§ The rate of duty for hydrocarbon oils used by flying clubs (for the purposes of such clubs) shall revert to two shillings and ninepence a gallon.—[Mrs. Renée Short.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East)I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
When moving the previous new Clause the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said that the subject with which it was concerned had been discussed many times in Parliament. I cannot recall the subject of my new Clause having been discussed very frequently. Indeed, although hon. Members have asked Questions about it in recent months, I do not think that we have debated it at any length.
I am glad to have this opportunity of putting forward a new Clause which draws attention to a matter which is of considerable importance, certainly in my constituency, and which affects us nationally. I hope to demonstrate its importance.
As long ago as 1947 a special advisory committee was set up by the then Labour Government, under the chairmanship of Mr. Whitney Straight, which reported on the need to assist private flying clubs in various ways. That committee stated the obvious when it said that a healthy aircraft industry was essential to the nation and added:
A vigorous national aviation movement is of fundamental importance to the future wellbeing of the British aircraft industry.It is important in many ways. If we are to have a flourishing aviation movement backing a successful aircraft industry the movement must he available to all members of the population who want to take part in it. In other words, all men and women should be able to fly without having to spend too much on it. The people engaged in the production of aircraft should have the opportunity to fly aircraft. But, most important of all, the sport should be available to young people.The report to which I referred stated that flying charges were then £3 an hour, far too expensive for the average person and way beyond the means of all, but a small section of the population. It 1807 also stated that £3 an hour resulted in a loss of at least £1 an hour to the clubs on each hour flown. Certain recommendations were made and I will concentrate on those which dealt with flying clubs.
The committee recommended that there should be a subsidy, rising to a maximum of £900,000 a year, which should be made available to approved flying clubs to enable flying charges to be reduced to £1 an hour and that the whole matter should be reviewed after a three-year period. It further suggested that there should be subsidies and bonuses for licence holders. In its report, the committee noted that petrol tax was a considerable burden on aircraft users and pointed out that in many countries a sharp differentiation was made between tax on petrol for flying and tax on petrol for motor vehicles. In many cases, it stated, no tax was charged on petrol for aviation. In any event, the tax charged in other countries is substantially lower than that imposed on road users.
Bearing in mind the state of our roads today, hon. Members might feel that it would not be a bad idea if more of us got airborne. The recommendations put forward in 1947 were not implemented by either the Labour Government of the day or successive Conservative Governments. Instead of help to the tune of £900,000 being given—as it was suggested should be given to about 100 clubs at the rate of about £9,000 a year each—a rebate on petrol tax was introduced in the early 'fifties in an effort to help to form a pool of pilots. At least, that was the reason for it, according to a Parliamentary Answer. In 1964 the total cost of that subsidy was £75,000. That, therefore, is the amount we are discussing now.
Hon. Members will probably have noted with some amusement the figure quoted in the 1947 report of the cost of flying, then £3 an hour. In my constituency there is a flying club which is owned by the local authority but which is managed by a private company. It has many enthusiastic members who are constituents of mine and it happens to be next door to a large engineering firm which is engaged mainly on sub-contract work for the aircraft industry. Thus, the men working in that factory are directly interested in the aircraft industry.
1808 At the end of 1964 the cost of flying was £5 an hour, expensive enough, but what is regarded as the final blow fell when, about six months ago, the rebate was removed. That had the effect of putting the cost of an hour's flying time up to £5 7s. 6d., which, it has been represented to me by members of my local club, was just about the last straw. They point out that £5 an hour was expensive enough, but that £5 7s. 6d. is prohibitive.
There are 116 flying clubs in this country and about 110 flying groups. Great progress has been made since 1947, when the report to which I referred was produced and when there were only 50 or so flying clubs throughout the country. We see that these clubs have grown in popularity and I hope that this Committee will agree that we should do all we can to encourage them. All these flying clubs and flying groups are similarly affected.
