TNAG-0871-FCO40-1081-Air-services-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-1979 — Page 32

156

g

ine, ices

¡urd

be

air-

157

Civil Aviation Bill

•

19 NOVEMBER 1979

Song t

The repeal of sub-paragraph (ii) of; paragraph 12 of schedule I to the 1977 Ad has been regarded as affecting the rights of employees of the Civil Aviation Authority. This paragraph is a transi- tional provision, dealing with the offer of contracts of employment to staff secon- ded to the authority when it was set up. The contract of employment was ap proved by the Secretary of State in 1975. The hon. Gentleman should listen, be- Hofc happened. I understand that it was only cause he was in the Department when it новс

for

line

*ion.

vith

iere

as

aid

Our

sion

vell

nt's

the

and

ha

I in

end

of

e it

vho

on rob

ich

ne.

ght

to

He

lan

its

ful

lise

ish

to

ich

ige the

are

..ew

ing for

hat

Ar.

n.

.he

all

xr

by an oversight that no date was set for the purposes of that paragraph. If a date had been set, it would have been some date in 1976, probably 31 March. I am reading this because I do not want to do the hon. Gentleman any injustice. It was while he was in office that his Govern- ment permitted us to do what was neces- sary or desirable, and that is why we are doing it in this Bill. That is the whole point of it.

I turn now to one o rtwo of the more sensible points that were made in the de- bate. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) asked about Hong Kong and about Cathay Pacific in relation to other British airlines. I under- stand the problem that he draws to my attention and I have given it a good deal of thought. It is not perhaps quite so straightforward as he might have hoped. No doubt hon. Members will consider how to table amendments to deal with the matter. We shall give those amend- ments the best consideration that we can in Committee, to see whether we can deal with the problems in a way that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Opposition Members have suggested that there was something improper in the fact that the proposal to liberate British Airways from State control was not in- cluded in our election manifesto. I have always had some reservations about the idea that the British voter hungrily de- vours each word of the party manifestos before setting out to vote, or that he goes through them, ticking off the items, and eventually says Well, Fred, that's the one. Having read some of the Labour Party's manifestos in the past, I have the feeling that some members of the Oppo-

"

"

Civil Aviation Bill

manifesto is the focus of some st tribal rites in what I am told is "that great movement of ours ".

་་

I am surprised that the more perc of hon. of hon. Members did not receiv message which was very clearly sig by my hon. Friend the present M for Trade as far back as the S Reading debate on the Civil Av Bill, when he said:

"Perhaps the time is coming for the G ment to examine the possibility of givi British public the chance to have a real in the shareholding of British Airways perhaps we should be giving British A the structure which will enable it to shares to the British public, includi employees."-[Official Report, 16 Ja 1978; Vol. 942, c. 85.] That is precisely what we are doin

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. G man kindly explain why specific ence was made to aerospace, shipbui the National Freight Corporation an NEB when, as he is saying, it wa policy of the Conservative Party al announced? Would not two words i election manifesto have cleared i rather than have it denied during election by the Conservative Part being one of its policies?

Mr. Tebbit: The word denied d the election campaign was dis berment", which is very different what is happening now. The right Gentleman spoke about the public 1 hundreds of millions of pounds. Pre which hundreds of millions of pound be lost? How will that money lost? What does the right hon. G man think the taxpayer will suddenly by the sale of part of the share British Airways? Where is the lo money involved?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman not pay the attention that he shoul the Financial Times.

That news! set the case out extremely clearly i interestig article. The point arises sin If the Government, foolishly, sell a at the present stage in the develop of British Airways, the taxpayer will several hundred million pounds assets wil be sold well below their value. The hon. Gentleman must u