Lords Sitting of 1 November 1945

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WADEBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
4.3 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I see that a large number of your Lordships are proposing to discuss the Motion relating to civil aviation standing in the name of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, and I have been thinking that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if, after the debate had proceeded for an appropriate time, it could be adjourned and completed another day. We are entirely at your pleasure, but the number of speakers is very long, and if it would be more convenient, my noble friend would be quite glad to move the adjournment of the debate and to complete it another day. If that is agreeable, I suggest that the day to which it should be adjourned should be Wednesday next, after the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, on the question of the Foreign Service.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I certainly think it would be very convenient to adjourn the debate. We cannot possibly get through the debate on this very important subject to-day and, obviously, it would be convenient
622
that the debate should be adjourned. But I suggest that the date to which we should adjourn it is next Tuesday. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition is unable to be here to-day, and very strong representations have been made to me that the Committee stage of the Bill which we discussed yesterday —the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill—should not be taken next Tuesday. Indeed, to take it then would be a very unusual procedure. The normal procedure is that about a week should elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. We do not sit upon a Friday, and, therefore, there is only an hour, or two hours, whatever the time is for which we sit now, in which noble Lords could put down Amendments which they wish to raise in Committee on this very important Bill. I suggest to your Lordships therefore, and to the Leader of the House, that the natural and convenient course to take would be to adjourn this debate, at an appropriate hour to-day, until next Tuesday, and certainly not to take the Committee stage of the Bill I have mentioned until next Wednesday: That, at least, would give one Parliamentary day during which—
A NOBLE LORD: Tuesday week—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: —we might, through the usual channels, discuss what is a convenient time, indeed the constitutional time, at which the Committee stage of the Bill should be taken. Definitely, it should not be taken next Tuesday. This debate should be adjourned till that day.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am always most anxious, of course, to meet the convenience of noble Lords. At the same time, I am not particularly impressed by the suggestion of the noble Viscount that a week is required, because to-day is Thursday, and, as yesterday was Wednesday, it will be a week all but a day.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not Parliamentary days.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We do not, of course, want to delay it longer than can be avoided, but it occurred to me, looking at the Order Paper to see what could be suggested to meet the noble Viscount, that we might have the Supplies and Services Bill Committee stage as the first

623
Order on Thursday. That gives two more days. I hope that that compromise will be acceptable, in which case, we will adjourn this debate until Tuesday. I should require a little advice as to where it will come in the Order Paper on Tuesday, but if that proposal is acceptable, it seems to me reasonable to adjourn the debate to-day until Tuesday, as the noble Viscount suggests, and to take the Supplies and Services Bill in Committee as the first Order on Thursday.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps the matter might be discussed a little further through the usual channels, as we wish to get on with the debate; but, provisionally, as I understand it, the Committee stage of the Supplies and Services Bill will be taken on Thursday, which will give two full Parliamentary days next week during which anything can be put down on the Paper for Thursday.

CIVIL AVIATION.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE VISCOUNT CRANBORNE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make the full statement of their policy and plans with regard to civil aviation promised in the debate on Viscount Swinton's Motion of October 18; and to move for Papers.
EARL. FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, who is unable to be here, with your permission I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
4.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, a fortnight ago I made a statement to your Lordships on civil aviation which, I hope, covered the ground generally, and answered most of the questions raised in the debate on Lord Swinton's Motion, other than where these touched upon Government policy. To-day I propose to confine myself to a statement of policy alone. I will do this as briefly and clearly as possible and will at once excuse my brevity and forestall criticisms of failing to achieve clarity by saying that I propose to issue a White Paper and that this is in course of preparation.
The Government have given to this matter the full and careful consideration
624
which its importance deserves. They have decided that public ownership shall be the overruling principle in air transport, and that there shall be no financial participation by existing surface transport interests in the arrangements contemplated. I wish to make it quite clear that this decision has been arrived at in no spirit of opposition to the surface transport interests. On the contrary, the Government's civil aviation policy will be developed with the clear intention of integrating it with the land and sea transport systems operated by those interests. I hope that they in turn will be similarly prepared to cooperate with Civil Aviation in matters of common concern. It is my intention to have conversations forthwith with the representatives of the surface transport interests and to discuss with them how far co-operation is possible and how the mutual interests of transport by land, sea and air can best be served within the framework of the Government's policy. I recognize that both before and after the issue of my predecessor's White Paper railway and shipping companies have given considerable study to the problems of civil aviation, and that they and the travel agencies have experience of certain traffic problems which will confront air transport. On this account alone I shall value their co-operation. These conversations must be concluded before a White Paper can be issued.
It is not my intention that civil aviation should be conducted by one monopoly corporation. It is fairly common ground that such a form of organization is undesirable and the arguments to that effect are, in my opinion, overwhelming. We must expand our services to meet the needs of reconstruction and at the same time build up a flexible organization capable of developing air transport to serve people in all levels of society. We must ensure, through rivalry rather than competition, that the opportunity is taken to try out the several possible approaches to the problems of air transport. There is room for several organizations, but they must be of sufficient size to be able to make the best use of their equipment and to hold their own in the face of foreign competition. Air transport is a young industry, and a youthful approach to it is necessary, drawing vigorously and with imagination on ideas and experience so as to ensure the fullest and most rapid development. Only so shall we arrive at

