HC Deb 19 December 1946 vol 431 cc2331-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

Owing to the lateness of the hour, I would appreciate raising on the Adjournment the question of flying-boat bases available in this country. More than one hon. Member on this side of the House has taken a considerable interest during the past year in the provision of a flying-boat base in this country which will be adequate to the needs of this country's civil aviation in the forseeable future. We have raised this during Question Time letters have been addressed to the Minister of Civil Aviation, and interviews have been held, but still a decision on a suitable base seems to be held up.

I do not want to go into this question myself in detail because it is a matter which intimately affects my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), who will be able to put before the Parliamentary Secretary the details of his case, but I would like to stress the matter of urgency. It is for that reason that I have been so bold, even in spite of the lateness of the hour, to ask the indulgence of the House to allow this matter to be discussed.

In May of this year the Pakenham Committee was set up by the Minister of Civil Aviation. It was asked to come to a decision, if possible, at an early date. The matter was urgent then; it is even more urgent now, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some statement tonight to allay some of the disturbance that there is in the minds of many people who are interested in the future development of flying-boats by this country, which depends to a great extent on the provision of an adequate flying-boat base.

11.59 p.m.

Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)

I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity afforded me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) in being able to discuss the subject of flying-boat bases tonight. The last occasion I had an opportunity of raising the matter was on 25th January last, when I endeavoured to put before the House the view that the flying-boat, as such, had a very valuable part to play in the future of this country's civil aviation —a matter which I ventured to elaborate at some considerable length. I also ventured to suggest that it was vitally necessary that there should be an Empire flying-boat base established in this country. As is sometimes customary on these occasions, I did emphasise the claims of my own constituency in this regard, and I did point out to the House the advantages of having an Empire flying-boat base established at Langstone Harbour on the east side of Portsmouth. The Minister who replied at that time was good enough to say he did not think that I had in any way over-elaborated the case, or that I had claimed any advantage for the Langstone Harbour Scheme which it did not, in fact, possess.

I will not weary the House tonight by a long description of the advantages of the Langstone Harbour Scheme itself, which has often been discussed at some considerable length by the air correspondents of the various newspapers, which have exhibited a surprising unanimity on this subject. I will content myself tonight with saying that it is possible to establish on the East side of Portsmouth, a flying-boat base which would be worthy of the whole Empire, which could have the finest facilities for flying-boats to alight there for the handling of passengers, and for all the other purposes which a modern up-to-date flying-boat base should offer to the public it serves.

On that occasion I received an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation that, to use his own words: I hope we shall be able to reach a decision in a short time.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 511.] He made it quite clear, as it was quite right and proper to do, that there were other places in the United Kingdom, not excluding, of course, Scotland, that had other great claims to make in this regard, but he did say the matter was going to be considered as an urgent matter. The Minister of Civil Aviation at that time was as good as his word, and on 13th April he visited Langstone Harbour at the invitation of the Portsmouth City Corporation and myself and went over the whole project. This project, incidentally, has received the support of magazines such as "Aeroplane", one of the leading technical magazines on this subject and containing articles by experts on all matters concerning civil aviation, and also the support of "Airport", a trade journal, which, in its own line, has a very admirable reputation.

Mr. Edgar Granville (Eye)

May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Langstone Harbour Scheme is purely a flying-boat scheme, or whether it also envisages land based aircraft?

Major Bruce

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The scheme submitted by the Portsmouth Corporation provides for both a land and a marine terminal air base. What action His Majesty's Government take, and which facilities they decide to use, are for them to decide, but the original scheme most carefully provides for both, and also provides for the largest for-seeable type of aircraft, whether land-based or flying-boats.

