TNAG-0861-FCO40-1071-Legislation-for-shipping-and-port-control-in-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 16

A

B

CONFIDENTIAL

AKK 175/5

R. JENKO RARANTY NO. 51

8 OCT 1979

Mr Siddle (Legal Advisers)

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

Fuses

e P.A RIMR

8/10

ction T..se

PROPOSED PROTECTION OF SHIPPING AND TRADING INTERESTS BILL

1. As you know, this bill, now in draft, is intended to update the 1964 Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Act.

2.

DOT have run into two problems, on which they have sought our advice. Both relate to Clause 5 of the proposed bill.

3.

The first concerns the extension of the bill to Dependent Territories. DOT believe that the 1964 Act was extended only to Hong Kong. They also believe that among the Dependent Territories only Hong Kong will ask to take advantage of extension for the forthcoming bill. The point that worries DOT is that, between the time when the bill comes into effect and its predecessor lapses; and the time when secondary legisla- tion for Hong Kong is passed, there may be a gap of several months, possibly more, in which Hong Kong will be unprotected by any legislation against the sort of US anti-trust moves that have been experienced recently. Since Hong Kong has important shipping interests DOT have asked whether the FCO, as the responsible Department, could now begin to draft the secondary legislation required to extend the bill to Hong Kong, so that secondary legislation can be introduced hard on the heels of the new bill.

4.

5.

I should be grateful for your advice as to whether

(a) there would in fact be no protection for Hong Kong

in the circumstances described by DOT, up to the time when the secondary legislation required had been enacted; and if so

(b) that we are in a position to begin drafting the necessary

legislation. We will of course have to confirm whether Hong Kong and other dependent territories wish to take advantage of the extension clause in the proposed bill. My guess is that it may prove attractive to others besides Hong Kong.

The second point concerns Clause 5(2) as currently drafted. DOT Solicitors Branch have suggested that this could imply that any dependent territory not taking advantage of extension would be classed as a foreign country. As I understand it their fear is that such a dependent territory would, by implication, cease for the purpose of the bill, to be a territory for the international relations of which HMG are responsible. There may be more to this apparent discrepancy than meets the eye but I should be grateful for your comment here also.

16.

CONFIDENTIAL