AIR TROOPING

HC Deb 18 May 1956 vol 552 cc2427-43

1.48 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

I want to discuss an aspect of Government policy on air trooping. I shall talk mostly about the future and not the past, not even the recent past; but about the recent past I should like to say that we must all welcome the decision of the Air Ministry to suspend trooping on York aircraft pending the outcome of the inquiries into recent accidents.

I am certain that Parliament and public opinion will not allow the Government to get away with any idea of cut-rate trooping for Service families in old aircraft. We have to recognise that the system as at present operated of accepting the lowest tender price, which may have been acceptable some years ago, cannot be acceptable today. When it was first introduced, it was never contemplated that there would be, in the operation of air trooping, aircraft so far below contemporary standards for civil passenger aircraft.

I want to quote from a leading article in the Aeroplane of 11th May. The article discusses an exchange of questions in the House and refers to a number of my hon. Friends and myself and says: We think that the point that tends to get overlooked in such discussions is that not only aircraft but certificates of airworthiness grow old. The Secretary of State for Air had reiterated the point, which was perfectly true, that, of course, the aircraft had certificates of airworthiness. The article said: Certificates of airworthiness relate to requirements current at the time of manufacture and are not revised to meet current requirements. Nobody today would build an aeroplane with the runway performance of the York and expect to sell it to operators. The result of Government policy has been to put inconvenience—I put it no higher than that—on to Service families and to do harm to the prestige of British aviation.

As to the future, I want the Air Ministry to comment on the general point of an increased volume of trooping. I remember that as long as six or seven years ago a calculation was made in the Air Ministry that three hundred-seater transport aircraft at £200,000 each, therefore costing a total of £600,000, with one in reserve, would carry year after year as much as two sea transports each costing initially £4½ million, or a total capital outlay of £9 million. The comparison was between £600,000 and;£9 million. I recognise that the figures of the costs are now out of date, but I wonder whether the ratio is still the same.

The depreciation of an aircraft is far greater than that of a steamship, but I recall that the calculation appealed to the Treasury because the use of aircraft was cheaper. I wonder whether we are doing as much air trooping as we should. One of the obvious advantages is the reduction of the number of troops in the pipeline and on the lines of communication. In other words, air trooping is not only cheaper in itself but is cheaper in manpower.

My next point is to ask what the Air Force is to do about the air transport of the Army's strategic reserve. What aircraft are to be used? In what numbers? What will be available? In passing—and I do not blame the Air Ministry or the Secretary of State for this, although I blame the lack of liaison —the Service was made to look ridiculous at the time the Estimates were published, because it appeared, from what was said. to the rather more informed section of the general public, that the War Office was under the impression that Pioneer aircraft would transport the strategic reserve—not do the tactical transport after the reserve had been moved but do the actual strategic transport. This seemed to indicate lack of liaison between the two Departments.

The subject has been aired a great deal in the House, and I will not dwell on it today beyond saying that now that a larger proportion of the general public know a little about the air, it is important that such mistakes should not be made. Ten or twenty years ago, and certainly thirty years ago, one could talk or write anything about the air without dealing with a public which was informed on the subject. Fortunately that is not so today. Departments such as the War Office and the Air Ministry therefore have a big responsibility so as to ensure that they put in their statements to the Press or other statements in the Secretary of State's name information which can be construed as making sense.

I have several questions to ask—what aircraft will transport the strategic reserve; in what numbers; and when will they be available? Is the Comet to be used for this or is it to be used exclusively as a shuttle aircraft to Australia for our men engaged in the work at Woomera and other experimental stations? What is to replace the Valetta? It cannot go on for ever.

For years there has been a policy of taking a civil aircraft and making substantial adaptations. It has to be adapted to some extent for Service use. Are we certain that that policy of requiring a different mark is wise today? Do the Americans do it? Do the N.A.T.S. insist on an aircraft different from the ordinary commercial version? Is there something we have to learn here? There is no doubt that our policy increases production difficulties and puts up the cost.

When we come to the question of the trooping of men and families, I think we must accept two principles. I ask the Government to accept them. When families are taken, the standards must be comparable with civilian standards. When no families are taken, Service standards are acceptable.

