HC Deb 22 January 1965 vol 705 cc632-53
Mr. Stonehouse

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "due".

Confusion about the use of this word arose during the Committee stage discussion and in view of that confusion I undertook to propose this Amendment.

Mr. Maude

I shall not detain the House on this matter except, very briefly, to thank the hon. Gentleman for having met us on this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Anthony Courtney (Harrow, East)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end to insert: (3) With the exception of Heathrow the Authority shall not deny landing and other facilities at airports under its control to any category of fixed-wing aircraft, subject always to the ability of such aircraft to communicate on the appropriate frequencies and to comply with the requirements of Air Traffic Control. This point, also, was discussed in Committee and did not receive a very favourable reception from the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that after my hon. Friend's two Amendments the third time may be a little luckier in my case.

This Amendment is a plea for the small man, for the small aircraft, for the individualist, for the private business, club or charter aircraft which is increasingly—but, I regret to say, far less so than in many other countries—finding its way into the sky of this country. These men and these aircraft are individualists and, as such, I believe, in my short experience, they have the sympathy of right hon. and hon. Members in this House.

I would ask, therefore, that, as I have taken steps to rephrase my Amendment in accordance with certain of the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, he may look at this Amendment with slightly more sympathy than he did the previous one.

In my view, the aviation dice are loaded against the small aircraft operator at present. There are clear reasons for that, though not all, I believe, are good ones. I hope to try to adduce a case for a removal and a denial by the Minister of any intention to discriminate against such aircraft or an intention to allow the Airports Authority which is the subject of this Bill to discriminate against such categories of aircraft.

The Minister made his position clear in Committee when he said that he rejected a previous Amendment on this subject because the effect would be to prevent de authority from discriminating against small aircraft in the use of its facilities. To adopt that attitude at the outset of the operation of an extremely important new organisation is, to my mind, obstructive, old-fashioned, and ill-conceived.

Speaking as a sailor, I think that I can draw the maritime analogy that nobody in his senses would attempt to deny the use of the Port of London to a motor cruiser properly equipped, properly able to navigate, with a proper master's certificate and with a master in charge to bring his ship safely into harbour. But such discrimination is already exercised in the case of aircraft against individuals and their aircraft who are equally well equipped, if that analogy is a good one, as I believe it is. For this kind of thing there are perfectly clear reasons, some good and some not so good. There are pressures on the Minister—

Mr. Rankin

I was not quite clear about one part of the hon. and gallant Member's argument. Do I follow him correctly in suggesting that he is making a comparison between air movements and sea movements?

Commander Courtney

The hon. Member is correct. Where individuals are travelling in an unfamiliar medium, whether it be water or air, certain similar basic principles apply. Certain rules of conduct are obligatory, certain rules of safety have to be observed, and certain qualifications have to be acquired by the pilots or the masters of craft, in the air or in the sea, accordingly. It is to that extent that I ventured to draw this analogy.

As I was saying, the Minister is under pressure here and the pressure seems to me to be composed of three parts. There is what I would call the "earth-borne" pressure of individuals who are always inclined, when it comes to aviation matters—particularly those affecting the small man, who is not effectively geared to speak for himself—to say, "Better not; better discriminate; better say, 'no'; better perhaps to increase the limitations or the qualifications required in order to prevent a certain course of action." This is the rather negative attitude of what my friends in the Royal Air Force would call the chair-borne element, but which I would prefer to describe as the earth-borne element of this pressure exerted on the Minister.

Secondly, I believe that much of the pressure stems from the airport authorities themselves, and this affects municipal airports, if I may mention them without being out of order, whose primary concern is to acquire revenue to operate a satisfactory airport on good, sound commercial lines. It is to be hoped that somebody will put the case of such municipal airports as they eventually find their way into the British Airports Authority. They, of course, are motivated by the desire to restrict flying to the most experienced. They have a laudable attitude towards the safety factor, but they wish to brush aside any aerial activities which may affect their normal commercial working and their peace of mind.

3.0 p.m.

