asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now state the total profit made by Ferranti Ltd. on the Bloodhound contract up to 31st March, 1961; and what profit would have been needed to secure a return of 10 per cent. per annum on the capital employed.

My Department has no right of access to the books of Ferranti Ltd. for the purpose of ascertaining the actual profit made by the firm. I do not, therefore, know what this was.

According to the best estimate I can make, it seems possible that the profit made on Bloodhound production for the Ministry of Aviation up to 31st March, 1961, was approximately £4·5 million. On the same basis of calculation, the profit to secure a return of 10 per cent. on capital employed would have been about £400,000.

Do I gather that the Minister is saying that, according to the best of his information, a reasonable return of profit—the figure of 10 per cent. on capital employed is reasonable—would have been £400,000 and the actual profit made was more than 10 times that amount?

On the figures as I estimate them—as I say, I have no knowledge—it looks as though £400,000 would have represented 10 per cent. on capital employed and as though the profit made may have been as much as £4½ million.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in computing the figure for overhead expenses incurred by Ferranti Ltd. on the Bloodhound contract, his Department disallowed trade subscriptions to the Aims of Industry organisation and similar bodies.

No, Sir. For the purpose of payment for supplies on contracts such as these, the contractor's overheads are expressed in the form of a percentage addition to the direct labour costs. This is based on the proportion which the contractor's general expenses bear to direct labour employed. In assessing this figure, we do not normally take account of individual items which, as in this case, would be too small to affect the final percentage.

How do we know that they are too small to affect the final percentage unless we are given an idea of what the final figure is? Is it not a fact that every accountant acting in this way examines items of this kind, and is it not right that the country should know whether or not subscriptions to organisations of this kind are paid for by the taxpayer so that the Conservative Party can benefit out of the taxpayer's payments?

There is, of course, a general examination of figures to see whether they are of a size which would affect the final percentage, but no purpose would be served by eliminating from the contractor's items general expenses which would not affect the percentage.

Will not the Minister agree that there is now so much public money, very rightly, being put into the aircraft industry that it would be a very good thing if he, when looking into the question of contracting, insisted upon a return being given to him of any public moneys to be used in this way?

The important thing is to make quite sure that we get a proper percentage. The object of the negotiations with the contractor is to agree an overhead rate, and this, naturally, involves some give and take. We do not want to waste time, have excessive effort or employ more people than necessary in looking into individual items; and not every small item can be identified as having in the outcome been specifically allowed or disallowed.

We recognise that Ferranti is probably the most efficient company in the world in this class of business, and, as a result of these contracts, I believe, it secured great export orders, but could my right hon. Friend assure the House that these extraordinary profits are not being repeated elsewhere in other contracts, and could he assure us that the other tiny items such as those raised in this Question do not affect the major one brought out in answer to Question No. 1?

We cannot go back to Question No. 1 now. I do not understand this process. A supplementary question can arise only out of the last answer.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether the report of the committee of inquiry, presided over by Sir John Lang, into the price charged by Messrs. Ferranti Limited for the Bloodhound missile, will be presented to the House.

Yes, Sir. It is intended to publish the report as a White Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report will be published? Secondly, as this firm has had a touch "touch" the tune of several million pounds, have negotiations been opened with a view to the return to the public of money improperly obtained? Will he assure us that no more contracts will be awarded to Ferranti's until the money has been refunded?

I am not in a position to say exactly when the report will be published. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me notice of the other questions.

asked the Minister of Aviation when the testing of missiles to be placed in the British Polaris submarines will commence.

The A3 missile, with which our Polaris submarines will be fitted, has been under test by the United States Navy for some time. Development is at an advanced stage and the missile is planned to enter service with the U.S. Navy later this year.

Can the Minister say whether the warheads and the firing mechanisms have been tested as well, because clearly the one goes with the other? If not, when does he anticipate testing them, in view of the test ban treaty?

The firing mechanisms have been tested repeatedly. I understand that the warheads, on the American side, were tested underground long ago. Our warheads are under development. There is no need for a positive test of the nuclear material to ensure that the system itself works. The detonation is quite distinct from the nuclear.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will publish in HANSARD figures showing the number of persons killed in accidents involving aircraft flown by British operators in each of last 10 years, to the latest convenient date; how many were killed in aircraft flown by publicly-owned Corporations and how many in aircraft operated for private profit; and if he will publish further figures relating the fatal accidents, in each category to the number of miles flown by publicly and privately-owned airlines.

