Commons Sitting of 1 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Disability Pension
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex-Junior Commander G. W. Wills, H.A.A.(M) R.A., Ministry of Pensions No. 0/F2/541, was invalided out of His Majesty's Forces in January, 1944, suffering at the time from attributable arthritis, attributable hernia and aggravated psychoneurosis, and was awarded 30 per cent. disability; and whether he will now relate back, compensation for these three ills resulting from an accident on service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): From the date of leaving the A.T.S., Miss Wills, who is now in receipt of pension at the 40 per cent. rate, has received awards appropriate to the degree of her disablement as assessed by the medical boards and specialists by whom she has been examined from time to time. My right hon. Friend, however, has arranged for Miss Wills to be re-examined within the next few days by a medical board, including specialists, of different personnel from those who have examined her hitherto. She will also be seen by the Ministry's rehabilitation medical officer so that special consideration may be given to the question of her resettlement and the provision of any necessary treatment. My right hon. Friend will inform the hon. Member of the result as early as possible.
    Sir W. Smithers: For once in a while, may I thank the Minister for that reply?

    Widows
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Pensions how many widows of ex-Service
    166
    men who had married after the man's discharge from the Service, are deprived of pension through the rule that entitlement is limited to cases where the man died after 3rd September, 1939; and what would be the approximate cost of removing this condition.
    Mr. Simmons: I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give the desired information with any degree of reliability.
    Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman may recall that an answer was given recently that this matter was being considered, and can he give any indication as to how far the examination of this question has gone? Although the number of cases involved is small, and the expense not great, would it not be possible to relieve these widows of a considerable amount of hardship?
    Mr. Simmons: There are many imponderables in this business. There are the questions of how many men pensioned as single were, in fact, married afterwards, and how many widows have remarried or died. The matter is under consideration, but we have no information on which to give any definite figures at the present moment.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Swift Training Rifle
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received a report on the Swift training rifle; and what are his proposals for its use in the active Army, the Territorial Army and in the Army Cadet Force.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The results of the initial tests referred to in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 1st February are now under examination by small arms training and technical advisers. Until this examination is completed I cannot say what will be the eventual policy with regard to the rifle.

    War Office Messenger (Inquiry)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement concerning the dismissal of the War Office messenger, Mr. Harold King, a disabled

    167
    ex-Service man, for taking a leading part in the organisation of the Government cleaners' demands for better pay.
    Mr. Shinwell: Mr. King has not been dismissed. He has been sent on paid leave in accordance with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15th March, 1948, about the employment of individuals whose reliability is in doubt. His case has been under investigation for some time and the action taken has nothing whatever to do with Mr. King's activities on behalf of Government cleaners.
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that all the charges against Mr. King relate to the years from 1932 to 1940; is he aware that this information was known or could have been known to his Department before March last year; and is it not a strange coincidence that this action was taken a bare fortnight after he had taken a leading part on behalf of the women cleaners in his office?
    Mr. Shinwell: These activities relate to the period long before the cleaners agitated, and some of the facts were known to the Department, but it was only after the Prime Minister had issued the directive to which I have referred that this case received active consideration. It is just a coincidence that Mr. King was asked to deny the allegations on or about the date when the cleaners were agitating, but that has nothing to do with it at all.
    Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Prime Minister if, in connection with the question of reliability, this man has not a record of service to his country as good as, or even better than that of any Member of the Government?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not a question of service to the country. It is a question of whether or not this man belongs to a political party, the members of which are regarded in certain departments of the public service as unreliable. He has not denied the allegations, and therefore, the facts are as stated.
    Mr. Benn Levy: In view of the not very exalted position held by Mr. King, can my right hon. Friend say precisely what danger is constituted to the State?
    Mr. Shinwell: Mr. King was a Government messenger responsible for the transit
    168
    of documents from one Government Department to another, and it was thought inadvisable that he should be entrusted with this task.

    Kington Camp
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is now possible to release a portion of Kington camp, Herefordshire, for the relief of the housing shortage in that district.
    Mr. Shinwell: The future of Kington camp has now been reconsidered and it has been decided that the War Department has no further requirement for it. The camp will therefore be notified to the Ministry of Works as redundant in accordance with normal procedure.

    Storeman, Brancepeth Camp (Charge)
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Secretary of State for War how Gunner A. E. Green of the 45th Field Regiment, R.A., gained entrance to the armoury at Brancepeth camp, County Durham, on 17th December, 1948, and became possessed of two revolvers and a large quantity of ammunition.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the noble Lord has been informed, this soldier's position as storeman gave him easy access to the arms and ammunition. The full inquiries which have been made show that no contributory negligence can be attached to any person or persons.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having obtained these two revolvers and some ammunition, this man proceeded to shoot another soldier in the back and kill him; that at his trial he was found guilty but insane; and that it was said in his defence that he had been in an hysterical and unstable state of mind for several months past? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that he was a proper person to be in charge of a store?
    Mr. Shinwell: There was no evidence of insanity in this man's case in our possession when he was acting as storeman. If there had been any such evidence, obviously he would have been transferred or removed entirely. However, as I said, there was no evidence to that effect.

    Pension Adjustment
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War why an ex-soldier of whose name he has been informed and who has done 45 years service in the Gloucestershire Regiment, has been informed that his pension will be reduced from 1st June by twopence a week.
    Mr. Shinwell: In the case referred to the pension of £115 1s. 2d. a year is not being reduced, but an adjustment is being made in the amount of the weekly payments in order that they may be the equivalent of the yearly rate. The weekly rate previously paid was incorrectly calculated, so that the payments were slightly more than the yearly rate for which the pensioner was eligible.
    Mr. Lipson: Was this reduction really necessary in the national interest? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I hold in my hand a statement from the paymaster at Exeter of October, 1947, to say that the pension was to be 44s. 3d. a week and another from the paymaster at Taunton to say that it was to be reduced from 1st June to 44s. 1d. a week? In spite of the explanation now sent to him, the man says that he is losing 2d. a week, and I agree with him. Will not the right hon. Gentleman issue a new pension book and stop this formality?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not know about the statements in the hands of the hon. Gentleman, but we cannot pay a man more than that to which he is actually entitled. I do not propose to ask this man to repay all the twopences which he has already received.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    New Towns (Shopping Sites)
    Mr. Tiffanyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what procedure will be adopted in the new towns for the allocating of shops, or shopping sites, to intending retailers.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): This is essentially a matter for the corporations established by me under the Act of 1946 for the purposes of the development of the newtowns.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is the Minister prepared to follow the lead given in New Zealand and to suggest that the customers, who are always supposed to be right, should have a say in this matter and that their wishes about types of retailers should be adhered to?
    Mr. Silkin: I have no doubt that the new towns' corporations will take that into account.

    Iron-Ore Workings, Oundle and Thrapston
    Mr. Tiffanyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how much of the 25,799 acres within the area of the Oundle and Thrapston rural district council, for which application has been made for the working of iron-ore, will be by opencast mining.
    Mr. Silkin: Closer examination of the maps accompanying the applications has shown that the figure previously given was some 400 acres too high. Of the revised estimate of 25,400 acres it seems probable that over nearly 8,500 acres, where the overburden is less than 100 feet thick, working would be opencast if planning permission were given. As to the remaining area of some 17,000 acres, it is too early to say whether the whole would prove to be workable or, if workable, which method would be employed.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is my right hon. Friend aware that approximately 25 per cent. of this local authority's area is likely to be affected by this mining, and what steps is he taking to ensure that this beautiful countryside is restored once the mining is completed?
    Mr. Silkin: The figures which are given are merely of the total number of applications which are likely to be made over a long period. I have still to consider those applications, and I am not, of course, in a position to say what the decision will be.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to take steps to ensure that this countryside is restored after the mining has been completed?
    Mr. Silkin: That is one of the matters which I have to take into account.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Agricultural Workers (Direction)
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Minister of Labour what avenue of appeal exists for agricultural workers when a county agricultural committee refuses to release them for work in another industry.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The decision in these cases rests with my local officers and not with the county agricultural executive committee. If the worker does not accept the decision the issue of a direction under Defence Regulation 58A is considered. If a direction is issued the worker has an opportunity of appeal to the local appeal board.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is it not about time we did away with this farce of tying a man to an industry in which he does not want

    Unemployed Registered Disabled Persons

    —

    Registered Disabled Persons

    Capable of ordinary employment

    Requiring sheltered employment

    Total

    M.

    F.

    Total

    M.

    F.

    M.

    F.

    M.

    F.

    Total

    Blaina

    258

    11

    269

    55

    6

    17

    —

    72

    6

    78

    Abertillery

    727

    27

    754

    174

    9

    23

    4

    197

    13

    210

    Newbridge

    856

    28

    884

    158

    7

    27

    —

    185

    7

    192

    Wales and Monmouthshire

    63,727

    2,605

    66,332

    11,966

    354

    1,724

    23

    13,690

    377

    14,067

    Ship-repairing (Casual Labour)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the danger of casual labour arising in the ship-repairing yards of this country when the repair facilities on the Continent are fully restored; and what steps he is taking to abolish casual labour in this industry by a system of decasualisation.
    Mr. Isaacs: The question of the level of employment in ship-repairing is under constant review and steps will be taken to deal with any situation which may arise.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that low wages and bad working conditions on the Continent as compared with this country will have a tendency
    to work and let men have a free choice of work?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.

    Disabled Persons, Wales
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons, male and females separately on the disabled persons' register; and the number of such persons registered as unemployed at the latest available date, at each of the Blaina, Abertillery, and Newbridge employment exchanges; and the total figures for Wales and Monmouthshire for the same categories.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply;
    to pull our wages down and to reintroduce the principle of casual labour which existed before the war and which is undesirable in this country?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure that a system of decasualisation can be properly worked in this industry, but we have the advice of the shipbuilding advisory committee, which represents the industry from all aspects and is keeping a watch on the situation.

    NATIONAL SERVICE CALL-UP (STUDENTS)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is still long delay between registration and call-up for many boys who are still at school

    173
    and as they find it difficult to obtain employment after registration will he take steps to remedy the call-up when this is desirable in the boys' interests.
    Mr. Isaacs: As I announced in reply to two Questions on 18th January, where young men at school wish to be called-up early in order to fit in their period of service with the beginning of courses at the universities in the autumn of any year, their request will be granted. I am looking into the two cases which the hon. Member has sent me where there appears to have been delay and will write to him shortly.
    Mr. Lipson: Has the information to which the right hon. Gentleman referred been made available not only to State schools, but also to public schools?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say definitely whether the information has recently been sent out but I will make inquiries of my hon. Friend the Minister of Education and see that it is done as soon as possible.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: What is the average time between notice of call-up and the presentation of the man for service?
    Mr. Isaacs: I announced that period some time back. Speaking from memory, at least a month elapses between the complete registration and the call-up.

  SCOTLAND

    Mental Patients (Notice of Discharge)
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the circumstances relating to the case of Mrs. Elizabeth Corbett, of 4, Beltane Street, Glasgow, C.3, particulars of which were submitted to him recently by the hon. Member for Kelvin-grove, he will issue instructions to the authorities concerned that a husband's discharge from a mental hospital must be intimated beforehand to his wife.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): I understand from the General Board of Control that in a case of this kind it would now be the duty of the hospital to give prior notice of discharge to the nearest known relative. This particular case took place before 5th July, 1948.

    Government Offices, Edinburgh
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the plans at present being made for the future development of large areas in the City of Edinburgh, he has yet made any representations concerning future requirements for Government offices.
    Mr. Robertson: In the consideration of plans for development in the Edinburgh area, the future requirements for Government offices are kept in view; and my Department is in touch with the Ministry of Works on the subject.
    Mr. Willis: Is the Edinburgh Corporation informed of those requirements?
    Mr. Robertson: I understand that negotiations are now proceeding with the Ministry of Works on this matter.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would it not be a matter of interest to this House, at any rate to Scottish Members, to know what the plans of the Government are about extended building in Scotland?
    Mr. Robertson: That is another question.

    TEACHING PROFESSION (SALARIES)
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the disparity in remuneration as between qualified teachers and university lecturers, on the one hand, and graduates employed in industry, local government and other professions, on the other hand; whether he is aware of the frustration evident among the former group and the injury thus caused to the increasing opportunities for secondary and university education; and whether he will consider some form of inquiry into the comparative remuneration of professional men and women, firstly, to determine the facts and secondly, to take appropriate action with a view to securing a fairer balance between teaching and the other professions.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in replying yesterday to the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) announced certain improvements to which he has agreed in the remuneration of

    175
    university teachers in the medical and dental schools. The position of other university teachers is under consideration. For school teachers the settlement of appropriate scales of salary is, in accordance with Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944, a matter for the Burnham Committees, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has no reason to think that the question raised by the hon. Member was overlooked when the Committees conducted their last review of the salary scales, and he sees no reason to set up a special inquiry to deal with it.
    Mr. Lindsay: While appreciating the generous answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and the consideration given to medical and dental teachers, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that there are thousands of university lecturers and teachers with salaries between £350 and £600 a year who at the moment are definitely feeling a sense of privation, partly due to the increased cost of living since the last Burnham scale? Will he not reconsider the answer, and possibly, if my suggestion is wrong, consider some other form of inquiry into the matter?
    The Prime Minister: These matters are under consideration, as my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday, but it is extremely difficult to work out the terms of relativity in these matters.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how difficult it will be to retain university professors at all at salaries of from £1,400 to £1,500—many of whom could earn double that in other professions—and how grave will be the effect right down the scale?
    The Prime Minister: There is really nothing new in this. People of great mental powers often devote themselves to education and university work when they might have gone out for a greater commercial reward, but they do not always choose that course.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend look particularly at the position of science teachers, because industry can offer these people far greater rewards than the teaching profession?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of that.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Europe (American and British Aid)
    Mr. John Patonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the value, in pounds sterling, of the total aid received by Great Britain from the United States of America since the end of the European war by way of loan and Marshall Aid; and the total value, in pounds sterling, of the aid in cash and kind given by Great Britain to European countries during the same period.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): £931 million has been received from the U.S.A. since the end of the European war by way of loan under the line of credit established by the Anglo-American Financial Agreement of 1945, and £208 million to date as Marshall Aid.
    Aid by the United Kingdom to European countries in the form of cash, goods and services, amounted to £790 million between the end of the war and 31st December, 1948. This figure includes the net use of drawing rights resulting from the first two months' operation of the Intra-European Payments Scheme. Of the total assistance, £440 million is recoverable.

    Invisible Earnings (Statistics)
    Mr. Patonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value, adjusted for changes in the value of the pound sterling, of the total invisible earnings of Great Britain for each of the years 1928, 1929, 1932, 1933, 1937, 1938, 1946 and 1947.
    Sir S. Cripps: I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also circulate the figures he has taken in adjustment of the pound in the calculations he has made, and add them to the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir S. Cripps: I think it will be quite clear from the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT how it has been arrived at.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Will the answer convey the net invisible earnings, or will it be concerned merely with the gross figure?
    Sir S. Cripps: Net.
    Following is the answer:
    Before the war our "invisible" earnings were computed on a different basis from those for 1946 and 1947. The principal difference was that, as U.K. imports were expressed c.i.f. in the balance of payments, freight and insurance earned on these imports by U.K. firms were included as "invisible" earnings even though they were earned, for the most part, from U.K. importers and not from overseas residents. At present imports are entered f.o.b. and the freight and insurance earnings referred to above are excluded from our receipts. For the year 1938, however, net invisible earnings

    (£ million)

    —

    1928

    1929

    1932

    1933

    1937

    1938

    1946

    1947

    1938 Purchasing Power of net invisible earnings.

    (i) With Imports calculated on c.i.f. Basis

    360

    370

    270

    320

    370

    320

    —

    —

    (ii) With Imports calculated on f.o.b. Basis

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    230

    —80

    —70

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Challenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with whom the Commissioners of Customs and Excise consult in drawing up lists of medicines and drugs to be exempted from Purchase Tax.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise rely primarily upon the Ministries of Health and Agriculture on "human" and "animal" medicines, respectively.

    Death Duties
    Mr. Crawleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a classification of the number of estates and net receipts of Death Duties and the net capital values for such estates for any convenient year since 1944.
    Sir S. Cripps: A classification of numbers of estates and net capital values for the year 1946–47 appears in the 90th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; a similar classification for the year 1947–48 will appear in the forthcoming Report. The total receipt of death duties in each estate range is not separately recorded.
    have been computed on both bases, and are shown below for comparison.
    It is not clear which changes in the value of the pound my hon. Friend has in mind, but the following table shows the purchasing power of net "invisible" earnings in terms of the imports that these would have bought in the years in question. Indices of the average value of imports have been applied to the estimated net "invisible" receipts or payments, taking 1938 as the base. If Government overseas expenditure were not taken into account in 1946 and 1947, figures would be +60 and +10, respectively.

    Civil Service (Equal Pay)
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost in the first operative year of the proposed increases in civil servants' emoluments, and how does this compare with the cost of raising the increments of women civil servants on the incremental part of the scale to the level of the men's increment, and of allowing women at the maximum of the scale to proceed to the men's maximum by equal yearly increments; also for the first operative year of such a scheme.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Chorley Committee estimated the full cost of implementing their proposals as about £400,000 a year. The extent to which the cost in the first operative year will be less than the full cost cannot yet be estimated as I am still considering the appropriate method of gradual assimilation to the new rates. The eventual cost of the sort of scheme suggested in the second part of the Question for the gradual introduction of equal pay would be more than £10 million for the Civil Service; the cost in the first operative year would be about £2 million. It would, however, be quite impracticable to introduce such a scheme in the Civil Service alone. It would have

    179
    to extend at least to the other public services which would increase the cost to some £7 million in the first year rising to an eventual total of £35 million.

    Motor Car Taxation
    Mr. Gammansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an estimate of the loss to the Exchequer for the current year and the next financial year if the registration tax on older motor cars was reduced to that allowed for new motor cars.
    Sir S. Cripps: In a full year, £5¾ million. If a change were introduced, the effect in the financial year would depend on the date as from which the change applied and the arrangements made for refunds.
    Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when preparing his Budget, consider this claim of the motoring community, and has he not had representations from the motoring associations on this matter?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have had representations on every conceivable point that might come into the Budget, and I have borne them all in mind.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the invitation of his predecessor that, after a suitable period, we should exert pressure on him in this matter, and will he show himself as accommodating as his predecessor appeared to me?
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is it not hard that the Ministry of Supply should prevent persons from getting new cars, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should penalise them for having old cars?
    Sir S. Cripps: It seems to me to be an admirable combination.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to put pre-January, 1947, and post-January, 1947, motor cars on the same tax basis.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the flat rate of car road fund tax to cover all cars regardless of date of purchase or first taxation.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Chancellor aware that the whole arrangements are full of anomalies and are grossly unjust, which is so typical of the Socialist Government?

    War Damaged Property (Claims)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many war damage claims in respect or residential property were outstanding at the beginning and end of 1948.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give any indication of how long it is likely to be before these war damage claims are eventually disposed of?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is another question. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put it on the Paper?

    Government Hospitality, London (Cost)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how £50,000 of current expenditure was incurred between 3rd May and 31st December, 1948, at No. 2, Park Street, W.1, in so far as that figure exceeds £28,200, the cost of 96 overseas guests for 2,351 nights during that period; and if he will identify the chief items.
    Sir S. Cripps: The final accounts in respect of No. 2, Park Street for the period ending on 31st December last are not yet available. I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. Member an accurate analysis of the total expenditure.
    Sir J. Mellor: As £50,000 was spent during this period on a total of 32,351 nights for overseas guests, was not the average cost per guest per night over £20, and not approximately £12, as stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman previously?
    Sir S. Cripps: The estimate, I believe, was an accurate one but until we get the final figures we obviously cannot check it.
    Sir J. Mellor: But was it not a great deal nearer £20 than £12?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, our estimate was nearer £12 than £20.
    Sir. J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what charges were made and to whom for accommodation and refreshments, provided for visitors, other than Government guests from overseas, at No. 2, Park Street, W.1, between 3rd May and 31st December, 1948; how many of these visitors were, and how many were not, sponsored by the Government; and what distinction was drawn between Government guests and Government-sponsored guests.
    Sir S. Cripps: Five hundred and forty-two visitors, other than Government guests, were accommodated at No. 2, Park Street between 3rd May and 31st December last, for a total of 3,598 nights. Of these, 467 were sponsored by the Government directly or by Embassies and High Commissioners' Offices. The other 75 of these were accommodated for short periods at the request of neighbouring hotels. The accommodation and refreshment services are available to Government and Government-sponsored visitors without distinction. I am sending the hon. Member a list of current charges.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what are Government guests as distinct from Government-sponsored guests?
    Sir S. Cripps: Government guests are people who are here receiving hospitality at the invitation of the Government. Government-sponsored guests are guests for whom the Government try to find accommodation at the request of Embassies, High Commissioners or other persons.
    Mr. Stanley: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the charges paid by Government-sponsored guests cover, in fact, the cost of providing the accommodation?
    Sir S. Cripps: I could not say until we have had the accounts, as I have already stated. I should think that the answer, probably, is, "No, they do not cover the cost." In other words, we are losing money on the guests.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether any of these guests are bona fide workers and not-contact men?

    Medical Treatment Abroad (Special Allowance)
    Dr. Segalasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the granting of a special sterling allocation to certain tuberculous patients, who can be certified as having become acclimatised to residence only at high altitudes.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I do not think that it would be appropriate to issue a general instruction in the sense suggested. All applications for foreign currency on health grounds are considered by the Medical Advisory Committee, who base their recommendations on the medical evidence submitted in each individual case. If such evidence included a reference to the effect of climatic conditions on the patient, it would no doubt be taken into account along with other factors.
    Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many patients of this particular group have had their resistance to disease lowered after their return to this country and have died of quite minor ailments; and, in connection with this particular group, would he accept the medical evidence of foreign doctors resident in Switzerland and urge that upon his medical advisory council?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Medical Advisory Committee do take these factors into account. We must leave it to them. They are the experts in these matters.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Is there any reason why the Medical Advisory Committee should remain anonymous?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That question has been answered on more than one occasion. It is necessary in order that pressure should not be brought upon the members in individual cases.
    Mr. Stanley: Does the Advisory Committee consider individual cases or does it merely lay down rules which are applied without discretion?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Indeed, no. The panel does consider individual cases. The papers sent on individual cases are considered in great detail.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the terms of reference of the Committee from the financial point of view?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: They receive a fee. The fee is now paid by the Government.
    Mr. Nicholson: What I meant was, to what extent are they hampered or limited by Treasury instructions from the point of view of exchange?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Gentleman would put that question on the Order Paper I will endeavour to answer it.

    Central Office of Information (Exhibition)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated cost of the exhibition "On Our Way," which is being held at the Hall of the Central Office of Information, in Oxford Street; and what is the object of the novelty feature, which includes a fun fair, pin tables and other sideshows.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Thirty-three thousand pounds. The object of the novelty feature is to bring home salient economic facts in such a way as to impress them on the memory of the public. A similar technique has been used in other Central Office exhibitions.
    Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement about this exhibition says that the fun fair will contain
    "distorting mirrors, Aladdin's Cave, a for-tune-telling machine and the Biggest Rat out of Captivity,"
    and will he explain which facts the mirrors are supposed to distort and who or what is "the Biggest Rat out of Captivity"?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: In these exhibitions we have to cater for all tastes. We hope to get Conservatives there in order to educate them.
    Mr. Cecil Poole: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the fortune-telling machine was consulted by the Conservative Party before the South Hammersmith by-election?
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Financial Secretary say whether the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State were led astray about the British economic position by these distorting mirrors?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The exhibition is not open yet.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to indicate what industries are to be examined by the Monopolies Commission during 1949.
    Mr. Piratinasked the President of the Board of Trade the six industries which have been referred to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): My right hon. Friend hopes to give the House some information on this matter within a day or so.

    Exports (Nationalised Industries)
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the value of United Kingdom exports in 1948 was contributed by the nationalised industries; and what percentage by private enterprise.
    Mr. J. Edwards: The contribution of the nationalised industries to United Kingdom exports is mainly an indirect one, which cannot be measured statistically. The coal industry, the only direct exporting industry which has been nationalised, accounted for 2½ per cent. of total United Kingdom exports in 1948, in addition to its indirect contribution.
    Mr. Thomas: Is it not clear that the success of the export campaign is, at any rate, due to private enterprise?
    Mr. Edwards: It is quite clear that without the contribution of the nationalised industries there would have been no production and, therefore, no exports at all.
    Mr. Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that there was no production before electricity or gas or the

    185
    railways were nationalised, and was it not a fact that production was just as great and rather cheaper?
    Mr. Edwards: I did not imply anything of the kind. The Question put to me asked what was the contribution of the nationalised industries, and that I have answered.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Reid Report made it clear that the mining industry was going bankrupt and would have been incapable of supporting the export trade?
    Mr. W. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the contribution of the coalmining industry to our exports before the war was higher in total volume and also higher as a percentage of our total exports?

    Distribution Officers
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that the movements and visits to retailers and other businesses of both distribution officers and Price Regulation Committee inspectors largely coincide and that the other work of Price Regulation Committees is falling off since the reduction of controls, he will arrange for the taking over by the Price Regulation Committee inspectors of the work now being undertaken by the 30 distribution officers.
    Mr. J. Edwards: No, Sir. Both sets of officers are fully occupied; their duties are quite distinct and could not be combined.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the regular monthly reports of the Price Regulation Committees include such matters as reports on shortages and other relevant data and that it is, in fact, a duplication of the work being done by the distribution officers, and will he look at this matter again?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not agree.

    Horses (Export)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the President of the Board of Trade how many horses were exported in 1948; to what countries; and at what prices.
    Mr. J. Edwards: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Freeman: Has my hon. Friend any information about what happens to these horses when they reach the other side, and is he satisfied with the treatment they receive?
    Mr. Edwards: That is an entirely different question.
    Following is the statement:

    UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS OF HORSES (INCLUDING PONIES), YEAR 1948

    Country

    Number

    Value

    £

    To Eire

    2,301

    2,191,822

    To France

    1,031

    333, 624

    To Union of South Africa

    148

    152,745

    To Australia

    92

    135,449

    To United States of America.

    155

    94,845

    To Italy

    729

    67,511

    To India

    38

    59,896

    To Belgium

    1,157

    50,469

    To Brazil

    16

    43,925

    To Argentine Republic

    29

    43,527

    To New Zealand

    42

    42,707

    To Ceylon

    55

    41,435

    To British Malaya

    62

    40,455

    To Venezuela

    38

    3,515

    To British West Indies

    52

    29,292

    To Canada

    16

    16,751

    To Poland

    50

    13,792

    To Turkey

    11

    9,600

    To Channel Islands

    76

    6,304

    To Panama

    11

    5,200

    To Pakistan

    40

    5,060

    To All other countries

    127

    33,187

    Total

    6,276

    3,451,111

    Cloth (Tailors' Allocations)
    Mr. Championasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available to tailors sufficient utility materials to enable them to make clothes for outsize people from materials that are free from Purchase Tax, without having to cut into the tailor's allocation for normal sizes.
    Mr. J. Edwards: The distribution of cloth to tailors and other clothing manufacturers is not controlled by the Board of Trade but is left to the normal machinery of the trade. We are aiming at an increase in the already large proportion of utility cloth production.

    RIFLE CLUBS (AMMUNITION)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to ease the difficulties of small bore rifle

    187
    clubs in Britain in obtaining high grade ammunition.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke).
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the National Association of Rifle Clubs to explain the very serious position?
    Mr. Jones: If the hon. Member would put that to us in writing we should consider that aspect of the matter.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY (MINISTER'S SPEECH, U.S.A.)
Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given Private Notice, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to the recent conflicting announcements on British economic recovery and our need for economic assistance from the United States of America; and if he will give an assurance that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents the policy of His Majesty's Government in this particular matter?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend's statement was made after full consultation with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself and represents the view of His Majesty's Government.
Mr. Maclean: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that during the past five or six days no fewer than seven more or less conflicting statements on the subject have been made, consciously or unconsciously, by members or representatives of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—none of the statements having been made in this House; and that the effect produced in the United States and elsewhere has been bewildering and deplorable?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member would send me his collection I would be glad to have a look at them.
Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that, had it not been for the prompt repudiation of the Minister's statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole of our recovery programme might have been in danger? What steps is the Prime Minister going to take to see that the future of the British people is not jeopardised by irresponsible statements of Ministers—[Interruption]—irresponsible statements of Ministers who have nothing to do with the matter?
The Prime Minister: As the matter has now been dealt With—[HON. MEMBERS: "Has it?"]—I should deprecate further questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in the national interest.
Mr. Kirkwood: Hon. Members opposite are doing the damage.
The Prime Minister: Every now and again statements are made which, taken quite apart from their context, may cause difficulties, and over a period of years I have known them made by Ministers from all sides of the House. I suggest that it would not be wise to pursue the matter.
Mr. Maclean: Can the Minister say whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington was consulted by the Joint Under-Secretary of State before making this statement which so closely affected our relations with the United States?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, this matter arose in the course of a debate and I imagine there was not an opportunity for consultation before that particular statement was made.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the statement of the Minister of State that the Joint Under-Secretary "blurted out the truth at the wrong moment"? Does he share that view and does he agree with the implication that the truth should not be told by Ministers in the United States?
The Prime Minister: A full statement was made on this matter in the statement made on behalf of the Government and I have nothing to add to it.
Mr. McKinlay: Has my right hon. Friend received a copy of the statement made by the Minister of State in Dumbarton on Saturday night? Is he aware that if the report is as accurate as the

189
report of what the Minister of State said, it is a travesty and is being utilised in order to do as much harm to the Government as possible?
Mr. Stanley: In view of that last question, is it now contended that the Minister of State did make a statement which is attributed to him in the Press? Surely we are entitled to know.
The Prime Minister: It is very largely a question of the context and the accuracy of the reporting. As I understand it, whatever was said by the Minister of State was said at a meeting supposed to be a private meeting. I regret that it was reported.
Mr. Edgar Granville: When this storm in a teacup is over, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that public opinion in this country and in the United States of America appreciates and applauds sincerity and frankness on the part of visiting Ministers as against slick and professional diplomacy?
Mr. Mott-Radelyffe: Could the Prime Minister assure the House that in future he will try to persuade Ministers when they go overseas to sing the same tune and learn to distinguish between New York City and South Hammersmith?
The Prime Minister: I could not hear the hon. Member. Will he repeat the question?
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I asked if the right hon. Gentleman would assure the House that he will do his best to persuade Ministers when they go overseas to sing the same tune and to distinguish between New York City and South Hammersmith.
Mr. Crawley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great acrimony which takes place in the debates of U.N.O. and the impossibility of rebutting constant charges made against this Government without someone sometimes taking a risk?
Mr. Stanley: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that Ministers will not be led astray by the question that has just been asked, but will feel that, however great the difficulty, it is never any good taking a risk with the truth?
The Prime Minister: There is no question of taking risks with the truth. No Ministers will take risks with the truth.
Mr. Peter Thorneyeroft: Arising out of the earlier reply, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that a Minister of State should at any rate say the same things in public as he is alleged to have said at a private meeting, and that Ministers generally should say the same things to the electorate as they do at U.N.O.?
The Prime Minister: That is so; they do.
Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, with your permission, I might repeat the point of Order I made yesterday and ask, with respect, if you will indicate, for the guidance of the House, what special considerations of urgency there were about this Private Notice Question—which was obviously not regarded as very important by the Opposition, since the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of Opposition did not exercise their right to put it themselves—which led you to allow it to a back bencher, instead of its appearing on the Order Paper to-morrow in the ordinary way?
Mr. Speaker: Obviously I cannot answer that question, because no one is allowed to ask me what my reasons are for selecting or choosing a Question. I think I went far enough yesterday and I am afraid that it must always be left to my discretion. I can only say that I hope my discretion will always be one of fairplay and common sense.

