asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on future supersonic projects for the British aircraft industry.

I think that we must at this stage concentrate on making a success of Concorde.

I agree with the Minister in that profound statement, but could he say what research is going on for the next stage, that is, research into hypersonic flight?

Very little at the present moment.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a state- ment on future subsonic projects for the British aircraft industry.

I take the Question to apply to civil projects. The Government are not responsible for finding projects for the industry; the initiative lies with the manufacturers. But I am prepared to consider any applications for Government launching aid.

What is being done by the industry to develop short take-off and landing aircraft, primarily in order to avoid congestion on the short air traffic routes?

Several studies are in progress both in my Department and in the industry. We hope to be able to study these thoroughly in the next few weeks, but I do not think that there is much prospect of a project which will go into development in the near future.

Do these studies involve other European countries at present?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is the total of Government expenditure incurred since 1945 on civil aviation that failed to produce a commercial product.

If the hon. Member is referring to aircraft which have failed to achieve any sales, about £40 million.

I thank the Minister for that reply. It is rather less than I thought it would be. But will he agree that what the aircraft industry requires today is a secure future based on feasible projects and that the recent cuts which the Government have made in the projected programmes of the British aircraft industry do not give much hope for that kind of prospect in the foreseeable future?

Of course, the ideal would be a steady stream of viable projects. The hon. Gentleman refers to cuts. That is a rather odd way of describing a refusal to support with launching aid a project in relation to which there was a rival project of the same nature in which a British aircraft company was involved.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make another statement on the progress of the Concorde programme.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on Wednesday, 18th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 1212–5.]

What is the right hon. Gentleman's latest estimate of the cost of development of Concorde? Will he undertake that he will give no further authorisation for the purchase or production of parts or components until a decision is finally taken on this aircraft, and may we know when that is likely to be?

The total estimate is still the same as the figure I gave in my earlier statement, £825 million. As regards authorisations in the future, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a matter for joint decision between my French colleague and myself. We very much hope that by the time we come to the major review in March we shall be in a position to make firm decisions.

Could my right hon. Friend say anything about operating Concorde over the United States, and whether we are likely to be given clearance for that?

My hon. Friend speaks of operating over the United States. I think that there is very little—

I meant to the United States.

To the United States, yes. There is the problem of the noise restrictions which are the subject of discussion in the United States, and I am keeping in close touch with how they are going. They could affect the issue very much indeed.

As the Minister has said, and we all know, we are approaching a moment of decision-making on Concorde of immense significance for the aircraft industry and, in particular, as it happens, for my constituency and his. Will he undertake that, before a decision on the future of Concorde is reached by the Government, the relevant figures and alternatives will be published so that the nation itself may have an opportunity of joining in the discussion before decisions are come to rather than after the Government have taken them?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the decision must be a Government decision. I think that a prolonged public discussion would not be in the interests of the enterprise.

My right hon. Friend knows that this aircraft is a winner. Will he undertake to do all in his power to see that we keep this lead in the aircraft industry?

I would only modify my hon. and gallant Friend's comment by saying that I hope very much that it is a winner. It must depend on the commercial potential as we are able to judge it in a few months time.

As airlines are being pressed to take firm commercial decisions, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what payload performance for Concorde has now been guaranteed?

The hon. Gentleman is a bit premature. We have not reached the stage at which the manufacturers are in a position to guarantee payload performance. We hope that we shall reach that stage when the full results of the tests have been evaluated, but that will not be for a month or two.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will now make a further statement on production funding for Concorde.

The manufacture of six production models of Concorde has been authorised and authority has also been given to the firms to order some materials for a further four aircraft.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that B.A.C. has serious overcapacity for production, with grave financial implications for the company? We cannot merely expect airlines to have a commercial judgment on the virtues of the project. We must also take into consideration the faith that the sponsoring Governments have in the worth-whileness of the air liner.

There has been no lack or loss of confidence by the Government. The question which we must consider is whether we should authorise further production finance now before we are in a position to assess the marketing potential.

