PATRICK AVIATION COMPANY (Hansard, 9 December 1949)

§ Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me at this stage, and I should like to apologise to you and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the fact that I was not here earlier. I did not believe that this subject for the Adjournment Debate would be reached today.
I shall be as short as possible in putting my case. I believe it will have your sympathy, Mr. Speaker, because it relates to a matter I raised a fortnight ago, namely the fate of 14 ex-Service men in my constituency. I will not say again what I said on 25th November, which the Parliamentary Secretary will have read in HANSARD. I only wish to make one correction. It appears that I suggested that 2323 this company, the Patrick Aviation Company, had a 99.5 per cent. accident record. While of course I do not wish for one moment to reflect on HANSARD—which, if I may say so, is excellent in its reporting—I think I actually said "accuracy record." What I meant was that this company has been 99.5 per cent. accurate in its timings between Elmdon Airport and Jersey.
I think the Minister will be quite ready to admit that this company, which is a very small company employing only 14 ex-Service men on a scheduled service, has been absolutely first-class; and I think he will agree with me that it has operated the service very efficiently. Perhaps I should just say that what I am pleading for is the right of this company to carry on a scheduled service between Elmdon Airport and Jersey during next summer, because if they are not allowed to carry on that service next summer they have now got to dismiss the 14 ex-Service men.
The Parliamentary Secretary has, on behalf of his noble Friend, written me a letter. I will not read the whole of it, but he has, in effect, declined the suggestion I made. Last time I merely suggested that the Minister should agree to this service continuing during the summer. Since then I have met the board of the company, who have been willing to make what I should regard as a most reasonable proposal. British European Airways desire to take over this scheduled service for next summer, and, as I understand it, they propose to run this scheduled service with Dakotas. Now, I am not an expert on this matter, but Dakotas seat 24 people, and the Rapides which the company are now using seat six people. This company, having put up a very large sum of money, at lot of which they are bound to lose anyway, are willing, in order to safeguard these ex-Service men to say "All right, let B.E.A. take over this service with Dakotas and we will underwrite the service with Rapides."
That is to say, if on any particular day there are only four or five passengers, so that obviously it is not worth while for B.E.A. to run a Dakota, because it will be run at a loss, the company will underwrite it by running one Rapide. On that basis they will safeguard the employment of these ex-Service men. I 2324 must say that I consider that to be an exceedingly generous compromise on their behalf which they have offered to the Minister. This is what the Minister replied: I have considered in conjunction with B.E.A. whether it is possible to adopt the suggestion of Patrick Aviation Ltd. that they should offer a Rapide instead of the B.E.A. Dakota service on days when loads offering are insufficient to justify a Dakota service. I am satisfied that this proposal is quite impracticable from the Corporation's standpoint and would involve them in an additional expense for which there would be no commensurate revenue returns. I cannot understand the reason for that. If B.E.A. are going to run a Dakota service, it must repay them to have that service underwritten by Rapides on days when it does not pay them to operate Dakotas. I am asking the Minister to be good enough to deal with that point.
My main point is a different one entirely. It is a point which affects my constituents, and which, I think, affects the issue of the moral standard of life which we have in this country. My hon. Friend's noble Friend is known as a Christian Socialist. I cannot reconcile either with Christianity or with Socialism 14 ex-Service men being put in the situation in which these men may be put next week. While the Ministry could perfectly well agree, I am quite sure at no cost to themselves, to this service being run, the Ministry are adamant, and say, "These men must be dismissed."
I would appeal to my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter and to realise that there are greater things in the world than bureaucratic rule of thumb. I appeal to him to realise that we must look after the under-dog. That, after all, is the main purpose for which we as Socialists came into this House. These 14 ex-Service men are the under-dogs. They fought for this country. I gave the details on the last occasion. Two were Coastal Command pilots, one a long range bomber pilot—and these are men about whom, in my submission, my hon. Friend ought to be very careful indeed in safeguarding their employment. I ask him to say, at any rate, that he will see that these ex-Service men in my constituency are given posts in British European Airways when those posts can be provided. I also ask him to reconsider this matter.
My hon. Friend has been very fair in this matter and has in fact stated that 2325 the only suggestion he can offer is that Patrick Aviation, Limited, might consider whether there are any other routes in which B.E.A. are not interested as a basis of application. I discussed that with the Board this morning. The position is this: I do not see how they can be fairly expected, even if the Ministry were willing to allow them to do so, to take over another line. To take over another line would involve them in a great deal of expense, and they may have exactly the same fate in respect of that line.