625
an established corpus of factual and proved knowledge in regard to operating.
I intend to establish as soon as possible in addition to B.O.A.C. for the Commonwealth, North American and Far. Eastern services, a corporation for operating European and internal air services, and another for South American services. It may well be found that additional corporations, or subsidiaries of these three, are desirable, and I shall form these at my discretion. All such corporations or subsidiaries will be financed wholly out of public funds, and I shall take powers to appoint their boards and to determine such appointments if I ever think that necessary. The boards will be required to conform with Government policy generally, as well as with broad directives which the Minister may issue in order to keep the corporations in step on large issues. But I shall not regard it as part of the Minister's duty to interfere, unless exceptional cause is shown, With the day-to-day work of administration.
My proposals will require legislation. Until that has been put through, B.O.A.C., which at present functions under a directive issued on October 6, 1944, will continue to be responsible for the operation of all external routes, and shall request B.O.A.C. to take steps to inaugurate the European and South American services, and operate them until sat time as the other corporations have been formed. Meanwhile it is my intention to strengthen the Board of B.O.A.C. I find that a very complicated, and deliberately complicated, procedure is involved to enable B.O.A.C. to operate internal air services. The point will be taken care of in the eventual legislation which I shall submit, and until then I shall ask the existing internal airline operators to continue to operate.
To ensure full consideration of the needs of the public, a tribunal will be established to consider representations on such matters as the adequacy of facilities and fares and rates on United Kingdom airlines. The corporations will operate scheduled services in the areas allocated to them. They will also be empowered to engage in charter flying, but will have no monopoly of this, as they will have in the case of the scheduled services. Charter flying will be open to private operators. Aside from safety regulations, there will be no restriction on private or
626
club flying, or on gliding. I have consulted my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air and am able to announce with his concurrence that he will remove the ban on private flying with effect from January 1, 1946. I hope in the course of a few days to make a joint announcement with my noble friend, giving details of the removal of restrictions on civil flying.
Now for airports. The cost of providing airports has risen enormously with modern developments. Airports must be provided on an articulated plan, which, in addition to operational considerations, takes account also of problems of national security and of the right use of land. For these reasons all transport airports required for scheduled services will be acquired by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and pass into public ownership. Aerodromes such as are used solely by clubs, or for private flying or for training, will not be so acquired. Radio, meteorological and air traffic control services have always been carried out by Government servants, while the owners of the aerodrome have been responsible for management and policing. In future all these services will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
In view of the policy of public ownership which I am announcing, I shall of course he asked about compensation. I will not go further to-day than to say that this matter will receive most careful consideration and that fair payment will certainly be made for any physical assets taken over. Pending legislation and following the lifting of the ban on civil flying, during that interim period, it is the case that any air transport operator will be legally free to run air services without specific permission. In the circumstances it is only right for me to mention that such an operator should bear in mind that legislation will be coming along, and that, when it does, no claim for compensation in respect of services so started will be entertained.
I said when I last spoke that I would refer to Prestwick in my statement of policy. Prestwick will be designated as an international airport. Plans have been made for certain of our international services to be operated via Prestwick, the number of them to be dependent on traffic demands. The policy ensures that Scotland will be able to play its full part

627
in civil aviation, with regard both to services and to airports, by the opportunities provided for internal services, services between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and direct services between Scotland and oversea countries.
Two other matters. My Ministry has not hitherto been represented inside the Ministry of Aircraft Production as has been the case with the other two customers of M.A.P., the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm. I do not say that Civil Aviation has suffered on that account. On the contrary, I most gladly acknowledge the assistance I have received from my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply. But I have represented to him that civil aviation forward planning as well as speed and efficiency in the transaction of business between our two Ministries would be facilitated by Civil Aviation enjoying the same hospitality, inside the Ministry of Supply, as do the R.A.F. and the Fleet Air Arm. My right honourable friend has invited me to arrange for officials of my Department to have a place within the Ministry of Supply and to work side by side and day by day with the officials of that Ministry. In this way the closest possible co-operation will be achieved, and I am grateful to my right honourable friend for making this arrangement possible.
This, I think, is an appropriate point at which to mention the Brabazon Committee. I referred to it in my speech a fortnight ago and your Lordships will recollect that I then expressed my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for what he has done. I repeat to-day that the reports of the Committee have been of value to Civil Aviation and I propose to keep the Committee in existence.
The last matter to which I will refer is our international civil air policy. Many negotiations with other countries are proceeding at the present moment and I must ask not to be pressed about them. But I reaffirm as strongly as possible that His Majesty's Government stand for order in the air, for the orderly development generally of civil aviation. We want civil aviation to be a means of reconciling the nations of the world to live in peace and to lay aside old hatreds and suspicions, and to get to know each other. We want
628
mutuality, equity, a spirit of accommodation, respect for the other nation's point of view, recognition that the other nation is entitled to its share. We do not want competition which indulges greed at other people's expense. If these principles of policy which I have mentioned make their way into general acceptance until the possibility opens out of international air services, it will be found that His Majesty's Government has framed its civil aviation policy in such a manner as to fit in with such arrangements. At this point let me re-emphasize that equally our policy aims at the closest possible relations with all the nations and countries of the Commonwealth, whom we wish to consult and whose interests we wish to consider at every step of the way.
My Lords, I have spoken briefly, because I know how many noble Lords wish to participate in this debate, and I have avoided detail because I wish to present to your Lordships the main structure of our policy in the clearest possible fashion. In the White Paper which will be issued, and in the debate which will follow the introduction of legislation, it will, of course, be my duty to give your Lordships the fullest possible information on all points and details. But on policy I will say this. The Labour Government are not going to put new wine in old bottles. We have to develop an important new form of transport. Mistakes will inevitably be made in the course of doing so, because at the present time, in civil aviation, almost everything is in an empirical state. But at least we are not going to make the old mistakes. Railways the world over developed amid a wild frenzy of speculation which has handicapped them ever since. All over the world Mercantile Marine services were built up amid a scramble for profits which inflicted inhuman misery and cruelty upon fine seamen who were treated like beasts. That may be old history, but speculation and greed rear their ugly heads very quickly if given half a chance. The young pilots who fly our civil aircraft, and all engaged in developing our civil aviation, shall feel that they are engaged in service to the community and the community alone, which may eventually become service to the world. They will do their work the better for the knowledge, because, in the main, they are young and they want to grow up in tune with the new ideas which promise the world peace and happi-