Has the right hon. Gentleman an agreement with the French Government to carry the current rate of spending through to the middle of the year, or is there a break point in March that will make it necessary for him to reach a decision before the airlines may have had full time to assess the aircraft?

There is no break point in the sense meant by the right hon. Gentleman. I am meeting Monsieur Chamant on 2nd February, when I shall have further talks on this aspect before the March review.

In view of the importance of the Question which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) put about the Concorde's situation, could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when he is assessing the advice he receives from his officials and from B.O.A.C. he will judge it historically in the light of B.O.A.C.'s attitude towards other British aircraft since the war?

We must study the advice on the basis of the situation as it exists when that advice is given.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make an early flight in Concorde.

I hope to do so as soon as it can conveniently be arranged.

I am delighted to hear that. Is my right hon. Friend aware not only of the great morale boost that this will be to those employed on the manufacture of Concorde but equally, if not more important, the great show of the British Government's confidence that this will indicate to customers of Concorde who will shortly be placing their orders?

My hon. Friend flatters me unduly, but I thank him.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is the latest estimate of the cost of Concorde and whether he will now establish a ceiling above which such cost will not be met from public funds.

As regards the first part of this Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on 28th October, 1970. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No".—[Vol. 805, c. 193–196.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that an increasing volume of opinion fears that this might be the most expensive white elephant in British aviation history? How does he square his reply with the philosophy of the Conservative Party that everyone must stand on their own feet?

I cannot think of any more unwise course than to fix a purely arbitrary ceiling at this stage. As I have said on a number of occasions—I have always taken this view, as has the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—this stage would be the least sensible stage at which to consider cancelling Concorde.

In an earlier answer, my right hon. Friend referred to the figure of £800 million or thereabouts. Will he divide by half when he uses that figure so that the British people know that we are paying only £400 million and not £800 million?

I take note of that suggestion.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what discussions his Department has had with the British Aircraft Corporation and the French Government with a view to guaranteeing the manufacturers of the Concorde against loss in the event of unit production costs exceeding the estimates embodied in the selling price negotiated with airlines.

My Department has had a number of discussions with the manufacturers on the arrangements for the financing of production. These discussions are continuing. The French Government have been kept informed of these discussions.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say that these discussions do not include any consideration of the prospect of financing Concorde beyond the development phase, and in particular that there is no question of direct or indirect subsidy to production models for sale to the airlines?

I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's Question. These discussions refer to the production phase. We are not considering any form of subsidy or grant at that stage. What we are considering is the terms and conditions of the interest-bearing loans which were the basis on which the last Government proposed to finance Concorde. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, many factors have to be considered.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether Air France is submitting evidence to the French Government on Concorde? If it is, will he do his best to see that he has access to it?

That is my constant endeavour.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the attitude of both B.O.A.C. and Air France in taking up their options on Concorde is crucial? Would it be his policy to continue to subsidise Concorde directly or to expect B.O.A.C. and Air France to do so?

That is a question which must await the future.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) what is the estimated research and development cost of the Olympus engines for Concorde;

Nineteen bench and 44 flight development engines have been ordered under the Concorde development programme. Authority has also been given for the manufacture of the first 14 production engines. It would not be appropriate at this stage, for reasons of commercial confidence, for me to give the total estimated development cost of the Olympus 593.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the research and development cost is as it was estimated at the beginning of this project? If not, can he give some idea, even in percentage terms, of how much it has risen and whether the engine supply programme is on time?

I cannot say that the estimates have not risen since the outset of the arrangement. I cannot without notice give a percentage increase. As far as I know, the present development is on time but there are other modifications which have to be taken into account.

What percentage of this research and development cost is being spent on the reduction of lateral noise and smoke pollution? Can the right hon. Gentleman say where in this country the majority of these engines will be made?

I cannot give answers now to those supplementary questions. If the hon. Gentleman will put them down on the Order Paper I will endeavour to do so, but these costs are difficult to identify.

When can we expect the first flight of a Concorde with the modified engines?