As the Answer includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Without having seen these figures, but knowing their general trend from figures that have been released before, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that there is clearly a causal connection between the high accident rate and the inevitable pressures of the commercial motive?

There are reasons for all accidents happening, but we must not be misled by straight figures because there is such a variety of factors which go to make up accidents.

Is not the real problem that charter flying, which is done largely by the independent companies, is about 10 to 20 times more dangerous than flying with the Corporations? Is it not the case that the Government have completely failed to take steps to ensure that charter flying is made safer?

I disagree with the hon. Member's assessment because it must depend on the basis on which one calculates the ratio of danger. But clearly the highest accident point is take-off and landing, and it is true that charter flight aircraft make more take-offs and landings in relation to the whole than the scheduled flights.

We have been asking questions about this apparent frequency of accidents—[HON. MEMBERS "Question."] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been asking questions of this sort for quite a long while and that we have been getting much the same answer from him? What advance is being made in finding an answer which will satisfy all of us that accidents on the private lines are not more frequent than those on the public ones?

I am sure that the whole House is concerned about any accident which happens, whether it concerns a private company or public Corporation. We are doing all that we can. There is the Flight Safety Committee which studies all accidents and disseminates the

Would my hon. Friend agree that it is pretty disgraceful that these allegations should be made about charter companies which are subject to the same safety regulations as the Corporations? Is it not obvious that charter companies which operate with a full payload must, if unfortunately they have an accident, have a greater number of casualties than the other companies whose aircraft are flying half empty?

Those are two of the general factors which must always be taken into account. I urge the House to treat these bare figures with reserve, although I share the concern about them.

If we are not to believe or to take any notice of what the hon. Gentleman called the "straight" figures, which I take it are those which he will put in HANSARD, what are we to believe? Are statistics of no use at all?

I did not say that they were not to be believed, because they are figures which we are giving to the House. They are clearly to be believed. But all these things have to be weighted in assessment, and until all the factors are brought into account I think that we should treat these figures with reserve.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make available the evidence and argument on which he based his decision to reject the Air Transport Licensing Board's finding on the application by British Eagle for increased frequencies on the London-Scotland services.

The evidence and argument, which was heard in public by the Appeal Commissioner, is available in my Ministry if the hon. Member wishes to consult it. The Appeal Commissioner's report has also been published and I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

But that hardly answers the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not the case that the Air Transport Licensing Board gives very serious consideration to every application for operational rights at any airport and that these proceedings are held in public? When the Minister takes the very serious decision to reject a carefully considered applicatiton, why should he not make available to the public the reasons for his decision?

The Question asked me whether I would make available the evidence and the argument. The evidence and the argument, taken overall, are extremely bulky, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to come and see them I should be delighted if he would do so. The Appeal Commissioner's report is somewhat smaller, and this I would propose to send to him.

Mr. Rankin, Question No. 8.

Wake up.

Shut up. Question No. 8.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make it a condition of his acceptance of the recommendations of his Commissioner, in regard to British Eagle Airlines' application for increased frequencies on the London-Scotland service, that the service be operated from and to Prestwick Airport.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member's last remark was addressed to the Chair.

The Answer is, "No, Sir".

Owing to the interruptions on the benches opposite. I did not hear the Answer.

The Answer was, "No, Sir".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Minister aware that Prestwick Airport is in a rather difficult situation? Is it not the case that he is doing his best to help it? Does not he realise that here is one way in which he can help it—by directing this service to operate from Prestwick? If the right hon. Gentleman has the power to say that it can operate from Renfrew, surely equally he has power to say that it could operate from Prestwick.

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Prestwick should become the normal domestic airport for Glasgow—

No.

—that is an entirely separate question. British Eagle wishes to operate from Glasgow and therefore that is the operating point in respect of which it applied for a licence. It has been given a licence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public would appreciate a more frequent service on other routes by British Eagle? Will he do his best to make that possible?

I will certainly take into account what my hon. and learned Friend says, but that is a rather different question.

asked the Minister of Aviation what requirements he laid down, when approving the extension of British Eagle Airways services to Scotland, regarding the application of adequate safeguards for passengers against accident risk.

These services are subject to the same safety requirements as apply to other air transport services.

When the Parliamentary Secretary says "other air transport services", does he mean that we should demand for private operators the same standards as we insist on for our publicly-owned airlines? Is he aware of the growing uneasiness, especially in Scotland, at the accident rate among private operators? Will he give an assurance that the standards insisted on will be similar to those demanded for B.E.A., for example?

