MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

HC Deb 11 February 1947 vol 433 cc195-267

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford)

On a point of Order. Before we start this Debate, may I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, on its scope? The Government are, I think, asking for an increased expenditure of £10. The extent is, in fact, disguised by the fact that £2,183,990, which we had hoped to spend on the purchase of aircraft, has not been spent. Had it been spent, the Supplementary Estimate would have been for a great deal more. Does this enable us to discuss aircraft and aircraft production? We appreciate that we cannot discuss the aircraft on which the money was not spent, but are we in Order in discussing the aircraft on which other sums have been spent, some part of the current expenses towards the running of which appear under other headings? The Government are asking for a 42 per cent. and a 43 per cent. increase on the other headings, and that expenditure is for running aircraft which have been purchased. Some of us want to argue that, if we had purchased British aircraft, the running cost would have been less. I take it that that will be in Order under the other heading?

The Deputy-Chairman

It would be out of Order to discuss matters not connected with the Vote. We can only discuss the Supplementary Estimate. It will be in Order to refer to the running expenses, and, perhaps, that can be taken as a general direction.

Sir Ronald Ross (Londonderry)

Will it be in Order, Mr. Beaumont, to discuss the anticipated economies which reduce this Supplementary Estimate from the substantial figure of £2,184,000 to £10?

The Deputy-Chairman

No, because we should then be discussing the saving, which would be out of Order.

Sir Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

Would it be in Order, Mr. Beaumont, to discuss grants paid by the three Corporations towards Colonial feeder services, such as British West Indian Airways, in view of the block estimates as, otherwise, we are without any explanation, unless the Minister is prepared to give a full explanation of how the money is to be spent?

The Deputy-Chairman

It will not be in Order to refer to that here. Nothing will be in Order except what is contained in the Supplementary Estimate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren)

I have to ask the Committee, as has already been indicated, for a token Vote of £10 That token Vote arises from the fact that the additional expenditure required is for £2,184,000, and there are savings on the original Estimate of £2,183,990. The additional expenditure arises, as will be seen from pages 46 and 47 of the Supplementary Estimate, in respect of salaries totalling £406,000. I should like here, to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Ministry of Civil Aviation is not, in fact, a normal Civil Service Department. Its Civil Service administration is comparatively small, but, in so far as staffs are required for the running of a very large-scale business—operation, acquisition, equipment, the running of Government-owned airports, the provision and maintaining of systems of air traffic control, and the navigational aids necessary to ensure the safe operation of civil air services—those staffs are comparatively large, in proportion to the other staffs.

Perhaps the Committee, in view of the interest which has been shown in Civil Service growth, might like to know the anticipated staffing position of the Ministry, as it will be on 1st April this year. So far as the Ministry staff, the secretariat and the common services of the Ministry are concerned, the total staff will number 620; for the department running the aerodromes 330, and for the technical services department 500, making a total headquarter staff of 1,450. There is, too, a very large out-station staff. First, in connection with telecommunications, traffic control and technical services, the staff amounts to 1,932; for airport management 1,118, together with an industrial staff of 1,400, making a total out-station staff of 4,450. The total staff of the Ministry will, in fact, be 5,900, but, as will have been noticed from my earlier figures, of that 5,900, only 620 are what might be termed normal Civil Service administrative department staffs.

The second Vote for re-allocation which is required is for £45,000 in connection with meteorological services. They arise, first, from the fact that for services which have been provided by the Sudan Government, the payments for 1944 and 1945 were delayed and have been paid during the current year, but, in fact, were not included in the Estimates. They were, in fact, included in the Estimates for 1944–45, but they were not taken up, and that portion of the Vote was returnable to the Treasury. There was a further payment included in that £45,000 to the New Zealand Government relating to services which the New Zealand Government have provided in connection with our South Pacific services.

The next item is for £810,000 in connection with the deficiency grant to the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Here I should point out to the Committee that this is the first year of normal commercial accounting of the B.O.A.C., and in previous years there has been a considerable waiving of charges as between the Corporation and various Government Departments. Probably that waiving of charges, arose from services which were provided by the Air Ministry and which were used by the Corporation. In addition to this being the first full year of peace, there has been a considerable expenditure within the Corporation in connection with the development and expansion of services and the opening up of new routes.

I will deal with the next two items together; they are £870,000 for British European Airways Corporation, and £50,000 for the British South American Airways Corporation. These were not included in the 1946–47 Estimates because at the time those Estimates were presented to the House, authority for the setting up of these two Corporations had not been given, the Civil Aviation Act not having then received the Royal Assent. The Estimate for the deficiency is now required because it arises from the operation of British European Airways Corporation since 1st August and, as the Committee will agree, there has been considerable development of the European services since the transfer of many of those services to B.E.A.C. from Transport Command and the opening up of new services by that Corporation. Much of the £870,000 deficiency arises from development costs of the route. They are a first charge. The value of those costs will be shown by reduced costs and by the revenue in the future years, and, of course, will not be repeated. In so far as the British South American Airways Corporation is concerned, as the Committee will know, it took over from British South American Airways, Ltd., on 1st August. It is the smallest of the Corporations, and its deficiency grant arises, again, from development of services and from the costs which arise in connection with those developments.

The last item in the Supplementary Vote is one of £3,000, and, again, it arises because it could not be included within the original Estimate, as the authority for the setting up of the Air Transport Advisory Council is contained in the Civil Aviation Act, 1945. This Council has not yet been set up, but my noble Friend has arrangements well in hand, and it is hoped that before the end of the financial year the Council will be in being. It is felt to be prudent, wise and correct procedure to secure the authority of Parliament for an expenditure which might be incurred during the remaining months of the financial year in connection with the setting up of the Council. As has already been indicated, the saving of £2,183,990 arises principally from the fact that, for one reason or another, expected purchases of aircraft have not been made, and there is, of course, a saving on that, together with the Ministry of Supply Charges in connection with aircraft. I, therefore, have to ask that the token Vote of £10 be agreed to.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I beg to move, "That Item Class VI, Vote 16, be reduced by £5."

The Parliamentary Secretary has asked for this further money in a speech against the brevity of which certainly no complaint can be levelled. I am much afraid that I shall have to ask the Committee to bear with me substantially longer than the hon. Gentleman has kept them, even though in normal times the task of the Government in explaining anything should take longer than the task of the critics in finding fault with it. The hon. Gentleman approached his task with vigour and drive, in part due, no doubt, to those early morning cold plunges with which the general public have been recently regaled and which the hon. Gentleman takes every day. He is a very loyal Member of the Government and, no doubt, before much time has elapsed, the country as a whole will be compelled to bathe exclusively in cold water. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is preparing the way gently for some further statement by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

We cannot agree to this Supplementary Estimate which has been so lightheartedly, albeit in such a friendly fashion, asked for by the hon. Gentleman. This is the first Supplementary Estimate asked for by those nationalised air lines, which we were assured were going to show private operators how to do better in business than they have hitherto done and we regard it as a very important Estimate indeed. As the hon. Gentleman was at pains to show, the Government are only asking for a further expenditure of£10, but actually, of course, they are asking for, very much more. That £10, as I suggested at the start of this discussion, is hiding the fact that some £2,183,000, which this House had voted for the purchase of aircraft, to show the British flag round the world, has not, in fact, been spent. Had it been spent—and we wish it had been spent, because no better expenditure could have been devised—then the hon. Gentleman would have been obliged to come to this House and ask for a great deal more by way of deficiency payments.

Two comments that I want to make deal with two related problems. Why is this bill, though it is disguised, so much in excess of what we were led to believe the country would be asked to pay; and why are there so many less aeroplanes bought and in the air than we understood would be the case when the main Civil Estimate was asked for some months ago? As to the query, why this bill is so much in excess of the sum originally asked for, I suppose the imagination of the average citizen in Great Britain is now blunted in financial matters by the amazingly large sums of money which are almost daily being added to our National Debt. In the period of the last few weeks, the National Debt having been increased with regard to the compulsory acquisition of electricity by £350 million, by the Town and Country Planning Bill by £300 million, three weeks ago by the Transport Bill by £1,065 million—

The Deputy-Chairman

rose —

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

These are only illustrations.

The Deputy-Chairman

They seem to be rather wide of the subject under discussion.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. I had not come to the end of my catalogue, but, in view of your Ruling, I bring that point to an end. When we have, been dealing with figures of this kind, by which our National Debt has been increased in the last three or four weeks, the fact that the Govern- ment are only asking for £2 million for Civil Air Estimates by way of excess, might be regarded, I suppose, almost as a bagatelle. But it is not so regarded by those people who want to see British aviation triumph, and who realise that it will only be triumphant if it is run efficiently and economically.

I would like to make it plain at the outset that we have no grievance against the expenditure of money on the purchase of aircraft or the opening up of new routes. If the Government came to the House and asked for money for that purpose we, after proper examination, would give our willing assent to the use of money in that way. What we complain about is that when there is a saving of over £2,000,000 on the purchase of aircraft there is at the same moment a request for an increase of 42 per cent, in the salaries, by adding more people to the staff. Increasing the salaries of the people there might no doubt be justified owing to the admirable work they are doing, but they are doing it and taking on no people at a time when there is a saving of over £2,000,000 on the purchase of aircraft. I shall deal with that in greater detail in a moment. That is the main justification for the Opposition's Motion to reduce this Vote by £5.

It is very difficult for the average citizen to find out the exact financial position of these great Corporations. We were assured in the Committee and Second Reading Debates of the Civil Aviation Act, that these Corporations would conduct their affairs and publish their accounts according to the best commercial standards. Now, the shareholders of these Corporations are the citizens of this country. We, in this Committee, are the trustees for the shareholders, and we are entitled to know how these sums are arrived at, and whether in fact public money is being properly spent. The "Financial Times" lately summed up the difficulty in regard to corporations of this kind. They were dealing with the day when air travel in British hands becomes competitive with railway and shipping travel all over the world—a day which we want to accelerate by every means in our power. They were trying to estimate at what point it would be possible for the mass of our people, who have not yet been able to enjoy travel by air, to enjoy it—and the quicker that day comes the better for everybody. The "Financial Times" said: The assessment of future prospects is certainly not an easy matter when dealing with State corporations. In the case of the air Corporations there are no normal accounts available, as the American companies produce. There are no normal accounts available because of the various unknowns: free provision of equipment and supplies by the State on the one side, and the free carriage of passengers, mails and freights on the other.

But there are also these difficulties. When we ask the Parliamentary Secretary, or when the Minister is asked in another place, for competitive and comparative figures of the running of various aircraft —as we asked on 29th January in regard to Yorks and Lancasters—we are told that it is not fair to the Corporations to have to produce estimates of that kind. Any private firm, if subjected to awkward questions from the shareholders, would certainly be obliged to give some estimate to show why a particular vehicle was being used.

Mr. Cobb (Elland)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I see the hon. Member shakes his head. No doubt if the company was making a profit, he would be content not to ask for details.

Mr. Cobb

I was only thinking that the hon. Member must have been at some strange shareholders' meetings.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I have only been associated with successful companies. What, in fact, do these accounts show? From the Vote submitted to Parliament, we can draw certain conclusions. An increase is asked for, in a short period of time, in salaries alone of 42 par cent Yet, at the same time £2,000,000 has not been spent on aircraft. If the Parliamentary Secretary challenges these figures later, I am prepared to justify them in detail. At the same time I say, £2,000,000 which this Committee voted for aeroplanes has not, in fact, been spent. At the same time also, we have been told that no less than 652 members of the staff of B.O.A.C. left in the three months up to 4th December. So large a turnover in employees in such a short time does represent a very heavy overhead cost, and any private firm that had to bear it, would soon find itself in difficulties. There may well be reasons why this has happened. I do not in any way challenge the need for these changes. Some changes may have been desired by the Corporation themselves, and some by the employees. But it is a significant fact that such a huge turnover takes place in such a short time, and it does add appreciably—for training and other reasons—to the cost of running what must be a competitive undertaking.

The next thing that emerges is this. Originally, B.O.A.C. asked for a deficiency grant of £4,000,000. Now they are asking for £810,000 more. I must remind the Committee, too, that this is the amount required in the year ending 31st March next. We are not budgeting for a long period ahead: this is for next month. It will all have gone by the end of next month. It is for expenditure already incurred. They are asking for £810,000 more. In addition, the two other Corporations are now asking for money. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that up to now, they have been under the wing of B.O.A.C., who bore their expenses. I would point out, in passing, that British South American Airways Corporation—who are asking for only £50,000—are covering a route which private enterprise undertakings offered to do without a State subsidy at all. I will not develop that, but leave it with that comment at the moment. British European Airways Corporation are asking for £870,000. It is reasonable to lump those three together and compare them with what B.O.A.C., the parent of the three, asked for everybody some months ago. They are now asking for £1,730,000 more than they asked for before. That is an increase of 43 per cent.—43 per cent. on the Civil Estimates submitted first to this Committee.

Those are very large increases. If they were accompanied by a corresponding increase in the air fleet, and if people could fly to America in British planes, nobody could complain, for we know perfectly well that this is a field in which large expenditure is necessary and desirable. But this is accompanied by a tragic decline in the expected purchases. The purchases that are being made are—as I shall show a little later, I hope, within the limits of Order—from the national prestige point of view at any rate, of the wrong type of plane. The hon. Gentleman made some reference to the waiving of charges, and I hope that when he. or whoever it is, replies at the end, he will deal with how far the expenditure of these corporations is due to the fact that they are carrying, for nothing, V.I.P.s or priority passengers. I think those figures should be given to the hon. Members of the Committee, who are the representatives of the public, the shareholders in these great Corporations. So much for my first question: Why are we spending so much?

That is linked with the question of production. You ruled at the start, Mr. Beaumont, that we cannot deal with money that has not been spent, and we cannot discuss the saving that have been made by not spending it. But I think we are entitled to discuss current expenditure in the period under review, which is being asked for consequent upon the purchase of other aircraft—not, of course, the capital cost of those aircraft, because that would come under Sub-head E, for which no money is being asked. But the current expenditure, running expenses, salaries, etc., for which the Government are asking, as I have shown, 42 per cent. and 43 per cent. increases on the Civil Estimates, can be discussed, for that does open up—of course within the rules of Order—the whole tragic story of the failure of this country to have British aeroplanes flying across the Atlantic, for which we would willingly grant salaries and deficiency payments to the proper corporation, in order to uphold the prestige of this country, and our eventual primacy in the air.

