HC Deb 22 March 1957 vol 567 cc762-72

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

3.59 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick (Uxbridge)

I want to raise the question of the necessity for developing and encouraging private club flying in this country. I think that this short debate follows not unnaturally from the debate to which we have just listened, and I believe that this question is also one of national importance. It seems to me that atomic energy and aviation are the technological pacemakers of this half of the twentieth century, and success in both these respects means success as a nation. My case is that we shall be more successful in the design, construction and operation of aircraft if we have a national atmosphere of air-mindedness. The more people we have talking of flying problems; the more people——

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Beswick

I was saying that the more people we have talking of flying problems and getting into the air themselves, the more chance we shall have of throwing up the odd genius that this country still needs.

It seems to me that we need a pool of aviation experience which goes beyond those engaged professionally in the business of flying. The professional could feed his experience into the pool, but he could also get a good deal from it. Draftsmen or designers who spend the week at drawing boards and engineers from the aircraft repair shops should also have the chance to handle aircraft. The more chance they have of getting into the air and handling aircraft, the better designers, draftsmen and maintenance engineers they will be.

After the war aviation knowledge and experience surged through our national life as a result of service in the Royal Air Force, and it seems to me that that experience now needs replacing and refreshing. Service flying is a contracting thing. The possibility of a young man flying with the Royal Air Force has grown less. We have seen the Auxiliaries disbanded, and week-end flying with the Services is now a thing of the past. All the more reason, it seems to me, that we should encourage private and club flying.

There is another reason why I am pleased at this opportunity to talk about the matter. It is because the Ministry does not very often get a chance of talking about this aspect of its responsibility. We are pleased to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation present this afternoon, and we welcome him to that position. Each year we discuss the reports of the air Corporations but we do not often have a chance of hearing how the Ministry discharges its responsibilities for this aspect of aviation.

I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that the Ministry takes a positive and constructive view of its responsibilities. People often consider it simply as a regulatory body and not charged with more positive duties. Before I go on to ask for more precise information, I think I should say that I am directly associated with two flying clubs and I ought, therefore, to declare an interest. That I readily do, but at the same time I am not certain whether I should not more accurately describe it as a financial liability.

What are the things which we should expect from the Ministry? First, we want aerodromes. There will be a particular need for an aerodrome in the London area when Croydon is closed in 1958. We have Elstree and Denham, but both have their limitations and there is a real need for a well-equipped private flying centre in the London area. It could be a national asset; indeed, it could be an international asset.

An obvious possibility is Hendon. The Minister says that is being considered. I should like to ask what progress has been made in that consideration. Is it a question of the "dog-in-the-manger" attitude of the Royal Air Force? If the Royal Air Force cannot afford to keep Service aerodromes open for the week-end in order to keep the Royal Auxiliary Air Force flying, I do not think it should hang on to Hendon.

Failing Hendon, or probably in addition to it, what conclusions have been reached about the possibility of having an airstrip—a grass airstrip possibly—at Gatwick? New York, Düsseldorf, Zürich and Hanover have such facilities for light aircraft, so there is no reason why they should not be provided in this country. There is the possibility of using abandoned R.A.F. aerodromes. The Ministry has been co-operative and has supplied lists of Service aerodromes which have passed into private ownership, and it may be possible to make some arrangements in those cases. But there are still others which are not owned but not used by the Royal Air Force and which would be usable by private light aircraft. Can the Minister use his influence with the Air Ministry? In some areas of the country, East Anglia, for example, light aircraft would become feasible for transport if old bomber aerodromes were available for the private flyer.

There is another point about aerodromes. It may be advisable for a pilot to make a landing on an unauthorised aerodrome, on one of the disused fields which we have not been able to arrange to bring into some pattern of private airfields, or it may be necessary to make a landing on a civil aerodrome out of the normal hours. The pilot may be lost; there may be delay through weather, and it would be sound airmanship in such cases to make a precautionary landing. That is part of a pilot's training.

At present, a pilot is liable to a fine of £200 for landing on an unauthorised aerodrome, and I am told that there have been cases where officials have appeared to take a certain delight in dangling the possibility of a heavy fine before a pilot compelled to make a precautionary landing of that character. I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give a definite indication that there will be no question of a prosecution in any bona fide case of a precautionary landing.