629
ness, and unfettered by old ideas which have achieved results at the cost of great injustice and sufferings.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will h3 answer one question the reply to which is not clear from what he has said? Is it his intention to nationalize, in addition to aerodromes owned by private companies, municipal aerodromes where they were used as termini of regular air services before the war?
LOLD WINSTER: I will repeat for the benefit of the noble Lord the passage in my speech which referred to that. I said "for these reasons all transport airports required for scheduled services will Ur acquired by the Ministry of Civil Aviation mat pass into public ownership."
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think your Lordships will regret that the convenient practice which was followed en a previous occasion and which I had hoped, and indeed, almost understood, the Minister would follow to meet the convenience of the House on this occasion, has not been followed—namely, that we should have a simple White Paper before us stating the policy of the Government before we embarked on this debate. Apparently that was not to be; the White Paper is to come at some future date when the Government have had some second thoughts about their new plan, I should have thought it might have heel more convenient perhaps, and more practical, if the way in which the plan was to work had been worked out and presented to your Lordships in a speech or a White Paper than to announce this theoretical, academic change in policy while at the same time saying, as the Minister has done with characteristic frankness, that he does not quite know yet how the thing is going to work out but that presently a White Paper will be produced if he can find out how he is going to work it out.
We must therefore proceed with this debate on the material before us. Certainly a great deal more debate will be required when answers have been given, as no doubt they will be, to the very large number of practical questions which will occur to your Lordships on all sides of the House, and a few of which I should like on a first consideration to put to
630
the Minister myself. One thing I can say at once. No greater disservice could be rendered to the cause of civil aviation, a vital interest to this country, than for a purely academic consideration to plunge it into the cockpit of Party politics. I regret to say that apparently that is what the Minister, or his Government, has decided to do. The Minister spoke of new wine in old bottles. I could not find much new wine in any bottle which the Minister is retailing upon his counter for our delectation and our inspiration. Let me in a sentence or two remind your Lordships—and we know that the Leader of the House treats all these national matters with a charming and characteristic levity—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly not, I do not withdraw. Let me remind your Lordships very briefly, of the plan which a United Government put to both Houses of Parliament without any political prejudice about it, setting to work wholeheartedly and without prejudice to formulate, introduce and operate the best plan we could make together for this great venture of civil aviation. I presented it in that way to this House. Certainly nobody—the Minister himself has endorsed this—will say that I ever introduced any political considerations into this matter, nor, in those days, did those with whom I had the privilege of working and formulating the plan, of whatever Party they might be. Let me put it in the words of a far greater advocate than myself, the words of the President of the Board of Trade, Sir Stafford Cripps. He was speaking last March as Minister of Aircraft Production. He said that the White Paper—that was, the plan—
"sets out the scheme which the Government put forward as being the best and the most appropriate in the existing circumstances of to-day."
The circumstances of to-day are no different from the circumstances of a few months ago, except that the competition from all foreign countries has become mote keen, that the need for getting on with the job has become more urgent, and that there is in the international situation today a need of making a real success of air transport on all the airlines of the world and across the oceans. That is more urgent than ever before. It is one way of

631
earning dollars; but I do not see many dollars coming out of this plan.
The right honourable gentleman continued:
"It is not primarily based upon a political compromise between conflicting theoretical conceptions, but it is rather put forward on the consideration of how to get the immediate best out of all those factors which can be brought together to contribute to the building up of a strong and, we hope, effective British air transport system in the future."
He went on to say that it set out certain principles applicable to British air transport and the requisites for an air transport organization; and he said:
"I would like to say a few words about these two matters, because I believe that these general principles and requisites can be agreed upon by all of us, and that that, at least, will give us an agreed basis upon which to formulate an organizational plan."
Then he quoted from the White Paper the following sentence:
"The test which has been applied in evolving the plan is: where can the best contribution to British air transport be obtained, and how can it most effectively be used to build up an organization which will fulfil our public, commercial and social needs?"
Frankly, I prefer that to rhodomontade about speculation which had no part whatever, and could have no part, in the plan on which we all agreed. He went on:
"That seems to me to be a test which nobody could oppose. Another principle which is of the greatest importance is that civil aviation must be regarded essentially as a transport service."
Now we are to discard all those who can make a real contribution in transport today. Then Sir Stafford spoke of the operational units, and I would ask the attention of the Minister to this if I may. I would stress this because I wish to emphasize that none of those people who know about transport are now to have any share in this business. This is what Sir Stafford said:
"These appropriately sized units must, each of them, contain the various elements and types of experience that are best fitted to their own particular job."
Then he goes on to emphasize the great contribution which these transport organizations, with their world-wide connexions—the railways, the shipping lines, the travel agencies—can make in building up this great new organization which will have to face the most efficient com-
632
petition we have ever had to meet in any industry or any transport system. He said:
"There is, too, I believe, a further benefit in having several instruments, as this multiplicity provides an opportunity for testing out differing transport techniques,"
and so on.
That was a very genuine attempt. It had nothing whatever to do with speculation. Now there is this talk about unlimited competition on different routes. I will not accuse the Minister of misleading your Lordships' House—I am sure he has no such intention—but I think when he re-reads the statement he has made he will wish to make a correction in it. I defy him to point to anything in that scheme which would have made possible scramble and speculative competition. He knows perfectly well that the scheme divided the great territories into units. So far from there being scrambling competition, if there was criticism of the plan at all it was that it did not allow for enough competition. Certainly nobody could make the charge against it that there was going to be speculation or scrambling competition. Then there is the suggestion that the pilots and their welfare can only be looked after if they become servants of the State. He knows quite well that it was an integral and essential part of the plan that everyone conducting aerial services under the British flag should maintain the highest conditions for the pilots and the air crews. In the last debate, when the Minister was asked whether he would maintain these conditions for the pilots and the air crews which we had laid down, he said: "Of course I can give you that assurance." It really is throwing dust in the eyes of your Lordships to come down now and advocate change on the ground that it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the pilots. That is not the kind of argument which will carry weight in your Lordships' House.
Not one single argument has been advanced to-day by the Minister, in the statement which he read to us, to show why this carefully considered plan should be changed, except the statement that everything must be State-owned. The essence of the plan was to bring in all those who, by their experience and organization, could make it a success. Why should the railways be discarded?

