Lords Sitting of 6 March 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Durham

HEIGHT OF LONDON FLATS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Building Research Station has issued any official or other documents defining approximately the most desirable and economical height to which blocks of housing flats should be built within the limits of Greater London, and if they have not whether they could do so.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sending to the noble Lord copies of four papers on this subject which have been published by the Building Research Station. These provide background economic information. Developers must, of course, also take into account general planning considerations and amenities.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer and information, may I ask whether he is not aware that in other countries, where they have more experience in this type of tall building than we have had here, they have found, considering the form of fireproofing needed and the need for steel sections, that they get more for their money—that is the best way of putting it—in six, twelve or twenty-storey buildings, and in between they do not get the full value they could otherwise get?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, up to a point I agree with my noble friend. The general gist of the four papers, which of course look at the prob-
1092
lem from only the economic point of view, is that it is cheaper to build houses or flats of four storeys and below, except when land values are high; but if high building is necessary it becomes more economic to build in the fifteen to twenty-storey range than in the intermediate six to twelve storey range.

THE BUILDING INDUSTRY'S RESOURCES
2.37 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the building industry has at its disposal sufficient skilled men and building materials properly to fulfil the demands being and likely to be made upon it; if not, what steps they propose to take to bring supply and demand into better balance.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise that during 1960 and the early part of 1961 demands on the construction industry were rising more rapidly than the output of the industry, owing to the industry's limited resources, including skilled men. The steps taken by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July last year were therefore designed to moderate the rate of increase of demand. The effect of these steps, together with the rising productivity of the industry, has relieved the strain and shortages have become less serious. The demand for some types of craftsmen still exceeds the supply in many areas, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has recently been discussing with representatives of the industry the need for extending and improving the training of apprentices. The supply of building materials has generally been adequate to meet demands over the past few years, although there have been shortages of certain materials at various times. The producers have stated that they expect to be able to meet all foreseeable demands, and shortages of materials should not restrict the output of the construction industry.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his most interesting reply. Are Her Majesty's Government aware that, though the position in respect of big contractors may appear to be completely satisfactory, in the case of small contractors who are building single dwellings the building price has risen anything from 15 to 40 per cent. over the last two years, and that the reason for this is believed by many people to be the shortage of skilled labour in the hands of the smaller builders, owing to skilled labour being enticed away by the ever-increasing remuneration offered by big contractors?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I agree that there is a certain amount in what the noble Lord says. Particularly within reasonable range of London, small contractors are finding considerable difficulty in maintaining their staffs of skilled men. I do not think that this is true in other parts of the country, unless there is some big scheme such as a new motorway. It is certainly not true in the North, but I agree that it is the case in the South, particularly around London.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some years ago the Building Research Station produced a useful Report setting forth plans for great economies, greater efficiency and greater output in the building industry? Could he say how far the industry has adopted those economic and beneficial proposals?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am not sure to which Report the noble Lord is referring. Perhaps he could give me some guidance?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I admit that the Report was published some time ago, in the later days of the Labour Government. I thought that it was a useful and, on the whole, rational Report.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, there has been a considerable number of Reports by the Building Research Station, and, to the best of my knowledge, the industry has taken note of these Reports and adopted a number of the recommendations which have been made.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the periodic shortages of materials and labour in the building industry. Do Her Majesty's Government realise that, on many occasions since the war, the building industry has become very much overburdened and on almost every occasion there has been a balance of payments crisis with the need suddenly to check the amount of work done by the building industry? Will Her Majesty's Government be careful to ensure that there is not an overburden put upon the industry?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had this very much in mind last July. It certainly is the intention of the Government to try to prevent any recurrence of this overloading.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND LAND
2.42 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up an independent body to review and report upon the occupation of land by Government Departments with a view to putting on the market as quickly as possible those areas suitable for building purposes which are not being adequately used at present.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, land-owning Government Departments keep their holdings under review with the object of releasing land for development or redevelopment as soon as it is no longer required. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that Departments have been made aware of the importance of limiting their holdings of land suitable for building purposes to the minimum essential for their present or clearly foreseen requirements. In these circumstances, it is not felt that a special inquiry as suggested by my noble friend is required.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, I should like to ask him this supplementary question. When building land is commanding famine prices in many parts of the country, is it not right that Government Departments should be called upon to justify their retention of such land? And can Her Majesty's Government suggest a better way of bringing that about than the method suggested in my Question?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should certainly agree with my noble friend that it is extremely important now, as indeed it was in the past, that Government Departments should not hold unnecessarily land which could be used for development; but the Government are satisfied that the machinery which exists is perfectly satisfactory for avoiding any unnecessary holding of land.
LORD REA: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the machinery to which he refers deals only with land, or does it deal also with buildings originally erected for private occupation but now occupied by the Government?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it deals with buildings as well as land.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it really essential that, even where land is not required by a Government Department for the purpose for which it has been held, it should be sold? Is it not better that it should be used for some public purpose, if at all possible, rather than that it should be sold to private enterprise?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it would be very difficult to generalise on that particular question, but the whole question of the disposal of land owned by Government Departments is kept under careful review by an official committee called the Land Transactions Committee.
LORD SILKIN: I am, of course, aware of that. But the assumption in the Question, and I thought in the Answer, was that once land was surplus to Government requirements the proper thing was to sell it to private enterprise. I was hoping the noble Earl would be able to say that that is not necessarily the case.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was not aware that there was any such
1096
assumption in the Question, and certainly there was no such assumption in my Answer.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble Earl keep in mind that an alternative to selling land in public ownership—I am not talking about odd plots here and there—is to lease it? Is it not the case that Regent Street, for example, which is Crown land, has brought revenue to the nation, as other properties have similarly done? It has happened that the London County Council have done very well out of leasing land for commercial purposes. Is not that an equally, if not a more, advantageous course than selling it in all cases?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, would he refer to my Question, in which he will read the words "putting on the market"? I deliberately worded that in such a way as to include the ground renting or selling.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the last two supplementaries go a little beyond the original Question put to me—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
EARL JELLICOE: —but I was aware, in replying to one of the supplementaries, of the particular wording used by my noble friend.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, this Question refers to putting land on the market. Is it not perfectly plain to the noble Earl that in the last ten years the exploitation of land in the market for private profit has brought very great burdens to bear upon the ordinary citizen? That stands out a mile in most people's observations. I hope, therefore, that he will do all he can to conserve the property which the Government have, and either keep it for some beneficent purpose or see that when it goes on the market it is leased for the benefit of the public.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hardly think the noble Viscount's supplementary arises from the original Question.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the more land that he keeps for use in the hands of

1097
Government Departments the higher will be the cost of the remaining land to the public?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

OXFORD STREET AND ONE-WAY TRAFFIC
2.48 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now state their proposals for a one-way traffic route in Oxford Street and whether the Oxford Street Association has been consulted in the matter.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend is still considering the many comments which he has received on the outline proposals announced last August, including those of the Oxford Street Association. He is also considering other important details, such as possible alternative routes for buses. My right honourable friend has not overlooked his promise to discuss details with the Oxford Street Association before a decision is reached.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble Lord, may I ask whether he is aware that repeated requests have been made by the Oxford Street Association to discuss the matter with the Ministry of Transport, without any success?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I suppose I must be, if the noble Lord says so. But when this scheme was announced it was made clear to objectors that it was an outline scheme and that all representations would be very carefully considered. And, my Lords, that is being done. The Oxford Street Association made representations which, as I said in my first Answer, are among those which are being considered. There will have to be further discussions with various interested bodies, such as the Oxford Street Association; and I have already said that my right honourable friend has not overlooked his promise to do so.
1098
That will be done. So if repeated requests to meet my right honourable friend have been unsuccessful, it is probably because he does not consider he is yet in a position to have further discussions, but that will happen in due course.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that the primary object of the street is presumably to facilitate transport or passage from point A to point B, and is not necessarily in the interests of those who choose to build shops upon it?
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that it would be beneficial, and in the interests of all concerned, if a preliminary meeting of the Oxford Street Association were held before the Minister of Transport makes up his mind?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, really this is going a little far. I have already said twice that my right honourable friend has not overlooked his promise to have further consultation with the Oxford Street Association before he comes to any decision in the matter. I do not see how I can be expected to go further than that; or why reason should dictate that I should.

EDUCATION BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A) ordered to be printed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I only wish to mention that, in regard to this Bill which has just come to us, there is a very close period between now and the Second Reading.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I appreciate that, and, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition is aware, we had some consultation on this matter, and I am most grateful to him for the co-operation which he has shown.
On Question, Bill read 1a.

ARMY RESERVE BILL
2.52 p.m.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Recall of national service men into army service]
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I remind the House that Clause 2 gives the Minister power to recall up to approximately 100,000 men who have already completed their National Service, and that he will have this power up to about 1966? In the view of noble Lords on this side of the House this clause is perhaps the harshest and most unfair to the individuals concerned. We do not object to the Minister's having the power to find the personnel required, and it is not my intention to divide the House on this Amendment. Originally I put this Amendment down to give the Minister a further opportunity to explain to the House the manner in which the Government will recall these men and also (and in our view it is very important this should be on record) the manner in which these men may make their pleas for exemption when they get their recall notice.
When we raised this point at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, undertook to write to me, but I felt that this was a matter of such public importance—or, at least, important to the persons concerned—that it should be on the Record. We therefore wish to know from the Minister, first of all, how these men will receive their recall notices; and, secondly, the manner in which they may make their plea for exemption. That was where I proposed to end my original speech on this Amendment, but I feel that I should say something on the statement which was made yesterday in another place by the Minister of Defence in regard to pay and allowances, because the statement which was made will most definitely affect those men with whom we have already dealt under Clause 4, and particularly the Regulars. My Amendment is relevant to this point in that the Government have all the time said that they did not expect to call up more than a fraction of the 100,000 men who may be involved under this clause.
It was clearly understood two years ago, in the Defence White Paper of 1960, that the Government would review the pay and allowances of the Regular soldier biennially. It was clearly understood and, I think, has been taken into account by persons when they have volunteered for the Regular Army. Last night the Minister said that there was every justification for a rise in pay and allowances. He said that the rise should be in the region of 9½ per cent. for other ranks, and 5 per cent. for officers. Acknowledging that this amount was justified, the Minister has said that he would be unable to make that payment; that half should be paid on April 1 and that the service men would have to wait another twelve months before they received the full sum. I think this is very hard on the Regular soldier or, for that matter, on other persons in the Regular Forces. Here was a definite undertaking by the Government to look through the pay and allowances of the Regular Forces. They have done so. The Minister himself specifically said that the rise was justified, but the Government are not prepared to meet up with the amount. This must have an adverse effect on recruiting.
I would ask the Minister whether, when we have our debate on the Defence White Paper, he will give us an undertaking that the delay in giving the full 9½ per cent., will not in any way affect any adjustment that may be made in two years' time—in other words, that the drawing out of this pay will not affect the biennial review which will be made in two years' time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has just said, the noble Lord's Amendment is to leave out Clause 2, and I must say that I congratulate him on his ingenuity in managing, while talking about leaving out Clause 2 of the Army Reserve Bill, to bring in the question of Forces' pay. I will most certainly discuss the Forces' pay with him on the Defence debate, but I hardly think that this is the occasion to do so. I should like, if I may, to confine myself to the noble Lord's Amendment.