I am sure that the Committee will also wish to encourage young people to go in for flying, and for the sake of the industry as a whole I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us a lead there. There is undoubtedly a great potential interest in aviation amongst young people, but practical encouragement is necessary if this interest is to be fully aroused, and it is with that that I am very concerned. I believe that it would be most undesirable if flying were to become the exclusive and expensive sport of the few who can afford these present-day prices, but that is a danger since the recent rise in petrol duty combined with removal of the rebate.
The support we give to flying clubs compares very unfavourably with that given by other countries, of which France and America are outstanding. For this very small sum of £75,000 a popular and growing movement has been jeopardised and enthusiasts have been hard hit. I hope that we may be told that the Government will restore the position to what it was about six months ago before the rebate was removed. Concessions have been made during the progress of this Bill, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to agree to a proposal that is very modest compared with many others that have been made.
1809 I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to indicate the support he can give the aviation industry, and that he will bear in mind particularly the need to encourage young people, who are the pilots of the future, and make it possible for them to enjoy this sport.
§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has been kind to the Government by omitting to mention the extra 6d. duty imposed on petrol in the November Finance Budget. That increase has a direct bearing on this problem. Allowing for the very small grant made in recent months to gliding, and the promised loan or grant, I am not sure which, to the Beagle Aircraft Company, nothing else that has happened since October has encouraged private flying.
The former concession was extremely valuable to flying clubs. It may or not have been the best way of giving a subsidy, but that is what the committee which inquired into the subject recommended. It has been of immense value. What has not been brought out is the flying cost in terms of rate per hour per aircraft. That is probably the easiest means of comparison, as all rates are related to cost per hour. The two British light aircraft perhaps most commonly used are the Beagle Terrier and the Beagle Airedale; the tax concession in the one case is 11s. 11d., and, in the other, 10s. 4d.
Because American airframes are lighter and need less horse power, fuel consumption is lower; so for United States aircraft the tax rebate works out at 9s. 7d. for the Tripacer and 8s. 8d. for the Cesna 172. The tax concession helped the British industry as it was higher than that given to American aircraft, because of the design and structure. That helped sales. Sales of British light aircraft have always been disappointingly low, and we should do all we can to increase them.
6.15 p.m.
The increase in fuel tax in November put up the flying cost, in round figures, by 5s. an hour. If we add to that the lost tax concession of 10s. or 11s. it means an average increase in the cost of flying private aircraft of 17s. an hour since November. I think that the hon. Lady's flying club was doing well at £5 an hour. I believe the average figure to 1810 be £5 5s. to £5 10s., and on the figures I have given the cost will be £6 an hour. The position is even more serious when we bear in mind the cost of an aircraft that has a certificate for instruction. It is very rare to be able to fly an aircraft with this qualification at under £7 5s. an hour.
All this is most discouraging to those who want to learn to fly. We owe a tremendous debt to those who learned to fly in the 'thirties and helped so much in the Royal Air Force in the last war. We always need a pool of skilled pilots, and it is of no use members of the Government saying that the average light aircraft pilot will not be much use flying a Phantom jet. I would rather start, if I had to, at the beginning of war with those used to flying light aircraft. It would be easier to convert pilots to jets than to start with them from the beginning. It used to be said before the war that pilots should not learn on Tiger Moths if they were to fly Spitfires, but it is not so difficult to convert pilots from one type of aircraft to another as some people seem to think.
A serious situation will arise in the next year or two over pilots of British airliners. The supply of airline pilots is not large. In many cases, they are men who have left the Royal Air Force, but we do not want to encourage people to leave the R.A.F. in order to fly with the airliners. We want the airline pilots to be recruited from the aircraft clubs. At the same time, the mere fact that we have flying clubs and flying groups encourages local authorities, such as the local authority mentioned by the hon. Lady, to run their own airports. That is of great advantage to industry and communications. The use of light aircraft should be of far greater importance to industry than it is now, and the more airports we have the more likely we are to have more executives flying.
I urge the Government to give very careful consideration to this new Clause, as it means so much to our young people, and to the future of our airlines and of British industry generally.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopThe hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is to be congratulated on putting down this new Clause, and I trust that her enterprise 1811 will be rewarded by acceptance and not just by reassuring noises from the Treasury Bench. Nothing short of acceptance will get rid of the extremely unfortunate position into which her own Government has put flying.