633
They were the largest of the pre-war operators, apart from the B.O.A.C., and were successful. Nobody would deny that. Why are the other operators, the pioneers in these services, to have no opportunity to come in? In the shipping lines you have an organization second to none in transport ready to your hand to use. Foreigners, in criticizing and commenting upon the old plan, were quick to see the value of harnessing into this effort these well-tried transport organizations with their good will and their connexions all over the world. All this is, to go by the board. The travel agencies are to go by the board.
Something was said about co-ordination. It will be very interesting to hear what is actually going to be done. That would have been one of the advantages of having a White Paper. I did not come to your Lordships' House and the late Government did not come before Parliament until we knew how we were going to carry out our plan, and we did not take too long about it. How it was going to work was made perfectly clear. Are these agencies to be discarded or are they not? I do not know what is meant by this blessed word "co-ordination." I understand a partnership in which all are brought into a common effort and a common endeavour. Where everybody's interest is at stake then certainly they can come forward as a team and make this business a success. I hope the Minister, when he makes his reply, will be a little more precise as to how this is going to work. I understand he is to appoint all the boards and sack them if he does not like them. Incidentally, I would ask where is the responsibility to lie? Is day-to-day management to be taken as meaning paying the office boy? That is not the way in which business is conducted. Management is the whole business of conducting an organization and making a success or failure of it, and taking a risk in so doing. When the Minister gets these boards appointed, does he mean to vest in them the real control of management of the business? Let him make plain what he does mean. He has certainly left me entirely in doubt.
I understand—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that nobody is to have a financial stake. Therefore nobody's interest is going to be excited in that way. Does the Minister, or does he not, desire to have on these boards representatives
634
of the railways, the shipping lines and the travel agencies? That is a thing we ought to be told definitely. It is a very simple and very pertinent question. Let me put this to the Minister in order to show—I really want to be fair—how entirely impracticable this plan is. Under the original White Paper plan we said that the railways, the shipping lines and so on would come into this as partners. They have great experience and they have a great future in airlines. They would develop those air lines as partners and share in the advantage. I am perfectly certain that if anybody goes into the business of competition with Pan-American Airways and with subsidized lines in other foreign countries, he will find it not merely a scramble but very tough going. It is not going to be a Golconda. When these people were asked: "Will you come and put your stake in this, come forward as partners?" then, of course, they were keen to develop airlines, because as partners they would share in the advantage.
You ask for co-ordination. By that, I suppose, you want their help in making this thing work, and of course one of the advantages of asking these people in the business to help is that you ought to coordinate your railway, your shipping and your airlines, in order that people may get through tickets and, if it is a bad day for air, travel back by railway or ship. You want your tickets to be interchangeable. That is all right if it is a partnership, but how is that going to work if you say: "You shall have no part or lot in this. Co-ordinate by all means. We want to use your facilities, but the more successfully these facilities are used in developing the airlines, the worse it is going to be for your business. You are going to be a competitor, and not a partner"? The essence of this thing is partnership. I do not think I have at all misrepresented the noble Lord. He is really making it as difficult as possible for these people, who are essential to the success of this business, to co-operate, and as difficult as possible for him to run the show, if be is going to take the responsibility of running the show.
Then I ask him this: Where is the control? He puts up the money and he appoints the board. Is the control in the Minister, or is it in the board of directors? If it is in the Minister, then they become