I shall have to ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to commercial considerations. While accepting that, in certain circumstances, this may be a reason for not giving detailed figures, will he not be more explicit now, because there seems no obvious reason why figures should not be given without prejudice?

I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but the problem is that the figures contain certain contingencies, and I think that they are better not published.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the supply of heavy-lift helicopters to the Royal Air Force.

The Department has not been notified of any R.A.F. requirement for a heavy-lift helicopter. However, we have been notified of a possible requirement for some helicopters with a medium-lift capability. We are examining helicopters which might meet such a requirement.

Would not the operation and the efficiency of the Harrier squadrons be severely restricted unless there were some medium-lift or heavy-lift helicopters available to supply them at forward airfields? Can my hon. Friend say anything about the report about a form of exchange deal with the United States as against W.G.13s produced in this country?

My answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is, "No". The former part is an operational requirement question, and he should put it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what discussions he has had with European Governments for the joint production and procurement of vertical/short take-off landing aircraft.

None, but officials have been and continue to be in touch.

Is my hon. Friend aware that such aircraft may very well be the hope for the future of the aircraft industry, and that to develop them effectively is likely to be beyond the resources of any one nation State? Is he aware that consequently the only way to do this is in co-operation with the countries of Europe? Will he assure us that the spirit of the approach to the matter will be that co-operation is based on the effective sharing out of contracts and not merely on the basis of Buggins' turn and all parties getting as much money back from the project as they put into it?

My hon. Friend has raised a number of questions about the nature of international co-operation and I must answer in the compass of a short reply. I prefer to defer that until another time. With regard to joint ventures in V.T.O.L. or S.T.O.L. aircraft, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply said in answer to an earlier Question, we do not see any immediate likelihood of hard projects, but very much study work must be done.

Does the Minister recall his right hon. Friend saying on 4th December that there were various problems which must be sorted out? Can he indicate progress in that direction? Does not he accept that if the project is to be a European venture we should seek to have it funded internationally to carry the load?

Yes, Sir. All this is under consideration. Quite a lot of study work has been commissioned both domestically in the United Kingdom and by some European countries under the general auspices of European civil aviation. This progress must be achieved before we can talk of a project for hardware.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when my right hon. Friend replied to an earlier Question on short take-off and landing aircraft, he said that it was entirely a commercial matter for the aircraft firms? Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Question, which refers to European Governments, does not enter into the matter? Any co-operation is between firm and firm, regardless of whether we are in the Common Market or out of it.

With respect to my hon. Friend, although there is a lot of truth in what he says, the matter is not quite as simple as that. The operation of S.T.O.L. and particularly V.T.O.L. aircraft has considerable consequences for land and land use planning. Proper co-ordination involves Governments and local authorities, and there is little virtue in the manufacturers going ahead with their own projects.

On design discussions how does the Minister reconcile his Answer of "None" to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) with the "Yes, Sir" which I received to a supplementary question on Question No. 3? I thought that it was the same.

I thought that someone would pick that up. What the hon. Gentleman has not detected is the difference between formal discussions between Governments in a formal negotiating sense and, what is true, that officials have been in touch and are continuing to be in touch, exchanging information on the general parameters of these projects.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will now make a statement setting out the extent to which the Air Holdings orders for Lockheed 1011s were underwritten by Her Majesty's Government.

I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) on 13th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 78–79.]

How does that answer square with the assurances given by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to the French and Germans when we were considering entering the A300 project that there was no question of a British Government subsidy for an American competitor? Since there is such concern about the extent of public backing that will be necessary for the deal, has my right hon. Friend yet received the report from his accountants on Rolls-Royce's finances?

It would be simpler to put the first part of my hon. Friend's question to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The situation is that, if my hon. Friend defines the Air Holdings contract as a subsidy, which I am not sure that he can—

It is.

—I think that at the material time the Government were supporting the A300B. The accountants' investigation is very thorough and cannot be made very quickly. I do not expect the report for several weeks.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether Her Majesty's Government was a party to the contract between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed, under which Her Majesty's Government provided loan assistance to Rolls-Royce for the RB2-11 contract.