There is another specific problem, the solution of which could help flying clubs indirectly, the problem of recruitment of airline pilots. I put a Question to the Minister about this a month ago. He said he was meeting a deputation from the Air League. As a matter of fact, he had said the same thing a year before and when the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) raised the matter two years ago, he was told that the matter was being discussed with representative associations.

The problem has been with us for many years. I thought I had solved it in 1950 when we came to some arrangement with the Royal Air Force, but it fell down on its side of the bargain. I do not blame it, because it is the Air Force's responsibility to look after its own requirements. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that in this matter the Royal Air Force is now a broken reed. It is not feasible for the Service organisation to be a reliable source of future airline pilots and civil aviation must make its own arrangements.

In the last decade, air transport in this country has been kept going by pilots who came out of the last war. This postwar intake, like the famous bulge in the schools, is now coming to the end of the line and at the moment, there is no definite and reliable source of new entrants. Something must be done about this or we shall run into trouble in the next few years. There should be a decision in the matter and, if the Air League scheme is not acceptable, has the Minister anything else in mind? The Air League scheme, in principle, offers some solution, even though the precise allocation of costs among the operator, the trainee pilot and the Ministry may not be acceptable. We might possibly put more on the trainee pilot and less on the State, but certainly a division of responsibility among the three interested parties is the right approach.

There is another point of grievance in the discrimination by the Ministry between a pilot flying a club aircraft and a pilot flying his own machine. The former gets free landing facilities which are denied the latter. The former gets a rebate on fuel tax which is denied the latter. I know the arguments about this. It is probably said that the private owner can afford to pay or may fly on a business expense, but that is not always the case. What we have to consider is a man who may buy an aircraft, perhaps in partnership with others, but is discouraged today because of the discrimination to which I have referred.

I see that in the United States there are now 21,500 business aircraft in opera- tion—more than 19,000 of them single engined machines—17 times the number of the whole American domestic air transport fleet. Last year they flew 903 million miles. In this country there are 364 private aeroplanes. The United States also exported more than 500 of those aircraft. When I ask manufacturers in this country why they are not now making a private light aircraft, they say that there is no home market. To some extent the effect of having no more light aircraft coming along is discouraging the private flying movement. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary if this is something over which the Minister could reflect. Cannot we do more to encourage the construction in this country of a private light aircraft? Does he not think a greater market would be provided if we could remove some of these discriminations against the private owner?

I called the attention of the Minister some time ago to certain unsatisfactory features of the Regulations concerning flying instruction. He told me that there was a review going on and I understand that the Guild made recommendations on these matters some time ago. Are those recommendations to be implemented? When is the Working Party to report and when is action to be taken?

There are two ways in which I think the Minister might help. The works flying clubs scheme has been one of the brightest post-war developments in the flying world. Some firms have co-operated very well, but some have not co-operated so well, even though they have done well out of the aviation business. I wonder if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in moving around the country could do more to encourage these who as yet have not come into the scheme.

I understand that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which has been disbanded as a Force, has a number of young men who are determined to get off the ground somehow. Many of them are prepared to fly their own aircraft at their own expense if they can be given hangarage at the aerodromes from which previously they operated. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is now in the Cabinet but the Secretary of State for Air is not. That is a fair reflection of their respective priorities in the scheme of things for the future. It gives the Minister an opportunity to do more in relation to Service opposition.

I have asked a number of questions and asked for help, assistance and encouragement, but I should not like to give the impression that the men and women of whom I have been speaking are lacking in initiative and self-help. In no field of enterprise is there a greater spirit of initiative and self-help. Some tribute should be paid to their organisations of which the parent body, the Royal Aero Club under its chairman, Mr. Kenneth Davies, has done such good work in recent years. Nevertheless, another gesture from the Parliamentary Secretary and some practical help from his Department would be most welcome.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas (Brentford and Chiswick)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has raised this general topic of the development of private flying. I am sure it is important. If I may say so with respect, the hon. Member is a great aviation enthusiast. I do not always comprehend his enthusiasm for certain policies about civil aviation, but on this occasion I agree with what he has said and I feel he has done a service in bringing this matter to the notice of the House.