635
merely civil servants; they become functionaries and get their orders from him. He will be questioned every day in the House as to why the aircraft was late in starting, what the conditions of service are, and so on. My Lords, we cannot have it both ways. It is quite possible, if that is what the Minister wants, to have the whole of this business run by the Ministry, just as the Army is run by the Army Council. Then the responsibility is his. But what you cannot have is a dual responsibility in which the Minister butts in when he thinks he ought to, or butts in when somebody in Parliament butts at him. No responsible people could accept the tremendous onus of running a great business of this kind if they are to be in leading strings of that sort.
And what becomes of these independent managements? The essence of the old plan was that you had independent management; you had different kinds of experiments tried out. Is this to be a sealed-pattern management? I am absolutely horrified at the proposal, as I understand it. It means that until he gets his other companies started, B.O.A.C. is to run the whole business, and therefore these other people, with a knowledge of transportation quite frankly as great as that of B.O.A.C., are to take their orders from that body. That is a very curious position. I do not see the separate and independent management.
And new wine! What chance is there in this plan for new blood? Where is it going to come from? Under our plan we embraced, to start with, all those who we felt could contribute at the moment. In the future, as new lines developed and as new opportunities occurred, anybody could come forward to the tribunal, stake out their claim and say: "We wish to run this service"; and if the tribunal thought they could do it well, they would give them authority to do it. Where is the opportunity for new blood and new ideas in this sealed-pattern scheme which is put before us to-day? New wine indeed!
And what are going to be the functions of this tribunal? We have not even been told how it is to be constituted. Is that tribunal to have the absolute right to say what the fare should be and what the services should be, if people think they are not getting satisfactory service? We
636
want to know about that. Then the aircraft: who is going to order the aircraft? This is a very old question and a very important one, and it was of the essence of the original plan that the user, the operator, should buy the aircraft. Always we got the best, fighting planes by the great fighting staff working day in and day out with the designers and the producers. We got the best ships—and we have built the most wonderful ships in the world—by shipowners and shipbuilders working together. Who is going to be responsible in future, in regard to B.O.A.C., to start with, and then the companies that are to hive off from the B.O.A.C., for placing the orders for aircraft upon which the success of this scheme is going to depend? Is it going to be the Minister or the company? We ought to have a very definite and positive answer to that question.
Then I come to the question of delay. Surely we have had enough delay. This involves indefinite delay, as far as I can see, in a situation that is urgent and critical. Air lines from almost every country in the world are beginning to fly in here. Two of the American air lines, I understand, are flying here. There are others from Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, France, Holland (I think), and now I hear there is one even from Denmark, in the last day or two. Under what agreements are they operating? Is there reciprocity? If there is reciprocity, when do we start, and who is to do the starting? Apparently it is all to be in the hands of the B.O.A.C. We had to fall behind because we gave up everything for the war effort. I should have thought it was about time we tried to make up for lost time and did not fall behind still further for the sake of an economic and academic theory.
Next I come to airfields. This again seems to me to be rather the theory of one man control. I will not say much about it; I discussed it last time. I know the pride which the great municipalities of this country have had in developing their airfields. Manchester built the port of Ringwood at the cost of over £1,000,000 and came to Inc to say how anxious they were to develop it in the future. These municipalities have great civic pride in these airfields, but that is all to be swept away in a mania for spending money. I have heard no argument advanced for it by the Minister but simply that the

637
Government have decided that it is a good thing. This passion for national ownership will not even have municipal ownership. I should have thought that was near enough to nationalization, but apparently no. This passion for national ownership is so great that even the municipalities are not to be allowed to own and develop the airports of which they are so proud.
How far is this to go? The Minister said—perhaps this is one of the things that has not been fully thought out and we shall see more in the White Paper—that every airport on which a transport service lands is going to be nationalized. He has very modest ideas of how air transport is going to develop in this country. Personally, I am very optimistic about it—at least, I was until I heard his speech. I visualized a great network of these services linking all parts of this kingdom, some frequent, some perhaps only once a day or only a few times a week. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong about this, but if the plan was anything like what it was when I left, it involved landing at some seventy or eighty airfields in this country which serve the population centres of this land. The Government have really a good deal on their plate in the way of spending, and are they ready going to insist on buying out the whole of these seventy or eighty airfields? I honestly do not speak with any political prejudice on this. My whole heart is in this civil aviation matter, in trying to make it a real success, in trying to put this country, which had a tremendous lead in the Air Forces of the war, to get its place in the airlines of the world in peace. I think this is the most damning thing for the prospect of civil aviation and of all it means to this country and the Empire. It seems to me that a practical working plan, on which we were all agreed, mobilizing all our assets and ready to function at any time, is sabotaged for a political theory.
I wonder whether the Minister himself really believes that this is the best way to put British civil aviation on its feet; that this is the best way to catch up the years that we have lost, and willingly lost, because we put everything into the war effort; that this is the best way to meet the competition that is coming upon us now from the United States—friendly competition, if you will, but keen as a
638
knife—to meet that competition from every country on the airlines of the world; and that this is the best way to get the invisible export—we hear so much about our export trade and invisible exports are a vital part—the invisible export of air transport. Does he really think that this discarding of every transport organization, and the knowledge and experience we have, is going to be the best way to win the invisible export of air transport we so badly need? Is it an honest conviction that that is going to be the wisest course for civil aviation in this country? Well, I take it from him that he has come to that as his sincere conviction, but it is a sorry day for the future of civil aviation.
5.3 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I shall probably be echoing what a great number of your Lordships feel—the difficulty of speaking on this subject tonight without any previous knowledge of what the policy of His Majesty's Government on the matter was going to be. In so far as your Lordships can have had any knowledge, they will be legitimately entitled to suppose that the arrangement which had been agreed by those of their Ministers who were in the National Government would have been carried on in this Government; and it is, perhaps, one of the most disquieting features of the announcement we have heard that what was then agreed, and to which the noble Lord who has just spoken, referred, has been altered, and altered, so far as your Lordships are concerned, without any warning or preparation in the form of a White Paper so that other speakers and the public generally might have been able to think over and make up their minds on the implications of this announcement.
I suppose that if one were to look at this matter philosophically, if it is possible to do that, and not in the realm of practical issues, we might have expected some such announcement as this. But there, again, only if we had had any indication that the Ministers of this Government, who were also in the last Government, had found themselves at variance with the policy which was then announced. So little were they at variance, that the then Minister of Aircraft Production—who has been quoted as speaking in another place—at the time

