their enforcement.
3.
He also made the following points:-
(a) Any relaxation of conditions relating to safety
equipment and certification approved for a separate Hong Kong register should be extended to the UK register.
(b) The proposed requirement that ships to be registered in the Hong Kong register shall be wholly owned by com- panies having their principal place of business there would result in discrimination against UK shipowners, some of whom presently employ Hong Kong Chinese ratings on UK ships and would not want to be debarred from doing so. For example, Ocean Fleets have some forty ships in which a complete department comprises such ratings.
(c)
(a)
If as a result of ITWP policy and pressure coupled with a substantial increase in the tonnage of ships on the Hong Kong register, Hong Kong Chinese ratings were made available only to Hong Kong ships, UK shipowners wishing to employ such ratings night request the Department to facilitate the transfer of some of their ships to the Hong Kong register.
It was hard to understand why the Department appeared to be ready to approve full scale delegation of functions related to the maintenance of safety stan- dards to the Director of Marine in Hong Kong in con- trast with the extreme caution being exercised in reaching agreement on the transfer of limited functions in that sphere to Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
Mr Bolton supported the views expressed by Mr Denholm and stressed that the proposed acceptance of other countries' certificates especially those of Taiwan - as equivalent to British certificates, and the right of access to Hong Kong certificate examinations of non-Hong Kong residents could be expected to be regarded as a lowering of standards applicable to ships flying the Red Ensign. A better solu- tion might be to alter the nationality rules for British certificates and avoid the need for a separate register. Although there would pro- bably be objections from the seafarers' organisations, this could not result in loss of job opportunities for their members because it was well-known that in all European maritime countries there was a shortage of certificated or ficers. He also referred to the ITWF policy that the crew of a vessel should be of the same nationality as the flag of the ship, and for the rate of pay applicable to seafarers of the flag country to be paid to all crew members where mixed or foreign crews were carried. This could result in a situation where some UK owners would wish to transfer to the Hong Kong register in order to continue to operate competitively.
4. Mr Wood observed that a separato Hong Kong register would be likoly to attract undesirable companies. Panamanian rates of pay for sea- farers were high and access to a pool of seamen paid at the lower Hung Kong rates would be an incentive for owners whose ships were on the Panama register to transfer to Hong Kong. He did not accept that the proposed requirement that the principal place of business should be located in Hong Kong would be a controlling factor except only insofar as UK shipowners were concerned. It presented no obstacle to foreign
2.
Page 60Page 61
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.