FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 1793.PDF
FLIGHT, 27 June 1952 783 AIR-TRANSPORT POLICY —is Debated in the House of Lords ALTHOUGH doubts and uncertainties still remained on f\ certain points, a clearer appreciation of the Government's •^ •*• intentions with regard to civil aviation is possible in the light of the debate which took place in the House of Lords on June 17th. By comparison with some previous debates, there was a refreshing absence of purely doctrinaire argument, and practically every speaker brought specialized knowledge of one kind or another to bear on the subject (all four Opposition peers who took part were former Ministers of Civil Aviation). Never theless, occasionally irrelevant references tended to unbalance the discussions. -There follows a condensed account of the debate. LORD LEATHERS, opening for the Government, said he believed the Government's civil aviation proposals had been well received. At any rate, he added in reply to an interjection from Lord Ogmore, there was very little support for the opposite view. Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding entertained on the Socialist benches, he con tinued, was that the Government's policy represented a severe, if not a mortal, blow at the Airways Corporations. There was nothing in the Government's recent statement which could be so interpreted; he yielded to no one in his admiration of the work of the Corporations, or his conviction that they had a vital part to play in civil aviation. On the contrary, he rather resented any suggestion that the Labour Party had a proprietary interest in the Corporations' welfare. Lord Leathers then recalled a speech made by Lord Pakenham in 1950, in which he stressed that the fundamental question was not the relative merits of State versus privately controlled airlines, but the form of organization best calculated to secure expansion of our national air transport effort. It seemed to the speaker that Lord Pakenham had attached importance to a strong and prosperous private sector of the industry, and that he had been at pains to emphasise that he did not wholly exclude independent companies from participation in the opera tion of scheduled services, but that opportunities must be confined to routes outside the existing or planned networks of the Corporations. The Government's policy, like that of Lord Pakenham, was to adopt a form of organization best calculated to secure the expansion of our national air transport effort. But it was their view that the independent companies could play a more important part in attaining that objective, without undermining the work of the Corporations. The new policy would consolidate the position the Corporations had established and would protect them in the expansion of the first-class and new tourist- class markets on the routes they had developed. The Government believed that the concentration necessary for these important tasks of expansion left room for other initiative in new development. Experience since the war had shown that exclusive monopoly did not allow enough flexibility. This drawing on experience was in no sense a criticism of the Corpora tions. It merely reinforced the wisdom of the Government in providing opportunities for the independent companies to develop without subsidy new routes and specialized forms of operation such as all freight services, third-class services, and non-competitive inclusive tours. But if we were to reap the benefit of the contribution which the independent companies could make in these directions to the develop ment of air transport, they must have security of tenure of their rights, without being fettered by the long-term plans of the Corporations. Dealing with internal routes, Lord Leathers explained that the objective was to reduce—and, in the long run, to eliminate—the rela tively high cost of these services to the taxpayer. The best means of achieving this, with the maximum advantage to the public, both as taxpayer and consumer, required more examination. For the time being, therefore, B.E.A. would continue their existing services, but independent companies would be able to obtain long-term associate agreements on new routes outside the B.E.A. network. If it could be shown, for example, that an independent company could take over under satis factory terms a group of routes at present operated by B.E.A. at a loss and run them without subsidy, that was something which would have to be considered very carefully. Special considerations, however, applied to the Scottish social services [more light was cast on this matter later in the debate by Lord De L'isle and Dudley], An important question—which had been asked in a number of quarters —related to the machinery for giving effect to the Government's proposals. The Government envisaged the continuance of the Associate Agreement scheme introduced by Lord Pakenham in January, 1949. There would, of course, be modifications, but in principle and constitu tion the new scheme would be similar to the old. The Air Transport Advisory Council would continue its task of considering applications and making recommendations to the Minister. It was not proposed to confer any statutory licensing duties on the Council, which would continue to act in an advisory capacity and to make recommendations to the Minister under Section 12 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. The Council would, however, be asked to make its recommendations in accordance with revised terms of reference which took account of the new policy. No detailed statement could be given on what the changes would be, but the significant points of difference between the new and the old schemes were: First, in the wider scope which it was proposed to give to the independent operators. For example, the Corporations would no longer have the same protection on routes which they had not yet operated; secondly, the normal maximum period of associate agree ments would be extended from five to seven years (or ten years in special cases); and thirdly, the