639
supported that scheme, not only warmly but enthusiastically. One wonders what has happened in the interval, and whether it is possible to continue a policy either in this or any other sphere if what is said at one time is negatived and altered after a comparatively short interval. On that lack of continuity of policy it is perfectly impossible to build either a system of civil aviation, or, indeed, anything else, because we have no guarantee that, in a year's time, the three corporations to which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred may not again be altered into one, or into thirty, or that we may not go back again, once more, to some form of proposed partnership with the railways and shipping companies, which may be right or wrong, but I am not arguing that point. We are going to be faced with a lack of continuity of policy by public men in public office.
Not only is that feature disquieting, but the second one, which is perhaps more disquieting, is that a change of policy of this sort involves yet further delay. You would not wish me to go over the ground which the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, who has so constantly raised the issue in this House, has recapitulated time and time again, of the difficulties that were found in getting any announcement of policy at all. But, at least, when that announcement of policy was made, it was made in a form in which your Lordships and the public could consider it before debating it. When that announcement was made, it was within a very short space of time after the appointment of the then Minister of Civil Aviation. Since then, five months have elapsed. Events have taken place for which, obviously, the noble Lord who opened this debate and who spoke for the Government, is in no way responsible. But, during that time, no indication has been given, and, so far as I am aware, no indication was given in the announced programme of the Labour Party at the Election, that they intended to discard that to which they had been a party in the National Government. Not only does it create a state of uncertainty here, but it must create an even greater state of uncertainty in the minds of those foreign bodies with whom it is quite inevitable that the Minister of Civil Aviation and these corporations must enter into negotiation for reciprocal arrangements.
640
Moreover, those reciprocal arrangements have been rendered obviously very much more difficult by the knowledge that now exists abroad that, if this policy is maintained in its present form, it involves negotiations between a commercial corporation, say, in America, on the one hand, and the British Government on the other. In other words, it is not a negotiation inter pares, it is a negotiation between two persons, two corporations, that have no like standing, because in whatever form you dress up the three corporations to which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred, in essence they remain His Majesty's Government—the British Government. He has made it abundantly clear that those three corporations will be well financed—in plain English, wholly owned by the Government. They will be directed by directors appointed by the Minister of Civil Aviation and removed by him. As such these three corporations partake of no difference the one from the other, and it seems to me, with all respect, that it is a pure facade to dress them up as three companies, and to say that rivalry, or competition, between them will improve their services. If there were, in fact, rivalry and competition between three such corporations, all of which are owned by the State, does it not mean that the noble Lord has suggested there shall be rivalry and competition between three parts of the Government? Is not that an intolerable situation? How can three parts of the Government compete with and rival one another? If it does not mean that, it seems Ito be a pure facade, a pure method of dressing something up in order to convey an impression different from reality.
The noble Lord will forgive me if I misquote him, because, not having a text to study, I was able to take only a very few notes; but he spoke of the integration of these corporations with other transport services—namely, the railways and the shipping companies. Within a few sentences of that, however, he went on to speak of co-operation. If I understand English, those are two quite different things. Integration between two bodies means the one partaking of the other and the other of the one, so that they are, in a sense, parts of each other. If that is what he means, it is not what he subsequently said when he went on to state that neither the railways nor the shipping com-

641
panies would have any part or lot in this. Obviously, therefore, it is not integration. If it is not integration, it is presumably co-operation; but I hope that the Minister, or anyone else who speaks for the Govern-me it in reply, will make it clear which is meant, because I think that there is a vast difference between the two.
On that question of co-operation, however, you immediately come up against the main issue, or one of the main issues —namely, who is to have the priority in getting traffic where there is only a certain amount of traffic to be got. Are the State-owned airlines to take away passenger traffic from the shipping companies and the railway companies, or is that traffic to be divided up between them? If there is not enough traffic to fill the aircraft on a route and a ship on the same route, who is to decide which of the two is to get what passengers there are, or how many of them each shall get? If that is a function which the Minister of Civil Aviation is to perform, he is in fact going to control indirectly not only the airlines but the number of ships carrying passengers on the route in question. I do not know whether that is his intention, but that is obviously the effect which it must have. The same applies to the railways. It applies, indeed, to almost every form of road transport. It is one of the difficulties whi.ch is involved by having different forms of land transport competing with one another. But it is far from clear from the statement which we have heard whether it is intended that the State-owned airlines are to compete with, and to be run at the expense of, shipping and railway companies or not.
If not, then we get to a position in which the airlines cannot have freedom to develop traffic in their own way as they wish, because they must sooner or later be told "No, you cannot run a daily service from A to B, because it would mean that a ship would have to be taken off the route on the ground that it did not pay." There must be an arbiter in this matter, and that arbiter, as I see it, must be the Minister of Civil Aviation and the Government. If, however, the Minister means that this is going to be the first step in the complete nationalization not only of railway transport but of maritime transport too, then I think it is only fair that we should be told that now.
We had none of us any knowledge of what the Minister was going to say, and
642
we have, I think, been surprised by the change of policy involved by his statement, so that I do not know how far I am speaking for other noble Lords on these Benches. But at least I know that I can carry them, and all your Lordships, with me in agreeing with what the noble Lord said in his peroration. I agree also with my noble friend Lord Swinton that it did not appear to be germaine to the argument. No one has suggested that there should be free, unbridled competition in any of the schemes which has been published for civil aviation or discussed by your Lordships. No one has suggested that companies engaged in civil aviation should under-pay, ill-treat or sweat their labour in order to provide paying services. I do not see, therefore, why that peroration was brought into a statement of policy regarding this change of front.
What does arise, however, out of that question of terms of service and pay, is this. It seems to me to raise a fundamental issue here, and possibly in certain other respects. We are to have a wholly State-owned service with no partnership with any other existing transport services; in other words, we are to have a State-owned civil air service. We are for all intents and purposes to have every pilot and every employee becoming, behind the facade of the three corporations to which the Minister referred, a servant of the State. I am not arguing whether that is good or bad. The State is a good employer on the whole, though there are complaints every now and then; but can the Minister say what the effect will be on the personnel of another wholly State-owned service, the Royal Air Force, when the personnel in the Civil Aviation Department of the British Government find themselves engaged on different terms of service, different rates of pay and different treatment from those who have remained in the Royal Air Force?
That is fundamental to this scheme, because by no ingenuity on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, or his colleagues, will it be possible to persuade anyone else that the State-owned corporations—these three or five or ten of them, as the case may be—are anything else but a State-owned civil aviation service conducted ultimately by the Minister of Civil Aviation, however much it may be dressed up in commercial guise. If it is dressed up in commercial guise so as to improve the terms of service of the