Following the rundown of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve we are reduced virtually to one source of pilots other than the Royal Air Force, and that is the training schools of the civil airlines.
There is a school of thought that holds that unless one is trained on jet aircraft it is better not be trained at all; in other words, one should have ab initio training in jet aircraft, or none at all. That argument is largely fallacious, for two reasons. In the first place, the basic skills involved in navigation of learning the positional flight rules and the instrument rules are not related to the type of aircraft flown but are general knowledge. That general knowledge takes time to acquire. It must be so acquired that it is applied instinctively, because rules only work to serve safety if they become part of a person's instinctive reaction rather than something memorised merely in order to pass examinations.
That is why it is so necessary that people should fly regularly and not merely qualify in offices. Not only are reactions to aerodynamic situations in the air a matter of response which needs practice, but even the response to safety regulations themselves requires practice.
If this country needs suddenly—as it may well do—to expand its Service pilots either in Transport Command or in the combative commands, unless we have flying clubs going strongly there will be only the commercial airlines to call on. The paradox is that it would be trying to call on their pilots at the same time as it was calling on their transportation facilities and this would be largely self-cancelling. In America, the Federal Government recognise the value of commercially-owned airlines in the defence structure and pay a concealed subsidy in the form of a mail subsidy for this specific purpose so that it has a reserve on which to call.
It would be inaccurate to say that we have not a reserve of pilots, but that reserve is being eroded in more ways 1812 than one. As people get older, even they have to face qualifications and there is the increased financial burden in learning to fly. The reserve is eroded further because at the end of National Service the Royal Air Force, and to a smaller extent the Royal Navy, is not feeding to the country people who have been trained to fly with the very high standards required by the Armed Forces.
It will not have passed unnoticed by the Committee that in the last few years the Army has developed an air arm, flying light aircraft very often just of the kind to which a concession of this nature would apply. Whereas, five years ago, it might have appeared that in the fullness of time all military aircraft, whether transport or combative, would be jet aircraft, the present Government have elected to buy a large number of turbo-prop aircraft from America. So far as one can tell, the Army Air Corps is using piston-engined aircraft very similar to the type used by flying clubs.
I join with the hon. Lady in urging the Financial Secretary not to smile sweetly at the proposal and then to kill it with faint praise and stop short of accepting it. I hope that he will welcome the opportunity to correct errors which the present Government have made. I hope that he will do so both in the national interest and the interests of all concerned. I should never offer to the Committee as a good reason for exempting one form of sport merely that people enjoy it, but, equally, one must not adopt the other approach that because people enjoy it we can afford to tax it even more heavily. That is a fallacy of the same calibre, although it is at the opposite pole.
I look forward to later in the evening, when the Committee has had an opportunity of investigating every aspect of the merits of this most worthy Clause, to hearing the Financial Secretary, or whoever has by then replaced him, saying that having given due consideration to this proposal before it appeared on the Notice Paper the Government had decided to accept it. Alternatively, I hope that it will be said that, having heard the compelling case made on its behalf, the Government will accept the proposal.
§ Commander Anthony Courtney (Harrow, East)I support my hon. Friends 1813 in what they have said and in offering congratulations to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) for giving the Committee a chance today of debating this very important subject.
I wonder whether the Chancellor, having decided to withdraw the petrol tax concession, realises what he was doing to his own interests, which, of course, are the national interests, in connection with light aviation generally and the light aviation industry in particular. I wonder whether he realises that this precipitate and unfortunate action, following the imposition of an extra 6d. a gallon on petrol tax last November, was the straw finally to break the camel's back for quite a number of light aeroplane groups and clubs in the country. We have all had evidence that they are seriously considering whether they can or cannot continue operating as a result of these new burdens.
How does the Chancellor equate this decision, which we are hoping that he will reverse today, with the expressed intention to support the light aviation industry of the country? On the one hand, he puts 6d. on petrol and takes away the previous petrol concession while, on the other, he gives £600,000 to the single British light aircraft manufacturer on loan to support the aviation industry and abolishes the junior Flying Wing of the Royal Air Force, which was a very important source of revenue for these clubs. If the left hand ever knew what the right hand was doing, it is not evident in the actions of this Government in relation to light aviation.