We are here concerned with public transport aircraft, not private flying. A detailed and exacting code of safety regulations applies to all air transport operators in this country.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as stated in this House on 15th February, 1960, to concentrate Government orders for aircraft on the five major groups of the aircraft industry, except where specialised requirements or public policy make it necessary to do otherwise; and if he will give an assurance that the position of Short Brothers and Harland is still protected by the exception stated above.

The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's Question is "Yes, Sir".

Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the assurance which was given on that occasion will be honoured when the exact percentage of work which is to be sub-contracted to Shorts under the HS681 contract is being finalised by his Department?

I am not sure what is the implication of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. We have agreed that a substantial part of the 681 contract will be sub-contracted to Shorts.

May I help my right hon. Friend in underlining—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—is my right hon. Friend aware that the point of my previous supplementary question was to get an assurance that the undertaking that a substantial amount of work under the contract will be given to Shorts when the contract is fixed is fulfilled?

I would certainly hold to the term which I used—"substantial". I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the same definition of the term as I do when the decision is announced.

As Americans and Italians are making aircraft for the British Armed Forces, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will try to concentrate orders on the British aircraft industry in future?

This has always been our policy. I remember being taken to task by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) not so very long ago for not buying American transports.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to give effect to the Estimates Committee's recommendations relating to the placing of Government aircraft orders.

The recommendations in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on transport aircraft are being considered. We shall send our views on them to the Committee as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of several debates on aviation and defence, there has been no announcement of any aircraft projects, including particularly such projects as the replacement of the Shackleton, and that the Committee on Estimates recommended that there should be better forward planning if redundancy was to be avoided in the aircraft industry?

It is true that the Shackleton has been a versatile aircraft capable of a certain amount of transport work, but it can hardly be regarded as a transport aircraft in itself. We are doing our best to forecast transport development as far ahead as possible, but all foreseeable requirements are met up to the middle of the next decade.

Is the Minister aware that those of us who are keen that the British aircraft industry should be a great success are becoming more and more worried that, despite huge expenditure of public money, we are, apparently, not putting ourselves in a position to ensure that British products are bought and are the best for British aviation? Would the Minister agree that it is necessary to have far closer planning as between the fliers and the makers, with the Government taking a more active interest in what they can have than they are doing now? There seems to be growing in Britain a feeling that at the end of the day we have still not proved that we are getting value for money from the great public expenditure which is now entailed.

There is always room for improving the methods by which we approach these problems. The hon. Member would, however, be doing a disservice to the industry if he suggested that its condition is bad. I think on the contrary that it is extremely good, and the co-operation between industry, pilots and the Government is extremely close. No doubt there is room for improvement, but it would be a great disservice to suggest that the situatian is a bad one.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the forward planning of heavy strategic transport aircraft and that we have sufficient to meet our needs as far ahead as he has suggested?

I am in constant touch on this matter with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for Air. They seem satisfied that the requirements are being met.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether the decision to cancel the T188 aircraft programme was based on the failure of the aircraft to achieve its designed performance, or on a reassessment of need to investigate the use of steel in the construction of high-speed aircraft.

The reasons for the termination of the T188 programme were given in answer to the hon. Member's Question of 2nd March.

Will the Minister confirm that the total cost of the T188 programme was £30 million? Can he say whether equally important information might not have been achieved by the use of our existing supersonic aircraft such as the Lightning, which flies at a speed greater than that achieved by the T188? Further, what plans do the Government have for continued research in hypersonic flight now that this programme has been discontinued?

The hon. Member's figures are quite wrong. The sum spent so far on the project is nothing like as much as £30 million. [HON MEMBERS: "What is it?"] More of the order of £20 million. A good deal of research is being carried out in the direction of hypersonic flight. We could not have got anything like the same experience from the Lightning. The metallurgy of the T188 has been very important and during its construction we have met a number of problems much greater than those involved in a conventional development programme. To expose these problems has been one of the main objects of our research.

asked the Minister of Aviation if, in view of new evidence pointing to the risks of wide-cut gasoline, JP4, as an aviation fuel, he will propose to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that the use of this fuel should be banned by international agreement.

The attention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has already been drawn to the British report of 1962 on the subject. Studies of more recent evidence are in hand in the United States. When we have the results we shall consider a further approach.