QUESTIONS (SECOND ROUND)
Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As Questions were finished before half-past three, with great respect, cannot we have a second time round?
Mr. Speaker: We stopped the practice of having a second round of Questions a long time ago, I am afraid.
Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, in the old days we always had a second time round. There is one Question which has not been asked on which I wanted to ask a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we altered the Standing Orders some time ago and that comes under Standing Orders.
Captain Crookshank: With all respect, I hesitate to question that, but I should have thought it was a matter of practice. I do not recollect a Standing Order applying to the second round. If it is only a question of the practice of the House, this is an occasion on which we could go back to the former practice.
Mr. Speaker: Of course I will not challenge the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), but I know it was a recommendation of a Select Committee, of which I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a member. I cannot say with absolute certainty, but I am inclined to think that it was incorporated in Standing Orders.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Mr. Speaker: William Thomas Williams, esquire, for the Borough of Hammersmith (South Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1949–50. (VOTE ON ACCOUNT.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £832,066,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, viz.:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES

  CLASS I

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  29,000

  2.

  House of Commons

  280,000

  3.

  Registration of Electors

  145,000

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  1,000,000

  5.

  Privy Council Office

  10,500

  6.

  Privy Seal Office

  3,000

  7.

  Charity Commission

  22,500

  8.

  Civil Service Commission

  192,500

  9.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  120,500

  10.

  Government Actuary

  10,000

  11.

  Government Chemist

  62,500

  12.

  Government Hospitality

  35,000

  13.

  The Mint

  10

  14.

  National Debt Office

  10

  15.

  National Savings Committee

  350,000

  16.

  Overlapping Income Tax Payments

  17,000

  17.

  Public Record Office

  24,000

  18.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  10

  19.

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  12,000

  20.

  Royal Commissions, etc

  43,000

  21.

  Secret Service

  1,000,000

  22.

  Tithe Redemption Commission

  10

  23.

  Miscellaneous Expenses Scotland

  180,000

  24.

  Scottish Home Department

  340,000

  25.

  Scottish Record Office

  6,000

  CIVIL AVIATION
  3.22 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: At the opening of this Debate it is only right that I should make quite clear my own interest in civil aviation. I am a director of an air charter company in which I have a financial interest. It will not however prejudice my views——
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: On a point of Order. Is it not very unusual
  196
  on occasions of this kind not to have the Minister present?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Quite obviously that has nothing to do with the Chair, and is not a point of Order. It may or may not be unusual.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): May I apologise to the House for the absence of my hon. Friend, who will be here shortly. As hon. Members will have noticed, we are rather in advance of our usual schedule. I do not offer that as an excuse, but it is the reason why my hon. Friend is not in his place, as he hoped to be, for the start of the Debate.
  Mr. Stanley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary likely to be airborne within the next minute or two? It makes debate very difficult if my hon. and gallant Friend, who is opening the Debate, is not listened to by the Minister who is to reply.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I too must register my protest. I have a few points to put which are important and in the absence of the responsible Minister, one's task is more difficult. To have a Minister who perhaps does not know the subject taking down notes, is not the same thing as having the Minister concerned present. I feel that very strongly. However, there is no alternative. The Debate has to continue, but we are placed in a most difficult position. This is not the first occasion on which this has happened. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?
  Mr. Henry Usborne: I was merely wondering whether it would not be possible for someone else to open the Debate?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member has not made himself heard, and I can only assume that his point does not mean very much or he would have made it known to the Committee.
  Regarding the accounts of the Corporations, I would say that they could not be more disappointing than they are. Each year the Minister has forecast better things in this nationalised industry. We have been led to believe that things would improve rapidly, instead of which we see that the losses this year of the three Corporations were 5 per cent.

  197
  heavier than in the previous year. These accounts disclose
  that B.O.A.C. requires one employee to work for a year to carry five passengers at a cost of £345. The total cost of the civil aviation industry has been admitted in another place to be approximately £25 million. I believe that it is for this Committee to consider how this money is being spent, and whether it is a wise investment to sink so much money when the country is in such grave difficulties economically. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary has come in. No doubt his right hon. Friend will pass his notes across to him.
  Mr. Mikardo: Begin again.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I do not propose to bore hon. Members opposite by repeating these unpleasant things, which they probably do not want to hear in any event. The noble Lord the Minister of Civil Aviation has, in my view, in the short time he has been at the Ministry, made sincere efforts to cut expenditure. I believe that he set about this task of reducing the costs in a wholehearted way, but as he is new to this difficult and complicated civil aviation industry I wonder whether he really knows how far he has to go in cutting costs? If so, what is his yardstick? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to that when he replies.
  We are all alarmed, at least I was, when we heard in the B.B.C. nine o'clock news on Sunday the announcement that Mr. d'Erlanger was resigning his post more or less at the request of the Minister. We on this side of the Committee are extremely sorry to see him leave British European Airways, because we feel that he has had an uphill fight. He built up the Corporation from the very beginning. He has had technical difficulties with which to contend. I understand that he has done his utmost to implement the Government's policy. There have been losses, but now they are beginning to be reduced he is practically "fired." It is most regrettable that it should happen at the present time. I have heard in the House at various times questions about what his qualifications are. I would say that he is a comparatively young man who has had a most severe training in finance. During the war he started the A.T.A. absolutely from scratch—an organisation the good work
  198
  of which was never really recognised. He also started the Corporation from the beginning. He is a young, energetic man who knows his business. Now that he is, as it were, in his prime, out he goes.
  We can only take what we read in the Press so far, that he is leaving because he wants to run the Corporation on a commercial basis. If that is the reason it is deplorable. How do the Government want the Corporation run if not on a commercial basis? One report said that there were differences because he wanted a separate allocation for the operation of the internal airlines, such as the one in Wales. That seems to be a fair request if that was the case. However that may be, it seems that the Minister has been particularly unreasonable in this case. No doubt we shall be told today what is at the bottom of it all. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I have heard that, already, there is within the Corporation grave concern among the senior members of the staff regarding his dismissal.
  We are told that Lord Douglas is to succeed Mr. d'Erlanger. I find myself in a difficult position because Lord Douglas was, as a very senior officer, my officer at different periods during the war. I have a great admiration for his ability as a war leader but I am surprised at this appointment. I should have thought that a more suitable appointment for him would have been something to do with our defences, which are sadly lacking at the present time and require an experienced and great leader. We can only look upon this as a political appointment. The chairman of an organisation is there in the main for his administrative ability and not because he knows all the intricate details, although it is sometimes a help to know them. It will be observed that Mr. J. V. Wood, the managing director of B.E.A. was sent on sick leave some months ago and from what I have been told I doubt very much whether he will return. If that is the case, we have a managing director and a chairman who have gone in a matter of six or eight weeks. I do not see how any nationalised or other industry can operate efficiently when that sort of thing is taking place. It is most disturbing, and we must register our protest.

  199
  I do not wish to go into personalities, but Mr. Masefield who has come in, I understand, as assistant to the chairman will undoubtedly stay with the corporation. He is a very brillant man and a great planner, but I would suggest that the managing director of an air line should have transportation experience and knowledge of operating aircraft. I put that forward as a suggestion. There is no doubt all three corporations are lacking men who know and understand transportation as such. I do not think it is any use just bringing in important names. Men may have made great names for themselves in other spheres, but that is not sufficient in these days in any business, or any nationalised business.
  I would quote Mr. Plesman, the head of K.L.M., who has been in the business for 30 years and knows it inside out. He knows what competition he is up against and how to deal with it. He has had a lifelong experience. Yet we bring in senior officers and planners and others to run these most complicated businesses. Up to the end of December, 1947, K.L.M. made a net profit of £12,360. That is a modest profit, but it is a real profit. I have examined the balance sheets. Depreciation has been included for all the equipment, and accountants tell me that the accounts are in every way up to our standard of accountancy. Furthermore, they paid 4 per cent. dividend on preference shares, 4 per cent. on the A. and B. shares, and the management were given 10 per cent. as their share of the profits. That is a point which the corporations might care to introduce themselves. Perhaps if the management shared in the profits, there might be more keenness to wipe out the losses.
  I wish to refer to the question of leased aircraft. In the figures before us no sum has been set aside for this item of leased or loaned aircraft. Modern aircraft have to be depreciated normally over five years, but when we get to more expensive plant and production the operation period may be nearer eight or 10 years, if loss it to be done away with and we are to get full utilisation. It does not seem right that the Corporation should get away with this. If they are getting the aircraft on loan from the Ministry of Supply at a fairly nominal figure, that is a concealed subsidy. I think the
  200
  Committee is entitled to know how these aircraft are acquired and what is paid for them. We have been frequently told that the Vikings are complicated aircraft, and it is difficult to make a profit with them. It has been brought to my notice that three foreign countries are operating Vikings at a profit. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear that in mind when excuses are made about the difficulties of maintaining Vikings.
  In B.E.A. there is an offshoot, the Channel Islands Airways, which I should have thought was a plum of a route. It is seasonal up to a point, but not entirely. The figures of that particular section are not disclosed, but I am told that in the last year of operating with the railways that line made a net profit of £20,000. In the first year with B.E.A. they lost over £200,000, in one year to the other. Why is it that such enormous costs have been built up to operate a small airline which were not apparently necessary when the airline was being run by the railways, although the railways have been quite extravagant in their ideas of staff?
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would the hon. and gallant Member give some indication of the source of the figures which he is quoting?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I do not think that I am obliged to give the source of my information. I make it my business to find out these things so that I may make a contribution to the Debate in the Committee.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member would surely agree that hon. Members would be in a better position to assess the value of the figures which he quotes if the source were given.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: It is up to the Minister to tell the House if my information is wrong. I did not go round touting for it. It was given to me voluntarily by someone who happens to know something about it. If we can prove that there is an enormous loss, it may be reduced as a result of this Debate, because it is not mentioned in the balance sheet.
  I do not think that these losses in the three Corporations are mainly due to the basic cost of flying. I think that in the main, the losses are due to bits and pieces—and some of them are pretty large bits and pieces.
  Mr. Mikardo: Including payments to charter companies? Is the hon. and gallant Member complaining about that part?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I will come to that, and perhaps give the hon. Member and the "Sunday Express" a little information on that particular point.
  The staffs of these nationalised industries have been built up since the war unlike the mining industry which was largely handed over as a ready-made concern—[Interruption.]— well, in the matter of staff I imagine that 98 per cent. of the people who were there under free enterprise are still there except the heads of the Coal Board who are drawing large salaries. But in the case of this industry it was not so. It was a mere skeleton. The staffs were built up enormously and very rapidly, mostly from ex-Service men who thought that by getting a job with the Government, they would have a real tenure of service. How do they find themselves now? They find themselves being dismissed from their posts.
  Supposing this had happened in a commercial company, or a large concern rendering service to the public, what would have been said by hon. Members opposite? We should have heard criticism. But these dismissals are taking place piecemeal. Every few months we hear something about reorganisation, and someone is brought in to reorganise things. The staffs do not know where they stand. I agree that the staffs must be streamlined and overheads have to be cut, but something final ought to be done and these men told that they have security, at least for a period. It will be remembered that 1,500 employees left B.E.A. last year of their own accord, apart from dismissals from redundancy. That is 30 per cent. of the total number of the staff of the corporation. Something must be radically wrong if 30 per cent. of the staff leave in one year, apart from those who are redundant.
  Mr. Mikardo: How on earth does the hon. and gallant Member reconcile the very serious and well-justified criticism of the management of the B.E.A. which he has just made, with his objection to the changing of the managing director?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Because there have been continual changes in the last three years. This only happened to
  202
  be another change. I will reiterate what I have said. Mr. d'Erlanger, in my opinion, was overcoming very great difficulties in a much better way than most of the others.
  The transfer of the base from Dorval to the United Kingdom was a right move, but it ought to have taken place at least a year and a half ago. I know it is a big move, but the Government delayed over it, and I can only think that the people over there did not want to come back. But the Minister, or whoever was in charge, should have brought real pressure to bear to get that organisation back in England where it would be more efficient than it was on the other side of the Atlantic.
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the real cause of that suggestion being turned down—in any case, I think it came from this side of the Committee—was his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) who has joined his party?
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: If I have an opportunity, I shall be very glad to rebut that suggestion.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I have given way quite a lot. I want to follow my own line. If the Dorval base is coming back to the United Kingdom, is Filton the right place for it? It is some way from London and the activities will be considerably divorced from the main operations of the Corporation at Heathrow. I should have thought that over a short-term period of perhaps three or five years with these new types of aircraft, it would have been far better to concentrate them at Heathrow even in temporary hangars and with temporary workshops, In order to bring about drastic economies. That has happened at Schipol Airport at Amsterdam with K.L.M. In another place the Minister said how convenient it was for K.L.M. to operate aircraft which they could maintain on the same aerodrome. I cannot understand why the move has been made to Filton unless it is that the hangars built there for the Brabazons, have to be put to some other use.
  I am also concerned about the close proximity of Northolt and Heathrow. The aerodromes are only some five miles apart. A friend of mine returned from

  203
  Geneva on 13th December last year on the 4.15. The aircraft circled for an hour in cloud and suddenly they heard the noise of the engines of another aircraft. There must have been a very near miss. That incident happened soon after the unfortunate accident between the Swedish airliner and the York. We cannot continue to take these risks. If there is any risk at all the Minister ought to make up his mind whether or not it is a good thing that we should use these two airports which are so close together. The sooner Northolt is shut down and we operate only one airport on the west of London, the safer it will be for all air traffic.
  As I see the position from the Report, there are about 20 subsidiary companies which the Corporation either own or partly own. The activities cover radar and radio, international radio and air operating companies. Losses are being made in 19 of those companies. The only one which has made a profit is Tasman Empire Airways which shows a net profit of £10,000 and which operates British flying boats. It is most alarming that the Corporation, apart from their own business, should be losing large sums of money in other airlines. I will not go through the whole list.
  One company is Aer Lingus in which the Corporation's share of the loss is £228,000. B.E.A. have a holding in the equity of 30 per cent., and B.O.A.C. have 10 per cent. Therefore, the holding is 40 per cent. for the two Corporations, yet they have to bear 50 per cent. of the losses. This is a pretty bad agreement commercially, whoever drew it up and signed it in the first place. In the Italian airlines the B.E.A. share of the loss was £74,000. It may be said that we shall sell British aeroplanes and that it is a good thing to have an interest in that company, but from my visits to Italy it seems that, in the main, American aircraft are used. We do not get much of a dividend from the Italians. The loss in connection with Gibraltar Airways is £7,817. On Cyprus Airways, the loss is £3,916, and on the Hong Kong line, it is over £24,000.
  We come to the question of whether the three Corporations in operating their main business from this country, are not becoming too involved in spreading themselves out in all these small airlines in
  204
  the Colonies and other parts of the world. I know that in Hong Kong the airline is partly owned by the local people. I should prefer to see that airline completely divorced from B.O.A.C. It could be run by the people of Hong Kong. They could have a close working agreement with B.O.A.C. as a feeder line. They could take technicians from this country, as no doubt they would wish. It is most alarming that the Corporations should be losing all this money. I do not believe that it is generally appreciated how far they have spread themselves. We hear a lot about comparative losses. It is said that the British losses are higher because we do not operate the right aircraft. American losses have been reduced by two-thirds in the past year. The total losses for all American airlines, both internal and overseas, are £1,683,000.
  Mr. Mikardo: What about the Post Office subsidy?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Of course they get a subsidy in the same way as the British lines. I do not agree that the British rates are high enough, but I find it awfully difficult to discover whether or not the American rates for mail are too high. Personally, I do not think that they are. If the hon. Gentleman has any information on that subject, we shall look forward to hearing from him during the Debate because it is difficult to find out. Perhaps he will make a contribution later. The Australian airline—Quantas Empire Airways—made a profit of £80,000 for the year ending March, 1948. The Government only took over that airline in the middle of 1947 but it is run in a most efficient manner by Mr. Hudson Fysh. He knows his business just as well as Mr. Julian Tripp or Mr. Plesman. I only wish that we had a few men like Mr. Hudson Fysh in this country to help us out of our difficulties.
  I wish to deal with the subject of the charter companies in which the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) is so interested. All I can tell him is that in my own company for over three years, the staff have had a bonus at Christmas time but the directors have not had one penny either in directors' fees or in the form of a dividend. If he thinks that that is getting fat, I should like him to come and look into the matter. I can

  205
  prove to him that there is very little indeed in this business. The Minister of Civil Aviation made a statement recently saying what he intended to do for the charter companies. I believe that he is supposed to have said that what he said was well received. I can assure him that I did not think very much of it. I do not think that he was giving very much away.
  I gave evidence before Lord Douglas last Autumn and I was hoping that a licensing board would be set up to regulate the formation of charter companies. I say that sincerely and as a good Conservative. Where controls are necessary we agree with them. I do not want to see mushroom firms springing up which are not properly financed and in which the aircraft are not properly serviced. That view was put forward very strongly by many of those who gave evidence to the Committee, but it was not accepted. Perhaps we could be told why that view was not accepted. The hon. Member for Reading rather sneered at the chartered companies——
  Mr. Mikardo: No.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: His remarks gave me that impression.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry. I really cannot let that remark pass. I merely asked the hon. Gentleman whether among the expenditure of the Corporations which he was criticising, he included payments made by the Corporations to the charter companies. That implies no reflection whatever upon those companies.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I was judging by the way in which the remarks were made. Perhaps the hon. Member's hon. Friends do not see it in the same way, but from this side of the Committee I got the impression that I have indicated. All I can say is that in the year under consideration the charter companies paid to the Corporations the sum of £285,809 for handling their own aircraft. That is a considerable amount of money which has been paid to B.O.A.C. in the main for servicing and handling charter aircraft, mainly abroad. I believe that that figure could have been enlarged had the charges been more reasonable. This is a form of income which the Corporations would do well to pursue, to try to bring down their deficit.
  206
  The charter companies today are making a real contribution. Many of them are coming into line with the rates paid by the Corporations to ground staff and aircrew. My own company has just accepted the same terms. In the whole country there are approximately 500 aircraft operated by the charter companies, who now employ 350 pilots and a staff approaching 2,000 of administrative and maintenance personnel. That is a large number of people. I believe that the majority of them like working under the conditions which the charter companies provide.
  We should remember that, whatever we have been paid by the Corporation, we have had to give something in return. We have not been paid for nothing, and, in the case of the operation in India, which looked as if the charter companies were making a fortune, the petrol cost nearly 4s. a gallon, and there was very little left out of the operation for the charter companies. They worked well with the Corporation, without any quarrels or bickering and did the job they were sent to do. Diplomatically, they helped our relations with both Pakistan and India at that time.
  Likewise, on the Berlin air lift all the diesel oil, petrol and kerosene is carried by the charter companies. It may be said that the rates are high, but, when we come to consider the utilisation of the double shift system, day and night every 24 hours, the provision of adequate leave and bonus pay for the staff, there is really not very much in it at all. These companies are playing their part with the Corporation and the Royal Air Force and are a great credit to this country in their share of this Berlin air lift air operation.
  I make one final suggestion about these charter companies, and it is that the Minister should seriously consider allowing them to carry freight anywhere in the world on the scheduled service basis. I believe it will be many years before the Corporations can do it, and that it will extend trade between this country and overseas and will facilitate aviation generally. I do not think there is anything to be lost, provided that the service is regularised over routes on which the people can have confidence.
  In regard to B.S.A.A., I want to express my sincere regret at the loss of Air-Commodore Brackley, an outstanding

  207
  figure in civil aviation. He had no strong political feelings, and all his interests were in aeroplanes and flying-boats, and it is a tragedy that his services should be lost. I want to put a question to the Minister regarding the British South American Corporation. Is it true that, during the Tudor troubles last year, the Ministry of Supply cancelled the order for the Tudor V for this Corporation, which had ordered them at £140,000 each, and that, a few weeks afterwards, when the Corporation said they wanted them, they were re-ordered at a figure of £40,000 or £50,000 each? If that is so, it probably means that the Ministry is carrying an enormous loss, and I think this Committee must be clear whether these Corporations are paying the right prices for their aircraft, because, when these machines were re-ordered, the price had dropped to exactly one-third of the original figure. We have heard rumours that B.O.A.C. was taking over British South American Airways, and, personally, I think it would be a good thing if it should happen, but may we have some information on the matter today?
  So far as the ordering of aircraft is concerned, the Hanbury-Williams Committee reported last year, and I should like to know why the report has not been published. There could be nothing secret in the report, or any reason why the public should not be told what is the present position. The findings of the Committee have been made known, but are they being implemented? Has the Corporation really got the freedom which it wants to order and follow through the construction of their own aeroplanes? I have a feeling that all is not well in that respect. My own view is that the Ministry of Civil Aviation should stay out of the business side of ordering these aeroplanes almost entirely, and, preferably, the Ministry of Supply as well, though, unfortunately, that is not possible. I believe that the Ministry of Civil Aviation should concern themselves mainly with routes and airfields.
  We are often told that it is not possible for civil aviation to pay its way because the Corporations can never really afford to pay the development costs on new machines. I think it is generally agreed both in America and in this country that, if we have a successful
  208
  aeroplane to carry 50 passengers, we would only need 500 of them for all the air routes of the world. I suggest that the Air Ministry should be brought into this matter much more closely. In America, the Skymaster was developed as a military transport, and, with very little modification, has been converted into a most successful civil aeroplane. No doubt, a proportion of the development costs could be allotted both to the military side and the civil side, but I should like to know if that liaison is really working with the Air Ministry concerning new types of aircraft.
  I think the Government have been far too optimistic about the deliveries of these new aeroplanes. Reading past Debates year after year, one found that everything was to be solved the next year, but I think the Government have been far too optimistic and have not fully appreciated the many difficulties of designing and building modern aircraft. I sometimes think that it is an awful pity that the speed of modern machines has gone up to 400 miles an hour for commercial aircraft, and I think that if it had remained at between 200 and 250 miles an hour, with lower landing speeds and greater safety, it would have been much easier to attract people to flying and make it a paying proposition. I think the fact that we have had to expend money in these developments to keep in line with the policy of other countries is very regrettable.
  I hope that, in the future, the Government will continue and even increase their interest in the flying boat. There is a tremendous future for this country in operating these very large craft, because we are rapidly getting to the stage where other countries may not be able to build these very great and expensive airfields, which cost millions of pounds, and I can see that the small countries in the Middle and Far East may not be able to build these large runways, perhaps three miles long. In contrast, these flying boats, with an all-up weight of about 300,000 lbs. are more economical to operate and give a greater degree of confidence and of comfort to the passengers. If we can pursue that policy, we may develop something which the Americans will want to buy from us. I have looked at the flying boats, which I saw at the Isle of Wight last summer, and I was most impressed with the way in which

  209
  this job was proceeding. The firm concerned had full confidence in the designers and in the capabilities of the machines and were looking forward to flying them. I believe that they will come into operation very soon after the original test.
  The Corporation have a good name for reliability, which I think is accepted by almost every passenger, but I ask them to consider introducing cheaper flying. It could be done, and I know one charter company which would like to do it. If we had the passenger version of the Bristol Freighter, carrying 50 passengers, the single ticket to Paris would be about £4 10s., and, if we could do that, we would really get the public of this country becoming air-minded and supporting civil aviation. I hope the Government will consider the suggestion. Already, the trade unions and the National Coal Board are interested in arranging tours by air for their workers, and, if we can get the costs down to something approximating what they are on the railways, we can get people to take up flying for their holidays.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make some reference to his own Ministry. I recognise that he is responsible for providing a radio service, for radar and the operation of the airfields, but I cannot see what the 1,700 people are doing at headquarters and I hope that the Ministry to trying to cut down the overheads to the absolute minimum. It is a new industry, and it is a question whether we can afford even the present civil aviation programme. I am rather doubtful about the whole proposition, and I think it may be right to merge it into the Ministry of Transport as an important Division in that Ministry.
  I do not think these Corporations will ever pay their way. I am trying to be quite unbiased, and I think that any man who comes in to run them as they are at present, will find that it is only a question of time before they break him. I do not think that any man can run a business under a Minister who is, perhaps, going to interfere, exert his will and upset the smooth running of that business organisation. We must remember that we are competing with hardheaded business men in foreign airlines. I do not believe that the industry can survive these constant changes, and I
  210
  should like to see the valuable experience of men who have successfully run the shipping lines brought into this industry. When the Conservative Party comes back to power, we shall make drastic changes to see that the business is run efficiently, and we shall have the courage to "unscramble" it, where we think that is necessary.
  4.1 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for the tone in which he opened this Debate. Except for one or two slight diversions, his speech was a little more realistic in its approach than some of the previous ones to which we have listened. I hope that the tone he set will be maintained by hon. Members on both sides throughout the Debate because the correct administration of civil aviation in this country can only be achieved by the fullest cooperation of all associated with the operations themselves and with the creation of public opinion in the country.
  It is only about a month ago since my noble Friend in another place made a very detailed and analytical survey of the problems which face civil aviation in this country. I am certain that every hon. Member who is interested in civil aviation has read the Minister's speech and the Debate generally. Therefore, I do not intend to go over the field covered by my noble Friend on that occasion. I propose to confine myself to one or two important issues and to reply to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield.
  The hon. and gallant Member's last question was with regard to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. May I congratulate him on admitting, in so far as the Civil Service is concerned, that the staff numbers 1,700. In other Debates it has been alleged by hon. Members opposite that we are expanding the number of civil servants, and that there are 8,500 ladies and gentlemen alternately making tea for the Minister and myself. Of course, that is not true. The headquarters staff carrying out Civil Service jobs number 1,700. Of that number 300 are technical men engaged in the planning of navigational aids, lighting systems for aerodromes and all the technical jobs which have to be

  211
  done in regard to the development of facilities for civil aviation in this country. The remainder are engaged in licensing and in dealing with the problems which arise under air navigation regulations. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there has been a very severe check of the organisation and methods of the Department by the Treasury and that the present organisation and staffing have been agreed as a result of that survey.
  The total staff of the Ministry is 8,000, of whom 6,300 are employed on out stations. They are engaged in the maintenance of the aerodromes, aerodrome management, air traffic control, telecommunications, navigational aids, fire and rescue, police, and airport duties. I am not going to say that there is not one person on any of those stations who is not over and above the number which is absolutely necessary; such a claim would be ridiculous; but I can say that by staff audit methods within the Department itself everything possible is done to see that, the number is kept in check and that no unnecessary additions are made to the staff.
  After all, air operations are a very specialised job. Where one gets an acute division of labour, particularly on outstations and small stations, there is sometimes a tendency for two people to be employed to do two specialised jobs when, in fact, one person could cover both jobs. That fact is appreciated by my noble Friend and he has given me a special assignment to inquire into the matter, to report to him as quickly as possible and to make recommendation on the outstations staff of the Ministry. But for the fact that this Debate was taking place I should have been engaged on that task today.
  There is one matter to which I wish to refer and which was not mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield—flying clubs. I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to deal with that matter in the course of the Debate. Considerable pressure has been exercised from all sides for assistance to be given to flying clubs which are at present in very difficult circumstances. I am sorry that I am unable to make a report today with regard to these clubs owing to the fact that discussions concerning them are at present
  212
  proceeding with the Treasury. However, I can assure the Committee that as soon as possible a statement will be made.
  Mr. George Ward: On 2nd February the Minister said in another place that he expected to be able to make a statement in a month's time, that is, tomorrow. Will a statement be made as early as that?
  Mr. Lindgren: It was because my noble Friend made that statement in another place that I felt bound to make some reference to it today. I made inquiries at the Treasury whether I could make a statement today, and I was informed that the matter is still under consideration and that therefore no statement could yet be made.
  The hon. and gallant Member referred to the Departmental Estimates and to the fact that £24 million is set aside for the requirements of my Department. Of that amount, current expenditure represents £15,500,000 and capital expenditure £8,500,000. Of the £15,500,000, £8 million is required to meet the statutory loss or grant to the Corporations, and £7,500,000 is required for the provision of aerodromes, navigational aids, and similar services, at home and abroad. Of the £8,500,000 capital expenditure, £3 million is in respect of aircraft, £2 million in respect of the further development of London Airport, and £3,500,000 for the development of other airports, navigational aids, aerodrome lighting, and the other provisions which are essential if we are to develop civil aviation along the lines desired by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
  The hon. and gallant Member asked a definite question about the aerodrome pattern for London. I am in entire agreement with him, and I think all those who have given thought and study to the aerodrome pattern in London agree with him, that the proximity of London Airport to Northolt makes the use of Northolt, when—and only when—London becomes used to the greatest capacity, a dangerous operation, or a risky operation if not a dangerous one. At the moment the Committee will appreciate that London is used by B.O.A.C., B.S.A.A. and 14 other international airline operators. Northolt is used by B.E.A.C. and six other continental operators.

