RESTRICTED
FM FCO
TO PRIORITY HONG KONG
TELNO 1175
OF 20170OZ JUNE 91
RESTRICTED
HKC175/1
&
Zo
173024 MDLOAN 5227
TOP COPY
Q DIST?
Ru
2116.
3
YOUR TELNO 1010 AND MY TELNO 977: HONG KONG SHIPPING REGISTER
1.
WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE VIEWS OF DTP ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HONG KONG REGISTERED SHIPS BREACH THEIR FLAGGING OBLIGATIONS OUTSIDE HONG KONG.
2. DTP TAKE THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO REAL DIFFICULTY (YOU WILL RECALL THAT WE REFERRED TO ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THIS POSITION IN MY TELNO 2213 OF 1990). THE RED ENSIGN STILL FLIES. HONG KONG IS NOT A NATION, AND ITS PENNANT CAN HARDLY BE DESCRIBED AS ''DISTINCTIVE NATIONAL COLOURS''. A CONCERNED MASTER COULD IN ANY CASE HAUL IT DOWN IN PORTS OTHER THAN HONG KONG. NOR WILL A HONG KONG SHIP FLYING THE TWO FLAGS FALL FOUL OF SECTION 69 OF THE 1894 ACT PRETENDING TO BE BRITISH BUT OWNED BY
NON-QUALIFIERS.
-
3. DTP HAVE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED TWO PROBLEMS WHICH WOULD ARISE IF WE WERE TO PURSUE THE OPTION IN PARA 7 OF YOUR TUR. FIRSTLY, SECTION 78 OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1906 HAS ONLY EVER BEEN USED FOR INDIVIDUAL SHIPS. THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS TO PUT A REPORT BEFORE PARLIAMENT ANNUALLY NAMING THE SHIPS: THIS COULD HIGHLIGHT THE UNSATISFACTORY POSITION. SECONDLY DTP REGARD THE USE OF SECTION 78 AS MERELY A MATTER OF UK LAW, WHICH IS UNLIKELY TO EXEMPT HONG KONG FROM COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 73 OF THE 1894 ACT IN OTHER TERRITORIES UNLESS THEY TOO WERE TO MAKE, OR EVEN HAD THE POWERS TO MAKE, EXEMPTIONS.
4.
OUR LEGAL ADVISERS HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE ANALYSIS IN PARA 2 ABOVE AND WILL CONSIDER THIS MATTER FURTHER. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR VIEWS ON THE ABOVE IN THE MEANTIME.
HURD
YYYY