Thirdly, I regret to have to say it, but there are certain airlines which exert this type of pressure because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are discommoded—and in some cases it is true that expenses accrue to airlines because their planes have to wait in stacks over certain airports where non-commercial aircraft, having arrived before them, have precedence in the stack.

This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) in Committee although, with great respect to him, I hope that he will make no more of those ludicrous misstatements of fact of which he was guilty on that occasion, when he spoke of coming from Renfrew in an aircraft and being forced to go through the London control zone to get to Gatwick, which is quite incorrect.

I think that the example of Cardiff is relevant here. I have it on excellent authority that in its efforts to persuade the airport authorities to apply permanent I.F.R.—instrument flight rules—and to impose certain limitations at Cardiff Airport, if it so much as sights a small private or business aircraft a certain airline is inclined to describe it as "a near miss", with the consequent safety factors involved.

The small man looks to the Minister to protect his interests, and I hope that as a result of the discussion in Committee the Minister will offer him protection in his reply today. I have mentioned this tendency to try to impose permanent I.F.R. at airports. I am glad that it was successfully resisted at Gatwick. For the information of hon. Members, it is a very simple means by which an authority can deprive the use of an airport to a very large category of aircraft.

There is, I think, an exaggeration of the density of aircraft which is often used as a reason for such restrictive measures. May I remind the Minister of his own figures in this respect, taken from the aircraft census carried out so admirably over the last few years? I quote the figures for July, 1963, and they may surprise some hon. Members. At the peak period in the afternoon of an average Monday to Friday there are fewer than 200 aircraft at any one time in the skies over Great Britain. That is a remarkably small number. The peak figure rose in July, 1963, to just under 300 at 2.30 on a Saturday afternoon, the number being swelled by light aircraft taking the air about that time, by gliders and by the towing aircraft for those gliders, not to speak of the sort of aircraft which take up my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and drop him by parachute from 10,000 feet.

Nevertheless, bearing in mind what was said in Committee, the terms of the Amendment specifically except Heathrow Airport from its provisions. As the Minister rightly said, London is the nexus of air routes and the focus of a great deal of international air traffic. Therefore, although it is an exception to a general rule for which I shall always fight, I feel that there is a case, at least for the time being, for excepting Heathrow from the provisions of the Amendment.

In the Amendment there is provision for the exclusion from the airports under the Authority of all those categories of light aircraft which the Minister has in mind when he is considering the problems of safety and interference with the operations of airlines. There is left a very wide range of aircraft which I think should be covered by the Amendment. In many cases these are up to full airliner standards in their communications. I have myself flown an aircraft with full two-and-a-half equipment, which, as hon. Members know, means full duplicated V.H.F. communication, duplicated V.O.R., A.D.F., instrument landing and marker beacon. One can fly any small aircraft these days with the same facilities as in a modern airliner, and it is this fact which the Minister has taken into account in his excellent new proposals for the establishment of an I.M.C. rating half-way between a private pilot's licence and an instrument rating, which requires a great deal of time, money and experience—halfway between amateur status and full pilot, for which he is wisely making provision. This should not be excluded from the smaller aircraft at the airports under his control.

There are, of course, difficulties. There are, for example, the approach rules at airports under the Authority. Those rules for, say, a VC10, are quite different from those required for a Beagle 206. Even if Heathrow were open to light aircraft, which it is not, there would be great difficulties involved in sending small aircraft right round the big airliner pattern.

Why cannot the Minister use his influence with, perhaps, Heathrow so that there is a holding pattern over, say, Staines Reservoir for light aircraft? Such a holding pattern could be for aircraft at 1,000 ft. There are already many light aircraft flying over Heathrow at 1,000 ft., controlled by that admirable body of men who man the control equipment. A holding pattern of that type would allow the controller to pick down light aircraft between the arrival of the larger ones, just as the Germans and French do. Why cannot we follow suit?

We have many foreign precedents for the line of action contained in the Amendment. I believe that the Minister, if he describes himself as a progressive Minister—a member of this progressive Government, with their modernistic ideas we have heard so much about during the last 100 days—will look at this matter with greater sympathy than he has previously. I urge him to give it his serious attention.