Some part of these salaries and expenses is consequent on the purchase of American aircraft. In January of last year the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor announced to the Committee the purchase of five Constellations for the Atlantic route. We are now granting salaries and deficiency payments towards the cost of those Constellations. Many of us regarded that as tragic but inevitable. We had not got the aeroplanes at that time —

The Deputy-Chairman

I must rule that what the hon. Member is now saying is out of Order. That comes under Subhead D, and not under that which we are at present discussing.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

With great respect, Mr. Beaumont, surely I am entitled to deal with a deficiency grant to B.O.A.C., which deficiency grant is partly occasioned by the fact that they are running Atlantic services—and running Atlantic services with American aircraft? We would not quarrel with a deficiency grant were they running it with British aircraft. Surely, it is in Order to draw attention to the fact that we have asked for and spent public money on services which, we had hoped, would have been supplied by British aircraft?

The Deputy-Chairman

That may be all right. It is rather difficult. I will wait and see how the hon. Gentleman proceeds.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I should be much obliged to you, Mr. Beaumont, if you would do so. I do not think the Government can have any difficulty in dealing with these points, and giving us answers; and though this does not enable us to go beyond the Rules of Order, it is a matter which touches the nation very deeply, and on which some statement is, I think, very desirable. These purchases were made last January. We were told in June, in effect, by the then Parliamentary Secretary, that he hoped that there would be no more. He did not promise. He said he hoped. Then, last November we were confronted with a bill for 12 million dollars for the purchase of six Boeing cruisers, the salaries and running expenses in connection with which, it would be in Order, I think, to discuss, on this Supplementary Estimate.

I think our attitude is, roughly this, that the Government have not got a plan, or are they being driven by the force of sudden and last-minute disappointments into making sudden and emergency purchases from other sources? If they have a plan, let us hear it. Is their plan the intention to skip the whole of this generation of aircraft construction; give up operating the Atlantic route with British aircraft for five years; concentrate on the long-term development of jet-propelled aircraft, in which we, undoubtedly, have the lead; and then, at the end of five years, is it hoped to capture a market we have surrendered for five years? That, though tragically disappointing, would, at least, be a policy. I do not defend it. But if that is the policy we ought to hear it. On the other hand, our fear is that despite the best of intentions and the best of hopes, we lack the aircraft which we had hoped would be available from British sources and others. Through some muddle, the precise causes of which are argued between different Departments and the manufacturers, we have not got them and when we made last-minute purchases of American aircraft, we have to come to the Committee for the salaries and expenses of those aircraft, not as part of a plan, but because we were driven to it by unexpected disappointments.

I shall not go into the question of the Tudor I and the Tudor II, because I know that that would be out of Order, but I think we are entitled to ask the Government where the fault lies. Does it lie with the manufacturers, or with Government Departments? I do not think it lies with the manufacturers. The whole story of British aircraft production in the war was one of tremendous achievement. In the last 10 months of last year, in fiercely competitive markets, we sold £7,500,000 worth of British aircraft exports throughout the world, while the Americans sold only £13 million worth of which many were military types rapidly passing out of existence.

The Chairman (Major Milner)

The question of the purchase of aircraft does not come under this heading of salaries, and the salaries here are not operating salaries, but the salaries of the Minister and his staff. The hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that his Department has now become a first-class Department of State. Long may it continue so. The Department has a Boeing, and under Subhead J1 of the Vote, the salaries of the men now flying the Boeing and the Constellations are discussable. I do not see how I can contribute anything of value if I do not make this point.

The Chairman

The question of salaries of the operators of the aircraft and the question of the purchase of aircraft are not in question at the moment. It is therefore not in Order to discuss them.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I think, with great respect, there is a double answer to that. The hon. Gentleman told us that a Boeing has only just been purchased. We are told that it is possible that one will be delivered before this Vote is exhausted. Constellations are in flight at the moment, and the salaries are, in fact, covered by this demand; and, of course, some parts of Subhead A salaries in the Ministry go towards those officers of the Department who are dealing with the purchases of these aircraft, and putting them on the routes.

The Chairman

The point is, whether these additional sums are included in these Estimates and relate to the particular aircraft.

Sir P. Macdonald

But is it not the fact that this very large additional Estimate is being written off against aircraft not delivered?

The Chairman

At the proper time, it will, of course, be in Order on the main Estimate to go into the question of policy. As hon. Members know, there are a good many restrictions on the discussion of Supplementary Estimates, which do not apply where the main Estimate is concerned.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

If there are aeroplanes, to which my hon. Friend is referring, in existence and being flown, then, in that case, the expenditure on the running of them must come in under Subhead J 1. If, on the other hand, they are not being flown, and it is only a question of whether they are to be bought, and of negotiations leading up to the buying of them, still the people who are concerned with buying them also require salaries, and they come under Subhead A. Surely, in consequence, it becomes in Order to discuss the purchasing of these planes?

The Chairman

I am informed that the Boeing is not the property of the Government.

Captain Crookshank

But my hon. Friend is talking about Constellations. He agreed that the Boeing is not yet the property of the Government. He was dropping that side of his argument, and concentrating on the Constellations. Surely, it is in Order to discuss this matter under Subhead A or Subhead J 1, according as to whether they are bought or not being bought?

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

Would it not be the fact, in the case of American aircraft, that some money has been paid on account? I cannot imagine the Americans accepting an order from this country these days without some money being paid—ten or 20 or 30 per cent.—on account. Then, in that case, is it in Order to discuss them?

Mr. Lindgren

Perhaps I can assist the Committee. In fact, the purchase of aircraft is capital, because it arises very largely from the capital raised by the Corporation. The Vote which is now before the Committee arises in connection with operations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I accept that Ruling, of course; but one of the contentions of the British manufacturers—I could give full details, but I shall not detain the Committee long enough for that—is that if we were flying them on the Atlantic route, there would be a very appreciable saving of cost, compared with the cost of the Constellations we have already. I take it I would be in Order to go through the comparative figures of the cost of the Tudor I and its American counterpart. If the contention of the manufacturers is correct, we should see how much money we should be saving on the Vote under J1 or A. I have no intention, however, of going into the details. I want to link up the requests I have made with a plea to the Government to be more skilful than I have been in getting the consent of the Chair to assure our people that we have a policy in regard to the type of aircraft we are going to choose for the Atlantic route. I think I have made it quite plain—

The Chairman

That is policy. Discussion of policy is not in Order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

We do not feel that the manufacturers can be blamed for the tragedy that has developed, because we have clone, in fact, remarkably more in that sphere which is still left free to private enterprise. When the Government come to us and ask for large amounts for salaries and deficiency grants for B.O.A.C. and the other corporations for the running of aircraft, it is in part due to the fact that there is no central authority with power to act effectively and swiftly in the purchase of the most economical aircraft, which many of us believe should have been British aircraft. We are left completely in the dark how the aircraft have been purchased, the money for which we are asked calmly to vote out of these Estimates. Who chooses them? The manufacturers say that they have no direct contact with the operators, and the operators say that they are tied by Government controls, that the Ministry of Civil Aviation orders them and the Treasury approves the orders on specifications of the Ministry of Supply, which specifications are reviewed by some sort of consultation with the users. As I have said, there is no central authority running right through.

The Chairman

I would point out to the hon. Member that these are questions of policy, and, secondly, that the question of capital expenditure does not arise on these Estimates. I also do not think that the hon. Member is in Order with regard to the question of salaries, as I understand they are not the salaries of B.O.A.C. but the salaries of the Department.

Mr. Lindgren

Perhaps I may be allowed to point out in so far as Subhead A is concerned, that covers the Ministerial Department. As I understand it, it was the £810,000 in Subhead J1 which included the salaries being paid to B.O.A.C.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

Do not the salaries cover the Chairman of the Scottish Advisory Council?

Mr. Lindgren

All such items are included in the deficiency grants under Subhead J. As I have said, Subhead A is confined entirely to the salaries in the Ministry, excluding aerodrome administration, technical aids at aerodromes, telecommunications and the rest. Operating costs are paid by the corporation, and the deficiency grant arises to pay for some of them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The Parliamentary Secretary has conceded the argument I was trying to make, that we are dealing with the salaries of those people who are flying aeroplanes, not only the salaries of the Department, but also the salaries and expenses of B.O.A.C. I find it difficult to realise how it can be out of Order to deal with the aircraft which lead to the salaries and expenses being paid. However, I think I have pretty effectively made the point I was anxious to make, namely, the entire absence of any central authority. We would willingly agree to pay a larger amount— there would have been no cavilling by the Opposition—if it would lead to the purchase of British planes of the right type, but in this case we are paying large salaries to people, tied up in a mass of Governmental red tape, who are arriving at the wrong decision.

We feel that the operators of aircraft should be able to cut through this mass of officialdom and get to the people who are making the aircraft, as in the case of the United States where the engineers of the operators are most closely in contact with those who are producing the aeroplanes. It draws attention to the fact that whatever may be the pious hopes of any Government, bureaucracy grows and increases despite every intention on the part of any Minister to cut its size. The White Paper published by the Government is a warning of the difficulties which lie ahead. It tells us that there are over 500,000 more people on non-productive work as compared with 1939. Here the Government are asking for a huge increase in salaries, at a time when they are spending £2 million less than they had intended to expend on aeroplanes. This seems to me to be a negation of all sensible planning. We are moving towards a world where, if the number of planes flying is reduced, the staff costs go up, and where any private operator seeking to show how he can do the business better, is sent to goal by Act of Parliament. We regard this as crazy economics, and we must ask the Committee to reduce the Vote.

Mr. Beechman (St. Ives)

We are told that large subsidies and extra payments in respect of salaries and expenses are to be paid under these Estimates. I do not dissent from the money being paid by way of subsidy or, indeed, to salaries being increased, but before we assent, we should like to be sure that the facilities under the new dispensation, when the State takes over existing air lines, will be as good as they are now. To illustrate my point, I can do no better than to mention very briefly some very disquieting news which I have just received. Up to now, there has been an air line, run by the Great Western and Southern Air Lines, between Land's End and the Scilly Isles. It has been our good fortune, when an aeroplane has been unable to fly because of fog, that the aerodrome staff have been empowered by headquarters to allow the aircraft to fly at some later hour, when conditions allow.

The Chairman

Would the hon. Member indicate to me where in the Estimates this arises?

Mr. Beechman

I hope that I have taken off successfully, and that I shall land successfully. There are two matters which arise on the Estimates. First, there are salaries in respect of the people in the Department at Ministerial level, and. secondly, there are the salaries of personnel on the aerodromes. I want to know that the arrangements will not be so stereotyped, that we cannot have the facilities we now have, allowing aeroplanes to travel when climatic conditions permit, and that people will not be indefinitely grounded because sudden fog has come along, as happens in the parts of the country which I know so well.

4.30 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

Civil aviation has come to be regarded as a sort of trial ground on which we can measure the capacity, efficiency, and probable success of various other nationalisation schemes. It is, therefore, of fundamental importance that we should be able to examine it and know just how it is progressing. Having been blindfolded up till now, and the bandage now having been partly lifted, the first clue we obtain is by a study of these Estimates. I think there has been some wild estimating in these accounts. Even allowing for the difficulty of estimating for a new and ambitious concern which is just starting, any commercial accountancy would have got far nearer than the Government have got in these accounts. For instance, for meteorological services they are 225 per cent. out, which seems to show the vain optimism which has been present throughout all the Government's ambitions, promises, and hopes in connection with nationalisation schemes. I see that a further sum is required for the salaries of additional staff. Rather than additional staff, we would rather see better quality in those who have been appointed. One hears curious stories of individuals, taken on by the Coal Board, getting a 60, 70 or 80 per cent. increase for doing precisely the same work as they were doing before. I should like to be satisfied that there is nothing similar to that taking place here. As I have said, the Estimates are 225 per cent. out on meteorological services, but what is more curious is the fact that, while £45,000 is required for those services in the Sudan and the South Pacific, only £20,000 is required for those services everywhere else. That is an extraordinarily unbalanced state of affairs.

Now we come to the deficiency grant. Here we find that the revised Estimate is £870,000 as against the original Estimate of nothing. Attention has more than once been drawn to the fact that shipping companies and others were prepared to run the same services for no subsidy whatever. Is not this the time to expect these concerns to make a profit if they are ever to make money? There is a constant demand for these services, and there are constant queues waiting for the limited accommodation. The travelling public is well balanced in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that over a given period 83,000 passengers were flown one way and 80,000 the other, so that there is no question of aircraft flying light one way and coming back loaded. It is alarming to find that we require this deficiency grant—and here I am referring to B.O.A.C., and not to B.E.A.C.—because we have only four aircraft flying from this country every week, as compared to 23 by the United States. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is happening about air mail, how much we are carrying, whether we are carrying our fair share with foreign countries, and whether this air mail, which is generally reckoned to be remunerative, is being carried with satisfactory financial results?

There is one other point, the amount of profit, or commission, being made out of the interference with chartered companies. It was stated time and time again during the Committee stage of the Civil Aviation Bill that chartered companies would be left to take their own business, that the Government-owned Corporations would keep to their own furrows, and that only where special circumstances intervened did they intend to interfere with charter company work. The then Parliamentary Secretary stated that it was not the Government's policy that the Corporations should make charter work their main job, that any charter work would be incidental to the running of regular scheduled services. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government did not wish, however, to debar the Corporations from undertaking charter work in certain circumstances. Now I have heard that firms which, in the past, have been accustomed to going to certain owners of aircraft, and fixing up with them for the charter of aircraft, are being approached by officials of the Corporations to pass their work through the Corporations. In other words, they are becoming commission agents. One firm's reply was "No, we are satisfied with the people from whom we got our aircraft before," whereupon the official said, "We will provide you with the same aircraft, but will pass them through our agency, which will mean a commission for us." I see your eye upon me, Major Milner, but I would point out that that affects this deficiency grant, which is to take into consideration the profit or loss that has been made in the running of the Corporations. Here is a source of potential profit, and I should like to know how far a profit is being made in that way, contrary to the promises given during the Committee stage of the Measure.