1101
I think there are really two main subjects about which the noble Lord asked, on the Committee stage, for clarification. He has mentioned only one of them this afternoon, but I should like to mention the other because my noble friend Lord St. Oswald gave an undertaking that he would do so. The first one was the one the noble Lord mentioned, the appeals procedure under Clause 2. I hope that I may be able to satisfy him that this has been gone into with great care, and that the best method has been devised. The procedure is this. Record Offices will send the men recall notices. In certain circumstances, it may be possible to send a preliminary warning in advance of the statutory notice. Both the warning and the notice will convey to the man information that any appeal against recall should be forwarded to the Record Office which has sent out the notice.
If there is a situation in which tension builds up quickly and men have to be recalled at short notice, it may be that a preliminary warning could not be sent; but even so, to provide for the man who finds himself in difficulty as a result of hardship or compassionate circumstances, it has been arranged that a grant of up to 56 days postponement can be made by the Record Office concerned. This would either be of sufficient time itself or would allow time for an appeal to be investigated. If, of course, a sitution in which it would be necessary to invoke Clause 2 could he foreseen, then a preliminary warning would be sent out.
In both circumstances the appeal will come to the Record Office in the first place. If, it is clear that the grant of up to 56 days may not settle the problem once and for all, the Record Office will immediately forward the appeal to the War Office, where it will be dealt with in the same way as described for retained men; that is to say, when the case is perfectly straightforward, it will be considered by the War Office branch concerned and dealt with immediately, while less straightforward cases will be referred to an advisory committee. The same procedure will apply to officers except that the Record Offices will not come into it: they will deal direct with the War Office. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord as to the pro-
1102
cedure, and I need perhaps only remind him that it is the hope of all of us that Regular recruiting rates and the "Ever-Readies" reserve will go so well as not to make it necessary to use Clause 2.
The second point about which the noble Lord opposite asked for clarification during the Committee stage was as to the categories of those who would be exempt from liability to recall. The noble Lord moved an Amendment on that occasion to exempt from that liability National Service men who are continuing with their education at a university or comparable establishment. In the discussion on the Committee stage my noble friend Lord St. Oswald made it clear that there is no dispute as between the Government and the Opposition as to the desirability in certain circumstances of exempting men in the categories set out in the noble Lord's Amendment. But he said that these cases could best be dealt with administratively, under the appeals machinery set up by the Secretary of State.
At the same time, doing what he could to meet the spirit of the noble Lord's Amendment, my noble friend gave an assurance about men undergoing or accepted for a course at a university or similar institution. Experience has shown that National Service men concerned in such cases almost invariably make out a sufficiently strong case to merit early release from the Army or deferment of call-up. But, of course, these cases have always been looked at on their merits. There has never been any question of exempting students as a particular category without regard to individual circumstances. Nor can there be now. I am sorry to say that my noble friend did not convince the noble Lords opposite that the spirit of the Amendment would be met so far as possible by administrative means and that statutory exemptions were not practicable. Indeed, my noble friend was taken to task for giving that assurance about university students on the grounds that if he could give the assurance it could be written into the Bill.
My Lords, I will try, if I may, once again to explain why statutory exemptions cannot be accepted. For example, the Amendment we were discussing on Committee stage related only to students. But why was it confined to that one cate-

1103
gory? During the passage of the Bill through another place there were nine-teen amendments tabled which sought to provide statutory exemption for a large number of different categories, ranging from married men to students in the position described in the Amendment. The Government, of course, had to consider the whole question of statutory exemption most carefully, in order to deal with these different Amendments, although naturally they had considered the matter thoroughly before the Bill was introduced.
Perhaps I may quote what my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State said in another place. He said:
"On general grounds of principle none of these Amendments is acceptable, and I should like to explain why. There has never been a definition of hardship categories for exemption from military service in any statute. For example, I gave long consideration, when preparing this Bill, to the inclusion of exemptions for certain hardship cases. I thought of students, but was satisfied that this was undesirable and might lead to further injustices. I am fully satisfied that the Labour Government had good reasons for not attempting definitions in the National Service Act of 1948."
It is interesting to note, too, that when the original National Service Act was passing through the House of Commons, the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Isaacs, found it necessary to reject an Amendment by some of his own Party which would have exempted the only sons of widows living with and supporting their mothers. He did so on exactly the same ground as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War—that was, that other categories had just as good a case for exemption. The same is true of the 1950 National Service Act, which extended the period of National Service from eighteen months to two years. Mr. Strachey, at that time Secretary of State for War, made it quite clear that the policy of the Labour Government was to steer a balanced course between the need to administer the Act equitably as between those affected, and the need to provide flexibility in particular cases; and that is exactly the position of the present Government.
There really is no half-way house. To be fair, we must either provide statutory exemption for every category of hardship or we must do what the Govern-
1104
ment are, in fact, proposing to do; that is, to provide special administrative machinery for dealing with particular cases on their merits on appeal. The first alternative is not, I believe, a practicable one. The difficulties are shown by the number of categories proposed for exemption in another place. Any attempt to define these categories would have to be very wide to be fair to everyone, and there would, of course, be strong pressure to widen anything which might be suggested.
The Government have considered this matter very carefully and they are quite convinced that the only just way of dealing with compassionate and hardship cases is by the administrative procedure which I have just described. To be sure of treating everyone fairly and consistently we must deal with cases on their individual merits as people, and not by any system of hard-and fast categories. For that reason I am afraid that I cannot do what the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Shackleton, asked me to do on Committee stage—namely to give some indication of what classes of person will be exempt from recall—much as I am in sympathy with this request.
My Lords, all I can say, in conclusion—and I hope that it will satisfy the noble Lords opposite—is that the Government have given an undertaking that these hardship cases will be looked at with sympathy and with consideration, and I am quite sure the Government are right in the procedure which they have suggested, which is the only just and practicable solution.
3.6 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty has given reasons why there should not be statutory provision for these exemptions. But in regard to the latter part of his speech—which concerned an Amendment that I moved, and not my noble friend, Lord Shepherd—while we were inclined to accept the Government view that it was not possible to include it in the form of a Statute, we did press the Government very hard (though we did not, if I remember correctly, take it to a Division) to give an indication of which categories would be exempted.
I should like to emphasise that the argument from the point of view of the

1105
old National Service Act is not wholly relative, because that was a case of total call-up of certain age groups, whereas this is a specialised form of selective service for men who have already done their two years' National Service and who are now being called up as reservists; and on this point we are clear that they are coming back as reservists and not as ordinary National Service men and, therefore, having done their two years, are in a different position. They may have embarked on an activity such as going to university, in which case call-up could have a very serious effect, and what we sought from the Government, and have not yet received—indeed the First Lord has rather departed from the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald went—is some indication of the sort of instruction that will be applied in the War Office and the Record Office, the instruction which, perhaps, at some stage has to be applied. We are not arguing that this is comparable to the ordinary National Service cases, where, broadly speaking, exemptions are confined to the absolute minimum. As I understand it, exemption will be given more generously in regard to these categories because not so many definitions will be needed; but I must confess that I am disappointed that we have not been given some account of the type of exemptions which will be permitted. I fully appreciate that it may not be possible—I accept this point now—in the Statute to cover all categories, but there are certain categories which, I should have thought, are clear enough, for the. Government to give a broad statement of their intention, so that those who are likely to be affected, whether university students or others, will be aware of the position.
LORD REA: My Lords, in rising to say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in that we appreciate that this cannot be made a statutory matter, I would remind the First Lord of the Admiralty that in the autumn of 1918 and the spring of 1919, when the Forces were disbanded in large numbers, questions were asked in both Houses, and it was agreed by the Government that those who were going to universities, or whose careers were being interrupted,
1106
should receive very early priority—indeed, if that matter had not got through, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack and myself would have had our careers delayed by several months.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I, by leave of the House, say one word? I entirely appreciate what the noble Lord wants me to do, but it is just as difficult for this Government to do it as it was for the previous Government to do it. Those men who are going to be recalled will get instructions on how they can appeal. I have already told the noble Lord, as did my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, that full-time students at universities are the sort of categories who in fact would be exempted. With regard to those who appeal, their appeals will be considered very carefully and with sympathy by these administrative means. I do not think I can go further to-day in telling the noble Lord the sort of categories, except to repeat that the Government intend to treat these cases with sympathy and consideration.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think there are three important points about this: first, that the men should get every possible notice, which the noble Lord has said they will. The second point is that with the notice, whether it be the preliminary or whether it be the actual notice, they should be told in the easiest possible terms the manner in which they can appeal for deferment on the types of grounds we have been discussing. The third point, which is important, is that if they are called up in a hurry the Government should make quite certain that there is no question of not paying allowances for some weeks, as has happened in the past. I am satisfied that on the first two points the Government have made the arrangements, and I hope they will make quite certain on the third point.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported without amendment.