Corporations would be put on an equal footing with the independent companies in seeking permission to develop new routes. Nothing would be done to impair the commercial prospects of the Corporations on the overseas routes they had developed. The new terms of reference would provide that on these routes the financial position of the Corporations should not be materially worsened. These changes would doubtless involve the A.T.A.C. in making certain changes in their procedure, but the resources of the Ministry would be used to obviate duplication of staffs. For example, the Ministry had technical and economic sections who could supply the Council with much of the necessary information required to examine applications. There was, Lord Leathers stressed, no substance in the comment that the Government proposals would virtually take away from the Minister and from Parliament the control of the development of civil aviation in this country. At the same time, there was no doubt that the experience and advice of the A.T.A.C. would be of immense assistance to the Minister. It was also emphasized that before the Minister approved an associate agreement between an independent operator and one of the Corporations he would satisfy himself that in the case of routes of public importance the applicant had the necessary financial resources to fulfil his obligations to the public on an enduring basis. The A.T.A.C. would examine whether an applicant would be able to provide a satisfactory service from the point of view of continuity, safety, regularity of operation, frequency, punctuality, reasonableness of charges, and general efficiency. Naturally, it would also take into account the manner in which the applicant had performed any services for which he had previously been authorised. Possibly the most serious question arising from the policy statement was whether sufficient numbers of suitable aircraft were available to enable independent operators to make the fullest use of the wider oppor tunities now offered to them. Lord Leathers did not deny that the supply of aircraft suitable for independent operators was not as good as the Government would wish; but he said the Government were examin ing, in conjunction with the aircraft industry, what measures could be taken to overcome these difficulties. Surplus Aircraft He also mentioned that the Ministry of Civil Aviation had available for disposal small numbers of Tudors, suitable for freight work, and Solent flying-boats. Further, the Air Ministry would have, from time to time, Dakota aircraft available for sale to suitable British operators. In accordance with the new policy for limiting the charter operations of the Corporations, the B.O.A.C. were already offering for sale two of their York freighters. In regard to more modern types, he had been advised that short or medium-range freighter aircraft could be supplied reason ably quickly. Concluding his address, Lord Leathers said that the prospects for the civil aviation industry seemed to be bright. The Government hoped that the Corporations, whose achievements in the international field were a matter of pride, would continue to go on from strength to strength, and that the independent companies, given more scope and more security, would at last take their place in British civil aviation, developing the services they already flew and having a fair opportunity to enter new fields. The working out of this policy depended, of course, on the industry seizing its opportunities. The Government believed it could, and would. LORD PAKENHAM (Minister of Civil Aviation, 1948-51), who initiated the debate, opened his speech by congratulating the Corporations on their achievements in recent years. In 1947-48, he said, then- deficits had amounted to about £nm. Last year they were just over £im, with B.O.A.C. showing a profit and the whole residual loss arising on the internal routes of B.E.A., in which, of course, a large element of social service was provided. In that period the output, judged in capacity ton miles, had more than doubled, and the output per employee (for there had been a big reduction in staff) had almost trebled. Lord Pakenham also congratulated the charter companies and expressed his pleasure at the considerable improvement in their fortunes, which did them credit in every way. Lord Pakenham said he thought it would be paying the statement of the Government an ill-deserved compliment to describe it as a statement of "policy." The Opposition viewed it with grave suspicion. However wisely it might be interpreted, it could do no good, and it might well do a great deal of harm—in the first place to the Corporations and ultimately to the charter companies themselves. In the end, perhaps more harm might come to the charter companies than to the Corporations. After reviewing, at some length, the former Government's policy towards the independents, Lord Pakenham said that he did not quarrel with two points in the Government proposals. The first was the extension of the agreements to periods of seven, or in special cases ten, years, and the second was the restrictions on the charter activities of the Corpora tions (while maintaining their right to engage in charter work where they had special facilities). He did wonder, however, how the Secretary of State was going to satisfy himself that the charter company which obtained a route would be able and willing to operate it, not just at the beginning, but over a long period like seven years. Did the Government intend to impose an obligation of a legal character, and if so, how long would it be enforced ? He also hoped the Secretary of State would be able to say that an assurance given to Lord Ogmore that no change was contemplated in the present relationship between the Minister and the A.T.A.C. was not merely a transitional arrangement, pending legislation. Lord Pakenham then referred to the terms of reference given by the Minister to the A.T.A.C.—clearly the central point of the debate. Above all, there was
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
