TNAG-0871-FCO40-1081-Air-services-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-1979 — Page 30

8002

HACK 184/5

нек RECAM

нов

91

19 NOVEMBER 1979

Civil Aviation Bill

[Mr. Onslow.] able to appeal to the Secretary of State against the licensing of an aerodrome or against conditions on the licensing of an aerodrome? If we are doing that, are we sure that it is wise? I feel that it might obstruct rather than promote some of the other objectives which we all want to see.

I return briefly to the licensing of services. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) said, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the case which he stated for Hong Kong. For far too long, Hong Kong has been used simply as a piece of barter coinage in the negotiation of British overseas civil air rights, and there is a very strong case for amending this legislation in the way my hon. Friend suggests. I hope that we shall succeed in doing that in Com- mittee.

I come finally to what may not appear the most important clause but one which may need close examination in Com- mittee. I refer to clause 9, which enables the Secretary of State in time of war or of great national emergency to commandeer anyone's aircraft or other assets. No doubt few of us will quarrel with this provision as being a sensible and necessary one with which to arm the

Civil Aviation Bill

92

୨

a

or

I see no reason why we should not go further and do better in this context by forming a Royal Air Force reserve, whatever it may be called, which will not merely embody personnel who will be called to the colours to fly the aircraft in times or war or national emergency but will provide them in the interval with the kind of training, organisation and planning without which their services on the day will be of little use. Am I right in thinking that this clause represents a move towards this kind of reserve struc ture? If so, it would seem to be a welcome and necessary development.

With those comments, I welcome the Bill, and I look forward to some fun is Committee.

6.18 pm

Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire) I rise to oppose the Bill. I was glad # hear the Secretary of State move th Second Reading. His principal argumes that the Bill was to enable the worker of British Airways to participate in th running of the operation seemed to han rather uneasily upon his shoulders an to trip rather hesitatingly from his lips.

In the Opposition's view, this is façade. The real purpose, of course, ' to provide some profit for the friends the Conservative Party Certainly tha

U

p

ev

W

ab

du

it the

an

CO

is of Bri

and

Bri

bed

fur

Pre

land

1

mei

pres

abo

crat Air

grea

mar

ton

not

Page 30Page 31

not continue debating this . I suggest that we debate it in Committee. If right hon. Mem wish to table amend:

to nge the position, we to look at those amendments. plain that it is our intention

-.

corporation should become a. incorporated under the Com-, ts, and should be treated like nal company, quoted in, the

INGSK

i

Has not the right hon. Gentle- brought us to the stage where future, have- its pany will

appointed by a minority of the ers, which is contrary to all ompany practice?

ott: it the minority shareholders mobilise themselves into some body to decide whom they should

as directors, they will, as ders, have a right to vote on that In general meeting. If they seek the Government

right,

0 also

So,

the have

by of the fact that they are share- to mobilise their shares in general . What I said, and hoped I had car, was that the Government do esce circumstances in which they bilise their shareholding in such We shall treat the company in y the same way as most share- Most share- treat a company.

do not set out to appoint their eatures as directors.

n to part II of the Bill which is There bed as

"Miscellaneous ". umber of minor provisions amend- existing law, but I want to con- e on clauses 10 and 11 which deal he Civil Aviation Authority.

"

part of the Bill, in many respects, s a more substantial and important

for the future of our civil avia- industry than Part I. Although ership" is significant-and part I is ned ultimately with ownership— y to the future lies in an aviation that brings the maximum benefit to e users, commensurate with the need

новс COL 45 19/11/79