Who is to do the trooping? First, there is Transport Command; next, there are the nationalised air corporations; and next, there are the private operators. As for the last two, I think we should insist on fair competition between the private operators and the nationalised air corporations. By "fair competition", I mean that a proper standard should be set and that non-one should be forbidden to tender.

Personally, I hope that a large proportion of these contracts will be won by the private operator, for two reasons. First, competition in itself is good and, secondly, flying must not become a closed mystique open only to people in the nationalised corporations and the services. Flying and operating techniques are such that all the wisdom in the world does not lie in the Services or in the nationalised corporations. I very much hope that private operators will obtain a share of these contracts, but under fair competition.

Perhaps I may illustrate a point which worries me and which shows how important is the question of fair competition. Yesterday, I put down a Question to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. It is not the first Question I have put about this subject. It was a perfectly sensible straightforward Question asking him how many lives were lost in the last twelve months in accidents to passenger-carrying aircraft operated by the corporations and how many in passenger-carrying aircraft operated by private airline operators respectively. It is not the first time I have put down this Question and on several occasions I have been given the information for which I asked.

For the first time, in answer to my perfectly legitimate written Question, the Minister went out of his way to take a most partisan attitude. The figures, it so happened—and I had no idea that it would be so—show that in the last 12 months the corporations lost 15 lives and private airline operators lost 53. The Minister went out of his way to add: Of course, no valid conclusion can be drawn from a comparison based on so short a period;".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May. 1956; Vol. 552, c. 196] He then goes on to quote not the preceding 12 months or the 12 months immediately before that but a period which has no relevance whatever to my Question and during which the corporations had more people killed than had the independent companies.

When I was telephoned about this by the Press I said there must be a misprint because I thought no Minister would add a rider which dealt with a period which had no relevance to the Question; but I was wrong. It must have been deliberately selected to show that ratio. My point is that there must be fair competition but that it is wrong to intervene in this way and to appear to try to justify one point of view, or another, by the selection of figures like this.

We must all recognise that one of the major problems is that of finding enough aircraft. How is this to be done? First of all, I submit that Transport Command must be increased and brought up to date, and there is a point here which is most relevant. It would be a very brave or. I think, a rather foolish man who would say that Fighter Command and manned fighters as we know them today will be in existence in ten years' time, or that the bombers which we know today will be in existence in ten years' time, but. when it comes to Transport Command. surely there is no question about it. Transport Command and transport aircraft, much on the same lines as today, are bound to be required. The idea that the whole of Transport Command and its operations will become out of date is one which I do not think anyone would seriously suggest.

The task of fighters may be taken over by guided missiles, and the task of bombers may also be taken over by guided missiles, but can anyone visualise the idea of Transport Command's functions being taken over by guided missiles? Therefore, of all the commands in the Royal Air Force, this is the command which, above all others, can be increased and brought up to date without any possibility of its becoming obsolete in itself. Of course, the planes will become out of date, but the Command itself will never become obsolete.

Secondly, consideration must be given by the Air Ministry in particular to the importance of large continuous orders in order to help the aircraft industry in planning its production. Transport Command must be expanded. Substantial orders must be given by the Corporations. Cannot there be some system by which the Corporations can use aircraft in the peak periods in the summer, and, in the off peak periods, use them for trooping? I do not know how to work it out, but I know that the manning people will say that it is impossible and that we must keep an even flow. The manning people have great problems, and they always will have, but ingenuity will have to be exercised if we are to solve this problem. How are we to make it economically possible to have enough aircraft to perform this task? Can we have the Corporations using their aircraft for peak periods in the summer, and especially B.E.A., using them for trooping in the winter?

As for the private operators, the dilemma is very great. It is difficult to see how the private operators can afford to buy up-to-date aircraft. We have to remember that Parliament and the public will not take kindly to any idea of the State buying aircraft and giving them to private operators to operate, or even leasing them. Already we have reached the position in the aircraft manufacturing industry, in its widest sphere, in which even the inefficient firms are kept in production by a system of subsidies. We have got into that system, and no one knows how to get out of it. If that system is to be duplicated in the operation of private aircraft, I am sure that Parliament will not stand for it.

