TNAG-0323-FCO40-359-Legislation-for-merchant-shipping-registered-in-Hong-Kong-1971 — Page 142

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

BOARDIOFTRADE

Marine Division

Sunley House 90 High Holborn London WC1L

Telex 264084 Answer Back MARBOT London

Telegrams Marbot London WC1

CAST

REF.

(13)

Telephone 01-405 6911 ext

256

(13)

JA Clewley Esq

Finance & Economic Section

Hong Kong Department

Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Room 295 King Charles Street LONDON SWI

Dear Cleve

Cleveley.

Your reference HK K 21/6

Our reference

Date 25 May 1971

Your letter to Hannam of 19 May 1971 enclosing a letter from Hong Kong of reference ECON/14/5061/70 dated 12 May 1971 has been brought to my attention. When you telephoned me on Friday 21 May 1971 I explained that the question it raises:

whether any changes are contemplated in United Kingdom merchant shipping legislation, involves very wide issues to which there is no short answer. The following may help to explain why this is so.

The present position referred to in the letter to Laird does not, it seems to me, take account of the amendment to s.92 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which was enacted as the Merchant Shipping Act 1967. This amendment applies the section to every ship registered in the United Kingdom "when going to sea from a place outside the United Kingdom" and thus parallels the Hong Kong Merchant Shipping (Aliens Employment) Ordinance where the British nationality requirement is concerned.

With regard to possible future developments the position is that the powers available under the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 are sufficiently wide to include action on nationality rules. The relevant section, s.43 cannot come into force until the necessary Regulations have been made and their preparation is likely to be a lengthy task. When we have formulated our proposals there will be extensive consultations, but it is too soon for me to be able to envisage what nationality conditions may be proposed.

Following the Torrey Canyon disaster, the question of international standards of certification was considered by the International Maritime Consultative Organisation and it was then felt not to be feasible. Recent events have led to this matter coming to the forefront again, but once more it is not yet possible to say what the outcome might be.

In these circumstances I would not wish to try to envisage at this stage what developments are likely to come about or how long it might be before they do so.

Yours mi

carly John Holl

A J Hall

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No.51 26 JUL 1971

2101 21/12