asked the Minister of Aviation if he will propose an international agreement on the limitation of noise around airports and under the flight paths of aircraft.

Her Majesty's Government are taking an active part in the work of the international bodies now studying this question. The International Standards Organisation and the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development are engaged on fundamental research into the problem, and other aspects are regularly considered by the Western European Airport Authorities' Conference. This work will provide, I hope, a basis for an international convention in which Her Majesty's Government will participate through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, but it will take some time.

Whilst expressing appreciation of that answer and the information in it, may I ask whether the very serious nervous effects, particularly upon old people in residential areas near to airports, are not likely now to be increased by the permission which is to be given to jets to journey by night? Is it not very desirable that there should be the utmost pressure to secure not only international co-operation in research but the laying down of international minima for noise that is allowed to these aircraft?

Yes, Sir. We agree entirely that this noise is a nuisance. As I said in the recent debate, we are doing everything we can to mitigate and contain noise. We are working towards an international convention on this subject, but, as London Airport is one of the most difficult airports in the world at which to control this matter, it will take some time to arrive at a satistfactory agreement with all the other countries concerned.

Will the hon. Gentleman not lose sight of the question of noise from small light aircraft as well? Such an aircraft low down may cause more noise than a big, heavy aircraft high up. This is an important aspect which is often lost sight of.

We shall certainly not lose sight of that, but the main matter of concern at the moment is jet aircraft taking off and landing.

asked the Minister of Aviation what was the total of Exchequer assistance to the aircraft industry, including the development of new types of civil aircraft, during the last financial year; and what was the total Government subsidy to civil airports.

The expenditure in 1960–61 on assistance to the development and proving of transport aircraft was about £7¼ million. Expenditure in support of municipal airports was approximately £1·1 million.

Can my hon. Friend say whether these figures are likely to rise with the increasing cost of research, or will co-operation with European countries keep these amounts stable?

I am sorry that I cannot give predictions on that at the moment. We do receive something back from the support which we give to the aircraft industry, and during the year to which my hon. Friend's Question refers we had £2¼ million back, a sum we would expect to increase.

What was the total assistance, both military and civil, particularly as the civil programme is to 4 large extent dependent upon military expenditure? What was the total allocated to airports, and not only municipal airports?

I am sorry, but it is not possible to distinguish the figures for military and civil aircraft because, in many cases, an aircraft covers both purposes and it is our aim to try to harmonise the two uses. As regards airports in general, the figure for the cost of State airports, as distinct from municipal airports, during the year in question was £3·8 million.

Is the figure of 7½ million the total for the aircraft industry, or is the hon. Gentleman dividing it into civil and military?

No, Sir. The figure is not divided. It is the total figure.

asked the Minister of Aviation, whether, in the interest of safety, there is an age limit imposed on the use of aircraft owned and operated by air charter companies; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir; but the system of airworthiness, control includes annual examinations for airworthiness, annual performance checks for individual aircraft, and the setting of safe "lives" for parts of aircraft which are subject to fatigue. No recent accident to a British-operated aircraft has been attributed to failure of the aircraft itself.

Should not the question of the safe life of the whole aircraft now be considered? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there must be Dakotas which, in two or three years' time, will be 20 years old? Is there anything to stop an operator from buying a pre-war aircraft like an Imperial Airways Hannibal—if it could be found—and operating that commercially?

Very elaborate procedures are laid down for maintenance, and I should not like it to be thought that some of the older aircraft are less safe. Some of them have a very fine safety record. Probably the scientific and best method is to lay down definite "lives" for various parts and for maintenance procedures to see that those parts are replaced at regular intervals.

Would it not also be in the interests of safety if more and more people travelled by the nationalised airlines, whose safety standards are not exceeded by any airline in the world?

No, Sir. Safety standards are precisely the same for both independent and nationalised airlines.

asked the Minister of Aviation why his staff at Belfast air terminal refused to allow passengers travelling on Flights BE6017, 6025 and 6039 on Saturday 11th November to carry personally their own small and medium-sized baggage; and what warnings he gave to air travellers as to the nature of the baggage that could be carried.

Passengers leaving Belfast on 11th November were not stopped from carrying their own baggage, but there may have been a misunderstanding, which we regret, of the warning given to them that, owing to the strike at Heathrow, the airline was accepting hand baggage only. B.E.A. issued a Press Notice on Friday, 10th November, about the nature of the baggage it could accept.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the confused and conflicting Press and radio announcements caused great hardship to passengers, as it was not clear what could be carried? Is he further aware that his statement today as to the nature of the luggage which passengers on these flights were able to carry is incorrect? I will send him details from my constituents.

