asked the Minister of Aviation if the cost of modifying the Fairey Delta 2 and of the subsequent flight test programme to be undertaken by the Royal Aircraft Establishment is to be shared by the British and French Governments in view of its direct application to the Concord programme; and if the money for this work is included in the original estimate of £150 million for development of the Concord

No, Sir. The modification of the Fairey Delta 2—now designated BAC.221—was undertaken in 1959 as part of our general research programme on supersonic flight. The aircraft was designed for research on problems associated with slender delta wings and was not directed to specific aircraft applications. It is contributing valuable information to the Concord programme, but it is not part of that programme and its costs are therefore not appropriate to it.

Is the Minister aware that the Press release by the British Aircraft Corporation said that this work would be directly applicable to the Concord programme? Could he say what the cost of modifying the 221 was and how much other expenditure has been incurred on work connected with the Concord programme which has not been shared evenly by the British and French Governments? If the amount is as extensive as I think it is, does it not indicate that it was a rather unequal bargain?

No, I do not think so. A great deal of work done on both sides of the Channel which contributes to the programme has application to it but it not a direct part of it, but I should like to have notice of the specific points raised by the hon. Member.

Has not the Estimates Committee already criticised the Minister quite strongly for not sharing with the French the expense of the supersonic transport? Would it not be appropriate in this case if he made sure that we shared these expenses?

My reading of the Estimates Committee Report is quite different from that of the hon. Member. I do not think it criticised us for not sharing the expense on the supersonic transport. It is quite plain that all expenses directly applicable to Concord are being shared on a fifty-fifty basis. There may well be a considerable area of research in both countries which has a bearing on this but which is not a direct part of the programme.

asked the Minister of Aviation what aerodromes listed in the United Kingdom Air Pilot have been closed to private flying over the last three years.

Apart from small landing strips—used only for holiday joy rides—there have, during the last three years, been nine deletions from the list in the Air Pilot of aerodromes available for civil fliers. Of these, three have been or are being replaced and two military airfields may soon be re-opened as civil aerodromes. During the same period, there have been 15 additions to the list of aerodromes available for civil fliers. I am arranging for the details to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since 1939 no fewer than 14 airfields used for private flying and business flying have been closed in the vicinity of London alone? Is this fate likely to overtake aerodromes at Booker and White Waltham?

I do not know about White Waltham, but certainly we hope that Booker airfield will be developed as a civil aerodrome.

asked the Minister of Aviation what is the average time taken between the formulation of a requirement for a new aircraft and the aircraft coming into service with the Royal Air Force.

The times taken for typical aircraft now in service have ranged from 4½ years to 10½ years according to the nature of the requirement.

What is the Government's policy with respect to formulating requirements sufficiently far in advance that aircraft will be in service to meet the transport, and particularly the strategic transport, requirements of our Armed Forces?

The Staffs try to look as far ahead as they can. Most of our transport requirements are met by adaptations from the civil field The freighting side is rather different, because civil freighting has not developed as far as many people had hoped. As my hon. Friend knows, both the Belfast and the HS 681 are being developed on a purely military basis.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give the number of persons at present employed by Short Brothers and Harland; and what is the average number he estimates will be employed by the firm in each of the next five years.

The number at present employed is about 7,300. As to the future level of employment, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made during the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on 19th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable apprehension in the firm about a serious run-down of employment in three or four years' time? What steps is he taking to place further orders with Short Bros. in order to prevent this run-down of employment and to maintain a balanced design and production unit in Northern Ireland?

I am, of course, aware of the different statements which have been made. It was my impression that the firm had gone back somewhat on one of the statements made which had caused some despondency. I stand by the earlier statement which I made that the figure of employment will not fall, we think, much below 6,000 for the rest of the decade.

Could the Minister be a little more specific in telling us what he means by "much below 6,000"?

I should not like to be pressed into exact detail, but I should have thought within a few hundreds of 6,000.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a growing feeling in England, which I share, that it is time that the industrial parts of England received attention from the Government in matters of this kind?

I fully see what the hon. Member means, but Northern Ireland has a very serious unemployment problem.

So has Scotland.

The Northern Ireland problem is perhaps the most serious in the Kingdom at the moment, and we must pay some attention to it, even if it involves certain sacrifices.

Order. When the general conversation in the House has reached an end, I will call Mr. Pounder to ask the next Question.

the Minister of Aviation if he will give a general direction to British European Airways, in the public interest, to provide buses of about 20-seater capacity to connect with British European Airways domestic flights which will leave for the city terminal approximately five minutes after the flight arrival for the convenience of passengers travelling with cabin luggage only.