Is it not now virtually certain that the Pan American 707 which was struck by lightning over Maryland on 8th December crashed as a direct result of using this more dangerous fuel? Has the Parliamentary Secretary noticed the suggestion which has been made by Mr. Rickard that we should allow licences to foreign operators flying into this country only if they are prepared to use the safer fuel? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this would be a good thing considering that our air Corporations, which use kerosene, are at an economic disadvantage compared with the foreign operators who use JP4?

That is a slightly wider question. The accident to which the hon. Member referred, at Elkton in the United States, in December, is under investigation. It is not yet established—here one must be a little cautious—that kerosene would have been any safer in that accident.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will take steps to expedite the commencement of work on new aircraft construction under contracts and subcontracts which have been awarded to Short Bros. and Harland so that temporary redundancies may be avoided and a steady flow of work maintained.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware of the impending redundancies at the works of Short Brothers and Harland at Belfast; and what action he is taking to prevent them.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that one-half of the employees of Short Brothers and Harland will be redundant by 1966; and what is his estimate of the size of their labour force in 1970.

I would refer to the statement which I made during the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on 19th March. My Department is considering what additional work might be obtained by the company and what action can be taken to reduce the difficulties foreseen.

With a view to placing further work with the company, in view of the undertaking to which reference has been made, will my right hon. Friend consider, if the price difference is small—10 per cent. or less—placing the work where there is most social necessity for it?

This is something that we have already done in the case of the VC10 for the Royal Air Force and the sub-contracting on the HS681.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware of the disquiet of the Bristol, Lulsgate, Airport Committee concerning the hazard to aircraft approaching the airport caused by the erection of the mast 1,624 feet high in close proximity to the aerodrome; if he will re-examine the position in the light of the weather conditions at the airport; and if he will receive a deputation from the committee on this matter.

In considering the proposal by the British Broadcasting Corporation to erect this mast all relevant factors, including weather conditions at Lulsgate Airport were taken into account. My Department decided that the proposal did not offend against the internationally accepted criteria which govern the safeguarding of airfields. I am satisfied that this view is correct. I am, after Question Time, meeting a deputation of hon. Members and local representatives about this.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to meet a deputation this afternoon to discuss the matter. When he discusses it with the deputation, will he bear in mind that the Bristol local authority and the chamber of commerce have used very strong language in condemning the erection of this mast, 1,650 ft. high, within six miles of the aerodrome? The Minister's own Department has said that it may not be the right thing and that it may be undesirable to have a mast so near to the airport. Will the Minister consider this matter when he meets the deputation this afternoon?

I hope that the hon. Member will be present. If he is not, I will certainly bear that in mind.

asked the Minister of Aviation on what date he received a communication from the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions concerning the aircraft industry; what was the nature of this communication; what was his reply; and whether he will make a statement.

I am circulating copies of the correspondence in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is it not the case that this important body has rightly asked for the resignation of the Minister? As this is a wonderful suggestion, will the Minister undertake to act upon it?

No, Sir. I assure the hon. Member that I have rejected that suggestion from the body of men he has in mind. The grounds on which they argued that I might adopt it were entirely mistaken.

asked the Minister of Aviation what decision has been made about the number of Scandinavian Airlines' flights to be allowed through Prestwick Airport.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now make a statement on the further negotiations which have taken place with Scandinavian Air Services on the question of landings at Prestwick.

The matter is still under consideration.

Before coming to a final decision, will the Minister bear in mind that there is considerable concern in Scotland about this matter and a strong feeling that the Minister has neglected the effects of his original proposals on Scotland's air communications with Scandinavia, quite apart from the question of the connection between Prestwick and the United States? Will he bear this in mind and ensure that by his decision on this matter he does not prejudice air communications between Scotland and Scandinavia?

I assure the hon. Member that I have not neglected that aspect. I am quite satisfied that my proposals would not interfere with communications between Scotland and Scandinavia.

How long is it likely to be before the Minister comes to a decision in this matter? Surely, he is aware that the Scandinavian Governments have intervened with the Foreign Secretary and that the Foreign Secretary is also now considering it. Is the Minister aware that during this interval, disquiet in Prestwick is steadily growing?