CIVIL AERODROMES AND NAVIGATIONAL SERVICES
3.12 p.m.
The EARL OF GOSFORD The EARL OF GOSFORD rose to call attention to the White Paper on Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services (Cmnd. 1457); and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it may be appropriate if I start this debate by expressing sympathy with the relatives of the victims of the air crash which we all read about, with sadness, yesterday. My Lords, I am drawing attention to the White Paper on Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services (Cmnd. 1457). Briefly, the information given in this White Paper is as follows. The State owns and operates 22 civil aerodromes and the Government have decided that the time has come to decentralise the ownership and management of these aerodromes. They fall into four categories, each of which is receiving different treatment. Category or Group 1 consists of our four main international airports, London (Heathrow), London (Gatwick), Stansted and Prestwick. An Airport Authority is to be set up to own and manage them, and it will also plan, build and manage any new airports which may eventually be required in this grouping. They form a convenient unit for management and are collectively in sight of paying their way. Furthermore, paragraph 19 states:
"The Authority might also be made responsible for providing and managing an international heliport in Central London."
Group II will consist of the aerodromes at Aberdeen, Belfast, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Those aerodromes serve some of the main centres of population of the United Kingdom and their management is to be turned over to the local authorities. Local authorities may apply to the Government for financial aid to run those airports, but much aid will not be granted unless there is a good case for it. Group III will consist of aerodromes in the remote parts of Scotland, and Group IV of the aerodromes in the Scilly Isles. The aerodromes in these last two groups are never likely to pay their way, says the White Paper, but they are at present essential to the economy and social welfare of the areas which they serve. The management of those aero-
1108
dromes, which form two homogeneous units for management, will be carried out by an agent on the Government's behalf.
The other half of the White Paper deals with technical services. The Government propose to retain direct responsibility for providing the en route technical services and to accept responsibility for providing services for the approach, take-off and landing of aircraft at aerodromes where those services interact closely with what is known as en route services (I hope your Lordships understand this) and where other special circumstances require it. Technical services at the remaining aerodromes will be provided by the local authorities. Finally, the Government propose to levy charges for the use of those services. The aim will be to increase fees progressively until the cost is borne entirely by the civil aviation industry, but implementation of this plan will involve the continuation for a period—and I stress for a period—of Exchequer payments towards ground facilities for civil aviation. The rate of progress towards financial self-sufficiency will need to be carefully considered in the light of what the industry can bear at any particular time, but the Government consider it right that people travelling by air should pay an increasing part of the cost, and ultimately the whole cost, of ground services.
That is a swift digest of the contents of this White Paper, and I should like to congratulate the Government in that they are proposing to take this step which was foreshadowed last year by the Report of the Select Committee on this subject. It is right that anything as dynamic and requiring such instant decision as civil aviation should not be subject to the somewhat ponderous processes of the Civil Service, though I must hasten to say that I know that the staff of the Ministry of Aviation and its dependencies have worked hard and well for the good of civil aviation.
My only real complaint is that this step should have been taken much earlier and, even more important, that it should be implemented in the shortest possible space of time. I understand that the Government consider that it will not be possible to set up the Airport Authority until, at the earliest, next year and possibly—in fact probably—not

1109
until 1964, because of the legislation which is required to bring it into being. I would ask, in fact I would urge, the Government that much higher priority should be given to this legislation so as to enable the Authority to come into being and so that the rest of the provisions of the White Paper can be implemented in 1963, at the latest, for reasons which I hope to make clear to your Lordships.
To take first the Group I aerodromes, the international airports, this requires the setting up of an Authority. The setting up of this Authority cannot come too soon. If constructive, almost visionary, thinking were needed any-where, it is certainly here. Time and again, the planning at Heathrow and its complexes (if you like to call it that) has been overtaken by events. To take only one example, the number of passengers passing through Heathrow this year will approach that number which was estimated four years ago as the number of passengers who would be passing through in 1965. Is it any wonder that the facilities at Heathrow are inadequate to cape with the problem posed by the new large-capacity aircraft which land something over 100 passengers a time? I know that modifications are being made to the present No. 1 passenger terminal building to allow a swifter flow, on the lines of Continental practice. But this sort of patchwork does not, and cannot, really make for efficiency.
Another major difficulty at Heathrow is the parking of cars, not only for passengers intending to board aircraft but for those of the staff as well. No real expansion can take place to provide both the extra buildings and car parks needed, since the aerodrome buildings are situated in the middle of the runway complex. No. 4 runway has already gone and it might well be, as the Millbourn Committee recommended, that No. 6 runway will have to go, too, in order to provide these further ground facilities. But this erosion obviously cannot go on for ever.
To turn to Gatwick, this has been enlarged and modernised at great expense. The White Paper on Gatwick in 1954 claimed that the 7,000 foot runway was adequate for—and I quote:
"All future aircraft so far as can be seen."
But the Boeing 707 when taking off fully
1110
loaded requires a runway of 10,000 feet. The Select Committee on London Airports last year recommended the provision of a runway long enough for the full operation of long-range jets. But the Minister stated in the latest White Paper last December that he does not consider the high cost and social disturbance involved would be justified. So here we have an aerodrome enlarged at great expense, meant to be a complement to Heathrow, unable to deal with the largest aircraft except for landing. These aircraft have then to return to Heathrow empty. This cannot encourage foreign airlines, particularly the American, who use these big aircraft, to come via London. With the increasing practice of direct trans-Atlantic flights to and from all sorts of Continental airports, this could be a serious consideration to us.
There has been a natural reluctance on the part of airlines, both British and foreign, to transfer any of their services from Heathrow to Gatwick, partly because of the delay in transferring passengers to other services—in other words, passengers may be landed at Gatwick and they may want to catch an aeroplane at Heathrow for the next stage of their journey, or vice versa; but it is a day's march from Gatwick to Heathrow, unless one is willing to pay extra for a helicopter if available—and partly because communications at Gatwick, other than the rail link with London, are pretty bad. Even the rail link at times is not particularly pleasant, because there are periods in the day when the trains are full of ordinary rail passengers.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend here, because I know that line very well indeed? Empty coaches are kept at Gatwick Airport station and are always available for the aeroplane passengers. These coaches are hitched on to trains which arrive at the station.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: That is true. But there are occasions when more than the normal, expected number of aeroplanes arrive at the same time, and then these coaches are somewhat crammed. It may be that the solution is as the Millbourn Committee recommended, that Stansted with its 11,000-foot runway, should be developed as a full civil pas-

1111
senger airport. I do not know. It has its disadvantages. But this is the sort of problem that has now to be solved.
The White Paper states, as I have already mentioned, that the Authority might also be responsible for:
" providing and managing an international heliport in Central London."
Surely a heliport ought to have been provided now; we ought not to have to wait for the new Authority to come along. I know that the Minister has been having talks with various local authorities, and I read in the Press on Saturday that the choice seems to have fallen on Nine Elms. I only hope that this is so. But as I have already said, all these problems need solving and solving soon. We cannot afford to wait longer than is absolutely necessary for the new Authority to come into being, all of which will be valuable time lost, to say nothing of the tendency towards an attitude of, "Oh well, leave it to the Authority", which could so easily and perfectly naturally creep in. My final words on the subject of this Airport Authority are to urge that those appointed to the new Board when it is set up shall be, as the Editor of the Aeroplane puts it:
"Those who have had a long working experience of what airline operators need, fortified and supported by men with business acumen."
My Lords, I come now to Group II. These are the more local aerodromes serving local needs. Although I entirely agree with the intentions of the White Paper, I am not particularly happy with its wording, since the White Paper gives no plan or encouragement for the authorities concerned to develop new aerodromes or helicopter stations. One gets the impression that the Government are reluctant to come out with a bold plan, or even with a plan at all, but wish to deal with each separate local authority on an individual basis. The travelling public may therefore be better served in some areas than in others, depending upon the views of the particular local authority, which could be easily governed by such things as noise conditions. In fact, the requirements of the travelling public seem to have been ignored.
Paragraph 29 gives the impression that the test will be indispensability
1112
rather than the desire to encourage and develop airports. What is rather puzzling about this is that the Minister of Aviation has reached agreements with Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Blackpool, which are vastly different in each case in the amount of subsidy the Government are willing to give to the local authorities concerned, to say nothing of the "backwoods" airports like Southend, which have been left out in the cold with no subsidy at all. The agreements with these local authorities seem to be at variance with the standards laid down in the White Paper. As I shall mention later, I feel that, both for military and for prestige reasons, the Government should subsidise local authorities in certain cases; but what is true in one case must be true in others.
I will turn now, my Lords, to the part of the White Paper which deals with the technical services. I entirely agree with the Government that they should retain control of the technical services. There must inevitably, for overall safety, be an increasing degree of co-operation between civil and military air traffic control and between the controlling authorities in the United Kingdom and those on the Continent of Europe. Your Lordships have already expressed your views, during the Second Reading of the Bill setting up Eurocontrol, on that subject, so I will not say more on it to-day. Moreover, I think that other noble Lords may well be developing it after I have spoken.
Fairly naturally, the Government have decided to levy charges for the use of their technical services both en route and at aerodromes. I think this is the first time that the Government have proposed to charge air lines for the so-called en route services. As I understand it, these are services which are provided mainly by installations sited elsewhere than at aerodromes. They cost in the region of £3 million last year and are used by all aircraft routed over the United Kingdom airports. They include such things as weather forecasting, search and rescue, aeronautical information, et cetera, et cetera. Incidentally, I am indebted to the magazine Flight International for this information.
Furthermore, the Chicago Convention recognised that charges could be imposed on over-flying aircraft—that is, aircraft