643
personnel of those corporations, is not the Minister inflicting an injustice on those who have decided to make their career in the R.A.F.? I find it very difficult to reconcile with a carefully-thought-out plan the few points to which I have referred, but it does suggest to me that the scheme of a State-owned air service is a surrender to a theory without that elaboration in practice and detail which I think your Lordships would have expected, after this long delay, from the Benches opposite.
5.19 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My, Lords, I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that he does not altogether approve of the scheme outlined by my noble friend the Minister of Civil Aviation; and in that he seemed to be in harmony with the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton, who I gathered also did not entirely approve of the scheme. They both talked a great deal about theories and Party politics and so on, but I suggest that they made no really solid criticism, apart from one, and that one can be demolished. The only suggestion of a solid ground of criticism came from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and was also referred to by Lord Rennell. It was that this would mean delay in getting our civil aviation services into the air. Now, I understand that that is not the case at all; the delay is in getting the machines into the air, and for that my noble friend is in no way responsible.
The fact that the plan seems to have disappointed both Lord Rennell and Lord Swinton, and indeed aroused some criticism from them, is, from our point of view, a very strong recommendation for it. Lord Rennell asks what has happened to the original plan of the Coalition. What has happened is that there has been a change of Government. He is sitting on the same side of the House as before, but he must have observed that there is now a different House of Commons with a different majority and a differently constituted Opposition. There is also a Cabinet composed of members of a different Party altogether. When the noble Lord said this policy for civil aviation was not before the public at the General Election, I would remind him that we have published our policy for civil aviation as a Party over a period of many
644
years, and the policy now disclosed does not depart very much from it.
My noble friend Lord Winster inherited—though I know he would be the last to complain of it—a very difficult situation. The sorry plight in which British civil aviation, for the time being, finds itself is not only due to the war, nor yet is it due only to the fact that we concentrated on building bombers and other combat planes and deliberately left the building of transport planes to our allies, particularly the United States. The main cause of the trouble is the constant lack of support by previous Governments, long before the war, for civil aviation, and, indeed, during the war lack of planning for the future, for the change-over period from war to peace. Your Lordships have heard with great pleasure I am sure, as I certainly did, the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, complaining bitterly and often about lack of policy and attacking Lord Swinton for his lack of plans when he was Minister of Civil Aviation. The noble Marquess made, as we all thought at that time, in the last Parliament, a very strong case against the Government for their lack of preparation, lack of planning and lack of foresight. Indeed, he prophesied the very situation in which we now find ourselves.
LORD RENNELL: The complaint which I made was about future delay.
LORD STRABOLGI: There will be no future delay. I think it has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that the only delay is in producing the right types of machines to carry passengers and freight on these great new Imperial airlines. Now as to the complaint about the White Paper not being issued. With great respect, I would suggest that we have in the past had far too many White Papers and far too little action. White Papers by themselves do not make aeroplanes fly in the air and do not help British aviation. My noble friend Lord Winster inherited something else. I do not wish to cast any personal blame on anyone, but there was that futile six weeks of discussion in Chicago, in the time of the last Government, the British Delegation being led by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The discussion ended, most unfortunately, in complete deadlock between ourselves and the United States on the great issues which mattered. Now my noble friend