There are only one or two short points which I wish to make, and I will take only a moment or two to put them. I agree with the hon. Member that we must do everything we can to develop and encourage private flying in this country. In a sense, private flying lies at the base of all our civil aviation and for that reason, in my view, it is extremely important. We hear a great deal in these days, and no doubt we shall hear a great deal more in the next few weeks, about missiles and rockets, but it is my opinion, which I am sure is shared by a number of people, that the conventional aeroplane will be with us, particularly in civil aviation, for many years to come. It is, therefore, important that we should take care of the base; and, as I say, I believe that private flying lies at the base of aviation in this country.

I recall very well that when I first came into the House, six or seven years ago, when we were sitting on the other side of the House, my noble Friend Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, then the Member for Inverness, referred at length to the difficulties of the development of private flying in these modern days. I remember that he said something then which I thought was profoundly true. He said that the light aircraft was to aviation what the small sailing craft, the dinghy, was to British maritime strength. I believe that basically that is a profound thought. All round the coast of Britain in the summer months we see a great upsurge of activity in sailing, particularly in the sailing of small craft, dinghies and the like, especially by young people. That, I think, is splendid, but we have no comparable activity today in private flying, which is indeed a great pity. The reason, of course, is that it is too expensive for the majority of people and quite outside their means. I recognise at once the work which the Popular Flying Association, through its co-ownership groups, has done; I think the hon. Member had that in mind. But it is a sad fact that private flying today is beyond the pocket of the ordinary person.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we should get our young people into the air and interested in aviation. I am sure that is important. The thrill of flying a small aircraft, as the hon. Member knows well, is very great, and there is a greater thrill still in piloting a light aircraft with no one else in it.

I often think it is a pity that we do not now have some organisation such as we had before the war in the form of the old Civil Air Guard. One could join that organisation and fly an aeroplane for half-a-crown an hour. We have nothing like that today. It was run for about a year—I do not think it was run for much longer—and collected about 10,000 members and subsequently produced 7,000 aircrew for the Royal Air Force, doing excellent service thereby.

I come back to where I began by saying that I think the hon. Member for Uxbridge has done a service in raising this matter this afternoon, and I hope that my hon. Friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I am very glad to see doing this job, will be able to give some encouragement to the flying clubs and to private flying and say a word about what the Government are prepared to do for them.

4.19 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave)

I am very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has raised this subject today. Although I have not had his flying experience, nor that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), in the course of the short time I have been in my present position I have found the subject of flying, and civil flying in particular, most stimulating, and I very much share his enthusiasm and want to see the young people of this country become more air-minded.

I think the time has already come when we take more and more pride in our civil flying and when the work for the development of air-mindedness which can be done by the flying clubs is of the highest importance.

There are today 148 operational flying clubs and groups in the United Kingdom as compared with about 50 in 1948. That shows how this keenness is growing, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that my right hon. Friend would like to see his Department not merely a Department to regulate club flying but as one which will also be a source of encouragement and help to the flying clubs and to private flyers in general.

I have a very short time in which to answer a very large number of questions. I will do so as quickly as I can, and will. I hope, satisfy the hon. Gentleman of our real willingness to help in this matter. The total number of aerodromes available in the country as a whole to private fliers is 114, but the Air Ministry has been considering widening the scope of the joint-user scheme for its airfields. That applies, in particular, to active Royal Air Force fields except, for instance, where there is some special security feature.

Those will be airfields that can be used, if the scheme comes into operation, by charter and private aircraft, and it has just been agreed that an additional sixty active Royal Air Force fields will be available to private flying, subject of course to the pilot obtaining the prior permission of the station commander. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard that as an important advance in assisting private flying. The list of these airfields will be published very shortly by "Notam," and later in the Air Pilot. Therefore, the grand total of airfields available to private fliers will shortly be 174.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the sometimes rather complicated subject of abandoned or disused airfields at present owned by the Air Ministry. The number of usable airfields is, of course, diminishing, and I agree that it is important to get on with the job of settling their disposal. At present, eighty-six are under consideration for disposal, and once they are disposed of, of course, there will Ito longer be any question of obtaining the permission of either the Air Ministry or of my Department for their use. A number are still retained indefinitely for use as airfields, or are awaiting a decision.

