1363
Air Ser
1361
[Mr. Smith.]
Air Services
17 JUNE 1980
cisions.
(London-Hong Kong) 1362
any other body that was not before the political decision. My decision was taken I have not made an arbitrary CAA when the licence decision was taken? Has he received any further evidence from Hong Kong or from any of the other interested parties?
The right hon. Gentleman has effec- tively countermanded the CAA's deci- sion, and in the forthcoming Bill he is depriving himself of powers to decide a general policy for the authority to follow. There will be total confusion about British civil aviation licensing policy, on which the Government's view is to be deduced from random decisions made by the Secretary of State rather than by parliamentary approval as in the past. In this circumstance, has not the right hon. Gentleman totally undermined the process of civil aviation licensing in Britain?
If the right hon. Gentleman feels that there were some other matters that the CAA should have taken into account but which it did not, surely the proper course would have been to refer those matters back to the CAA for further considera- tion, which would be fair to all those whose interests are involved.
Mr. Nott: It is true that in this case, having studied the same evidence as the CAA, I came to a different conclusion. That is the purpose of the appcal pro- cedure. The change that I am making in the new Bill is a major one in the sense that I am removing ministerial guidance and placing within the Bill the criteria on which the CAA will operate in future. I am keeping an appeal procedure. In that respect the position will remain exactly the same. There was nothing extraordinary or new about using the appeal procedure.
I did not take into account the North Atlantic route in arriving at my decision. I arrived at it purely on the evidence sub- mitted to the CAA and on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties on the various submissions. I took no evi- dence into account other than that con- tained in the appeal procedure and in the original submissions.
There is no confusion about the policy. Section 3 of the 1971 Act is continuing in the new Bill in more or less the same form. It provides a series of objective criteria to avoid arbitrary political de-
entirely in accordance with existing appeal arrangements. I have exercised my judgment in an entirely proper way.
Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman referred to arbitrary political decisions. If a Secretary of State comes to a totally contrary decision from the Civil Aviation Authority, and without taking any further evidence or bringing to bear any further consideration overrules the authority, is that not an arbitrary political decision? If it is not, what is?
Mr. Nott: There is no point in having found myself convinced by Laker's argu- an appeal procedure if it is not used. I ment that there was a large untapped market for an air service that was safe, efficient and cheap. I favour a dynamic approach to civil aviation. I believe that "the forgotten men and women at the bottom end of the market "
will fly on holiday to the Far East if fares are at the right level. It is in that belief and on that judgment that I have come to my decision.
Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the CAA is not God Almighty, and that he is entitled to re- verse its decision if it is in the national interest to do so? Is he further aware that any stimulus to competition on this important route will be welcomed by the air traveller, especially by the busi- ness air traveller? Is he satisfied that this will not lead to such cut-throat competition as might cause bank- ruptcies or financial failures that would be gravely damaging to the travelling public?
Mr. Nott: I am making no judgment on the timing and frequency of the flights, which the four operators must decide for themselves. How often each airline decides to fly the route, or whether it decides to fly it, must be for its econo- mic judgment. As long as unforeseen circumstances do not arise, I believe that all four carriers should be able to operate profitably on the route. In the end it will be the market that decides. operators that have sought to fly the The
route must seek the additional traffic, find it and tailor their operations to the market as it develops. That is what business is all about.
Mr. Donald Stew of State aware that that no longer will as the arbitrator of will be regarded as tions until the app ister?
That is the the decision that h
Is the right ho aware that his deci alarm in Scotland donian operation w installation of t works at Prestwick, be a viable propos
Mr. Nott: I do right hon. Gentlem is correct. I have re by Mr. Kelvin Kel director of the plant the right hon. Gentl lieve it to be an Friday he was alleg the fear that the ri has enunciated. He s "the plant had been Caledonian was awar licence. The possible per cent. of the total easily within the busines That is what he is re I have no reason to b inaccurate report of I
Mr. Hordern: M will know that I an competition and the ever, does he conside adequate that allows Authority to grant a substantial investmen place, which decision by ministerial judgn useful purpose in the allowing the process a licence?
Mr. Nott: It is licensing procedure b the facts to be consid dent body. That is w instance. To end the and to make every ministerial decision, criteria that are legal would lead to one po another.
V
I favour a continua legal criteria that an 1971 Act, and that w
40 H 5