The way for these Corporations to make money, and thus reduce or avoid deficiency grants in future, is to keep the propellers turning, just as the way to make money in road transport is to keep the wheels turning. We find that the average number of flying hours per day, over a recent period, has been given as three, whereas it is well known that in well operated firms, particularly in America, the present economic flying period is something like 10 to 15 hours a day. Until some sort of jet propulsion is imported into the Corporations themselves, and they get on with flying aircraft to the maximum period possible, consonant with safety, they will not be able to make money and escape a deficiency grant. The Minister told us that last year 200 British aircraft flew 300 million passenger miles. Similar aircraft in the United States flew 1,500 million passenger miles, with the same number of aircraft. This is just another emphasis on the necessity for keeping the propellors turning, From London to Paris there are six departures a day; from New York to Washington, 60. The fare from London to Paris is £7, and from New York to Washington, £2 15s. It all links up, one the result of the other: too little flying, too high fares. I am informed that grounded aircraft in the month of Novem- ber cost the Corporations £20,000 a day. I would like to know how many days' fog there were in the year? Fog is an expensive affair, and if aircrafts are grounded by fog, the deficiency is very much increased.

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going far beyond the terms of the Estimates. That question of fog does not arise in the Estimate.

Colonel Hutchison

I appreciate the latitude which you have given me, Major Milner, but I submit that these deficiencies, which represent losses, cannot be compartmentalised. If we are to review them and see why the deficiencies have arisen, that leads to a very wide area, and an area from which loss may arise. This emphasises more than ever the efforts which we made on the Committee stage to have commercial accounts. Why should not we have interim accounts? We are presented with estimates for large deficiencies, and we are unable to compare the relative deficiencies of one corporation with another. The whole country wants to know about this. The Minister and the Government will want to know about it for their own edification. They have the greatest confidence in nationalisation; I have none. Let us put it to the proof by submitting accounts. Let the Government stop asking us to cruise about in conjecture, and to go through a course of blind flying in accountancy which these Estimates represent today.

4.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

In order, Major Milner, to avoid putting you in the unhappy position of calling me to Order, I propose to limit my remarks to a very restricted field. That field is covered by the deficiency grants to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C., the latter being responsible for Civil Aviation in Scotland. We have been accustomed for some time past to associate the various Ministries, or most of them, of the Government with muddle: Food, housing —and now the sordid story of the coal muddle which is still being unfolded. But it is only within the last few weeks that the "muddle stakes" have been entered by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I propose to refer to one of the most classic cases of muddle of which any of the Ministries I have mentioned have been guilty in recent times. I admit, of course, that the hon. Gentleman must have felt himself rather left out in the cold—neither notoriety nor distinction has apparently came his way, and so he was determined to rectify that unhappy situation—and I may say that he did so with highly successful results.

As you know, Major Milner, Scotland has always been the victim of Whitehall bureaucratic interference, and having selected Scotland as the victim, Prestwick was naturally the target of their spleen.

The Chairman

I am very sorry, but I must steel my heart. I am afraid that the question of Prestwick does not arise.

Sir T. Moore

Prestwick now belongs to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Ministry of Civil Aviation have set up a British European Airways Corporation, of which Scotland has a special section, and in connection with which there is a Scottish Advisory Commission, presided over by a distinguished Scotsman. When we come to the first item—salaries—under Vote A, the salary is £2,000 a year. I feel that with all due respect, I am well within the Rules of Order in referring to this.

The Chairman

The salaries are those of the Ministry, and not those of B.E.A.C.

Sir T. Moore

I appreciate that. But I would point out that the Minister himself said that under the deficiency grant would come the salaries of the staffs of the Corporations and other salaries connected with the administration of civil aviation in the various sectors of the country.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren

I would point out that what I did say was this: The Corporations pay these salaries, and they pay the operating costs of the aircraft. From the payment of salaries, the operation of the aircraft and the rest, arises a deficiency. There is not included in this deficiency the salary of any particular person or of any groups of persons.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

On a point of Order, Major Milner. Under the heading of salaries, quite apart from the salaries of the Department, are the salaries of the ground staffs of the aerodrome.

Mr. Lindgren

indicated assent.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

That being so, Major Milner, having noticed the almost enthusiastic assent of the hon. Gentleman, are we not entitled to discuss questions relating to the staffs of the aerodromes whose salaries we are being asked to pay?

The Chairman

I understood that the hon. and gallant Member was discussing the operation of aircraft from Prestwick, and the question of how Prestwick was being treated.

Sir T. Moore

I am afraid, Major Milner, that you misunderstood the purport of my argument.

Mr. Edgar Granville (Eye)

Would it not be in Order, Major Milner, to demonstrate that if Prestwick were used more than Heathrow at the present time, it would further reduce the deficiency?

The Chairman

I have looked at the various Sections of the Acts of Parliament referred to in the Estimates, and, so far as I can see, they do not cover any matters to which reference has been made.

Sir T. Moore

Referring to the clarifying remark made by the Minister, when he said that the ground staffs were covered by the deficiency grant that we are discussing, it is exactly with regard to the utilisation of the ground staff at Prestwick to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee.

Mr. Lindgren

The ground crew at Prestwick are on the R.A.F. Vote because they are R.A.F. personnel.

Mr. Butcher (Holland with Boston)

On a point of Order, Major Milner. If the ground staff at Prestwick came under the heading "out stations," which appears in the original Estimates, would not my hon. and gallant Friend be in Order in referring to them?

The Chairman

That question does not arise because Prestwick is staffed by the R.A.F., as I understand it.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Quite recently a new commandant was appointed to the airfield at Prestwick—Group-Captain Macdonald—I hope at a good salary, but I am told that it is a very small one. He is a retired officer of the R.A.F., but, surely, he is now under the Ministry of the Parliamentary Secretary. If that is so, is not by hon. and gallant Friend in Order?

The Chairman

If that is so, then the operations of the staff would appear to be a matter to be properly discussed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The only people concerned with these night flying appliances are the R.A.F. For reasons which are not appreciated in Scotland they have been removed. The salaries of the traffic control officers total £35,000 according to the Vote presented some time ago, and there must be some of these at Prestwick.

Sir T. Moore

I think now that the whole position has been clarified. We are referring now to ground staffs operating at Prestwick, and, as has been pointed out, certain of the ground staff are R.A.F. personnel attached to the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Lindgren

No.

Sir T. Moore

How are the financial relationships adjusted as between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the R.A.F.? Is it an act of good faith or a kindly gesture?

Mr. Lindgren

The Royal Air Force at Prestwick was there to do R.A.F. duties. Out of the kindness of their hearts they have helped civil operators, which duty was also practice for themselves, with, of course, the consent of the Air Ministry. They were, in fact, R.A.F. crews on R.A.F. duties and any civil duties that they did were extraneous to their Service duties.

Air-Commodore Harvey

On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation has referred to the R.A.F. personnel doing work out of the kindness of their hearts. It is nothing of the kind, because civil operators pay landing fees, and they get nothing without paying for it.

Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)

Inasmuch as these operators come under the R.A.F. Estimates, surely this is out of Order?

The Chairman

As I understand it, that is so. It has now been admitted, however, that the commandant is paid and is under the control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Lindgren

The commandant and quite a number of ground personnel of the aerodrome are, in fact, under the Ministry of Civil Aviation Vote. They are controlled and paid for by the Ministry, but the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) was, in fact, referring to that part of the staff which was not Ministry of Civil Aviation staff but R.A.F. staff, under the control of the R.A.F. Whatever that staff did for the civil companies, was extraneous to their Service duties.

Sir T. Moore

This is getting really complicated. How can one develop one's arguments when one is surrounded by so many inhibitions? They seem to have been devised to prevent this Debate pursuing any logical or reasonable course. As the Chairman of this Scottish Advisory Council is paid by the Ministry, and as he comes under this grant we can discuss that matter. I should like to point out that when Scotland made a national protest against the way in which it was being treated in respect of these non-mentionable R.A.F. crews, there was a sop thrown to the country. No doubt this was some time before that actually happened, but by way of a sop, Scotland was thrown an organisation known as the Scottish Advisory Council presided over by a Scot who was adequately paid. The implication when this transaction took place was that the advice of this council of Scots presided over by a Scot, would be as Holy Writ to the British European Corporation and to the Minister. Of course, the whole thing was sheer nonsense. The Advisory Council has already been relegated to the task of registering agreement with Government decisions even after those decisions have been taken. The classic case to which I should like to refer if I could, took place only a few weeks ago.

As regards the ground staffs, while I admit there are a number of R.A.F. personnel which operated the ground control approach at Prestwick, the equipment itself was lately, or is now, in the course of being removed. I fear that what has happened in the case of Prestwick is not a very happy situation. Compared with Heathrow, Prestwick is substantially free of fog all the year round, which in conjunction with this installation, succeeded in forcing some 85 aircraft to be diverted from other less fortunate airports in Britain to Prestwick. The Minister in the hardness of his heart and with a lack of feeling for the Scots which I am sorry to have to say he has demonstrated, has acquiesced in this equipment being taken away.

Mr. Willis

On a point of Order. As the equipment to which the hon. and gallant Member refers belongs to the R.A.F., is it in Order to discuss, under this Vote, its removal by the R.A.F.?

The Chairman

If it is a fact that this equipment belongs to the R.A.F.—

Mr. Lindgren

That is so.

The Chairman

—then obviously this matter cannot be discussed.

Sir T. Moore

May I ask why this equipment had not been provided at Heathrow by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and why, during the five years of its existence, a crew has not been trained for that airport, and why should Prestwick be denied this equipment to facilitate Heathrow?

Mr. Lindgren

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's timetable is a little out of date when he refers to Heathrow being five years old.

Sir T. Moore

It was planned five years ago, and is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation had been in this House, he would have been very much affected by the Debates which took place with regard to Heathrow at that time five years ago, in 1942. I have made my point although I have much to say about the general muddle in which the operational side of the Ministry of Civil Aviation has been carried out. I do suggest that the Ministry has sadly let us down. We had high hopes that we had a fine future, and when the Civil Aviation Bill was going through Committee, the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry led us to entertain those hopes. He gave us so many assurances, that we almost began to believe that under nationalisation there was a future for this great industry. Now we have seen our high hopes dashed to the ground, and I can only suggest that the Minister has a change of heart, and that he gives some encouragement to the chartered services to make good the services of which he is depriving the country.

Sir P. Macdonald

Like other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate, I am very much bewildered at the extent of this new Estimate, and the question which comes to my mind is: Why was the original Estimate so miscalculated, and what new factors have arisen to be responsible for the Minister coming to this Committee so soon after the original Estimate was passed to ask for additional sums, in one case 42 per cent. and in another 43 per cent. over the original Estimate? Surely, as has been suggested already, there is blind estimating, as well as blind flying by B.O.A.C.; and if this is the way these public Corporations and their affairs are going to be conducted it will be hard on the British public, because obviously they are not being well managed. I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to salaries. Is it for increased salaries or for additional personnel that this large sum is required? Is there a definite establishment laid down for the Corporations?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren

I thought I had made it clear that Subhead A is a Ministry Vote for salaries. As far as the other Subheads are concerned, they are spread over the whole organisation of the Corporations.

Mr. George Ward (Worcester)

On a point of Order, Major Milner. Does this mean that we shall be out of Order if we talk about the salaries of the three Corporations?

The Chairman

Clearly that would be out of Order, except in so far as any proportion of those salaries falls under any of the other heads.

Mr. Ward

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any of the £406,000 is for the staffs of the three Corporations?

Mr. Lindgren

It is purely for salaries at the Ministry.

Sir P. Macdonald

Is it not the case that B.O.A.C., being the parent company, is bearing some of the salary charges of the other Corporations? Are we to understand that this enormous sum is due entirely to the increase of staff at the Ministry.

Mr. Lindgren

Subhead A, £406,000, is entirely a Ministerial Vote for the development of services within the Ministry itself.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say earlier that Subhead A includes also the salaries of men working on the aerodromes, whereas he now seems to say that it includes only people in the Department dealing with the aerodromes.

Mr. Lindgren

It includes the whole of the staff. I referred to 5,900, and all of them, with the exception of 620 within the Ministry, are included within the aerodromes division, airport management, non-industrial staff at aerodromes, etc.

Sir P. Macdonald

I want to know on what basis the Corporations are working. Is there a definite establishment laid down for which they have to secure the approval of the Treasury as other Departments do, or are they allowed to estimate blindly? Is it a fact that the ground staff organisation throughout the three Corporations comes directly under the Ministry and not under the Corporations themselves, and that the Corporations are responsible for the operation of the aircraft only and not for the ground staff? What is the number of these ground staff? Does the figure of 4,450 cover the whole of the outside ground staff servicing aircraft? What are these people doing? Are they the servicing staffs on the aerodromes?

Mr. Lindgren

Subhead A is in respect of increased staff within the Ministry itself. The increased staff are to deal with the acquisition, development and management of aerodromes; it includes technical staff to deal with air traffic communications, control, radar, radio stations and so on, and industrial staff to deal with the manual work on airfields, providing the various services required by the operators. This is covered by the item of £406,000. The total staff of the Ministry, as at 1st April, 1947, will be 5,900.

Sir P. Macdonald

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I want to ask whether the Ministry are working on a definite establishment or are blindly taking on people as they think they need them. If there is an establishment, is it authorised by the Treasury? This information is of vital importance if we are to know what it will cost to run the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The other day I was amazed to hear, when the Minister replied to a Question in the House, that he did not know the cost per passenger mile of a certain type of aircraft. If any private operator did not know such a thing, he would be on the way to bankruptcy. If one were to ask Pan-American Airways what it costs them to run aircraft of any type per passenger mile, they could tell one to a small fraction. Evidently, the Ministry of Civil Aviation do not think that is very important. I would like also to know whether the Ministry are setting up a pensions scheme for their employees, and if so, whether any proportion of this sum is devoted to that scheme, or whether the staff is temporary?