There was an attempt by the Royal Aero Club to acquire sixty of them for casual landings, but not many were found suitable for this occasional use. However, that matter is still being considered. I have heard complaints that there has been delay in obtaining permission for these landings, and that will be avoided as much as possible in the future.

The hon. Member also mentioned the use of aerodromes outside normal hours. That can be done by owners of private aircraft, under certain conditions about which the secretary of the Royal Aero Club has already been informed. The hon. Member also asked about prosecutions for unauthorised landings. The position here is quite clear. If those concerned read Article 54 of the Air Navigation Order, 1954, they will see that it is quite clear that this prohibition would not apply to a landing due to accident, stress of weather or certain other circumstances which are mentioned in the proviso to that Article. It is not, of course, for the Minister to interpret the law—indeed, he is not the only person who could prosecute in such cases—but he would not prosecute in a case to which that proviso obviously applied. I cannot say more than that each case must depend on the particular circumstances, having regard to the wording of the Article.

The hon. Member then went on to the question of aerodromes near London being available for flying clubs and private flying. This, again, is rather a complicated question. There are seven clubs at Croydon now, and every effort must be made, I quite agree, to see how they can be fitted in to other aerodromes. There are several Royal Air Force aerodromes being considered. My right hon. Friend, as the hon. Member knows, is in touch with the Air Ministry about this matter.

There is still Royal Air Force flying at Hendon, and a limited amount of joint user there for civil flying. I cannot say at the moment that I have anything further to add than that I expect further information on this point in a few months' time. But I have already assured the hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, that we are expediting this matter as much as we can, and are making as much progress on behalf of the flying clubs as possible. I shall certainly consider the point about the grass airstrip which might be established at Gatwick. It may well be possible to accommodate some suitable types of aircraft there.

A number of other points were raised, with one of which I ought to deal straight away, and that is the pilot training scheme. My right hon. Friend entirely agrees that it is now essential in the present circumstances, having regard to the future of military aircraft, to have civil training facilities to supplement the release of pilots under the former system from the Royal Air Force. He is considering this scheme which has been prepared by the Air League of the British Empire, and which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is supported by the Corporations and by the majority of the independent airline companies.

Two particular aspects of the scheme are now being examined by the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department, and they are quite important: first, the proposal that there should be exemption from military service, and secondly that there should be educational grants for the theoretical side of the training, as distinct from the practical side, which should be paid to the trainees. My Department is working with the operators at the moment on the draft scheme. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he wants this matter dealt with as quickly as possible.

I was asked about the working party on pilots' licences which is examining the whole question of the issue of pilots' licences and ratings, including arrangements for flight tests and ground examina- tions, in the light of developments in aircraft and operating techniques. I was asked when it might be expected that we would get the result of the working party's investigation. It hopes to conclude its task this year, when the whole question of instructors' ratings will then have to be considered. I was asked about this matter by the hon. Gentleman in a Parliamentary Question, and he referred to certain breaches of the relevant regulations which had been referred to my Department. There are three or four cases still being investigated at the moment and I cannot tell him more about the matter yet.

With reference to the possibility of the development of a British light aircraft, this is the first time that this matter has been raised with me. No representative body has put forward this idea suggestting official encouragement of something in the nature, for example, of a smaller and cheaper aircraft to replace the Tiger Moth. If that suggestion is put forward, there will be various considerations of public money to take into account, but it would be fully examined. The possibility of this being a narrow market might be a relevant matter when considering whether to support the development of such an aircraft, but if there is a proposal we shall certainly consider it.

The hon. Gentleman took the view that the private flier ought to receive the same reliefs from petrol duty and so forth as the private flying club does. Frankly, I am not convinced by that argument. My Department does not consider that the private owner of an aircraft which he uses for business reasons is in the same position as a flying club which extends to a wide section of the people facilities for learning flying which they could not otherwise afford.

I would point out, however, that private owners have been helped. There are the annual landing card scheme, international air tourist cards and the housing and parking season ticket scheme. But in my view, having examined this matter when the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of raising certain matters, the private owner of an aircraft is not in the same position as a flying club for the granting of financial relief from petrol tax.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.