I shall be very glad to receive details from my hon. Friend. I repeat that we regret the misunderstanding. But what is baggage that can be carried or not varies for different people, and it was defined in a notice, finally issued on the Sunday morning, as a maximum of 22 lb.

Will my hon. Friend also take into consideration that the personnel at the airports have done extremely well in coping with the strike situation and enabling passengers to fly, at any rate on the domestic routes?

I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks will be appreciated.

In view of the criticism, will the hon. Member accept our congratulations on sending the men back to work with a higher settlement than the wage for which they originally struck?

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he has now reached a decision on the production of a supersonic airliner; and whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the aircraft industry and foreign Governments on this project.

Design studies are proceeding, but we have not yet reached the stage where a firm decision to go ahead with production could be taken. The possibilities of collaboration with other countries are being fully explored.

In view of the fairly authoritative statements which have appeared in the Press in the last week, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a decision has been taken that this project will be shared by the French and British industries? Is consultation going on about the relative costs to be borne by each country?

No. Sir. I do not think that I can confirm any statement that has appeared about supersonic aircraft in any section of the Press. The situation is as I have stated it. All the countries, as far as I know—and those which I know of include France, the United States and the United Kingdom—are in the design study stage, and none of them, either singly or collectively, has taken a decision to proceed with the production of an aircraft.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week a hyper-sonic aircraft flew at over 4,000 miles an hour? Is he further aware that if he does not get a move on quickly with a supersonic aircraft he will soon be out of date?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would find that one a little uncomfortable.

asked the Minister of Aviation what is his policy in regard to future operations at Hurn Airport.

The air services operated from Hurn are primarily a matter for the operators themselves, provided they can secure the necessary air service licences.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the advice which he has received about the transfer of operations from Southampton to Hurn? In view of the trend of traffic back to Southampton, will he look at the situation very carefully before any further expenditure at Hurn is incurred.

The question of where aircraft should operate from is now a matter for the Air Transport Licensing Board and not within the responsibility of the Minister. We are now planning new terminal buildings at Hurn, and, of course, they will be planned in relation to the expected traffic.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he has studied the Report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts for Session 1960–61 with particular reference to the criticism in paragraph 96 of his Department's action in granting to oil companies, without going to tender, fixed price leases guaranteed to 1991, irrespective of the amount of fuel sold or profit made; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Yes, Sir. The criticism relates to leases, negotiated some,, ears ago which provided for predetermined increases in rent at intervals during the earlier part of the term. Agreements already made cannot be altered unilaterally, but my Department will seek to relate rents of new leases directly to the growth of business.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these agreements were very strongly criticised by two Select Committees of the House in the last Session? While we welcome his belated statement that agreements entered into by the Government cannot be broken unilaterally, does he not think that there is a rather extraordinary contrast between agreements with these rich oil companies, who are able to carry on for 35 years without any revision of the agreements, and an agreement with £9-a-week airport employees, which is broken unilaterally by the Government without any further thought?

If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to inform himself, he will find that no agreement was broken in the case of the airport workers.

How came it that the right hon. Gentleman, or one of his predecessors, was so daft as to enter into these agreements? Can they really not be revised when by implication he admits that they ought now to be revised?

I would not suggest that a lease entered into by the Government ought to be torn up just because we think that we, or somebody else, might have arrived at a better agreement. There is substance in the suggestion that new agreements should be related to the volume of sales, and our agents are discussing that in the case of Prestwick.

The right hon. Gentleman advised me to inform myself before putting a question, but is he aware that I have fully informed myself on both the Public Accounts and the other Select Committee? Is he saying that there are no M-class employees at the airport when he says that no agreement has been broken? If there are any M-class employees at the airport, had he not better admit that an agreement has been broken?

The right hon. Gentleman is rather drawing this one in, but I assure him that no agreement was broken at London Airport, and I took the trouble to inform myself in detail.

asked the Minister of Aviation what orders he has placed for British vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

Limited orders have so far been placed for research and development purposes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this development we are way ahead of the rest of the world and that in all probability it will be adopted by N.A.T.O.? Does he not think that it is therefore worth while placing firm orders with our manufacturers for this machine so as to give R.A.F. personnel a chance of becoming acquainted with its operational utilisation, and also to stimulate the industry at a time when it needs it very badly?