1113
which do not touch down in the country over which they fly. I believe that the only major aviation country to introduce such a charge is Canada, which has a special problem in providing air traffic control services on the North Atlantic routes to a majority of aircraft which do not land in Canada at all and which, therefore, yield no revenue in landing fees. Hitherto, the United Kingdom has not levied such charges. If the Minister desires—and I sincerely hope he will—that airlines over-flying the United Kingdom should also contribute to the cost of these services, it seems to me that it will be necessary, as outlined in the White Paper, to time the introduction of the charge with care. The Government must have regard to the overall level of charges already levied in this country, and it would be reasonable, I think, to expect that the present landing fees should be reduced concurrently with the introduction of other charges.
But I would go one step further. Whether the entire cost of en route services and landing fees should be borne by the civil aviation industry seems to me open to question. In the United States no charge is made for these en route services, and a clear airport policy provides for a Federal contribution of up to 50 per cent. of the cost to approved airport projects. The reasons for this are simple. The American Administration believes that the development of an efficient airways and airport system is essential to the economic wellbeing of the country, and the availability of an established system for the rapid movement of key men and materials is a vital defence asset in time of war. Such considerations also apply, surely, here, my Lords. So I beg the Government to give consideration to this.
Figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in many previous debates have shown that our landing fees are among the highest, if not the highest, in the world. I have already mentioned the tendency of foreign airlines on trans-Atlantic routes to fly direct between the U.S.A. and Continental airports, thus bypassing Britain. Do we want to frighten away even more of these airlines? Surely this is something which we cannot afford to do. Furthermore, British airlines are already on a knife-edge. These larger landing fees cannot
1114
help them to flourish, as surely the Government desire. I believe that the Government should continue with a subsidy, on the lines of the United States subsidy, on strategic and other grounds, and not merely for the present, as mentioned in the White Paper, in order to prevent our pricing our aerodromes out of the international market by too high landing fees.
My Lords, I have made only a brief survey of the White Paper, and have given my views on its contents. There are many other points I could have made; there are many points which I am sure are still left to he made, and there are many noble Lords who will take them up in detail after me. My Lords, I urge the Government to press on with the legislation necessary to implement this White Paper at the earliest possible moment, and not when it is legislatively convenient. Civil aviation is too vital, in both senses of the word to allow too long a transition period My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I, too, should like to echo the expression of sorrow which the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, made with regard to the recent terrible disaster. This is not the moment to debate it, but I do not doubt that the matter will be looked into and that we shall have a full report on it. My Lords, the subject we are debating to-day—and we owe a debt to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for the energy he has shown in regard to this matter—is civil aerodromes and civil flying generally. This is a matter on which we have had quite a lot of discussion in the last year or two, and it is satisfying to see the Government, whether as a result of what we have said or for whatever reason it may be, at least doing some of the things we asked them to do. I have a number of criticisms to make of this White Paper, as had the noble Earl, Lord Gosford. In fact, I find myself really in complete agreement with everything the noble Earl said, and the little I have to say will be no more than underlining certain aspects of his remarks. As a White Paper this is still rather half-baked. In a sense, this is perhaps defensible when a policy is in process of evolving, and, since the Government are apparently going to

1115
take an interminable time in producing legislation on the matter, we hope that by the time they do so some of the looser ends will be tied up.
On the general policy, which is of devolution, I have mixed feelings. I am certainly in favour, and I think most people must be in favour, of the proposal to set up a London Airport Authority. This has been urged in both Houses, and it seems to be desirable, when undertakings grow to the size which the London Airports have become, that they should be hived-off from the Department responsible. This is not a reflection on the Ministry of Aviation. The present extent of operations and the growth is such that it would be much better done by an independent authority, and this we accept.
At the same time we note that the technical services will continue to remain under the Ministry of Aviation. I have no comment on this, beyond saying that it seems to be absolutely essential, both from the national point of view and from the point of view of our obligations internationally, that that should be so. It so happens that this aspect of the work of the Ministry of Aviation generally receives great praise and is regarded very highly. If we do not discuss it very much, perhaps it is because we have not much to criticise. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, with his knowledge of the subject, will be able to make some special contribution on it.
My Lords, the first thing we should like to know—and perhaps the Government can give us some indication to-day—is on the composition of the new Airport Authority. They will be aware that concern has been expressed by local authorities, particularly Middlesex, which, while not disagreeing with the Government's policy, wish to know whether they will be able to make their voice heard in the way that, in theory anyway, they have been able to do in the past. Under Section 17 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, there is a London Airport Standing Consultative Committee, and I take it that this will now disappear. Certainly, it would seem that there will be no statutory requirement for it. I take it that these airports will
1116
no longer be, so to speak, vested in the Government, but will be vested in the Authority, which for these purposes I assume is not the Government. But we should like to know the legal position on that.
We should also like to know, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, indicated, how in fact the local authorities are to be represented. The proposal we put forward and urged in debate was that something comparable to the Port of London Authority should be set up, and I am quite sure that the Government have something like this in mind. Obviously, the people who are mainly interested are the users of the airports, but we should like to know how the local authorities are to be represented, particularly London and Middlesex, whether the other counties involved are to be represented, and how in fact they are to exercise influence. Of course, since these activities will be taking place in their areas, they will really have a very strong interest, and, if the Minister of Aviation is not to be constantly woken up early in the morning by angry complainers, it is reasonable that a proper outlet should be, made, particularly in regard to this question of noise.
Of course, this raises again the problem of helicopter communication, and I must say that, anxious though I am to see helicopter development, I hope that the Government will do everything they can to improve surface communication. I am aware that there are important road improvements, but the fact still remains that trying to get to London Airport by road is a pretty "dicey" business, and the only satisfactory solution must be some form of rail link. I hope that the Government will give consideration to this, and that we can now be told that a decision will be taken to provide it. With the present increase of traffic, it surely is essential that some sort of rapid service from Heathrow to the centre of London should be provided. It would be of enormous benefit to so many of the road users to make this more convenient link, which would then immediately relieve the ordinary traffic of the pressure of London Airport traffic. My Lords, there really is some urgency in this matter. Before I leave this aspect of London, I should just like to repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said,

1117
that there is a really urgent need to set up this Authority. We all know that a period of hand-over, take-over, or whatever it may be, is apt to be unsettling. I do not doubt that there is development going on all the time, but I think that what we require is precisely the energy which the new Authority, independent of other responsibilities, will be able to bring to bear.
The chaos on the ground at London Airport still continues. We have discussed this so often that it hardly needs repeating. I can only say, on this particular aspect of it, that we are still waiting to see the development of the piers, the trickle system, or whatever it may be. We hope that the new Authority will have a very strong organisation and methods department, which will constantly look at the organisation. I do not doubt that a great deal of time and thought is given to this problem of organising London Airport, but on occasions I talk to people who are active in this field of organisation and methods and they are full of suggestions for improvements which should be made. It may be that the reason why they are not made is that the money is not available, or that there is not the drive—I do not know. But certainly there will be a need for a very strong technical organisation and methods department in this new Authority. I hope that the Government will in fact use their influence to see that, as soon as it is set up, it is equipped to do this sort of work.
As the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said, we are greatly concerned at the aspect of the cost to the user of these proposals. We discussed this at great length and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, produced some figures, which certainly the rest of the House understood but which, quite frankly, the Government ran away from. We argued on a previous occasion about how difficult it was to make comparisons, but I believe that it is established beyond doubt that London Airport is more expensive to the user than practically any other airport in the world. The reasons are not far to seek. As the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, indicated, it is simply that in other countries, and particularly in America, the cost of the technical services, the en route services and others, are not fully reclaimed by the Government. In effect, they are part
1118
of a United States Government subsidy to aviation. As Lord Gosford said, it is not only a matter of pricing our airports out of the market; it is a question of pricing our airlines out of the market, because they are the biggest users of British airports. Therefore, they are the ones which suffer more than any as a result of the Government's policy in this matter.
I do not disagree with the theory that civil aviation and the airlines ought to carry their own costs, but in practice in many countries they do not do so. However much in theory we may object to subsidies, we know that in a number of directions they become necessary, and in some circumstances they may even be desirable. I am wondering how wise in the national interest is this policy of trying to make the airports in Group I and Group II self-supporting.
My Lords, before I leave the subject of London I should like to ask whether the Government could tell us a little more about Stansted. We find cryptic references to it in this White Paper. We understand that it is likely to be brought into use at a later date, and may even become a second Gatwick; but perhaps we could be told something about that. This leads me on to the second group of airports—because there are other airports not far from London which, it could be argued, ought to be looked after by the new London Airport Authority. I have particularly in mind Bournemouth or Hurn, which is a diversion aerodrome. I should have thought that the requirements at Hurn in order to fit it for the rôle it has to play are far in excess of what would be needed for it as a local airport. This points to the difficulty to which the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, referred, of trying to measure how far these other airports should receive Government aid. I, too, take strong exception to the test of indispensability. My main criticism of this White Paper really is that it is purely a negative Report. It is an estimate from the plumber of what is needed to put in adequate drainage. It is not a lead; it is not a clarion call; it has nothing as an encouragement to civil aviation in this country. I hope that, when we get the Bill, we shall get a rather more positive approach.
The Government are now, so far as

1119
they can, shedding their responsibilities. They are devolving them where they can, either to an independent authority or to municipalities. Those that they cannot devolve, the Scottish ones, they regretfully hang on to, but they say that they are going to appoint an agent to look after them. My Lords, civil aviation—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will agree with this—may be of some value to the industry and welfare of this country. I should have thought we needed a much more positive approach to it than this rather negative White Paper. In passing, I would ask: who are the agents who are going to look after these Scottish airports? Here, again, I am wondering whether what is required is not a small, public authority which might be partly responsible to the Scottish Office or partly responsible to the Ministry of Aviation. But, clearly, they are going to require a certain amount of subsidisation—in fact, a good deal of subsidisation, especially if British European Airways are to go on running these social air services at the loss at which they are being run now. I hope, therefore, that we shall have some information on that subject.
My final expression of regret is upon the absence of any encouragement to private flying. I may have missed it in the White Paper, but I can find little reference—indeed, no reference—to the need for aerodrome facilities for private flying. I think that the great majority of people in this country think it has no role, and in this matter the Government carry a responsibility. There have been developments in private flying for business purposes; and, in so far as people take to the air successfully and under control, they may speed up the conduct of their business operations, or whatever they may be, and may even relieve some of the pressures on other modes of transport. This is a matter on which we should like to hear from the Government. How far are such facilities going to be made available at these airfields? Is it their view that they will be adequate? And will the Government also have enough of an interest, both in local aerodromes and in the London Airport aerodromes, to ensure that private flying is not just pushed
1120
out, as there has been every sign of happening in the past? Private flyers are really having to struggle very hard to keep any sort of landing facilities in this country.
My Lords, we shall have an opportunity to discuss this subject further in due course, when legislation comes. I am sorry we have had to wait so long. I congratulate the Government on the decision to set up the London Airport Authority; and I reiterate a certain amount of disappointment that a more positive view has not been taken of airports and airfields, and of their contribution to civil aviation and, therefore, to the prosperity of this country.
3.56 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before proceeding to the main subject of the debate I should like to join the other noble Lords who have spoken in expressing, on behalf of myself and my noble friends who sit on these Benches, our distress at the recent dreadful accident in the Cameroons, following so closely, as it did, upon the very bad accident at New York. It certainly overshadows the debate to some extent—at least, it certainly depresses the feelings of many of us who take a great interest in civil aviation.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for putting this Motion down, and for taking the trouble to assemble the facts and the arguments which he has produced to the House. With many of them, and also with many of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I entirely agree. I think that, in whatever part of the House we sit, we are to a large extent at one in our reflections on this particular White Paper. I believe that the most important question which arises from it is this: is it right and proper—is it good business, even, which is not necessarily the same thing—to charge the operators for the costs and services incurred in civil aviation? Now the White Paper is quite clear that it is proposed to charge the operators (and, so far as I know, they are already being charged) for the cost of the ground services. What the White Paper is not clear upon—I have gone through it with a toothcomb; something may have slipped through the teeth, but I do not think it has—is to what extent it is proposed to charge the operators for the

