Reg.16/14) Submission of Hong Kong Government
The Secretary of State is about to consider and rule upon the appeals by Cathay Pacific Airways (Cathay) and Laker Airways (Laker) against the refusal of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to license them upon the Hong Kong/London/ Hong Kong air route. It has been intimated to the Hong Kong Government that he wishes to receive and consider a submission by them under Regulation 16 (14) of the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1972 upon matters relevant for consideration under S.4(3)(B) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, namely matters "appearing to the Secretary of State to affect the relations of the United Kingdom with a
territory outside the United Kingdom".
The Hong Kong Government on 9th and 22nd April made its own legal submissions as a party to the appeals of Cathay and Laker respectively. Those arguments will not be repeated herein. The present document deals solely with the considerations relevant to S.4(3) (B), and urges that an appropriate direction under S.4 (3) (B) be made by the Secretary of State to license Cathay upon the route.
The Hong Kong Government wishes to emphasise that in its considered opinion if Cathay is not licensed to fly upon the route (either in place of or together with BCAL) then there is likely to be a strong and prolonged local reaction.
PUBLIC REACTION
The amount of protest at the CAA's failure to license Cathay (after ATLA had licensed both Cathay and BCAL) and its spread within the community was surprising and was unprecedented in Hong Kong, exceeding even the feelings over textiles. Since Sir Peter Masefield has recently been here and took the line that, far from being critical of the CAA decision, BCAL was welcomed on the Hong Kong London route and will doubtless repeat this line in London, it is important to set the record straight. At Annexe A are examples of the protests which the CAA decision provoked, through the radio and the press. It is noticeable that the spread of protest included the communist press as well as all sections of the business community. Annexes B and C list examples of the latter.
There was also a strong reaction from Legislative and elected bodies. The Heung Yee Kuk (the elected advisory body in the New Territories representing the Chinese inhabitants) wrote protesting to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on behalf of the 60,000 people who have lived in the New Territories and fly annually London/Hong Kong/London.
Mr.H. Cheong-Leen an Elected Urban Councillor, wrote similarly protesting on behalf of the Hong Kong Civic Asso- ciation. The Hon. O.V. Cheung, QC, the Senior member of the Legislative Council, spoke in the budget debate pointing out the danger to British hopes of selling goods to Hong Kong arising from the local reaction to the decision unless it were to be reversed. He quite obviously had the overwhelming support of members in the Chamber when he spoke.
.../.