In regard to the deficiency grant to British South American Airways, I would like to know what subsidies they are paying to subsidiary companies, such as Colonial air lines. I was alarmed by the statement of the chairman of the British West Indian Airlines to the effect that they might have to close down, because the Government subsidy which they had been enjoying would come to an end in March, and that in the meantime they had negotiated with British South American Airways to be taken over, but could not get a decision as to whether or not that would happen. It would be a very serious matter if the British West Indian aircraft were taken off their routes. The service is vital as a link with the whole of the British West Indies, linking up with British South American Airways. I know the difficulties which this company has had in keeping going. I have assisted them by Questions in the House and by putting pressure on Ministers. They have obtained Lockheed aircraft from America, and if now they are obliged to close down, it will be nothing less than disastrous. I urge the Minister to expedite this matter and give a decision at the earliest possible moment. I am told that the Colonial Office have informed them that their subsidy will be taken off at the end of next month. This is a matter of vital importance to our West Indian Colonies. I believe there was a long standing decision that this air line organisation could not run a direct service to this country. They were prevented from doing so, and told that they could act only as a feeder service to British South American Airways. I hope we can get some answer from the Minister to the questions I have asked on this matter.

Mr. Butcher

I rise to ask a few questions of the Parliamentary Secretary, in regard to one of the earliest matters to which the Government directed their nationalising activities, namely, civil aviation. The first point to which I would call attention is under Subhead (A) relating to salaries and staff. This is not simply a question which can be dealt with by comparison between the original Estimate and the revised Estimate. It would be useful if the Committee could refer to the corresponding figures for 1945, and see how enormously the Ministry has expanded the number of its employees and the amount of money it is costing. Let us take the headquarters' figure, which the Parliamentary Secretary gave. I believe that, under the revised Estimate, there will be 620 people on the headquarters staff. In 1946, there was an Estimate of 485, and in 1945 the number was 292. The number engaged at headquarters, including the Signals Branch, has therefore more than doubled during the last two years. The expense of this item has shown a corresponding increase. The figure for 1945 was £549,000. The revised Estimate presented by the hon. Gentleman is now for £1,356,000. That is an abnormal increase for a period of two years, especially when we realise that the function of this Ministry is not to supervise the activities of a lot of wicked capitalistic undertakings; it is concerned only with assisting and co-operating with British State-owned Corporations —with whose activities I hope to deal in a moment. I cannot help feeling that the number of the civil servants is too great and that the quality is not great enough. I put to the Parliamentary Secretary this specific inquiry: In what way, and from what source are these rapidly increasing numbers of people recruited? Does he have the advantage of using the appointments branch of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Lindgren

May I tell the hon. Member that 95 per cent. of the members of this staff are recruited from the R.A.F.?

Mr. Butcher

I am most happy to learn that fact.

Mr. Lindgren

Apart from the question of numbers, I think the hon. Member ought to withdraw his remark that these people are of poor quality. Whatever one may say about the Civil Service, we should remember that these recruits are from one of the Fighting Services, and that it is unfair to stigmatise them as of poor quality.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Butcher

I absolve the hon. Gentleman from any blame in this matter. A man may have most admirable qualities as a fighting officer, but we are now dealing with him as a member of the headquarters staff of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether the appointments were made with the assistance of the appointments branch of the Ministry of Labour. If the hon. Gentleman has had that assistance, I am satisfied that he has taken proper steps to secure the most suitable men for the tasks that have had to be discharged. I am not attacking any Service, or any member of staff, among whom there are no doubt many admirable men.

I turn to the question of the deficiency grants for the Corporations. I am very concerned that we should now be called upon to vote this substantial sum of money to make good these deficiencies. The money will have to be paid by the ordinary miner and agricultural worker, and many others in respect of flights overseas in which they can have no opportunity to participate. We are entitled to satisfy ourselves that the Government which is asking for these substantial sums is taking proper steps to ensure that the expenditure is restricted to the smallest possible amount. What is the position in connection with the buildings in which British Overseas Airways carry on their work? By how much is this deficiency due to the fact that the work is dispersed all over the place? Is it a fact that the deficiency would be much smaller if the Government had had the prudence and the foresight, when they were establishing the organisation, to take adequate space, so that they would not spend the time of messengers, and transport, in taking papers from one office to another? That is the sort of matter which this Committee is entitled to probe.

Again, on the question of staff, is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the methods of recruitment for the Corporation? What are the Corporation's relationships with other companies? Hon. Members who have visited New York will be aware that B.O.A.C. do not take care of their own passengers at La Guardia field, and that that matter is dealt with by Pan-American Airways. We are entitled to ask whether the deficiency would be smaller if we saved the profit which Pan-American Airways make in doing that work for B.O.A.C. Ever since I have been in the House, British aviation has always been on the point of doing something. It has always had to come along and ask for assistance from this House, largely because the Government have not been able or willing—successive Governments, I make no attack upon this Government particularly—to leave matters in the hands of the commercial airline operators. We are entitled to know to what extent the deficiency has been increased by Government interference and control.

I will not trespass on the time of the Committee much longer if I receive a satisfactory reply. as I feel sure I shall, from the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, but I would ask him for a little more help and assistance on the subject of head M, the Air Transport Advisory Committee. I think that the provision of £3,000 is extraordinarily extravagant. He really ought to be able to run this one Air Transport Advisory Committee for a lot less than this. I will not give him detailed estimates of how it should be done, but I would refer him to page 40 of the Supplementary Estimate, where he will see that the Ministry of Fuel and Power can run Consumers' Councils—of which I assume that there are at least two—for £1,000. If the Ministry of Fuel and Power, with their capabilities for planning of which the country had such sad evidence, can do it for £1,000, I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary and his noble Friend should be able to make a most substantial saving on the sum of £3,000 for which they ask.

Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can enlighten me as to whether any portion of £810,000which I see against J.1 has been expended on the provision of the temporary facilities for flying boats provided at Poole Harbour. It has been known for some years that we need a permanent marine air base, and it is quite obvious that until we get a permanent marine base expenditure will have to continue on the basis of making up deficits on revenue account as distinct from sinking money on pure capital development at Poole. I would, therefore, like to ask him, first, whether there is any increased expenditure under this head, and second, what prospects there are of any such increases being drastically reduced in future, for of course so long as these temporary facilities are made use of at Poole the necessity for continuing this expenditure will arise. Recently, the Government made a tentative decision to develop a modern air base at Cliffe, near Gravesend, whereas prior to that time civil aviation opinion in this country had held the view that the marine air base should be established at Langstone Harbour. The only reason why I raise this point on the Supplementary Estimate is because I feel that this tentative decision to establish a base at Cliffe—

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member is now obviously talking about policy, and that is not permissible on this Supplementary Estimate.

Major Bruce

I am afraid I was not phrasing my speech too well, but what was endeavouring Ito discuss was the necessity of limiting, as far as possible, such increases of expenditure as are included in these Estimates for the provision of temporary facilities at Poole. With respect, I would submit that this temporary expenditure cannot possibly be reduced until in fact a decision has been made in regard to the establishment of a marine airport, and until, of course, that decision has in fact been carried out. With your permission, Major Milner, I would urge upon the Government the necessity of adopting such a course of action in regard to the establishment of a permanent base as will lead to a progressive reduction in such deficiencies upon revenue account as I believe arise in the Estimates themselves.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

I wish to refer to Subheads J.1 and J.3—deficiency grants to the British Overseas Airways Corporation and to the British South American Airways Corporation. I am sorry I am the only Member present of the Parliamentary Delegation, which got back from West Africa last week, because I want to refer to these items in so far as they concern the proposal to transfer from the airport of Bathurst, in Gambia, to Dakar, in French West Africa. The Parliamentary Secretary said a few days ago that it was desired, as far as practicable, that British services should operate from airports in British territory, but he destroyed a great deal of the value of that pious hope by admitting that British South American Airways had already diverted their services to Dakar. I am quite sure that it is because of that diver- sion that some of this extra expenditure is required, and by adding that there is no immediate intention of transferring British Overseas Airways to Dakar the hon. Gentleman makes one fear the worst. Bathurst, as hon. Members will know, is the capital of the very small colony of the Gambia, which has been of strategic value as a seaport since the 17th century and was of the greatest value as an airport in the recent war. Without it we could hardly have maintained our air routes to Egypt, because the whole of the intermediate points between Lisbon and Bathurst were in the hands of Vichy France. It may be that it will be equally valuable again. If we are to defend the Suez Canal from Kenya, as may happen —

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is now discussing questions of policy and a matter upon which it is not clear that any portion of the expenditure in the Estimates was incurred.

Mr. Keeling

I cannot think it possible that to go to Dakar, a French port, does not mean very much greater expenditure than going to Bathurst, a British port. I cannot think that the Minister could deny that this is so.

The Chairman

The hon. Member will forgive me for saying that that is a matter on which he must satisfy me, and I am afraid he has not so far been able to do that.

Mr. Keeling

May I remind you, Major Milner, that the Minister did say that British South American Airways had decided to go to Dakar instead of to Bathurst, and is it not prefectly clear that to create new facilities at Dakar must involve extra expenditure? If I may I will conclude with a couple of sentences, and say that quite apart from the strategic value of Bathurst there are very strong political reasons for not abandoning it, because if we neglect the Gambia as an airport it almost ceases to have any reason for being in the British Empire. To tell the people of the Gambia that we have their welfare at heart becomes then a sham.

The Chairman

The hon. Member must not pursue that argument.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I think many of these points of Order could have been avoided, if the Parliamentary Secretary had given us more information in his original statement. I must say that when we do not know what we are discussing, because of lack of information, it makes flying in the House rather rough It is very difficult to base one's argument on points which are not clearly explained. However, I will try to behave myself, but it will not be easy, and I hope, Major Milner, that you will allow me the same latitude as you have allowed to other hon. Members. I think that the statement of accounts on page 46, asking for this extra£10, is a very "phoney" way of presenting accounts, and I cannot imagine any reputable accountant putting his name to such a statement.

Mr. David Griffiths (Rother Valley)

Withdraw.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I see no point in withdrawing. It is very misleading indeed to spend all this money and use it in another direction and finish up by asking for another £10. It does not look good, and is very difficult to understand.

Mr. D. Griffiths

It is not "phoney."

5.30 p m

Air-Commodore Harvey

It is not signed by an accountant, and I should like to see such a signature attached to it. I turn to the deficiency grant to the Corporation and, as a partner in an air charter company, I would like to say that I appreciate the many difficulties under which the Corporation is operating. They have had many difficulties to face in extending their organisation as a whole, and they have a very good record for safety. It has one of the best records in the world in that connection. Their money has been well spent, in spite of the difficulty of not being able to spend it on equipment for ground organisation which they badly require. Furthermore, it does not cost them anything for courtesy, and in the Corporation they are extremely courteous to all passengers and have a name second to none for this service. I do think that the figures would have made a better showing had they had more aircraft On this point I hope I shall not be out of Order and I shall try to confine myself to one or two sentences.

I have already said that I know the difficulties in connection with aircraft, hut in the case of the larger aircraft which would bring money into the Corporation I think that had decisions been taken sooner, or even if the Minister would make up his mind now, regarding Tudor I's and Tudor II's, it would be in the interests of the Corporation in the long run. The Minister has in another place referred to a legacy which he took over from his predecessor. It is not for me to say whether it is a bad legacy, but if it is, he should say quite clearly whether he is going on with it or not. I am inclined to think that if the manufacturers were given time to get through the teething troubles of these new machines they would be all right, but if they are rushed, we are in for a very severe time and will lose even more money in operating them. So far as the Marathon is concerned, the one other type of aircraft which I wish to mention, I do put some blame on the Minister, because a number of the staff of the Ministry have been expending their time in dealing with the matter. I should like to quote from a letter—

The Chairman

The question of the production of aircraft is a matter for the Ministry of Supply, as I understand it, and does not come under the present heading.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Surely, with great respect, Major Milner, the Ministry of Supply are only acting as agents for the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the two must work together. The Ministry of Supply, even with their assistance, is not capable of producing what is required, and—

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member may only discuss what is in the Estimates.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Further to that point of Order, Major Milner, we were assured in another place a few days ago by the right hon. Gentleman that the sequence was that the Corporations order aircraft from the Ministry, who place an order with the Ministry of Supply who, subject to Treasury approval, pass it on to the manufacturers. If that is so, it is completely different from the sequence other Ministers have followed before. There must be some people in the headquarters staff whose salaries are covered under Subhead A, and who receive the orders from the Corporation and then submit them to the long rigmarole I have indicated. Might not this matter be discussed on the question of expense and the additional sum required.

The Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman will look at page 147 of the Civil Estimates he will see that there is a particular section dealing with civil aircraft and associated equipment—payments in respect of research, development and production—and it is under that heading that the hon. and gallant Gentleman could discuss the matter to which he has referred.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I will try in a different way. The Minister did say that he has several hundreds of his own personnel employed on aerodromes in connection with radio, radar, control and so on. If the aeroplanes have not been delivered, these men have little to do and the money is wasted. I should like to give one instance regarding a particular aeroplane which could have been in operation had the Minister really taken the matter in hand some 12 months sooner. It is a very short letter from the managing director of British European Airways to Mr. F. G. Miles, of Miles Aircraft. It begins "Dear Miles."

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be dealing directly or indirectly with the production of aircraft. If that is so, the matter does not come under any of these Supplementary Estimates and he cannot refer to it.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

On a point of Order. There is here a demand for a deficiency grant towards the various Corporations. Is not an hon. Member entitled to make the proposal that if we use a different type of aircraft, less money will be required?

The Chairman

I can only say that the question of production does come under another heading, and that is the point to which the hon. and gallant Member was addressing himself.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, and I will not attempt to read the letter, but I would just mention in passing that it says that they did not want the aeroplanes in September but now they do want them.

The Chairman

As I have pointed out, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not entitled to say that.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I am extremely sorry, and I will go on to my next point.

Mr. Granville

On a point of Order. Would it be right to say that the salary of the individual responsible for writing this letter from the Ministry of Civil Aviation is covered by the Estimate we are discussing today?

