FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 0966.PDF
496 FLIGHT MAY IOTH, 1945 The Civil Aviation Bill Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading : Opposition Amendment Defeated WHEN he moved the second reading of the Civil Avia-tion Bill in the House of Commons on May 6, theLord President of the Council, Mr. Herbert Morrison, stated that the Bill was a substantial step towards the complete nationalization, or socialization of British air transportation. He said that, before the war. Imperial Airways had been far from perfect. There had been some planning of Empire air routes, but this, and the intensity of services, had been inadequate. So, too, were the sub- sidies. He considered that there had been no adequate planning of airports before the war. How far they existed, and where, had been largely a matter of sheer accident, and, apart from a limited number of airfields provided by private enterprise, the Air Ministry, at that time, had relied for them upon local authorities. This, said Mr. Morrison, was utterly wrong. Municipalities should not spend ratepayers' money on what was essentially a national service. He said that he could find nobody who believed in free competition in civil aviation, with the possible exception of Lord Beaverbrook. He suggested that if anybody was allowed to run air services, there would be an economically impossible situation in the air, plenty of accidents, and all sorts of complications and troubles. Even in America, Mr. Morrison continued, there was no completely free com- petitive enterprise and there was a great deal of control by the Aeronautics Board. However civil aviation might be run, the State had to have in mind the needs, actual and potential, of the Royal Air Force and the relativities between aircraft production for civil and Service needs. Thus, the State had to be in the business to a very con- siderable extent. Mr. Morrison said that he was told that there were nineteen countries which possessed nationalized scheduled air services, and twenty-three countries where such services were partially nationalized. Subsidies On the question of subsidies he said that it was far easier for the Exchequer to subsidise a public concern than a private one. The Government was not enthusiastic about subsidies, and they were not being given for fun. As time went on, the subsidies should be tapered off. Public ownership would mean that we could have sweep and t>oldness in our civil aviation policy, instead of vacil- lation, inadequacies, and the "creaming" of traffic. It also meant that Parliament could have a more effective say in the general policy, although Mr. Morrison empha- sized that the Boards, once appointed, had a wide freedom of management and of business autonomy. Three corporations were created so as to introduce and develop in the industry the spirit of emulation, of gather- ing a varied experience, and a certain degree of competi- tion between varying undertakings. The interest of the. staff would be looked after. There would be joint consultative machinery for dealing with terms and conditions of employment, and it was the Government's wish that there should be free discussion between the management, the Board, and the staff on matters of mutual interest. The time had come, Mr. Morrison continued, for the State to take over responsibility for practically all the pub- lic airports and airfields and to organize their finances. By this means there could be a planned network of airfields, and better and brighter British airports. A number of our airports had been shockingly dull. Under public super- vision this could be remedied, and it would be easier under such a system to fit in navigational services. Civil aviation could not be organized on too restricted a basis owing to its international character. It was there- fore unwise to establish a separate autonomous corporationfor Scotland. Nevertheless, there was to be a Scottish Division of British European Airways, and a ScottishAdvisory Committee which would have not only access to the Board of the corporation and to the Minister, but alsoan advisory function in relation to B.O.A.C. Its headquar- ters would be in Scotland and both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C/would have offices there. Scotland would also have a regional board for the management of Scottish airfields. Opposition Points Mr. Lennox-Boyd opened the debate for the opposition and pointed out that Mr. Morrison's speech had thrown singularly little light on the provisions of the Bill. The opposition agreed with the distinguished pilot who said recently that ice and the politician were, to-day, the greatest menaces to civil aviation. The proposed Bill was monopolistic. No one was to be allowed to start a scheduled service, and the Ministry's advisory council was a sham. Even the three Corporations would have to put up with a good deal of interference in their day-to-day activities. The opposition believed that there should be an executive council similar to the United States Civil Aeronautics Board. An independent tribunal was wanted which would sit in public, have judicial powers, be in a position to license new or competitive routes, and which could receive appeals from independent operators, from private people and from local authorities where their interests were affected. Among the speakers who followed and who criticized the Bill, Mr. Geoffrey Cooper asked for a full-time directorate for the Corporations and for the setting up of an air trans- port board to undertake technical responsibility and finan- cial and statistical records in the same way as the C.A.B. in the United States. Major Hugh Fraser was also in favour of such a Board. Mr. Mikardo questioned the selec- tion and competence of the Corporation Boards and con- sidered that insufficient thought had been given to the problem of actual management in the aviation industry. Mr. Hurd asked for an assurance from the Minister that he would consult the Minister of Agriculture before taking over land for new civil airfields. Major Niall Macpherson and Col. J. R. H. Hutchison, in common with other Scottish members, pleaded for a separate Scottish Corporation. Wing Cdr. Hulbert con- sidered that the Bill contained mostly "thou shalt not" and gave little or no encouragement to anyone who wanted to do anything. Cdr. Galbraith claimed that the principal feature of the Bill was that it gave powers with the one hand and immediately took them away with the other. The truth was that the Government has decided that the - operational control of civil aviation and its financial management should be placed in the hands of the Minister. Government Reply Winding up the debate for the Government, Mr. Ivor Thomas; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, said that it was true that there were some aviation matters which gave anxiety to the Government, the chief one being the supply of aircraft. Even in that case, however, British engines were in a state of develop- ment far ahead of anything else in the world, and the designs for airframes were also in a state which augured well for the future. There was already close association between operators and designers of aircraft, he continued, and he assured the House that, from the outset, the Minis- try had concentrated, in particular, on jet propulsion for civil aircraft. Jet-propelled aircraft for the Atlantic were, in fact, now being designed.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