We have developed this system throughout the years, and I am not blaming anybody now. How to get out of it is the problem. It is a system by which in the private enterprise field of the industry the inefficient firms are subsidised by public money, and we cannot transfer that system into the operations of the private air lines. I cannot see, much as I should like to, how the private operators are to be able to afford the modern aircraft which will make them competitive, if standards are to be maintained.

Therefore, I ask the Government to make a study of the whole problem of how to find the aircraft that are needed, not only because the continuous flow and the larger orders will help our industry, but also because it will help both Transport Command and the Corporations to do their respective tasks. The Government should also study the problem to see if we can give the private operators an opportunity of playing a part.

There is one question, which I will not expect the Under-Secretary of State to answer today, but which I should like him to pass on to his right hon. Friend. It is a complaint which I find everywhere wherever I go into the Services and in the industry. There is a feeling that there is no person highly placed in the Government who is charged with keeping an eye on the papers which come out of the various Departments concerned with aviation. In the days of the Labour Government, we happened to have the late Sir Stafford Cripps, who was genuinely interested in aviation and who did keep an eye on it. Today we have the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Defence, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Ministry of Supply and, of course, the Treasury all concerned in aviation. Does some senior Minister keep an eye on the papers sculling around in the Departments and in the Cabinet Committees and bring them into line, so that a long-range view can be taken, instead of a strictly Departmental view, of the problems of aviation?

I think it is everywhere realised that our future as an industrial nation lies largely in our engineering industry, and particularly in our aviation industry. It is the duty of the Government to help, and not to hinder, our greatest industry of the future. It is our most valuable field for the exercise of skill and enterprise, and if the Government have an imaginative trooping policy, it will give great opportunities to the spirit of enterprise in aviation. It is still a new industry—very new compared with the old industries which have served us so well in the past.

2.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames)

I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has been fortunate enough to secure a place in these Adjournment debates today, because there has been a good deal of talk lately about the standards of comfort and safety of air trooping aircraft. Indeed, it has been said that the safety standards of the aircraft were below contemporary standards, and that certificates of airworthiness wear out, like the aircraft themselves. The hon. Gentleman used some quotations, and I got the impression that he agreed with them.

Mr. de Freitas

Yes. I did.

Mr. Soames

We do not accept at all that these aircraft are below contemporary safety standards, and, of course, certificates of airworthiness are re-issued every year after a careful examination of the aircraft. However, I will talk later in more detail about safety.

Another point which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the financial aspect. I could not give him an answer in figures today to the questions which he asked about the financial advantages of using aircraft as opposed to ships.

On the question of the percentage of the trooping which is done by air as opposed to ships, I fully agree with him that the more we do by air the better for us, from many points of view, and not least the fact that by so doing we are building up a reserve of aircraft in case of need. In fact, the figures have been rising. Last year, 57 per cent. of the trooping was done by air. In the year before it was 56 per cent., and in the year before that it was 54 per cent. there is a steady rise.

As I hope to show later, the standard of safety in air trooping has been extremely good, but there have been two most unfortunate accidents lately. and these have been used by some people to support the thesis that the standards of safety and comfort provided by the independent charter companies leave much to be desired, to put it no higher than that.

As air trooping has become such a feature of Service life, and more and more men and their families are being carried by air, that it is of the very first importance that the Services and the public should have confidence in the aircraft which are used and in the men who man, service and organise them. I hope to be able to show in some detail that such confidence is fully justified, and that the attacks which are being launched against air trooping arrangements as they stand today are thoroughly misplaced.

First, I should like to explain how air trooping contracts are at present arranged, and, later, I will come to the argument which the hon. Gentleman raised as to where the advantage lies between the independent operators, on the one hand, and the Corporations, on the other. When any of the Services want a long-term air trooping contract they send details of their needs to the Movements Branch of the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry sets out the requirement in the minutest detail and sends it to those independent operators who it thinks would be in a position to tender for it.

