HELIGHE
RECEIVED IN
Miss Brown
X
احمت
PA
X15.4
hift to wate
YWO. P
RESTRICTED
RY
Action Taken
LONDON/HONG KONG AIR SERVICES
Два
You
Mr Mayday
보
understand that
have discused with Mess
I have a
Brown.
lot-of
sympathy with C.P.A.
We spoke about the CAA decision to award a licence for the Hong Kong route to BCAL and not to CPA.
hat 24...
2.
I would suggest, with respect, that it is important that' the FCO should be cautious about appearing to take sides between CPA and other British airlines. It is for the CAA as the statutory authority established for that purpose to pronounce on the merits of the various proposals for serving the London/Hong Kong route and it is hardly for us to challenge their judgement on matters of this kind.
Dee
3.
Nevertheless, the FCO does of course, have a responsibility for relations with Hong Kong and we will need to consider the implications of CPA's possible exclusion from the route. The question of any representations to the Department of Trade will, however, need to be considered very carefully. The essential distinction lies between the appeal procedure, and a formal direction of the CAA by the Secretary of State for Trade. As we have explained to Hong Kong & General Department the appeal is quasi judicial and lays down precisely who must be given the opportunity to participate. No evidence may be introduced which was not before the CAA when it decided the case. Further arguments or submissions may be advanced but, as in a judicial process, the appellant has the opportunity to consider and attempt to counter them. The Hong Kong Government, which appeared before the CAA, will have an opportunity to partici- pate in any appeal procecdings. Preliminary legal advice, however, suggests that the Secretary of State for Trade could not, when considering an appeal, take account of written views submitted to him by Lord Carrington. These would be extraneous matters put to him by someone who was not a party to the proceedings, which were not available to the CAA and on which the parties had not had an opportunity to comment.
4.
The question of a direction of the CAA by Mr Nott under Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act of 1971 is however a different matter. In this case the Secretary of State would not be precluded from expressing his views to Mr Nott, and the fact that an appeal was pending would probably not act as a bar. I imagine that we would be wise not to consider advising this course to the Secretary of State unless very powerful arguments were advanced by the Governor of Hong Kong on the overall damage that had been or was likely to be caused to UK relations with the Colony by this issue. Even then there is of course no guarantee that Mr Nott would agree
RESTRICTED
/to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.