www
It may,
9. The third point I discussed with Mr. Hobley, namely, the fact that a member of the Executive Council, Mr. Clague, had a strong interest in Hong Kong Television Broadcasts Ltd., is more of political than legal concern. In my view, the fact that Mr. Clague had an interest in that company I do not know precisely what is the extent of his interest would not affect the validity of the Copyright Order in Council proposed by the Hong Kong Government or the Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance, even if Mr. Clague had participated in deliberations and decisions of the Executive Council on whether the legislation should contain a provision giving the Television Broadcast Company a copyright in its programmes separate and distinct from that of the owners of
the copyright of the works broadcast. Mr. Hobley assured me that Mr. Clague did not participate in the Executive Council's deliberations on the copyright legislation. We are not at present concerned with the executive action which Mr. Hobley told us the Hong Kong Government intend to take under section 34(4) of the Telecommunications Ordinance now in force to cancel Rediffusion's licence "in the public interest", but I think that the validity of this action might be challenged as not done in good faith if Mr. Clague participated in the
deliberations and decision of the Governor in Council.
however, be difficult to regard as separate exercises the
copyright legislation and the action to cancel Rediffusion's
licence. Both, in fact, would seem to harm Rediffusion and be of advantage to Mr. Clague's concern, Television Broadcast Ltd.
Rediffusion may, perhaps, argue that the two exercises are linked. It seems to me rather strange that the Governor, knowing as he did that Rediffusion were questioning here the Hong Kong proposals, did not mention that it was proposed to cancel Rediffusion's licence and to give to a company, in which a member of the Executive Council was interested, a right to establish a relay service. I believe the Departmental file does show that it was proposed to dispose of certain relay rights but that it does not mention Mr. Clague's interest and that he did not take part in the Executive Council's proceedings. 10. This leads to the fourth point discussed with Mr. Hobley, namely, the cancellation of Rediffusion's licence. As I understand the Hong Kong Government's intention, it is to cancel
Rediffusion's licence on the ground that a certain type of relay,
namely, by means of television broadcast receiving stations on
blocks of flats with a wired relay from each station to
subscribers in the same block of flats, could be carried out more
cheaply by Television Broadcasts Ltd. than by Rediffusion and
that it is in the public interest that this cheaper service
/should