The forms for tender are long and complicated, but the two parts which I think would be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman are those which refer to safety and comfort. First, as to comfort; and as he has made quite a number of points on this aspect, I think he will be interested in what I have to say. What does the Air Ministry lay down as comfort requirements? The distance there must be between the seats—in other words, the leg-room—is laid down. The seats must have arms and head rests and they must be adjustable so that the passenger can either sit upright or recline. Portable cots have to be provided for babies, and rugs and blankets for every passenger. Two stewards or stewardesses must go on every flight to attend to the comfort of the passengers. Cigarettes and refreshments must be available for passengers to buy during the flight. The contractor's responsibility to provide meals is explained in great detail. For instance, at least one hot meal besides breakfast must be served during the day. There must not be more than five hours between each meal.

Fruit squashes and tea or coffee must be served with every meal; indeed, fruit drinks must be available at all times during the flight. Meals and accommodation for passengers—including, where necessary, air conditioning—have to be provided by the contractor for overnight stops. Those are just some of the conditions affecting the comfort of passengers, be they troops or families, which are insisted upon by the Air Ministry and with which the operator is bound by contract to comply.

Now, what about the safety standards? These are laid down by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, and no operator will get any contract, long-term or short-term, unless he can satisfy the Minister that his aircraft and its crew meet the necessary standard—and it is a high standard. The standard is exactly the same as that laid down for the Corporations on scheduled services. No differentiation is made, so troops and families travelling by air can be sure that they are protected by exactly the same standards for aircraft and crew as are fare-paying passengers on regular scheduled services.

But we go further than that. Because the passengers in those planes which we in the Air Ministry have chartered are not fare-paying—are not travelling of their own free will and accord, but are travelling to a greater or less degree under orders—we regard it as our duty to make absolutely sure that the safety standards are fulfilled in practice. We therefore provide a further check, beyond those required by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation on scheduled flights. We provide for in-flight inspection by an R.A.F. officer, who travels round and makes checks on the aircraft to ensure that all the regulations are strictly adhered to.

To sum up this part of my argument, I would say that the safety standards which we require are more than comparable with those required of the Corporations—with which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman has no quarrel. Where comfort is concerned, while I will agree that the aircraft used for trooping are not the most modern, the hon. Gentleman would, I think, have difficulty in proving that there is any appreciable difference between air trooping standards and those of tourist traffic on scheduled routes.

I wonder just how deeply these complaints about comfort go? We have heard a good deal about them recently, but the hon. Gentleman has been Under-Secretary of State for Air himself and knows full well that in that job there are not many aspects of Service life considered to be inconvenient by Service men which are not at some time or another brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State. Airmen—and soldiers—are fully aware of their right to write to their Members of Parliament, and from my experience I would say that Members of Parliament are not backward in sending on the complaints. I have not been in this job very long, but in the five months that I have been at the Air Ministry between 70,000 and 80,000 men have been trooped by air. I have not received a single complaint from an hon. Member or from any constituent through his Member of Parliament—not one. The Secretary of State has received one—one in five months. I really wonder very much whether these complaints about which the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have been telling us in the last weeks are so keenly felt in the Services; whether they are all that they are made out to be, or whether, in fact, he is not the leader in that thought himself?

Let me now deal with the prices which we pay for these contracts. The hon. Gentleman wrote an article—rather a surprising article, I thought, coming from him—in Reynolds News last Sunday.

Mr. de Freitas

What is surprising about it?

Mr. Soames

I shall have something more to say about it later, but for the moment I will quote the following sentence: Even for the occasional trooping flights such as the one on which the aircraft crashed in Essex, the Corporations are squeezed out because the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists on the Air Ministry paying such cheap rates that only those firms with old, uncomfortable aircraft can get their prices low enough. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that, he is labouring under a great misapprehension. The interpretation of that sentence is clear. It is that we fix the rates that we are prepared to pay and that the operator then provides the services which he feels able to provide at the price.

Mr. de Freitas

As I said in my opening remarks, it was never contemplated that aircraft as old and so far below contemporary standards would be in operation and tendering for these things. Yet, as the years have passed, aircraft like Yorks are still being used for the job and are still tendering. As I have said, the "better currency" has been squeezed out.