I agree with the hon. Member that we are ahead of any other country in this development, but, as I informed him in an earlier reply, it is our intention to seek to develop the P.1127, which is a light reconnaissance vertical take-off aircraft, and we are hoping to do so in conjunction with the Germans. Discussions to that end are now going on.

Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to promote further research and development into the Short S.C.1 system for V.T.O.L. aircraft?

In the case of that aircraft, the Rolls-Royce vertical lift engine is being jointly developed by ourselves, the Germans and the French. It is just the typical joint development which makes sense in this type of project.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that while it may be right to make a joint development of this aircraft, vertical take-off aircraft are probably to be N.A.T.O.'s most important requirement of any type of aircraft? Will he pay great attention to this crucially important matter for the whole British industry?

Yes, Sir, certainly. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. I think that we are in a leading position, and I shall certainly do my best to see that we maintain it.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on his plans to develop a European space launcher.

A Convention for the establishment of a European satellite launcher development organisation was prepared at a conference held in London from 30th October to 3rd November. In addition to the United Kingdom, the following countries were represented at the conference: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and Spain. Observers representing Norway, Sweden and Switzerland were also present. The Convention has been sent to the Governments concerned for consideration.

At this stage, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that the European launcher development organisation does not propose to launch an operational satellite? If it does not propose to do it, can he say within his plans who is to do it?

I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman means by "operational satellite". The objective of this organisation would be to develop a launcher capable of putting satellites into orbit, and, in the process of that development project, it would put up a number of trial satellites.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any comment to make on the latest reported move of the United States to offer launchers for the use of European countries, with the result that both Italy and Germany have withdrawn from this organisation?

I have no information about Germany or Italy or anybody else withdrawing from this organisation. They have not joined it. At the moment we have agreed a convention. We have agreed the technical proposals. These have been circulated to relevant Governments, including those two, and we are hoping to have an answer from them before the end of the month.

asked the Minister of Aviation how many pilots, formerly employed by British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways, are now employed as pilots by commercial aircraft companies; if, with a view to ensuring maximum safety in civil aviation, he will ascertain and state how many of these were dismissed by the public corporations, or required to resign; and for what reasons they were so treated.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to the second part of his Question on 23rd October, 1961.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer was merely that the information was not available, so that it is not very helpful to refer me to it? While I entirely accept that pilots move from one job to another for all sorts of reasons, and that most of them are doing a first-rate job, whether for the Corporations or the companies, is it not rather disquieting if a pilot is sacked by a Corporation for sheer incompetence and then turns up a few weeks later in charge of a charter aircraft, as has happened in at least three cases? Is not that directly relevant to the general question of air safety?

If the hon. Member would like to send me particulars of individual cases, I will look at them. But I think that the House might take the view that we do not want to start a witch hunt, so that every time a pilot changes his employment he has a black mark against him.

Nobody said that.

A man may reasonably wish to change his employment. He may wish to get promotion to captain. It is not right in those circumstances to say that he should carry some blot upon his character.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out the information? Will he also find out how many independent charter airlines are running charter services and inclusive tours and bringing in part-time pilots and crews in the summer period, often from other jobs, to operate aircraft and equipment with which they are not conversant?

It would not serve a useful purpose to criticise British aviation in quite such sweeping terms. In point of fact, with the full approval of the House, we lay down the most stringent rules about the testing of every pilot, whether he flies for the Corporations or the independent airlines, and the tests are precisely the same for both.

Is it not a fact that every pilot is licensed by the Ministry of Aviation to fly particular types of aircraft and is not allowed to fly other aircraft unless he undertakes proper conversion which is properly checked, and that every pilot is medically tested twice a year by medical officers qualified to carry out these tests?

I think that our British pilots are the equal of any pilots in the world today.

rose—

Order. There are a number of Questions still to be answered. We really must get on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay you further, but may I seek your guidance on a matter arising out of the Minister's answer to me? He used a customary formula in asking me to send him particulars of individual cases. Am I right in believing—and I think I am, because I have taken the advice of the authorities of the House in respect of another case—that I am not protected against a possible action for defamation in a case like, this, since the decision of the House on the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)?

I will look at that. I would rather not say anything about it straight off. I do not at present think that there is an exact parallel, but I would rather like to see how right the hon. Member is.

Mr. Speaker, this is a question to which you ought to direct yourself. Due to the case to which my hon. Friend referred, Ministers have many times stated that they wish particulars to be sent to them, being fully conversant with the rule that Members cannot do that because of qualified privilege. It is therefore very hard on these occasions to have the inquiries which we many times request.

I have said that I will look at the matter.