1001
Hong Kong-London
[Lord Beswick.]
[LORDS]
that they are going to give greater weight to the decisions of the Civil Aviaton Authority, and that of course, is in accordance with the non-interventionist policy of Her Majesty's Government? Does not this decision go quite contrary to the declared policy; and may I ask the noble Lord how he reconciles this over- turning of a CAA decision with the de- clared policy of Her Majesty's Govern- ment?
Secondly, on what information have the Government based their view that four carriers can make a profit and give a service on this route? There was a case for maintaining the rights of British Airways, and there was a case for extending the operation to a second carrier, but I have not heard it seriously argued anywhere that four carriers could be justified on this one route. May I ask the noble Lord whether, if there is other information that was not available at the hearing by the CAA, he could make that information public, and would it not be better if the whole matter was referred back to the CAA so that they might consider this additional information?
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, which we on these Benches are not too happy about, in that it seems to challenge the whole basis of validity, value and protection of the CAA licence. Only three months ago, or thereabouts, the CAA, who were set up to issue such licences, which were formerly issued by the Board of Trade, issued a licence for Caldeonian Airways to operate this route. At that time presumably it took into full consideration all the arguments that were used by Cathay Pacific, Laker and anybody else interested, balanced the thing up and made the decision to issue the licence. Now, an airline, having got a licence, assumes considerable financial liability in order to find staff and equipment to operate that licence. If, a short three months after that licence is issued, the Minister, apparently on his own account, decides not to cancel that licence but so to modify it as to let in other operators, which renders practically valueless the paper on which the licence is written, have British Caledonian Airways any recompense for the money they have expended on aircraft and additional staff? |
Air Services
1002 I would also ask this question of the noble Lord: in the airline business, is not the share equity of an airline based largely on its assets? The average airline's main asset is its licence to operate. Without that, its whole equipment is virtually valueless. Therefore, if at short notice this licence is going to be modified, altered or challenged, docs that not seriously prejudice the equity of the airline in question? May I ask the Minister whether he could not review this situation and inform us of some means by which to establish the validity and protection of these licences?
4.31 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to noble Lords for what they have said. I am sorry that they were not more receptive to this Statement. This case hinged on the judgment that my right honourable friend made upon the traffic available on this route. My right honourable friend came to the conclusion that the figures advanced by Laker in their original application were more likely to prove justified than the more pessimis- tic figures which the authority took into account when they made their original decision. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that my right honourable friend had no additional information before him when he considered this appeal. Under the procedure, he is not permitted to do that but only to have regard to the facts as they were put before the authority at the original application. But he is entitled to consider any further clarification of the facts that the original authority at that time. parties to the application put before the
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, referred to what he thought was the dilution (if that is the correct word) of the effect of the licence originally granted to British Caledonian and asked whether they were to receive any compensation. The origi- nal licence was granted only two or three months ago, in March. There is no question of compensation. In any event, as I have said, we believe that there is sufficient business for all four carriers on this route.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, as the House knows, the Civil Aviation Bill has gone to ground in the Commons and we are awaiting its Second
1003
Hong Kong -
Reading here. As m Beswick has said, th more power to the C ority. I am in favo for air travellers. Ma whether I am corred the background to say that I understa given by British Airw was not deemed sa someone suggested tha should apply for a lic Lord aware-and I r form of a question- think that British C class airline and I h its slogan, We ne have a choice "? I if more airlines felt t aware that Cathay also to be one of the world? At the tim was reached, I reg Caledonian and Cath included in the grant
EG
May I ask three Does it not seem u Civil Aviation Autho ment did not get to on this matter? I a the appeal but abo Did they, in fact, get a change of heart? new arrangement, i British Airways sho share of the operati I understand it, Brit make full use of the given for the servi could we not have arrangement in the fu be done, would it n donian to overcome backs that they now had no reason to sus under the ruling given Authority?
Lord TREFGARN is no question of the together with the CA when the authority initial application. be wrong. The Go in this matter only w from the original dec and that is what has As for British Air market, to which