645
Lord Winster, with, I believe, far greater bargaining weapons in his hands, will have to start all over again, and I think that he should have a little encouragement and help from noble Lords opposite in that admittedly most intricate and difficult task.
A further complaint by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, if I understood him aright, was that the great shipping and railway interests with their vast experience of surface transport are to have no financial interest in these corporations. He also told us—not for the first time—of the great efficiency of Pan-American Airways and the other great American long-distance airlines. It is very extraordinary that the Pan-American concern has had no advice from shipping or other surface transport companies. There is no financial interest held in it by the American railroad corporations or the shipping companies. There used to be some in what is now called American airlines, but even that has disappeared under the regulations of the American Air Navigation Act. So that this terribly efficient rival whom we have to watch all the time, according to Lord Swinton, these people from whom we can expect such keen competition, manage to do very well indeed—again according to Lord Swinton —without any help, advice or assistance or any financial participation from the American railroad or shipping companies.
My noble friend Lord Winster was taken to task concerning what he said about healthy rivalry between these three separate corporations. This was done, especially by Lord Rennell, though Viscount Swinton said much the same thing. The noble Viscount complained about a conversation between the Leader of the House and the Minister of Civil Aviation while he was speaking. I do not complain if the noble Viscount does not want to listen—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am listening very attentively.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Viscount and Lord Rennell made some comment the effect of which was to ask how there could be rivalry between great corporations which were publicy owned. I can draw only on naval experience in this matter. The whole of the Royal Navy consists of King's ships and we used to have and still have an excellent and very healthy spirit of rivalry, not
646
only between ship and ship and squadron and squadron, but between fleet and fleet. If you have three great air services as envisaged by my noble friend Lord Winster in outlining his scheme, there could be and no doubt would be rivalry between them of course. The result of that rivalry would be good for the efficiency, the popularity, the lack of accidents and all the other qualities of the air transport services. I suggest that there is nothing at all in that criticism of my noble friend's proposals.
What I hope very much is that my noble friend Lord Winster will be able to get priority not only for all the material and labour he requires for the necessary aircraft of the most modern type for these great services, but also priority in legislation. I hope that the Chief Whip, who plays such an important part in arranging the business of the House, will really do his best to see to ft that a high place is given in a somewhat overcrowded programme to the necessary Bills to carry out this great plan. I may say, from what I have heard already, that those who support the Government in another place and certainly my noble friends on this side of the House are well satisfied with the plan which has been outlined by Lord Winster. We believe it to be workable, we believe it to be absolutely necessary in the present state of affairs, and we look for some patriotic support from the other side of the House, not immediate crabbing and bitter criticism of it and the sort of rather intemperate language in which Viscount Swinton indulged.
It is a fact that there will be great international rivalry for some time in the air. We do aim at far more international cooperation in civil aviation. I hope I shall not be giving any of your Lordships nostalgic feelings when I say this, but I always think of the admirable service we had from the International Wagons-Lits in Europe in the old days. You could step from a cross-Channel steamer at Calais into your compartment and go to Moscow or Stamboul or wherever you wished over all frontiers, through all Customs stations on the international railway lines. That was possible in a far more difficult sphere than in the case of aviation. If your Lordships would look at the map, especially the map on the projection showing the great circle routes as straight lines, what I call the polarized projection

647
—there is a much longer word in my notes which are in my motor car which has been stolen to-day. I had that misfortune this afternoon and I wished I had a helicopter to take its place.
Perhaps your Lordships will consider Prestwick; and I may say that my noble friend has, so far as I can make out, satisfied the Scots north of the Border about Prestwick. If you take Prestwick as a central air point and the great circle routes to India and Australia are observed, it will be seen that the saving in distance by flying over Russia and China is immense. I do not think that we shall be able to maintain improved services to the Antipodes, for example, without running arrangements and a mutual exchange of services with our friends and allies on the Continent of Europe.
I should like to support the plan of my noble friend. He has explained a policy which is the beginning of a great international scheme of aviation which, as he says, will bring the peoples together and heal the wounds of war. I hope I am not impertinent in congratulating my noble friend and the Cabinet on the conclusions they have reached. There is obviously great disappointment among certain of the vested interests, and I am sorry for those who put in a great deal of work on behalf of the railway companies. I do not see why that work should be lost or why we should lose the advice of those who have been briefed by the railway companies. It is certainly part of the programme of the present Government to nationalize the railway companies, and that objection from noble Lords opposite, therefore, falls to the ground.
With regard to the deep sea shipping lines, I have always understood since I have been a member of the Labour Party, and I have been a member for twenty years, that there was no intention of bringing the deep sea shipping lines under public ownership. At the same time, the great airlines are so different in the traffic they cater for from the shipping services that I suggest that the picture drawn by Lord Rennell of steamers being taken off their ordinary lines through air competition, is very much over-drawn. I think that aviation and shipping may be complementary but in most sea services—and it is the opinion of my seafaring friends
648
—there is so great a difference between the services rendered by surface shipping and aircraft over the waters that the idea that shipping is going to be driven off the seas by future aviation is absurd. I trust that the attitude of your Lordships in opposition will be a little more generous towards the scheme. Whether you are or not, we have a majority in the Commons House of Parliament, and we intend to put this scheme into operation and, what is more, to make it successful.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

EMPIRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE.
5.33 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My, Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in the name of the Duke of Devonshire.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have reached any decision on the recommendations of the Empire Telecommunications Conference.]
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl opposite for putting this question to the Government on behalf of the Duke of Devonshire. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference held in London this summer considered the future of Commonwealth telecommunications services, on the basis of a Report prepared by Lord Keith after his mission to the Dominions and India earlier this year. The Conference unanimously recommended:

(1) A fundamental change in the organization of Commonwealth telecommunication services.

(2) The public ownership of overseas telecommunications services of all the Commonwealth Governments.

(3) The replacement of the existing Commonwealth Communications Council by a new Board with wider functions, representing all the Governments of the Commonwealth.

649

(4) Financial contributions by members of the Commonwealth for the maintenance and use of the cable system.

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have accepted these recommendations, so far as they affect this country. Subject to the agreement of Parliament, the overseas telecommunications services now operated by Cable and Wireless Limited will, therefore, be transferred to public ownership. Legislation will be introduced in due course. The arrangements and terms for this transfer are under discussion.
EARL FORTESCUE: On behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I am very grateful for that information.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.