  213
  In addition to London and Northolt, there are Gatwick, Croydon, Bovingdon, and Blackbushe, which are used by charter operators, Blackbushe and Bovingdon also being used as diversionary airports for London. With the development of London Airport we hope to bring it into use for B.E.A.C. when the Ambassador comes into operation, that is in 1951–2; and to concentrate B.E.A.C. activities at London Airport and thereby be able to give up Northolt by the end of the time it has been leased to my Ministry from the R.A.F.—that is, in 1955. It is hoped to transfer the operation and the maintenance of the Ambassador to London Airport by 1951–2. Over and above the actual utilisation of the airport it will give an added facility to B.E.A.C. in that it will give a direct connection with B.O.A.C.'s international routes for B.E.A.C.'s continental and internal services.
  I turn now to Gatwick, Blackbushe and Bovingdon. Gatwick and Blackbushe are both requisitioned aerodromes and it is not the intention of my Ministry to acquire either of them. Gatwick is being derequisitioned in September of this year and we are hoping to derequisition Blackbushe by the end of 1950. To make facilities for the charter operators who will be displaced from Gatwick and Blackbushe, we intend to develop Stanstead Airport in Essex, which is near Bishop's Stortford, and in developing that airport we hope to make it available for diversion from London which may give an opportunity, perhaps, at a later date, for us to give up Bovingdon as well.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say why he is unable to keep Blackbushe going when the owners of the land there are anxious that he should do so, when the local authorities would like it kept on and when the very good visibility and flying conditions of that airport are recognised?
  Mr. Lindgren: Flying conditions and visibility are good, but I am surprised to receive from the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield—and I accept it from him as right because he is in close association with that airport and knows quite a lot about it—information that the local authorities are in favour of its being maintained as an airport. My information within the Ministry, which I will
  214
  check up, was that they required it to be derequisitioned. In fact I am almost certain that only the other week I had my attention drawn to the fact that much of this airport is common land and that a promise had been made that it would be given back when its R.A.F. use was no longer being maintained.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Some local authorities asked me to approach the hon. Gentleman's Department because they want to get on with building houses for the workers there.
  Mr. Lindgren: In any case, apart from that, it is not a good aerodrome from the point of view of operators. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, a main road, I think it is A30, goes right through it and it has many disadvantages. It is desired to close it in 1950 and we will open Stanstead and maintain it instead.
  The only other possible aerodrome in the London area is Fairlop, which is near Ilford, in Essex. That aerodrome, which was purchased by the City of London in order to provide an airport for the City of London, is being safeguarded under normal town and country planning rules in order to protect the approaches of the aerodrome, but it will not he developed until such time as it is absolutely certain that the requirements are such that its use is absolutely essential.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: The Parliamentary Secretary used the word "dangerous" in regard to the close proximity of Northolt and Heathrow. In order to allay any uneasiness on the part of passengers who have to use this airport, will he make it clear whether European passengers will have to use Northolt until the Ambassador is ready in 1951?
  Mr. Lindgren: I corrected the word "dangerous;" I said it would be better and more correct to say there was a risk. The fact is that the circuits for the aerodromes overlap, but there is very adequate air traffic control of a very high standard indeed. But as the London Airport develops and the density of its traffic develops, in certain circumstances, particularly when weather conditions and visibility are not good, there is an added risk, and it is the desire of my noble Friend that every possible opportunity should be taken to eliminate any known risk immediately it arises. That risk is

  215
  not there at the moment because the density of London Airport's traffic has not developed to that extent, but it will be there in the next few years.
  Mr. Granville: Does that mean that the hon. Member's Department is satisfied that there is a reasonable safety factor there?
  Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir; most certainly. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield referred to associate agreements, or the opportunity which has been given following the announcement I made in the House in reply to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) in regard to the opportunity for charter operators, by means of associate agreements with one or the other Corporations, to provide scheduled operations. The procedure for that, as is known in the Committee, is for an application to be made to the Air Transport Advisory Council for consideration by that Council and for the Council to make a recommendation to the Minister. It may interest the House to know that up to date there have already been 189 applications from 44 different companies. These applications are under consideration and it is hoped that a recommendation on many of them will be made to my noble Friend by the Council before the end of this month.
  May I make it quite clear, because evidently it was not quite clear to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, that this is in no way a departure from the policy as laid down by the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, which confines to the Corporations the operation of scheduled services. It is no departure from that policy at all. What has happened, and what is evident in present operations by B.E.A.C. in particular, is that its internal services in this country at the moment cannot be operated at a profit, and during the time they cannot be operated at a profit and B.E.A.C. is running at a deficit the concentration of B.E.A.C. must be upon those routes where it is likely to break even, rather than upon developing new routes where, it is felt, B.E.A.C. is bound to lose.
  It is admitted—and I freely admit—that the internal scheduled operations of this country do not appear from a Corporation point of view to be profitable
  216
  undertakings, but there is no desire on the part of my noble Friend to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude and to say, "Just because the Corporation does not want to do it at the moment, other people who do want to do it and who have the facilities to do it shall not do it." What we say is this: if the charter companies undertake this work they will have to do it under two very definite conditions. One is that their standard of operations and of safety shall not be lower than that of the Corporations. I think every Member of the Committee would agree that my Ministry would be wrong if they permitted operations in which passengers were taking a risk. When a passenger takes a seat in an aircraft of a scheduled airline operator, that passenger does think that someone has taken some trouble about the safety of the flight and the standard of the operation.
  The other stipulation is that the wages and conditions of employment of the charter companies shall be not less favourable than those of the Corporations, which up to now has not been the case. However, I should like here to pay a tribute to the work that has been done by the British Air Charter Association in bringing these charter companies together to try to negotiate an agreement with the trade unions and to maintain those standards which we consider are necessary if these operations are to be carried on.
  Mr. John Foster: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the independent operators expect to make a profit on these lines, when B.E.A.C. does not?
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman has asked for this. I did not bring this in. I was trying to keep the Debate on the high level on which it was opened by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield. The answer is that many of the operations of these people were below standard, and the rates of pay and the conditions of their employees were very much below standard.
  Mr. Foster: I am not asking about that. I am asking how they expect in the future to make a profit when B.E.A.C. does not. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman's answer is that they expect to run under low conditions and, therefore, to make a profit?
  Mr. Lindgren: Safeguards have been made against the possibility of such poor conditions. The answer is this. After all that has been said about the operation of internal services, no charter company really will run an internal scheduled service in this country. If there is no profit in it, they will not do it.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman mentioned 189.
  Mr. Lindgren: One hundred and eighty-nine applications to run services have been made. I am not going to analyse those. I cannot at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will, perhaps, try to do so before 10 o'clock. However, the vast majority of the applications are not for scheduled services between, say, Birmingham and London, or Birmingham and Manchester and Newcastle, but for services from London to the Channel Islands during the summer months on Saturdays and Sundays—London to the Isle of Man on Saturdays and Sundays during the summer months, and from London to Le Bourget. In the main, they are to be summer holiday services, and they are not scheduled services in any shape or form.
  Mr. Rankin: Would my hon. Friend put it this way—that the charter companies, in effect, are to get the cream of the traffic at particular times of the year?
  Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. That is a point under consideration—or will be when the applications come before the Air Traffic Council. It will be considered whether or not they want to duplicate existing services already run by B.E.A C. That will be a matter for consideration when the applications come in. In the main we shall find, I think, that most of these services are not in that category.
  Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that when the new nationalised service was put into operation many of the little service companies were then feeling their way and building up their business, and were paying much lower salaries than were negotiated when the Government took over? Did not some of the unions—I forget the exact name by which these organisations go, but I mean organisations speaking on behalf of the pilots—negotiate new rates of
  218
  pay which are so high just now, that it is almost impossible for those charter companies to pay the new rates and be paying concerns? Were not the rates negotiated without consideration of whether those companies were paying concerns or not?
  Mr. Lindgren: In so far as the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question is concerned, let me say that it is true that in some instances the rates of pay and conditions of service and the rest of it were not what they ought to have been. However, do not let us begrudge a tribute to the men and organisations that blazed the trail, and did a very heroic job. They did a good job. I think that hon. Members opposite claim too much for them sometimes, but they did the job here and in Scotland. In Scotland the standard of operation was So high—it was most creditable to them—that, in fact, during the operations there was not ever, so far as I know, an accident which cost the life of a passenger. That was a very, very creditable performance indeed. They did a good job indeed, as I say, in blazing the trail, but their general standard of operations in the light of present-day experience was not such as could be continued.
  Reference has been made to deficits. It is true that the deficit in 1947 to 1948 was £11 million. The anticipated deficit for 1948 to 1949 is £9 million. It had been hoped that the deficit for 1949 to 1950 would have been kept down to £5,500,000. However, that target was set by my noble Friend—I am not saying it may not be achieved—on a basis which has been changed in a rather unfortunate manner. I shall deal with the repercussions in a moment or two. That was the basis on which the B.S.A.A.C. estimates were made. There are many factors which have come into play and which are beyond the control of the Corporations and which may affect the reaching of that target—such factors as delays in aircraft deliveries, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to, difficulties in running in aircraft after they have been delivered, and all that sort of thing. However, I think the Committee is entitled to ask questions and to be satisfied with the answers about why the losses have been incurred by the Corporations to date, and about what is being done to

  219
  effect improvements, and whether improvements in the current year will be continued in subsequent years.
  First, it was always expected that there would be losses in airline operations when they were re-commenced after the war. The legislation which went through the House recognised that fact—recognised that the Corporations which were being set up to commence operations were being set up under severe handicaps—and statutory provisions were made to meet the losses which were expected because of those handicaps, which were well known. What are those handicaps? The first is that of aircraft; the second is the dispersal of bases; the third is the flying of uneconomic routes, particularly, in some cases, of internal routes in this country, and the rendering of social services—particularly in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and there is also the excessive cost which arises through the rapid building up and development of an organisation in its early days—a matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield.
  The plain fact is that the disadvantage which B.O.A.C. was operating under was that the aircraft which were available did not give B.O.A.C. an opportunity to earn sufficient revenue to meet its direct operating costs. Let me give an example. The average payload of B.O.A.C. aircraft is 5,800 lb. The payload of a Constellation is 12,000 lb. It means that to carry the same load and to secure the same revenue B.O.A.C. has to run two aircraft and run at double cost—double crew, double maintenance, double handling, double book-keeping; all the general incidental costs are doubled because the payload capacity of an aircraft of B.O.A.C. is only half that of more up-to-date aircraft. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is usually so fair, so let me point out this to him. He mentioned K.L.M. However, every aircraft which is operated by K.L.M. is an American aircraft.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: They have one Auster.
  Mr. Lindgren: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is splitting hairs. They are all American aircraft. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the first Minister of Civil Aviation in this
  220
  country should not have associated himself with the "Fly British" policy and should have sacrificed the British aircraft industry in order to get hold of more economic operational aircraft?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Of course, I do not think that the Minister should have sacrificed the British aircraft industry; and we all expected losses, but not such heavy losses. The point we query about K.L.M. is that they operate very efficiently, although they have American aircraft operating from one base.
  Mr. Lindgren: K.L.M. is a most efficient airline. It has every right to be proud of the record it has achieved for its own country and throughout the world. K.L.M. takes the best of all that is going—the best aircraft, irrespective of the country of origin of the aircraft, and the best personnel. I am proud that a large section of its personnel—flying crews and training and maintenance staff—are British personnel. K.L.M. made an airline, but it killed a Dutch aircraft industry.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: The Americans have an advantage in operating aircraft built in their own country. Surely it is reasonable to take Holland as a yardstick. They operate American aircraft and make a profit, but the Americans do not.
  Mr. Lindgren: It is difficult to make a comparison unless one can do it on a basis of real equality.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether B.O.A.C. is operating its American aircraft on the north Atlantic route at a profit after making proper provision for overhead costs?
  Mr. Lindgren: If I may first deal with the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, K.L.M. chooses its routes. It does not run everywhere in the world. It picks and chooses on a commercial basis. So far as this country is concerned—and so far as America is concerned—it runs a number of routes other than on a direct commercial basis. Hon. Members opposite have often asked questions about why we are running certain routes. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will be asking me questions very late tonight on that

  221
  matter. That consideration does not enter into the K.L.M. airlines. Whether or not it should do so, is another matter, but it does not detract from their standard of operations.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When the hon. Gentleman says that K.L.M. has the best of flying, does he mean that it has five State and four absolutely private directors on its board; and if that is the best of flying, why cannot we have that here?
  Mr. Lindgren: I am not prepared to enter into a dialectical argument with the hon. Gentleman on the question of nationalisation. Ninety per cent. of the paid-up capital of K.L.M. is State capital. My information is—and I checked it this morning—that 90 per cent. of the paid-up capital of K.L.M. is State capital, and the majority of the directors are nominees of the Government.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Five to four.
  Mr. Lindgren: Almost the odds at Hammersmith. It does not matter whether it is a State organisation or not. We are concerned about the efficiency of airline operations. It is a transport job of running services for the people, and the aim of every one ought to be to do that at the highest standard of efficiency.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) asked what was the result of B.O.A.C. operations on the north Atlantic route. There is only one route, the north Atlantic, on which B.O.A.C. operate on a comparative basis with its competitors. On that route, the degree of utilisation per aircraft is higher than on any other airline operating over the north Atlantic, and the pay load secured is higher than that of any other airline operator. It is useful to draw a comparison. If B.O.A.C. had been able to operate all its routes on the standard on which it operates, the north Atlantic route, the deficit would have been£ 1½ million and not £6½ million. That is a very striking example of the difference which the use of economic or neareconomic types of aircraft makes in comparison with uneconomic aircraft.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: The only conclusion I can draw is that B.O.A.C. is not operating at a profit on the London-New York route with American aircraft, provided provision is made for a due share of overheads.
  Mr. Lindgren: I would not claim that it was in fact actually making a profit. The last analysis I had was some time ago, and then it was anticipated that there would be a dollar profit operating in 1948–49. I am not certain what was the actual standard in 1948–49, but I will find out before we come to the end of this Debate. A fundamental of economic airline operations is to have as few types of aircraft operating as possible, to concentrate on the maintenance of those aircraft at as few bases as possible, and to fly them as much as possible. That is one of the problems of B.O.A.C. They were operating nine different types of aircraft from 11 different bases, a set of conditions with which no other operators had to deal and for which B.O.A.C. were in no way responsible. They have been striving to deal with those conditions.
  His Majesty's Government must take some responsibility for the fact that they have not concentrated on that more than they have done. B.O.A.C. have pointed out time and time again that, given a greater priority for the development of London Airport, they could save a very considerable amount of money. The development of London Airport means labour and materials, and a balance has to be struck between the development of London Airport and the provision of houses, factories and workshops for the people of West London and Middlesex—and this is apart from purely civil aviation considerations.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money spent on London Airport was directed to the most useful ends, and would it not have been better to cut down some of the runway development and get the maintenance side established first?
  Mr. Lindgren: In dealing with an international airport, it is necessary to make it possible for operators to land in this country, and one of the first jobs was to develop the runway system, to get a dual triangle system going, and to bring in as large a number of aircraft as possible. In addition, the provision of hangars used a considerable amount of steel. Cement was a problem in the early stages, but now, because of good organisation in association with the cement industry, there has been a larger availability of cement, and we have been able to go on. That condition is rapidly drawing to a

  223
  close, and a much brighter period is appearing, because the B.O.A.C. aircraft position will, in the near future, be much better. They will be equipped with the Boeing Stratocruiser, the Canadair IV, the Constellation, and the Hermes.
  Here I should like to deal with a point made by the hon. and gallant Member about the association of the R.A.F. and civil aviation in aircraft development. The Hermes is, surely, a good example of what has gone on and what is going on in co-operation with the R.A.F.: the Hermes is the civil version and the Hastings is the military version. In dealing with the general question of losses in civil aviation, let no one overlook the almost inestimable value to the aircraft industry and to aircraft engine manufacturers of the co-operation between the various Corporations in the development of those aircraft and of the engines, nor the relationship of that work to military work later on. In addition, of course, there will be the D.H. 106, the Bristol 175, with the Brabazon coming along, and the S.R. 45 for B.S.A.A. With the development of London Airport, which is going ahead as rapidly as is possible, B.O.A.C. will be able to concentrate its maintenance at London Airport and close some of its outstation maintenance bases.
  With B.E.A., the aircraft position was a little easier; it was not so difficult as with B.O.A.C., but they had their problems with aircraft. The development of the Viking cost B.E.A. half a million pounds, but it is now a first-class aircraft, and we have reached the stage when B.E.A. is meeting operational costs on its Continental services. In fact, there is an operational surplus on the Continental services, and they are approaching the stage when these routes will meet all their overheads, and the only deficit will be on the internal lines. As the Ambassador comes into operation, it will be transferred to London Airport, and B.E.A. will concentrate their maintenance there. At present B.E.A. are concentrating their maintenance of the Vikings at Northolt, to be followed by the Ambassador at London Airport, and the Dakota at Renfrew, thereby reducing costs very considerably.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: Has my hon. Friend received advice about this? Is he satisfied that the concentration
  224
  of all this maintenance at London Airport, and consequently the testing of the aircraft there, will be perfectly satisfactory, in view of the increased traffic at London Airport in any event? In other words, is he satisfied that the aircraft to be maintained there will be tested after their maintenance?
  Mr. Lindgren: I can only go on the technical advice I receive, and that technical advice is that the operational flights required as a result of maintenance—tests, and so on—will not stretch to any degree the utilisation of London Airport. My advice is that it was correct to concentrate maintenance there, that it will save dead flying, and that they will be able to carry the load in that area.
  I turn now to B.S.A.A. As with B.O.A.C., B.S.A.A. commenced under handicaps in operating converted bombers—Yorks and Lancastrians. They were looking forward to bringing the Tudor into service—and, in fact, had brought the first Tudor into service. Unfortunately, there have been the tragic losses of the "Star Tiger" and the "Star Ariel." Shortly after the disappearance of the "Star Ariel," my noble Friend invited Lord Brabazon to inquire into the design and construction of Tudor IV aircraft in relation to safety and airworthiness, and into any other relevant matters. Lord Brabazon has now communicated to the Minister the interim results of his inquiries. My noble Friend has also received the preliminary report of the Chief Inspector of Accidents. Neither of these investigations discloses the probable cause of the disaster, just as no probable cause was found when the "Star Tiger" disappeared a year earlier. Had it been possible to determine the definite actual cause, which could have been remedied, my noble friend feels that the aircraft might have continued to carry passengers. But as this was not the case, and, taking account of the psychological reaction of the travelling public, he has regretfully come to the conclusion that this type of aircraft should not continue to be used for carrying passengers—a conclusion with which the chairman of B.S.A.A. fully agrees. Subject to certain modifications, it will be possible to use these aircraft for freight-carrying purposes, and plans are being made for their

  225
  use, in the first instance, on the Berlin airlift. This decision immediatly raises the question of aircraft to replace the Tudors on B.S.A.A. routes, and this matter is under consideration.
  Let me now deal with the point made about excessive staffs for the Corporations.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the important question of the Tudor, I should like to put this to him. It may be highly technical, and he may not be able to give the explanation at the moment, but if an aircraft is unsafe for carrying passengers in any circumstances, how can it be safe for carrying crews?
  Mr. Lindgren: Those who fly aircraft are brave men who have the future of aviation at heart, and they take risks on behalf of aviation in making certain that aircraft are safe for passengers to fly. If aircraft crews had never taken a risk on the possible development of aircraft, there would not have been an aircraft industry, and there would never have been civil aviation.
  Mr. Granville: Will that interim report or the final report be published?
  Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.
  Mr. Cooper: Is not the real point that it is now more likely that this aircraft will be used over land areas rather than over the long sea routes on the journeys they performed with B.S.A.A., and that in those circumstances the risk, even for crews, is not as great?
  Mr. Lindgren: That is a consideration. It is true that if they are flying over land and there is an accident, the aircraft will come down on the land, and we may then find out what has happened. At the moment those that have crashed have disappeared under the sea, and there is no story to tell. If one crashes on land there can be an examination of what is left of the aircraft, and those skilled in these matters may find some reason for the failure of the aircraft. But that does not dispose of the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), that every pilot and every member of a crew who goes in the aircraft is taking a risk, and knows he is taking a risk: he is taking that risk in order to perform a function
  226
  in the airlift, and also to make his contribution to finding, perhaps, some cause——
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Air Vice-Marshal Bennett and his crews are perfectly satisfied, and that they do not think they are taking a risk at all in flying the Tudor on the Berlin airlift?
  Mr. Lindgren: That was the opinion expressed by B.S.A.A. crews when they went. It is a fact that the crews themselves speak extremely well of the aircraft; but two have disappeared, with no explanation possible, and in those circumstances the decision which I have just read is one which has been agreed to by all parties concerned.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: On the Berlin airlift they will not be used as pressurised aircraft, which is an important consideration in regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow.
  Mr. Lindgren: That may be a factor. They will not, of course, be used as pressurised aircraft.
  The criticism about the excessive staffs of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. does not apply to B.S.A.A. The Corporation themselves would be the first to admit that during that period of rapid expansion there was a tendency, when the whole urge was to get the services going, to set standards and to get results, for there to be an accumulation of staff. It was an expensive way of doing things, but it was done. and the manner in which it was done and the standard of performance achieved reflect considerable credit to all those concerned in it. Now that the services, routes and standards have been decided upon, it is possible to review the machine and to adjust it where necessary. B.O.A.C. have already made a start, and over 5,000 people have been dismissed, and in the case of B.E.A. some 800 people have been dismissed. We have been told that there would have been a row if this had been done by private enterprise. I am surprised that that statement should be made, because it used to be a common practice for the man at the bench to get his cards on a Wednesday or Tuesday night.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Not since the end of the war.
  Mr. Lindgren: It is not a question of since the end of the war; the trouble was before the war. Before the war, a man who got his cards did not know whether he could find another job, but now it is comparatively easy to find another job by just going round the corner.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: If that argument is to be used, can we be told why it is that at every by-election the charge is constantly hurled at the Tories that they are the party who dismiss people from their jobs?
  Mr. Lindgren: The trouble was the consequences following dismissal. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. The rapid expansion of Civil Aviation led to over-staffing, and now that we are streamlining the organisation it means that those who are additional to our requirements must be sacked. Surely it is not being suggested that we should carry passengers on the ground as well as in the air. Is the suggestion being made that we should dismiss no one?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not suggesting that. It is the Parliamentary Secretary who is trying to have it both ways. Why should the Conservative Party be criticised in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said?
  Mr. Lindgren: Had the hon. Member been present during the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield, he would have heard him say there would have been a howl from these benches, if people had been dismissed by private enterprise. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are pruning their organisations to bring about lower costs and more business. Civil aviation is a transport job which is no different to the job of running road transport or rail transport. In other words, we have to bring down the costs of operation to the lowest possible level, and the lower we get the costs, the larger the volume of business and the nearer we shall be to breaking even or making a profit.
  I wish to deal now with the change of chairmanship at B.E.A. I wish to make it perfectly clear that there was no personal disagreement between my noble Friend and Mr. d'Erlanger. The correspondence published tells the whole story. My noble Friend had to make a
  228
  decision. Mr. d'Erlanger's period of appointment finished in June, and my noble Friend had to decide whether he would reappoint him or make another appointment. He decided to make another appointment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he felt that change would be to the benefit of the development of B.E.A. and civil aviation generally. No chairman of any organisation can claim the right to perpetual reappointment, and the fact that a person is not reappointed does not in itself mean there is any criticism of the individual.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: The Lord President of the Council laid it down about a year ago that anyone who opposed nationalisation would not be considered for appointment to a board, and there was a great row in the House about it at that time. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that Lord Douglas joined the Socialist Party some months ago, and we know how the Socialist Party treat their converts. Is there anything at all in this dismissal from the point of view that the ex-chairman was a Tory and the man who has been appointed to the job is a Socialist convert?
  Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. As the point has been raised, I shall deal with it a little more fully. Lord Douglas has accepted the appointment offered to him, and he has accepted it at a salary of £5,000, which is £1,500 less than the salary received by his predecessor.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is not Lord Douglas also receiving the full pay of a marshal of the Royal Air Force?
  Mr. Lindgren: I could not say. He is a marshal of the Royal Air Force, but I do not know whether or not he receives full pay. I should have thought that a retired marshal of the Royal Air Force would be on half pay.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not know that a marshal of the Royal Air Force never retires but is always on the active list?
  Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. and gallant Member's information is so much better than mine, then why did he ask the question?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: May I point out that although Lord Douglas has retired, he does not retire from the active list, and that he is paid £1,750 as against £3,000 when serving full-time.
  Mr. Lindgren: Apparently I know more about these things than some of those who claim to have expert knowledge. I thought he was receiving half pay, and £1,750 is very nearly half pay. As far as the Opposition are concerned, if it is a Tory appointment it is a nonpolitical appointment, but if it is a Socialist appointment then it is a political appointment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There are a lot of Members on the Opposition Front Bench who when they lost their ministerial jobs in 1945, immediately became railway directors. After all, Lord Douglas has reached the highest rank in a glorious Service. Do the Opposition claim that his appointment to marshal of the Royal Air Force was a political appointment? He was Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain in 1940, those dark days of the war.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: Lord Dowding was at the head of the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain. Lord Douglas took over shortly after him.
  Mr. Lindgren: In the darkest days of the war, in 1940, Lord Douglas was appointed A.O.C.-in-C. Fighter Command. Was that a political appointment? Lord Douglas was appointed A.O.C.-in-C. Middle East, 1943. Was that a political appointment? In 1944, he was appointed A.O.C.-in-C. Coastal Command. Was that a political appointment? You see, each time he is appointed by a Tory Government, he is the best man for the job but——
  Mr. Granville: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair to Mr. d'Erlanger. I am certain that he was never appointed in the first place as a Tory. I was associated with him on British Airways and elsewhere. He was a pioneer in civil aviation administration. I wish to make it absolutely clear that he was not appointed politically as a Conservative.
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman has raised the point. I have not raised
  230
  it. So far as their politics go, I never know that of any person associated with air-line operation. It is not my purpose to discuss politics with them. I do not know. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are making all the fuss in regard to it.
  Mr. Gallachers: Give a chance to this side of the Committee.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: When I was referring to this matter of the airlines I was trying to deal with the wider aspect, and in particular to a new chairman being appointed when the managing director had gone on extended sick leave. Would the Parliamentary Secretary tie himself to that question of two senior executives coming into the Corporation at the same time?
  Mr. Lindgren: I would much prefer to deal with the matter in the manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised it. It is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's associates round about him who are on it like dogs on a bone for headlines in the "Daily Express" and the "Sunday Express." What I should like to know from hon. Gentlemen who have interrupted is why, when one appoints an officer with considerable ability to a very high office in the service during a period of war, that appointment is non-political, but when he is appointed to use the same qualities in the same sort of service in a peace-time operation for the benefit of the nation, it becomes a political appointment.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and I were thrown out of industry without a penny, and that it would please us very much if the Parliamentary Secretary were to purge every Tory out of it?
  Mr. Lindgren: I am spending much more time than I ought to be spending on this matter, but I shall give way to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) if he wants me to.
  Colonel Hutchison: The Parliamentary Secretary has asked why, when high appointments are made in the Services during the war, they were not political appointments, and after the war they become political appointments. Surely we have always prided ourselves on the

  231
  fact that political considerations do not enter into any appointments during wartime.
  Mr. Lindgren: I wish the hon. and gallant Member would have the courtesy to admit that that question does not enter now into this matter. This is an appointment in the same relationship: the best man for the job then, the best man for the job now. Perhaps one ought not to say "the best man" but certainly the best man within the knowledge of the person who makes the appointment. It is not the high-ranking officers who are always the best men in the Services.
  Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman has been very courteous. Will he deal with the one point which I put to him, that the Lord President of the Council laid down that a man, no matter what his ability, who opposed nationalisation, was not to have a position on the Board?
  Mr. Lindgren: I have quite enough to do with answering for myself. The Lord President of the Council is quite capable of answering for himself, and if the hon. Gentleman will put a question down to him, or will take some opportunity of raising the point in the House, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to answer it. The hon. Gentleman is not going to draw me on that line. What I have been saying is equally true in other directions. Sir Miles Thomas has been announced as chairman to follow Sir Harold Hartley at the B.O.A.C. Is the appointment of Sir Miles Thomas a political appointment? Why is it not, if the appointment is a political one at the B.E.A.? Is there not a difference, simply because the political leanings of Sir Miles Thomas and Lord Douglas may be a little different? The appointment of a Tory is non-political but if it is of a Socialist it is political. I am happy to pay a tribute to the work that is being carried on by Sir Miles Thomas, following on the standard set by Sir Harold Hartley.
  May I now close? I have spoken for much longer than I really ought to have done and I apologise most sincerely to the Committee.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Why apologise? It is hon. Members opposite who ought to be apologising to the Minister.
  Mr. Lindgren: It has been my privilege and experience to travel over many airlines in many parts of the world since I have been in this job. I have seen the standard of operation on our own and other countries' airlines. I have seen the standard of passenger handling of other countries. I can say that I am proud that the standard of operation, the crew standards and the passenger handling both in the air and on the ground of British airlines and British airports are second to none. Given the tools with which to create an economically operative machine, the aircraft and adequate maintenance bases, British air transport through the three major Corporations will lead airline operations throughout the world.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: An added interest has been injected into the Debate by the dismissal of Mr. d'Erlanger from British European Airways, to which the Parliamentary Secretary has just referred at some length. I do not propose to go into the personalities of the matter except to congratulate Lord Douglas upon making the grade so quickly, and also to congratulate some Members of the Government Front Bench in having their apprehensions relieved so quickly by this appointment, and in particular the Minister of Defence and perhaps the Minister of Civil Aviation himself. The new appointment does however raise certain general questions of some importance. I should be grateful if answers could be given. No mention has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary of the question of a Welsh service, which figures so prominently in the correspondence between Mr. d'Erlanger and the Minister.
  Mr. Lindgren: It does not enter into the correspondence in any shape or form.
  Mr. Thomas: If I have made a mistake I apologise and withdraw it, but it has certainly been referred to prominently——
  Mr. Beswick: Where did the hon. Gentleman see it?
  Mr. Thomas: My impression was that it figured in the correspondence, but apparently I am in error.
  Mr. Beswick: Before the hon. Gentleman set out to deal with the correspondence, surely he should have had the decency to read it.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is making an unnecessary observation. Of course, I have read the correspondence published in the newspapers yesterday morning and I thought this matter came into it, but apparently it was referred to outside the correspondence. I shall be glad to know something about this service, because it raises the question whether the Minister regards himself as having power under the Civil Aviation Act to direct a Corporation to run a service. That is my own view. The Minister has power to issue directions of a general character, and I should regard a direction to run a certain service as being a direction of a general character. If the Minister gave directions that the Corporation was to use Dakota aircraft or went into similar details, that would be a particular direction and would not be permissible. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any such direction has been given in this case? There must have been a good deal of discussion between the Minister and Mr. d'Erlanger. Perhaps we can have that point cleared up before the evening is over.
  I should like to address myself particularly to the question of the finances of the Corporations. The Committee will appreciate that I want to see these Corporations a success. I have more reasons than most persons for wishing to see them make a success of their task. If they are to be regarded as successful, it is absolutely imperative that the deficits of the Corporations should be cut down to more reasonable figures. I was very glad to see that the noble Lord the Minister of Civil Aviation has set the Corporations a target of £5,500,000 as the total deficit for the coming year. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell me what is the basis on which the Exchequer grant is to be made. As he will know, the Civil Aviation Act requires that a basis shall be formulated, and presumably this £5,500,000 deficit is on some particular basis. I should be grateful if I could know what it is. I believe that the present deficit can be cut down, and I regard the figure of £5,500,000 as quite reasonable. It was, in fact, roughly the figure at which the air line Corporations were operating from 1st April to 31st July, 1946.
  234
  The Parliamentary Secretary will know that before that period there was an extensive waiver of charges, and it was not possible to say with any accuracy what the profits or losses of B.O.A.C. were. In actual fact, a surplus was made in those days, but I should not like to place any great emphasis on it owing to this very extensive waiver of charges. When the waiver of charges came to an end on 31st March, 1946, from that date until the three Corporations started to work under the Civil Aviation Act on 1st August, 1946, the deficit for five months was £2,170,923 for all air services except the internal services, which works out at an annual rate of £5,210,015. I think that the fact that we were then at the beginning of the services, with all the inherent difficulties of the commencement, should be set against the additional mileage which has since been flown. This figure of £5,500,000 accordingly strikes me as a reasonable target at which the Corporations should aim, and I am glad that the Minister has laid it down so definitely.
  Before we ask ourselves how these losses can be cut down we must ask ourselves precisely what the losses are. They can be put in a graphic form. The loss of B.O.A.C. can be measured at £54 for every passenger carried; of B.E.A.C. £7 for every passenger carried; and of B.S.A.A., £37 for every passenger carried. Of course, the distances for which the passengers were carried must be taken into account. The average number of miles per passenger were: B.E.A.C., 239 miles; B.O.A.C., 2,126 miles; and B.S.A.A., 3,580 miles. That calculation presupposes that there is no deficit on mail and on freight. So far as I can gather, mail pays its way. The receipts from non-surcharged mail on the external services are 16s. a ton-mile, and for surcharged mail, 32s. a ton-mile; these figures are above the total costs of operation. There is, accordingly, no deficit on account of mails, but I have not the figures on which I can make a calculation for freight.
  This raises the very important question whether the Post Office ought not to be paying higher rates for the carriage of mail. I appreciate that in the case of international routes this would have to be agreed internationally, but in the case of the European services the British Post Office would be in a strong position to

