TNAG-0965-FCO40-1184-Air-services-between-the-UK-and-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 98

1362

(London-Hong Kong) have not made an arbitrary ision. My decision was taken accordance with existing agements. I have exercised in an entirely proper way. : The right hon. Gentleman arbitrary political decisions. y of State comes to a totally sion from the Civil Aviation d without taking any further bringing to bear any further overrules the authority, is arbitrary political decision? hat is?

There is no point in having ocedure if it is not used. I convinced by Laker's argu- ere was a large untapped hair service that was safe, cheap. I favour a dynamic ivil aviation. I believe that

men and women at the the market

oliday to the Far East if he right level. It is in that that judgment that I have ecision.

by Grant: Is my right hon. that the CAA is not God that he is entitled to re- ion if it is in the national so? Is he further aware ulus to competition on this te will be welcomed by er, especially by the busi- ller? Is he satisfied that lead to such cut-throat as might cause bank- ancial failures that would amaging to the travelling

am making no judgment g and frequency of the the four operators must mselves. How often each to fly the route, or whether it, must be for its econo- As long as unforeseen do not arise, I believe that should be able to operate the route. In the end it arket that decides. The have sought to fly the ek the additional traffic, or their operations to the develops. That is what about.

1363

Air Services

1364

17 JUNE 1980

(London-Hong Kong) the new Bill, so that politics are, as far as possible, removed from the process.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision will mean that no longer will the CAA be regarded as the arbitrator of licensing and that it will be regarded as a stage in applica- tions until the appeal goes to the Min- ister?

That is the inevitable effect of the decision that he has taken.

Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that his decision will cause great alarm in Scotland as the British Cale- donian operation was tied up with the installation of

the

aero-engineering works at Prestwick, which will not now be a viable proposition?

Mr. Nott: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's latter statement is correct. I have read a statement made by Mr. Kelvin Kellaway, the managing director of the plant in Scotland to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I be- lieve it to be an accurate report. On Friday he was alleged to have dismissed the fear that the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated. He said that

"the plant had been planned before British Caledonian was awarded the Honk Kong licence. The possible loss of work-about 6 per cent. of the total expected business-was easily within the business fluctuations forecast.” That is what he is reported to have said. I have no reason to believe that that is an inaccurate report of his views.

Mr. Hordern: My right hon. Friend will know that I am in favour of free competition and the free market. How- ever, does he consider that the system is adequate that allows the Civil Aviation Authority to grant a licence, upon which substantial investment subsequently takes place, which decision can then be revoked by ministerial judgment? Is there any useful purpose in those circumstances in allowing the process of the CAA to grant a licence?

Mr. Nott: It is desirable to have a licensing procedure because it enables all the facts to be considered by an indepen- dent body. That is what happened in this instance. To end the licensing procedure and to make every decision subject to ministerial decision, without the objective criteria that are legally based in the Act, would lead to one political decision after another.

I favour a continuation of the objective legal criteria that are contained in the 1971 Act, and that we are continuing in

40 H 5

In deciding the appeal I have made a judgment that is based purely on the evidence presented to the CAA. We could get rid of the appeal procedure, but I do not think that that would be sensible as ultimately aviation policy must be subject to a judgment by the Government of the day on the basis of the criteria that are set out in the Act.

Mr. Sheerman : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of my con- stituents may feel that it is fantasy to believe that competition will see those at the bottom end of the market flying to the Far East for their holidays? Bearing in mind the present levels of unemploy- ment, they will be lucky to go to Scar- borough.

Has the right hon. Gentleman con- sidered the nature of a policy that allows a Minister to interfere with the decisions. of the CAA? I remind him that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade repeatedly assured us in Committee when we were discussing the Civil Avia- tion Bill that is was important for the CAA to have a more independent role so that the Government would not interfere continually with route licensing, and that the CAA was to be trusted to be an inde- pendent arbiter. Many people in the indus- try will be appalled at this decision, especially in the light of the Government's stated intentions. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to those many pages where this attitude was spelt out.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that this will produce a safe, efficient and cheap airline industry? Many of us in this House are worried about the safety aspects of competition. Sometimes corners are cut and people are put at risk.

Mr. Nott: All the safety aspects are laid out in the Act, and clearly they are of overriding importance. The Secretary of State, in deciding the appeal, and the CAA in considering applications, have to act in accordance with the 1971 Act.

On the question of the ability of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to travel to the Far East, may I tell him that Hong Kong is just over 6,000 miles from here; Edinburgh-which is the right hon. Gen- tleman's constituency-is nearly 400 miles away. At present a sleeper journey from London to Edinburgh costs almost £50.