CIVIL AVIATION

Evening Star, Issue 25113, 1 March 1944, Page 4

CIVIL AVIATION

DANGEROUS PATH AHEAD SHOULD BE ON TRUE INTERNATIONAL BASIS (Itec. noon.) RUGBY, Feb. 29. During the air debate in the House of Commons Mr F. G. Bowles (Lab.) moved a resolution stressing the importance of civil aviation in the post-war world. "It should not be regarded as a bargaining point between nations; but placed on a basis of full international co-operation," he said. " The Labour Party recognises with enthusiasm the joint declaration by Australia and New Zealand in January that the Labour Governments of Australia and New Zealand, with the Labour Party in Britain, will.after the war form a large nucleus standing for the principle of interna-, tionalism in civil aviation." Mr R. M. Hughes (Lab.) said that if civil aviation were left in private hands it would lead &> war. Shipping companies were asking for a share in civil aviation. Why should they be given it? Shipping companies were not Fikely to encourage air development if it took the cream of their traffic. Civil aviation should be separated from the Air Ministry.. Captain Wright (Unionist), referring to the suggestion of suspicion on the part of the Dominions of British in T tentions in post-war civil aviation, asked if this were not due to the old fear that playing 'with the Mother Coun-, try meant once more coming under its domination. The Government should make it-clear that Britain's desire was to work as one great unit, with everybody equal partners. Air bases all over the world should be open to all on a reciprocal basis. Flight-lieutenant Teeling (Unionist) said that if the Labour.Party was going to decry the future of aviation as its speakers had done in the debate, it was not going to get the support of Britain's young men and women. They would not be attracted by the kind of internationalism which Labour favoured. Britain's young pilots were looking forward to an opportunity of jobs in civil aviation all over the world. Mr Quentin Hogg (Unionist) said that the Labour Party had now produced a restrictive policy, not a policy of development. It persistently refused any development of civil aviation unless it strictly confirmed to its own dectrinal approach; That was a policy of bedlam—not a policy of idealism, but a policy of fantasy. The debate was closed.'