  235
  take a lead. The Post Office appears to be in a position to make a more substantial contribution. We have seen this morning in the Post Office Commercial Accounts the very large surplus which the Post Office is making, and I hope that the Minister will press for a more substantial contribution from the Post Office.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: If the Post Office also is a business concern and has to be responsible for the working of its own arrangements, why should it have to subsidise any other form of industry and, at the same time, balance its own accounts? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Post Office has quite a lot to do in running its own affairs and in paying its own people adequate wages without subsidising another industry?
  Mr. Thomas: This bears on something which I shall raise at greater length later on. Both the Post Office and the Ministry of Civil Aviation are engaged in business, but the Post Office is in a stronger position than the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and I should like to see the hand of the Minister strengthened.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has agreed, I think, that the Post Office is paying adequately for the services which it is receiving. If that is so, does he mean that it should pay over and above what is adequate for those services?
  Mr. Thomas: I said that it was paying its share of the cost of the operation of the aircraft, but in transport it is a familiar practice to charge according to what the traffic will bear. Diamonds are charged very much more than coal. It would be perfectly in accordance with commercial practice to have differential rates of that character. I have obtained the figures of Post Office payments for a previous year, and they reveal that the Post Office receipts from the carriage of air mail just about equal its outgoings; but the Post Office is clearly in a position to pay more. This argument has come in the middle of an attempt on my part to express graphically what is the loss of the Corporations for their services in the past year.
  We get a more accurate picture if we measure the loss per capacity-ton-mile. I reckon that B.O.A.C. derived in revenue
  236
  3s. 10d. for every capacity-ton-mile and spent 5s. 10d. for every capacity-ton-mile, which means a loss of 2s. for every capacity-ton-mile; B.E.A.C. received 4s. 2d. in revenue and spent 7s. 6d., at a loss of 3s. 4d. for a capacity-ton-mile; whereas B.S.A.A. received in revenue 2s. 5d. and spent only 3s., so that the loss is only 7d. a capacity-ton-mile.
  I think there is a slightly more accurate measure still. I have changed my view since last year on that point. The loss might be still better measured, I now think, according to the loss per load-ton-mile, because that takes into account the success of the airlines in attracting business and maintaining a high load factor. Measured in that way, the loss to B.O.A.C. is 3s. 4d. a load-ton-mile; for B.E.A.C., 5s. 4d. a load-ton-mile; and for B.S.A.A., only 11d. a load-ton-mile. This is not due to B.S.A.A. having the aircraft full the whole time, for in fact the load factor of B.S.A.A., which is subject to very intense competition on the South American route, is lower than that of the other two Corporations. For B.O.A.C. the over-all load factor is 66.3, for B.E.A.C. it is 62.3, and for B.S.A.A. 58.9. It must therefore be due to some factors other than the load factor.
  At this point may I say that I think it is very useful for us to be able to measure one Corporation against another, and that is one reason why it was considered desirable to set up three Corporations. I hope there will be no departure from that policy. Indeed, I should like to see still greater decentralisation. I think that in this era of rapid development this is the only way in which we can get efficiency. I hope also that no one will ever confuse this question of efficiency with the unfortunate accidents which B.S.A.A. has suffered. The losses of the "Star Tiger" and the "Star Ariel" are complete mysteries. There is no known cause for those accidents, and they certainly have no bearing on this question of efficiency. It would be unfortunate if the very commendable efforts of the staff of B.S.A.A. to cut their costs, which they have done so well, were confused by this question of the baffling losses of the two Tudor aircraft.
  I should now like to ask what are the causes of these losses? I can put this problem also in graphic form. I think it is fair in the first place to ask what

  237
  is the number of staff employed for every aircraft used? This test is admittedly subject to a little doubt as there is some uncertainty about how many aircraft ought to be reckoned in a fleet. However, I calculate that in B.O.A.C. there are 159 staff for every aircraft in the fleet, in B.E.A. 70 for every aircraft and in B.S.A.A. 63 for every aircraft. The relatively good showing of B.E.A. is to be expected as it uses two-engined aircraft, whereas the other Corporations use four-engined aircraft and the figures are more strictly comparable.
  Next I suggest as a measure of efficiency the degree of utilisation of the aircraft, which is of fundamental importance. I have not the figure for B.O.A.C., because there are not enough data in the annual report to calculate it, but B.E.A. used its aircraft on the average for two-and-three-quarter hours a day and B.S.A.A. for three hours a day. B.O.A.C. has told us that its degree of utilisation on the North Atlantic route is much greater than elsewhere. B.E.A. has gone into this question in some detail, and it points out that some of its aircraft are used in the Summer months for 4.9 hours a day. We shall not get complete efficiency from our airlines until their aircraft are used for about eight hours a day. The aircraft only cost money when they are on the ground; it is only when they are in the air that they are earning. The aim should be a much greater degree of utilisation. In Europe, where travel in the hours of darkness is often not practicable, and where the aerodromes are often inadequately lighted, I must concede to B.E.A. that it is more difficult to achieve a high rate of utilisation than over the trans-oceanic routes.
  In asking what is the reason for these losses I shall next use as a measure of efficiency a division of the costs between direct operating costs and total costs. By direct operating costs I mean aircraft standing charges, aircraft maintenance and overhaul, flying operations and the charter of aircraft and crews. As the Minister knows, the direct operating costs of B.O.A.C. were 40d. per capacity-ton-mile out of a total cost of 70d., or 57 per cent. For B.E.A. the figure is 44d. out of a total cost of 90d., which gives us 49 per cent. The figure for B.S.A.A. is 24d. out of total costs of 36d., and
  238
  the percentage is 66 per cent. In those figures we have the explanation why it is that B.S.A.A. made such a smaller loss than the other Corporations. It is because their direct flying costs are a very much higher percentage of the total costs than the administrative expenses, and because their costs as a whole are very much lower than those of the other Corporations.
  There is yet another test and it is perhaps the best of all. It is admitted by the Corporations themselves as the best measure of relative efficiency. It is the capacity-ton-miles turned out by every member of the staff. The average member of the staff of B.O.A.C. turned out 3,105 capacity-ton-miles in the course of the year. In B.E.A. the figure was 2,819 and in B.S.A.A. 10,758.
  Mr. Cecil Poole: So what?
  Mr. Thomas: This is an explanation that I am attempting to give why B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. made heavy losses, and why B.S.A.A. made so small a loss. The ratio of efficiency measured by that standard is 1.00 for B.E.A., 1.06 for B.O.A.C. and 3.75 for B.S.A.A. It is observed in the B.O.A.C. report that on the North Atlantic route it is able to get a figure more than twice as high for the capacity-ton-miles per employed person. I have offered these calculations to the Committee as an analysis of why these losses have arisen, and I think it can hardly be disputed that it is correct in broad outline.
  We have now to go behind the analysis and ask what are the main causes. The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with several of them, and I accept in general what he said. He has referred to the postwar problems. Another cause is that we are living in a period of very rapid development, and I am afraid that losses are inevitable in this period. It means that aircraft have to be written off in a very much shorter period than that in which they will be written off in the future. Here I should like to pick a very small bone with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). He would have liked to see a stabilisation of aircraft at speeds of about 200 miles an hour. I do not think that is possible. If that argument is pushed to its logical conclusion we would arrive at the result that it

  239
  would be far better if we had never flown at all.
  Having gone into this business, we must see it through, and in my view we shall have more reasons to hope for stabilisation at a figure of about 500 miles per hour, which will be the cruising speed of the D.H.106 in a few years' time. I say this, not simply from a love of speed, but normal cruising speeds of 500 miles an hour will solve many problems in air travel. It will be possible to cross the Atlantic in four hours and it will be possible to cut out night travel, because the whole journey can be done in the day time. It will make the problem of air travel a great deal easier. It may very well be that we shall not be able to stabilise at that figure, and that speeds will be pushed up beyond the speed of sound. Personally I think the D.H.106 and a few other aircraft in the next few years will be thoroughly satisfactory aircraft, and I hope it will be possible to keep them in use for at least 10 years of flying life. I do not think it is possible to stabilise at lower speeds.
  There is another cause of our present discontent, and here I cannot expect the Parliamentary Secretary in public to agree with me. A main reason for the troubles of civil aviation in recent years, and a main cause of the losses of the Corporations, has been the fact that civil aviation does not receive a sufficiently high priority from the Government. I will take four illustrations of what. I mean, and it will be seen what a bearing it has upon this question of loss. In the first place, the Corporations are much handicapped in not having any proper collecting centre for their traffic. They made strong representations that Earls Court should be made available for that purpose, and they were turned down because it was wanted to house part of the British Industries Fair. They have in consequence to collect their passengers all over the place. Some of the work is done near Victoria, some in the centre of London, some in Kensington, and some at the aerodrome. This has meant very serious extra costs to the Corporation. It shows that when the Minister of Civil Aviation goes to the Cabinet he is nearly always overborne by colleagues, who are able to shout louder than he is. Civil aviation has never had a square deal in the Cabinet.
  240
  The second illustration is the scattered nature of the bases which the Corporations, particularly B.O.A.C., have to employ. That has already been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. B.O.A.C. estimates that it would save £1 million a year if all its bases could be concentrated at the London Airport. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) made a very important point in an intervention just now when he asked if test flying could be carried on with all the regular services operating from the airport. That is certainly a big question. I should not like to say that I have come to a right decision but my feeling is that all the bases ought to be concentrated at the London Airport and that the work could be carried on along with the regular services. If the Government had given a clear line some years ago and said, "We will provide the labour and the raw materials, particularly the steel, for constructing all the necessary hangars at the London Airport," that would have cut out an enormous amount of dead flying and the Corporations would have been in a very different financial position. However, the Ministry of Civil Aviation has never been able to get from the Government the priority it ought to have in such a matter.
  My third illustration is that of the internal services. Apart from the Welsh service which has lately come into the news, it looks as though all the projected internal services have now been dropped. There was a very good plan for the internal services of the country, and it appears to me now that the Government have capitulated completely to surface transport in this matter and that in the interests of the nationalised railways we shall not have any further development of the internal air services——
  Mr. C. Poole: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that a new internal service between London and Birmingham is opening in April this year?
  Mr. Thomas: I should be very surprised if that were the case.
  Mr. Lindgren: It is between Birmingham and Paris.
  Mr. Thomas: I thought that the distance between London and Birmingham would not justify a regular scheduled service, and, of course, there are also two excellent railway lines

  241
  between those places. It appears that almost the whole of the projected plans for the internal air services have been abandoned, and that is a sacrifice to surface interests, the surface interests in this case being a nationalised industry. From the point of view of civil aviation, it makes no difference whether it is private or nationalised. This bears on the suggestions which have been made that the Ministry of Civil Aviation ought to be merged in the Ministry of Transport. I have always felt that that was the ultimate end of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but I doubt whether the time has yet come to do it, if only because the interests of civil aviation would suffer still more. The Minister of Transport will certainly put the railways——
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member cannot discuss any alteration in legislation, which his remarks now would involve.
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Bowles. I had not appreciated that point. That matter was raised a little earlier, and I am sorry that I pursued it. The essential point I wanted to make is that the internal air services of the country are being sacrificed in the interests of the nationalised railways.
  The fourth illustration is that of flying clubs. This question has been hanging about a very long time, and the clubs are now in a desperate position. I know the views of the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter, and I know that he would be glad to do what he can for the flying clubs, but it involves the Government as a whole, and I think that the Government should certainly, in the highest national interests, give a substantial contribution to the flying clubs at the present time. They make a very great contribution both to civil aviation and to national defence. We were glad enough of the pilots trained in the flying clubs when the Battle of Britain came in 1940, and we may want the services of club-trained pilots again. I hope that this question will not be allowed to hang about any more. It is, of course, well known that the regular air chiefs do not attach much importance to all this amateur flying, but the Government ought to look at the matter in a more national spirit.
  If some of these suggestions are carried out, such as concentration of bases, a
  242
  great impression could be made on these losses of the Corporations. I am very glad to see—this is a technical point which I raised last year—that the practice of writing off twice over the cost of an aircraft has now been given up. It has been given up in a very complicated manner, but nevertheless it has been given up, and that is all to the good. If that had not been done the losses would have been even greater.
  Although the outlook is a little gloomy—we are faced with heavy losses and continual upheavals in the Corporation—I think we are moving into a period which will justify greater optimism. It will not be very much longer before the Brabazon I takes the air, and also the D.H.106, two very important aircraft. According to my information, both are making excellent progress, and so is the S.R.45, the big flying boat. When we have these aircraft flying and the Ambassador, we shall have a very much better prospect of holding our own in the world. We have had to wait a very long time for it, but there is going to be a big transformation in our flying position, particularly when we have the D.H.106 in operation.
  The aerodrome position is also sound. London Airport is the best airport in the world. I was very interested in what the Minister said about the proximity of Northolt. It was, of course, always understood that no final decision had been taken about Northolt, and I am inclined to agree with him that a permanent aerodrome there would be unsuitable. From what he said, I inferred that the European services would be operated mainly from the London Airport. He did not give any indication whether the project for building an airport for the European services to the East of London, say at Fairlop, has been abandoned or not. Presumably it is still open for consideration.
  Mr. Lindgren: It is still open, but the airfield is protected by town planning. It will be used if required, but not until it is required.
  Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He spoke of the Ambassador going to Northolt in 1951, but the date given by B.E.A.C. for bringing the Ambassador into service is 1953. Presumably there will be two years' experimental work beforehand, or perhaps that was a slip.
  Mr. Lindgren: It will be 1951 or 1952. They will be brought in as they are received. They will probably come into service in late 1952–53.
  Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is a case for keeping open, as he is obviously doing, the need for an aerodrome to the East of London, but London Airport is in itself very satisfactory. I should like to close with one suggestion which might make it more satisfactory still. It occurred to me in the train from South Wales this morning as I came past the aerodrome at Filton. The railway runs alongside the aerodrome. The problem of fog in the London area is, of course, notorious. Why should not Filton be declared the aerodrome for Bristol and also a diversion for London Airport? Those two airports are sufficiently far apart usually to have different weather. If passengers had to be diverted to Bristol, they could then very easily be put into a waiting coach and hitched to the back of the South Wales to London trains. South Wales has the best train services in the country, and the passengers would be in London in a very short time. It strikes me as being a very practical suggestion which I should like to see the Minister take up.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I hesitate to intervene amongst the experts, but let me say at once that I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) except to dissent from his last point, if he made it generally. I understood the hon. Member to indicate that he was satisfied with the position regarding aerodromes, and it is on that I wish to speak tonight. We are keenly aware in the North-East of our lack of first-class airport facilities. We feel that we are being overlooked, if not prejudiced, at the present time. It is quite true that about three years ago the hon. Member for Keighley, who was then in better company, assured us that we would have a designated international airport; in fact, he was rather more specific and told us that a permanent airport would be available in from three to five years, and that Croft would be used almost at once for full continental services. However, I do not hold my hon. Friend to anything that his predecessor may have said.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Does it not bear on something I said earlier, that the internal
  244
  services have been largely abandoned? That would apply to aerodromes as well as to services.
  Mr. Willey: Having allowed the hon. Gentleman to state his case, I will come to my hon. Friend. In mid-summer, 1947, he told the House that Croft was intended for temporary use and Boldon had provisionally been selected as the site for the new airport. However, later the temporary use of Croft was abandoned. I am not critical of that decision. I think there were good reasons for it. On the other hand, the difficulties regarding Boldon were overcome. Our disadvantage was that although, seemingly, the obstacles to obtaining a first-class airport had been overcome, the Government had given no indication of any order of priority of development, so that we still did not know where we stood.
  Then, again, there was the cut in the capital investment programme, and today we have no airport and apparently no immediate prospect of one. This means, in effect, that we are the only important part of the country entirely without adequate airport facilities. We feel our shortcomings all the more when the noble Lord the Minister can say in another place with pride that the air passenger traffic of British airports is five times as great as it was before the war, and when he can point out, too, that the volume of operations is increasing at the rate of between 37 and 39 per cent. each year.
  Again, the Elmwood-Paris service has been mentioned, and also the Welsh service, which has been begun for an experimental period of six months. All these factors make us feel that we are very poorly off in the North-East. I know our shortcomings. As far as an internal service is concerned, if we could get back the fast trains we had before the war, there is no great advantage in an internal air service. I fully realise that B.E.A. withdrew the Belfast-Carlisle-Newcastle service on the grounds that it was not paying. I know that many of our major industries are producing goods which are not likely to make extensive use of air transport. In spite of all this, however, I would emphasise that we have industries in the North-East which are vitally important to the export trade. It has already been mentioned by the hon. and gallant

  245
  Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) that the National Coal Board intends to organise air trips for the miners. Well we have a large number of miners in the North-East. More important than this, we are a Development Area endeavouring to attract into the area new industries which are likely to make extensive use of air freight. Whilst we have not the airport facilities, we have not the incentive we should like to those industries to come up to the North-East.
  There is another and even more important factor. On broad national and international grounds we should do everything we can to encourage our contacts today with Scandinavia and with North-West Europe. We have a lot in common with Scandinavia. Some of the difficulties in getting a closer understanding are due to the fact that travel to Scandinavia is less easy than to other parts of Western Europe. On this ground alone I stress the importance of the provision of an airport which would provide ready, speedy air transport to Scandinavia. The attraction of a direct service to London is obvious, but it has been indicated today that in London we are already foreseeing the overcrowding of our present airports. If we should decide, on broad national grounds, to provide facilities for air travel to Scandinavia, I would urge that we should establish that airport in the North-East and provide for feeder services.
  I have mentioned the cut in capital investment. We appreciate that, and we understand the reasons for the delay in proceeding with the scheme which has been accepted in principle. I would point out, however, that the two major difficulties were manpower and materials. As far as manpower is concerned, there is no difficulty regarding the Boldon scheme. Unfortunately we have sufficient unemployed in the locality to provide the manpower required. We are different from Heathrow where the labour is imported. With regard to materials, I realise that the main difficulty will be one of steel, but the shipyards are having an increased allocation of 5 per cent. this year, and I should have thought that the time had come when we might revise the position regarding the airport programme. Indeed, when we see that even under present difficulties for each of the years between now and 1952 £2 million
  246
  to £2½ million is to be provided for London Airport, we feel the time has come when the decision regarding our airport programme should be reconsidered and the possibility of commencing the Boldon Airport be reviewed.
  There is another point closely associated with this. When my hon. Friend made a statement to the House on 9th July, 1947, he said that
  "many of the aerodromes will be used on a joint basis with the Service Departments and the aircraft manufacturers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2190.]
  I believe that we should consider the introduction of the aircraft industry into the North-East, or at any rate into the Development Areas. I was privileged to serve on the Select Committee which inquired into the construction of the Brabazon I. The figures about the Brabazon I are interesting. The total cost of the project at the time when we enquired into it was estimated at about £11 million. Of that £11 million rather more than £5,750,000 was to be expended on the two prototypes and their engines. Only half of that represented manufacturing costs, the other half went on development and research. Over and above that, nearly £5,250,000 has been spent on the Filton runway and the assembly buildings.
  The position is that, if the prototype proves successful, B.O.A.C. expect to order not more than three aircraft, and it is quite clear that they will not be able to afford more than £1,250,000 at the outside for each of the aircraft. That means we have a project where the manufacturing costs will run at about £3 million, and £9 million will have been spent on the cost of development and the capital costs that go with it. In short, as far as the large aircraft are concerned, we have reached a stage of development where development costs are quite irrecoverable, and those development costs include substantial capital costs. Those costs obviously are so tremendous that they cannot be loaded on to the sales of the aircraft.
  We are conducting a national experiment at the country's expense and, of course, in the country's interest. But the State expenditure which is incurred for and on our behalf is very substantial indeed, even when compared with other Government expenditure. The total

  247
  outlay on the Brabazon project alone is very nearly as much as the total Government expenditure on the North-East Development Area since the war. Bristol has had expended upon it, for good purposes, a capital State expenditure, substantially irrecoverable, of about £9 million. I have no criticism of that. It was very difficult to decide where the expenditure should be incurred.
  On balance the Government were quite right in seeing that the capital expenditure and development costs were incurred and that the buildings and runway were erected at Filton. But if this Brabazon experiment is to be successful, as we hope it will, and if, moreover, it is proved that the Brabazon aircraft can be operated economically, then, although the Bristol Aeroplane Company clearly will be able to meet the needs of B.O.A.C., who have indicated that they might require three aircraft, and three only, for their Transatlantic services,—although, so far, B.S.A.A.C. have indicated that they have no intention of ordering the Brabazon I—I think we can nevertheless assume, that there will be a much bigger overall demand
  But by the very fact of this development itself we have created an unavoidable monopoly to the firm responsible for the development work. No other aircraft constructor in the country could at present construct the Brabazon I. Should it prove successful—we have very good grounds for believing that it will—I am sufficiently confident to believe that it will lead to a demand for large aircraft, which the Bristol Aeroplane Company themselves cannot meet. We are immediately faced with the question of considerable capital expenditure and also expenditure on development costs, because when I say it will succeed, I do not mean that it will succeed necessarily in the form and shape of the present Brabazon I.
  We have, therefore, to consider as a nation where that expenditure should be incurred, and we come right up against the question of the location of industry. Here we have an opportunity to direct or persuade an industry to go into one of the development areas. There may be arguments against doing so but, as far as the aircraft industry is concerned, I think we recognise two things: that it
  248
  has suffered and has successfully dealt with a considerable contraction during the past few years, and that aircraft workers generally have been able to turn their hands to other work. I mention this because we are not bound, when considering such substantial national expenditure, necessarily to follow the industry wherever it may be. I hope, therefore, that if and when this problem arises, as I hope it will, my hon. Friend will consider the broad question of the location of industry and will see whether or not a vitally important industry such as this—for all practical purposes, a new industry—could be steered into the North-East or to another suitable development area.
  I mention the North-East because, if we have airfield development then I belive, in spite of what has been said about the difficulties of test flying and so on, that it would be possible to combine the two schemes. What shape or form it should take is a matter about which we need not be doctrinaire. Provided we could get a nucleus of the design staff and engineering technicians, then in an area like the North-East, with its background of highly skilled workmen, we could soon provide the labour force which would be required. Whether the project should be carried out by the Bristol Aeroplane Company, by a corporation comprising all aircraft constructors, or by a State-sponsored corporation, is another matter, but I hope that the essential point—the importance of the location of industry being borne in mind when such very substantial State funds are involved—will not escape my hon. Friend's attention and that he will see that it is seriously considered in turn by the Government if the question arises of our entering in a substantial way upon the manufacture of large-scale aircraft.
  To conclude, as far as the airfield programme is concerned we must pay regard to what I consider to be important national and international considerations. We must pay attention to the urgent need for providing better transport facilities to Scandinavia. As far as concerns the new development in the construction of large scale aircraft, if our optimism is justified—and we have every reason for believing that it will be—we must realise that we must set the pace for the construction of these very large aircraft and that the need for them will not be confined to B.O.A.C.

  249
  It is up to us, therefore, as quickly as possible to show that we are in a position to construct them to meet those needs. I end, as I began, by apologising for intervening amongst the experts, but I hope that the two points I have raised are matters which will not escape the attention of my hon. Friend.
  5.57 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I should like to begin by referring to the final observations of the Parliamentary Secretary when he commented upon the appointment of Lord Douglas. The actual phrase which he used was, "When it is a Socialist appointment the dogs go for the bones." I can only suggest——
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and gallant Member should not put words into my mouth. I never used such a phrase. What I did infer was that my reply was due to the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite were like dogs at a bone.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I was about to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if his knowledge of Lord Douglas was a little greater he would realise how inappropriate it was to refer to him physically as a bone. It is only right that we should be fair to Mr. d'Erlanger. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, whereas Mr. d'Erlanger had been receiving £6,500 a year, Lord Douglas was to receive only £5,000. I believe that Lord Douglas is in receipt of other remuneration, and the Committee should know whether he will, in fact, draw the two remunerations and will remain also a director of B.O.A.C.
  Mr. Lindgren: Is it now the policy of the Conservative Party that any person who receives a pension from any one of the Services should have that pension taken into account when his wage or salary is being fixed?
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: There is no question of Conservative Party policy. The Parliamentary Secretary emphasised that Lord Douglas was to get several hundred pounds less than Mr. d'Erlanger. I merely want to know whether that is so.
  Mr. Lindgren: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make clear why he is emphasising that a particular person draws a Service pension? Is it his policy and that of his hon. Friends, that Service
  250
  pensions should be taken into account when wages and salaries of individuals are fixed?
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Lord Douglas is not in receipt of a Service pension. He is in receipt of a payment as a marshal of the Royal Air Force, which is altogether different, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because marshals of the Royal Air Force, admirals of the Fleet and field-marshals always remain on the Active List. I also ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee if Lord Douglas is also to remain on the board of B.O.A.C., because I believe that for that office he draws a thousand pounds a year.
  Mr. Lindgren: Five hundred pounds.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: The Minister referred to his great career in the Royal Air Force, to which everyone in the Committee will also pay tribute, and also to his work as Military Governor in Germany. The Minister went on to refer to the fact that he was appointed Air-Marshal and so on by a Tory Government. That is completely away from the story. When Lord Douglas was in the Royal Air Force he was an expert in the job and had been at it all his life. He was appointed by a Liberal. Our criticism today is that Lord Douglas cannot be regarded today as an expert in air transportation.
  Mr. Lindgren: Is the assertion now that knowledge of air operations in the Royal Air Force is not a contributory factor to knowledge of normal air operations?
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: One of the troubles with air transport today is that it is not run by people with a background of air transport. Today more than at any time transport undertakings should be run by experts at the job. The Minister does not like us commenting on the fact that the new chairman of B.E.A. only joined the Socialist Party 12 or 18 months ago. We say, and say quite frankly, that this is a most blatant case of "Jobs for the boys."
  Mr. Bramall: Is it contended that Lord Douglas could have joined the Socialist Party on some previous occasion, in view of the fact that he was a serving officer of the Royal Air Force?
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: It is very unfortunate that Lord Douglas should have joined the Socialist Party at all. The hon. Member knows quite well that serving officers cannot take part in party politics. It also seems extremely unfair to Mr. d'Erlanger that after the years of hard work he has put in, the Minister of Civil Aviation should adopt the very dangerous policy of swopping horses in mid-stream.
  I should like to comment on one or two matters to which the Minister referred. There is the question of flying clubs. We know the difficulties his Department have with the Treasury, but we have now reached 1st March and if we do not get a decision and some money soon, the whole year will pass before any use can be made of any grant which the Treasury may give his Department. I assume that he and his noble Friend will do their best to press the Treasury and to ensure that a decision is reached without further delay, so that these flying clubs which did such grand work between 1925 and 1935 get help and encouragement not only from the Department, but from the Treasury. The Minister made but a passing reference to the transfer of the Dorval base over here. It would be very useful if he could tell us how far that has progressed and what dollar saving is being effected.
  Lord Brabazon's report on the Tudor will cause great disappointment to the people of Lancashire, who have worked so hard on that aircraft. I suggest that even though the Department will not wish to publish Lord Brabazon's full report, they should consider, in the interests of the workpeople, giving the country some information why this aircraft has now been grounded. I think that only fair to the manufacturers and workpeople.
  Civil air transport is very far removed from the Royal Air Force and Service activities. One of our troubles has been that while everyone who goes in an aeroplane belonging to B.O.A.C., B.E.A. or B.S.A.A. have the most complete confidence in that aircraft and its crew once they are off the ground, they have not the same confidence in the ground organisation which looks after them. In civil aviation it should be the passenger first and last, and the policy should be, "The passenger is always right." If the
  252
  Corporations consider this, they will realise that, after all, the passenger is the one person who matters in making a success or a failure of an airline, not the set up of the Corporations and not the Ministry of Civil Aviation. When we travel by steamship, or even on the nationalised railways, there is a feeling that in the people on the ground one has equals. We hear many complaints and I have experienced it myself, when travelling by air, that this does not apply to our Corporations. One gets the feeling that we are travelling on sufferance and that we are a bit of a nuisance.
  Mr. Lindgren: In the air, or on the ground?
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: On the ground. I had personal experience of this in Lisbon not long ago. We rang up and received the reply that the aircraft was ready to take off. Then one had to hang about for two and a half hours and no one told one why there was delay and one was treated like a child. In that case the people to blame were British South American Airways staff. I wrote a report about that in "The Aeroplane." I happened to give this address, and when asked my occupation I said, "Critic of nationalised airlines." Perhaps that is why I did not get a reply. There is a considerable lack of facilities in this country and until quite recently once one got inside Heathrow and gave up a ticket, one could not even telephone to say goodbye to friends. I believe that at long last that has been remedied.
  Air Corporations run on three distinct routes. They run on profitable routes, on which we should concentrate; on social routes, which are to provide services to the Western Isles and other parts of the country; and on what are essentially political routes, routes which have to be kept open for political or strategic reasons. They are the kind to which I have referred which are only carrying the personal perquisites of Ministers abroad, such as the Ambassador's gin. Those are the political routes which must be left open and, in my view, could be run independently, or as a separate division of the Corporation. It is obviously unfair that these routes, for strategic purposes only, which must inevitably lose large sums of money, should be charged against the operating costs of the Corporation.