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

§ Mr. Blackburn
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend agrees. While I entirely agree that from the beginning this company knew that it was operating this scheduled service under sufferance, I would ask him to consult his noble Friend again and see if something cannot be done in order to give them a chance.
I am by no means satisfied that absolute monopolies of any kind, whether monopolies as a result of State enterprise, or monopolies under private enterprise, are the most efficient way to run an industry. After all, we are dealing here with a matter of fundamental importance. I cannot believe it is in the interests of this country that there should be a complete monopoly of civil aviation. I do not think I am conflicting here with the policy of the Labour Party. The Labour Party has said that while the Government must take over the scheduled services, private enterprise can continue to operate the charter services. Unless one or two minor scheduled air-lines are to be operated in conjunction with the charter services, it will never pay a company to run a charter service.
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that our object in the Labour Party is not to try to circumscribe the natural genius and inventive talent of our people in one gigantic monopoly. Our purpose is to enable the individual talents of our people to grow and fructify. If I were pleading that the great firms of Austins and Cadburys in my constituency should not be taken over, I should be in a position of much greater embarrassment.

§ Mr. Lindgren
My hon. Friend says that he would be in a position of greater embarrassment. So, he is embarrassed in this case?

§ Mr. Blackburn
I am certainly embarrassed, the reason being that I voted for nationalisation and I accept the principles laid down. I still say, however, that we have to discriminate to enable the inventive genius of our people to fructify. I do not believe in taking over small enterprises of this kind, especially when they are run for the benefit of ex-Service men. I am not raising this matter in any spirit of carping criticism of the Government which I support, but in a desire to show that Socialism is compatible with individualism; that it is possible for us to achieve a planned economy which abolishes mass unemployment and creates social security, while at the same time safeguarding the individual factor upon which the greatness of our country depends.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren)
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is an enthusiastic Member of the House, and he uses every opportunity, as a good Member of Parliament should, to protect the interests of his constituents. He has done it in this case by correspondence, interviews with officials and the Minister, and now by raising the matter in the House itself. I think he has rather overstated his case in the speech he has just made. What are the facts? The facts are that we have the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, and under that Act the operation of scheduled services is confined to the State Corporations. It is true that because of lack of facilities British European Airways were unable to run all the scheduled services they would have liked, and were not able to give the summer services, particularly to seaside resorts, which the public interest demanded.
My noble Friend stated, in January, that although we have a complete monopoly of scheduled services under the Act, we shall not operate the monopoly in a dog-in-the-manger spirit. He said that as and when, or where and when there are private companies anxious to operate services where B.E.A. are not able to operate those services, then we are prepared to give an associate agreement for a limited period until the State airline takes over that scheduled service. Amongst those who applied for the opportunity to run such a service was Patrick Aviation Ltd., and 2327 they asked to run for six months during the summer from Birmingham to Jersey. Their application was granted because British European Airways were not able to operate that service.
Again, later in the year, they asked permission to run next year. They were told at that time that the service could not be given to them for next year because it was the intention of B.E.A. to run it. We went as far as this, however—we said that if, in fact, the service was required or they cared to operate the service during the winter months they could do so. Of course, I do not blame them for not doing so.

§ Mr. Blackburn
My information does not confirm what the Minister is saying. Of course, I am simply accepting the word of the Board, but I am told by the Board that they believed they would have at least a very good chance indeed of being allowed to operate the service- during the summer. Obviously it would not pay during the winter unless they could operate during the summer as well.

§ Mr. Lindgren
The first application was not for a winter service; it was simply for a summer service. When they had the summer service they applied to have it again for the following summer. They were then told that a definite reply could not be given, but they were told to apply in September this year. In September this year they were told that, in fact, they could not have the service next summer.
My first point is that this service was undertaken by this firm in the knowledge of the conditions—in the full knowledge of the fact that they would not have—

§ Mr. Blackburn
Might not have.

§ Mr. Lindgren
—that they might not have the opportunity of running at subsequent dates. Further, if the extension were given until next year the same plea could equally well be made next year if the service were then discontinued. In fact, there would be a greater plea next year, because it would be said, "We have carried on for two years and, having put all our resources into it to provide the capacity for two years, we should be allowed to carry on for three years or five years."

§ Mr. Blackburn
In the first compromise solution which was suggested to the Ministry it was made perfectly clear that they would be willing to accept the position that at the end of next summer the service would be taken over by B.E.A. The point which the Minister is making is not, therefore, a valid one.