I ask the Financial Secretary to look at what is being done and at what we are asking should be undone in the light of other factors which are important. With excellent advice, some of it coming from beyond these shores, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is impossible to consider a thriving light aviation industry without having a thriving home market for that industry. Why is it that the clubs of this country are subjected to a steady flow of American aircraft? We have the Tripacer, the Cessna 172, the Beechcraft, the German Bolkow, a French make and several varieties of Australian aircraft, some with a British engine. Because of the appalling state of our light aviation industry, it is found 1814 profitable to build aircraft in Australia, to fit them with a Rolls-Royce engine and ship them over here to he competitive with the British light aviation market.
This links with the point made by the hon. Lady about the Whitney Straight report of 1947. The design of that Australian aircraft, which is known to some hon. Members on this side of the Committee, was a British design which was turned down by the Government. I do not know whether it was turned down by that Committee or by the British industry. If the Government are to support a home market, I beg that they should think again about this new Clause.
It will be known to the Committee that we have recently formed a Parliamentary flying club. For the purpose of getting hon., and I hope, right hon. Members into the air, we are training them on a sequence of Chipmunk and Airedale aircraft. Both a Chipmunk and an Airedale, if engaged on local flying tuition—circuits and bumps, as we sometimes describe it in the business—use petrol at the rate of about 10 gallons an hour. At the present rate, petrol and oil consumption, apart from tuition, depreciation and maintenance, works out at about £3 an hour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who rightly mentioned the saving we previously got but of which we are now deprived, might have strengthened his own argument by giving the actual cost, which I repeat is about £3 an hour. Therefore, half the charge of £5 or £6 an hour made for private tuition goes in petrol costs. On any reckoning, this is an unwarranted burden on the light aviation market which supports our light aviation industry.
The Government should consider the Clause in the light of this very important turning point in British light aviation. We have one manufacturer. We have a steady stream of light aircraft from the Continent and from America, simply because many of them use less petrol than the British aeroplanes and are therefore more economical for the private clubs and groups which are in such dire straits at the moment. If these clubs and groups are to be saved, some such provision as that envisaged in the Clause will have to be made by the Government. I ask the Government to do that this evening.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)I hope that the Committee will forgive me if, for two minutes, I speak on a subject in which I have a direct personal interest. I have some knowledge of this subject. I am a director of a company which runs a flying club, which. I am glad to say, is a successful one.
I support everything which has been said so far, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on moving the Clause. I hope that the Committee will not think it churlish of me if I say that I am sorry that no one from the Ministry of Aviation has seen fit to be present. I had intended to ask, if the Government did not see fit to accept the Clause, whether they would at least go some way towards setting up a committee rather on the lines of the 1947 committee which has been referred to.
Perhaps the Minister of Aviation would give some consideration to it at a later date. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has expressed his views on these matters, but he was a distinguished member of that committee and I should have thought that he would have viewed with revulsion the Government's decision to withdraw this concession.
May I tell the Committee of the concessions which some other countries give to light aviation? France allows light aviation to recover about £400,000 a year in fuel tax. In Italy, duty-free fuel is allowed up to a certain limit. Iron Curtain countries provide very cheap flying for students up to a certain limit. Canada makes these grants. In the United States, grants are made towards the provision or improvement of airfields. Holland makes grants to flying clubs. It is only in this country, as a result of the Government's latest action, that no support whatsoever is given to light aviation.
Light aviation is important for this country in the long-term, not only for defence reasons, but for our industries. The more businesses that fly, the better and the more efficient British industry will be. If this concession were made, it would help British industry to become even more efficient as the years pass. This concession would cost the Government £70,000 or £75,000, which is not a large sum of money. If the Govern- 1816 ment's attitude is that they would not like this concession to be made, I hope that they will suggest some alternative which will do something to alleviate the plight of so many flying clubs which find themselves in grave difficulties as a result of the Government's latest action.