Air-Commodore Harvey

With regard to the deficiency grant, having said several pleasant things about the Corporations I propose now to criticise. Apart from any other departments in the Corporations for which the deficiency grants are required, I am told there are those which employ psychiatrists to test the reactions of passengers and so on. Is the Minister satisfied that the training is under one roof, as it were, and does not consist of three separate training organisations? Again, some of this money has been spent on the loss of staff. The Minister answered a Question in the House on 4th December last, when he stated that 652 employees of the Corporation had left in the previous three months. There must be some reason for that. Are they dissatisfied with the conditions; are they getting the right treatment? I think we are entitled to be told, because I know that good British pilots are going to the Sabena Airline in Begium, and this does have a bearing on the subject because these men could be kept on, if they had better conditions. They are receiving £1,200 a year in Belgium and pay only 10 per cent. income tax, and if that is the reason, we must give them more money to make up for the harder and harsher conditions of living in our difficult country today. I am told that others are going over to K.L.M., and we may find the Corporations in great difficulties in obtaining the staff they want if we go on like this.

There is another point regarding the staff of airfield controllers, some of whom are very good men. To my mind, the status of the airfield controllers is not nearly high enough. They are the men who work in the control tower with enormous responsibility, controlling these large airliners, very often in conditions of fog. I do not believe that they have the salary or status to which they are entitled. I should like to see both salaries and status improved. So far as concerns the expenditure under Subhead A, I agree that the Minister does require additional money. I have always found his staff very willing and courteous, but much overworked. It is true that few of the senior members have ever had their two feet off the ground, and even if they have, they have not been on the rudder bar. I would suggest that the Minister should pick his men very carefully and take them from other Ministries which are much overstaffed, such as the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Food, because civil aviation is a concern, in connection with which we have to "show the world." Unless the best men are running it, we are in for severe trouble.

I turn to the next item—the meteorological services. We are asking for £45,000 of additional money. I think one of my hon. Friends was under the impression that this was the total amount required for the running of our "met." services and I should like to correct that because the cost is about £900,000, and it is money badly spent as we are going on at present.

Only on Sunday the weather forecast in the "Sunday Times" showed how inefficient the services are. It said: London, South East, East and South West England, East and West Midlands and South Wales—Fresh East wind, strong or gale at exposed places; occasional snow; very cold with temperature below freezing day and night. We all know that, fortunately, it started to thaw at about one o'clock that afternoon. They were completely wrong, as they usually are. I implore the Minister, in spending these large sums on his meteorological service, to overhaul the whole organisation. I realise that at the moment the meteorological service comes under the Air Ministry but to my mind that is entirely wrong. The "met." service supplies information to the air, the sea, agriculture, and so on, and should be a national service. I hope we shall have some change before very long.

Recently, a friend of mine who is fortunate enough to have his own aeroplane wanted to fly to Paris and made use of the "met." service. This is a good example of what is happening today in this service, on which we are spending this money. He went to the control office and said he was going to fly to Paris and asked what were the alternative aerodromes to Le Bourget. The control officer and the "met." officer suggested Cormeilles. They were thinking of the Cormeilles near Le Havre, and had no idea of the existence of the aerodrome called Cormeilles near Paris. They said that if he flew on instruments he might get through, but it was risky, and they advised him to go via Ostend and fly at about 1600 feet. They said that he would get through if he was lucky. My friend flew to the Channel and found a small cloud bank at 1600 feet. He went over that, and found that it was real air-commodore's weather—one could see thirty to forty miles, and it was quite good weather. That shows one how bad our "met." service is today. The practice is growing for the pilots not to ask the "met." department now, but to inquire from others of their number, who have done the trip. They thus get the information in a back-handed way.

Our civil aviation must succeed. All of us agree that money has to be spent, if it is spent in the right way. There must be economies in certain directions, but we must spend the money where we most require it. The Socialist Party in my view thought that civil aviation would be a very easy industry to nationalise—a good bit of window-dressing—

The Chairman

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not pursue that topic, as it is quite out of Order.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner. We must make our air lines succeed. I do not know whether we can really afford the amount of money required, in view of the difficult times ahead of us. However, we must cut our coat according to our cloth. We must concentrate on our Empire routes and see that they succeed, instead of trying to cover the whole world at once.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Max Aitken (Holborn)

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can tell us the cost per passenger mile at which the three Corporations are operating. This figure is the basis of all aircraft finance, and running air lines without this figure at his finger-tips would be like trying to run a newspaper without knowing the cost of newsprint. The shareholders of such a firm would be very upset if they thought that a company was running on those lines. I presume that I am now a shareholder in the State airlines, and as such I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give this information to the Committee. He has been asked the figure before but he says that he does not know. That is a peculiar state of affairs, and I suggest that he really goes into it and gets his enormous staff, which is going to cost him the large sum of £1,356,000 annually, to find out what this cost of operation is and will be.

Finding the figure is quite easy, and the Minister has all the information which will give it to him. The figure may be very high, and I should think it is. It may be higher than any other country in the world, but I hope that this will not deter the Parliamentary Secretary from giving it to us. The cost of operation may be high because the British lines are putting in a great deal of training and paying pilots when they engage them without knowing whether they will be good pilots or bad ones. They do the same with their radio operators and their ground staffs. That is a very creditable thing to do, but it costs a great deal of money. However, the Parliamentary Secretary should now give us the figure of cost per passenger-mile straight off the bat.

The Parliamentary Secretary has said, much to my surprise, that the sum of £1,356,000 is to go as salaries for staff officers sitting in the Ministry. If that is so—

Mr. Lindgren

indicated dissent.

Mr. Aitken

—it is pretty high and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary finds out what the operating costs are in order to see whether he is making a profit or a loss on running his aircraft. At the moment the Government are flying out of control in the clouds of high finance.

Mr. George Ward (Worcester)

I would like to say a further word on the question of the increased salaries for additional personnel at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. On the face of it, it looks as if there is a certain amount of empire building going on. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that there is no unnecessary duplication of work through people having assistants they do not really need. According to an answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question, on 20th December, 1946, by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) and also according to the figures given in his opening speech today, the position is as follows. The headquarters staffs of the three Corpora- tions have 3,746 people, and the staff of the Ministry 5,900—

Mr. Lindgren

indicated dissent.

Mr. Ward

The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I made a note of the second figure as he gave it and I can also quote from HANSARD in support of the first figure. They come to a total of 9,646. I do not know the exact number of aircraft actually engaged on carrying fare-paying passengers day by day on regular routes, excluding training and testing, but I should imagine that 200 would not be wide of the mark. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me if I am very wide of the mark, but I imagine 200 is the rough figure. Divide 200 into 9,646 and we find that for every one aircraft carrying passengers airborne we have 48 people chair-borne. That does not include the ground crews. Those are people holding down office jobs. It is a very important figure because during the war as a staff officer one knew how the size of staffs was inclined to creep up unless someone kept an eye on it. Whenever the Establishments Committee came along there was an argument. People always wanted to keep the odd extra staff officer. Any normal healthy man who has not a full day's work to do will make a full day's work and will push out a lot of unnecessary paper which only clogs the wheels.

I appreciate as much as anybody else the difficulties with which the Minister is faced in the field of civil aviation, but I think also that many of us on his side of the House are not entirely happy that these difficulties are being tackled as efficiently and rapidly as possible. If the Parliamentary Secretary can, when he replies, answer many or, if possible, all the points which have been raised in this Debate by various hon. Members, it will go a great way to promoting and increasing the confidence and interest of the flying public in our civil aviation.

Sir Ronald Ross (Londonderry)

This discussion on the Supplementary Estimate has shown that civil aviation should soon have a day which is unrestricted by the very strict Rules which you, Major Milner, have the duty to apply. I know that your kindly nature would impel you to let people talk about all sorts of other questions, such as the types of aircraft, but I know that your sense of duty, and only your sense of duty, prevents you from doing any such thing. Therefore, the art of speaking on a Supplementary Estimate is recognised as being one of the most difficult of Parliamentary arts.

I do not propose to mention any type of aircraft at all, but rather to discuss the Supplementary Estimate as it stands. It is nominally £10, but actually the under-calculation is the very substantial figure of £2 million. Quite frankly, that is rather a disquieting calculation, and it is only for a period which finishes at the end of March; it is not for anything in the future. It is very recently that we have had the Civil Aviation Bill, and it certainly would have appeared that it might have been possible to make a closer estimation than was made, because the proportionate increase of salaries under Sub-Head A of nearly half a million pounds is practically a 50 per cent. increase on the original calculation, and it should, surely, have been possible to have known more accurately than that what it would cost.

The point to which I particularly want to address myself—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer these questions that I put—is under provisions granted to British Overseas Airways Corporation. He said in his opening speech, which was very pithy and brief and did not give, very much illumination, that this was, amongst other things, for the development and opening of new air routes. Of all overseas air routes, I would submit that the most important are those overseas air routes which go to that portion of the United Kingdom which is overseas. More than a year ago the Ministry informed me that there would be an overseas air route from England to Londonderry. So far, nothing whatsoever has been done. It is a very urgent necessity because it is one of the most difficult of journeys, and if, in reply, I could have some information as to what is being done, what steps are being taken, and what the prospects are, I should be very glad. We see in this Supplementary Estimate the interest which the Ministry take as regards the Sudan and their sympathy with those who fly in the South Pacific, but I would like to bring it rather nearer home.

Again, the posts were to be carried by air under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and I think that depends to a great extent on the adaptability of aerodromes in England for night flying. Is any of this money towards the deficiency grant being applied to preparing the way for night flying in order to carry the mails with reasonable rapidity from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? If so, what progress has been made, how soon may we expect to have the service of the carriage of mails to Northern Ireland by air, and to give a proper service between the various parts of the United Kingdom?

I think that up to the present I have created a record as being the only hon. Member whose speech has been unblemished by any hint of being called to Order by you, Major Milner. I will conclude by pressing these two points on the Minister in the hope that I shall get a reply as encouraging to me as, I am sure, my speech has been to you.

Mr. Hollis (Devizes)

I associate myself with the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. Aitken) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) against the inadequacy of the Parliamentary Secretary's original speech. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) said it was pithy and brief. It was very brief, but I rather missed the pith in it, if pith there was. I must confess that the task which this Committee has to face this evening would, in any event, have been a difficult one, partly by the nature of the Supplementary Estimate, and partly by the monstrous confusion between the functions of Government Departments, the R.A.F., and civil aviation. For these difficulties the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are clearly not to blame, but this task, which would in any event have been difficult, he has made all the more impossible for us, because it was manifestly impossible to discuss intelligently the Estimate unless he had furnished us with very full information indeed as to what it was about, so that hon. Members could have had an opportunity of keeping themselves in Order and not incurring your displeasure, Major Milner.

I will not attempt to plunge into the impenetrable jungle where my hon. Friend got lost, but I would remind the Committee of the two outstanding factors of which we can be certain, amongst many of which we cannot be certain. One is that it appears that the fewer the aircraft we have, the more money we have to spend on bureaucrats. That is a very disquieting thing, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will respond to my hon. and gallant Friend's most important and reasonable request to find out what is the cost per passenger mile.

A second equally disquieting thing is that, when we were nationalising civil aviation, we were told that these Corporations were to aim at being self-supporting. Whatever else is not clear from this Estimate, it is at least dear that the very wide difference between the original and the revised Estimates proves quite clearly that the Ministry has extremely little idea of the cost of these operations, whatever the operations may be. The operations are obscure, and the cost of them is more obscure, so I will appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give this Committee a great deal more information than has been given up to the present.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower (Caithness and Sutherland)

I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the brevity of his opening. I feel sure that he wanted to reserve his charm for a full reply to the criticisms made from this side of the Committee. I noted that when the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the amount which had been spent in development costs which were responsible for a large portion of the expenditure he said they were a non-recurring and valuable item. I was glad to hear that, because development and goodwill were not admitted as items of value under the Civil Aviation Act, 1946. In considering the necessity for Supplementary Estimates one must pay attention to the reliability of airlines. Such reliability leads to very wide use, and that helps to meet expenses, making Supplementary Estimates unnecessary. I have recently seen the operation of the London Scottish Airline to Aberdeen, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could give the reliability figures over the last three or four weeks. That is advertised as a daily service, and it has been missing quite a lot. This service operates reasonably up-to-date aircraft like D.C.III.s with a good instrument board. But, during these hard times of bad weather and snow, the old pioneer airlines of Scottish Airways and the local firm in Aberdeen have managed to run daily services. I felt a personal interest in this matter, because I endeavoured to use this nationalised Government-run airline to obey a three-line Whip to attend the Electricity Bill Debate, and was unable to reach the House.

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but will he indicate where Scottish Airlines are mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate? Do they come in the groups of deficiency payments?

Mr. Gandar Dower

I was trying to illustrate how deficiency in regard to B.O.A.C. was affected by reliability of service, and to point out that they were not reliable in Scotland.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is in Order if the airlines come within the British European Airways Corporation.

Mr. Gandar Dower

Yes, Major Milner, they now do. This small Supplementary Estimate for £10 leaves us with a sense of disquietude, because of the large sum of money which has not been spent on aircraft. I think this side of the Committee would have been better pleased if the money had been spent on up-to-date aircraft. Throughout the war, the accounts of B.0.A.C. were wrapped in mystery, and one is glad to see some approach to presenting them today. When a Department has such heavy losses at a time when world aviation is prospering, one cannot feel too satisfied. I would gladly lend all the support I can to the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Max Aitken) in asking for the cost per mile operational figures of the three nationalised companies. In regard to the additional plant needed for B.E.A.C., I would like to receive an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that everything is being done to save unnecessary duplication of staff. At Aberdeen, for instance, there are two traffic staffs, one for the local company—now part of B.E.A.C. —and another built up since the airlines from Inverness and from London and Glasgow commenced. It appears that this duplication is not necessary; and one wonders what will happen later on.

Mr. Marlowe

It would be unfair to criticise the Parliamentary Secretary for the form in which this Supplementary Estimate is presented, because it is the time-honoured form in which these things are always done and they give great paucity of information. That throws on the hon. Gentleman all the more burden of explaining as fully as possible what we are being asked to pay. The hon. Gentleman has been very attentive throughout the discussion, and I hope he will do his best to answer the many pertinent questions which have been put to him.