Mr. Rankin

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) came right into the debate in the full fighting style for which we admire him. He raised the issue of air space and the further stacking of aircraft in waiting areas. I will not develop the argument of whether or not the air space above our airports is sufficiently or insufficiently used at present.

Many distinguished persons in aviation consider that it is insufficiently used and have provided statistics to show that that is so. However, other persons, equally well informed about the density of the air space above our heads, have different views. Nevertheless, I will not discuss that question.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have had second thoughts about his Amendment and is now offering us something deprived of Heathrow. I accept that, but I could not possibly accept his comparison between travel by air and by sea. If a ship suddenly gets into difficulties with another ship they can both stop. An aircraft, on the other hand, cannot stop, and that is the fundamental difference between the two forms of travel which must constantly be borne in mind. I am sure that hon. Members recall cases of aircraft flying over this country colliding in mid-air.

Commander Courtney

The hon. Member may be interested to learn that I was travelling in a ship which was involved in a collision with another ship, and we certainly could not stop. In the air we have a blessed third dimension which enables one to escape in such circumstances.

Mr. Rankin

Again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is unique in having been in an air collision—

Commander Courtney

indicated dissent.

Mr. Rankin

I am sorry—I thought that he was referring to that.

Commander Courtney

No, it was in His Majesty's ships.

Mr. Rankin

I do not dispute that—I have said so—but an air collision is an entirely different business.

I think that in Committee both sides visualised the extension and expansion of Heathrow Airport to take in other airports, and it is these that the hon. and gallant Member would delimit from Heathrow. However, I know of one airport now functioning which I use regularly and which, with the expansion of passenger traffic now proceeding, might well become an international airport at some time soon, perhaps, in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would bring that airport within the ambit of his Amendment, despite the fact that the people responsible for the control and use of the airport—the officials and this Scottish Airports Committee—decided not to allow private or club flying within its area. Acceptance of this Amendment would mean that those in control of that airport would be forced to a decision without having any opportunity of criticising it or dissenting from it at any point.

I think that the hon. and gallant Member completely misunderstood what I said about Gatwick Airport during the Committee stage of the Bill. I suggested that if we wanted, as I am sure we all do, to be helpful to the business fliers and to others, those fliers might well find it useful to go to Gatwick. I made it clear, however, that the official information was that it was not possible for those of us situated in the north of the country to fly from there to Gatwick in foggy weather—such as was pertaining at that time and from which I had just emerged—because to get to Gatwick one has the difficulty that it is in the London control area.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head at that statement, but that was the official explanation given to me on that morning, as I related to the Committee.

Gatwick is in the London control area. Therefore, when fog descends on Heathrow Airport, Gatwick may be clear of fog, but is cut off from use because it is in the control area that is fogbound, and, therefore, cannot be used. As a consequence, those of us who need to cannot just go from Renfrew, which is without fog, to Gatwick, when it is without fog, because, in between, there is the control area to which Gatwick belongs, and which may be, and at that particular time was, fogbound—

Commander Courtney

I must apologise to the hon. Member for again interrupting him, but I think that he should look up his homework. He talked in Committee about the London circuit, and now he is talking about the London control area. I think that there is some misunderstanding, and that he refers to the London control zone and the Gatwick control zone—

Mr. Speaker

I do not want to intervene in this exchange, but I think, perhaps, that the merits of the Amendment are not dependent on an understanding or misunderstanding in the Committee.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin

We may discuss that matter again on another occasion. I have made a brief contribution because I intended, if necessary, to correct what I thought was a wrong impression formed by the hon. and gallant Member of what I said about Gatwick.

Mr. Stonehouse

The House will have recognised the sincerity with which the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) proposed the Amendment. I go with him a long way in the desire that small and executive fliers should have the facilities of the Ministry available to help them as much as possible. However, in this small island, with its congested air space, it is not possible to provide them with as many facilities as they would like to have. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on learning a little about the problem since the Committee stage of the Bill. He now specifically excludes Heathrow and appreciates the objections we detailed in Committee to the proposal he then made that small planes should have unlimited right to fly in at Heathrow.

