asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement with regard to the proposal that a site at Boldon, County Durham, should be earmarked for a civil airfield.

My noble Friend is now satisfied that, with the development of civil aviation, there may well be a need in the future for an international airport to serve the north-east area and that Boldon is the best site for that purpose. Although, for economic reasons, there is no prospect of building this airport in the near future, the site will be safeguarded against any surface development which might prejudice its eventual use as an international airport.

While expressing pleasure at the satisfactory outcome of the representations made to the Minister from both sides of the House in this connection, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that to maintain employment on the north-east coast it is of urgent importance that we should be associated with every modern development? Will he take steps towards that end, so that in future we shall not be put into the position of having applied rather than negotiated?

We will bear that point in mind.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the accumulating evidence that seats facing the tail or an aeroplane afford a greater degree of safety to passengers, it is proposed to take any action, other than international recommendations, to introduce this safeguard for the benefit of those flying by British services.

British civil airworthiness requirements, just issued, include a recommendation that, where practicable, passenger seats should face aft. My noble Friend is considering, in the light of recent experience and in consultation with the airline corporations, the need for further action.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will take steps to prevent the dumping of pit refuse on the land to be used for future extention of the runways at Prestwick Airport.

Yes, Sir, as soon as an alternative site can be found. Meanwhile, the mining of the coal must continue.

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that he has no power to stop the dumping of refuse on runways at an airport for which his Ministry is responsible? It will only cost the country further money to remove it later.

I have no information that this refuse is being dumped on runways that we are using. I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have no power to prevent dumping on the site which is being used at present for that purpose.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for how long he proposes to continue to operate the existing Standard Beam Approach installation at Bovingdon; what is the estimated cost of removing it; and what would be the additional annual maintenance charge for keeping it in service.

No date has yet been determined for the withdrawal of Standard Beam Approach from Bovingdon. It will be available there for a period sufficient to enable operators to equip their aircraft with instrument landing system airborne receivers. Its removal would cost less than £20; the estimated annual cost of its maintenance is £800.

In view of the very high cost of installing the alternative system, will he consider trying to keep this old service, which is perfectly useful?

Certainly not. We have been pressed from all sides of the House, and it is an international requirement that this new system should be installed.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the decision not to proceed with the Princess Flying Boat for commercial operation.

Owing to the rapid progress which has been made in the development of the Comet it is now thought likely that the Comet will be better adapted for the needs of civil aviation than the larger flying boats, and accordingly it has been decided that British Overseas Airways Corporation shall not introduce these boats into service However, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air said yesterday, the use of the Princess flying boats as military transports is being favourably considered. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply needs the boats for development and experimental purposes, and many lessons of great value to aeronautical science will be learnt from them.

Are not these three aircraft the latest addition to what is regarded as an impressive collection of white elephants?

These three aircraft will perform very useful service in the interests of the nation.

Is it not a fact that the operation of the flying boats on the African route during the last period of operation by the B.O.A.C. was. in fact, profitable?

That is not quite accurate, and in any case it has nothing to do with the statement mentioned in the Question which we are now considering.

Which Departmental Vote will bear the cost of developing these flying boats?

It depends upon the eventual user.

Does my hon. Friend recall that he has several times indicated that when these boats come into commission they will be based on Southampton? Can he give a further assurance in that respect?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the possible use by the Royal Air Force he should put his question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Does not the statement show that high executives of the B.O.A.C. have very little knowledge of business, since they ought to have made up their minds on this matter two years ago? Will the hon. Gentleman try to instil some knowledge of business methods into them?

There are considerations which apply now which did not apply two years ago.

How is the cost being met up to date?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be tragic to lose the "know-how" of making these big flying boats? Unless the Government give proper encouragement is there not a danger of losing this "know-how"?

We have given very considerable encouragement, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are already talking about the financial cost.