 7/1 25

Puš

1-

25

Please copy to

M. Wood

Legal

Advisers

1

7500

Mr. Huston, Hame boffice

Hile, M. Aupan [Box. M. Paul, HID.

DIPENDIN-

R

Bu days plas

Do we have

a copy of Gous· Letter of takt 4 Jan?

STONE 1618

FOR COVERNOR FR CY SERV

20- 1929: YOUR LETTER OF 4 JANUARY

THE SECURITY SERVICE NO DA HAS BEEN S NFORMATION ONLY IT IS EXPE

3

HALF OF DECEMBER,

TO ALL DEPENDENT

AC

By

VED ROYAL FI

:985 RECE

ON 27 FOR ITS COMMENCEYENT BUT FOR YOUR ED TO BE B

INTO FORCE IN THE IS ALSO

ENDED TO EXTEND SECTION ERRITORIES THER THAN HONG KONG.

YOUR LUR EXPLAINED WHY YOU WOULD NOT WISH THE POT TO BE EXTENDED TO HONG KONG. WE TAKE :- HAT THIS REMAINS YOUR VIEW.

***

THERE ARE STRONG REASONS FOR EXTENDING THE ACT BY MEANS AN ORDER IN COUNCIL SIMULTANEOUSLY TO ALL DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (EXC OT HONG KONG) WITH

ACT.

THIS WOULD HAVE THE OP

+

ROM

THE ENTRYINTO FORCE OF THE

IONALADVENTAGE O AVOIDING ANY IND ATION C: WHEN AND IN WHICH TERRITORY THE SECURITY SERVICE WIGHT WISH TO OPERATE AND.

JURSE. THE ED TO OPERATE ELSE WHERE COULD ARISE A ANY

O

3.

AS YOU ARE AWARE.

HAD EARL

THOUGHT THAT WE YIG SOME EXTENT BE OR TODISGUISE

FACT HAT THE ADT WAS NO BE EXTENDED TO HONG KONG BY XINDING IT TO OTHER DEPENDENT

TERRITORIES

OVER A

ES. B

RIOD OF

IN TH

Y

THIS COULD STILL BE RECEN EVENTS IN

DONE. SAY. IN

CHING AND

IN 1997.

WILL NOT B

OXIS:

CONSERLENT CONCERN THEY HAVE RAISED ABOUT HONG KONG SEEMS VERY UNL W

IMMEDIA LY NO LD BE

YORE

HAT THE OMISSION OF HONG KONG ED AND QUES ONS ASKED: THE KELY TO BE NOTICED SINCE GIBRALTAR

ACES WHERE

AND THE BBAS IN CYPRUS ARE SYOND WILL BE DE MYEDIATELY,

EXTENSION

WE HAVE CONSU

BABLY NO WAY IN W

CAV REA

+

THERE IS PRO-

Y PREVENT THE

KED

AND THA HE RISK.

HE AT ALL. EXPLANATION

THEY

OF HONG KONG FROM HE ORDER BEING MEAL APPROACH WOULD SCARCELY MIN ATTOOH IMPORTANCE TO OUR BEING READY WITH THE

W

ON PROVIDE.

-

FORE INCE VED.

5.

WE ARE

SUBJECT TO YOUR VIEWS. CEED AS INDICATED IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE.

TO PRO-

TO

5.

WE WOULD ALSO WE LOOYE YOUR ADV E ON HOW WE SHOULD REƆLY THE QUESTION QUOTE WI

LEGISLATION BE EXTENDED TO HONG KONG

TV

Share This Page