1121
en route services, those services which control aircraft when they are not coming into, sitting on or taking off from an airport.
As the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has said, this is a very big matter. He put the cost at, I think, £3 million a year. Well, where does it end? How much can an air operator afford to pay? How much will the traffic stand? So far as I know, shipping firms have not been charged with the cost of the Royal Navy, and they are in the same sort of position. The Royal Navy has done an immense amount of work, not only in policing the oceans but in preparing the necessary charts, surveys, plans and the rest of it, and in carrying out rescue operations and protecting the shipowners from pirates—a service they still carry out in some parts of the world. How much of this has been charged to shipping firms? There is a limit. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred to the fact that a year or two ago I gave the figures of the charges at London Airport as compared with those at other airports. The London charges are the highest in the world, far and away above those at other airports. That is the question we have to consider, and I would ask the Government to think very carefully before putting on the operators the cost of the en route services as well as the cost of the ground services.
Even as regards the ground services, it is my opinion that a great deal can be said on the argument that the costs can be brought dawn if the airports are run in a commercial manner. The Government's answer to this is that they are going to set up a State Airport Authority to take over the main airports, or the commercial operations of the main airports, or the ground operations. That may be so: in fact, we understand that it is so. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has given us a rather depressing piece of news on that matter to-day. He has told us that this organisation is not coming into operation until 1963, or it may be 1964; and I noticed that when he said it the noble Lord, Lord Mills, nodded his head. Well, that is a depressing piece of information, I must say. We thought that it was coming into operation fairly soon so that the commercial development of these airports could be furthered.
No one can imagine that the commer-
1122
cial development of these airports is as it should be. It is all very well to stick up representations of large bottles of whisky, right outside the main airport of Great Britain. I make no comment on that. But commercial operation does not end there. With regard to London Airport, there has been great criticism of the fact that facilities for the purchase of goods for those intending to travel from Britain are not all they might be. The shops, I gather, are still governed by the Shops Act. We understand that great difficulty is imposed on those who wish to purchase liquor free of tax. These are all matters which are easily arranged in Paris, as we all know; there is no difficulty whatsoever. I ask, why not at London Airport?
Unfortunately, I have had to spend many hours lately at London Airport waiting for people to come in from various parts of the world on flights which have been very seriously delayed. If you go to London Airport in the early hours of the morning or very late at night, you find there are very few facilities. You just sit down—if you can find a seat—on singularly uncomfortable chairs. There is no News Theatre. No shop of any kind is open, so one cannot even spend one's money. I feel that once more the Government have not really undertaken the commercial aspects of our airports in a businesslike manner.
The Times, with its singular facility for always bringing out an interesting article on a subject we are going to discuss in this House, on the day before it is discussed, yesterday produced an article on airport facilities, part of which said:
"Heathrow is expected to show a profit this year, and the authorities estimate that by 1964 all four trunk airports, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted … and Prestwick, will, taken together, be paying their way".
If that is so and they are all paying their way by that time without the commercial exploitation development which I think they should have, there would seem to me very little reason to impose any further charge upon the operators, who are already, in my view, charged far too much.
May I now turn to the en route services? The Government say that these should be co-ordinated, or are to be

1123
co-ordinated. But co-ordination is not enough. To have two types of air control in a country is highly dangerous. I should like to suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Government should unify the services, and there should be one control, both for military and civil aircraft, as there will in fact be one control in the upper air as soon as Eurocontrol comes into operation. However good your air control may be—and the air control at London Airport is first-class, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said—it is not much good to the passenger if, when he gets down, there is no one to assist him with his bags, and when the other facilities he needs are not there.
It so happens—and I have never had an explanation of this, though I have asked for it for years—that London Airport has a singularly bad reputation for strikes. There is one on at this moment, I gather. If the employees of B.O.A.C. are not striking, then the employees of the Ministry are striking. Sometimes the strikes are official, sometimes unofficial; but it makes no difference to the passenger whatever sort of strike is called. Why are there so many? Here is a new airport, a new service. One would think that everyone would be on his toes. Why is it that there is this bad employee relationship at London Airport? The Government have never given me any reply, and on every occasion when I have raised the question I have been told by noble Lords on the Labour Benches that I was completely out of order and it was not playing the game to raise it. Why not? It is a vital part of civil aviation that the ground crew and the other personnel servicing the aircraft should be happy and contented and doing a good job. I suggest that one reason is that there are 24 different unions at London Airport. That is a matter, I suppose, which is of wider significance than aviation, but it affects aviation, and it affects it very seriously indeed.
Noble Lords have talked about Gatwick and Heathrow. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, touched upon this question but did not develop it. One of the great disadvantages of the railway era was the fact that separate companies built railway lines which came
1124
into London to separate railway termini. This meant that anyone who wanted to go from Dover to, say, Newcastle, or Cardiff, or Ipswich—wherever it was—had to go up to Victoria or Waterloo, and then trundle across London, in the old days by cab, and in more recent times by taxi, if he could get one, or by Underground. But it was done at great inconvenience and loss of time, and at great expense. We are doing exactly the same thing in the flying era with the perimeter airports around London. There are no connections between them at all. We are making exactly the same mistake. The Government in fact own the airports, the travel facilities, and have the control, but without any of the excuses of the pioneers of the railway era.
How does a person who comes in on an Air France or B.E.A. 'plane and is landed possibly without his consent, desire or understanding, at Gatwick, catch a connection from London Airport to, say, Manchester? It will be interesting for the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to do that one day, just to find out how difficult it is. He would get into one of these coaches, which Lord Hawke said are always standing at the side of the railway—no doubt in a very cold state. He would go by train to Victoria where he would have to get to one of the coach termini, either the B.O.A.C. terminus or the B.E.A. one at Cromwell Road, and then continue to the airport by bus. By the time he has made all his connections, and so on, it would take him at least three times as long to do that as it took him to come from Paris to London. That is the sort of situation with which we are faced.
It is essential, I think, for the Government to face this problem and to arrange for an inter-airport connection between the two airports, Gatwick and London. When dealing with travel by air, arrangements must be made for the connections to be aerial connections. One cannot go back 100 years and expect to have railway connections; there must be aerial connections. The Government, however, have never faced that problem.
There is only one other point that I want to make about the group II Airports, which your Lordships will find referred to in paragraph 17 of the White

1125
Paper. Group I airports, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has pointed out, are the main airports. I do not wish to be nationalistic about this, but I should like to point out, for the record, that three of them are English and one is Scottish: there are no Welsh airports. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who supports me; but that is the fact. Your Lordships may say: Well, perhaps that is due to the fact that there is not much traffic in Wales.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but there is Cardiff. That comes in group II.
LORD OGMORE: Yes, my Lords, that is in group II. I am complaining about group I.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD OGMORE: In group I there are three English airports and one Scottish. Last week the Government produced an interesting survey of its actions in Wales during 1961, and this is what it said about civil aviation:
"The volume of air traffic in Wales rose appreciably during 1961, though not as steeply as in the previous year. The number of passengers handled at Cardiff airport was some 83,000, an increase of about 31 per cent. over 1960. The increase at Swansea was 16 per cent., with a total of 5,200 passengers."
That is to say, there was an increase of 31 per cent. in one year—which apparently was not quite so great as in the previous year—yet the average increase for Great Britain, as a whole, last year was some 18 per cent. In fact, at Cardiff, the growth has been phenomenal. And there are international services. It is possible to fly from Paris to Cardiff, and from Cardiff to Cork and Dublin and elsewhere. I strongly suggest that from every point of view Cardiff should be put in group I.
I should pay tribute where it is due. This development of Cardiff is due more than anything else to a small company called Cambrian Airways, which fought its way through the years under the greatest discouragement. It was started by a group of South Wales businessmen. For some years it had no public money in it at all, but its growth shows the advantage of having these small companies; they can blaze trails that big companies will not undertake. I think
1126
the greatest praise is due to this company, which started from nothing. I personally decided upon the airport, which was then a disused R.A.F. aerodrome, with a vast number of bombs on the runway, which had to be cleared away, and with the buildings in a decrepit and delapidated state. From that start this little company has built up this line, until to-day the airport is handling, as the Government have reported, some 83,000 passengers a year. They propose to hand the airport over to Cardiff. It is not in Cardiff, but some miles away, and if there is anyone to whom it should be handed over it should be the county authority of Glamorgan. But I do not think that it is a good idea to hand it over to either of these bodies. I suggest that this airport, in status and development and in every way, is worthy of being promoted to group I.
Finally, my Lords, I would strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his complaint that this White Paper is unimaginative. Are we really looking at the air age, in which we are only at the fringe, in an imaginative way? The article published in The Times yesterday refers to the developments at Heathrow and Gatwick, which are expected to be working to capacity in ten years' time, and says:
"By 1972 passenger traffic at Heathrow is likely to have risen to about 14 million people a year."
If this figure is correct—and there is no reason to suppose that it is not, because the aeronautical correspondent of The Times is usually accurate—we are not ready for it. If this forecast is not correct, and if this number is reached in less than ten years (and, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said, the present forecast was three years out), how are we going to handle the enormous increase of traffic? It takes at least ten years to prepare an airport, to construct the new buildings and tunnels for handling traffic, which have to be built well in advance.
In my view, the prospect racing us is that in less than ten years' time the airports will be so crowded with traffic that this problem will become an enormous one. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether the Government realise that as soon as fares come down—and with lever bigger aircraft,