On 30th May, in answer to a Question of mine in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary announced the appointment of a Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Pakenham, to inquire into the relative merits of the various schemes which were likely to be submitted. I cannot say the number invited, but altogether I think there were 16 of them. On 18th June the representatives of the city corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor, myself, and the city's technical experts, were invited to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to meet the Pakenham Committee and to consult with them on the various details of the scheme. On 16th July, according to the Minister himself, the Pakenham Committee's Report was on its way to him. On that particular occasion, he made quite clear something which had not been entirely clear before, that the Pakenham Committee were going to decide this question on the basis of civil aviation merits alone, and that there were other Departments concerned, and that there were probably defence considerations also to be taken into account.

On 17th July, with commendable promptitude, the Parliamentry Secretary announced in the House that the report had been received. Since that time, four and a half months have elapsed during which there has been a complete silence as to what is happening in regard to the establishment of a flying-boat base in this country. It was quite inevitable, of course, that during that silence certain speculations took place. It would be quite idle to conceal from the House that it is now common knowledge—and I do not think it would be very easy to deny— that the Pakenham Committee itself came to the conclusion that the Langstone Harbour base, from the civil aviation point of view, was the base which commended itself as being the best one. Obviously, there has been no decision on this point, but, of course, this speculation is not surprising in view of the fact that civil aviation opinion over a prolonged number of years— in fact, ever since 1936—has viewed Langstone Harbour with some favour in that regard.

On 6th November, I put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary asking him whether he was in a position to publish the report of the Pakenham Committee. I thought thereby it might be possible, not only for the country, which is vitally concerned in this matter, but also for my city, which is in great measure also concerned, to know exactly where they stood, but we received the reply that there were various other considerations which had to be taken into account—and which, I agree, must be taken into account—before a decision is made. Here the matter rests, and one can only assume—I say this with all the diffidence of a backbencher in these matters—that it is still being considered by the various other Departments and by the defence interests concerned.

It is known, and has been known for some time, that the Board of Admiralty— I am very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty here this evening—have, in fact, had objections to the particular scheme, and it is quite obvious that anything that impinges, however slightly, upon the first naval port of the Empire must obviously be a matter of some fair concern to the Admiralty. As long as this matter was being considered on a national basis, I, for my part—and I feel quite sure other hon. Members would agree—was quite content to leave it at that. Indeed, on 18th April, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance that the matter shall be considered only on the basis of the national interest, and that parochial considerations shall not be taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1946; Vol. 421. c. 2895.] If this matter is being considered on a national basis, there can, I submit, be only one issue on which the Admiralty can be concerned, and that is the overall issue of National Defence. There was an obsolete view which did obtain in Admiralty circles some time ago, when the matter was being discussed, in the late 30's—an old-fashioned view which I am sure would not be endorsed today—which said that we did not want planes flying over the Royal Dockyard in Portsmouth in peacetime, because the intelligence obtained, obviously, would be a menace to the installations there in time of war. There is a local enecdote about this which has considerable truth. We are told that a local commander-in-chief, who has since left the Admiralty, said at that time that, of course, the layout of the Admiralty installations there was secret: whereupon one member of the city corporation replied that they were printed upon the Ordnance Survey map. This was denied, and the delegation left, went to the local newsagent, purchased a copy of the local one-inch Ordnance Survey map, upon which all the dockyard installations were quite clearly marked, and forwarded it to the commander-in-chief concerned.

We are not concerned with those conditions here today. We are not even living in a military or defence era which is in any way comparable with that existing prior to the war. We are living at a time when there are types of missiles in existence which, in effect, are far more deadly than aircraft, even assuming that the aircraft consideration had any validity in those days. I am bound to suggest to the House that the presence of the marine airport at Langstone Harbour less than three or four miles from Portsmouth dockyard is not any greater menace to that valuable installation than is Heathrow airport a menace to London as, the capital of the Empire and the largest city in the world.