This document is rather in the nature of a prospectus of a company. I do not think any company putting out a document of this kind, and explaining it so briefly, would expect the public to subscribe. When people are putting money into a service, they expect to know what it is they are paying towards. At the moment, we are very much in the dark. Indeed, before you, Mr. Beaumont, were in the Chair, it was necessary for many hon. Members to stop discussing various subjects because they did not know whether they were in Order or not, and whether they came within a particular Vote. One is in considerable difficulty, because there is a sum of nearly £1 million in respect of deficiency on B.O.A.C., and another of a similar amount on B.E.A.C. But, for what that money is paid we have very little information. Taking the document as it stands, it appears that the original Estimate was made for more than £1 million, which has so far not been spent under Subhead (E), which is now being deducted. I suppose it was assumed that the sum of £2,183,000 was to be spent on aircraft and associated equipment. I take that to be so from the note which is attached to the document. Presumably that is being deducted from the amount that has not been spent. What is alarming is that although there is £2 million less aircraft and equipment, the running expenses are more than was originally anticipated. The original estimate for maintenance and running costs was on the basis of £2 million worth of aircraft and associated equipment bringing in money. One is driven to conclude from this document that there are less aircraft, and yet higher losses. That must only mean that the more aircraft we get into the air the more money we are to lose.

I would like the hon. Gentleman to say whether he anticipates that as he increases the number of aircraft he will lose more money. I make no complaint that this is not a profit-making concern at this stage, but what is going to be the position in the future? Are we to suppose that as we get more aircraft into the air we shall get better returns, and so smaller deficiencies because of the rather alarming deficiencies we find at present when the hon. Gentleman has to come and ask for a further £2 million? I ask him to give the information on which the cost per passenger mile is based. That is a figure which any commercial firm has to have easily available. If they did not know whether an aircraft was paying its way, they would not know whether the service was successful. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman does not like to give the figure because it is so high. Or is it because he does not know the figure? At Question time he said he was not able to give it—I have not the text of his reply before me, and I do not know whether he said he could not give it. If the reason is because the cost is high, what is the reason why the cost is high? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the suggestion which has been made that large numbers of non-fare paying passengers are being carried, and that that has largely contributed towards the high cost? That is the sort of question which requires attention, and which deserves an answer before we part with a Vote of this size, and allow this Ministry another £2 million.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

I regard this Supplementary Estimate with considerable misgiving, because it shows that something has been taking place which all of us on this side of the Committee feared during the Committee stage of the Civil Aviation Act, namely, a transfer from capital account to revenue account, but none of us anticipated that it would take place so soon. Here we see money which was originally voted for the supply of aircraft diverted to what are essentially revenue items. I would be prepared to allow this to pass if the Minister could give an assurance that, perhaps in next year's Estimates, an equivalent amount from revenue account was to be transferred back to capital account. What I fear is that in next year's Estimates or perhaps in those of the year following, the Minister will come along and ask for a further sum of about £2 million for more aircraft, and will use, as his justification, the argument that the sum previously granted had been diverted to revenue account. It is important, if we are to have efficiently run Corporations, that there should be a clear demarcation between what in business circles are called capital accounts and what are called revenue accounts. Now that we are having a diversion one way, I hope we shall have a comparable diversion in the reverse direction to redress the balance, some time in the future.

With regard to the extra moneys going towards staff, both staff under Subhead A, for the Ministry, and staffs in the case of the three Corporations, I would say that we all know how satisfactory it is to be well looked after on one of the Corporations' air lines, but I suggest that at a time when there is the greatest shortage of manpower elsewhere, we must have regard to the manpower expended on providing air services, particularly where those are domestic or inter-Colonial. We have to save in manpower wherever we can. On the West African service, in particular, there is still quite a prodigality of manpower. We must get used to the fact that some of the feeder services, particularly up country in Nigeria for example, must be manned on a simple and elementary basis, and that we cannot really have the same standards of manpower there as on first-class international services, or as one would expect at an international airport such as Yundum in the Gambia.

I am not surprised that both B.O.A.C. and the South American Corporation should require additional money, because in the journey I made with the Parliamentary Delegation to West Africa, I came across a clear example of a duplication of services along an identical route. Certainly, I never expected the old bogy of unnecessary duplication to rear its ugly head so early in the days of this new nationalised enterprise. Yet we have British South American Airways running a service to Dakar and then across to South America. It is paralleled part of the way by B.O.A.C., which is running a similar service, not to Dakar, but 80 miles further down the coast to Bathurst, and so round the coast to what I can only describe as the greatest cul-de-sac in the world, the Bight of Benin, from where there is no further extension. I suggest for the serious consideration of the Ministry that these two services might be amalgamated as far as one point on the West African coast. That point should obviously be the Gambia, where there is already a fine aerodrome with first-class services. As things are we have to keep staff of the South American Corporation at Dakar, where they have to expend French francs, admittedly a "soft" currency, but nevertheless a foreign currency, for maintenance, etc., while 80 miles down the coast B.O.A.C. have duplicate facilities. Why not combine the two services, into one, running to an airport in the Gambia, and so save a good deal, as well as promote efficiency? Furthermore, Bathurst is also an ideal flying-boat base, and while the fashion for the moment is for land planes, fashion may yet turn back to the flying boat. I notice that the Government-owned flying boat firm of shorts is advertising the safety of flying boats, so they may well come back into their own. It is high time that the South American Corporation moved to Bathurst, amalgamated its service with the B.O.A.C., and saved the considerable deficiencies which are being involved by the duplication of services. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter and see whether he can give us some information on it.

6.15 p.m.

As regards staff in general, I deprecate any suggestion that the staffs of these various Corporations are anything but most helpful and courteous. They seem to be maintaining the highest standards and traditions of British transport services. I was particularly glad to see that the temptation to incorporate a large number of women stewardesses on various routes has so far been resisted. There is something reassuring about a male steward, particularly in a Dakota these days. There are many small points which might well be considered. For example stewards might carry change in the currency which passengers are likely to have available. That might not require greater salaries, but it would improve efficiency.

If we are to have highly paid administrative staff we must see that we get a high standard of service. For example, at Airways Terminal at Victoria—I do not know whether it is controlled by the Ministry or the Corporations—there is no, left luggage office. One may have to take one's bag there at three or four a.m. because one cannot leave luggage there the night before. To meet a point like that only requires a small amount of brains and initiative. If we are to pay these officials large salaries we expect commensurate service in return. To be unable to leave one's bag overnight at Airways Terminal at Victoria without a special "fiddle-faddle" with members of the staff is completely ridiculous. I know it is a small point but passengers—including foreign passengers—notice small points. We are entitled to tip-top service if we are paying tip-top salaries.

I would conclude by stressing the importance of developing Bathurst as an airport. Meteorological services are already there; there would be no need further to increase the deficiency grant under Subhead H, and it would be an all-British base. Otherwise, that small Colony may well become a liability to the Exchequer, whereas it would be self-supporting if my suggestion were adopted and ancillary services were provided for a large and adequate airport. The Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor at the Ministry has gone to the Colonial Office. I hope the two of them can confer on this matter, and see if they can adopt this suggestion.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

In spite of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), I know he will agree with me when I say that I hope that no attempt will be made to cut at least one part of the staff, that is, those engaged on maintenance and supervision. That would be a poor economy. As we are running these Corporations at such high expense and at a considerable loss, it would be most unwise to tamper with that side at all, except to improve it. One hears stories about delays in granting airworthiness certificates, etc., which I do not think should arise. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something about that.

I rose really to deal with a bigger issue. One cannot help feeling concern with the form in which the Supplementary Estimate is presented to the Committee. It has been said that this is the first Supplementary Estimate concerned with a purely nationalised industry to be presented to the Committee. Though, at all times, in this Debate there has been the most admirable consultation between the Chair and hon. Members, it has become apparent that there is considerable difficulty in carrying on a Debate on an Estimate of this type, in spite of the fact that we are sitting here more in the form of a hoard of directors than in our usual form. That is because we are considering a nationalised industry. I raised this issue in another field, when we were considering the Committee stage of the Money Resolution of the Agriculture Bill. I asked whether any efforts would be made to place the accounts of these nationalised concerns before us in understandable form, a form which would not make it necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to spend the greater part of a Parliamentary Day listening to a great deal of discussion between the Chair and hon. Members to discover what could be talked about.

I uphold, as do all hon. Members, the Rulings of the Chair in every respect. I hope that what I am saying now will not be taken in any sense as disrespectful to the Chair. But I submit that the discussion on this Estimate shows that the machinery of Parliament is not attuned to dealing with the accounts of nationalised industries as we know them now. I think that has been so apparent, that everybody who has been here today must have become aware of the difficulty. It may well be that that, in itself, will provide an incentive to the production of a remedy. I had wished to raise several points on this Estimate. I find I am completely debarred from doing so, though I am certain that those issues upon which I would have spoken are relevant to the Estimate. Unless I get the knowledge for which I should have asked, I shall not feel happy in giving support to this Estimate. Parliament is to be put into prolonged suspense and hon. Members will be wondering whether they are arriving at fair judgments on these matters. They cannot extract the correct information owing to the procedure—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The hon. Member is out of Order in discussing the form of the Supplementary Estimate. The form conforms with practice and usage.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

Would I be in Order in drawing attention to the fact that the form to which we are bound at present, does not enable us to extract all the information which many of us wish to extract?

The Deputy-Chairman

It would be in Order to make a remark to that effect but not to debate it. Only what is in Supplementary Estimates can be discussed.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. I do not propose to carry the point further. Our main concern is about this very large sum of money. I am concerned at the large amount which we are asked to vote to cover the very short period up to the end of March. That would appear to me to be the most serious item which we are asked to consider. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give the Committee some confidence, before we vote on this matter.

Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury)

I think the best tribute I can possibly make to the working of the various Government-owned air services is that they have recently transported me for many thousands of miles in complete safety. Having paid that tribute, I think I am entitled under this Estimate to point out one or two defects. During a trip to the Far East and back, I could not but admire the work of the pilot and the service members of the crew, but certainly at the points at which we descended, there were considerable deficiencies among the ground staff. For instance, on returning to this country after a very severe trip, we found on arrival at Poole that, for half an hour, there was no medical officer present. The aircraft was almost filled with distinguished Australians coming to this country. A search was made to find one of the two medical officers who should have been there. When I questioned them, it became obvious that they had much other work to do—this was only part of their work—and that they were really doing their best. For this rather perfunctory examination, we had to wait for nearly 40 minutes with the risk of missing the only remaining connection to London, and that was after a long and tiring trip.

I suggest that this situation calls for an overhaul of the whole system of quarantine work. No part of the other procedure at the airport, dealing with Customs and security, could begin to function until we had passed through quarantine. When I questioned the medical officer he replied, "Well, it is very stereotyped. It is true that you have been mixing with members of the B.0 A.C. staff already and it seems to be rather senseless that you should be held up." Meanwhile, we were handed what seems to be the sign manual of the B.O.A.C., a cup of tea. That is only a minor point. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will look into the whole question of quarantine work, which in many cases has become quite farcical.

What is infinitely more important is the question of the future working of civil aviation in Singapore. That will become for aviation, as it always was for shipping, one of the most important points of the British Empire, a point where competition from overseas is likely to be met. If, as I believe to be the case, there is no adequate machinery inside the Colonial Office itself, so that work can be carried out between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Colonial Office tending to the proper development of that port, then I think it is time that such machinery should be furnished. I went into this matter thoroughly. I believe that the reason no decisions are being taken at present, and no real progress is being developed in that highly important airport, arises from the defective machinery inside the Colonial Office.

In Hong Kong, which has, probably, the most difficult of all airports on which to land or take off, again there seems to be difficulty in arriving at important decisions for development. I believe that radar was installed there only recently, and it is by no means complete, in a place which is particularly subject to fog and the sudden descent of cloud. I ask the Minister to go most carefully into the technical difficulties which are known to his advisers, and see whether a change of administrative machinery is not required. There is no doubt that some of these overseas airports are far away and, therefore, out of mind. Where we are looking to meet major competition from other forms of transport which are not nationalised and just possibly therefore—I will not put it any higher—equally efficient, it might be well to replace complacency with a deep study of whether we are moving quickly enough in the right direction and, above all, whether we are attracting sufficient of the right type of staff.

I look with some suspicion on these accounts, which I have been through only very cursorily. When one realises the enormous amount of assistance furnished by the R.A.F. to civil aviation all over the world, one is slightly in doubt about how that is being charged and whether civil aviation is not receiving a vast amount of service for which no direct payment is made. There is no doubt that in many parts of the world if there were no R.A.F. stations around—and Singapore is undoubtedly one of them—civil aviation would be at a complete standstill. That does not come out very clearly in these accounts, but it is a matter which, in a few years' time, when there has been a better chance of development, might well be more obvious.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

I should like to support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) about the provision of an air service to the city of Londonderry. My hon. Friend said he had frequently discussed this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary and had received assurances from him, and he now asks the hon. Gentleman if, in his reply, he will say why, up to the present, this air service has not been provided. It always gives me pleasure to support anything relating to the problems of Ulster, and, on this occasion I fully realise that, if the Parliamentary Secretary is able to say something encouraging about the provision of this air service, it may well be, in years to come, of material benefit to the South-West of Scotland as well. I also support what my hon. Friend said about the provision of air mail services to Ulster. I understand that this matter has been previously discussed between my hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, but, just as was the case with the air service to Londonderry, up to now no provision has been forthcoming as a result.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have something to say about Subhead H, which provides for the Supplementary Estimate for providing grants towards meteorological services for Empire and other routes. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) had something to say about that, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, since we are now being asked for more than treble the sum originally asked for, will take his words to heart. This is a matter which does not only concern people who travel by air or people who travel by other means. It concerns the public generally, whether they travel or not, I do not wish unduly to criticise those who make weather forecasts for not giving us very accurate in- formation as to what is likely to happen, but I would say that, if we are to provide this very largely increased sum of money, I hope we shall have a better return in the future, in this direction, than we have had in the past.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will go into the many points made and answer the questions addressed to him. When opening the Debate he did not give us the full information which most of us hoped he would be in a position to give. If he had done so, no doubt, the Debate would have taken, so far as the Rules of Order permit, a much wider scope than has been the case. The hon. Gentleman might have given us more meat for discussion. Perhaps, that was intentional on his part. I always support a Ministerial statement which is brief, but, on this occasion, when we are asked to provide large sums of money, in addition to the sums already asked for by the Ministry, I think we have a right to a very full explanation of the reason why these large additional sums are necessary.