1127
that may be a possibility—we shall have to deal, not with thousands but with scores of thousands of passengers. One can only hope that aircraft which will rise under jet propulsion will not need long runways to take off, but these machines will not come into operation within ten years, or anything like it. I fear that within six to ten years we may be faced with as much congestion in the air and at the airports as we are now faced with on the roads.
4.16 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I agree that we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Gosford for initiating this debate which gives us an opportunity of discussing matters affecting civil aerodromes. I agree, too, with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he says that on all sides of the House we are at one on the setting up of this Authority. I think that the aerodromes in Group I are in keeping with recommendation No. 34 of the Estimates Committee on London's airports. They do not refer to Prestwick, but I believe that their terms of reference did not include that airport. I trust that I shall not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, by limiting my remarks to aerodromes in the London area. I believe that my noble friend Lord Waleran will be touching on the aspect of the problem which the noble Lord had in mind.
One thing which I fail to understand is why Stansted is included in Group I. In 1960, when Heathrow handled 86·7 per cent. of the commercial air movements for the whole of the London area, Stansted handled only 0·4 per cent. So it does not seem to me at this stage to be a main international airport. I feel, too, that a number of airlines would be loath to use Stansted, and so far as air passengers are concerned that it is an extremely unpractical aerodrome. I should like to quote some words which appeared in the White Paper on London Airports (Cmnd. 8902):
"Like Bovington, Stansted is on the wrong side of London for most of the aircraft routes. Furthermore, it has two further substantial disadvantages. Its access by road or rail to London is inferior, travelling time being about 1¾ to 2 hours. There is also at present a very large amount of military flying from nearby airfields, which severely limits the use which can be made of it by civil aircraft."
1128
Although that White Paper came out several years ago, I understand that those conditions are still prevalent there. In that White Paper it was also felt at the time that only Gatwick would substantially meet all the requirements for a main alternative airport to Heathrow.
Last year the Estimates Committee considered that Stansted had serious disadvantages as a potential London airport. They also recommended that the Ministry of Aviation, in association with the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Transport, should undertake an immediate—and I stress that word—and detailed study of the prospects of Stansted as a main international airport and a third London airport. Can my noble friend Lord Mills say, when he comes to reply, whether or not such a study as was recommended by that Committee has been put in hand? As the Report of this Committee came out on June 21, 1961, and the White Paper we are discussing to-day came out in August of the same year, one can only regretfully assume that the Government do not propose to undertake such an investigation prior to entrusting Stansted to an independent authority; but I should be grateful to my noble friend if he could clarify the position.
I should now like for a few moments to consider Gatwick. At the moment I understand that 2½ hours are allowed from the moment an aircraft lands at Gatwick for a passenger arriving from abroad to board, for instance, a domestic service aircraft at Heathrow. I believe that is rather in keeping with what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said; and I, too, should like to stress the importance of providing some form of link between the two airports. To my mind, this situation is intolerable, when one thinks of the distance one can travel in 2½ hours by modern jet aircraft, and then thinks of this loss of time which takes place between places so near to each other as Gatwick and Heathrow. Yesterday in another place the Minister of Aviation, on the question of a monorail or other direct communication between London and Heathrow, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 655 (No. 68), col. 5]:
"… that any method of speeding up travel to Heathrow would obviously be valuable and the Government would co-operate with the planning authorities on the study of this as necessary."

1129
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised the question of the necessity of some fast link between London and Heathrow, and I trust that he feels there is an even greater priority for having a direct link between Gatwick and Heathrow. If one wishes to see Gatwick develop satisfactorily and economically from the point of view of the airlines, and also from a practical point of view which would be satisfactory to air passengers, then I feel that a study should be made of the feasibility and cost of providing this link between Gatwick and Heathrow. Not only is the transfer of passengers between the two airports a lengthy process, but the transfer of freight is also a highly complicated matter. This is particularly apparent when the Ministry of Aviation compel British European Airways and Air France to terminate some flights at Heathrow and others at Gatwick.
While I am on the question of freight, I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend to Recommendation No. 22 of the Committee on Estimates. For, in spite of the fact that the date at which work was to start at Heathrow to provide greater facilities for freight has been advanced, yet still in some cases, due to lack of appropriate facilities for incoming freight, some airlines have had to turn down offers of air cargo, and in other cases they have had to make certain improvisation at Heathrow. This does not seem to be in keeping with the prestige and importance of our main international airport. I feel that in many cases piecemeal modifications are carried out there, no preference being given to a planned programme of work. If I may quote one small instance, in front of the main central building there used to be a very handy car park; then a small luggage building was set up; then some whisky bottles were put on the roof; and then a canopy was added to a certain part of the available area there: in other words, always piecemeal modifications and really no planned programme.
With regard to the inside of No. 1 building—that is in the central area—there were a number of reversible channels. Their total hourly capacity for outgoing passengers was initially 2,000; then it was reduced to 1,450; and now it is 1,200. It would seem to me that amalgamating in this way
1130
several channels into one, as at present, has the effect of reducing the hourly flow of passengers in addition to confusing the passengers. I must say that a method which consists of mixing passengers for different destinations and different airlines in one area seems to be highly unsatisfactory. I understand that the number of passengers who miss their flight has increased considerably since the channel system was modified at Heathrow.
Finally, I would stress, as I mentioned earlier, that I am very much in favour of the setting up of this Authority with regard to our main airports, and I would add my plea to those made by earlier speakers that it should be set up as soon as possible. For even if it means less Parliamentary control, I believe one of the main advantages will be that decisions will be taken quickly, and certainly more quickly than they are taken at the moment. It is very important, especially with regard to the final implementation of the Millbourn Committee recommendations. It is now five years since the Report came out and there are still many things to be done. I believe it to be a matter of great urgency, for it seems to me that it is difficult to plan more than ten years ahead with regard to civil aviation because the pattern of air traffic is constantly changing, as is the pattern of civilian airline operation.
4.31 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, as usual, I have to make a disclaimer, in that I am interested, or my company is, in making navigational aids, and so on, for civil and military aerodromes. But I do not propose to go into any detail to-day about that sort of thing. I welcome the debate raised by my noble friend Lord Gosford, and, like him, I am rather worried by this White Paper, as have been the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Ogmore. It seems to me to be pretty "woolly" in many ways, and, as my noble friend Lord Gosford said, it does not come out with any bold plan for encouragement of present or future operators of aerodromes.
I should like to mention two particular points. The first is the question of payment in the end by the civil air operators for the en route navigational aids. We

1131
have discussed in the past the integration of the Royal Air Force Tracking Defence Service with Civil Aviation Tracking Service and Air Control. I know, as do some of your Lordships, that this is now working extremely well and there is the greatest co-operation. As I read it—and this is where I think there is an ambiguity in paragraphs 13 and 34 of the White Paper—it is possible that the cost of the R.A.F. part in helping civil air control to track aircraft and avoid collision between one aircraft and another will be charged to the civil operator.
Much as I want to support my old Service, I do not think—and I am quite certain they do not think—that this would be fair, and for a very simple reason. If you are keeping your air control service trackers in constant practice, you have to fly aeroplanes for them to track, just as you have to fly target aircraft for people to shoot at. If you have civil aircraft to watch while you are sitting by the radar tube and it does not cost you anything, surely the civil operator should not be charged for providing a target which you would otherwise have to provide for yourself at great cost. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is replying to this debate to deal with that question.
My second point is that I have never been happy about the shutting down of Croydon Aerodrome. We are to-day using it more and more because of the restrictions in this country on the use of executive aircraft in our business life. As I see it, Croydon Aerodrome is still extremely suitable for executive aircraft, and by that I mean anything up to Dakota size in all-up weight. Even with increased speeds and take-offs, it is very suitable for what is usually called executive or general flying. I believe that Croydon is ideally situated. It is convenient to the Continent; it is convenient to the centre of London by rail and bus, and it has suitable buildings with a control tower existing. I believe it is no good trying to mix up that type of executive flying with civil school flying, as is proposed at Biggin Hill, or the possible use by the Service of Biggin Hill for low level or aerobatic training. All noble Lords are extremely keen on air safety, and I believe that, while Croydon is in the London control zone,
1132
its situation is such that it would not interfere with London Airport or with a flying club doing local flying or circuits and bumps at Biggin Hill.
I hope Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the decision to close Croydon. Nothing has been done with it in the past, and they might make it available again for proper executive business flying of light aircraft. When I say "light", I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand my term; I mean the business aeroplanes of the two-engine variety that will take off and land in that area, as opposed to putting them into the stream of traffic that now goes into London Airport.
I should like to make one final remark —and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised this point. I wonder whether the air traveller is really being Whelped at all. I wonder what paragraph 29 means? It gives the impression that this test of indispensability almost means that if there were an adequate pony and trap service in any local area, that would be the right answer instead of the provision of flying facilities.
4.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I wish to raise a very mundane matter. It is with regard to land on which the airport is built. I also must declare my interest in Hurn Airport, otherwise known as Bournemouth Airport. The White Paper rightly deals with the history, growth and development of these airports round the country, and it mentions that much of the land was bought under threat of compulsion. The other day Southampton Airport was offered by the Government to Southampton Corporation. There was a long discussion and in the end nothing happened; and, very properly, with memories of Crichel Down, the land was offered to the former owners. Therefore, there is a precedent.
I am not sufficient of an expert to go into any details about it, but I think it is probably correct for local authorities to be offered these airfields if they are in a position to take them over. It would, I suppose, enhance their local support and prestige, and they would have a very local interest. I hope that