The objections we raised in Committee in regard to Heathrow must also apply at certain times to the other airports for which the Authority will be responsible. At Prestwick, Gatwick, and eventually Stansted, if that airport is developed, there will be scheduled routes using the airports. If this Amendment were accepted it could mean that the Authority would be unable to discriminate against a small flier in preference, say, to a VC10 flying into Gatwick on some scheduled route. To avoid any misunderstanding on that score, I must ask the House to reject the proposed Amendment.

I wish to correct the hon. and gallant Member on the point he raised about harbours. It is incorrect to suggest that there is no control over shipping. Under Section 20 of the Harbours Act, 1964, a control of movement order may be made designating areas, routes or channels… of harbours which ships or ships of a particular class or description, are to use, or to refrain from using for movement or anchoring in at all times, at specified times or in specified circumstances. The Harbours Act allows control over certain types of ships. We must allow the Airports Authority to use this discretion in discriminating against small aircraft although I emphasise that under Clause 2 the Bill lays a duty on the Authority to encourage air transport at all times and this will apply to the private and execuitve flier.

Commander Courtney

I had not thought that I had such a good advocate as the hon. Gentleman himself. I happened to be a member of the Committee which considered the Harbours Act. My Amendment is an exact parallel of certain provisions of that Act which discriminate only against various vessels in the control zone, in the Thames Estuary and under the Medway Ports Authority, provided that they have not the communications necessary to bring them under radar control. That is an exact parallel of this situation.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for producing this analogy so admirably.

Mr. Maude

When we discussed this question before I had occasion to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that in his attitude towards the private and business flyer he was at his most discouraging and unhelpful, which those who sat in the Committee recognised is a high degree of discouragement and unhelpfulness. I do not think that beyond a slightly cursory bow in the direction of private flying he has been very much more helpful today.

We should like an assurance that the Authority will at least try to do something more for the private and business flyer in the future than has been done in the past. It is easy to say that it is all very difficult. The risk is that it will become very much more so in the future. The rate at which the volume of civil air traffic is increasing means that our airports and our air space will be much more crowded in the future and this overcrowding will increase at an unexpectedly rapid rate. Some airports can be expanded, though with difficulty. Air space cannot be expanded. The difficulties of the private flyer will become greater, because I suspect that the natural tendency will be for him to be the small man who gets squeezed out of the pattern always.

The whole business of private and club flying is one of the sources from which young men will be trained and recruited for civil and even military flying in future. This is not unimportant. It will be a matter of some importance to the British light aircraft manufacturing industry that there should be proper facilities in this country for small aircraft flying. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Authority, so far from taking the easy way out and letting small aircraft go to the wall, will make a real effort to make things easier for them in the future rather than more difficult.

Commander Courtney

I, too, am not at all satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I am grateful to him for undertaking to give it further consideration. I shall be pursuing this matter. In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, and of the general opinion of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Stonehouse

I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, to leave out from "shall" to "for" in line 2 on page 3, and to insert "provide".

Would it be convenient to the House, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment the Amendment in page 3, line 8?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, if that meets with the approval of the House.

Mr. Stonehouse

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has had to leave for his constituency, because the Amendment has been tabled to meet some of the points that he raised in Committee. In proposing an Amendment there the hon. Gentleman made some suggestions about the consultation which should be arranged by the Authority. Then, we could not accept his specific proposals, but I undertook to look at the wording of the Clause and to consider tabling an Amendment to it.

The Amendment arises as a result of that consideration. It is an improvement of the original wording, as it imposes an express obligation on the Authority to provide adequate facilities for consultation and it will allow the Minister to give specific directions to the Authority regarding the way it is to discharge its obligation under the subsection.

It is not expected that the Minister will have to use the powers under this subsection, but if he feels that the Authority is not providing for the sort of consultative facilities that the Committee and the House have had in mind in discussing the Bill he can intervene and give directions. He could, for instance, at some time in the future give directions that the Authority allows the representation of an organisation representing the interests of consumers of the Authority's airports or, indeed, of the travellers in aircraft using those airports.

