民航處
香港金鐘道99號榮添大厦
Ref: DCA/CONF/29C V
TEL. 5-282424 E.21
CIVI
ATION.
NEW ROONEY COLOC
195, QDEENSWAY
RAGL/VIDHONG KONG **
- 2 JUL 1980
DESK OFFICER
24
MENT
REGISTRY
PA
Action Tak?
#CABLES: AIRCIVIL HONGKONG
3rd 1980
M. St. E. Burton, Esq.,
Met 18+
1393/1
Maritime, Aviation and
Environment Department,
IN 18900
:
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London SW1A 2AH.
Dear Mickel,
87
Thank you for your letter of 28th April 1980, about
Sir Freddie Laker's representation to Mr. Nott on the air transport licensing arrangements in Hong Kong. I must apologise for such a late response and trust that Sir Freddie is not becoming too impatient.
With regard to the review of the Hong Kong licensing arrangements (which, by the way, is going along rather well), it seems to me and my colleagues in Economic Services Branch and the Attorney General's Chambers, that mention of this to Sir Freddie would confirm his view that the present licensing legislation are deficient to his disadvantage. In fact, we believe the Air Transport (Licensing of Air Services) Regulations proved to be adequate so far as parties to the Hong Kong/London route public inquiry getting a fair hearing were concerned. But this would not stop Sir Freddie
from returning to the charge with accusations of the Hong Kong Government hastily closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. Perhaps it would therefore be better to omit the first three sentences of paragraph 2.
Turning to your second point, this is not the first time that Laker Airways has made such an allegation. At the meeting held on 10.11.79 between the ATLA and parties to the case to discuss matters concerning the London/Hong Kong public inquiry, Laker Airways made similar criticisms. The reply made by the Attorney General on that occasion is applicable to Laker's present allegation too. As pointed out by the Attorney General, the Government of Hong Kong was a party to the case but it was the Governor who appointed members to the ATLA. Both the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance and the Letters Patent draw a clear distinction between the Governor and the Government of Hong Kong.
As far as the sequence of events is concerned, the Hong Kong Government first made public its views on 13.9.79, when in accordance with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Air Transport (Licensing of Air Services) Regulations the Attorney General submitted, on behalf of the Government, representations in support of Cathay Pacific Airways' application for
/the.....
K