§ Mr. Ian Gilmour (Norfolk Central)I should like to add my support for the new Clause. Flying clubs are a deserving case. They have had two knocks. At £75,000 this would be a very cheap concession. The Government are spending £½ million on rich football clubs. I should have thought that it would be fair to spend this sum of £75,000 on flying clubs. It is a sorry state of affairs if the Minister of Sport can give six times the amount of money to football as the Treasury or the Minister of Aviation can give to these deserving flying clubs, which are in difficulty at the moment. Perhaps these clubs would do better if they came under the Minister of Sport instead of under the Ministry of Aviation.
I hope that the Government will accept the Clause.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd (Sutton Coldfield)I want briefly, but strongly, to support the new Clause and congratulate the hon. Lady for Wolverhampton, North (Mrs. (Mrs. Renée Short) on bringing it forward. I think I am right in saying that Air Chief Marshal Sir Geoffrey Salmond was the originator of the idea of flying clubs between the wars. They were the source of many of the most heroic of the auxiliary squadrons, such as 601 and 603 in the Midlands. This might not particularly appeal to the hon. Lady. The Midland area is still supplying members for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.
I pass swiftly to a point which may appeal more to the hon. Lady. There is great importance in having a strong aviation movement and in the whole country being air conscious. The hon. Lady probably has the same idea as I have, that just as our prosperous Midland car workers and those who are working in the sub-contracting industry for the aircraft industry became car owners during the time of the Conservative Government, I would like them in the future to have the opportunity of taking part in the air as a sport.
It is a sport today, but it is something which strengthens the country's industry 1817 and allows the country to take part in the modern movement of industry. In particular, it will assist us a good deal and will become even more important if and when we join the Common Market, when we, too, will have the advantage, enjoyed by countries such as Australia and the United States today, of greater distances, which encourage more flying. This is a reason why at present, when we have not got this advantage, we should do something to encourage more people to fly.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot)Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North East (Mrs. Renée Short). It is a remarkable achievement, on her first Finance Bill, to have tabled a new Clause which has been selected and one which has excited interest and provoked an interesting debate, which has ranged widely over private flying.
Obviously, my hon. Friend has made researches. She said that there does not appear to have been a debate on this subject for some time. This is not surprising, because what she seeks to do by the Clause is to reintroduce a fuel tax concession for private flying clubs which was introduced as a temporary relief—I stress that—after the war and which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation decided to discontinue in December last.
It is a sorry experience at the Treasury that one is constantly being pressed from all sides to try to cut down on public expenditure. Whenever any suggestion is made that we ought to be more vigorous in cutting down public expenditure, as long as one is talking only in generalities one gets full-throated support. As soon as one tries in the most modest way to give effect to that principle, it provokes a debate of this character.
The fact is, as my right hon. Friend announced, that we are making a strict review of public expenditure. That has involved in some cases delaying new projects and in some cases reducing existing expenditure. Some are large items. Some are small. If a review of this kind is to be carried out fairly and properly, the small items, as well as the large, must be considered. Obviously, where 1818 a concession was introduced for a specific purpose and declared to be a temporary measure, asked for as a temporary measure and granted as a temporary measure, there comes a time when it qualifies for reconsideration.
The justification for this debate has long since disappeared. It was introduced first as an Amendment to the 1950 Finance Bill following the report of the Whitney Straight committee, to which my hon. Friend referred. Its declared purpose was to help flying clubs to re-establish themselves after the war. It has been recognised for some time that the concession did not serve any long-term purpose, but it has been repeatedly extended on a year-to-year basis. It was in 1961 that the ceiling of £80,000 was established as the maximum sum to be distributed and from then on the subsidy per gallon has decreased. I hope that it will not be taken wrongly if I say that for many years what was originally intended to be a temporary relief has become, and has been seen to become, a subsidy for the sport of private flying which unfortunately is an expensive sport.
I was impressed by my hon. Friend's comment about how much she wishes that this could become a more widely available sport. One is delighted to hear of the workers engaged in the aircraft industry who are themselves keen to practise it through these clubs, but on the figures which have been given to the Committee it is obvious that either with or without the rebate this is not a sport which without considerable assistance from outside could be available on any wide scale. For some time this support was justified on the ground that the long-term defence needs of the country gave a justification for the rebate, as it was designed to help maintain the supply of trained pilots.