1133
when local authorities take over aerodromes in the future they will undertake the obligation which the present Government Departments have of offering the airfields back to the former owners if at any time they become redundant.
I am perhaps looking a little farther ahead than has been mentioned to-day, because, probably in the not too distant future, vertical take-off aircraft will be developed to a great extent and their use will become almost normal practice; and then these vast acres of agricultural land, some of it very good, will not be required. I hope very much that this land will then be offered back to the former owners and will go to balance up the farms that have been unbalanced in the past. May I give just one instance?—and there are many I can think of. Hurn airfield took all the dry land of five farms, leaving those farms with the greater area of their land liable to flood; and it would be of very great advantage agriculturally if they could have that dry land back. I merely ask the noble Lord who is going to reply whether he can give an assurance on that point.
4.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships share with the Government the feeling of great distress at the grievous accident which has just occurred and of sympathy with those who have lost friends and relatives. One or two noble Lords have already referred to this grievous matter.
My Lords, it is thanks to my noble friend Lord Gosford that we have the opportunity of reviewing these matters concerned with civil aerodromes and air navigational services. Some of our airports are becoming, in ever greater measure, the windows to the world on a country full of appeal to the tourist and to the student as the home of old and tested Parliamentary institutions, of good government and of romantic and inspiring history. These airports also, constitute the shop windows of a great industrial nation which seeks to attract the interest and the custom of people overseas, with whom it seeks to expand its trade; and I agree that it is essential that these airports should reflect the efficiency and order which we look for
1134
in our industrial and commercial institutions, as well as in our central and local governments. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all concerned with the operation of our airports carry a very great responsibility, not only for the safety and comfort of passengers in general but perhaps, in particular, for our guests from overseas who contribute to our well-being, whether they come as visitors or are engaged in cultural, scientific or business interests.
The noble Earl, in opening this debate, gave us a very clear résumé of the White Paper on Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services. He commented on the proposals to decentralise the management of the 22 civil aerodromes for Which the State is directly responsible. The noble Earl, as other noble Lords did, also underlined the proposal in the White Paper that an independent Authority should be set up to own and maintain the main international gateways at present owned by the State: that is, the London group of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and Prestwick. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that, excellent as the facilities at Cardiff are, it cannot be called an international gateway, and that is why it is not included in Group I.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord what is the definition of an international gateway? Is not a connection between Cork, Dublin and Paris international traffic?
LORD MILLS: I should say the noble Lord has described at least two airports which are international in their traffic, but I do not think that Cardiff comes within that definition. I can understand the noble Lord's pride in Cardiff, which I share; but I cannot put this interpretation on it.
The noble Earl Who introduced this Motion also pointed out that the State-owned aerodromes which serve the main centres of the population, Group II, should be de-centralised to local ownership, and that the aerodromes in Group III, those serving the remote areas of Scotland, should be retained by the Minister and managed by an agent, as also should Group IV aerodromes, those (at St. Just and St. Mary's) serving the Isles of Scilly. It may be convenient if at this point I answer the question about

1135
who the agent will be. That has not yet been settled, but discussions are going on with British European Airways. They run these services, and probably they would be the most suitable agents to manage the airports.
The noble Earl also pointed out to your Lordships that the Government propose to retain direct responsibility for providing en route navigational services and for aerodrome technical services at the main airports. For these services the Government propose to levy charges and, as the noble Earl pointed out, the Government consider it right that people travelling by air should pay an increasing part of the cost, and ultimately the whole cost, of the ground services. I shall have more to say on that point presently, but I am sure your Lordships are grateful to my noble friend for his summing up of the White Paper. I know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation will be grateful to the noble Earl for the tribute he paid to the staff of the Ministry of Aviation and its dependencies for the good work they have done in the interests of civil aviation.
My noble friend stated that the real cause for complaint which he had was that the steps taken in the White Paper had not been taken much earlier. His surmise that it would not be possible for the Airport Authority to be set up until perhaps early in 1964 is probably right, both because of the legislation required to bring it into being and because of the preliminary work which must precede the operation of the Authority. There is a great deal to be done, but I can assure the noble Earl that anything which requires to be done meantime will be done. There will be no tendency to say "Leave it to the Authority."
It is true that at Heathrow, as at all other important airports, traffic has grown faster than was expected. It is not true, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, suggested, that the Airport is incapable, or will be incapable, of handling the increased traffic flow, at any rate until the time when it is found necessary to bring in another Airport to support Heathrow. The public can rely both upon the efficiency of the airport and upon the safety measures on take-off, landing and en route.
1136
I was interested in what the noble Earl had to say in regard to Heathrow and Gatwick. Gatwick is complementary to Heathrow and was not intended to duplicate its rôle. It is, I believe, fulfilling that function increasingly satisfactorily. The figures for passenger traffic at Gatwick for 1960 were 470,000, and for 1961 803,000. As the noble Earl said, and as the Government foresaw in the 1953 White Paper, which has been mentioned this afternoon, another London airport will be needed, and Stansted may perhaps be chosen for this role. It is not a question of waiting for the new Authority until all the various problems which need solving can receive attention. The necessary studies are taking place all the time.
The noble Earl appeared to be disturbed at the reference in the White Paper (paragraph 19) that the Authority might also be responsible for providing and managing an international heliport in Central London. I think the governing word here is "might" and not "providing". As has been stated this afternoon, and was stated in another place yesterday, my right honourable friend has been discussing with the local authorities the question of a suitable site. This is the first step. But further studies are necessary before a heliport can be established there. It may be possible for the Minister to act before the Authority comes into existence. On the other hand, it may not. But the reference in the White Paper shows the scope of the Authority may cover a development of this kind. As regards the part of the White Paper dealing with technical services, the noble Earl has well grasped the necessity for an increasing degree of co-operation between civil and military air traffic control, and between the controlling authorities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and he agrees that the Minister must retain control of those services. He also approves the Government's decision to levy charges for the use of their technical services, both at the aerodrome and en route.
It might be convenient if at this point I dealt with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, on the use of civil radar by the Royal Air Force. It is true that civil radars may be used to track R.A.F. aircraft. Similarly, R.A.F. radars may be used to track civil

1137
aircraft. This can be a sensible and practical arrangement suiting our policy of close co-ordination of air traffic control arrangements and making the best use of facilities. If extra cost is involved in making use of a civil facility by the R.A.F., or vice versa, the necessary adjustments are normally made between Votes, in accordance with the usual arrangements between Departments. In so far as radars are used as part of aerodrome technical services, their costs are reflected in the amount for aerodrome technical services in the aerodrome trading accounts. The revenue side of these accounts shows an appropriate credit for landings by military aircraft. No charges are at present made for en route services. When at some future time they come to be made it may be expected that the related accounts will show a proper reflection of the accounting arrangements between the civil and the Service Departments.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. I am not quite sure that he has understood the point I made; namely, that the Royal Air Force, with their integrated tracking stations (I am thinking of the three in this country dealing with the air space over 25,000 feet), will probably be using a good deal more civil aircraft as targets to keep in practice although not actually reporting. Are the civil operators charged up on that?
LORD MILLS: I am not sure that I can give a satisfactory reply on that to the noble Lord; but I should imagine so, and I will let him know in due course whether that is the case or not.
My noble friend Lord Gosford referred to the question of imposing charges on over-flying aircraft. The subject is under examination, but it would not be an easy business to operate. As the noble Earl pointed out, the total cost of the en route services is at present in the neighbourhood of £3 million, while in addition there is a loss on airports of some £3·8 million. The point was made that it is reasonable to expect that landing fees would be proportionately reduced if charges were imposed on over-flying aircraft. We are still some distance away from the point where I think that could safely be assumed.
I could perhaps remind your Lord-
1138
ships of what I said in regard to landing charges in our debate on civil aviation on November 22 last year. After discussing the comparisons with charges made at other airports, I said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 235 (No. 12), col. 932]:
"We shall probably see the position more clearly when we come to implement the White Paper proposals, when we have an airport authority established, when the local authorities are running their own airports, and when the navigational services are separated and are charged separately. As it is, while the charges are heavy, they are not a vital factor in the competitiveness of our industry."
In any case, I am sure that this question of charges will be looked upon in a businesslike way; and certainly, while we wish our aerodrome technical services to be paid for, any tendency for trans-Atlantic flights not to route themselves by London would surely be a very compelling factor in the further consideration of this matter. It is not intended to take these charges and to lump them on to the operators, but so far as it is feasible for operators to carry them then it would be proper to see that they do.
The noble Earl also referred to the American practice of paying a contribution from Federal funds towards the cost of approved airport projects, because of the importance of airways and the airport system from the point of view of national defence. We do not follow the same practice here because we want to make the civil industry in all its parts a fully self-supporting industry on its ordinary peace-time working basis. Of course the airports and the airport system would be important in time of war; but all forms of transport are important in time of war, and I have never heard it suggested that for this reason the defence budget should carry part of transport costs in general.
The noble Earl also referred, as did other noble Lords, to the different treatment accorded to a number of the provincial airports. It is worth remembering that the agreements with Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool were negotiated over a period extending back some years. The agreement with Manchester was signed in 1955 and the other two in 1960. The differences in them reflect the different circumstances of the airports, and also to some extent the development of thinking which has led