The best negotiations, as the hon. Member will be aware, are carried out with patience.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, as I imagine he is, that there is indeed, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has just said, great anxiety in Scotland at these proposed reductions in S.A.S. flights to and through Prestwick—not particularly over the damage to S.A.S. but over the damage to Prestwick Airport itself and also to the air industry in Scotland generally?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have naturally taken all these aspects very much into consideration. I am directly responsible for the operation of Prestwick Airport and it is a point of first consideration in my mind, but I believe that the proposals we have put forward are in the best interests of British aviation taken as a whole.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an impression that Prestwick is being used as a pawn in some sort of battle between Britain and Scandinavia over things which are not connected with Prestwick, and that this is regarded as an extremely dangerous game from the point of view of the future prosperity of Prestwick? Would he explain just exactly why Prestwick must be used as a target in this battle?

Yes, indeed, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to help me in dispelling any misapprehension of this kind. What has been happening is that S.A.S. flights have been picking up a great deal of the traffic from Scotland and carrying it to the United States—traffic which might otherwise have gone by B.O.A.C. I am sure that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman and his friends north of the Border would want to see would be subsidising S.A.S. at the expense of B.O.A.C.

asked the Minister of Aviation what representations he has received from Kirkcaldy Town Council regarding the proposed restrictions on Scandinavian Air Services at Prestwick; and what was the nature of his reply.

I received, and duly acknowledged, a letter from the Town Clerk informing me that the Kirkcaldy Council supported the representations that had been made to me by the Prestwick Town Council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two local authorities in my constituency have protested about the proposed restriction on S.A.S. services and that this reflects grave disquiet and resentment among the population of Scotland as a whole about his decision? How does he square a previous Answer—that his decision was taken in the best interests of British Aviation with a view to protecting B.O.A.C.—with the granting of additional facilities to British Eagle to compete with B.E.A. on the Edinburgh and Glasgow services? Will he take into account the enormous trading and commercial interests of Scandinavian countries in Scotland? Is he aware that the Prime Minister told me yesterday that he was giving further consideration to this problem? Will he consult the Prime Minister about this?

I think that the simple answer is that both British Eagle and B.O.A.C. are British airlines and that, therefore, the best interests of British aviation are served by promoting all the different British aviation efforts. The hon. Gentleman and, perhaps the town clerk, are under the misapprehension to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred earlier, when I expressed the hope that he would help dispel it north of the Border.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the enormous amount of national capital invested in Prestwick? Is he not aware that, right across Scotland, there is grave disquiet? Will he consider coming to Prestwick to find out things on the spot?

I am hoping to visit it shortly, but I am under no misapprehension about the amount of national capital invested in it.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is also aware of the amount of national feeling involved. Will he consult his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and get from him the reports of the various delegations of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been to see the Parliamentary Secretary to express their concern about the well-being of Scotland as a whole and the particular interest of the area of the country in which Prestwick lies?

It is kind of the hon. Member to suggest that I should consult my hon. Friend, but we are already in very close touch.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no suggestion of restricting the "fifth freedom" rights of S.A.S. to fly routes between Prestwick and Scandinavia? Is not he concerned only with the through flights between Scandinavia and the United States which pick up passengers in Scotland? Is not B.O.A.C. perfectly capable of providing all the seats which might be needed by passengers wishing to fly from Scotland to the United States or vice versa?

The hon. Gentleman has expressed the position accurately. We have no wish to restrict in any way flights between Scotland and Scandinavia. Our only objection is to S.A.S. taking more than its fair share of passengers flying from Scotland to the United States and vice versa. The rights which S.A.S. has enjoyed in Prestwick were originally conceded in the period when aircraft were not able to fly direct from Scandinavia to the United States without breaking the journey. The situation has now changed and S.A.S. is exploiting a market which should naturally go to B.O.A.C.

asked the Minister of Aviation what has been the number of Britannia aircraft sold by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

British Overseas Airways Corporation informs us that it has so far disposed of seven Britannias.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if these aircraft which are being sold have a long and safe flying life ahead of them that is a case for their retention by B.O.A.C., and if this is so, does not this represent a hidden subsidy from the nationalised airlines to private airline companies?

B.O.A.C. sells them when it wants to sell them.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, if these planes are serviceable and airworthy, they are not good enough for the nationalised industry to operate, but are good enough for private flying?

Because the nationalised Corporation in this case wishes to change over to other aircraft, for various reasons, and sells them to other airlines which wish to operate Britannias. It is a commercial matter.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to make more effective the safety standards applied to aircraft which are resold, following their use by the nationalised air Corporations.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will take steps to make more effective the safety standards applied to aircraft sold by the nationalised air Corporations to other operators; and if he will make a statement.