  253
  What liaison is there between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Colonial Office? We know that B.O.A.C. has certain subsidiaries operating in the Colonies. We were very alarmed to read a reply by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this House saying that no less than 1½ million dollars was being expended on surveys in the Colonies. So far as I know no opportunity has been given to British air survey companies to enter that field. In this matter one can speak from previous knowledge. There are private companies, commercial undertakings, in this country which are well equipped to carry out large and complicated air surveys for payment in sterling instead of our having to get money through the Marshall Plan to pay for these services. I hope that we shall have an answer tonight on that matter because our air survey companies are a very valuable reserve to the civil aviation industry. It is heartbreaking to them to see American dollars used when they could do the work so well.
  In his opening statement the Minister omitted to mention one or two matters. He made scant reference to the part which British commercial aviation is playing in the Berlin airlift today. It is not only the Corporations which have aircraft on charter for that important work but the charter companies also. I think that the Royal Air Force will agree that the civil side of aviation has played——
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. May we discuss in this Debate the question of the charter companies and what they are being paid per hour and all these other aspects of the Berlin airlift? I put the point because I submitted a Question to the Clerk at the Table and it was ruled out of Order. I should like to know whether I can make the point now?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The position appears to be that the Foreign Office pays for the Berlin airlift, and it would be in Order to discuss it. This Debate has nothing to do with Question time.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I had no intention of discussing whether a profit or loss was made by these companies. The fact remains that the Government and the Royal Air Force will admit that these charter companies and the Corporations have played a large part in
  254
  keeping the people of Berlin fed and warm during the winter. My last observation is that I hope that the suggestion that has been made by, among others, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield that at some time it might well be considered that the Ministry of Civil Aviation should become a Division of the Ministry of Transport, will receive due consideration.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Beswick: I am quite sure that the country generally will have nothing but contempt for the way some Members of the Opposition have tried to drag in personalities for the purpose of making political capital. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has permitted himself to be goaded into this position following the present Conservative policy of trying to extract the greatest amount of mischief from the smallest possible grievance.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I was trying to make the point, which I thought I had made clear, that if the managing director and chairman left any company in the space of six or eight weeks, it was very unsatisfactory and was a bad thing, to which I have had no reply.
  Mr. Beswick: The hon. and gallant Member and his colleagues have been criticising the administration of B.E.A.C. and the other nationalised Corporations in the course of Debates in the House for as long as I can remember; yet when a change is made in the central direction they criticise the Government for that change. The manner in which that criticism has been made is typical of the present unattractive way in which the Conservative Party tries to make the greatest possible amount of mischief when there is any grievance whatever.
  There are any number of matters for which the Ministry of Civil Aviation have responsibility and which the Opposition might well have usefully raised instead of starting up this trouble. For example, they might have asked my hon. Friend, as I shall have to ask him, who it was that spent £200,000 in travelling and incidental expenses in 1948–49? Will he also tell the Committee why his Ministry have incurred a loss in the past year of £73,000 under the heading of catering, as shown in the Civil Estimates? It seems

  255
  to me quite unsatisfactory that the Ministry of Civil Aviation should have incurred such an expenditure in that direction.
  In the course of his further remarks, when he had cooled down a little and reached the more constructive part of his speech, the hon. and gallant Member mentioned the Eire Agreement. I agree with him that we ought to know much more about the advantages we are supposed to get from that agreement in return for the losses we incur. I should like to have an opportunity on some other occasion, if not now, of raising the question of the Air Advisory Council, which is costing us about £20,000 a year. This party and Government have much to learn about the question of consumer councils. Two requisites of any consumer council are that the members must have some organic relationship with the consumers whom they are supposed to represent, and have access to the central direction at the top. They should be appointed by the consumers and not by the Minister. It is wrong to bring in people from outside on a sort of hired basis and call them a consumer council. Of all the unsatisfactory kinds of such councils set up under the various nationalisation Acts, that set up under the Civil Aviation Act is by far the least satisfactory.
  I will also touch upon the question of airport control. As aircraft become more numerous in the sky and as they become faster, and especially when we get jet aircraft, the question air traffic control round our airports will become much more important. I understand that it will be possible in the not-so-distant future for jet aircraft to do the journey from London to Paris in 25 minutes. When that is the case it would be absurd to have such aircraft milling round the circuit for a quarter of an hour or so after having done the journey in so short a time. I should like my hon. Friend to let us know exactly what is being done to improve air traffic control round our airports? Some little time ago I had the advantage of watching the control over Gatow. I wrote to the Minister and said that I was sure there were lessons to be learned from that Berlin control. I saw machines banding over the radio beacon and coming in remorselessly every three minutes. I feel that that form of direct
  256
  approach might well cut out a good deal of the congestion to which the hon. and gallant Member has rightly called attention.
  Although I hope to get some reply on these points, what I really wish to deal with is not so much the technical side of our aviation policy, but the administration, the general set-up of our air Corporations, and the question of labour relations within them. I believe—and I hope I shall have the concurrence of hon. Members opposite—that what we should concern ourselves with is not the engineering or technical side, but the administrative pattern and the question of labour relations within the Corporations. Especially now that we have settled the question of aircraft, the engineering and technical side could very well be left to those whose job it is. I think we should have confidence in the way in which they will settle the different problems that there will be in the next two or three years.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to recall that some of us on this side of the Committee put forward certain suggestions when the Civil Aviation Bill was going through the House. At the top of our aviation industry we wanted to have what we called an air transport authority. We wanted that authority to be composed partly of men who were appointed or nominated by the men engaged in the industry; we wanted a proportion to be appointed or nominated by those who had an interest in the efficiency of the industry—the users—and maybe even one from the aircraft manufacturing industry, and we were prepared to have an independent chairman and two others appointed by the Minister——
  Mr. J. Foster: On a point of Order. In view of your recent Ruling, Mr. Bowles, is the hon. Member in Order?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I was about to stop the hon. Gentleman. He cannot continue that line of argument any longer. It is not within the present Supplementary Vote. It would require legislation to bring about what he desires.
  Mr. Beswick: I wish to call attention to certain administrative changes which I think will have to be contemplated in the present set-up and I want to relate the kind of changes contemplated to the

  257
  description I have just given. I think, Mr. Bowles, you will see, if I am allowed to continue, that I am relating it to something which is very much within the scope of this Debate.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is in Order so long as he does not refer to what is not in the Act, however much he may have desired it at an earlier period.
  Mr. Beswick: I was endeavouring to give details of the kind of set-up we envisaged. Under this air transport authority and—this is important—we proposed to have a number of executive bodies responsible for given spheres of the globe. They would be separate, both operationally and financially, and their particular part of the globe would be defined in relation to certain technical requirements.
  When the Act was passing through the House, although we did not accept these particular suggestions that were put forward, we did say that we should have three separate Corporations. Some of the reasons advanced in favour of three separate Corporations instead of one big one were that it would give the opportunity to develop different techniques; it would also provide an opportunity for individuals to prove themselves more quickly and clearly within the different Corporations and it would give an opportunity for new men to come to the top much more easily than would be the case with a centralised corporation. That would be a particular advantage, in this new industry, because at the present time there is no doubt that we suffer from a shortage of proved airline executives. I mention that point because one gathers—it has already been mentioned and there are various reasons why it should be considered—that there is a possibility of absorbing the British South American Corporation into the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
  Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us something about the circumstances or the conditions in which these two Corporations are to be absorbed, if that decision is made? I want him to assure us that we shall not have the South American Corporation brought in and completely merged with B.O.A.C. If it is brought in under the general control of B.O.A.C., I hope it will be allowed
  258
  to operate separately, both from the financial and the technical point of view; that it will be budgeted separately; that costs will be kept separately and that there will be maintained the initiative of and incentive to the individuals within what might be called a division rather than a separate Corporation.
  There are two lines of approach to this problem of the shape of our airline Corporations within the next year. We may consider the functional approach, with the long lines of functional command, such as we had in the beginning in the National Coal Board; or we may have the horizontal or divisional set-up, with the separate divisions costed separately and with the possibility of making decisions lower down the line instead of only at the top, as was the case under the National Coal Board. I mention this because I am sure that decisions on this matter will have to be made within the next few months. We cannot escape them. I am hopeful that when decisions are made we shall bear in mind the experiences we have already had in other nationalised industries and that there will not be this temptation to over-centralise B.O.A.C. I am not one of those people who say that because a thing is bigger it is necessarily better. I do not think that there is any essential virtue in size, and if the South American Corporation is brought into B.O.A.C.——
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is again out of Order, because he is visualising a scheme which can only be brought about, in the way he has framed it, by legislation. He cannot discuss any legislation at all on a Supply Vote of this kind.
  Mr. Beswick: Thank you, Mr. Bowles. I have already completed what I wanted to say, and I hope that the attention of the Lord President of the Council may be drawn to the remarks which you have permitted me to make when he is considering what structure shall emerge in these socialised Corporations in the near future.
  The only other matter I wish to mention is labour relations within the Corporations. Although I have had something to say about the administrative setup in B.O.A.C., I must say that the labour relations within B.O.A.C. have been excellent. There have been no

  259
  recent troubles there, and I think great credit is due to those responsible for the personnel relations within that corporation.
  Mr. J. Foster: Have not there been some troubles with the A.E.U. over the A.E.A.?
  Mr. Beswick: There is always a certain amount of trouble with that particular organisation, but in general the staff relations within B.O.A.C. have been extremely good, especially compared with the British European Airways Corporation. I was about to say something regarding the labour relations within that Corporation. I think I am right in saying that there have been something like four changes of senior personnel officers within B.E.A.C. I believe one was employed there for only a few weeks and was then given six months' salary and discharged.
  That kind of thing shows quite obviously that something has been wrong at the top, and I wish to say this to the new leaders who have been appointed to B.E.A.C. The first step that must be taken in that Corporation is one to improve the relationship between the management and the men. I know something about the Corporation. I do not think that there are many private industries in the country which have the same unsatisfactory working atmosphere on the floor of the shop as there has been recently in B.E.A.C. To those who have now taken over the leadership of the Corporation, I say that I hope that they will do something to break down that barrier which, in the imagination of the men, at any rate, has existed between the hangar and the administrative office. It is wrong that this should be so. I am not apportioning any blame but we cannot have complete efficiency if that kind of atmosphere persists. I hope that something will be done about it. I am sure that in that I have the agreement of both sides of the Committee. This is not a question of idealism. It is a matter of sheer common sense and good business. I hope, therefore, that in the near future we shall see an improvement in the labour relations and the atmosphere in which the men work within the British European Airways Corporation.
  6.31 p.m.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: During this Debate many Members have paid tribute to the staffs of the Corporations. As one who has travelled on these lines a great deal, I should like to add my tribute to the efficiency and courtesy of the staffs in the air. Looking back over the history of civil aviation during the time between the wars when very few Members of this House took an active interest in it, I remember that for a long time we made three requests to the Governments of the day. One was that British civil aviation should be divorced from the Air Ministry. Another was that a Department should be set up under a Ministry of transportation. The third was that civil aviation should be run as private enterprise with a certain amount of Government control if necessary.
  During the war, when civil aviation did not exist at all in this country and we saw what tremendous strides were made in America, some of us became rather alarmed about the future in this field. I recall going on a deputation to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and asking him if he would treat this matter as urgent and appoint a Minister of Civil Aviation immediately in order that he should be able to attend the Chicago Conference which was dealing with the future of civil aviation.
  The right hon. Gentleman agreed to appoint a Minister. He appointed Lord Swinton, who immediately went to Chicago and put up a very good fight to get British civil aviation recognised and to find for it a place in the sun. It was necessary to set up a Ministry at that time because the Ministry of Transport was controlling shipping and the officials had their hands full. The Ministry was formed, but I am convinced that today the Department has grown far too big. We never envisaged that there would be 1,700 people at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I am convinced, especially as I have had an opportunity on a Select Committee of this House to inquire into civil aviation, that there are far too many bodies at the Ministry and far too many on the ground at the airports. There are certainly far too many bodies at some of the internal aerodromes. One or two examples have been given already where there are more men on the ground than

  261
  the number of passengers who travel from or through the airport in any one day. That is an absurd situation. It must be dealt with if we are not to have this millstone of £11 million hanging over our heads for all time. When that sum of money is added to the other development and capital costs, the bill is very big indeed. It is one which this country cannot afford and it shows that there is something wrong with the administration somewhere.
  Reference has been made to the appointment and the dismissal—it is nothing more or less than dismissal—of Mr. d'Erlanger from the chairmanship of British European Airways. I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. d'Erlanger. He was a most efficient administrator, and a very able young man doing a very good job. I have no personal animosity against his successor. In fact, I had the honour of serving under him in Fighter Command during the war and I have the highest regard for him as a military leader. But one of the points I always made in trying to get British civil aviation divorced from the Air Ministry was that air marshals were not fitted, either by training, tradition or attitude of mind, to deal with a civilian transportation problem.
  It was obvious when they had civil aviation under their control at the Air Ministry that they did not take very much interest in it. They were far more concerned with their own love, their own Service. That was natural. When a certain amount of money, which was always limited, was to be distributed between the two, it was always the civil aviation side which suffered. The result was that when war came and in the years between the wars, our civil air pilots, the best pilots in the world, were obliged to fly old "crates" about the world which did not do credit to any country, instead of being able to fly up to date aircraft.
  At the end of the war we had hardly any transport aircraft at all worth naming. We are obliged today, four years after the end of the war, to buy American aircraft with hard-won dollars. That is the situation, yet the successor to Mr. d'Erlanger—who is trained in commerce as well as widely experienced in civil aviation—is a marshal of the Royal Air Force. So, the service is going back into
  262
  the hands of the military again. It is true that they may have changed their brass hats for bowler hats, but it is the mentality that matters. I hope that Lord Douglas, if he takes over this job, will remember that he is taking over a service which is quite different from his old military Service. Civil aviation is an organisation which deals with civilians.
  I remember travelling down the Mediterranean at the end of the war when Transport Command were trying to find bases for civil aviation. We arrived at one of the Mediterranean stations and the station commander, who was a senior R.A.F. officer met us. During lunch I asked him how he liked his job. He said, "I do not mind the freight side of it and I do not mind dealing with military personnel, but I cannot stand these 'something' civilians; I hate civilians." I said, "I hope you never will be in a position to deal with civilians," but, believe it or not, that man is now engaged in civil aviation.
  During our inquiries into the work of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, we found that the witnesses turned up in large numbers, and that, in most cases, there was an air vice-marshal or two amongst them. I asked some of these people on what lines they were building up the new Ministry, and particularly whether it was on the lines of the Royal Air Force. They said it was, and it was obvious to me that that was not the proper way in which to build up civil aviation. That is why there were so many idle people to be found on the ground recently, and why that the Minister was compelled to make very drastic cuts in the staffs. This has caused a great deal of hard feeling, and no doubt injury to a lot of people who trusted their lives to this service, having come out of the R.A.F. or some other jobs, but who are now slung out of employment when they thought they had jobs for the rest of their lives.
  Nevertheless, there is no doubt that these cuts ought to be made. The number of people on the ground, compared to those in the air, was phenomenal, and this was why it was making it so costly for the service to carry any passengers anywhere at all. It was even suggested at one time that it would be far better to offer a prospective passenger on the civil air lines some £50 or £60 and tell him to go by train, because of

  263
  the losses which the air lines were suffering. Obviously, this is a situation which cannot go on, and I still believe that there are great opportunities for economies in the Ministry itself. Obviously, we do not need 1,700 people in the Ministry of Civil Aviation to control the few machines in the air which we have. There is far too much duplication in the Ministry and in the Corporations, as well as between the various Corporations themselves. There are quite a lot of jobs being done by each of the three Corporations which might easily be done by one staff through a co-ordination of the three, and I hope this is now being done, because it is one of the recommendations which we made.
  Another matter to which I want to refer concerns flying clubs, and here I am very disappointed that the Minister is not in a position today to make a statement about them. Many of us have been pressing for some time for more recognition for these clubs, and the time is passing rapidly. No doubt it is the fault of the Treasury, but somebody ought to ginger up the Treasury and explain to them that, unless something is done for these flying clubs soon, it will be too late. Before the war, I was president of a flying club. I should like to tell the Committee something of the work which it did in training personnel for the Royal Air Force, and, when the war came, in supplying instructors for the R.A.F. The club with which I was connected had trained a number of young people as pilots, every one of whom went into the R.A.F. Every instructor we had also went into the R.A.F. as an instructor. That was the record of only one small club.
  If we multiply that example by hundreds all over the country, it will be seen that it would be the best recruiting ground there ever was for the R.A.F. Everybody knows that the R.A.F. today badly needs recruits and technical men, and there is no better means of obtaining them than by training them in the flying clubs, making them air-minded and encouraging them to go either into the Auxiliary Air Force or into the R.A.F. itself. I hope the Minister will give attention to this matter, and that he will be able to make a statement at the earliest possible moment which will give some encouragement to these flying clubs to go ahead.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: This is a particularly interesting Debate for some of us on this side of the Committee, because for the past four years we have been advocating a certain number of changes and we are ready to record today that at least a few have been made. Some of us may, perhaps, be over-critical of the fact that it has taken what we consider to be a rather unnecessarily long time for these changes to be brought about. One of the more recent changes seems to have taken about three years, although it does seem that it is a good one. It is easy for us, in recording these changes, to say "We told you so," but nevertheless some progress has undoubtedly been made and we should take some encouragement from that fact.
  We see that the staffs of the Corporations are being reduced, but I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into one particular point here, though he may not be able to give an answer tonight. I am informed that there are a certain number of dismissals still being made and that some men being discharged are in fact on paid leave, which is an unfortunate state of affairs if it is continuing to any extent. I am also informed, in regard to the reduction of staffs of the Corporations, that a certain number of new staff have also been engaged in the period during which dismissals have taken place. That would seem to be extremely unfortunate. Why people are being dismissed when information is being bandied around that a considerable number of engagements are being made at the same time is very difficult to understand.
  One of the changes which we suggested concerned the senior staffs of the Corporations, and it may be the case that changes at the higher levels are still required. I trust the Minister will give serious attention to this point, because it is generally accepted in industry that the tone and success of an organisation is set by those who are in control, and we need to have in control of these organisations people who have proved their competence over a period of time.
  There has also been the change of the base from Dorval to Filton. There are many of us who think that the money spent in Canada and the U.S.A. might

  265
  very well have been used far more advantageously for the purchase of American aircraft in the intervening period while we were waiting for our own machines to come forward. That decision has taken some time for the reason that we had not the American dollars available for the purpose. Now we see that a considerable sum has been expended in a way that could have been avoided. We ought to look at the experience of K.L.M., who decided that they must run their aircraft from their own bases in Holland, and spend any dollars which they had to spare in the purchase of new aircraft instead of wasting them on maintenance.
  There is another matter which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into. I am told that Constellations, not only those flying across the Atlantic but also those going to the Far East, are being controlled and operated from the American side, and I cannot imagine a sensible argument for such a decision to be taken. I should like my hon. Friend to look into the point, which appears to be associated with the argument that an aeroplane does not know whether it is flying West or East, which is the stupid argument which has been put to me. I ask my hon. Friend to explain why that decision was taken.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) made reference to the purchase of American aircraft when we were trying to make do with converted machines from the R.A.F. and those used for transport purposes. That, unfortunately, has not proved to be a very successful policy, and we have had to divert from it. I trust that the fact that American aircraft have been purchased will not reduce the sense of urgency on the part of the Ministry in regard to the early completion and use of aircraft of our own construction and design.
  When referring to the reports issued by the Corporations, one looks in vain for any encouraging signs in them; it is rather a doleful story which they have to tell. I ask the Minister to make representations for these reports to be more carefully prepared by the Corporations. Although we see that in the case of B.S.A.A. they have gone to some considerable trouble in working out details of operational statistics, we find that the reports of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are not
  266
  so full in that respect. Therefore, it is not over-easy to make a comparison between the various activities of the Corporations.
  I also believe that more care should be given to the way in which reference is made in the B.O.A.C. report to the success or otherwise of subsidiaries. Some clearer form should be used in setting out the results of the subsidiary companies. We should be able to see clearly whether or not they have made a profit or a loss, what is the capacity per ton-mile, and what is the actual load factor. We should be able to analyse these things with reasonable ease so that we can see in what direction losses or profits are being made.
  One of the points made by the Lord President of the Council was that under nationalisation he thought it was a good thing to have a number of Corporations. He said that if there were a number of Corporations, each preparing its own reports and accounts, it would be possible to have a certain yardstick of competence and efficiency which might act as a spur to each one of them in considering, if not the profit motive, at least a profit sense so that they would feel some pride in their operations. If subsidies are poured into a Corporation indefinitely, it tends to demoralise the undertaking, and to take from it that profit sense which is so vital to successful operation.
  A suggestion has been put forward that it is intended to absorb B.S.A.A., but it would not be appropriate at this time to discuss that particular matter. However, I would emphasise the point made by the Lord President of the Council, that it is necessary under nationalisation to have some yardstick of efficiency. If we go more and more towards centralisation of control and operation we shall run a grave risk of creating large-scale organisations in which the individual worker feels that he is such a small part that he cannot really express his individuality, enthusiasm and initiative in a way which it should be possible for him to do.
  I am worried about one point with regard to this question of the individual worker in the organisation. Only a few days ago I had the good fortune to meet a member of one of the Corporations whom I had known some years ago. I asked him for his frank opinion of the

  267
  general attitude of the staff towards their job, because, as Socialists, I think we should pay special regard to that particular point. After all, it has been the foundation of our faith that we represent the worker, and we should think out ways by which the individual worker in these nationalised industries can get a sense of really belonging to the organisation and a real feeling of responsibility. This individual said that he thought that the morale of the Corporations at the present time was of a low order, particularly towards the centre. It seemed from his remarks that there was not the leadership at the centre that there should be. Perhaps when the Minister is speaking with the people at the centre in the Corporations, he can take up that point with them.
  What of the future? It is important that the individual worker should be able to look towards a good future, not only for himself, but also for the organisation of which he is a member. I want to put two points to the Minister. First, are the tools with which to do this job really adequate, or are they going to be in the near future; and secondly, are the personnel, particularly at the top level from which the leadership must come, really suitable for their task? With regard to the first point, the question of aircraft is an extremely important matter, for without adequate and suitable tools these Corporations cannot hope to be a commercial success. We have seen, for example, the case of the K.L.M. Because they had suitable aircraft coupled with suitable personnel, they have been able within a few years of the end of the war to make a success of their undertaking.
  We must consider whether we shall have British or foreign aircraft. Of course, we must have the best aircraft we can possibly get. For quite a time we have been suffering from a Tory policy which we inherited. We have had to make up the backlash owing to lack of competence in deciding the suitability of aircraft. Some have said that the war prevented us from thinking about this problem of suitable transport aircraft, but I believe that is merely an evasion. The problem has never really been stated by the Corporations. They have never stated clearly and emphatically what type of aircraft they wanted, nor
  268
  have they given any target dates by which they would like particular aircraft.
  If we were to read the report of the Select Committee on Estimates which inquired about the Brabazon I, that point would be clearly brought out. The Brabazon Committee, which was set up in 1942, advocated, amongst other aircraft, the Brabazon III. That was a four-engined aircraft of the Constellation type. We are now told that the aircraft which is going to comply with the Brabazon III specification will not be ready for another four years. I am referring, of course, to the Bristol 175. That means that it will be something like 11 years since the date when the Brabazon Committee looked into the matter before the aircraft will be available to the Corporations. It is, I believe, because the Corporations have not emphatically demanded an aircraft of the bread-and-butter type that this situation has arisen.
  I should like to refer to the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Estimates, which deals with this point. When questioned, one of the officials of the Corporation said, referring to the Brabazon III type:
  "It has not progressed as fast as type I, but at the time the specifications were put out we had no reason to believe it would not. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, we were very anxious to get our bread-and-butter machine, our all-purpose machine, as quickly as possible."
  He does not express himself very clearly, but the implication of his evidence is that, although they hoped to get the "bread-and-butter" aircraft—they were anxious to get it—they had, in fact, never taken the trouble to ensure that they would get it. One cannot help feeling that had there been a really clear conception of what the Corporation required, they would have obtained the aircraft by now, and would have made far greater progress. More progress has been made on the more experimental type of aircraft, the Brabazon I, and the bread-and-butter aircraft has been left a long way behind.
  Dealing with this question of suitable tools for the job, I want to put one point strongly to the Minister. The "bread-and-butter aircraft" is manifestly the one which is going to earn the bread and butter and possibly jam, too, but it will

  269
  do so only if the operation of these aircraft can be done economically, and I refer in particular to the consumption of fuel. It seems to me that the Corporations have tended to go chasing after the turbo-jet type of aircraft, that they are hoping it will be available for use at a fairly early date and are backing that as the real solution to their problems. I believe they are chasing this particular type of aircraft long years before it will be proved to be a commercially successful type of aircraft for use on the air line routes. That may not apply to journeys such as the long hops between London and New York, for which the Brabazon I has been designed, but it will apply to the short-haul routes. In spite of that fact, this point has not been sufficiently strongly borne in mind by the Corporations, which are still demanding the turbo-jet type of aircraft and are failing to take account of the reciprocating engine type as the one which will, in fact, earn the bread and butter more certainly and successfully during the next seven to 10 years. I want to ask one further question. Who is responsible for this lack of foresight? I think we should know. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight who said he thought aircraft of a suitable type were now coming along. If those responsible for this situation are still there, I think we shall find ourselves, in three or four years' time, in a similar position to that in which we find ourselves today. We shall, in fact, not have an aircraft which will earn our airlines a substantial surplus because of this question of the amount of fuel which the jet type of aircraft uses. I want to know whether the advice which is given from the Corporation, in making demands on the Ministry of Supply and Civil Aviation for aircraft, is still of the same calibre as it was when these mistakes, as I see them, were being made, because this is a most serious situation which has arisen in the past and it will continue unless the cause of the trouble is eliminated.
  May I deal with the question of personnel? This is a subject upon which it is not easy to touch but it is, I think, one from which we cannot escape. I want the letters "C.A." for "Civil Aviation" to refer not only to civil aviation but to commercial airlines. I think we have to place emphasis on commercial
  270
  experience. That automatically suggests that those who are in positions of responsibility in these Corporations, who have to lead them, must primarily have commercial experience. I do not think we shall ever get a successful airline operating if we do not place emphasis on commercial practice and the commercial requirements of airline operations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a non-party point and I did not think over a point of that sort I should receive approval only from the Opposition. It is a point which should be obvious and which should hardly require saying at all.
  The mistake which I think we have made in the past is to place in charge of these Corporations, in all sorts of positions—I am not referring only to the position of chairmen—those who have had almost completely R.A.F. experience. I think that is not a good training ground for those who have to do essentially a commercial job in aviation. Let us recall, too, that the job in the R.A.F., particularly in the war, is a risky job. If we bring in, particularly in this type of organisation, as men who are to be responsible for civil aviation, those whose very upbringing and background is one where risk is continuously taken—with knowledge, of course, but where risk is taken—and where risk has to be taken. surely that is wrong; surely that is not the right background for those who are to be in charge of an air-line organisation in which the emphasis should be placed on safety. Safety is the prime consideration in the operation of civil air-lines—and that is another obvious remark. It is such an obvious remark that it has been overlooked in making the selection of those who are to fulfil the senior jobs; they have been given to those with Service, risk-taking experience rather than to those with the safer experience which is required of those who have to do essentially a civil air-line job. I think that was borne out in the case of the chief executive of B.S.A.A. who had to be changed because it was obvious he had been taking unjustified risks.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: I am sure the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Geoffrey Cooper) was not suggesting that officers of the R.A.F. in Transport Command had any idea other than the safety of their passengers, and I am quite