Sir Ralph Glyn (Abingdon)

I do not wish to detain the Committee, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy, in giving way to me, but there is one matter which is very important in connection with these Estimates. As has been stated already, the business of civil aviation impinges on the Estimates of other Departments, and, while the form of the accounts is the ordinary form, the details are necessarily scanty and it is out of Order to discuss the form of the accounts itself. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what steps it is proposed to take to implement the promise given while the Civil Aviation Bill was passing through the House, that occasion would be taken to give the House full information about the development of civil aviation and how far co-operation was being obtained from such other Departments as the Ministry of Supply, the Colonial Office and so on.

We all know that the R.A.F. Transport Command has been a sort of wet nurse to civil aviation. We know how successfully it has done its work, with ever-diminishing material, and how it has helped at many times and places. I think that all the information which one receives from places like Hong Kong and Singapore shows that it is very important that this Committee should realise the necessity for close association between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and other Departments. I hope that, when accommodation is put up in the Sudan, steps will be taken not to repeat the mistake that we made in West Africa, where the accommodation provided for our airmen was much inferior to that provided by the United States for their own people. For instance, none of our men had water-borne sewage or anti-mosquito netting, while the American type of hut was absolutely first-class. I believe that, if we are to establish a successful service, one of the most urgent things is to see that the accommodation for the ground staff is first-class, from the medical point of view.

Mr. Lindgren

May I explain that it was with no intention whatever of discourtesy that I was brief in my opening statement? In fact, I had been informed that it would be discourteous to the Committee if I talked too long, and it did seem to me that I would get it one way or the other; that if I was brief, I would be wrong, and if I talked too long, I would also be wrong. Equally, in dealing with the points raised in the Debate, I hope the Committee will forgive me, since it is difficult to put all these points chronologically in the form of a speech, if I deal with them in the order in which they were raised by hon. Members.

At the outset, I am afraid that I, like ether hon. Members, may get into difficulties as to what is in Order and what is not, but the first point, I think, is that of the relationship of the Ministry of Civil Aviation with the three Corporations whose deficiency grants are included in these Estimates. Many of the points raised by hon. Members opposite have been points of administration within these Corporations I think that, sometime or other, this Committee will have to make up its mind exactly what it does require of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the agreement of the noble Lord. Having just come in—

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

The hon. Gentleman has done me an injustice. I am sorry to say that I was not taking the slightest interest in what he was saying as I was reading the Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Gentleman has mistaken me for someone else.

Mr. Beeehman

I have also been done an injustice. It was I who made the remark.

Mr. Lindgren

The point was the relationship between the Ministry and the Corporations, which are socialised undertakings. During the Debate on the Civil Aviation Bill, and in other Debates, there has been an emphasis on the fact that these are business undertakings, and that the Minister should not interfere with the day-to-day management of those undertakings. Assurances were secured during the Debate that such interferences would not take place. The cost per passenger mile of aircraft is entirely a matter of administration, as is also the staffing of the Corporations. They are business details of management within the Corporations, and, therefore, do not form the subject of discussion in this Committee or on these Estimates.

Mr. Max Aitken

Surely, the Minister concerned should know the cost per passenger mile, and, surely, the Corporations must report this most important point to the Minister, or does he just let it go by the board?

Mr. Lindgren

I am obliged to the hon. Member for making that interjection because, although we have to get it quite clear at what times these matters are appropriate for discussion, one would agree that they are subjects which ought, at some time or other, to be discussed in this House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I think I would be in Order in reminding the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, provides: Each of the three corporations shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation thereto and shall prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts in such form as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct.… If the Minister directed, as he should, that the Corporations should show the cost per mile of the various heads of aircraft, then the Corporations would advise him to that effect.

Mr. Lindgren

That was the next point I was going to make. The accounts of the Corporations are to be made in the form required by the Minister, and I can assure the Committee that detailed consideration has already been given by my noble Friend as to that form. Having seen the accounts of commercial undertakings, prior to my entry into this House, I can say that the form of these accounts will be very informative indeed compared with the statement of accounts of normal business undertakings. Secondly, those accounts are required to be audited by public auditors. Thirdly, they are required to be presented to this House. I suggest that the proper time for discussion of the administration of these Corporations would be when the accounts were before the House, and when hon. Members knew to what the items refer.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, as we are being asked to find additional money, it would have been a good thing if some form of interim account had been before the House, at some stage, so that we might know where we are?

Major Bruce

Will my hon. Friend think twice before making publicly available information which is not normally made available by public corporations? Will he bear that consideration in mind before he publishes too much information?

Air-Commodore Harvey

Will the hon. Member also bear in mind that the Civil Aeronautical Board in America publishes a monthly statement giving costs, mileage, and so on?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren

In so far as the Corporations are concerned, their accounts are made up to 31st March in each year. So far as B.O.A.C. are concerned, their first commercial year has just been concluded. It is true that, since 1940, when the Corporation was established and since accounts have been forthcoming, the lag period between the close of the financial year and the presentation of those accounts has sometimes been as long as 15 or 16 months. We hope that that period will be cut down to something under 11 months. When those accounts come before the House the matter will then, I think, be due for discussion. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) asked, and as I have already indicated, under the Act, those accounts are required to be up to the best commercial standards.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Does what the hon. Gentleman has said mean that there will be a period of 11 months after the conclusion of the financial year before any Estimate is submitted to Parliament, and does that really conform to the best commercial standards?

Mr. Lindgren

Not before it comes before the House, but before the actual accounts are concluded; there will be a lapse of 11 months before they are available to the House. I am certain that hon. Members opposite will agree that, for large undertakings with international commitments, that is not a long period to wait for the accounts to be made available. So far as B.O.A.C. are concerned, there have to be internal audits and audits in foreign countries. Its ramifications are worldwide. The collating and auditing of those accounts are long processes and, in previous years, and under other administrations, when the accounts were in smaller form than they are at present, it took 16 months before they were available. This time, it will be 11 months, and I can assure the Committee that everything that is humanly possible will be done to reduce that period of time. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford raised a further point about the production of aircraft. He based his criticism of the accounts on the fact that deficiencies were required. He said that, had better types of aircraft been used, the deficiency grants required by the three Corporations would not have been required.

Air-Commodore Harvey

And more aircraft.

Mr. Lindgren

Yes, and more aircraft. One must admit that the question of aircraft is one for the Ministry of Supply, and, if I am in Order, I think it would be a fair question to ask the Ministry of Supply what they are doing to see that the requirements of civil aviation are met. There is a coordinating committee, known as the Self Committee, which takes its name from its chairman, Sir Henry Self. It consults the Ministry of Supply, the Treasury and the Corporations in getting out the detailed requirements, and also consults manufacturers and others as to the progress of aircraft production. The question of the production of the types of aircraft for civil aviation is receiving very urgent consideration and assistance from all the Ministries concerned.

I will now deal with the points raised in regard to Subhead A of the Civil Estimate and its reference to staff. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) suggested that the Ministry was growing out of all proportion to the real requirements of civil aviation. May I assure the hon. Member and the Committee that that is far from the case? So far as the Supplementary Vote is concerned, I tried to make the point, in presenting the Estimate, that it is not concerned with normal Civil Service administration; it is concerned with the very large business of running the aerodromes, the provision of radio aids, navigational aids, and the safety devices which are urgent in relation to the development of civil aviation. As to the deficiency grant for the British Overseas Corporation, this, as I tried to indicate in opening the Debate, is the first normal accounting year of that Corporation.

In my opening statement I admitted that many of the costs which are now correctly borne on a commercial basis by B.O.A.C. and the other Corporations, were borne by the Air Ministry, for which no contra-charge was previously made to those Corporations. Since the passage of the Civil Aviation Act it has been a requirement—and I think the Committee will agree it is a correct requirement—that there should be no hidden charges so far as the Corporations are concerned, that they should, in fact, be operating an normal business lines, that their costs of operation should all be shown and that if a service is rendered by a Government Department in one form or another the cost ought to be paid for. I would like to dispel the idea which seems to have grown up, that because a person has a priority passage, or travels as a "V.I.P.," his passage is not paid. The passage of every passenger carried by an aircraft of the corporations is paid for by the appropriate Department authorising the journey. If the Colonial Office require a Member of Parliament to undertake a journey, the cost of that journey is paid for by the Department concerned.

Earl Winterton

Will the hon. Gentleman pardon me, because this is a point of some constitutional importance? Do I understand that the expenses of Members are shown in detail on the Estimate? How, for example, can we ascertain how many journeys the hon. Member for "Blank" has had at the taxpayers' expense? Is there any means of ascertaining it?

Mr. Lindgren

That is a question which, I am afraid, I am unable to answer. All I can say is that if Mr. "A" is required by the Colonial Office to travel from London to Paris, he is issued with a ticket by the Corporation.

Earl Winterton

I am not criticising; I want to know where this information is available. Speaking as a Member of the Select Committee on Members' salaries, I can say that there was no evidence before that Committee that hon. Members were in the habit of having these free passages.

Mr. Lindgren

Perhaps my choice of a Member of Parliament was a wrong illustration. Let me put it this way. Hon. and gallant Members have, in fact, travelled on delegations at the requirement of someone—

Mr. Butcher

Surely, no Government Department can "require" Members to go. All they can do is to invite Members to go.

Mr. Lindgren

If, through inexperience, I have used an expression which is not in accordance with the general customs of the House of Commons, I most humbly apologise, but I think hon. Members know exactly what I meant to convey. Let me put it quite plainly. There is no free passage for anyone, in any circumstances, on any aircraft under the control of the Corporations. The Department authorising the journey to be undertaken meets the cost of that journey, and the cost appears under the appropriate Departmental Vote.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if many of that type of passenger are carried and there is a profit, it is only a paper profit and not hard currency?

Mr. Lindgren

Surely, it is not a paper profit. It is a journey which is required to be undertaken, whether it is on the "Queen Mary" or by aircraft on the Atlantic route If the journey has to be undertaken, the cost of the provision of that service has to be met from somewhere.

Earl Winterton

Could I ask this question? This is a point of some constitu tional importance. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not criticising him. He knows quite well that a Minister's salary and expenses are shown. I am entitled to ask this question, and whether hon. Members agree or do not agree does not interest me. I am speaking as a Member of Parliament. I want to know where it is possible to ascertain the journeys made by Members who are not Members of the Government, which have been undertaken at the public expense.

Mr. Lindgren

I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord that information. With his experience, I thought it might have been available to him. Certainly I am unable to give the information for which he asks. All I was asked—and this is a point which was made by several hon. Members—was whether the cost of the journeys undertaken by V.I.P.s was paid for by any Government Department, or whether this deficiency arose because we were carrying people and not charging fares. I assure the Committee that is not so.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox (Henley)

rose —

Mr. Lindgren

I am always willing to give way to an hon. Member who has done me the courtesy of sitting through a Debate, but I think it is a little hard to expect me to give way to a Member who has only just come into the Chamber. If I might develop the point further, the deficiency in respect of B.O.A.C. arises because of the lack of a real financial basis on which we had to make the original Estimate. There has been criticism by a number of hon. Members of the fact that Items.J.2 and J.3 were not seen earlier and that they ought to have been included in the original Estimate. That was impossible, and I thought I had made it clear in the opening statement. B.E.A.C. and British South American Airways were not constituted until 1st August. They were not authorised until the passage of the Civil Aviation Act, and they did not receive the Royal Assent until 1st August. It was, therefore, impossible to include in the Estimates for 1946–47, when they were presented to the House, provision for something for which there was not authority to set up. Therefore, the criticism with regard to the non-inclusion of those items in the full Estimates is, I think, invalid.

With regard to the criticism concerning the meteorological services, for which there is an extra charge of £45,000, that is not a gross underestimate of requirements, as has been suggested. I did say in the course of my opening statement that there were charges in the Sudan for the years 1944 and 1945, which were not submitted during those years by the Sudan Government to this Government. It is equally true that there were charges undertaken for services provided by the New Zealand Government in the Southern Pacific during those years, and they have rendered their accounts late. Those accounts having been rendered late, they are paid when they are rendered. They were included in the Estimates for 1944–45. There was a saving in those years, and this item is to meet a cost which has arisen over and above that which was anticipated when the Estimates were prepared, and not for the services provided during the present year. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), to some of whose remarks I have referred, also made a point with regard to the Estimates being so very far out in regard to those services.

7.0 p.m.

I think I have dealt with all the points he raised, because the Estimates were not out. There has been a greater development of meteorological services, which is required by everybody.

It was said that the Corporations were entering the field of charter work. An hon. Member read a statement made in the Committee by my predecessor in office, that in fact the Corporations would not enter into the charter business but would be available for charter business if they were specifically required to undertake it by any particular person. That is still the policy of the Ministry The primary function of the three corporations is to provide and maintain scheduled services. Charter work is outside the general field of their operations, except so far as they are directly asked to undertake that charter work. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) asked about the lack of development at Heathrow. He asked why it was that ground control approach apparatus which was available at Prestwick during the war years was not also available to the Ministry of Civil Aviation at Heathrow, because of the development of Heathrow during that period. The simple answer to that is, during the war years the provision of all that equipment and its utilisation was for war services and not for civil aviation services, and so soon as it became possible those services were provided at Heathrow, and we now require to establish crews to deal with them.