Under the existing legislation exactly the same safety standards apply for the continuing airworthiness of a transport aircraft, irrespective of whether it is operated by the Corporations or an independent operator.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many of these are bought by private airlines when they are approaching the end of what is termed their safe fatigue life? Is he further aware that the opinion is held throughout the industry that the private airlines are greatly inferior to the nationalised lines in the maintenance of craft and in their readiness to withdraw or divert machines from service? Will he not consider that this sort of thing needs examination, because there is growing disquiet throughout the industry that private lilies lag behind the nationalised lines in their readiness to divert and land at another field when landing conditions are hazardous at the intended airport? Is he aware of this? Will he give greater examination to this problem than appears to have been given to it by the Ministry in the past?

In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, if an accident occurs involving diversion of a flight it is subject to complete inquiry, and if it is abroad we take part in that inquiry, and give it very careful attention. As regards the last part of the supplementary question, all aircraft, whether they be Corporation aircraft or aircraft belonging to private airlines, have the same safety standards.

Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is a question of the planes being further advanced in what is called their safe fatigue life? It becomes more important for planes operating in hazardous geographical and weather conditions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is disquiet among pilots and aeronautical engineers about this. Would he start by making inquiries, with information relevant, with the Air Registration Board?

These things are constantly under study by the Air Registration Board itself.

asked the Minister of Aviation on what date the first delivery of Phantom II's will be made to the Royal Navy; and what is the expected date on which deliveries of this aircraft will be completed.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 18th March.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why he is so coy about this? For over a year now it has been dangled in front of the Royal Navy that it would get the P1154. Then at public expense and a great amount of publicity the right hon. Gentleman goes off to the United States and buys the Phantom II. Now he cannot tell us either when we shall get it or what the order is. When are we to be given some relevant information on this matter?

I should have thought the hon. Member would have been the first to wish us to study very carefully all the considerations before we order aircraft, whether foreign or, indeed, British. No commitment will be made until we are satisfied on the technical issues and the costs, and until we have negotiated a satisfactory Government-to-Government agreement.

In view of that reply, will my right hon. Friend strictly bear in mind the enormous psychological impact on the aircraft industry of the purchase of these Phantoms, and will he undertake and promise to the House that before any such contract is placed every possible avenue of employment in the aircraft industry will be scrutinised first?

We naturally consider the full implications of the Government's decisions, in particular to order the Phantom, on the aircraft industry, and we will see that every possible step is taken to alleviate any difficulties which may arise here. As I have said, there is no commitment yet.

There are very serious technical problems which have not been resolved in the case of the Phantom. Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that when I put a supplementary question a moment or two ago which seemed to annoy him it was precisely this kind of thing that I had in mind, that we are spending huge sums of money, but that when the crucial time comes when we have to make an order, whether for helicopters or the Phantoms, we have to go abroad for it? It is this kind of thing which causes apprehension in Britain.

There are indeed certain technical aspects of the Phantom solution which have not yet been resolved, and I can confirm this, that it will be some months before we are in a position to say whether they can be economically resolved or not. I was only taking the hon. Gentleman to task for running down the British aircraft industry.

Is it not a fact that a great deal of care was taken in trying to find a joint aircraft between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that this having failed it appeared that the best alternative to that was the Phantom airframe equipped with the Rolls-Royce Spey engine? If the difficulties can be overcome, is it not right that the Royal Navy should get the best aircraft available?

I would agree with my hon. Friend. The idea of a common aircraft proved to be impracticable. To have developed a special British naval aircraft as a Sea Vixen replacement would have been extremely expensive. If the technical difficulties can be overcome I have no doubt that the Phantom is the best solution. The fact that it will have a Rolls-Royce engine means at least that one-third of the cost is going to British industry, and it may well be that this will have helpful repercussions and consequences in the entire field.

One can understand the right hon. Gentleman being cautious in a matter of this kind, but how comes it that all these doubts and second thoughts were not made clear by the right hon. Gentleman when for political reasons he came here and made an announcement that he was going to get the Phantom II?

The hon. Member is quite wrong in saying that my right hon. Friend said what he said for political reasons. He needed to say we had a decision of intent before we could seriously embark on negotiations affecting both technical modifications and serious detailed discussions on estimates.

asked the Minister of Aviation what action he proposes to take on the report of a survey recently published by the Yorkshire Airport Development Association, a copy of which has been sent to him, making certain proposals on airport development in the North-East.