It seems to me that I could give very good reasons for assuming that local considerations are now being taken into account, and in view of this I ask the indulgence of the House in order to bring a few more local considerations into the matter which I feel should also be borne in mind at the present time. The Admiralty at Portsmouth have a gunnery school which is at Fort Cumberland on one side of the mouth of the proposed harbour base. I have no doubt that this country is grateful to that gunnery school, for it has done a tremendous amount of good. It has trained a large number of people and it has been of great value to the country as a whole. However, it does seem to me that we should regard these matters in perspective. In regard to this school, I am fortified by naval opinion as to the installations. My predecessor in the Parliamentary representation of North Portsmouth, who is no longer with the Admiralty and who is a gallant Admiral with a fine record of service to his country, made investigations into this subject while he was a Member of this House. In referring to the naval anti-aircraft gunnery range, which in 1938 constituted, from the Admiralty standpoint, the obstacle to the airport in the neighbourhood, he said that he found it difficult to believe that under different conditions after the war a relatively small establishment, the removal of which would be comparatively simple, would stand in the way of the scheme of the magnitude of that suggested by the Corporation, providing always that Portsmouth was the site selected for such an undertaking. That is responsible naval opinion in 1943.

I know for a fact, as is well-known, that extensive improvements have been made to the gunnery range in Portsmouth, and, in fact, certain types of radar installations have been installed there, but I should like, if I may, to have this reviewed in the light of other considerations obtaining within the city. The relationship between the city of Portsmouth and the Navy is not a one-way traffic It is often said that the great naval dockyard installations in the city of Portsmouth have conferred a great benefit upon the city. That is undoubtedly true, and the city of Portsmouth is very proud indeed to serve the Navy and it hopes that it will continue to be able to do so in the future. But it has also served the Navy very well, and whenever the Navy in Portsmouth or the Admiralty have required further installations or further facilities in the city the Portsmouth Corporation have always been most willing to consult on these matters, and to accord every facility which was required.

However, there are other considerations which must be borne in mind. Owing to the presence of the dockyards, Portsmouth was, during the war, an easily recognisable target from the air and the city was often attached. It is very questionable whether it would have attracted quite the same attention as it did had it not been for its importance as a naval centre and the fact that the dockyards were there. But the result of that has been that the city has very substantially suffered in the blitz, and in the years in which we are now living following one of the greatest wars in which we have ever been involved, the City of Portsmouth finds it very difficult indeed to get itself rebuilt, and to get itself rehabilitated. It is entitled, I think, in its hour of need, to look towards the Royal Navy, and to ask that the Admiralty shall bear in mind the city's requirements as well. Removal of the naval gunnery school would obviously require a certain amount of expenditure and also administrative rearrangements. I could say, too, that the reconstruction of the city, which is dependent on planning considerations, has also been arrested because there was a request from the Air Ministry, at one time, that planning on the East side of the city should be suspended until the future of the Langstone scheme was known. Therefore, there has been a certain adverse effect on the city, as it has always had to keep in mind that it might at some future time have an airbase established there.

This matter has been discussed before. There was a time when the Langstone Harbour Scheme was put before the Air Ministry, as it then was prior to the establishment of, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, in which these considerations arose in a more modified form. At that time there was little difficulty with the Departments concerned, and I have a letter, dated 21st September, 1937. in which the Board of Admiralty are good enough to agree to certain things inherent in the establishment of the scheme. The Board of Trade expressed full concurrence with it, and other Departments notified, via the Air Ministry, the Town Clerk of Portsmouth that they agreed. It seems that this scheme has been considered now for many years. It is a scheme which has been reviewed over and over again by the Departments. And I say that not only for the sake of the City of Portsmouth, which is not the dominant consideration in this matter, but for the sake of the nation, some firm decision should now be reached. After all, it is a long time since 26th January last when the Parlia- mentary Secretary stated that he was going to make a decision at a very early date. Furthermore, delay means extra expenditure. It is known that unless an early decision is made, and construction work proceeds quickly, large sums of money will have to be expended in enlarging the port facilities of Southampton Such facilities there can only be of a temporary nature, and the Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion stated that Southampton Water could not are accepted as a satisfactory base. Moreover, large flying-boats are now coming off the line, and are now having to use Poole. It is going to cost the taxpayer a considerable amount of money at Poole as long as these aircraft have to land there. I do not want to weary the House at this late hour much longer. What I want to ask is that His Majesty's Government, and the Admiralty, in particular, shall not pose a small installation such as the naval gunnery school at Fort Cumberland, in Portsmouth, in firm opposition to a scheme of the magnitude, and with the vast possibilities, that the Langstone Harbour scheme holds not only for the City of Portsmouth, but for the whole of the future of civil aviation for this Empire and the world.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville (Eye)