§ Mr. Lindgren
I think it is valid because by the acceptance of an agreement for six months they expected it to be taken over by B.E.A. at the end of six months. Further, my hon. Friend has made a point about 14 employees. I agree that 14 men's employment is a vital matter, particularly to those 14 individuals, but it is equally true that B.E.A. cannot run the service without employing someone, and those persons who are B.E.A's employees in the main, of course, are drawn from the Services. Even if it were not these 14 people, or some of the 14, there is still employment of individuals so far as the operation of the service is concerned.
I must make this point—and I would not have done so but for the fact that my hon. Friend rather overstated his case in regard to the effect on ex-Service men and the duties of the country towards ex-Service men. This firm has itself not accepted all the responsibilities it ought to have accepted. As my hon. Friend said, quite rightly, he is a member of the Labour Party and the Labour movement. This firm has not observed even the Act of Parliament in regard to rates of pay and conditions of employment.

§ Mr. Blackburn
That is a new allegation.

§ Mr. Lindgren
It is not a new allegation.

§ Mr. Blackburn
I do not think that is altogether fair. I have been to some trouble over this matter. This is an entirely new allegation made against the firm. I have no desire to defend the firm, but at the same time it goes contrary to everything that I have been told, and I do not think the allegation ought to have been made without my having had notice of it.

§ Mr. Lindgren
I am sorry about that But apart from one or two of the larger charter operators, every charter operator in this country is operating below the standards of the airline corporations. This 2329 applies particularly to pilots. It was to pilots that I was referring specifically. The pilots' trade union recently took the British Air Charter Association, of which this firm is a member, to the industrial court and got an industrial court award against them because they were not paying the right rates of pay. So far as my information goes, to date they have not yet implemented that industrial court award. In fact, negotiations are going on at the moment between the pilots' trade union and the British Air Charter Association in that matter. Therefore, with regard to rates of pay and conditions of service, this firm, in common with others is not observing the right conditions.
Having said that, I openly, willingly and gratefully acknowledge the fact which was mentioned by my hon. Friend that from the point of view of the standard and efficiency of operations, this firm performed a very good service to the public of Birmingham who took advantage of it last year and who were very appreciative. I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend any hope at all that this service can be allowed to run. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government that as and when the capacity is available in the State airline then the State airline will run that service. That is particularly so, as far as some of these profitable routes are concerned. This is a profitable route on which at certain periods there is a heavy density of traffic. All transport undertakings like a large movement of people or goods from place to place, so that they know they will get a very high return on their operational costs.

§ Mr, Blackburn
I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is a most important point. Does my hon. Friend really feel that it will ever pay a private company to engage in a charter service without that charter service being supplemented in some way by a schedule service?

§ Mr. Lindgren
My hon. Friend is going into a very detailed transport problem. I would say first of all that passenger traffic of its own, except for this sort of seaside heavy density route, would never pay on its own. But it is possible on such a route as this for that service to pay on its own. As to charter operations, is really depends on the cost at which such a service can be provided to the user and how much the user is prepared to pay for speed. Therefore, I would not like to be drawn into that sideline.
2330 My hon. Friend suggested—and we are always open to suggestion—that it is recognised that this is particularly a summer service, that it caters for holiday traffic in particular, and that holiday traffic tends at least to confine itself to weekends, although we hope to be able to encourage it to spread. Therefore, there might be a possibility of mid-week traffic which would not justify large aircraft. My hon. Friend has, no doubt, seen the slogan of B.E.A.C, that "B.E.A.C. takes you there and brings you back." The operation from Birmingham to Jersey is one thing, but it is also important to consider the operation from Jersey to Birmingham. If it was possible that there would be only four passengers on an outgoing aircraft on a Wednesday from Birmingham to Jersey, but 14 coming back—

§ Mr. Blackburn
This company has agreed to underwrite the service. Therefore, if there were four passengers going out and 14 coming back, they have agreed that they would provide the Rapides to move the 14 back.

§ Mr. Lindgren
That type of operation would mean that the company would lose money heavily.

§ Mr. Blackburn
It has already lost it.

§ Mr. Lindgren
If it has lost money, we ought not to be taken to task for preventing it from losing further money. If there is no money in this service, why do they want to continue it?

§ Mr. Blackburn
To safeguard the employment of ex-Service men.

§ Mr. Lindgren
That is a new line of argument. I have yet to meet the private company which can carry on out of charity to its employees week after week, month after month, and year after year. If that is the sole reason why the company is running this service, surely my hon. Friend will agree that the change is better for the travelling public, who ought to be the first consideration, although I agree that the employees should have consideration. A better standard of service will be given a more up-to-date service, a greater 2331 availability of vehicles will be provided and, therefore, on all counts it is better that the service should be carried on by the State airline corporations
I am sorry not to be able to go further to meet my hon. Friend, but what is happening here, and what would happen if this company took over another service, is the necessary consequence of the 2332 policy which he and I approved when we passed the Civil Aviation Act, 1946.

§ Mr. Blackburn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his friendly and courteous answer but I cannot regard it as satisfactory, and I will pursue the matter further.