I agree with much of the report which confirms my Department's view that there is no case for a single regional airport for the North-East and Yorkshire Region. We are already assisting financially with the development of Woolsington and are taking over Middleton St. George from the Air Ministry for transfer to the local authorities. We shall be glad to help the local authorities at Hull—with whom we have already been in touch—in any planning or technical problems connected with the proposed civil development at Brough.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Press reports, obviously authoritative, confirming that there will be two more international airports in the South-East, or around London? Does he realise that the population of the South-East should not be further increased but that there should be a movement to the North? Well he give consideration to the provision of an international airport in Yorkshire?

That has already been considered and it does not fit into the pattern of aviation in this country.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how, if we are to have two more international airports within an hour of London, plus a Channel tunnel, we Northerners are to get to the South? Admittedly, I have never found anything worth coming south for except to attend this place but we have to go to and travel from London Airport. In the broad survey of the country's transport, is it not time that some attention was given to Yorkshire and the North-East?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard my Answer but mentioned, for the North-East, the development of Woolsington and Middleton St. George. There is also the improvement at Yeadon at the moment, and we are prepared to help Hull with any proposed civil airport developments and technical problems. A substantial effort is being made by the Government to improve communications with the North-East.

asked the Minister of Aviation what has been the financial loss sustained by the cancellation of projects concerned with missiles and aircraft since 1952.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 17th June, 1963, of which I am sending the right hon Member a copy.

I have not seen that Answer. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the total? Can he also say whether, since last June, there have been other cancellations of projects? Who is responsible for cancellations? Is it the Ministry? If so, are those responsible to be surcharged?

I have not got the total here. The figures are set out in a table which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see in the circulated statement. The decision is, of course, taken by the Government as a whole. I am aware of no cancellations since June.

If the right hon. Gentleman refers me to an Answer given previously, presumably he has that Answer before him. I am merely asking for the total amount. Has he not that in front of him?

The Answer does not give the total but lists each item. I would not wish to weary the House by counting up the sums listed.

Can my right hon. Friend give any comparison with the experiences of other countries regarding the cancellation of projects like this? Would not he agree that it is insufficient merely to consider cancellation of projects? Should we not also have regard to the value of our exports, the value to developments in other industries and also the value of all those projects—both missiles and aircraft—which are in service? Would not this give one a much more balanced account of the success of the British aviation industry?

The proportion of cancellations in this country has been considerably smaller than in the United States. When the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) asked for certain detailed information it never occurred to me that he was criticising cancellations. It is much better to begin projects and cancel some than not begin at all.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has not got the total sum with him and apparently cannot tot up the answer, would it help if I informed him that a simple tabulation by arithmetical methods gives a figure of £239 million?

The figures advanced by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the last aviation debate make me hesitate to accept his now.

Following the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), is it not the case that since last June we have had the cancellation of the T188 at a cost estimated at £20 million?

This is another typical example of the hon. Gentleman's characteristic tendency to misrepresent the facts. We have not cancelled T188. All we have done is to terminate the programme. [Laughter.] What we have done is to terminate the programme somewhat earlier than was previously foreseen, but not before we had learned very many lessons from it. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but there is no question of cancellation. Our decision has been based on the fact that further expenditure would not pay off. The expenditure so far incurred has given a reasonable return.

On a point of order. Might I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I might catch your eye on the Adjournment tomorrow to enable the right hon. Gentleman to give the full amount after he has inspected the details?

Yes. I have received notice. I can give no encouragement.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the possibilities of using the now disused American air base at Sculthorpe, Norfolk, for purposes in connection with civil aviation.

I understand that the future of Sculthorpe as a military airfield has still to be determined, so that it may be premature to be considering its possible civil rôle. However, I can say that it would have no place as a major intercontinental airport if Stansted is selected as the site for the third London Airport.

While I appreciate all the difficulties of using this base for civil aviation purposes, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the potential closing of the base is likely to have an enormous effect on the area and that the size and scope of the installations are vast and that it seems a great pity that some future profitable use cannot be found for them?

That is the very point which has not yet been decided, but if its use as a military airfield is discontinued it is up to the local authorities, in consultation with us, to consider its future use.

asked the Minister of Aviation what consideration he has given to having the McDonnell Phantom aircraft airframes manufactured under licence in the United Kingdom, instead of buying the airframes directly from the United States.

This is one of a number of issues which are currently under consideration in connection with the possible purchase of Phantom aircraft.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this order has been a heavy blow to the prestige, morale and well-being of the British aircraft industry? As it will involve the expenditure of between probably £100 million and £200 million, would not some of the economic effects be mitigated if it were made under licence?