Mr. Soames

This is an unequivocal statement that the rates we pay are so cheap that they can only be met with these very old aircraft. I did not know that a York was all that cheaper to run than is a modern aircraft.

What happens is that we set out our requirements—the number of men to be flown in a specified time over a specified route under certain conditions of safety and comfort. The operators then tender and, other things being equal, we accept the lowest tender which satisfies all our conditions. Surely that must be in the public interest.

The hon. Gentleman may say that we pitch our sights too low and that the standards of comfort are not high enough. I have endeavoured to show him in the earlier part of my speech that our standards of comfort compare not unfavourably with those of ordinary tourist traffic on scheduled airlines. He must agree that, although there may be a difference of opinion about what the standards ought to be, it must be in the public interest that we should set standards of safety and of comfort, and that once those have been established it is equally in the public interest that we should get the best value for the money spent. I do not see any object in putting these contracts out to tender unless, other things being equal, one accepts the lowest tender.

Mr. de Freitas

But other things are not equal. I instanced that fact in the leading article in the Aeroplane.

Mr. Soames

I do not accept all that was said in the leading article in the Aeroplane. I think it was far from correct when it said that certificates of airworthiness wore out.

As to the safety record, the hon. Gentleman mentioned. a Question that he put down for answer yesterday. Of course, it is possible to make figures speak, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. He might have taken the matter further. There has been the unfortunate accident in Malta, in which 44 people were killed. Had the hon. Gentleman taken the figures for that one week instead of for the 12 months—

Mr. de Freitas

Surely 12 months is a fair period.

Mr. Soames

I do not think that it is a fair period. I do not think 12 months is anything like enough if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk in terms of statistics. If he had quoted figures for the week of the crash, the figures would have been even more heavily weighted. I have got all sorts of statistics here, and it is possible to make them talk all sorts of languages.

In this field, comparisons are odious, but I think it would be found on careful examination over a period of years that neither the Corporations nor the independent operating companies would like to challenge the other where their safety rates are concerned. Both are extremely good. I think it is most misleading if one starts to follow a train of thought which leads one to compare statistics in one particular year.

The hon. Gentleman's Question was answered, of course, by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I should imagine that what was in the Minister's mind when he referred to that 12 months' period which had a great bias in a certain direction was to pose the question, "What can you tell from these figures? Accident figures for any period of 12 months cannot give you a fair picture." We in this House, and in the country, may rest assured that we are lucky in having in the independent operators and in the Corporations undertakings which have the highest possible safety standards.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Corporations competing with the charter companies in long-term trooping. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's article on Sunday was eminently suitable for the newspaper concerned, but it hardly did justice to the hon. Gentleman himself. He even had to drag the Coldstream Guards into party polemics, which, I thought, was somewhat unfortunate.

Mr. de Freitas

I have the greatest respect for the Coldstream Guards.

Mr. Soames

I have already read one sentence in that article stating that the Air Ministry pays such cheap rates that only those firms with old aircraft could have a chance of competing. The hon. Gentleman goes on to say: The Government's calculated policy of giving financial advantages to the private airlines at the expense of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—and of the comfort of Service families—is in accordance with their policy of handing over to private owners the lucrative part of transport and leaving the nationalised operator with the essential services which may or may not be profitable. What I thought when I read this article—and 1 suppose people knowing less than I do may well have thought the same thing—was that it was suggested that air trooping was the lucrative part of transport. But in the preceding paragraphs the hon. Gentleman talks about the cheap rates. Would he like it the other way round? Does he think that the Government ought to give all the trooping to the Corporations and should leave the scheduled air services to the independent operating companies? Does he think that that would be better? He has been slanging us for looking after our friends, for giving all the lucrative transport to our friends.

Mr. de Freitas

That is the Government's road transport policy.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman says in his article: The Government's calculated policy of giving financial advantages to the private airlines, at the expense of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. That is what he was talking about. He said that we are giving the lucrative part of transport to private enterprise. I do not want to labour that point, but I think the hon. Gentleman must be aware that there was some inexactitude in that statement.

