TNAG-0870-FCO40-1080-Air-services-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-1979 — Page 61

1.

CONFIDENTIAL

2. We considered earlier whether it would be

proper for the Secretary of State for Trade

to issue a Direction to the CAA that for the

purposes of their Hearing they should regard CPA

being on an equal footing with the UK applicants

(option A in paragraph 4 of TUR). The

Secretary of State did not think it right to do

So. His main reasons were policy ones in that

he did not wish through a Direction to reverse

a provision stated clearly in an Act of

Parliament but he was also advised that there

were doubts whether such a direction would be

intra vires. He also did not think that it

would be proper to give a Direction to the CAA

licence to an airline whose

to issue a licence to

principal place of business was not in the UK

without a hearing having taken place (your

option D).

3.

Your option B is put forward with option A

but does not necessarily fall with it.

However, although the Laker decision related

only to the facts of the Laker case it is

clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal

that the Guidance cannot have the same effect

as a Direction and that the CAA has

discretidn

in the way it applies the policy and has indeed

shown this in other cases. We therefore see

no reason to issue a Direction relating to the

spheres of interest policy, and moreover would

not wish to issue a direction overriding the

rest of the Guidance, much of which ought to

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN