TNAG-1514-FCO40-2072-Shipping-in-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 15

ΤΟ

MKIL 175/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

3 1 JAN 1986

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

REGISTRY

PA

Action Taken

CONFIDENTIAL

Para 18

Etom

PS/Lord Caithness

J D Henes

2 January 1986

Copies

PS/Secretary of State PS/Mr Bailey

Mr Knighton

Mr Sunderland Mr Dempster

Mr Strong

Mrs Caines

Mr Elders

Mr Frankiss

Mr Start

Mr Smith Mr Ingram Mr Johns

MERCHANT SHIPPING AND DEFENCE

1

The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence (HCDC) in their report of 21 May 1985 on the use of merchant shipping for defence purposes recommended (paragraph 44) that there should be a formal statement of Government policy, either in the form of a White Paper or in evidence to that and if necessary other Select Committees concerned, on a number of issues concerning merchant shipping and defence. There is no decision to issue a White Paper in the immediate future, and the evidence should probably go to the HCDC this month. The Minister (supposing that it would be in order for him to appear before a Commons Committee) or the Secretary of State, Ministers from the Ministry of Defence, and perhaps officials too may be questioned.

2

I therefore attach a draft of

of the written evidence for the HCDC.

follows closely a draft widely circulated to officials last autumn. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on where it should say more, where less, and where something different. I am sending a copy to the Ministry of Defence so that they can put it to their Ministers in parallel. We shall with them try to work up something that meets all views.

3

One particular point that caused officials difficulty was whether to include early in the paper a paragraph about war planning assumptions. I attach as

I attach as an appendix a version of the text. Those who wanted to see it

it included argued that

that it was fundamental to the paper. Those against said that none of the rest of the paper turned on it, since defence and other requirements were simply stated, and it could be difficult. I now sympathise with the latter argument.

4 The Minister is going to have to give evidence on 26 February to the House of Lords EC Sub-Committee, and they have given notice that they will want to raise defence questions. He will be able to base his position on the HCDC paper as by then settled (I do not think it would be appropriate to put written evidence to the Lords Committee on this unless they ask for it), but he may want to know more. It would be helpful to have a meeting with him fairly soon to discuss the topic generally and his briefing requirements.

JD the ne

SP1/2 P2/070

212 8494

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 15Page 16