6.
RESTRICTED
We discussed the relationship between National, Airport and Airlin, pr rammes. It is tempting to develop a single document, and this could meet requirements: but it is important to bear in mind the different objectives. National programmes are executive, the others are directed at indicating that requirements have been identified and engaged, anr: how and where they are fulfilled. You should also bear in mind tha; when setting standards you may have to draft requirements to be fulfilled by every airline, and in addition draft separate requirements for flights which are under continuously higher threat. This could entail incorporating into the National programme the requirements' the FAA prescribe for US aircraft, and as it would be inappropriate to release this information to airlines from states which may be hostile to the USA it should probably be in an Annex issued only to US airlines and to the airport authority. That is how we have accommodated suci special needs in the UK. When we met I said that I felt that airline programmes should only apply within your territory, and in respect of Hong Kong airlines, in the air. We must avoid dictating requirements in foreign states: but that does not inhibit us asking for foreig states to provide or accommodate specific measures under the terms of ANNEX 17.
7. We agreed that it
it was necessary to clarify the position of Hong Kong based airlines: that is, are they British airlines, or should the; be administered in security terms only from Hong Kong. Cathay Pacific said they simply wished the position to be clarified. I believe tha these airlines should be considered British. You should define security obligations laid upon them in Hong Kong, and I suggest we should agre the minimum standards we should seek for them in foreign states. would then ask British Embassies and High Commissions to ask foreign states for these measures. We would monitor their implementation - this would involve visits by this Department's security inspectors, report: from Post Aviation Security Officers, and information from airlines I recognise that Taiwan represents a particular problem, but we may deal: with such cases by exception.
8.
We
I
There are, in addition, the obligation of Appropriate Authorities in the UK and Hong Kong, to advise airlines of potential threats ir foreign states and to seek [from foreign states] or recommend [tc airlines] the response that is appropriate. I think it is important that airlines should not be simply be informed and left to work out a response: in the event of failure they would probably be accused o giving too much weight to commercial or operational considerations, and we must take responsibility for determining the standards required. do not wish to interfere unduly in regions remote from the UK, and it truth information is seldom specific; and I believe that as far a. possible you should manage these matters in respect of Hong Kong base airlines. You should direct requirements in Hong Kong and if you wished a request to be made to a foreign state for an adjustment to security you would inform us and would register the request through the appropriate Embassy or High Commission. If we made a judgement and felt a change was necessary we would first collaborate with you. Time zones and distance are against us, but communications systems are good, and I believe we could develop the confidence to make this seemingly elaborate arrangement work.
9. If by any chance the view was that Hong Kong based airlines were not British I think we would have
think we would have to give further thought to how we Please let me would account for the obligations which are involved. know the result of your consideration of the problem and the proposals I have made.
¡
DESTRICTED