The hon. Member for Holland with Boston suggested that the staffs which are required under the increase proposals were excessive. The technical staff for the development of radio and radar is a very large staff, but to suggest, as I understood him to suggest, that it was a nonproductive staff was a little unfair. The staff in the control tower, and the radio operators helping and assisting aircraft to arrive at given points are, in fact, very materially on productive work. The hon. Member asked what was the method of recruitment. The method of recruitment varies in regard to the class of person recruited. On the administration side, in all cases there is the assistance of the Ministry of Labour Appointments Board, but the method of selection is either by way of the Civil Service Commission or, in the case of industrial staff and general appointments on the ground, by an appropriate official, taking account of the technical skill of the person to be appointed. Obviously, if a person is required for a highly skilled operation a different method of recruitment and selection is adopted than for, say, a general ground labourer on the aerodrome. But so far as possible the Ministry of Labour recruitments appointment branch is used. As I interjected during the Debate, 95 per cent, of the staff recruited for this work has, in fact, come from the Services, and particularly the R.A.F.

With the exception of the question of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward), as to what were the numbers of aircraft operating, I think I have answered most of the questions which have been raised during the Debate. So far as the aircraft which are operating are concerned, British Overseas Airways Corporation—and I think we ought to take pride in this—is the largest airline in the world operating a fleet of 200 aircraft; British European Airways Corporation operates a fleet of 119 aircraft, and British South American Airways 27 aircraft. If my arithmetic is correct, that makes a total of 346 aircraft.

Mr. Ward

Do those figures include training aircraft and aircraft being tested? I was concerned only with passenger carrying aircraft.

Mr. Lindgren

They are, in fact, all passenger carrying aircraft. Of course, at times they are used on training and development flights. They are aircraft to meet scheduled services, and are used in varying ways—sometimes even in testing the correctness of ground aids and navigational aids. They are aircraft of the fleet, used at varying times in the scheduled services; they are passenger carrying craft.

I turn to the services to Northern Ireland. The services number, I think, 36 per week, and are provided from London to Manchester, Liverpool and Belfast. I was asked in particular when they will be provided to Londonderry. That depends very largely upon the availability of the aircraft. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, much depends upon the availability of the aircraft—perhaps even the full effectiveness of the Corporations in the service that the aircraft render.

Sir R. Ross

The hon. Gentleman said the aircraft were not available. They are available apparently to carry tourists in large numbers to Switzerland. I suggest that carrying people about the United Kingdom is much more important than carrying tourists to Switzerland to spend currency.

Mr. Lindgren

We can understand the local patriotism of the hon. Member. In fact, there is a difference of opinion between the various parts of the country as to which is the greatest urgency for service. Very considerable pressure has been brought upon the Ministry for the provision of continental services. There must be a balance between the provision of internal and continental services, and it is in that struggle that, up till the moment, whilst Northern Ireland had secured the service to Belfast, because of the difficulties in regard to the sea passage so far as Londonderry is concerned, it has not secured the extension of that service. I regret that at the present moment I am unable to answer the question in regard to the carriage of airmail. I did see a memorandum coming through the Department, and from that memorandum I thought airmail was being carried to Northern Ireland by the B.E.A. planes, particularly on the Croydon service. However, I will make certain about that and write to the hon. Member. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) criticised the form of these accounts. That is not, I think, a question for me to answer in this Debate. This is a form of accounts which, I understand, has been time-honoured in this Committee.

Mr. Marlowe

I am sure the hon. Gentleman must have misheard what I said. I said I could not criticise the form of the accounts because they were in the time-honoured form. I asked him the question why he spent £2 million less on aircraft but more on salaries.

Mr. Lindgren

I accept that correction, and am glad to have had it. So far as the lack of aircraft is concerned, it does not mean that less is spent on the ground. A very valid point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was that, if there are more aircraft flying, it does not necessarily mean greater ground costs, because whether two aeroplanes or 200 aeroplanes are run, there still have to be control officers, radar, and all the rest. Given effective use of manpower, increased aircraft do not mean increased costs on the ground, and the point of this Estimate is, that under Subhead A we have been provided in this country with a system of aerodromes and navigational aids at the moment, so that when the aircraft are available there will not necessarily be a greater requirement so far as ground staff are concerned.

The only other point I need meet is that in regard to the overseas services provided by the various Corporations Here one may, perhaps, if it is in Order, acknowledge, as, I believe, hon. Members did towards the close of the discussion, the very great assistance which is rendered to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in the provision of existing services by the Air Ministry. When that dwindles, as it is obviously bound to do, then there will be found further increases in the cost of provision for civil aviation. There is very close liaison between the two Departments with regard to the services which are provided, and that liaison will continue, so far as humanly possible. With the diminishing of Transport Command, everything possible will be done for the development of civil aviation, to take the place of the services which are provided at present.

Sir P. Macdonald

May I ask about the very important question I put about the British West Indian Airways? If the hon. Gentleman cannot give an answer now, perhaps he will let me have the information at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Lindgren

I deliberately missed it, and was going to write to the hon. Gentleman, and for this reason—the first part of his speech was devoted to criticising the Ministry for having a deficiency grant so far as B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C. are concerned. In the next breath, he asked us to take over an undertaking which was losing money, and which would require a further deficiency grant in order to maintain it. Frankly, I am not at the moment quite up to date with regard to the present negotiations and I would only say that there are negotiations with the Ministry involved as to the absorption of that company. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir P. Macdonald

What I want to know is the decision. The chairman of the company, in a statement in "The Times" recently, said that they were waiting for a decision. One way or another, I think we ought to have the decision.

Mr. Lindgren

I am sure that this Committee, which is discussing the matter today, will agree that the Ministry is correct in not paying more than the concern is worth when it is purchasing it. Some people, when they have something to sell, think that, though it is not making money, it is worth more than it is really worth.

Mr. Beechman

I would, very briefly, put to the Minister a point which has been ruled to be in Order and which is of general interest. These Estimates cover work in the Department and salaries of aerodrome staffs. I wish to be assured, before we part with these Estimates, that State control of civil aviation does not involve a stereotyped regime and a rigid system.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren

The point was whether or not State ownership of aerodromes would, in fact, mean delay of aircraft. At the moment, at least, the captain of an aircraft is the pilot of the aircraft. He decides whether he will take off or whether he will not; and whether the aero- drome is Stale owned or privately owned, the person who decides to fly or to stay on the ground, is the captain of the aircraft, the pilot.

Mr. Gandar Dower

The Parliamentary Secretary will, perhaps, forgive me if I mention that he has not replied to three specific points I raised. One was about reliability. I asked him to give figures for reliability on the London to Aberdeen service. The second was the question of duplication of traffic staff at Aberdeen. I shall be quite happy if he chooses to deal with both points by correspondence. The third point I wanted to put was, whether it is possible for the Government to announce their reliability figures on routes, so that we can judge whether they are putting up a good show.

Mr. Lindgren

This is, in fact, a matter of normal day-to-day administration by the Corporations outside the scope of inquiry and interference by my noble Friend. So far as the present policy adopted by my noble Friend is concerned —and it is according to what he understands to be the instructions and specific requests of the House—it is that that such

matters of administration as the frequency of service—the question of numbers of staffs at particular points, are entirely matters of day to day management, and outside the scope of his interference.

Mr. Keeling

Would the Minister say what the Government's intentions are regarding Bathurst in West Africa? When I asked a question about it, I was ruled out of Order by the Chairman, but the question was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), and found to be in Order.

Mr. Lindgren

The matter is at the moment under very serious consideration, as to which aerodromes shall be used. There is expenditure on one of these aerodromes of well over£1,000,000. If the report is adopted, and by correspondence, I shall be only too pleased to inform the hon. Member of what the latest developments are. A survey has been made, and arising from the report, various aerodromes will be considered.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £5 be granted to the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 289.

Division No. 72.]	AYES.	7.19 p.m
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Harvey. Air-Comdre. A. V.	Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Aitken, Hon. Max	Haughton, S G.	Nicholson, G.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Baldwin, A. E.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Osborne, C.
Barlow, Sir J.	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Beechman, N. A.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Hurd, A.	Pickthorn, K
Boothby, R.	Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Bossom, A. C.	Jarvis, Sir J.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Bower, N.	Jeffreys, General Sir G	Raikes, H. V.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Jennings, R.	Ramsay, Maj. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W	Rayner, Brig. R.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Keeling, E. H.	Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Butcher, H. W.	Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H	Renton, D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)	Lambert, Hon. G.	Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Carson, E.	Langford-Holt, J	Ropner, Col. L.
Challen, C.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E, A. H	Scott, Lord W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Shephard, S. (Newark)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lindsay, M. (Solihull)	Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.	Low, Brig. A. R. W.	Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Digby, S. W.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.	Stanley, Rt Hon. O.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)	MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Drayson, G B.	Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Drewe, C.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Sutcliffe, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Erroll, F. J	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Fox, Sir G.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Vane, W. M. F.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.	Marples, A. E	Ward, Hon. G R.
Gage, C.	Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)	Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Gammans, L. D.	Maude, J. C.	White, J. B (Canterbury)
Glossop, C. W. H.	Medlicott, F.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Glyn, Sir R.	Mellor, Sir J.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.	Molson, A. H. E.	York, C
Grant, Lady	Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Grimston, R. V.	Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Hare, Hen. J. H. (Woodbridge)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)	Major Conant and
		Mr. Studholme.
NOES
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Forman, J. C.	Mellish, R. J.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)	Foster, W. (Wigan)	Messer, F.
Allighan, Garry	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Middleton, Mrs. L
Alpass, J. H.	Gaitskell, H. T. N.	Mikardo, Ian
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)	Gallacher, W.	Mitchison, Maj. G. R
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Montague, F.
Attewell, H. C.	George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)	Moody, A S.
Austin, H. Lewis	Gibson, C. W	Morgan, Dr H. B
Awbery, S. S.	Gilzean, A.	Morley, R.
Ayles, W. H.	Glanville, J. E. (Consett)	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Gooch, E. G.	Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Bacon, Miss A.	Goodrich, H. E.	Mort, D. L.
Balfour, A.	Granville, E. (Eye)	Moyle, A.
Barstow, P. G	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A, (Wakefield)	Murray, J. D
Battley, J. R.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Nally, W.
Bechervaise, A E	Grenfell, D. R	Naylor, T. E.
Benson, G	Grey, C. F.	Neal, H. (Claycross)
Berry, H.	Grierson, E.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Binns, J.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Blenkinsop, A	Griffiths, Rt, Hon. J. (Llanelly)	Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)
Blyten, W. R.	Gruffyd, Prof. W. J	Noel-Buxton, Lady
Boardman, H.	Gunter, R. J.	O'Brien, T.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.	Guy, W. H.	Oliver, G. H
Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Orbach, M
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Hale, Leslie	Paget, R. T.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Hall, W. G.	Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentwortn)
Bramall, Major E. A.	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R	Paling Will T. (Dewsbury)
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Palmer, A. M. F.
Brown, George (Belper)	Hastings, Dr Somerville	Pargiter, G. A
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Bruce, Maj D. W. T.	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Paton, J. (Norwich)
Buchanan, G.	Hicks, G.	Pearson, A.
Burke, W. A.	Holman, P.	Peart, Capt. T. F.
Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)	Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)	Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Byers, Frank	House, G.	Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfleld)
Callaghan, James	Hoy, J.	Porter, E. (Warrington)
Carmichael, James	Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)	Porter, G. (Leeds)
Castle, Mrs. B. A	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Proctor, W. T
Chamberlain, R. A.	Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Pryde, D. J.
Champion, A. J.	Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)	Pursey, Cmdr. H
Chater, D.	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Randall, H. E
Chetwynd, G. R	Irving, W. J.	Ranger, J
Clitherow, Dr. R	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A	Rees-Williams, D. R
Cobb, F A	Janner, B.	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Cocks, F. S	Jay, D. P. T.	Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Collick, P.	Jeger, G (Winchester)	Robens, A
Collindridge, F.	Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S [...])	Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Collins, V J.	Jones, D T (Hartlepools)	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Colman, Miss G. M.	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Comyns, Dr. L.	Keenan, W.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Cook, T. F.	Kendall, W. D	Royle, C.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G	Key, C. W.	Sargood, R.
Corlett, Dr J.	King, E. M	Scott-Elliot, W
Crawley, A.	Kinley, J.	Segal, Dr. S.
Crossman, R H. S	Lang, G	Shackleton, Wing.-Cdr E. A. A
Daggar, G	Lee, F. (Hulme)	Sharp, Granville
Daines, P.	Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)	Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)	Lewis, T (Southampton)	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Lindgren, G. S.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lipson, D L,	Silverman, S. S (Nelson)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M	Simmons, C. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Logan, D. G.	Skeffington-Lodge. T C
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Longden, F.	Skinnard, F. W.
Deer, G.	Lyne, A. W.	Smith, C. (Colchester)
Delargy, Captain H. J	McAllister, G.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Diamond, J.	McEntee V. La T	Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Dobbie, W.	McGhee, H. G	Snow, Capt. J. W
Donovan, T.	McGovern, J.	Sorensen, R. W
Driberg, T. E. N.	Mack, J. D.	Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Dumpleton, C. W	McKay, J. (Wallsend)	Sparks, J. A.
Durbin, E. F. M.	Mackay, R. W G. (Hull, N.W.)	Stamford, W
Ede, Rt Hon J. C.	McKinlay, A. S.	Steele, T.
Edelman, M.	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Stephen, C.
Edwards, A (Middlesbrough, E.)	McLeavy, F.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Macpherson, T. (Romford)	Stokes, R R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Mallalieu, J. P. W	Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)	Mann, Mrs J.	Stross, Dr. B
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)	Stubbs, A. E.
Ewart, R.	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Swingler, S.
Fletcher, E G M. (Islington, E.)	Marshall, F. (Brightside)	Symonds, A. L.
Follick, M.	Mathers, G	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Foot, M. M	Medland, H. M.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)	Walkden, E.	Williamson, T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)	Walker, G. H.	Willis, E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)	Warbey, W. N.	Wilson, J. H.
Thurtle, E.	Watkins, T. E.	Wise, Major F. J.
Tiffany, S.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)	Woodburn, A.
Titterington, M. F.	Wells, W. T (Walsall)	Woods, G. S.
Tolley, L.	West, D. G.	Yates, V. F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.	Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Turner-Samuels, M.	Wilkes, L.	Zilliacus, K.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.	Wilkins, W A.
Usborne, Henry	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Vernon, Maj. W. F.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)	Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Viant, S. P.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)	Mr. Popplewell.
Wadsworth, G	Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.