Despite all that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said on this subject, I do not think that it can be argued that this justification still applies, with the increasing complexity of modern military aircraft and our changing defence needs. I do not think that the rebate can be supported on those grounds. Experience in single-engined aircraft does not go very far in the training of pilots required for modern aircraft.
It has also been suggested that a petrol tax rebate, by supporting the growth of 1819 private flying, would help greatly in the production of light aircraft. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) raised this argument. In part, the answer is that this is not a very probable result, because I think that it is right to say that the hopes of manufacturers of light aircraft in this country are more concentrated upon the kind of aircraft which is being developed for use by executives.
§ Commander CourtneyWill the hon. and learned Gentleman remind the Committee how many British aircraft are being manufactured for that purpose?
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele)Order. We are not discussing the whole subject of the British aviation industry.
§ Mr. MacDermotApart from the fact that it has been ruled out of order, I confess that I would have been quite unable to answer that question, which no doubt is the reason why the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East framed it in a way which would floor a Treasury Minister. I do not apologise that I am unable to answer something which is quite outside my departmental responsibility.
Reference was made to the fact that Beagles, a leading manufacturer of small aircraft have been given a £600,000 grant to help with the launching costs of a newly developed and highly efficient aircraft, which shows that the Government are directly supporting the light aircraft industry. The petrol rebate achieved its purpose in helping these clubs to reestablish themselves after the war, but it was never intended as a permanent subsidy and it is felt that the clubs which have had the benefit of this concession for many years should be able now to stand on their own feet.
6.45 p.m.
It is not right to say that they receive no support from public funds, because they still benefit from Ministry of Defence schemes which provide about £120,000 a year towards the training of school-boys and cadets at private flying clubs. Reference has been made to the fact that support is given by means of grants to the training of amateur pilots in other countries.
1820 I suggest to the Committee that if it is thought right to support that activity further—and I have pointed out that considerable support is given already—surely the way to do it is by direct grant aimed to provide the help wanted for the purpose wanted rather than by continuing a general subsidy of this kind. I believe that the total number of private fliers in this country is about 8,000 and the cost of this subsidy, as has been pointed out, has been running now for some time with a ceiling of £80,000, working out at about £10 per head per annum.
I was asked whether this activity could not be regarded as a sport and whether the Government could not give help to it as a sport. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for sport, is present. There are two connected activities which have been recently accepted as being sports for this purpose, namely parachute jumping and glider flying. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is susceptible to the argument that private flying of this kind should be regarded and accepted as a sport. If so, I can only urge hon. Members to address their arguments to him. As it is, I am glad to have had the opportunity of explaining why the Government took the step they did last September.
Despite the arguments put forward so persuasively on both sides of the Committee, I do not think that I can advise the Committee that any alteration should be made in this direction.
§ Mr. William Clark (Nottingham, South)I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on bringing the Clause before the Committee. I am sure that the whole Committee would like to say to the Financial Secretary how much we enjoyed his frankness in saying that he could not answer the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney), but that adds weight to the inquiry by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) why the Minister of Aviation is not here. This is an aviation matter and, with great respect to the Financial Secretary, if he does not know the answers to these technical 1821 matters it would have been better to have had the Minister of Aviation here.
The Clause would cover 116 clubs plus approximately the same number of flying groups. But we must look at the background. The tax on petrol was 2s. 9d. per gallon before this Government came in and then, last October, it was raised to 3s. 3d. The new Clause would provide only that it should revert to 2s. 9d., and it has nothing whatever to do with the original rebate. The Financial Secretary did not make this clear in his speech.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the cost of rebate, which on my reckoning was running at about 1s. 2d. per gallon, was a ceiling of £80,000. Consequently, the hon. Lady's Clause would cost the revenue about £40,000, and that is the context in which this matter should be considered. We must remember also that the Government by their cancellation of the 1s. 2d. rebate, which came into effect in March this year, saved the Exchequer £75,000 or £80,000, and the hon. Lady is asking for only part of that. That is the position in a nutshell.