As the hon. Gentleman is already aware, more than one-third of the total sum involved will be placed with Rolls-Royce. As I said, the question of assembly over here is one of the matters now being considered.

Will my right hon. Friend also consider the re-engining of this aircraft by the British aircraft industry?

It is to be engined by Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will set up a small committee to investigate Scotland's requirements in air transport over the next 10 years.

No, Sir. I do not think it is necessary to set up a special committee for this purpose.

Will not the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any plans for the industrial expansion of Scotland must be matched by provision for improved air facilities, better services within the United Kingdom and direct links with Europe, better tourist facilities and links with overseas countries? In the light of that, will he have an over-all look at the problems of Scotland and perhaps consider the possibility of setting up a Scottish air travel authority?

At present there are the Highland Transport Inquiry under Lord Cameron, which has made an investigation, the Committee of Inquiry into the Scottish Economy under Sir John Toothill, the Scottish Council, the Highland Transport Board and the Scottish Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation, all of which deal with this subject.

What are the considered views of the Minister of Aviation and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who received a report from B.E.A. a year ago about the Scottish internal services? Have they reached a decision on that matter yet?

That was a question of the Highlands and Islands. In the White Paper it is clearly stated that these internal services will be maintained as social services.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Toothill Report. Is he aware that it was made three years ago and condemned the rate of growth of air travel in Scotland as inadequate to the new needs of both industry and tourism? Will the hon. Gentleman read that Report and do something about it?

I was only saying that this was one of the reports studying the problem and that setting up a further small committee would not carry it much further.

asked the Minister of Aviation on what date the Lang Report will be published.

I cannot, at this stage, give a date for publication.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two months have elapsed since the Lang Committee was set up? We know that the Public Accounts Committee is considering this matter, but will the right hon. Gentleman now assure us that we can expect the Lang Committee to report at any rate within the next month?

As I said, I am not in a position to say what the date will be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the report will be published before the General Election?

Rightly or wrongly, it is not I who takes the decision about the election.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give further consideration to publishing the Corbett Report on the British Overseas Airways Corporation having regard to the recent disclosure of the contents of this Report to the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

No, Sir.

Has not this Report now received widespread unofficial circulation and even appeared in the Press? Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that his refusal to publish the Report is not influenced by the circumstances first that the Report contains no justification for his changes in the B.O.A.C. Board and, secondly, indicates that B.O.A.C. received some very improper Ministerial interference in its presentation of its accounts?

As I have said, I am not prepared to publish the Report and it would therefore be a waste of time of the House to try to discuss what its contents are.

asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to start building the Huntingdon by-pass.

The scheme will be considered for inclusion in the extension of the trunk road programme to 1968–69.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since I started pressing for this bypass more than eight years ago the congestion in Huntingdon has been getting worse and worse and that to have to wait another four or five years is a serious matter in a fast developing town? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to consider this matter again and make a further announcement about it at a later date?

What I can say is that naturally we will consider as sympathetically as we can including the scheme in the next extension of the rolling programme, but whether it succeeds in being included will depend on the competition from other similar schemes.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now approved the plans for the modernisation of the coaling staithes in the port of Hartlepool.

The British Transport Docks Board is still in discussion with the National Coal Board on the volume of coal likely to be shipped through the Hartlepools in the future. In consequence the plan for the modernisation of the coaling staithes has not yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend.

This was brought to the attention of the then noble Lord more than a year ago when he came to the North-East, when it was said that this was one of the items which would help to improve the port and thus increase communications and attract industry to the area. Why has nothing been done for so long?

My hon. and gallant Friend probably knows that the Docks Board has done a great deal of preparatory work on this, but before it can come to a final decision, it must know what the Coal Board's requirements are, and the Coal Board is now estimating the extent of its future shipment requirements throughout the whole of the North-East.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans the Docks Board has submitted to him for the future development of the port of Hartlepool.

I am advised that, apart from the scheme for new coal shipment facilities the Board has no plans at present for major developments.

Is it not high time that it did? Not so long ago it was turning away ships from the port because it did not have sufficient alongside berths or deep-water berths for unloading timber. Will my hon. Friend look into this again as a matter of urgency?

The Docks Board is looking into this, but it considers that present facilities are generally adequate for the immediate future, with the exception of the coal facilities which I have mentioned.

To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider the desirability of setting up a plaque in Westminster Hall in memory of Sir Thomas More.