I believe the Amendment to be an improvement, and I ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Maude

It is a rare and a great pleasure to be able to welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has moved an Amendment of some substance to meet the views expressed on this side of the House. I believe that this represents a considerable concession to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, is extremely sorry that he has had to leave for his constituency.

We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for making what we believe to be an improvement. We think that this will work better than the original proposal in the Bill.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I have studied with great interest the proposed change. A little more consultation is permitted in so far as the second Amendment provides for "adequate facilities for consultation" and there is the possibility of making arrangements to meet changing circumstances.

However, I feel that while the consultation provided may well be more than adequate for the kind of problems which users may face and which local authorities may have to face from time to time, this consultation may not be adequate for replacing the control which is exercised on the economic efficiency of airports by Parliamentary interest through the medium of Question Time.

The proposals are inadequate for this purpose for the following reasons. I have already mentioned the Parliamentary interests. We tend to underestimate the spur to efficiency which Parliamentary interests can provide. If there is a prospect of some small or minor matter being raised in this House, it is certainly a great spur to the efficiency and the economic operation of an organisation such as we are discussing.

The second matter that we have to take into account is the fact that the Airports Authority is in a unique position, being a monopoly enterprise with the ability to pass on the costs of any inefficiency which may arise. The other fact which is also relevant is that the chief user of the airports is a public enterprise which is not subject to the normal disciplines of a free enterprise economy.

The other point which we ought to take into account is the ever-increasing use which people make of air facilities, the multiplicity and growing number of airline operators and also, so far as local authorities are concerned, the ever-increasing pressure of building use and the increased incidence of multi-storey development.

In these circumstances, we have to provide not only adequate consultation in respect of difficulties which may arise in the operation of an airport but also some system which can be alternative to the kind of disciplines which are imposed by Parliamentary interest and by the publicity which inefficiency can cause.

For those reasons, I feel that although this Amendment is certainly an advance, it does not provide an answer to the new situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 8, at end insert: adequate facilities for consultation with respect to matters affecting their interests, and shall, in doing so, give effect to any direction given to it by the Minister".—[Mr Stonehouse.]

3.30 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert: (8) The Authority shall have power to require special guarantees from any company whose aircraft use the airports under the Authority's control, where the Authority have reasonable cause to believe that the company's administrative or financial resources are insufficient to provide proper services for their customers. Most of the Bill is very properly concerned with the efficient operation of airports in relation to aircraft and airline operators, but the end-product of all this is travel, and the misfortunes of travellers on the ground can cause embarrassment to airport authorities. It can cause expense and can hold up the efficiency of the normal working of normal and competent firms. It is therefore a reasonable proposition that in the Bill the Airports Authority should have spelled out an authority to take certain precautions about firms with a bad reputation for their efficiency or reliability.

I was moved in the first place to table the Amendment by the unfortunate experience of some of my constituents who shortly before Christmas fell into the hands of a company which is able, believe it or not, to call itself United States Airways, which sounds pretty convincing when someone is trying to organise a party of people to take a charter flight to the West Indies. It sounds as though it ought to be all right, but in fact it is a company with an office in Luxembourg. It could not possibly have registered that title in most countries, least of all in the United States. It seems to be owned by one man with very little resources who has one office in London and one telephone perhaps to hire another aircraft if he is fortunate enough to get sufficient customers.

As a result of his operations 50 West Indians paid £100 each but they were stranded at Gatwick Airport two days before Christmas and on nine successive days were told that the aircraft was not serviceable today but would be tomorrow. Finally, when one lady broke down and cried and said that it was no good going now because her father who was on his death-bed had died, that was interpreted by some small creature concerned with the operation as a formal termination of the contract and a cancellation of the flight on the part of the customer and, according to some small type, she forfeited three-quarters of the fare she had paid.