The Government are providing Rolls-Royce with launching aid to develop the RB211 for the Lockheed Tristar, but they were not a party to the contract between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed.

If the Government were not a party to the contract, is it not extraordinary that £47 million of public funds were made available for the completion of the contract?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government launching aid policy, which has been followed by successive Governments, has always kept the Government out of the contractual relationship between the engine manufacturer and the airframe manufacturer.

Is Rolls-Royce now applying for further money? If so, is any upper limit to be fixed?

The only information I have about that is what I read in the newspapers, and no one has told me anything of a different nature.

Did the Government know the terms of the contract before agreeing to lend the company £47 million?

I think that the Government must have known. Although it was long before my time, I think that that is so.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will now make a statement on the recapitalisation of Short Brothers and Harland.

Not yet, Sir. The reconstruction of the company is currently being considered. I will make a statement in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House hopes that he will be in a position to make that statement soon and that it will be of such kind that it will not be necessary for us to provide any further public money for this company?

I entirely share those sentiments.

Is there any intention of giving any restitution to Mr. Wrangham for the disgraceful treatment he had at the hands of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)?

No, Sir.

What is the difference between helping Rolls-Royce and helping Short Brothers and Harland?

That may be clearer if the hon. Gentleman will await the outcome of these considerations.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in expediting this decision, the importance to the employment situation in Northern Ireland of the work done at Shorts?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what research the Government is undertaking to reduce aircraft noise; and if he will make a statement on the results of research already undertaken.

We are spending £1¼ million a year on research towards quieter engines. Progress has been made in identifying sources of engine noise, the design of quieter components, and noise-attenuating techniques. The first results will show in the RB211.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many people feel that the reduction of noise levels in future aircraft is rather more important than going for continuously increasing speed, and that if that is possible, the public would like it?

I am sure that everyone connected with the development of future aircraft is aware of the increasing importance of reducing noise levels.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the political impact of this during election time? In my constituency, one cannot canvass when aircraft are overhead. It takes 50 per cent. of good canvassing time away. Will he look at the political implications of aircraft noise?

The operation of aircraft is a question for the Department of Trade and Industry. My responsibility concerns the development of new aircraft and any modifications which can be done to existing aircraft.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in general, approach paths to airports are over areas of dense population and take-off paths are over less densely populated areas, and that efforts should be put into research on noise emanating from the front end of the engine rather than that there should be too much concentration on the jet efflux at the rear?

There may be truth in what my hon. Friend says, but in fact many of the worse complaints which come in are about lateral noise which arises when aircraft are on the ground.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what progress has been made in the multi-rôle combat aircraft development programme; and if he will make a statement.

As I stated in reply to a Question on 18th November, the first major phase of development is now under way on a tripartite basis.—[Vol. 806, c. 1217.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this collaborative V.G. Project is, both operationally and industrially, the core of our long-term aircraft programme and has the most major implications for the future of advanced technology in this country and must be persevered with virtually at all costs?

I would share my hon. Friend's view, but I would not always accept the term "at all costs".

What are the latest unit cost estimates from Panavia?

That must be the subject of another Question and I doubt whether we have the answer yet.

Have these aircraft sufficient range for widespread use in the Royal Air Force?

That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make an official visit to the European Space Research Organisation, Nordwijk, Holland.

I have no present plans to visit the E.S.R.O. Establishment at Nordwijk.

Is it understood that, in the uncertainty surrounding their future, many of the best members of the staff are contemplating leaving?

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter on the Adjournment and I have nothing to add to what I said then.

In view of certain Continental doubts, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Government's general support for E.S.R.O. remains undiminished?

I would qualify that by saying "French" rather than "Continental" doubts. We have no intention of withdrawing the support which we have already been giving.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply how many redundancies have now been notified to him arising from the decision not to proceed with the BAC311; and what estimate is available of further reductions in employment in the aircraft industry during 1971.

