§ In the event of the Minister receiving a complaint from an air transport operator about the level of charges proposed by the Authority, he shall refer the matter for investigation and report to an advisory committee consisting of three persons nominated by the Chairman of the Air Traffic Licensing Board.—[Mr. Shepherd.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time
§ 2.30 p.m.
§ Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to try to remove the concern, uncertainty and dissatisfaction which now surround the charges made by airport authorities to air transport operators. I do not support the extravagant allegations which have been made against airport operators by air transport operators. If one is running a business, one always wants to get one's own supplies and services for nothing, or as near to nothing as possible, in order to advantage one's own financial position. I have no doubt that there is a good deal of exaggeration about excessive charging by airport operators. It is because of this uncertainty and the almost incredible complexity of the make-up of airport charges and the immense difficulty of making 627 effective comparisons of one country's airports and another that I suggest that we should have a committee to which complaints could be referred.
This is essential because we are here dealing with monopoly situations. Whatever one may say about the exaggerated nature of the complaints by airline operators, nevertheless they have to "take it or leave it" in their use of aerodromes. As Parliament has found on other occasions, it is therefore highly desirable to provide some recourse to aggrieved persons to establish that the charges are satisfactory and reasonable.
I do not support the view of some of my hon. Friends that airline operators should be represented on the Airports Authority. That would be wholly undesirable by every canon of good business organisation. I feel that my suggestion would resolve some of the uncertainty and would give airline operators at least the satisfaction of knowing that their complaints had been satisfactorily investigated.
In Committee, I suggested a somewhat more elaborate system of examination, a rates tribunal. I recognised at the time that it might be an excessively elaborate organisation to deal with complaints which might be somewhat limited. I accepted the Ministerial objections to what I then proposed, and because of those objections I have suggested this reference to a committee in any case in which a complaint had been received by the Minister.
I am aware that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that when a complaint is received, the Minister will consider it impartially and that he has at his disposal the resources of his Ministry to determine the relevant factors. While that is true, the Minister is inescapably associated with the Authority in the conduct of its business. He can give it general directions. The Authority is not independent of the Minister and he is not really independent of it. It is therefore wholly undesirable that the Minister should decide the issue by his own investigation and judgment in these contentious circumstances.
I have suggested that the Chairman of the Air Traffic Licensing Board should be given the responsibility of nominating 628 the committee, because his is a board which, in the short time of its existence and with an exceedingly difficult remit, has gained the confidence of the entire industry. Most operators knowing the knowledge and experience of the Board would be happy to have an objection heard by this committee, because they would know that in other circumstances the Board had done an admirable job.
I recognise that even with my proposal the Minister will have the final right to decide whether to accept the committee's recommendations, but I suggest that, because of the complexity and nature of the charges and uncertainty and discontent which have been caused, it would be highly desirable to set up this small piece of machinery.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stonehouse)I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) for the reasonable way in which he has moved his new Clause. I am especially glad that he has not followed some of the extravagant phrases used on another occasion about fees charged, especially at Heathrow. However, I ask the House to resist the new Clause.
Within the resources of the Ministry there are many experts well qualified to advise the Minister about charges which should be applied at the airports for which the new British Airports Authority is to be responsible. The House will appreciate that it would be an unwarranted interference with the operation of the Authority if this procedure were established for the Authority's airports and not applied to other airports.
Under this proposed procedure, it would be possible for any airline to object not only to increased charges which might be applied but to existing charges as taken over by the Authority when it is established. This could lead to a very cumbersome procedure which would upset the Authority's operations right at the commencement of its work.
The House would agree that it would be unwise to interfere to any great extent with the commercial operations of the Authority by establishing procedures of the sort proposed. I therefore ask the House to reject the new Clause.
§ Question put and negatived.