I will not go into further details. I think that this Captain Pickett has achieved some small publicity and this might be something for a policeman or for the civil courts, but this is indicative of the type of problem which may face airports in the future. We cannot have the normal efficiency of airports embarrassed by stranded travellers at peak periods. This is a disadvantage to airport authorities, but there is another important consideration from a wider point of view to which we must be alert in an age when holiday travel by air in charter parties and others has become the normal way of life for people who get holidays with pay and want to arrange to go in a quick and unusual way to some freshly discovered holiday in some part of the world or want, as these people did, to go home for Christmas. We should be alert to see that they should be able to rely on the advertisements and the undertakings.

This, as I have said before in another context, is an element of consumer risk where the consumer is most vulnerable. Any article one buys one can take back next week, but one cannot take back a holiday. The Airports Authority should be given these powers not because I want to encumber it with activities which it might be argued should be looked after by other organisations but because this is the quickest and most reliable and efficient method of dealing with the sort of situation which I have described. One side-effect of the story concerns the Jamaican Government, who require a guarantee from charter operators who bring people home on return trips that they will take them away again at the end of their holiday. There has to be an insurance. This insurance was taken out by—

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

Would the hon. Gentleman care to ask his hon. Friend on the Front Bench whether this is really a matter for the Airport Transport Licensing Board rather than the Authority?

Mr. Parkin

I am on my last few sentences. If I have strayed into a field which is already covered, I apologise for taking up the time of the House. I was citing an example. Some people try to find guarantees in these circumstances in another way. As I was saying, the Jamaican Government require a bond of insurance, but they could not foresee that the resources of Captain Pickett were so inadequate that his cheque would "bounce" and that this safeguard would not operate anyway.

There is little difficulty now because, as the result of most energetic activity by competent lawyers who spared no pains in searching out affidavits from New York and so on, a judgment has been obtained and it looks as though it is possible to seize that decrepit aircraft. But, here again, some false information was given to the sheriff of the county about the location of the aircraft, whereas the airport authorities know very well that it is at Gatwick Airport now. In spite of the intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), I consider that it would still be easier, quicker, and more effective to give the Authority itself power to take quick action of the kind I suggest.

Mr. Stonehouse

My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has raised a very serious case, and I appreciate the attention which he has devoted to it, but I must advise him and the House that the procedure he proposes to prevent that sort of experience in the future is not required. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) pointed out, the Air Transport Licensing Board already has considerable powers in this connection, and we believe those powers to be sufficient.

On the particular case which my hon. Friend raised, perhaps I should say that United States Airways Incorporated, which is the name of this particular airline, sought permission for a charter flight from Gatwick to Jamaica, but, before the Ministry would allow the flight to take place, it sought a satisfactory certificate of competence from the United States Federal Aeronautics Administration in Europe. As a result of that request, the F.A.A. carried out an inspection of the aircraft, and the need for a certain amount of work on the aircraft was established. This caused delay in the flight.

We have now advised United States Airways Incorporated that no further permissions will be given for the exercise of traffic rights in the United Kingdom until the Ministry is assured by the United States authorities that the company is fully certificated, so I believe that we have full protection against the activities of this particular company. I advise the House that it would be superfluous to have this Amendment written into the Bill, and, indeed, it would be quite cumbersome for the Authority to be forced to take this responsibility.

Mr. Parkin

Can my hon. Friend tell me what help he can give to my constituents in getting their money back or getting alternative means of redress?

Mr. Stonehouse

I should want to look at that.

Mr. Parkin

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

In putting the Bill through this stage, we are helping to launch a new public corporation, a measure which has been applauded by all who use the airports. We believe that the British Airports Authority will be able to do a very fine job indeed in improving the facilities and services at the airports for which it is responsible and improving the tremendous scope that air transport will have in the next few years.

We have had a considerable amount of debate in the House and in Committee about the detailed provisions of the Bill, and I do not want to go over all that ground again. But I want to make two points clear. First, there is no question of the Authority taking over all the airports in the United Kingdom. We recognise the valuable work that is done by many municipal airports, and it is not the intention that the Authority should take over the administration of those airports except by agreement.

The second point is in regard, in particular, to points made during the Report stage by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). The Bill does not remove the ministerial responsibility for directions to the Authority. There will still be accountability to the Minister, and, therefore, an opportunity, as there already exists in regard to B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., for hon. Members to raise questions of a general character with regard to the Authority. So a great deal of parliamentary control will continue to exist when the Authority is set up.