  271
  sure, therefore, that he would not wish to include those R.A.F. officers in his statement.
  Mr. Cooper: I appreciate the remark of the hon. and gallant Member and, knowing his association with Transport Command, he obviously speaks with some background knowledge. In that case, although I may include them in reference to the safety factor, I might exclude them from the standpoint of not having continuously in the back of their minds, as a commercial man has to have, the need for the organisation to pay its way. It would be a very surprising thing if the Cunard White Star Line were to appoint as chairman an admiral of the Fleet. I have never heard of its being done and I do not think they would be inclined to do it. I think that is a parallel case which both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary might bear in mind when considering the leadership of these air-line Corporations.
  Some hon. Members on this side of the Committee had great hopes of the present Minister when he was appointed to office. We saw that he had made a good job of the Pakenham Report. It was got out very quickly and it was an able report. Now that the Minister is in a position of responsibility, perhaps he will see whether he can emphasise—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) wish to interrupt?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I merely wished to point out that nothing has happened as a result of that report, but that the experience of producing a report on which no action was taken, did not apparently stop the noble Lord from becoming Minister.
  Mr. Cooper: I was about to deal with that point. Surely the noble Lord was not in a position to implement the report until he came into his present office. I was about to follow that remark by saying that now he is in that position, he may find it possible to implement the recommendations of the Pakenham Report.
  I want to draw the Committee's attention to the very great progress which was made during the war in what was called selection procedure. It was a thing which was developed in the Army with very great success. I believe it is a pointer to
  272
  what might be done when we are considering this very responsible job of making selections of suitable personnel for both senior and more junior jobs in peace-time. I think the Fighting Services made quite an achievement at that time in working out a scientific selection procedure; in other words, they analysed the job to be done, they analysed the individual requirements needed to fulfil the task, and then a selection was made accordingly.
  I think that is the type of thing to be taken into consideration, not only for appointments made within our nationalised undertakings but also for top-level appointments. If we analyse those jobs thoroughly and the requirements needed for them, I believe we shall meet with more success in appointing both junior and senior people for these Corporations than we have achieved in the past. As an illustration of why I think the Services outlook is inappropriate, I think it is essentially a nationalist outlook which a person obtains when he is in the Fighting Services, and an international outlook is literally foreign to the type of mentality of those in the Fighting Services.
  I do not want to go into details now, because I may find it necessary to deal with the subject on a more suitable occasion, perhaps on the Adjournment, but I think it is borne out in the case of International Aeradio. Leadership in this organisation has not been knowledgeable or inclined to consider the international aspects of this job. International Aeradio, instead of developing into an international organisation under the leadership which might well have come from this country, has in fact developed into a nationalist organisation which is held almost in suspicion, judging from the comments which have come to me from foreign airline operators, as a national organisation to carry forward the air radio services.
  I believe also that the conduct of the international negotiations on behalf of the Corporations is far below the standard that we require. I have had it said to me by more than one foreign airline operator that when foreign airline operators meet us in international negotiations our case is not put clearly or convincingly, and is not put with a sense of give and take, or with confidence, so that our British case can receive the respect it should have. I ask the Minister to look into that particularly, because I think we

  273
  are doing ourselves no good at all in the international field in the way that our case is sometimes represented by those responsible for putting it.
  I shall make one comment on the Ministry itself. Reference has been made to the size of the headquarters staff of some 1,500. This is a matter of some concern to Members on this side of the Committee. It was always said that when we carried through any schemes of nationalisation they would be self-supporting, largely self-governing, Socialist organisations. I use the term "Socialist" in the broadest sense, not the political sense—in the sense that the individual worker would feel he was working in a team of which he could feel proud. It was said that in those circumstances it would not be necessary to have a large Ministerial staff. However, we have seen growing up a large Ministerial staff parallel with the increase in size of the Corporations. That points the finger to the fact that we have not thought the matter out in all the detail we should, to ensure that there is just sufficient contact between the Minister, who is ultimately responsible, to the House, and the Corporations themselves. The Corporations feel that there is too much interference in their day-to-day affairs—or that there is likely to be, and that prevents them from planning ahead with that sense of responsibility they need to have.
  Some of us have been critical from time to time, as I said at the beginning of my speech but changes have taken place and have taken place in line with some of the criticisms and suggestions we have made, indicating that there was some justification for what we said. I hope, therefore, that when criticisms and suggestions are made in future from time to time, some more careful regard is paid to them than has sometimes been paid to them by the Ministers in the past. As I see it, some of the suggestions we have made have taken far too long to implement, and civil aviation is a matter of great urgency to us, and of great concern to the Commonwealth and to the Colonies as a means of providing adequate communications. If criticisms and suggestions are not carefully studied, and the right decisions made promptly about them and promptly acted upon, we shall fail to make that progress which we ought to make, and which we on this side of the Committee, at least, are hoping to see.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. George Ward: There is not a great deal in the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) with which we on this side of the Committee would profoundly disagree, but there was one matter with which I should like to deal right away. I am very sorry to have to disappoint him in his efforts to prove Tory misrule in the air, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that, in fact, the order for the Bristol 175 was placed only last year—that is, three years after the Socialist Government came to power.
  The Parliamentary Secretary gave us a comprehensive and, I thought, a very fair catalogue of the difficulties which have confronted the three Corporations. Most of those difficulties were, of course, already well known to us on this side of the Committee. We want to be quite fair when discussing civil aviation and the reports of the three Corporations. We want to make it clear that any criticisms which we may level in this or other civil aviation Debates are in no way meant to reflect upon the personnel of the three Corporations. I believe that they have carried out and are carrying out their task in difficult, exacting, and often extremely discouraging conditions, and I believe that their skill has been and is in the very best tradition of British aviation.
  Although the accounts for 1947–48 show a 5 per cent. greater loss than that in the previous year, I myself feel that the picture as a whole is very much more encouraging. The reports show that 37 per cent. more capacity-ton-miles was flown and 42 per cent. more passenger-miles. They are expanding their business all the time, and their operating costs show the very welcome reduction of a shilling per capacity-ton-mile. Since these reports were published we have seen very creditable and welcome efforts to cut down their expenditure even further. Meanwhile, the air crews have built up a reputation for technical and operational efficiency, for safety and regularity, and for courteous treatment of their passengers. I was more than gratified during my visit to America last autumn to hear the high tributes paid by the Americans to the B.O.A.C. Atlantic service.

  275
  However, I do believe that rather more should be done by the ground staff. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) has already referred to that. I think that it would also be useful to make a note of the arrangements for conveying passengers on the Empire routes between London and Southampton—on the flying-boat service. I understand that although the handling of passengers at the intermediate stops on the Empire routes is beautifully done—excellently done—because it is all under the control of the crews, the moment the passengers are disembarked at Southampton, and come under the control of the ground personnel, there are irritating and unnecessary delays. I hope I am not stating the case incorrectly, for I must admit that I have not experienced it myself, and have this information only second hand, but I understand that the bus which goes from Southampton to London is not allowed to take less than three hours, and that, to fill in the time, the passengers are forced to eat two teas, one at Southampton and one somewhere on the way up to London. That is the sort of thing which leaves a nasty taste in the mouths of the passengers—in every sense of the term.
  However, this great reputation which the Corporations have built up and the great prestige which they have won have, I submit, been achieved not because the Corporations are owned by the State, but in spite of the fact that they are owned by the State. I hope to show that in the course of my remarks. B.O.A.C., during the period under review, had unfortunately to contend with the same assortment of uneconomic and makeshift aircraft which was the main cause of their heavy losses in the previous year. I do not think that we shall be able to get a clear picture of B.O.A.C. operations until they are equipped with their new fleets of aircraft—Canadairs, Comets, Constellations, Bristols, Hermes, etc. Until they have this new fleet, I do not think that we shall be able to judge clearly and fairly what proportion of their losses are due to weakness in administration as opposed to weakness in operation. At the moment, this is a somewhat confused and blurred picture.
  As regards B.S.A.A., they have been greatly handicapped by lack of suitable
  276
  aircraft, and by the grounding of the Tudors after the loss of the "Star Tiger." They are now faced with another bitter blow. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make an early announcement in the House of Commons, because we are all most anxious to know what type of aircraft is to replace the Tudor and how quickly. It is most important that we should get suitable aircraft going again as quickly as possible.
  Concerning B.E.A., I think that we can examine the picture rather more closely because they have now been equipped with an economic British type of aircraft at least on the Continental routes. I think that we must examine the Continental routes quite separately from the internal air routes. The report on the Continental Division is most encouraging. I do not myself consider that the loss of approximately £1,200,000 for the Continental routes is excessive in view of the circumstances with which they had to contend.
  I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) that a comparison with K.L.M. is a fair one. K.L.M., as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, had a tried and tested aircraft that had overcome its teething troubles. B.E.A. were faced with the very high engineering costs involved in the operational development of the Viking. I know that the Viking is being operated successfully by foreign air lines, but we do not know what are their standards of safety, whereas we do know that the standards of safety in B.E.A. are extremely high. I would prefer to believe that these teething troubles which had to be overcome by B.E.A. were necessary for safety. The high engineering costs involved were a great handicap to them and their inability to utilise the aircraft fully was estimated by the Corporation in their report to have cost over £500,000.
  I should like to know the Government's reason for rejecting the claim of B.E.A. for a special grant towards development expenditure, as distinct from the Exchequer grants under the Civil Aviation Act. The Committee will appreciate that exactly the same trouble will arise with all these new aircraft—the Ambassador, the Hermes and the Comet—and I do not think that it is fair to include these costs in the accounts of the

  277
  Corporations, not only from the point of view of the Corporations, but because it gives the public a completely false impression. It is very disheartening to the people working in the Corporations if they have to show a continual heavy loss which is beyond their control and which has nothing to do with operating the airlines. I agree with the idea of a development fund suggested by B.E.A., and I should have thought that the development of new types of civil airliners as opposed to trying to operate them, was the one really useful contribution that could be made to civil aviation by the State.
  I recommend the Government seriously to ponder on paragraph 16 of the report of B.E.A., which seems to me eminently fair and perfectly sound. B.E.A. on their Continental routes had also to contend with the development of the Hercules engine in the Viking. The report shows that the average hours between overhauls was nearly 400 instead of 800 to 1,000, and that extra expenditure amounted to £90,000. There was also the system of priorities, happily now deceased. This system was in operation during the period under review, in spite of very strong protests from both sides of the Committee a year ago, and has only recently been withdrawn. The cost of unsold seats due to this system was borne by the Corporation, and amounted to £40,800. Finally, there was the heavy cost of basic staff training which will be largely non-recurring, and which we hope will not be shown at anything like the same amount in future reports. Taking these factors into consideration, I do not think that we have much to complain about on the Continental side of B.E.A.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: My hon. Friend referred to my remarks about K.L.M. and B.E.A. I should make it clear that the comparison was with B.O.A.C. and not B.E.A.
  Mr. Ward: I am sorry, but I think that my point is still fairly sound.
  May I turn to internal services, and here we have a completely different picture. I do not think that anyone on either side of the Committee can look at a loss of £2,097,104 on the internal services as anything but highly unsatisfactory, particularly when one considers that private enterprise operators before
  278
  nationalisation were willing to operate a great many of these lines without a Government subsidy. On page 16 of the report of B.E.A. it says:
  "In our opinion the internal services will continue to show substantial losses. …"
  The Parliamentary Secretary touched on that this afternoon, and his reasons, so far as I can remember them, were that these lines were never likely to pay because the scale of wages and working conditions were now so high that it had become virtually impossible to show a profit. I am afraid that I cannot agree.
  I think that there are other reasons why these lines are not paying. I think that, first of all, they are not getting enough help from the Government, and, secondly, there is far too much meddling in the policy of the internal services by the Ministry of Civil Aviation for political and other reasons. Let us first take the question of their not getting enough help. Why are mail rates 2s. per ton-mile lower on internal services than on Continental services? A year ago, when we discussed this matter in this Committee, we asked the Parliamentary Secretary to see the Postmaster-General to find out why mail rates for the internal services could not be brought up to the same level as those for the Continental services. I see no reason why they should not be, but nothing seems to have been done. Indeed, on page 8 of the report the chairman says:
  "It is regretted that the continued representations of B.E.A. for higher rates have not been acceptable to the Post Office, and the negotiations which have been carried on between B.E.A., your Ministry, and the G.P.O. have so far been unsuccessful."
  Why does it take so long? Why are these negotiations unsuccessful? If the Government want these internal lines to pay, surely that is the sort of thing we can get done.
  Again, last year we also raised the question of the Excise Duty on petrol and oil, and we pressed for some relief for B.E.A., and also for charter companies, from that Duty The Parliamentary Secretary said on that occasion:
  "The question was asked whether we would allow a reduction, or a rebate, in the fuel tax for the Corporations. I have to inform the Committee that, after consideration by the Government, it has been decided that such a rebate cannot be given. After all, it is a charge against the industry, and therefore the industry will have to carry it, in the same

  279
  way as other industries have to carry the taxation imposed from time to time by this House. That is equally true with regard to landing fees."
  Yet only a few weeks later landing fees were reduced. If he can do it in the case of landing fees, why cannot he do it in the case of taxation? He lumped them together.
  Mr. Lindgren indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ward: If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied I shall read on. I did not want to bore the House; that is why I omitted to do so before. He said:
  "The provision of aerodromes and navigational aids is very costly and it costs this country nearly £5 million a year. The receipts, even from present landing fees, are only £500,000, so that within the confines of our own country there is a hidden subsidy of £4½ million a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 2257–8.]
  In other words, he gave the House the impression that nothing could be done about landing fees, for reasons which we accepted at the time. But only a few weeks later landing fees were reduced. Will he now tackle the other problem—the problem of a reduction in taxation? Those are, I think, the main difficulties with which the internal airlines have had to compete. I believe that removal of those difficulties—and they could be removed—would go a very long way towards putting the internal services on a much more economical basis.
  I pass to the other aspect: too much meddling from the Government. I have to accept, as I do, the assurance the Parliamentary Secretary gave us this afternoon, that the resignation of the chairman of B.E.A. had nothing to do with the disagreement over the internal services. I also accept, as I must, the assurance which he gave me in a written reply on 16th February, that the agreement to start the experimental Cardiff-Liverpool line was obtained without invoking Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act. Although I have to accept that, it seems a little odd that, whereas normally new or altered scheduled services are announced by the Corporations through their public relations office, in this case the new service was announced by the Minister in another place. That is unusual, is it not? It also seems significant that the reductions in the Isle of Man
  280
  services, which were announced about the same time, were announced by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and not by the Corporation concerned. Why was that? Surely a detailed matter of day to day policy, such as whether there should be three or six services a week to the Isle of Man, is not something with which the Ministry of Civil Aviation should, or generally does, concern itself. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why, in this case, they took such an interest and announced it themselves, instead of allowing the Corporation to do so?
  Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps I might here say, in case, in the hurly-burly of the Debate, I overlook this point in my reply——
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: Do not forget the speeches from your own side.
  Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Member has only just come in. If he is so interested in the Debate perhaps he might have come in a little earlier. Until his intervention we had been having a very useful Debate.
  So far as the Welsh service is concerned, the announcement by the Minister was purely accidental. The agreement to run the service was arrived at by B.E.A., and the general arrangements were made for it a day or two before the Minister made his speech in another place. It is not uncommon for Ministers, even junior Ministers, to put something fresh into their speeches now and again, and the Minister put that into his speech. The announcement about the Isle of Man services was not made by our Ministry. There is a relationship between the Home Office and the Isle of Man——
  Mr. Bracken: Is Douglas in the Isle of Man?
  Mr. Lindgren: Certainly the representative for South Hammersmith is not to be found on the Opposition benches. The Home Office has a responsibility in connection with the Isle of Man, so that there is consultation between the Minister of Civil Aviation and the Home Secretary if action affecting the Isle of Man is taken by our Ministry. It was that consultation between the Home Office and the Ministry which caused an

  281
  announcement to be made, because the Minister received representations at the request of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Ward: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for that interjection; but I am sure he will agree that all these things, putting two and two together, gave a rather mistaken impression.
  This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary took the line that losses on internal services were inevitable. Speaking for myself, I do not agree. It is becoming abundantly clear that a large, impersonal nationalised corporation, under the thumb of the Government and subject to political direction, is quite unsuitable to run the internal routes, which must depend, and have always depended, mainly upon local contacts and local goodwill. That is what built up the internal airlines before the war, and we shall go on losing money on them until there is once again this personal local contact. Any fear the Government may have that the standard of safety might not be maintained can easily be taken care of. That is the sort of provision which we on this side would thoroughly welcome, because we are as keen on air safety as anybody. In other words, the solution to this problem is to hand the internal routes, the whole lot of them, back to private enterprise and let them get on with it. And they will get on with it; there will be no difficulty in getting people to run these services; and they will show a profit if they get from the Government that help which B.E.A. is not getting but ought to get.
  I regret very much that the Minister of Civil Aviation found it necessary to dispense with the services of Mr. d'Erlanger. I think that he was doing a very good job under very difficult conditions, and that had he been given a free hand, without interference from the Government, B.E.A. might have been showing even better results than at the present time. The reason for the change has not emerged clearly from this Debate, and it is still a matter of conjecture. I do not propose to enter into the argument about Lord Douglas, because enough has been said already on that point. One thing that has not been said, and it is the most important of all, is why it was necessary to bring in anyone from outside at all. Surely there must have been plenty of people in the Corporations who have
  282
  spent a lifetime in the business of air-line operations capable of being promoted to the higher posts. It is very disheartening for senior officials and employees, with long and loyal service in air transport, to see chairmen brought in over their heads and having to teach them the job. They are pulling down these large salaries and learning as they go along.
  There is no doubt, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows it, that there is a feeling of frustration and insecurity in the Corporations. B.E.A., on page 25 of the report, speak of the "disturbing effect" on the morale of the staff which the very necessary cuts in the strength of the Corporations have had. I do not disagree with those cuts, but the Minister of Civil Aviation, speaking in another place, was rather proud of the fact that in the last 18 months there has been a reduction of over 5,000 in the staff of B.O.A.C., and at a time when business was expanding very rapidly indeed. He was again rather proud that the staff employed by B.E.A. was now under 7,000 compared with 7,500 some five months ago. I do not think that is anything to be proud of at all.
  It is all very necessary, but the difference between a State corporation and a private-enterprise firm is that the State corporation starts by building up an enormous empire and then finds it has to cut it down, whereas private enterprise starts modestly and builds up as business expands. Under private enterprise there is hope of advancement as business expands, instead of the frustration and insecurity which exists under State ownership. There is no doubt at all that these cuts are having a very serious effect on morale in the Corporations. I shall quote one piece from the official organ of the AeronauticalEngineers' Association, "Wings." It says:
  "Try as they will, the B.O.A.C. rank and file cannot find how persons are selected as being redundant. Long service, a blameless record and unquestioned skill will not save you. Good time-keeping does not count, nor strict loyalty. I cannot help feeling that some of those displaced persons would not be in that class had they sold the 'Daily Worker' instead of 'Wings' at Croydon."
  If that is the sort of thing being said in the Corporations, it is not very good for the Corporations and it is bad for morale.
  Mr. Lindgren: That is not being said inside the Corporations, but by an interested party outside.
  Mr. Ward: There must be a percentage of this particular union in the Corporations, and this is their official organ.
  Wing-Commander Millington: Am I to understand that the hon. Member accepts the remarks he has quoted; that he thinks that staff would not be declared redundant if they were members of the Communist Party.
  Mr. Ward: I do not know about that. What I am saying is that these Corporations were built up as enormous empires and now have to cut down at the expense of the employees—which is having a very bad effect—instead of building up modestly when there would be security for everyone. Why has not the general pensions scheme been set up? It is two years since it was envisaged under Section 20 of the Act. Surely the Government can do something to accelerate these arrangements. It is obviously quite impossible to achieve maximum efficiency unless the employees in these Corporations are happy, have confidence in the management and a reasonable sense of security and hope of advancement.
  We have made our position perfectly clear. We do not like nationalisation which we should like to stop as soon as possible; but while it lasts, we who have the interests of civil aviation at heart want to make the Corporations work as well as possible, if for no other reason than that the aeroplanes of these Corporations carry the British flag to every quarter of the earth. We want the prestige of British aviation to be as high as it possibly can, but we cannot make the Corporations work, build up prestige and the sort of business we want unless they are run on proper commercial lines, without interference, without meddling and without dictation from the Government. New types which are coming along will compete with anything that anyone else has to offer, but they are coming along too slowly. Before we compete with other foreign airlines, the Government must help the aircraft industry more than they are doing at the moment; they must have a sense of urgency, making decisions quickly and getting the new types into production and service without delay. There is far too much
  284
  inter-Departmental delay all round. Apart from that, I have great confidence in the future of civil aviation, particularly if we can help to free it when we get back to power. Meanwhile, I for one shall do all in my power to support civil aviation and help it along.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) always makes a well-reasoned and well-informed speech. The Debate has now returned to sweet reasonableness, which was the note on which it was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). but whether it will remain so now that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has entered the lists, I do not know.
  I wish to support the appeal that has been made in regard to internal airlines. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that they were not paying, and the hon. Member for Worcester said—and I agree with him—that internal airlines cannot pay in this country unless they are run over water, as across the Bristol Channel and to the Channel Islands. I doubt whether we can go on asking the taxpayer to spend these considerable sums of money for this traffic, and I reinforce the plea made to the Government seriously now to consider whether private enterprise should not run these internal services. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss this suggestion with his noble Friend. I put this forward in no party spirit, but merely ask the Government as a bold move to see what private enterprise can do with these services. Let it be done in a spirit of co-operation. Let it be done, not through the B.E.A.C. licences, but through some central licensing authority, requiring certain standards to be observed.
  A reference was made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) to the long fight in the House many years ago to take civil aviation away from Air Ministry control and from the Air Ministry mind. After a struggle at last we got a Ministry of Civil Aviation. I am sure that the appointment of the Chairman of the B.E.A.C. was read in the Press by all those who believe in the future of Civil Aviation with absolute amazement. That long fight has been of

  285
  no avail. We are returning now to something in the nature of Air Ministry control and influence, and the Air Ministry mind. It is not as though this were the only appointment. I believe that the controller at Heath Row is an air-marshal. Of course, this is wrong. We shall never build up an effective airline organisation with proper efficiency in the Corporations unless we make promotions from within the Corporations themselves.
  I am sorry to see that such an experienced aviation and airline administrator and executive as Mr. d'Erlanger is to leave. We have been told that we are short of airline executives, yet here is a man who has spent a great part of his life on this work. He has been through it all at all stages. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot ask the Committee to accept the statement he has made this afternoon on the matter. I hope that the Government will make a far more satisfactory and certainly a more informative, statement telling us why Mr. d'Erlanger is being asked to relinquish this post. Ministers are being constantly changed, chairmen and managing directors of the Corporations are always being changed. We shall never make an efficient business of civil aviation unless the people who are in the organisation create an efficient unit by their own work without bringing in these people on the top. What is behind all these appointments of air-marshals and pensioners coming in from outside.
  Mr. Bracken: Squalid jobbery.
  Mr. Granville: My right hon. Friend was not here earlier this afternoon, when there was considerable cross-fire on this topic. The Parliamentary Secretary, I am glad to say, made it clear that when Mr. d'Erlanger was made chairman of B.E.A.C. it was not a political appointment. I hope that these appointments will be taken out of parliamentary politics and that we shall get the best men for the job. The Parliamentary Secretary must really make these points perfectly clear when he replies. It is amazing: here is a first-class executive who has given a great number of his years, at considerable financial sacrifice—I know something about it—in the interests of civil aviation. The public of this country and the House of Commons will want something better than a short notice in the Press and the brief, bare statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Committee. Some
  286
  more and satisfactory explanation than that will be wanted by the taxpayers who will have to foot the Bill. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give it to them tonight.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) made a reference to the bad relationships existing between management and staff in the public Corporations. I hope that we shall be told something about it. It is completely depressing that there should be bad feeling between the managements and the staffs of these Corporations now that the industry has been nationalised. We are not dealing with carrots but with an organisation to handle and transport by air passengers under conditions of safety. Another hon. Member referred to a lack of supervision. We cannot run a large airline organisation unless we have effective supervision and proper control. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what is behind all this. If there is not an effective pattern of organisation, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge called it, working today, what is the trouble? If it is not working under the new Government set-up, what is the reason? Why the discontent?
  Decentralisation of production was referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. F. Willey), in relation to some of the important aircraft types. I believe that the production of some of our vital new designs will have to be decentralised, not only to the North-East Coast as the hon. Member suggested, but throughout the Commonwealth. It will mean that we shall have to decentralise our designs, staffs, technicians and draughtsmen. Some of them will have to go to the Dominions to help build up sub-production units there. I hope that the Ministry of Civil Aviation are planning sufficiently far ahead on this problem now that Mr. Masefield has gone.
  If we took the internal services and handed them over to private enterprise to see what it could do, with the yardstick of efficiency for comparison, that would give the Department or Corporations a considerable saving. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any allocation is to be made over and above the £250,000 which has been made for two years for the development of helicopters. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot cover all the subjects in one

  287
  speech. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the many points which he put before us this afternoon, and on the ready manner in which he gave way to other hon. Members at all times and then tried to answer their questions. I am sure that the Committee is indebted to him.
  The helicopter is essential for internal services. I ask him how many helicopters are in production in this country. This is an important question for the future. How many rotor stations are being planned? Are the Ministry of Town and Country Planning giving full co-operation in the allocation of suitable sites for helicopter stations? Who in the Department is responsible for helicopter development? Is it a committee or a particular individual who understands the subject? What about helicopter mail delivery developments? Although the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Ambassador and the Brabazon, he did not mention the Marathon. Also when does he expect the first jet airliner to be in use?
  In conclusion, I would point out that every time there is an empty shop in the West End of London it is taken over by an international airline—K.L.M., American Overseas, Pan-American, B.O.A.C. and so on. We can count them by the dozen in the West End of London and other capitals. There must be a tremendous overlapping at present in competitive booking and freight arrangements. I do not know whether the former chairman of B.O.A.C. has managed to cut down the overheads, or whether the new chairman is going to do so, but if B.O.A.C. continue to take these booking offices in the most expensive places in the West End of London and in other cities it will be a very costly business.
  What does this mean? I believe that in the end we shall have to come back to the proposal which was made in the House by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) who, time after time, before the end of the war, almost alone advocated international civil aviation or a world airline corporation. The various companies use the same aircraft. The Parliamentary Secretary told us this afternoon the aircraft which are being used, such as Boeing, the Canadian
  288
  Skymaster and so on. All the large international companies are using the same types of aircraft, and the same engines to a certain extent. They also use the same sort of supervision and technical maintenance. They use the same types of equipment on the airports. They have the same offices for booking seats, and I believe that at the conferences at Montreal there is a good deal of interchangeability in matters of administration and regulation. Why does not the Minister now advocate boldly an amalgamated international airline? In the end the march of events will bring us to it. It is nothing to do with national prestige or defence; it is nothing to do with the development of military aircraft.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not be drawn into this race in civil aviation for national prestige, or advance the argument that we should follow a certain line because of Empire, Foreign Office, or diplomatic reasons. Because eventually we shall look for world co-operation with the help of universal airlines, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something encouraging on that matter when he replies. I do not think that, on the whole, the Parliamentary Secretary can complain about the tone of the Debate. Everyone has been helpful and co-operative, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that there are Members in all quarters of the Committee who speak from considerable experience and who wish to be constructive.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Rankin: I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) that some form of international control of aviation would be helpful, but we have to remember that in many respects today there already exist international controls. It does not always follow that international control gives us, for example, the fare structure which I would like to see operating today in civil aviation. There is the danger that unless we have proper control of an international organisation it may establish itself as an anti-social monopoly, and that is a danger which we must recognise and meet.
  Mr. Granville: I was not advocating international control; I was advocating World Airlines Limited.
  Mr. Rankin: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that point clear. I am glad the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) is now present.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I have been here all day.
  Mr. Rankin: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking he struck a responsive chord in my mind. He referred first of all to types of machines, chiefly from the point of view of our internal services. I know he will agree when I say that time and again I have sought to hammer home in this Chamber the need for freezing design in the machines which operate on our internal services. I do not refer to machines operating on external routes where we are compelled by other circumstances to take a different attitude, but on the internal services I believe there would have been great saving in cost had we frozen design and concentrated, as I have often urged, on a type of machine with low landing and take-off speeds and a cruising speed which I would put below even that suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I would suggest not 200 to 250 miles an hour, but 180 to 200 miles an hour would, I think, meet the requirements of our internal services, and I believe lead to cheaper costs.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred also to the reliability of the services, and that is a point of which we must take note. The services have been remarkably reliable. It is worth while noting that in one of the foggiest periods which we have ever had in the history of aviation in this country, from the end of November to the early part of December last year, not one B.O.A.C. service failed to operate during those four very foggy days. Out of 73 movements at Hurn airport, I believe 57 of them were carried out during that foggy period, and the remainder were carried out on 2nd December. That is a remarkable performance. It is something of which we should take note, and we should pay tribute to B.O.A.C. for the efficient way in which they overcame what might have been a very serious period of dislocation.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the question of cheap fares, and it is that with which I want to deal particularly. The main purpose in having a service is that it should be used. As
  290
  the report of B.E.A. shows, the load factor in the internal services is only 53 per cent. and in the European services 69 per cent. That means that the aircraft on the internal routes are flying half empty, and they are doing so because not only in the aviation sense but in the fare sense they are far above the heads of the mass of the people of this country.
  Those responsible for these matters seem to base these fares on what one might call the first-class fare structure of land transport. We forget that only a very small proportion of the people in this country travel first-class. If I take as an example the London to Glasgow service, it used to be £14 15s. return, a fantastic figure which even a first-class passenger of surface transport would hardly think of using. We thought it was a big step when the fare was brought down to £11, but we forget that the £11 is still dearer than a first-class fare, and is double the third-class fare between London and Glasgow. As a result of that, we are still finding it very hard to fill the aircraft that fly between London and Glasgow, because we are not taking a proper attitude towards this question of the fare structure.
  My hon. Friend said that it means lower operating costs. I agree, but he also said it means an increase of business. How are we going to get an increase of business unless we produce a fare that people can pay. We look for comparisons, and I am not suggesting that any conclusion can be drawn from the comparisons, but I am saying definitely that these comparisons must cause us to question the fare structure operating here.
  For instance, naturally I look for comparison with the route I use, the London to Glasgow route. It is about 400 miles long and it costs £8 per single journey. Melbourne to Adelaide is 5 miles longer—405 miles long, and there the fare is £3 18s. sterling. They do not use out-of-date Dakotas, however serviceable and useful they may be, but they use a better machine, the D.C.4. That service provides a comparable distance with the fare fixed at £3 18s. If we take the Buffalo to Boston service, we find it is 415 miles long, that the flight there is by D.6 and the fare is £6 15s. There are two internal services in two different countries, which are comparable in distance to the London-Glasgow route, and yet there is this remarkable difference in the fare.

