asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, in view of the development of a twin engine helicopter, what consideration will be given to the possibility of a helicopter passenger station over the Charing Cross railway station, because of that site's several advantages in a built-up area.

The Interdepartmental Helicopter Committee reached the conclusion in their recently published Report that initially commercial helicopter services should be introduced on cross-country routes and not on routes radiating from London where transport services are already highly developed. While, therefore, the selection of sites for rotor stations in the Central London area is not so urgent a problem, I should be glad to discuss a site at Charing Cross with my hon. Friend.

If I send to my hon. Friend plans and explanatory matter as the result of much hard work and study of a special helicopter drome at Charing Cross or nearby, would he see that they are given careful consideration?

I have a great respect for my hon. Friend's energy and imagination in this matter, and I will look into any plans which he sends along.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the railway services to the provincial cities are still very much worse than they were before the war, and that if such a scheme were put into operation it would mean a considerable saving in time for foreign visitors wishing to visit provincial industrial areas, for example, the British Industries Fair at Birmingham?.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire for first priority, but I think that some of the right hon. Gentleman's Scottish colleagues might wish for first priority to be given to their areas.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the more London traffic increases, the greater will be the traffic jams, which makes the need for my hon. Friend's scheme all the more necessary?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that opportunities for a new helicopter service between Birmingham and London, which are our two main cities——

We are now dealing with Charing Cross, which is rather different from Birmingham.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement with regard to the chartered air services between Yeadon and London.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what plans are in hand to arrange an air service from the West Riding of Yorkshire to London in the near future; and when this service is likely to open.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to replace the air services between London and Leeds—Bradford, Manchester, Blackpool, and Liverpool, formerly provided by the Lancashire Aircraft Corporation.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware of the decision of his Area Transport Advisory Council which has caused the suspension of the London—Leeds—Bradford air service; and if he will take steps to restore this, the only air service between London and Yorkshire.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement upon his refusal to grant the necessary authorisation or licence for a sufficient number of years to permit the commercial running of charter air services from Yeadon (Leeds—Bradford) Airport and Northolt.

On the recommendation of the Air Transport Advisory Council, my noble Friend, in January, approved applications from the Lancashire Aircraft Corporation to operate associate services between Northolt and the various places mentioned for varying periods up to five years. In April, my noble Friend was informed that this company had decided not to operate any of the services so authorised unless they were granted five-year agreements on all the routes. The-Air Transport Advisory Council will, of course, consider any further applications for these routes but it seems unlikely that another private company can now provide sufficient resources to operate the services in question this year. The question of the services being operated next year, either separately or as part of an integrated network, is being examined.

Is the Minister aware that on the information available to me from the Lancashire Aircraft Corporation they were only too ready to operate the service if a five-year agreement could be provided as any lesser period would not allow them to get a reasonable return for their capital outlay? His decision means, in effect, that some of these services are left without any connection at all. This is very keenly felt in the Leeds and Bradford area.

I am well aware of the information from the Lancashire Aircraft Corporation. I appreciate their difficulty, and we are intending to discuss these matters with that Corporation in the very near future.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is now no link by air between London and Yorkshire, and that the West Riding service was used by industrialists and West Riding Members of Parliament? Will he be good enough to receive a deputation, so that we can put before him the case for granting a five-year lease for a service between Leeds and London?

Speaking for myself, and, I am sure, for my noble Friend, we would be glad to receive a deputation. I would point out that there is often a very big gap between the rather vague estimates of traffic capacity put forward by Members of the House and the actual revenue received by the operating companies, and that it is because this particular company do not think that it is a profitable route that they are not operating this year.

If application is made to operate a service from Yeadon to London for a period of five years, would the hon. Gentleman agree to the granting of a licence for that purpose?

That is so. Permission has already been given to operate this service.

For five years?

Yes.

Is the hon. Gentleman not misleading the House? The company are not refusing to operate the routes on the ground that they are not profitable in the general sense, but because they cannot purchase aircraft to use for only two or three years; they must have some guarantee of continuity.

I am not misleading the House. Permission to operate the service for five years was granted.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps he proposes to take in order to give effect to the recommendation of the Air Transport Advisory Council in their report of 8th February, 1951, that the public should not be denied the benefit of air travel on cross-country routes.