1139
to the policy described in the White Paper. Blackpool, which has been mentioned, was the first airport to be disposed of under the new policy, and my right honourable friend's view was that although that airport is useful to a large number of travellers, mainly holidaymakers, it is not of sufficient importance to the country's pattern of air transport to justify further subsidy from the Exchequer. Southend airport has never been owned or managed by the Government, so the question of negotiating terms for transferring it to the municipality has never arisen.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I apologise for doing so a second time. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I fully realise that there was no question of its being transferred, seeing that it is not run by the Government at the moment. What I was trying to point, out was that there seemed to be no sort of yardstick at all in the financial treatment of various aerodromes all over the country. Some were given quite a lot, some a little and some none at all. There seems to be no reason why one should be given a lot and some were given none.
LORD MILLS: In general, the reason is described in the White Paper. Under the terms of the White Paper it will be open to the Southend Corporation, for example, to make a case to my right honourable friend for financial assistance if at any time they feel it would qualify under the criteria of importance and need.
There are just two further points that I should like to make arising from what the noble Earl said. The first relates to the question of encouraging local authorities to open new aerodromes. The White Paper deals with the Government's proposals for State airports and technical services, and with arrangements for making grants in suitable cases to municipal airport owners. It is true that the White Paper does not state that the Government encourage local authorities to take the initiative in setting up new aerodromes where they see a need for them. But this is a matter to which my right honourable friend has referred frequently in his dealings with the local authorities and in answer to
1140
Questions in another place. The services of his Department are available to any local authority where they consider there is a need for air transport in the area. In fact, officials of the Ministry of Aviation are in constant demand for that purpose. I am glad to have the opportunity of making that point clear.
I think a good deal of the criticism of the White Paper has arisen, not from what it says but from what it does not say. It was never intended to say some of the things on the absence of which noble Lords have commented. Thus, I think the noble Earl is doing the White Paper less than justice when he says that it appears to neglect the interests of the travelling public. The purpose of the new policy is to facilitate a steady improvement in the ground services for air transport. The beneficiaries of this improvement will, of course, be the travelling public. I think paragraph 29 indicates the criteria that will be used to judge eligibility for financial aid, and it lists a number of items—the location of other aerodromes; the population served by the aerodrome; the existence and convenience of alternative means of travel, and so on—which have meaning only as reflecting the needs of the travelling public. If those needs are not referred to explicitly, it is only because the whole purpose of air transport is to meet them.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Would the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him again, but he is referring to my speech? I am not complaining about the technical services of various kinds supplied by the Government in the way of helping the general traveller. What I am worried about is the fact that the travellers from Group II aerodromes are going to be entirely in the hands of the enthusiasm, or it may be—which is what worries me—the lack of enthusiasm, of individual local authorities. That the yardstick is going to be purely one of indispensability does not seem to me to provide much incentive, and it would be easier for local authorities who are not particularly air-minded to prove that their airport is not indispensable. It is not the actual services which the Government supply that I am concerned about; it is what I am afraid the local authorities will not supply.
LORD MILLS: Well, there would soon be complaints if there were any lack of attention by the local authority. My own experience has been that local authorities who get a local aerodrome, and therefore air services, are very keen indeed on them; but we shall wait and see.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton asked me about the composition of the new Airport Authority. I think it is too early for me to make any pronouncement on that matter; the needs are being studied. I doubt whether it is practicable for local authorities to be represented on such a body, but I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister has all those considerations very fully in mind.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble Lord why it is not practicable? Local authorities are represented on the Port of London Authority. If he thinks it is not practicable, what will be the succession with regard to Section 17 of the Civil Aviation Act?
LORD MILLS: I said I assume that it will not be practicable. But there will, of course, have to be proper means for consultation, and I am quite sure that the importance of that matter will have the full attention of my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord referred to the need, when the Airport Authority is established, for very full technical "organisation and methods" study. I think we realise that. "Organisation and Methods" plays a very large part to-day in the operation of the airports under the Ministry. The noble Lord also referred to the test of indispensability. It is difficult to lay down exactly what this means; each case has to be considered on its merits, and I am sure that it will be.
The noble Lord, quite rightly, stressed the importance of private flying. It is true that the White Paper does not deal with private flying—it was not intended to do so. It was not intended to deal with a number of things. But that does not mean that the question of private flying, and of adequate facilities for it, is not of very great importance. It certainly is; and that fact is fully accepted by my right honourable friend.
LORD SHACKLETON: Do not private fliers use aerodromes, and are we not debating civil aerodromes? We have talked about the needs of other users, particularly at Croydon.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, we are debating a Motion
"to call attention to the White Paper on Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services" …
LORD WALERAN: May I ask the noble Lord—
LORD MILLS: Would the noble Lord just allow me to continue for a moment? I was pointing out to the noble Lord that this White Paper, which was issued for a purpose which is well known to your Lordships, does not deal with all the aspects of civil aviation, nor was it intended to do so.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but to me, and I am sure to many people in the aviation industry, private flying includes executive flying by major companies, very often involving big aircraft, and is not just the "fun and games" one used to have in 1931, when I learnt to fly and land in a friend's field. It is a big industry to-day. Surely there is not an "uncivil" aerodrome.
LORD MILLS: I fully understand that, and I am sure my right honourable friend understands it. I myself have made use of private flying in business, and I know the way it is growing and the way it will grow. All I am trying to explain to your Lordships is that this White Paper did not go into this particular subject, and, as I understand it, it is the White Paper that we are debating.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, pointed out the importance of early legislation and of as early a start as possible to this Authority, and he said that I agreed with him because he saw me nod my head. Is he quite sure I was not just sleeping? I agree with him.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should not be surprised if the noble Lord was sleeping throughout many of the speeches, because he is not answering them.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am trying to answer them. Many points were made by the noble Lord which I have some difficulty in answering. He talked about a bad reputation for strikes and referred to a strike which is going on at the present moment and which has nothing whatever to do with the airports we are discussing, or their arrangements. No one deplores more than I do any bad relations there may be, but it is not part of this debate.
The question of a connection between Gatwick and Heathrow is, of course, a matter for the airlines, and I am sure they will be very concerned as soon as it is worth while to improve these connections. It is easy to say that we ought to run a service from Gatwick to Heathrow, but what would it be for—simply to take care of the odd traveller who may get stranded there? I have already dealt with the question of Cardiff. I agree that the rate of growth is very creditable. The noble Lord asked whether the Government were preparing to meet the increased traffic which we are enjoying, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Government are quite prepared to meet it and will do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, asked me why Stansted was in Group I. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, painted a very gloomy picture of the future of Heathrow, and I think that that supplies the answer. The answer, on present thinking at any rate, is that Stansted might well supplement Heathrow. The noble Lord asked if any study was being made of this. There is an Interdepartmental Committee busily engaged with the airlines in considering this problem, and it has been doing so for some time.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could I interrupt my noble friend for one second? I apologise for doing so. The noble Lord has just said that this Interdepartmental Committee has been studying the matter for some time. This could be rather a lengthy process. When will the Committee report, or announce a decision with regard to Stansted?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the Ministry will no doubt announce a decision as soon as it is necessary to give that decision. It is not necessary to-day. I
1144
should like to give the noble Lord a reply about the reversible channels to which he referred. They are no longer in use. They were abandoned at the airlines' request, on the recommendation of the Air Transport Advisory Council. This has increased, not decreased, the building's capacity. The building was designed to handle 2,000 passengers an hour in both directions. It will now handle 1,200 an hour in one direction and over 2,000 in both. Next year it will handle even more.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could I interrupt my noble friend? I am sorry to do so a second time. That is not in keeping with the practice to be found at other airports, where it is considered to be a much more practical and satisfactory process to keep passengers for one destination and one airline together—in other words, in one channel—rather than to have them mixed up, which, as I mentioned in the course of my speech, means that passengers get lost and miss their flights.
LORD MILLS: Yes. But this was done on the recommendation of the Air Transport Advisory Council and it has proved successful. Therefore, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for his views, I can only give him the facts about what is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, was worried about the White Paper, which he said does not come out with a plan. I have tried to explain that the White Paper is dealing with a certain subject and is not dealing with the whole problem of civil aviation, including private flying and so on. That is why the noble Lord probably felt some disappointment with it. The noble Lord also raised the question of shutting down Croydon. That is the subject of an inquiry, and I am afraid that I cannot, anticipate my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing, who will shortly be saying something about it.
The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, talked about Hurn Airport and referred to the problem of handing back land which is no longer required to its former owners. First of all, I should like to say that the airport will not be transferred to local authorities unless it is clear that they will continue to run

1145
the airport. Secondly, the Government, as an administrative act, and not of legal necessity, have followed the practice of offering airports or other land of that kind to the former owners when they are no longer required. I cannot, of course, guarantee that, if it passed to a local authority, the local authority would necessarily do the same, but the Government example is there. That is the practice that the Government follow.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before we leave that point, may I say that I happen to know Hurn Airport very well, because I live only a few miles from it? This is a matter which has caused such sensitivity and a feeling of unfairness—I have been involved in one or two such cases—because, so long as the public interest is provided for and the local authority have their opportunity, it surely would be a matter of honour that the Government should seek to pass on to the local authority that obligation which they have assumed. In the negotiations that take place upon transfer, would it not be possible to avoid saying, "Well, we rely on you to follow our example", and to ask them specifically to take on that liability? Can they not be told that the Government feel it is precisely where they have moved on to somebody else (as I know is the case with other airfields in which I have been involved) that the trouble arises?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack could answer this better than I, but I have tried to explain that there is no legal liability established. It is an administrative act, a matter of practice, on the part of the Government, and I do not very well see how that can be handed on to somebody else. I did say that they have the example of the Government, and I do not think I can take it any further than that.
My Lords, I think we have had a very useful debate, and, on behalf of the Government, I am greatly indebted to the noble Earl for instituting it. The contributions made by noble Lords have been useful; and many of the things they have said will be borne in mind in our future consideration of this matter.
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, considers that this debate has been useful. It has been short and to the point. Those who took part may have been few, but at least we spoke with one voice. I am grateful to those old stalwarts on the opposite Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Ogmore, who always stand up for civil aviation whenever they can, and I am equally grateful to my own stalwarts on this side of the House, my noble friends Lord Merrivale, Lord Waleran and Lord Malmesbury, for backing me up from these Benches. In reply to our bowling, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, treated us to that usual, charming, effortless piece of stonewalling to which we have all become very used, but which never ceases to amaze us.
I was interested in one announcement which the noble Lord made, which was that B.E.A. might become the agent for Groups III and IV. I think that this is possibly a right decision, with the proviso that the Government—though I have no doubt that they will—keep an eye on the services which the agent, whichever agent is eventually appointed, actually gives in the area. There is one point I should like to ask my noble friend. He mentioned (at least, this is what I understood him to say) that the Air Transport Licensing Committee advised on passenger handling at London Airport. Surely their job is to license air routes, not to advise on passenger handling. I do not know whether the noble Lord remembers making that remark, or whether I misunderstood him.
LORD MILLS: What I said, my Lords, was that the general system has been abandoned at the airlines' request and on the recommendation of the Air Transport Advisory Council. That is the information which I have on this subject.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I shall look at Hansard to-morrow and think about that again, if I may. My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion with

1147
a three-legged plea: first, please hasten the coming of the Authority; second, please give a strong lead to local authorities; and, third, please bring down landing fees.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.

SCOTSWOOD BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition
1148
to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 6 last discharged, and Bill committed to an unopposed Bill Committee.

UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.