  291
  I am bound to ask why, and what is the explanation if one exists.
  There is another aspect of this fare problem. I have here a letter in reply to a memorandum which I submitted to B.E.A. last October on this question. It is signed by Mr. d'Erlanger, of whom we have heard a good deal tonight. I submitted certain figures which he confirmed. Those figures show that in every European service—Ostend, Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam, Basle, Copenhagen—we are charging a higher fare from London than the average 1948–49 costs laid down by the International Air Traffic Association. The Ostend fare of £10 2s. is £7 12s. 6d. on I.A.T.A. cost. Amsterdam is £14 8s. and I.A.T.A. cost is £12 6s. The Glasgow fare is below the average International Air Traffic Association cost, but is still too high.
  I was interested in the suggestion by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) as to the fare from Paris. It is only a little different from what I suggest should be the desirable fare to Paris, namely £5. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned £4 12s. That is the figure I suggested, because we have to think of a new type of air travel, which I have called second-class air travel, although I do not like the phrase "second-class." However, I use it because, speaking last October, the Director of the International Air Traffic Association said that we have got to think of this question of air traffic along different lines, and find out a fare structure which would be acceptable to the great masses of the people who are paying by subsidy for these losses.
  I want to divert for a minute to a point I intended to mention. My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) wanted to see civil aviation called commercial aviation. I disagree with that, because we have got to think not merely of making them pay, but we have got to think of the needs of the country. I think in particular of parts of Scotland, where in the Western Isles for example we find it difficult to get people to remain. The problem of the depopulation of the Highlands is an important one not only for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. If we do not do something for the people
  292
  in the Western Isles to enable them to get easy transport to the mainland then we are going to encourage depopulation. The fare from Belfast to Glasgow is £4, and yet we charge £4 1s. to Islay from Renfrew, a distance of little more than half that between Glasgow and Belfast. That is a fare which ought to be immediately reduced.
  I should like to refer now to one of the reasons why some of these losses are taking place, and why we find it difficult to get a reasonable charge that people will be able to pay. Operating costs are an important problem and affect the business which the Parliamentary Secretary wants to see increasing. Why are we faced with the difficulty of getting more people to travel? If we look at the revenue of B.E.A. as shown in the report it comes to £4,125,536. If we take one group of expenditure, the general administration expenses, as shown in the accounts at the end, we find that divisional administration today is costing £542,177. The head office administration is costing £763,305, making a total for these two items of £1,305,472.
  If we add the commission paid to selling agencies of some £166,000 and the amount for publicity—with which I agree—of £193,000, we get for this single group, on the expenditure side, £1,665,124. That is, out of a revenue of a little over £4 million, for selling and general administration there is an expenditure of over £1,660,000. This is a matter which should be the cause of the most careful inquiry, for it represents a percentage charge of 41 per cent. on our revenue. Many people are critical of B.O.A.C., but the corresponding figure for B.O.A.C. is 31 per cent., and that for B.E.A. is 10 per cent. higher. If we take from these accounts the average selling price of a ticket it comes to £30. Of this amount, the allocation which I have mentioned comes to £12 3s., a charge which is far too heavy to impose upon the selling price.
  It is worth while to note the graph on page 48 for both the Continental and the internal services. It shows a tremendous gap of unused capacity on both these services. On the Continental services the capacity ton miles are 1,300. At the peak of the season the extent to which it is taken up is only a little over 800 tons. An examination reveals a similar state of affairs on the internal services. The

  293
  reason is largely that our fare structure is too high and places on the potential passenger a burden which he simply cannot carry.
  In ordinary times something like five million people travelled between these Islands and the Continent of Europe, only 100,000 of whom went by air. I know that at present restrictions prevent the easy flow of people to the Continent, but these restrictions will pass and when they do it is our business to see that our civil aviation services secure a much greater percentage of that five million than they did in the past. They will do so only if by paying attention to their fare structure and realising that the great mass of people travel not first-class, but third-class, and that, therefore, in creating our fare structure, it is based not on first-class, but on second-class travel.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Roland Robinson: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). I hope that the Government Front Bench took notice of his statement—a wise and a good one—that high costs of administration must mean high costs to the consumer. It was a good point and one which has arisen in connection with every monopoly or nationalised industry in this country. It is not common to civil aviation alone and I am glad that, in this one case at least, the hon. Gentleman realises that that is true.
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman must not read into my statement more than I said. I do not admit that it follows in any case as a consequence of nationalisation.
  Mr. Robinson: I was merely commenting upon the fact that, in one case at least, the hon. Member had seen the light. It happens so often on the benches opposite that in one case an hon. Member sees the light and in another he takes no notice at all.
  We have had a very interesting Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary treated us with great courtesy in giving way to so many interruptions, both from this side and from his own. It is a fair comment, in recalling past Debates on this subject, to say that the Parliamentary Secretary is now becoming quite experienced in coming here and making explanations of the millions of pounds which are lost
  294
  in civil aviation. He has done so before, he has done so today, and I venture to prophesy that, if by any chance the Government should still be in power this time next year, he will have to come back again to Parliament and explain away further losses and still hope that things may be better in the future.
  Today, however, the hon. Gentleman's case was a little easier, because one of the main bones of contention from last year has now been removed. I refer to the fact that after three years of pressure upon the Government from this side, they have at last been able to eliminate the Ministry of Supply in the purchase of aircraft for the civil aviation corporations. They should have done so three years ago and not waited until the pressure which had rolled up from all sides forced them to take what was a wise and very necessary step.
  There are, of course, other things which they have not done, and I should like to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) that it is time we got rid of the Petrol Duty on aviation spirit. It is highly illogical that we should put this heavy tax upon the corporations and then have to give it back to them by means of subsidies for the heavy losses which they have to make. The flying of an aircraft is, and always will be, expensive. It is altogether wrong, therefore, that it should have to bear this heavy and unnecessary tax. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would be doing their duty properly by the industry, if, when the time for the Budget comes along, they lined up and hammered at the door of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. This is not a new or controversial point, for every person who has anything at all to do with civil aviation, believes that this tax should be removed.
  The Corporations, as the hon. Member for Worcester said, now face a rather better future. We see a certain amount of improvement and I am wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a target date by which he hopes the Corporations will be equipped with their new aircraft. It would help us all if we could know what we were aiming at. From our point of view, we want two things: we want the Corporations to fly

  295
  the best planes, and we want them to fly British planes. Until those two points coincide, we on this side will not be satisfied.
  It would be interesting to the Committee if we could have a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary telling us that the new Welsh service was being run because it was believed that there was a chance of its "breaking even" from the financial point of view. The Parliamentary Secretary himself said that, so far as B.E.A. was concerned, they were now having to go in for a policy of concentration on those routes where they are likely to "break even." Is this one of those routes, or has it been introduced purely for a political consideration? We are inclined to think that it may be a political matter because, as has been said before, the announcement of the new service was made in another place by the Minister, instead of in the ordinary routine way where new services or cancellations are announced by the Corporations themselves. I could not forbear a smile when the Parliamentary Secretary intervened to say that the announcement by the Minister was rather in the nature of an accident that sometimes happens. It was not announced in another place in response to pressure or interjections, but as a deliberate point in a prepared statement made by the Minister himself. He began it by saying, "I should like to take this, the first opportunity, of informing the House, etc."
  I hope we can hear from the Minister whether there is any truth in the suggestions which have appeared in the newspapers that the imposition of this service was one of the reasons for the resignation of Mr. d'Erlanger. I have never met the man but I have followed his career, and I know him as one of the pioneers of civil aviation, a distinguished man and one of great ability. I should have thought that in the normal course, when his contract expired in May or June, the Minister would naturally want to renew it because he had done the job well. However, the Minister has decided to "fire" him, and I think that this Committee is entitled to know why the Minister has decided to get rid of the head of one of these great Corporations.
  The Parliamentary Secretary rather passed it over early this afternoon
  296
  by saying, "Because we have a man once, we do not have him for ever." Remember, this gentleman has not been Chairman of the Corporation for long, but he has risen with it from its earliest days when it was private enterprise, from managing director to the position of Chairman of the Board, and now, after a short period, he is being allowed to depart. It seems to me that there have been far too many changes in the direction of the three Corporations. Whether the industry is nationalised or run under private enterprise, if we want to make it a success we must get the best men to run it, we must choose them irrespective of their politics. It does not matter, so long as the man has the right qualifications whether he is Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or what his political views. If he is the best man to do the job, he should be there and, once there and doing it well, he should be assured of some kind of continuity of office.
  We are sorry that Mr. d'Erlanger has gone, and we note with great interest that a distinguished officer is following in his steps. Perhaps it would help us if the Parliamentary Secretary told us if the Marshal of the Royal Air Force is taking this job as a permanency, or is it just a small stepping-stone to another position which may involve some change in the Government Front Bench? If a man of this position goes into such a job, he has to be given the chance to make a success of it and, on taking it, he should give his undertaking that he will stay there and try to make it the success it should be.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) on the subject of flying clubs which are a valuable source of training. Hon. Members have always had great enthusiasm for them and, if they can be helped, it would be wise to do so. I understand that the Minister has been giving some attention to this question and has set up a committee—in the more modern words of Socialism a working party—which has reported to him. Will it be possible for this committee to know the kind of report that that working party has made? The Minister has had it for nearly a month now, and we have had no indication whether the report is to be published. We understand, however, that as a result

  297
  of it he has at least discussed the matter with the Treasury. Cannot we know something about it, instead of being given in a month or two the Treasury decision, yes or no? We want to know exactly what it has recommended, and how much money the working party suggested should be spent on the flying clubs.
  Now a few words on the air charter companies. We should welcome the fact that once again they are being put to real use in their work as associate companies with B.E.A. The reason they are coming in can only be that there is a public demand for these services which the Corporation itself is not able to fulfil. They should be encouraged, not only in the public interest but also because they have proved a most valuable source of trained pilots who have done good work for this country in emergency. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) referred to the India-Pakistan services, and the great work done in the Berlin airlift as well. We should use these people and encourage them.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said they should be encouraged subject to conditions. One was the standard of safety and the second was that of wages and conditions of service. We agree with him on that, but he forgot to state conditions Nos. 3 and 4 which he has imposed on these people. Condition No. 3 is one which should be of interest to the hon. Member for Tradeston, that there is to be a restriction on the fares which these air charter companies can charge. They are not to charge less than the Corporation would charge and, if they do, their contract must be cancelled. The hon. Member for Tradeston referred to the high fares charged by the Government corporations, but here, when there might be a chance that the fares could be lowered by energetic private enterprise charter companies, the monopoly socialised Corporation, no doubt on the instructions of the Minister says, "You must do nothing to reduce the fares to the consumer." That is wrong.
  Condition No. 4, which the Minister did not mention either, was that when they are given permission to run the service as an associate corporation, they are only allowed to have it for two years. I believe that two years is not enough and that it ought to be five years. It is
  298
  elementary knowledge in flying circles that the commonsense thing to do is to write off the value of the aircraft in five years. Can the Minister possibly expect these air charter companies to get new and up to date equipment when they know that they may only have two years in which to do their work? It is uneconomic to write it off in two years; at 50 per cent. per annum they cannot do it. He should give them the period over which they can write off the aircraft they are using. If it has to be written off in two years, it means that they are forced by that very proviso to use old aircraft instead of re-equipping themselves with new ones. After all, if too great a burden is put upon them they cannot possibly achieve that high standard of wages and working conditions which the Parliamentary Secretary said he desired. I do not believe that the Minister is really wholehearted about developing these air charter companies. He has himself said in another place, "I am not asking or encouraging these charter companies to step in." The fact is that he needs them, and if he accepts their services he should give them fair play.
  There is a further point which I wish to make which is of some importance. Why when the Ministry of Civil Aviation sets up a committee to examine and investigate any particular question, it does not take action on the report? In June or July, 1947, the then Minister announced the formation of two committees, the members of which were appointed so that they could begin work by the end of September of that year. One of the committees was under the chairmanship of Air-Commodore Helmore, who is known to many of us as a distinguished officer and as a former Member of this House. He had as his vice-chairman the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock). The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) was also on the committee. In addition there were eight other people of great technical knowledge and of good technical background and wide experience. That committee was set up to examine and report to the Minister on the certification of aircraft and the approval of equipment. At the same time a twin committee was set up of which the hon. and gallant Member for Derby was the

  299
  chairman, and the vice-chairman was Air-Commodore Helmore. Their job was to examine and report on the licensing, recruitment and training of civil aviation personnel.
  I speak about this matter because I have some knowledge of it in that I accepted an appointment to that committee and sat with it throughout the whole of its deliberations. One of the first impressions I had, which lasted all the time, was that the Minister had appointed to that committee men of extraordinary ability and knowledge of the subject. One of them was Air-Commodore Brackley, who went on to become managing director of British South American Airways. He was one of the ablest men I have ever been privileged to meet, and it was a great tragedy for civil aviation when he lost his life. With him was Group-Captain Hockey of the College of Aeronautics, Captain James, Chairman of the British Airline Pilots' Association, Dr. James, the High Master of St. Paul's, Sir Eustace Pulbrook, ex-Chairman of Lloyds, Sir Miles Thomas, Chairman - Designate of B.O.A.C. and a director of the Colonial Development Corporation, Sir Edward Crowe, a director of Courtaulds, Lord Milverton, an experienced Colonial Governor and administrator, and also a director of Colonial Development Corporation, and Mr. Leslie Gammage of the General Electric Corporation. They also had Lord Dukeston to represent the trade union point of view, and Lord Londonderry. Owing to illness neither of those two gentlemen was able to serve.
  The Government set up a committee of active, busy and experienced men who voluntarily gave their time for practically the whole of the winter. They held 20 meetings, they examined 45 witnesses who came before them from all sides of the aircraft industry, and when the committee were not sitting they studied representations from 131 user organisations. There was a great deal of work done and I would pay my tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Derby for the tremendous efforts he made and the time he gave to the job. When the committee finished their work in June last year they produced a report which, from the names of the people signing it, should at least have indicated that here was
  300
  some good advice and that it would be practical and constructive. At the same time as what is known as the Wilcock Committee reported, the Helmore Committee also reported. From June last until today nothing has been heard about those reports.
  I feel that when the Ministry asks some 20 people like that of great experience to give up the best part of a winter to advise on policy, and when constructive recommendations are made, the least the Ministry can do is to publish the report, to accept it if they wish, or refuse to accept it, but not to let it be buried for eight months either in the wastepaper basket or in an office file. I cannot understand why the report has been overlooked. We had the services of two excellent officials of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, who did their work well. I say to the Minister that if he wants a job done well and willingly, he should consider the information that is offered to him and, if he can, use it, but if he cannot, at least let those concerned know what has happened to it.
  8.56 p.m.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: I have only a short contribution to make to this Debate, but first I would like to follow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson), who spoke so kindly of the committees of one of which I happened to be the chairman. I associate myself with what he said, not on my own behalf, but on behalf of the very distinguished individuals who for so many months sat on that committee with me and also with Air-Commodore Helmore. It seems to me to be a very poor return for their services and the valuable time they devoted to the work that nothing should have been heard of the recommendations which they thought fit to put before the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I hope that the Minister will have time to consider—he may have done so, and perhaps we are pre-judging him rather harshly—the recommendations put forward by those 16 individuals of experience in all walks of life. If he does so I believe he will find that the recommendations made will be for the good of the industry as a whole.
  I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must accept the fact that there will be a loss on civil

  301
  aviation for several years yet. Most of the comment has been on the losses that have been made, but I am very glad that the contributions to this Debate have been real contributions. This has been an aviation Debate and not a political Debate, and there have been some most useful and valuable suggestions from both sides of the Committee. It is my conviction that we are bound to lose money on civil aviation. Indeed, if we were unfortunate enough to have a change of Government, which I very much doubt, I should still expect to see a loss on civil aviation. If there were no loss, I should not believe that the Government responsible were doing their job.
  Obviously we want economy wherever possible, but in these few years following the war we have a very big job to do, and it will cost money. An hon. Member opposite said that we should put all internal services out to private enterprise concerns and that they would make them pay. I suggest that that is a very doubtful statement. We know that certain of the services would pay, but the Government would have very great difficulty in placing some of them with private enterprise. On the other hand, it is in the interests of the country and the public that they should run, even if it means running at a loss.
  The hon. Member who compared the fares in this country with those in Australia gave the answer to the problem himself. He said that fares were higher in this country than in Australia, and he went on to say that in Australia Sky-masters and D.C.6s were being used. That is the reason fares are more favourable in Australia than in this country. Our public Corporations have not been able to buy American aircraft which operate more economically. That is the reason for success in Australia as opposed to a loss here.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not think that I am flogging a dead horse in this connection, but I am seriously concerned about London Airport. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that maintenance work is to take place there for B.O.A.C., and I believe he said that even B.E.A.C. would have their maintenance at Heathrow and not Northolt. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should be very careful to make quite sure, if the maintenance work of B.O.A.C. and
  302
  B.E.A.C. does take place at Heathrow, that there will be an opportunity for them to get aircraft in the air to test. I have not the figures at the moment, but I believe it is thought that in the next year the cycle of landings and takings-off at Heathrow will be once in every three or four minutes. If that is so, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to check with his technical advisers whether that is the place to put aircraft on test in the air. We must not make a mistake about this and it must be decided now.
  I feel that quite inadvertently the Parliamentary Secretary made some remarks about Northolt and Heathrow indicating that there was a certain risk, or there might be a risk in the future in operating from Northolt while we still had air movements at high density from Heathrow. I am sure he realises much better than I do that the flying control at both these airports is such that there is no risk whatsoever at the moment, and there should not be in the future if the flying control is efficient and gives the machines their proper zones of flight, and provided the actual circuits do not overlap. I wish to make that clear in case the Parliamentary Secretary does not have an opportunity to reply.
  Mr. Beswick: Will my hon. and gallant Friend also point out that the accident to which the hon. and gallant Member opposite has twice referred as an illustration of the risk, was, in fact, an accident between two aircraft both of which were coming in to Northolt?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: What I referred to subsequently was that, following on the accident just referred to, there was a near miss on another occasion when the pilot of one aircraft heard the engines of another aircraft while flying in cloud.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: If I may proceed, I wanted to make that point in case the Parliamentary Secretary is not able to reply. The point is that now and in the future, provided we have efficient flying control, there should be no risk for passengers arriving at either of these airports.
  I would now refer to a question which has been mentioned so frequently, that of personnel. The names of Mr. d'Erlanger and Lord Douglas have been mentioned,

  303
  and I wish to say that it is embarrassing to everyone concerned with civil aviation that these continual changes should take place. Fortunately, we have had very few changes of Parliamentary Secretary, but the continued changes in the executives of the Corporations are very sad. We all know that individually these are excellent people. Hon. Members have been talking about Mr. d'Erlanger. I knew him when he was operating a most efficient organisation during the war. He did an excellent flying job. His term of office is coming to an end. There is nothing derogatory to a person whose term of office is coming to its close if he is not selected to sit again. Some very hard things have been said about Lord Douglas. It has not been mentioned, however, that he was once a commercial pilot himself and that he became a pilot in the very early days. Those are facts that matter a lot.
  We in this Committee and the Government are responsible for these changes. I am not at all sure that we have the right organisation at the top of these Corporations. I am not sure that we ought not to have over these Corporations one body in which we can put those people whom we are continually changing. I support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member who said that we must bring forward the technical and flying men in these Corporations and let them run the Corporation through small executive boards. Over these boards we could have a policy board on which would serve people like Lord Douglas, Brigadier-General Critchley and Sir Frederick Bowhill, people who have been in aviation for years and have the respect of all of us. Perhaps the time has now come when we can say in that respect that we made a mistake three years ago.
  One of the small consolations which we have as Members is that we are able to go back and, if we were right, to make reference to our previous speeches. On 11 th July, 1946, I said that I was certain that the absence of a controlling authority over the three Corporations would lead to waste. I repeated that on 26th February, 1948, and I only remark on it tonight because I feel that if only we had the type of organisation to which I have referred, we should find that there was a general improvement in the
  304
  situation. Let the practical men come up and control the Corporation, but have a controlling board to co-operate and direct. If we did that we should be doing something which we ought to have done three years ago.
  Finally, we must expect and accept the fact that civil aviation will cost us money, but that expenditure is in the interests of the general prosperity and safety of this country. It is right that we should watch the cost and that hon. Members should criticise as they have criticised during this Debate. But over and above that consideration, we must accept the fact that in the next ten years civil aviation will probably cost us £100 million—£10 million a year. If at the end of that time we have the British flag flying all over the world; if we have healthy charter company activities; if we have healthy aero clubs in place of those which are now languishing and well-nigh bankrupt with their little light aircraft piled in the hangars—if we can achieve all that in the next few years, then we shall have done something for the good of the country and the Empire. We must try to look upon this subject from that point of view. We must admit that we are a long way from getting value for money, and I agree that we cannot be convinced of that yet, but when we have reached that stage I believe that we must expect to use the taxpayers' money and treat it as an investment for the whole of the Empire.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Gondar Dower: I am glad to have the opportunity of making a plea for Scotland the voice of which has hardly been heard today. I shall endeavour to compress what I expected would take 20 minutes into the space of five minutes. We know that nationalisation was embarked upon with the highest hopes of the party opposite, and, while I am not anxious to throw a spanner into the works, I must say that I think it has been a most disappointing experience, because, unfortunately, it has resulted in a considerable loss.
  What I want to emphasise is that Scotland has fewer services running today than it had in 1939, and I want to put this argument forward to the Parliamentary Secretary with modesty. We have heard of the criticism of Turnhouse Airport, but I must point out that in 1939

  305
  we had a service operated by Lord Grimthorpe from London to Doncaster, Edinburgh, Perth and Aberdeen. We also had services from Aberdeen to Thurso, from Thurso to Inverness, Thurso to Stromness and Thurso to Kirkwall. These services crossing the Pentland Firth were of the utmost value to Scotland, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) on the emphasis which he laid upon the value of air connections to outlying and sparsely-populated districts, where communications are of vital importance.
  I beg the Ministry not to consider that services can be run to these outlying places only if the demands that are necessary for modern airports are satisfied. I have had 14 years' experience of airline operation in Scotland. What was this airline operation? One went to a district, selected a large grass field, persuaded the Ministry of Civil Aviation to give it their blessing and accepted responsibility for using the airfield with safety. One obtained a car, with which to run the passengers to the nearest village, and one man acted as telephone operator, booking clerk, ticket collector and everything else. [Laughter.] It may seem humorous to some hon. Members, but these services, modest as they were, were of immense value to the people who lived in those districts. They take a different point of view about the operation of aerodromes in outlying places——
  Mr. Lindgren: Is the hon. Member now inferring that crash tender crews and general safety measures are not required in Scotland, as it would be helpful to the Ministry to know?
  Mr. Gandar Dower: I should be very pleased to enlighten the Parliamentary Secretary, but he will be aware, or he can be advised, that any aerodrome which is licensed, has to provide a minimum of safety arrangements and has to conform to the Ministry's requirements. In Scotland today, we have no services from Edinburgh, we have lost the Thurso services across the Pentland Firth, and in other respects we have not half the services that we had before the war. The Orkney Islands services are also stopped.
  Finally, if the Parliamentary Secretary can explain why the load of Rapide aircraft is now reduced to five passengers, under which arrangement they can never
  306
  hope to pay, I shall be interested. I have some 2,000 load sheets in my car outside showing that seven, eight or nine passengers were carried by us for many years and they all had to be included in the maximum all-up weight of the aircraft. We operated throughout 1944–45 at an average rate of £16 an hour and at fares 15 per cent. below the British European Airways. I ask today what British European Airways are operating at. For us, £17, £18, and £20 an hour were not unknown figures. When Scottish Airways were handed over to the Corporation, they had shown profits of over £7,500 for several years. When Allied Airways were handed over, they showed a profit in the final years of £6,500.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) for having kept so strictly to the undertaking he gave with regard to the length of his speech. We have had a long and interesting Debate, and I am sorry that one of its consequences will be to inflict on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for the second of the three speeches that he has to make this evening.
  On all sides of the Committee hon. Members have been anxious to make it plain that in criticising the Corporations, no criticism has been intended of the men and women working for them, and we deeply resent the suggestion that if we criticise the system under which they are obliged to work, it is personal criticism either of their competence or of their enthusiasm. Without any question, it is the result all through of applying a political and not a transport solution to the problems of civil aviation. This fact has led to the difficulties of the last three years. All the various criticisms which have emerged from this side of the Committee have been about accounts, internal routes or resignation or dismissal of high executives. All these spring from the same root cause—applying political dogmas to a transport problem.
  Before I go further, I should like to join with those who have been saying with what great distress his friends on all sides of the Committee learned of the death some time ago of Air-Commodore Brackley. He was respected as an aviator and administrator, and was

  307
  held in affection as a man. I personally have many causes of gratitude for all he did for me over many years. He was a great believer in flying-boats, and I hope that one result of his life and service will be a renewed interest in flying-boats. I am sure that all in this Committee wish every success to that great venture, the S.R.45 on which so much of our restored prestige may one day depend.
  The various criticisms which we feel obliged to make spring, as I say, from the fact that the solution which the Government applied to civil aviation was a political and not a transport solution. The first criticism, of course, is bound to relate to accounts and the vast sums of public money that are now being spent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the junior Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) spoke of a possible sum of £100 million being spent or lost, whichever way we look at it, in the course of the next 10 years. He even went so far as to say that if the Government and the Corporations had not lost money, he would have thought that they had been conducting their affairs incompetently. I do not think that philosophy would commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not at this late hour go into the details of the losses; the Committee know them very well. Last year we lost on the three Corporations £11 million, which was 5 per cent. up on the losses of the previous years, and £1 million above the maximum amount allowed by the Act.
  I recognise that the situation is improving and that Herculean efforts are being made to bring costs down, and the more recently published figures show considerable improvement. I am afraid we must remember that when B.E.A.C. publish their next report, they are bound to take full account of the disastrous strike at Northolt and the grounding of all their European services, this despite the agreement that had been reached by the consultative committee which was especially set up to get collaboration between management and labour. B.E.A.C. have gone to private industry, quite rightly and sensibly, for advice on putting their own house in order. We are glad they followed the example of the Cotton Board and invoked the aid of Production Engineering Ltd., and we shall soon see
  308
  signs of the pruning that has resulted from this advice by private interests.
  As I said, in the last six months there has been a considerable improvement. The figures published up to September last show that the losses for that period are under £4 million as compared with £4,700,000 in a similar period last year, but we should remember that Spring and Summer are the most profitable periods of the year for flying and that last year's loss in the same period of £4,700,000 became a loss of over £10 million before the full year was completed.
  It would be churlish not to recognise some of the difficult and embarrassing decisions which the Corporations have had to reach. B.O.A.C. have cut their staff down by some 5,000. B.E.A.C. are trying to do something similar, though naturally on a more limited scale. One thing that has emerged from this Debate tonight in regard to B.E.A.C.'s efforts, is the difference between their success in their Continental services and their failure in their internal air routes. I shall have something more to say at this stage about their internal routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) quite rightly separated these two sides of B.E.A.C.'s activities and showed how the internal routes still required drastic overhaul. No one knows better than the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland of the pioneer companies in internal aviation.
  Today we have a very sorry picture: No route from London to the West of England; no route from London to Wales; no route from London to Leeds and the North; no flights from Edinburgh to London or London to Edinburgh until next April; no flights at all from Edinburgh to Aberdeen or the Orkneys, although we were told that these social service flights were just the sort of flights that a nationalised Corporation would look after. Nor can the passengers be blamed, as the Parliamentary Secretary tried to blame them in regard to some of the Scottish routes, because we were told in another place recently in regard to the Cardiff and Liverpool services that if every single flight were filled to capacity the service would still be run at a loss.
  Nor is the tragic picture of internal operations any different when we look at the equally important service, linked

  309
  to internal routes, between the provincial centres and the Continent of Europe. I was glad that the noble Lord went recently to Manchester to inaugurate, or anyhow to prepare the way, for flights from Manchester to the Continent, but for quite a long time our foreign rivals have been flying services regularly from Manchester to the Continent—K.L.M. from Manchester to Amsterdam; French lines regularly every week from Manchester to Lille and from Manchester to Paris; and regular Belgian services from Manchester to Brussels. The sooner we can link our great textile centres and our great commercial cities with the Continent without planes having to come via London the better for all concerned.
  It is not as if these things have never before been run at a profit. The airlines in 1937 cost the taxpayer nothing, and yet 4,500 miles were flown over regularly. Ten years later, in 1947, the mileage flown is less—3,789—and the subsidy demanded of the taxpayer is £2,000,000 a year. What is the explanation? If petrol is the cause, the Government have the solution in their own hands. If landing fees are still too high, they could be adjusted. Whatever the cause, these services should be made to pay. If the Government are determined that they cannot be made to pay, then private operators should be given the chance.
  I know that lately a concession has been made to private operators, under which they are entitled to fly associated with B.E.A., but there are a great many snags attached to this permission. Sections 23, 24 and 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, which could be crippling Sections, are still in force. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) pointed out, there is no security. The offer is for two years only, and there is every expectation that as soon as they make the routes profitable, the Corporation will come in and take the route over. Indeed, the words used in explanations recently give colour to this view—such words as "until B.E.A. is in a position to provide all scheduled air services in the country for which there is a reasonable demand."
  I think that one of the reasons why these internal routes are not operating successfully can be found in the most curious answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary in the House some few
  310
  weeks ago, when he was dealing with the failure to run a service between London and Edinburgh and Aberdeen until next April. He chid the people of Scotland for not having shown enthusiasm for the service, and used this as an excuse for withdrawing the service. No wonder an air commentator said words something like this: "If the railway companies or great multiple firms like Lyons, or Woolworth's or Butlin's Holiday Camps had said in the early days of their enterprises, and while going through their teething troubles, 'We have not public support, so we are going to close down,' there would not have been any great commercial success." This approach is inherent in State control, and until State control goes, there seems little chance that there will be an improvement in internal aviation.
  Another thing that has attracted a great deal of attention in this Debate is the dismissal of Mr. d'Erlanger, the chairman of B.E.A. I do not want to go in detail into that dismissal, and still less do I want to go into the appointment of his successor. Rumours of all kinds naturally are current, and there is talk of Ministerial interference with the chairman in the discharge of his official duties. Again, this is the inevitable consequence of trying to have dual control—a business corporation supervised by a Minister with financial responsibility. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in another place and in another Session was quite frank when he dealt with these sorts of problems. As what he said was said in another Session, I should like to quote his words to the Committee. He was speaking of boards in which the Government had actually no financial stake. He said—I am not quoting his exact words—that in regard to those boards where there was no commercial interest on the part of the Government, the directors could be removed if they failed either in commercial competence, commercial knowledge, or in public spirit, but that, if they did not, they should be allowed to function according to their own lights. I think no one would suggest that Mr. d'Erlanger had failed either in commercial experience or in public spirit. Indeed, it would be difficult to find anybody who has had longer commercial experience, and certainly anybody who has shown more public spirit in standing up to the difficulties that he was forced to

