See (88).
(73)
With Mr. A.Bowden's compliments.
Temple Bar_1217.
Ex.2231.
Ref. A. 988479/48.
Dear Haig,
Hong Kong
See (84)
Bush House Central,
18.October, 1948.
Compensation for Requisitioned Craft.
37
Your letter WAM/CE of August last to warran and that from Rodd of the 4th October (AT/Gen.13127) have been passed to me to deal with.
It seems impossible to make any progress until the question of liability has been settled. On this question I must say that we agree with the War Office attitude. We are not experts in things appertaining to shipping but it is difficult to follow the reasoning behind the 73 latter part of the third paragraph of your letter to Jerron of the 31st
May where you draw a distinction between the scuttling of ships under
To us there is no dis- requisition and those not under requisition. tinction for the purposes under discussion. The signaficant factor is the act of destruction in order to deny the craft to the enemy and it seems that the resultant damage in both cases is virtually in the same
க category.
Compensation should, so it seems, be sought through the appro- priate War Damage or Reparations channel rather than from the Service Department which destroyed the vessels. There may, of course, be other factors which would justify some payment from U.K. funds but if so I think they should be considered on their merits and not be given satisfaction through Services compensation.
I am sending a copy of this letter to admiralty, War office, Treasury and Colonial offices.
D. Haig, Esq., Q.B.E.
Yours sincerely,
g) A. BOWDEN
Ministry of Transport,
F.R.I. Branch C and D. Division,
*
Berkeley Square liouse,
W. 1.