CONFIDENTIAL#3
MEMO
To
From Law Officer (International Law)
IL/LEG/3/1 VI...
Ref. (17) in
Tel. No.
810 2754
Date
1 October 1992...
#7 OCT 1992
Director of Marine
(Attn: Mr A.C. Pyrke)
Your Ref. (4.4) in MD 14/028/88
dated
28 August 1992
G.F. 73 C
Hong Kong Shipping Register
Alleged IMO/MARPOL Infringements: Procedures
I have delayed replying to your memorandum to
the Commissioner in London as I wished to discuss it with the Marine Adviser, Derek Hall, on his visit to Hong Kong. This
I did accompanied by our legal consultant from the
FCO, Ms Joanne Foakes.
2.
肇
You will recall that MV "TRAMCO AMITY" a HK registered ship, was inspected on 12 December 1990 in Germany. The inspection revealed that there was an illegal by pass device allowing oily water from the bilges to be discharged into the sea without passing through the water separating equipment. This device
device is contrary to the International Convention for the Prevention Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
of
On 3 June 1992, 18 months later, the German Embassy made a formal report about this to the FCO.
3.
4.
The report was then sent by the FCO to the Department of Transport in the UK who in turn sought advice from the Treasury Solicitor. At the beginning of August the Treasury Solicitor advised the Department of Transport that it had no jurisdiction as the vessel was registered in Hong Kong. The Department of Transport passed the report back to
to the FCO who then forwarded it in August to the Commissioner of the Hong Kong Office in London.
5.
Mr Hall correctly questioned why it was necessary for the report from another contracting party to MARPOL, Germany, to go from the FCO to the Department of Transport to Treasury Solicitor to the Department of Transport and to the FCO again before being sent to the Hong Kong Office. He understood this process would have happened anyway even if the FCO had been informed by the Germans that the vessel was HK registered.
6.
In my absence on
leave the legal consultant from the FCO here, Ms Joanne Foakes, advised that there is nothing in MARPOL which would prevent the UK from notifying IMO that any reports involving Hong Kong registered vessels should be sent direct to the relevant Hong Kong authorities ΟΙ the Hong Kong Government office in London whichever is the more convenient.
7.
I enclose a copy of the advice from Ms Foakes.
CONFIDENTIAL #5
Page 15Page 16