  311
  face as head of a Government corporation.
  The Minister went on afterwards to explain the situation in regard to Corporations where the Government had a commercial interest. He was frank enough to say that in cases like this any Minister of Civil Aviation who really did his job in the wider interests of the country had inevitably to interfere at certain crucial points with the commercial objectives of the Corporations, although, he added, that if all went well, he hoped that there would be no interference with the methods of giving effect to the agreed policy. There, I think, we have the real explanation. The Minister said that any Minister who tried to interpret his job in the wider interests of the country as a whole was bound to interfere with the commercial operations of the Corporations.
  This particular chairman has gone and another chairman will take his place, but the dual responsibility will remain, and the same problem is bound to arise again. May I say in passing, that if the reported explanation of his dismissal—the resentment by the chairman at the compulsory ordering of flying between North and South Wales—is correct, it seems essentially the sort of service that could well have been given to a chartered company. There is a new chairman of B.E.A. Perhaps Lord Douglas, whose public conversion to Socialism is recent, will now co-operate with the Ministerial dictation with all the enthusiasm of a new recruit. I may say in passing how glad I am both for the miners of the Ruhr and for European recovery, that his conversion to Socialism waited until he had left Germany. We shall watch with interest how this brother Socialist works with the Minister, although I must confess to some uncertainty as to which is the more convinced Socialist of the two, the noble Lord the Minister or the new chairman of B.E.A.; perhaps the new chairman will get all he wants from the Government and some of the difficulties of his predecessor will no longer arise. So much for the situation in B.E.A.
  There are one or two questions which I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman with regard to the new types of aeroplanes, in so far as they fall within his responsibility. We all welcome the large
  312
  exports of aircraft last year. We wish that they could have been more, but £25 million is a very useful addition to our exports. Here I would remind Members of the Committee that Air-Commodore Whittle held out hopes of capturing a large slice of the jet market in the United States—our exports to America now are only £6,000 a year—provided the industry was helped. I would add that it would certainly not help the industry to have nationalisation or the threat of it hanging over its head.
  In general, in the sphere of exports, we have done remarkably well, and we have exported a very considerable sum, nearly £10 million to hard-currency countries. I think that the Committee should remember, because it has taken place since our last Debate, the record-breaking flight of Mr. John Derry in the D.H.108, the first successful supersonic flight, which has done a lot to enhance our prestige and incidentally our export trade and has accelerated the coming of the Trans-Atlantic Comet on which so many of us have pinned our hopes. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give information about delivery dates of the Stratocruisers, the Hermes and the Canadaires and the progress of the Comet, the S.R.45 and the Brabazon I. I hope that hon. Members will read Mr. Masefield's lecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society on the Brabazon I with the very hopeful data that he gave of the possible economic running of this leviathan.
  In regard to B.E.A. we should like to know something more about the Ambassadors and how they are coming along, and also something further about the Viscount, the first British civil aircraft to fly exclusively with airscrew turbine engines. In regard to B.S.A.A., everybody will have heard with great distress the Parliamentary Secretary's statement about the Tudor. But I believe that nobody can quarrel with the decison that has been reached, and all we can do at this stage is to express our sympathy to the operators and to the makers for this tragic but temporary setback to their hopes.
  We should welcome further information about the rumours of the merging of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. Should this happen—and there may be a good deal to be said for it—the Minister will have to think of other excuses for nationalized

  313
  corporations, for one of the strongest arguments used at the time the Civil Aviation Act was going through the House, was that, having three Corporations would provide three competitive yardsticks and give healthy competition in a nationalised industry.
  I have not time to deal with quite a number of other points to which I wanted to draw attention, but I should like to close by making two brief references, one to flying clubs arid the other to the question of airmail payments. In the matter of flying clubs, this country is still lamentably behind our friendly rivals. The G.I. Bill of Rights in the United States provides flying training for all ex-Service men who want it; and in Canada sums equalling 300 dollars go to the clubs who train and the young men who join in this most desirable training. We have had an inter-Departmental working party—whatever that may mean—going on over this for a long time; but no less than two years ago there was the Whitney Straight Committee, and I hope we shall hear tonight that in the course of the few hours that have elapsed since this Debate began the Treasury has been prevailed upon to soften its attitude. Perhaps I might suggest that the hon. Gentleman should draw the Chancellor's attention to an extract from a report of the hon. Gentleman's own Department, which showed that whereas before the war we had no fewer than 5,352 "A" pilots, today in England we have only 3,300. If that does not melt the heart of the Chancellor, then I do not know of any statistic that would.
  I hope we shall have a much more imaginative approach to the whole question of airmail payments, for this is largely responsible for keeping American airlines more or less out of the red. But if people think that in America the airlines are wholly subsidised by air mail payments they ought to remember that even today airmail payments represent only between 2½ and 8 per cent. of all the income of American companies.
  We welcome the improvement that is taking place in the Corporations, but in our view, however much this improvement may continue, the possibilities that could be ours if we had ordered freedom in the air would dwarf any improvement in these Corporations. In our view, the evils of bureaucracy, centralisation and monopoly will always prevent us having
  314
  our proper position in the air. We want to see a licensing authority which will give ordered freedom and competition in the air. It is largely because we believe this, and that without this there can be no real improvement, that we shall be forced to take a vote on this issue tonight.
  9.29 p.m.
  Mr. Lindgren: Let me first express appreciation of the general tenor of this Debate, except perhaps for the slight intrusion at times of political personalities. Leaving that issue aside, I think the general tone of the Debate has been extraordinarily good, and I am very grateful to the Committee.
  Earlier in the afternoon, in reply to an interjection by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), when in my speech I was making a reference to the Tudor, I said something which, it has been represented to me, might be taken to mean that we considered the Tudor IV to be unsafe to fly. Had that been so, most certainly it would not have been used on freight services. Surely it is the right policy not to put them back on passenger-carrying service after two such accidents. With that policy the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) agreed. The problem of the cause of those accidents still remains unsolved, and it is certain that in such circumstances the public would not retain confidence in those aircraft. This is nothing new in aircraft development. The Constellation, which is such a good operating and trusted aircraft, was taken off passenger service after certain accidents. Those mishaps occurred over land, and the cause was found and rectified. After that was done, they returned to service. My reference this afternoon was for the purpose of making the point that the men who fly these aircraft do at times take risks, but I did not in any way intend to mean that we were placing upon these men undue risks or that the aircraft were unsafe to fly.
  I also join in the compliments which were paid by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) to the staffs of the Corporations. I am delighted that there has been appreciation during this Debate of the very fine work which has been done by the staffs of the Corporations in the most difficult circumstances. It will be a great help to them

  315
  in their work to know that from all sides of the Committee, has come this appreciation. It was not quite so obvious in previous Debates as it has been today.
  Reference has been made by one or two hon. Members to the fact that the Ministry of Civil Aviation ought to cease its existence and that its functions should pass to the Ministry of Transport. As a trade unionist who, on the political platform, has advocated for years that transport was a function in which the various forms were complementary and not necessarily competitive, I am not going to argue whether or not my Ministry ought to cease to exist. Perhaps I ought not to advocate losing a job, but I do not think that advocacy of the abolition of the Ministry of Civil Aviation would create the position which some hon. Members imagine in regard to the redundancy of the staff of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The only possible saving would be as regards the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be a start.
  Mr. Lindgren: Yes, but a small pebble in the ocean. So far as the Ministry are concerned, their work would be carried on in the ordinary way.
  Might I here make a reference to the Welsh service, referred to by the hon. Member for Worcester, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. The operation of the Welsh service had no relation whatever to the change of chairmanship. There was no direction to B.E.A.C. to run a Welsh service. The Welsh advisory council is an advisory body to B.E.A. They had been pressing, quite rightly, for the Welsh service. B.E.A. operators responsible for the general development of internal services pointed out that the establishment of this service to meet the demand of the Welsh advisory council would cost money, and quite rightly drew this matter to the attention of the Minister. No question of direction or anything of that nature arose.
  Great play has been made with the internal services. The fact is that our island is a very small one. Having studied the matter a great deal during my time at the Ministry, I can say that,
  316
  normally, an internal service should not be of a lesser distance than 250 miles under present standards of operation—not the standards of operation of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower), when nine people were carried in a Rapide with no wireless or the rest——
  Mr. Gandar Dower: From where did the Parliamentary Secretary get the idea that we had no wireless?
  Mr. Lindgren: In his speech the hon. Gentleman said that he carried nine in a Rapide. There could not have been much room for anything else.
  Mr. Gandar Dower Mr. Gandar Dower rose——
  Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps I ought not to have said that. I do not wish to give way again.
  Mr. Gandar Dower: There was a wireless installation, a Marconi AD41/42C set. The pilots were excellent. They could operate not only wireless telegraphy. but wireless telephony.
  Mr. Lindgren: That is one standard of operation. Under present-day standards a distance of 250 miles is a requisite for operations, apart from services over water which afford a considerable saving of time, or where surface means of transport are arduous. Air transport is not a competitor with rail transport, but is complementary to it. If the normal surface transport offers good facilities and air transport is costly and does not show a great saving in time, there is no reason why it should be provided at cost to the taxpayer. The correctness of my statement will be shown in the applications which will be received from charter companies to operate under these agreements. These applications, as I have said, will be only for good routes, between large centres of population and certain holiday resorts at certain periods of the year. They do not provide a transport service for the people of the country. If there is to be a full transport service there must be regularity and it must operate on all the days of the year. [Interruption.] Perhaps not on every day—not on Sundays. But it must of necessity have regularity instead of being merely a seasonal service.
  Listening to Debates, one would sometimes think that the subsidising of transport was something new. We are, in

  317
  fact, already subsidising Scottish air transport. Forty per cent. of the services are to Scotland and 60 per cent. of the losses are from Scotland, but that is nothing new. The MacBrayne boats, plying between the Islands, were subsidised long ago. I remember reading, long before I came to the House of Commons, of the Debates in which Scottish Members complained, in spite of those boats being subsidised, of the very bad service which private enterprise gave them. Isolated persons who are rendering a service to the community are entitled to receive transport as a service in order to have contact with the main centres of population.
  Mr. Cooper: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend is quoting statistics in this matter, will he confirm the fact that some of the most profitable routes in the United States are those which are 200 miles long?
  Mr. Lindgren: I said about 250 miles, but it is equally true of other surface communications. For instance, in Africa there are grand opportunities for air transport because the opportunities of going by road or rail are non-existent. If it is the only way to go, people tend to use it. The hon. Member for Keighley made reference to the 1946 programme. I know that programme was laid in the Library of the House of Commons but, to put it mildly, that programme was unduly optimistic. If one sat down to consider the possibilities of internal air services, I do not think one could expect that such a programme could be developed in this country.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Was not that programme one of the inducements whereby the House accepted the Civil Aviation Bill?
  Mr. Lindgren: I should not have thought so. The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was placed in the Library long after the Act had been passed.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, but we were actually promised that it would be placed in the Library. I was on the Committee, and I can remember that being told to the Committee.
  Mr. Lindgren: I do not think it made much difference to the passing of the Act. Earlier, the hon. and gallant
  318
  Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) asked me about the saving arising from the transfer of the Dorval base. That saving is two million dollars a year. He asked me why the base had not been transferred before. The answer is that the only place to which it could come in this country was Filton, and Filton would not have been ready to receive it before that date. As soon as it was possible to make the transfer, the transfer was made.
  A reference was made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. F. Willey) to the development of Boldon Airport. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, I regret that we have not been able, because of the difficulties of capital expenditure, to develop more of the airports we should like to develop. There is also the Jarrow Tunnel which, except for the foot passenger part, is being held up. I expect there would be a division of opinion, even in Sunderland, as to which should come first—Boldon Airport or the completion of the Jarrow Tunnel. It is one of those decisions which have to be made in relation to the social and industrial requirements of the area. So far as the dispersal of industry is concerned, that question is outside my province. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply has been sitting here during most of this Debate, and I am sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply will be called to that part of the speech in which it occurred.
  With regard to dates of delivery of the various types of aircraft, the first deliveries of the Canadair are due in May of this year. They are a little ahead, and they may be made in April. We hope to bring the aircraft into operation in August or October of this year. The Hermes is due in May of this year, and is due to be brought into service early in 1950. The Comet is expected in 1952, but that is a long way ahead, and whether that date will be achieved or whether the date will be earlier is a matter for the constructors in relation to their programme. The Brabazon I is expected for June of this year. The Boeing Strato cruisers are due for delivery in July of this year, and are due to go into operation in the early days of 1950. Progress is very good in regard to the Saunders-Roe flying-boat. I do

  319
  not know that I have the desired information available now about this aircraft, but I will let the hon. and gallant Member have it. It is still the replacement for the B.S.A.A. South American routes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) raised a, number of interesting points. In relation to the Ministry Vote, he said there was a reference to £200,000 for travelling, and he asked who did the travelling and what that sum covered. The answer is that it covers the work of the Ministry's officials, a large number of whom attend a number of international conferences which have to be held. Their fares, including air fares, to various parts of the world are expensive. The sum also includes their subsistence allowances while there. Also included in that sum is the cost of a number of survey parties which have to go over Colonial parts of the route in connection with the development of aerodromes and to give advice and have discussions with Colonial Governments about the Empire routes and routes throughout the world.
  My hon. Friend also asked why there was a loss of £73,000 on catering. In fact, there is not a loss but a profit. If he looks at the Appropriation-in-Aid he will see that there is an income of £76,000, and when that is set against the £73,000 he mentioned there is a profit of £3,000. Most of that comes from the Ministry of Supply. I consider that we are doing well to make a profit out of the services which we render to them or which they render for us.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the air traffic control system. May I say how grateful I am to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) for his statement about air traffic control in the region of Northolt and London Airport? The position is exactly as he said, and I did not mean to convey anything other than that. In regard to general traffic control, it is true that outside the immediate control zones of the airports there is a lack of control, except for that within the flight information regions. For some considerable time attempts have been made to establish what are known as air lanes ten miles wide, in which the air from a height of 3,000 feet to 10,000 feet would
  320
  be under continual control. The Service Departments have training requirements which they quite rightly stress. There have been consultations between my Ministry, the Air Ministry and the Admiralty, and we are hopeful that in the very near future there will be an announcement in regard to the establishment of these lanes. That will take into account also the training requirements of the Services.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and also the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) raised the question of labour relationships——
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves the traffic control point, can he give the Committee an assurance that if European Airways are transferred from Northolt, the R.A.F. will not return in full strength, because if the R.A.F. use jet-propelled aircraft it will not improve the traffic situation.
  Mr. Lindgren: That is a question for discussion between the technical experts of both Ministries and it has already been discussed in relation to the possible operation of jet airliners in the comparatively near future.
  Mention was made of labour relations and I would say there has been an exaggeration of the difficulties which have arisen in regard to labour relations in B.E.A. I was glad that the hon. Member for Uxbridge paid a tribute to the relationship between the British Overseas Airways Corporation. It is true that B.O.A.C. has a tradition behind them coming from the old Imperial Airways, and opportunities there are a little easier for the establishment and development of joint consultation. After all, joint consultation is a new phase in our industrial life and there are bound to be one or two breakdowns. Generally speaking, however, the machine which has been established, the National Joint Council with sectional and local panels, is a machine which can work and is working extremely well. I would pay tribute to those at national level on the N.J.C. and the men from the shops, and the rest, who have taken on an arduous and difficult job. They get a number of kicks, even from their own workmates at times, for doing the work on the local panels. In a large number of places these panels are

  321
  working well. There are some which are not working so well, but the reasons here are personalities, sometimes managerial and sometimes on the workers' side. Every encouragement is given from the management at top level for these joint consultations to be established.
  The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough raised the question of the control from America of the Constellation when it was operating between this country and Australia. I think he must have misunderstood the point. There is a Constellation maintenance base at Filton, but the operation of that Australian service is by the western division of B.O.A.C. from this side of the Atlantic. He also referred to turbo-jets and short-range turbo-jets. B.E.A. are introducing, as a successor to the Viking, the Ambassador, which has a reciprocating engine. In fact, B.E.A. did bring some criticism upon itself with its original replacement for the Viking which cut out the turbojet, but they have now introduced the Ambassador which really is what my hon. Friend requires.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Worcester will not take it amiss if I congratulate him on an excellent speech on the general subject of civil aviation today. Questions were asked both by him and a number of other hon. Members. What will replace the Tudor is a question which I cannot answer. The decision not to bring the Tudor back into service was made only late yesterday, following the receipt of the reports of Lord Brabazon and the five committees which have been considering the problem and also the report of the inspector on the investigation of accidents. There will be immediate consideration about what the replacement will be. If a Question is put at a later date I shall be only too pleased to answer.
  The hon. Member for Worcester also raised the question of the development charges for the Viking. Those are a charge against the airline operator at present. There is a contention that that is one of the purposes for which the possibility of statutory grants was made in the Civil Aviation Act. One must realise that with the development of larger aircraft, particularly when one considers aircraft such as the S.R.45 and the Brabazon I, the charges may be such that it
  322
  will be impossible for an operator to undertake them without some special concession. That point is under consideration.
  In the time left to me I cannot deal with all the questions which have been put. I have made notes and I will try to reply by correspondence to the hon. Members who have raised detailed matters. I should like to repeat that I very much deprecate the political references to the appointment of Lord Douglas. If a Tory is appointed, then it is a non-political appointment; if a Socialist is appointed, then it is a political appointment. Lord Douglas has a record of which he and everyone else is entitled to be proud. For hon. Gentlemen opposite to assert, as they have asserted today, that experience within the Royal Air Force completely unfits one for any function whatever in civilian life is rather surprising when it comes from gentlemen, such as they are—[Interruption.] I said "such as they are" because many of them have had most distinguished records within the Services. They keep their titles of air-commodore, general, major-general, and all the rest.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say who made the remark to which he objects?
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) was quite definite about this. The whole inference has been that service in the R.A.F. unfits one for service in civilian life. I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would try to help us to develop the R.A.F., to improve recruitment and generally to develop the Service. I very much deprecate those remarks, and I dissociate myself and my hon. Friends from them.
  Mr. Gandar Dower: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the services operating to Scotland are worse than they were ten years ago?
  Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That Item Class VI, Vote 16, Ministry of Civil Aviation, be reduced by £100."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 244.

  Division No. 69.]

  AYES

  [10.0p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Robinson, Roland

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Headiam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Birch, Nigel

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Boles, Lt-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Bowen, R.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Bower, N.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hurd, A.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Carson, E.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Touche, G. C,

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Turton, R. H.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  De la Bere, R.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Digby, S. W.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Donner, P. W.

  Maude, J. C.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Drewe, C.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Duthie, W. S.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  York, C.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Major Conant and

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Brigadier Mackeson.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Raikes, H. V.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Daines, P.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Alten, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Deer, G.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Diamond, J.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Baird, J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Holman, P.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Donovan, T.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Barton, C.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Horabin, T. L.

  Battley, J. R.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hoy, J.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hubbard, T.

  Benson, G.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Berry, H.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Beswick, F.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Janner, B.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Ewart, R.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Boardman, H.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  John, W.

  Bramall, E. A,

  Follick, M.

  Johnston, Douglas

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Keenan, W.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Kenyon, C.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Burden, T. W.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Kinley, J.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Gibbins, J.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Carmichael, James

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lavers, S.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Gilzean, A.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Champion, A. J.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Coldrick, W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Collick, P.

  Grierson, E.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Collindridge, F.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Collins, V. J.

  Gunter, R. J.

  McAdam, W.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Guy. W. H.

  McAllister, G.

  Cooper, G.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Hale, Lestle

  Mack, J. D.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Cullen, Miss

  Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Daggar, G.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  324

  325

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, John R (Dover)

  MoLeavy, F.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Tiffany, S.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Randall, H. E.

  Timmons, J.

  Mallalieu, J. P, W. (Huddersfield)

  Ranger, J.

  Titterington, M, F

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Rankin, J.

  Tolley, L.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Rhodes, H.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Richards, R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Messer, F.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Walker, G. H.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wallace, H W. (Waithamstow, E.)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

  Monslow, W.

  Royle, C.

  Weitzman, D.

  Moody, A. S.

  Sargood, R.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Scollan, T.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

  Morley, R.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Sharp, Granville

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Moyle, A.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wigg, George

  Murray, J. D

  Shawoross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Nally, W.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Willey, F. T.(Sunderland)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N.)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Williams, J. L.(Kelvingrove)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Willis, E.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Stamford, W.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Steele, T.

  Woods, G. S.

  Parker, J

  Stewart, Michael (Fulnam, E.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Swingler, S.

  Young, Sir R (Newton)

  Pearson, A

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Popplewell, E.

  Symonds, A. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Porter, E.(Warrington)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Mr. Snow and

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Mr. George Wallace.

  Price, M. Philips

  Thomas, I.O. (Wrekin)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £832,066,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950"
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  LUQA AIRPORT, MALTA
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must apologise both to the House and to the Parliamentary Secretary for making one more speech and asking the hon. Member to answer once more, but there is a certain convenience in these various civil aviation problems all coming together in the course of one evening and I was very anxious, in the interests of the people of Malta, not to postpone discussion of this vital topic. As the Parliamentary Secretary has been in Malta fairly recently we shall welcome any information he can give us.
  326
  I want to raise the question of the abandonment by B.O.A.C. of Malta as a staging post in their main world routes. At the end of December B.O.A.C. ended their night stop at Luqa airport, Malta, and transferred, instead, to the former Italian territory at Castel Benito. It is said that at the time, though I must confess I have not seen this myself in print, some spokesman for B.O.A.C. announced that B.O.A.C. had nothing to do with Europe, which was the responsibility of B.E.A. But very shortly afterwards we find that B.O.A.C. stated that it was important to serve Rome, which is a vital link in our European communications.
  Whether this is true or not, B.O.A.C. are now heirs to the old all-red route of Imperial Airways. It is our view that this is a case concerning our imperial interests in which the Minister should interfere. The same Minister, let us remember, does not hesitate to interfere in other, and to us far less important, subjects. The result of this transfer will be that, in future, aeroplanes bound from London to Johannesburg, Delhi, Calcutta, Dar-es-Salaam, Accra, Nairobi and Sydney will all stop at Castel Benito. They will also see there five services a week from

  327
  London to Cairo. Malta, on the other hand, will see, if she is lucky, one service a week passing through on the way to Colombo, one to Abadan and the oilfields of Persia and once a fortnight a plane bound for Damascus, apart altogether, that is, from the small feeder service between Rome and Malta which B.E.A. are now going to run.
  I think the House should get quite clear what this change means to Malta. No one can deny that it reduces the importance of Malta. The then Minister of Civil Aviation, at the end of Malta's long siege, went to the island and spoke of the proud record of the island which he said would never be forgotten. He told the people, "It is certain Malta will have a place of importance in Empire air route planning." It means, again, the end of the all-red route. It means the abandonment of the project to make Malta our chief air junction in the Mediterranean, with all the possibilities that may mean in future years. It means the abandonment also of the project to make Malta the principal staging post for our communications. For the island itself it will have obvious and painful consequences. It is bound to lead to more unemployment, which is already very bad. Last week in the Colonial Supplementary Estimates we voted hundreds of thousands of pounds for food subsidies in Malta, in the belief that this was the last year when we should be called upon to help what is a largely self-governing Colony. It means the dispersal of trained and potential technicians. It means that the 23,000 passengers a year who used to land in Malta and spend money there will not now go to Malta. It means that the money paid to the staffs in Malta will stop—quite considerable money; £16,000 a year to the United Kingdom staff of B.O.A.C. and £7,000 a year to the Maltese staff. It means that all this money will be transferred to Castel Benito, which, we are now told, is already costing us more than £320,000 a year.
  It would not be so bad if any very, coherent and consistent reason had been given for this change, but I am sorry to say that the reasons given have been very obscure, if not a trifle dishonest. The Minister said some weeks ago that the reason was that Luqa was unsuitable for the landing of Yorks. We pointed out to
  328
  him that the Royal Air Force regularly landed Yorks at Luqa. Skyways, the most successful private corporation, land their Yorks there, and we asked why it should then be impossible for B.O.A.C. pilots to land there. Now we are told that that is not the reason.
  I understand that a high officer of B.O.A.C. said lately that even if the airport were ideal for the landing of fourengined machines the decision to leave Malta would have to stay. If this is so, then I think it is not unfair to say that the House was misled when we were told at Question time that the reason for going was that Malta was unsuitable for the landing of Yorks. If, indeed, the airport is not suitable, it is a British responsibility, for much damage was done to the aerodrome in the war, and we have the Colonial Development Fund, which exists for improvements of this kind. But there is not much good in improving the aerodrome in order to help B.O.A.C. if B.O.A.C. is to go even if the aerodrome is improved and is proved safe for the landing of Yorks.
  As the House knew shortly afterwards, there was a further and what seemed to some of us a sinister reason for this move. On 26th January the Parliamentary Secretary himself told me in the House that B.O.A.C. was not to stay long in Castel Benito but would move almost immediately to Rome. I then suggested that the reason, perhaps, why it did not transfer at once from Malta to Rome, but had a half-way stopping place at Castel Benito, was that it might be a little difficult to reconcile the people of Malta to seeing their stopping place changed for Rome, from which they had been so steadily bombed during the war, and so B.O.A.C. was choosing instead to disguise its true intentions by moving for a short while to Castel Benito, and then on to Rome. The Minister indignantly denied this insinuation, but I am still in the dark as to why it is not true. Now we do look for some explanation from the hon. Gentleman. Napoleon once said he would rather see the English on the heights of Montmartre than in Malta, and Hitler knew the importance of Malta in the last war. It looks as though it has been left to our monopoly Corporation and our Socialist Government not to realise its importance.
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I also apologise for speaking a second time tonight, but this is a question in which I have had an interest in a double capacity, and as a frequent traveller to Malta. The reason originally given us for the abandonment of Malta was safety. I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that there is good evidence of the contrary and the evidence of my own eyes, in that Luqa airport has been regularly used by four-engined aircraft of the Royal Air Force and other operators. It may well be, of course, that Royal Air Force crews prefer to spend their leave in Malta rather than in Castel Benito. I was slightly puzzled to know on what the passengers would spend their money when they got to Castel Benito. I myself never found anything to spend money on there.
  In view of what was said of the feelings of the Maltese in regard to Rome, I should like to put this question which has puzzled me. Is Castel Benito named after Benito Mussolini? I have not been able to find out myself. If it is, I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should pass on the fact to the Secretary of State for War, and, while the territory is under British administration, get the name changed, because if it is named after the late and unlamented Benito Mussolini, it would offend me, and I am sure it would offend the Maltese.
  To return to the question of Luqa there are, I think, good commercial and sentimental reasons why it should be a stopping place on our routes. Malta is not a small out-of-the-way place. It has a population of 250,000, and it is one of the most thickly-populated places in the world. Before long, there will only be standing-up room on the island, if the present increase of population continues. There is considerable traffic to be picked up in Malta, especially as the desire for emigration is very strong.
  I suggest that on commercial grounds alone there are good reasons for a stopping place at Malta. The commercial reasons are strongly reinforced by sentimental reasons which, I am sure, no one in the House would desire to underestimate. We have imperial responsibilities to fulfil, especially to Malta, which has played so gallant a part in the history of the British Commonwealth. Rome
  330
  will be adequately served by B.E.A., and we have the Anglo-Italian airline which could pick up travellers in Rome and connect them with the main British routes. For B.O.A.C. to make Luqa a stopping place is a matter on which the Minister of Civil Aviation could fitly give a direction to B.O.A.C., if my contention is correct that the Minister has power to give a direction that a service shall be run to a particular place.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I do not know how the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) expects to get it both ways. For a considerable part of an earlier speech today he was quite wrongly criticising my right hon. Friend for an alleged interference with the Corporations in carrying out their jobs. One of the main burdens of his speech was that the Corporations could only operate as transport concerns if they were allowed to carry on their commercial activities as commercial organisations without any Ministerial interference. Now, in this Adjournment Debate, he is asking the Minister to use Ministerial interference against commercial operations of the Corporations. We ought to know where we stand. Either the Minister is not required to interfere or the Minister is required to interfere.
  So far as Malta is concerned, it is, first of all, a question of commercial operations. The move to Castel Benito was made in order to secure dual operation and maintenance at that one airport on routes going to West Africa and the East. The only contributory factor was that the operation of the York, particularly at night, was difficult in Malta. As the hon. Gentleman rightly asked, if it is good enough for the R.A.F. why is it not good enough for B.O.A.C. Again, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. For a long period today they have been telling us that the R.A.F. takes risks and the fellow in the R.A.F. is not the right type to operate an airline, as that is a commercial job. I do say, quite seriously, that what an R.A.F. officer in charge of an R.A.F. machine does in the daytime is totally different from that which a B.O.A.C. airline pilot does coming into an airport at night time, when he is

  331
  responsible for 15 or 20 fare-paying passengers behind him.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman particularly as there is so little time, but I must refer him back to what he said in the House on 17th November, 1948, which is completely at variance with what he is now saying. He then said:
  "The routing of Yorks through Castel Benito is dictated solely by technical considerations arising from the opinion of British Overseas Airways Corporation that Luqa is unsatisfactory for civil operators with Yorks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 343]
  That is, arising solely from that consideration. He now says that is an incidental and not the main consideration.
  Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps the expression "arising solely" is a little over-definite, but it is a fact that B.O.A.C. pilots have said, and still say, that operation at night makes it difficult. In any case, this is only a temporary transfer, because the intention has always been to go through Rome. Rome is one of the best traffic centres in Europe, and if B.O.A.C. is to operate as a commercial airline it must go where the traffic is offering, and it is at Rome that the traffic offers.
  The requirements of Malta will be met. They are better met today than they ever have been before. But that is not to say there could not be an improvement, and there will be an improvement
  332
  if the needs of Malta require it. I think the hon. Gentleman himself traced, perhaps incidentally, what the problem really is. It is not a question of B.O.A.C. calling at Malta. It is a question of B.O.A.C. aircraft night-stopping at Malta. Well, we are not going to night-stop at Malta. A development has been that aircraft overfly or go through and the result is that certain hotel proprietors who used to get night-stopping passengers will now miss them. One can appreciate their difficulty and disappointment but we do not operate airlines for the benefit of hotel proprietors at any given place on a route. One operates an airline on a commercial basis for the transport services it runs.
  We will give Malta the services it requires. Both my noble Friend and myself have been to Malta; we have had discussions with the Prime Minister and other Ministers in Malta; we have had discussions with the Governor and the Air Officer Commanding. All are completely in the picture; all are entirely satisfied with the present position. I would not say that everyone in Malta was entirely satisfied, but the main Ministers in the Maltese Government, the Governor, and the R.A.F. are entirely satisfied with the present position.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Ten o'Clock.