Mr. de Freitas

I am aware that I made a speech and that the hon. Gentleman has not answered the part of my speech in which I asked about the future of Government policy in air trooping. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken for about 20 minutes.

Mr. Soames

There are another 20 minutes yet.

Mr. de Freitas

I hope the hon. Gentleman will get on to that part of the speech.

Mr. Soames

I have covered quite a lot of ground.

We come to the question of ad hoc charters for which the Corporations are entitled to tender. Quite a lot of business is involved in ad hoc charters. It should not be pooh-poohed. In fact, in 1954–56 the Corporations were successful in obtaining £700,000 worth of ad hoc chartering, which represented 35 per cent. of the total value of the ad hoc charters that were given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they do not keep aircraft for long-term charter work and they therefore did not tender for long-term contracts; they have not the aircraft to tender with.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of getting competition between the private operators and the Corporations, as if they were two great combines with the Corporations on one side and the private operators on the other. There is, in fact, already a considerable amount of competition. A great deal of competition goes on in the activities of the private charter companies. I think, also, that the hon. Gentleman must realise the difficulty from the fact that he asked me whether there could be an arrangement whereby the Corporations could use their aircraft in summer in the peak period for ordinary scheduled lines and in the winter for air trooping or for charter work. It is just with that sort of thought in mind that we invite the Corporations to tender for ad hoc charter work, and they get a considerable proportion of it.

The hon. Gentleman wondered whether the independent companies would be able to buy any new aircraft. There are, I believe, three Viscounts in operation now and another four on order by the independent operators.

There is one further argument that the hon. Gentleman used—namely, that Transport Command should take over more air trooping. I do not want to go into this matter in too much detail, because we had a debate on this subject on the Estimates and it was fairly well Covered—at least, 1 thought it was. However, I must make it quite clear that we do not envisage using Transport Command in an air trooping rôle. If it were to take over what are now the regular air trooping contracts, it would not be available to fulfil its main purpose, namely, to move the Strategic Reserve.

It must itself be in the nature of a reserve in order to be able to move the reserve of troops, supplies and equipment for the Services to a trouble-spot in any emergency. We cannot keep a standing Army to guard all our commitments at all times, and hence Transport Command is at all times prepared to fly the Army Strategic Reserve wherever it may be needed.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether Transport Command was being re-equipped with more modern aircraft. I would refer him to the debate on the Air Estimates, when these matters were gone into in considerable detail. In fact, there is a three-year re-equipment programme going on at the present time, in which Comets, Britannias and Beverleys are being brought into service. May I give an example of how this process will result in increased efficiency in Transport Command's major rôle in moving the Strategic Reserve about? Whereas, when we had to move two battalions and a brigade headquarters to Cyprus last year, 52 aircraft were used and the job took 40 hours, when Transport Command is re-equipped, as our plans stand at present, that job could be done with five Britannias. Alternatively, the whole force could been moved within 12 hours if all our aircraft were brought to hear upon the task.

No duties should be given to Transport Command which would detract from its state of readiness and efficiency to meet this vital task. Long-term air trooping would obviously not fit in with this role. Apart from air trooping, the Services have a number of requirements for sporadic airlifts, some of them having a security background and others being purely military moves, which Transport Command can and does meet. This work occupies almost the whole of Transport Command's time, and there is not much left for straight trooping at the end. Last year, Transport Command carried only 8 per cent. of the troops carried by air. It surely must be right that Transport Command, the military force, should undertake the diverse, sporadic military functions which it now does and which fit in with its primary task, and that the more regular, schedule-like trooping lifts should be undertaken by the civil fleets.

Far be it from me to say that no changes will ever take place in Her Majesty's Government's policy towards civil aviation; but, broadly speaking, a sensible balance has been struck between the functions of the Corporations, of the charter companies, and, in a somewhat different sphere, of Transport Command. Where trooping, which is the subject of this debate, is concerned, we are satisfied that the most suitable and the best arrangements are made. I hope that to some extent I have succeeded in allaying some of the hon. Gentleman's greater fears.