I have nothing at present to add to the statement which my noble Friend issued with the report.

Does the Minister not realise that this means that cross-country air services are in a very unsatisfactory state and that companies, contrary to the statement which he made in this House earlier, cannot re-equip their fleets in a period of five years unless they have remunerative as well as unremunerative routes?

I appreciate that. If we give the remunerative routes to one set of operators, we are obviously taking them away from another set of operators, and someone has to bear the uneconomic burden. The question is who should bear that burden.

In view of the promise made by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor that cross-country routes would be added to considerably when air transport was nationalised, can he say what has happened to that promise, since Errol Aerodrome has now become a speedway track and no use is made of it for flying?

I would like to see that Question on the Order Paper before I give the information for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks. Ninety-seven associate agreements have been granted this year and they are pretty well all in respect of these so-called cross country routes. We ought not to underestimate the progress that has been made.

I beg to give notice that if there is time before a change of Government, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what representations he has received from the airways corporations or the charter companies that the requirements for the new first-class civil R/T and W/T licence are so strict that difficulty is being experienced in engaging sufficient men with this qualification to meet all demands.

I have received no representations in the sense indicated. I should perhaps add that a small number of radio operators were recently granted a short extension of their old type licences to enable them to complete their examinations for the new licence.

Will the Minister re-examine the qualifications required for the new licence? My information is that only about one-third of the number of radio operators who held the previous licence have been able to qualify for the new one.

I was looking at the qualifications this morning. If the hon. Gentleman, who has some experience in these matters, can tell me which of the requirements he thinks is unnecessarily high I shall be glad to look into the matter again.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (1) what requirements as to compulsory insurance have to be complied with by passenger-carrying civil aircraft before licence to operate is granted;

(2) whether the passengers in the aircraft of Fairflight Limited which crashed at Llandow, Glamorganshire, were fully covered by insurance.

An operator's liability towards the passengers carried in his aircraft is governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, which gives effect to the Warsaw Convention, 1929. Under the terms of the Act an operator engaged on an international journey, as defined in the Convention, has absolute liability in respect of death or injury to passengers. He is not, however, required to cover this legal liability by insurance. The Act does not at present apply to non-international flights, and an operator can, in his contract of carriage, disclaim any liability towards his passengers on such a flight. In the case of the Llandow accident, the extent of the operator's liability turns mainly on the question whether the flight between Dublin and Cardiff should be treated as international or non-international. This is a question which, in the last resort, the courts must decide.

Am I to understand from my hon. Friend's reply that passengers on such flights as this are not protected by insurance in the way that a motorist has to protect his passengers by insurance?

The passengers take the ticket under the terms of the contract at the time. In some cases there is cover and in others not.

Is not this a matter of general public interest, which ought to be looked at again? In so far as charter companies and public carriers by aeroplane, are, as I take it, relieved of the obligation to pay reasonable com- pensation to passengers, does that not conflict with the practice of other carrying companies in this country?

There seems to be some confusion. They are not relieved of any obligation; they have an obligation. The only question here is whether there should be a compulsory requirement to insure. All these operators do, in fact, insure.

Where a firm is unable to meet the compensation liabilities and may go bankrupt, is it not unjust that the families of those killed in an accident should have no compensation because there is no legal requirement for insurance?

I think there is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says although, in practice, it does not work out that way. As I said, in regard to this accident there is a very difficult problem to solve. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would like to give an opinion on the point I mentioned. As for the wider point, I agree that there is an unsatisfactory feature, and we are considering it now.

In view of the seriousness of this question and so that we may have further information about it, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first convenient opportunity.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the estimated cost of the damage to buildings, stores and equipment, caused by the recent fire at London Airport; whether such losses were fully covered by insurance; and in what sums were the damaged spare parts insured.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the total cost of the damage. The building, which is the property of His Majesty's Government, is fully covered by commercial insurance taken out by British Overseas Airways Corporation as tenants. Insurance of the stores and equipment belonging to B.O.A.C. is a matter of management for the Corporation, but I understand that items of fixed equipment destroyed were insured in the open market while the risks on the other contents were borne by the Corporation.