I will only take one or two minutes of the time of the House at this late hour. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) has put his case cogently. We had this scheme before the House many times before the war, and there have been other schemes before the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Committees have been appointed to report, but we are still without any announcement from the Ministry of Civil Aviation as to which harbour or which scheme it has been decided to support.

If I may have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for one moment— it will help at this late hour—I would like to say that I think this matter has become a very urgent matter for the Ministry of Civil Aviation for many reasons which have been put forward. But I will put forward another. Heathrow is going to be overcrowded, and probably obsolete. The first civil airport of the British Empire is obsolete before it is completely in full use. I have seen something of this matter. I do not want to get into an argument with by hon. Friend, as I have admiration for Prestwick, which is open when Heathrow is closed. But it must be a matter of urgency for the hon. Gentleman's Department to make arrangements for an auxiliary port very rapidly. This is not the occasion to deal with the reason for serious drops in passenger traffics, not only in this country but all over the world. But the hon. Gentleman's Department has passed a Bill which has taken over this matter. He is the boss in charge of all civil aviation, and, therefore, the responsibility rests with his Department. He has the responsibility to make an urgent decision of all reserve areas to take the overflow traffic from Heathrow. This is a very urgent problem in the terms of the safety factor. I have seen a little of the scheme referred to, and, as I understand it, it is the best scheme that has been put forward from Southern quarters so far.

I am surprised to find that there is opposition from the Admiralty on this matter, and the representative of the Admiralty on the Front Bench should have an opportunity at some future date to make a statement. I should have thought it would have been a good thing for us to have had a flying boat base there which seaplanes could use. If we are to be told that there has been no decision, and the "nigger in the woodpile" is on the Front Bench, then we must go to the Admiralty to find out what the reasons are. I hope the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that a statement will be given, if not to-night, in the immediate future, of what is to be the new seaplane base on the South Coast.

12.25 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lind-gren)

Portsmouth has been very well served indeed by my hon, and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) because he has been persistent in questioning the Minister and myself, both by letter and deputation, with regard to the claims of Langstone Harbour. I had, out of courtesy to him, prepared a statement which anticipated many of the points he has raised and which I could have made were it not for the fact that, in accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling with regard to Debates on the Adjournment, the time has now elapsed. Since that is so, all I can say is that the points which have been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be taken very carefully into account and all possible pressure will be brought to bear by my noble Friend and myself on the Departments concerned to come to a decision.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the subject of the Debate is not "Flying-boat bases in Great Britain"? We have heard of nothing tonight, but the claims of Portsmouth. Should not a discussion of flying-boat bases in Britain cover a wider field, including the rivers Clyde and Forth?

Mr. Lindgren

At the moment I am concerned with a modern base to deal with the major portion of traffic in South-East England, and proximity to London is of great importance.

Mr. Cooper

May we expect an announcement or a decision within a matter of days or weeks? The hon. Gentleman seems, once again, to be putting off this vital matter.

Mr. Lindgren

I am not in a position to say. As far as the Ministry of Civil Aviation is concerned, the matter has been put to the other appropriate Departments and there, for the moment, it rests.

The Question having been proposed after Ten 0'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes past Twelve o'clock.