TNAG-0350-FCO40-386-Future-of-broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1972 — Page 16

Ou

Ref: CR 8/1036/70 II

CONFIDENTIAL

8th September 1972

As promised in my letter reference CR 8/1036/70 II of 12th August 1972 I now comment on certain of the matters raised in Rediffusion's submission to Mr. Royle on the subject of television which you forwarded with your letter dated 31st July. I will not attempt to cover all the points made in this submission as some subjects, such as copyright and

therefore, relay, are being dealt with separately. I intend,

to confine myself to matters concerning the licensing of new wireless television stations where Rediffusion appear to have been misinformed as to certain aspects and where I think it would be useful if I were to try to set the record straight.

The Television Ordinance provides that the first licensee should enjoy an exclusive right to wireless televi- sion broadcasting during the first five years of its licence. At the time the first licence was granted no undertaking was given by the Government that further licences would be awarded immediately this period of exclusivity had expired and the grant of additional licences was clearly dependent upon the progress of wireless television and on whether the establish- ment of new wireless television stations could be justified in the public interest.

A working party was set up in December 1970 (not early in the year) to consider these issues. To have established the working party earlier would not have allowed time for sufficient experience to be gained on the progress of wireless television to have enabled the working party to determine whether the system chosen for wireless television in Hong Kong was correct, whether any changes were desirable and whether the grant of additional licences would be justified.

The working party (which was not tied to any dead- line) submitted its report in October 1971. The recommendations covered a wide range of issues, some of which were controversial, as was only to be expected in a subject of this nature. It was necessary, therefore, for these recommendations to be

Sir Sidney Gordon, C.B.E., LL.D., C.A., J.P., c/o Sir Elly Kadoorie Continuation Limited,

St. George's Building,

HONG KONG.

/ 2.