B.A.C. has informed me of 870 redundancies following the decision not to proceed with the BAC311. It is not for me to anticipate the decisions of individual companies or to make my own forecasts of the level of employment, but I can say that I have received no indications from industry to suggest that there will be any major redundancies beyond those already announced during the rest of the year on present project expectations.

Bearing in mind the figures given the other day by Hawker-Siddeley, giving an estimate of expected redundancies of from 2,000 to 2,500 by next summer, and also the right hon. Gentleman's reply today to Question No. 3, does not he consider it the Government's duty to place before the House a clear statement of the shape of the aircraft industry as they see it now?

I do not think that anything would be gained by that at the moment. Perhaps later it might be possible.

If my right hon. Friend accedes to this request to publish a paper on the aircraft industry, particularly the BAC311, will he do his best to stress the part which the Rolls-Royce situation has played in setting the present atmosphere, which has resulted in the Government feeling themselves unable to go ahead with the 311, a decision which many of us feel is disastrous for the British aircraft industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but they refer to a hypothetical situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that redundancies are gathering pace in the aircraft industry and that this is very worrying to those who work in it and is having the effect that highly skilled personnel are leaving? It is very difficult to recruit the right type of people to an industry when such redundancies are taking place.

I appreciate all those factors, and we take them seriously into account. But the question of overcapacity in the aircraft industry is not confined to the United Kingdom or to Europe but extends to America as well.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply why he authorised the transfer of the training of pilots belonging to the British Overseas Airways Corporation and other airlines from Stansted to Thurleigh before he had ascertained the noise contours of the many villages likely to be affected in north Bedfordshire.

Noise contours would have added little to our knowledge of the problem. The increase in disturbance relates to the extension of the airfield's operating hours rather than to the noise levels of individual aircraft. None of the B.O.A.C. aircraft produces highe-noise levels than the types of aircraft currently using the airfield.

Surely my right hon. Friend could have attempted to work out the noise contours before he reached his decision? Surely he is sacrificing the public to administrative convenience.

There is no administrative inconvenience about it. As I have explained, these flights are of exactly the same type as have been undertaken from that airfield for many years. It is an extension and therefore the investigation my hon. Friend has in mind would not have helped in any way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—indeed, is my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) aware—that the airlines already have enormously high costs which they bear in going many hundreds of miles for local training? Many airlines, notably B.O.A.C., are doing no conversion training anywhere near either Bedford or Stansted, and my constituents living near Stansted are grateful to my right hon. Friend for helping to share this burden of noise from essential training around the country.

That is a factor one has to take into account. The plain fact is that no one wants this noise, but there is some merit in trying to spread it more fairly and evenly as time goes on.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply why, since the movements at Thurleigh are expected reach 40,000 in June, 1972, roughly equivalent to those at Stansted today, he did not take steps to ascertain public opinion at an earlier stage before authorising the transfer of the noise burden involved in the training of pilots for airlines from Stansted to Thurleigh.

The extended use of Thurleigh for training flights does not involve the introduction of a new activity, but only an increase in a type of flying already undertaken there.

Surely the Minister must realise that the local authorities should have been consulted on this matter in the first instance because it must lead to an intensification of the noise involved in asymetric flying. Why did he not consult them? Is he not aware that Bedfordshire expressed the view that if the proposal were to be carried through, the environment would be seriously affected?

My experience in these matters is that no local authority will do anything other than resist any increase in noise. This is a marginal increase, and I have set up a consultative committee between officials of the R.A.E., Bedford, and the local authorities, and I undertake to my hon. Friend to watch their proceedings and to see that their representations are considered.

Does the Minister agree that the trouble lies in the short notice given to everybody concerned about this intention? Is there not some danger—indeed something has already appeared in the Press to this affect—that these training flights will be extended to other airlines? Therefore, is there not some ground for apprehension locally? Perhaps the situation might have been made easier if everybody concerned had been told in good time, instead of at a few days' notice.

I note my hon. Friend's comments. I do not entirely agree with them, but I am keeping an eye on the extent to which this use would be further intensified in future.