The cancellation of the rebate penalised British aircraft because of their higher fuel consumption and gave an advantage to American aircraft which, with their lighter frame, did not use so much fuel. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) said, reinforcing the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East, the light aircraft industry is vital to this country. It is no good the Financial Secretary saying that the industry concentrates on making executive aeroplanes and we need not, therefore, think about other light aeroplanes. Different kinds of motor cars are made, but no one argues that the motor car industry ought not to manufacture the cheap ones because it also manufactures expensive ones. The aircraft industry must be considered as a whole. Again, it is regrettable that the Minister of Aviation is not here, because the aircraft industry has been struck many hard blows by the Government during the past few months.
In a rather cavalier manner, the Financial Secretary brushed aside the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for
§ Dumfries (Mr. Monro) when he reminded the Committee that flying clubs and groups form a reserve for pilots. This is obvious. Everyone will agree that flying clubs, particularly now that the Junior Fying Wing of the R.A.F. has been run down, provide a reserve of potential pilots for civil airlines and for military aircraft.
§ There is no question of tax avoidance under this new Clause. I am quite sure that the hon. Lady has no such intention, and, although there may be certain loopholes in it as drafted, the spirit behind the new Clause is that the concession should be given to bona fide flying clubs.
§ It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to emphasise that we must cut down public expenditure. We shall not reduce public expenditure by niggling at £40,000 savings. Let us get at something more important. Of course, we want to cut public expenditure, but the Treasury Bench should not quibble at a concession costing £40,000, in view of the importance of this matter so rightly demonstrated by the hon. Lady. Flying is becoming an ever more common form of transport. Obviously, with constant travel backwards and forwards on business between this country and the Continent, the aircraft industry will have to produce more and more light aircraft. If the light aircraft industry is hit, the Government will, by their short-sighted policy, bring about a situation in which we may well lose the race against our American, German and French competitors.
§ The Financial Secretary has brushed this debate off and given us a Treasury brief in reply, ignoring the fact that the sum involved would be about £40,000, not £80,000. We welcome the opportunity which the hon. Lady has given us to discuss the matter, and, if the Financial Secretary will not give way, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division. In dividing the Committee, we shall very much welcome the company of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East with us in the Lobby.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 63, Noes 69.
1823| Division No. 200.] | AYES | [6.57 p.m. |
| Baker, W. H. K. | Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Bryan, Paul |
| Barlow, Sir John | Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Butcher, Sir Herbert |
| Bessell, Peter | Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) |
| Curran, Charles | Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead) | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Dance, James | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin |
| Eden, Sir John | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) |
| Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Emery, Peter | Kimball, Marcus | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Farr, John | Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Lubbock, Eric | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) | MacArthur, Ian | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) | Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land) | Walder, David (High Peak) |
| Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| Hamilton, M. (Salisbury) | Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Maude, Angus | Whitelaw, William |
| Hay, John | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Monro, Hector | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hooson, H. E. | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Mr. Francis Pym and |
| Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives) | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) | Mr. Dudley Smith. |
| NOES | ||
| Atkinson, Norman | Howie, W. | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Baxter, William | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) | Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) | Silkin, John (Deptford) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, w.) | Kenyon, Clifford | Small, William |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank | MacColl, James | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Diamond, John | MacDermot, Niall | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) |
| Doig, Peter | McKay, Mrs. Margaret | Symonds, J. B. |
| Driberg, Tom | McLeavy, Frank | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Duffy, Dr. A. E. P. | Manuel, Archie | Thornton, Ernest |
| Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) | Mason, Roy | Tinn, James |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Mellish, Robert | Tomney, Frank |
| Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.) | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Neal, Harold | Warbey, William |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Ogden, Eric | Watkins, Tudor |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) | O'Malley, Brian | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Hale, Leslie | Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.) | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Hannan, William | Pentland, Norman | Zilliacus, K. |
| Harper, Joseph | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Randall, Harry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Redhead, Edward | Mr. George Lawson and |
| Mrs. Harriet Slater. |