Is the hon. Gentleman yet able to say what was the cause of the fire which led to these losses, and will he deny the suggestion that it was the result of sabotage?

The investigations are not yet complete.

Does not the information which the hon. Gentleman has just given conflict with what he said last week? Has he any idea whether the value of the spares which were not insured was about £500,000?

What I said last week was that I understood that the equipment was insured. What I have said today is that items of fixed equipment were insured in the open market. Therefore, there is not such a contradiction as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Did not the Minister say that the spares were not insured? Has he any idea whether the value was about £500,000?

No, Sir.

Are not the security arrangements at London Airport the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and not that of the Corporation? Is he aware that the arrangements are at present totally unrealistic and inadequate?

It is always possible to spend more money on security arrangements. Whether they are totally inadequate or not is another matter. I agree that they should be re-examined, and they are being re-examined.

Last week the hon. Gentleman was asked not about the fixed equipment but the stores and equipment and whether that was insured, and he informed the House that it was insured. Should he not at least apologise for his error?

I do not think that any apology is called for. I was asked in a supplementary question last week if I thought that the equipment was insured. What I said was that I understood the equipment was insured. I am now telling the House that fixed equipment was insured in the open market and that spares—the moveable equipment—the value of which I am unaware, were covered by the internal arrangements of the Corporation.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to give further information as to the disposal of the Solents.

All that I can add to the information given to my hon. Friend on 21st March is that two Solents have been sold under the arrangements stated.

Is my hon. Friend aware that two-thirds of the spares of the Solents have been sold to an organisation known as the International Air Sales Corporation and that the Corporation will be able to hold up to ransom any future purchaser of the Solents so far as the spares are concerned? Would it not have been in the interests of the taxpayer if the Ministry's agent had sold the spares directly to the public, instead of to the Corporation?

I am not aware of that fact, although I know that my hon. Friend is usually very well informed in these matters. I will look into the matter which he has raised.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in view of the consultations that have taken place between his Department and British Overseas Airways Corporation, and his consent having been obtained in ordering through the Ministry of Supply the new fleet of 14 Comet aircraft, what mark of Comet has been ordered.

Of the 14 aircraft ordered, nine will be Ghost Comets and the remainder will be Avon Comets to a specification still to be finalised.

Has my hon. Friend received from B.O.A.C. any calculations to show conclusively that these aircraft will be capable of operating profitably on the longer sections of the routes? Since this matter will show up sooner or later in operation, can the information be published?

I should have thought that the answer to the second part of that supplementary question would have been "No, Sir." As to the first part, as the hon. Gentleman knows, trials are now bing carried out.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if, in view of the investigation made by him into alleged dismissals from the British Overseas Airways Corporation, he has any information to give.

British Overseas Airways Corporation have issued a statement which shows that the allegations of my hon. Friend that the two employees, to whom he refers, had been dismissed because they had communicated with a Member of Parliament, are without foundation. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will circulate this statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I must also point out that, contrary to the statement made by my hon. Friend, the comprehensive review by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the organisation and activities of International Aeradio Limited did not "admit" nor "prove" the complaints lodged by him from August, 1947. I also disclaim the statement of my hon. Friend that he had been informed that there was "no hope of justice being done" in this case. What, in fact, my predecessor stated in November, 1949, and I confirmed in June, 1950, was that if these employees wished to appeal against their discharge they should do so through the proper Appeals Machinery provided by the Corporation.

Will my hon. Friend make his statement quite clear? Does he mean to say that there was no evidence to suggest that International Aeradio, Limited, was in some measure inefficient? If he had obtained some information and evidence from the two ex-employees at the same time as he obtained the information from the officials of the Corporation and his Department, does he not think that his observations would have been a little different?

A very careful investigation was made at the time, which was, I believe, at the end of 1948 and in 1949, and the report said that the charges made by my hon. Friend were not justified.

Will my hon. Friend use his influence with the Government to have set up a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, so that it can be studied by an independent body?

That is for the House to decide, I should have thought. With respect to my hon. Friend, whose sincerity of purpose I do not dispute, I should have thought that it was as wrong to have an inquiry into every allegation he brings forward as it would be for the Government to resign every time they were requested to do so by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).