There will also be the opportunity, under the amended Clause that we agreed to on Report, and under Clause 14, which was unamended, for the Minister to give directions to the Authority specifically in regard to the consultative machinery and the question of the abatement of noise at the airports for which the Authority is responsible. Therefore, on these important points there will be a direct and specific responsibility on the Minister which he can fulfil by directions to the Authority.

We believe that the Authority will be called upon to undertake a very important task in a developing industry, and we wish it well in that task.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Hastings

We were glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, particularly his assurances over municipal airports and the assurance that he was able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).

I do not wish to make any particular of general criticism of the Bill, which the Opposition welcome, but I want to touch briefly on two points. The first is an important aspect of our debates, particularly in Committee, which I feel has not yet been adequately thrashed out, and it is, indeed, a subject which formed the basis for the new Clause moved earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I refer to the, in our submission, high landing charges imposed by the Ministry on airlines at Heathrow Airport.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee I quoted certain figures which I had every reason to believe were accurate. While, admittedly, traffic to London has increased over recent years, I held that there was a case for regarding the London increase as disproportionate in comparison with the increase which has taken place at comparable airports in Europe. I said that there was a risk at least that the importance of Heathrow as an air gateway to Europe might be diminishing. There are various reasons for this, if I am right—and I certainly hold to the arguments I advanced in Committee—quite apart from the landing charges, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. But it is our submission that the high fees are a contributory matter and an important one.

When the hon. Gentleman replied he expressed strong disagreement with our arguments. Indeed, he even scorned them and quoted certain figures which were, perhaps, somewhat selective to show that the increase had been perfectly adequate and that our fears were groundless. At the time, the matter attracted a certain amount of attention in the Press. An article in The Times broadly supported our case and there was also a report in the Daily Telegraph, quoting officials of American airlines in this country. An official of T.W.A. was reported to have said that our argument was nonsense and that there was no question of his company reducing services. I understand that this was in reply to a direct question as to whether or not it intended to reduce its services; and I expect that the reporter, quite understandably, got an entirely commercial answer.

I do not want to labour this point, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is most important that the new Authority, as soon as it is constituted, should be under no illusion that this is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman will also agree that to adduce accurate figures on transatlantic traffic is difficult. I have certain figures which I think will go some way to putting the record straight. I will quote first the eastbound transatlantic flights landing first at London as a percentage of the total scheduled flights to Europe. They are for the winter and summer of the years 1962, 1963 and 1964. The winter figures are those for January and the summer figures are those for July of each year.

The winter figures for 1962 showed that the percentage landing at London was 34.5 per cent.; in 1963, it was 29.5 per cent.; and in 1964 it was 26 per cent. The summer figures show that in 1962 it was 29 per cent.; in 1963, 26.5 per cent.; and in 1964, 24 per cent. My source in this case is B.O.A.C. and I will turn, finally, to some equally relevant figures, which I got from the I.A.T.A., showing the percentage of eastbound transatlantic flights landing first at Heathrow and the precentage going direct to the Continent.

In 1961, the percentage landing first at Heathrow was 39.8 per cent., while 60.2 per cent. went direct to the Continent. In 1964, the percentage going direct to the Continent was 63.7 per cent., while 36.3 per cent. landed first at Heathrow. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if the figures are accurate—and I have reason to believe that they are the best assessment that can be made—they show a disproportionate increase in direct flights to the Continent, though perhaps not a very great one.

When we consider the views of Americans here, we would do well to take account of comments other than those contained in rather snap replies to questions by journalists, and I will quote first Mr. Boyd, Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board of the United States speaking in Houston last September. Broadly speaking, he put the American view: Airport charges ought to be based on amortisation of debt and maintenance expense. An airline airport with airline service is a major asset to the community. There is no valid reason to get further profit from excess charges on the airlines. The relevant phrase is "on the airlines". We know that a profit is necessary and the Authority will have to budget for a profit, but we agree with Mr. Boyd that excess charges on the airlines are not justified.

The other quotation is by Mr. Cole, who is currently the Chairman of the I.A.T.A. charges working group. Within the last day or two he has said: Present landing charges at London, which are the highest of any major airport in the world, will be likely to force principal non-British Transatlantic carriers to reconsider frequencies to London in the future. This is an important statement and the Authority will have to bear it in mind.

As I said, the reason for the falling-off to London certainly has something to do with the increased and steadily increasing tourist traffic to Southern Europe and the Mediterranean area and the range of the big jets, but high landing fees, in the circumstances, must be a contributory factor and one to which the Authority will have to pay urgent attention.

The only other matter which I want briefly to raise also concerns the job of the Authority once set up rather than any specific provision in the Bill. It is the subject of freight. I believe that the Minister will agree that there is an important commercial future in freight as an independent revenue earner. Over recent years the figures have been increasing vastly. Freight is handled by both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., although B.E.A. is the largest and most active cargo handler at Heathrow. At the moment, it is dealing with about 2,000 tons every week, about 1,000 tons for export, about 600 tons for import and 200 tons of mail. It is also acting as the agent for about 15 other airlines. Its Argosy service is hard at work and once B.E.A. gets its Argosy 220s, I understand that there is to be a 24-hour service. B.O.A.C. handles about 700 tons a week already and although its facilities are adequate—those of B.E.A. are definitely not—it can already foresee the time when it will become saturated. At the moment, the best the Ministry has been able to do is to propose a special cargo-handling area in the south-west corner of the airport, but that is five years ahead. This is one of the most important tasks facing the Authority and I hope that the Authority will seize on it immediately it is constituted.

Having made those comments, I emphasise again that they are not a criticism of the Bill as such. I am sure that our debates in Committee and in the House have been thoroughly worth while, not only because of the Amendments, but because of the general light which has been thrown on the problems of the Authority itself. In the Bill we set up the machinery for an important improvement in the administration of our airports, but the machinery itself is not enough and the success of the Bill will now depend on the quality and calibre of the people chosen for the Authority. The Authority's task is urgent and there is no doubt of that. We on this side of the House wish it well.

3.55 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney (Harrow, East)

I shall not detain the House for more than a moment. The Bill has given the House an opportunity of discussing aviation matters in detail. To my mind it has revealed one thing—and I hope that in saying this I shall not be taken as intending any disrespect to the Minister—namely, that the level of knowledge of this highly technical subject is deplorably low. When I hear speeches made by some hon. Members I sometimes wonder whether we are really contributing to a solution of the extremely important problems which face us for decision, and whether we are assisting the Minister to come to his own decisions.

I believe that there is an analogy between the freedom of the sea and the freedom of the air which has been brought into context by the Bill and the Amendments to it. The analogy is a very close one, although very narrow. Maritime law was built up by individual experience—with this country very largely at its head—from the earliest times. It was individual experience brought out through collective organisations, such as the Cinque Ports, which developed the maritime law that we know today. I know of no attempt by the Plantagenets to create a "British Cinque Ports Authority".

That slightly jocular reference leads me to my next point, which is that aviation law, with all this highly technical subject matter, now comes to us from above. It has not been built up from below. It is dictated by Governments, through the hon. Member's Ministry. There we lay ourselves open to certain grave dangers. One of them was expressed in a rather bitter comment only two nights ago by one of the most experienced aviators in this country. I retail it second-hand, for what it is worth. He referred to a certain regulation of the International Civil Aeronautical Organisation and said that regulations framed by this organisation were intended for observance by the British, for circumvention by the Americans, and for disregard by the rest of the world. That bitter and rather characteristic comment has a certain germane substance, of which this House should be aware. I contend that we do not give the matter the close attention that it merits.

The regulation which was referred to specifically concerned letters two feet high, called registration letters. That is the vast height at which those letters now have to be painted on aircraft. A practical man—perhaps a sailor—might well have suggested that we should be better employed in providing binoculars for control officers rather than putting forward regulations of this kind. I welcome the Bill, but I wish to draw attention to that grave difficulty.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.