No, Sir; the timing of these services and the type of vehicle used are management matters for which British European Airways are responsible.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that at London Airport, in particular, there is often a delay of 15 to 20 minutes between the arrival of the flight and the departure of the coach for the city terminus? Is he not aware that this is due to the time taken for luggage collection? Is he not aware that normally it takes two coaches to meet the requirements of each of these domestic flights? Will he consider using one of them for business men travelling with hand luggage only?

Both these are questions of management for the airline and not questions on which I could agree to give a general direction, which is the subject of the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give a general direction, in the public: interest, to the Air Corporations to provide nonsmoking accommodation on buses running between airports and air terminals.

No, Sir. This is a matter within the Corporations' own sphere of judgment and responsibility.

As my hon. Friend probably has a good deal of influence with the Corporations, will he not ask them to realise that before or after an air journey is about the last possible time that a non-smoker wants to be alongside a pipe, cigar or cigarette?

My influence is probably no more than my hon. Friend's influence. B.E.A. certainly pay attention to the trends of public opinion in these matters. I can tell my hon. Friend that B.E.A. will shortly be having double-decker buses going out to the airport, and perhaps they might consider having the top deck for smokers and the bottom deck for non-smokers.

Is the hon. Member aware that there is support in this matter from at least one hon. Member on this side of the House?

More than one.

I said at least one. Is he aware that the public demand should be impressed upon the mind of the managements concerned?

The Question raised in the House today and the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Snow) will make an impression upon the minds of B.E.A.

May I take it from what the Minister said that he is sympathetic to the idea that some attention ought to be paid to the non-smoker as well as the undeserved attention which is paid to the smoker? As he knows, I have tried on many occasions to get non-smoking arrangements on aircraft. Those attempts have been turned down. Does he hope to be more successful in his efforts to impress on B.E.A. the need to provide non-smoking accommodation at least on the buses?

The second part of the supplementary question raises another question. I am always sympathetic with opinions of this nature expressed in the House.

asked the Minister of Aviation (1) what approval he has given for compensation to be paid for the cancellation of VC 10 aircraft by British Overseas Airways Corporation to the British Aircraft Corporation; and what is the amount per aircraft;

asked the Minister of Aviation how many VC 10 aircraft British Overseas Airways Corporation now propose to take out of the original order of 45.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on the future VC 10 requirements of the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

asked the Minister of Aviation (1) if he will consult the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to diverting some of the 42 VC l0s ordered by the British Overseas Airways Corporation to the Royal Air Force;

asked the Minister of Aviation how many VC 10 aircraft will now be required by the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and what financial arrangements will be made with regard to VC 10 aircraft ordered in excess of the Corporation's requirement.

I have nothing to add to the Written Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) on 13th May.

Is the Minister aware that the reply which he gave before the Recess was quite inadequate in that all he said was that he was giving consideration to the Question? Is he prepared to deny that the original order which B.O.A.C. made for the VC 10 is being substantially reduced, and that the original order was made as a result of Ministerial direction? Arising out of this, what responsibility does the Minister accept for compensation to be paid to the manufacturers who are losing the order received originally from B.O.A.C.? Will he answer Question No. 8 on liability?

The hon. Member is anticipating a number of matters. Had I been in a position either to confirm what he said or deny it, I should have done so. I have given the answer which I have given because all this is still under consideration in the Corporation and is a matter of discussion between the Corporation and my Department.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Sir Giles Guthrie has undertaken a route study and that, as a result of that study, we shall know whether there is to be cancellation of some VC l0s or whether some of the Boeings will go? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will undertake to let the House know the contents of Sir Giles Guthrie's Report and that he will make a statement in the House about it, and that within it we shall know whether compensation is to be paid and how many VC l0s are being laid off, in order that we may judge whether the compensation is fair?

The hon. Member has asked a number of questions. Plainly we shall have to tell not only the House but the Corporation what Sir Giles intends. This is something which I shall have to tell the House when we deal with the accumulated deficit. But I hope to be able to make a statement well before that.

In these circumstances, is it not the case that we shall possibly be denied the opportunity of discussing the matter at all in this Parliament? Was that one of the elements entering into the consideration which the Minister has given to this matter—that this is the last Question Time when he will be top of the list before this Parliament ends?

I am told that it is not the last occasion. It is possible that this consideration enters into the hon. Member's mind, but it does not enter into mine. Apart from that, I naturally wish, as I am sure does Sir Giles Guthrie, at the first opportunity to tell the House, the Corporation and the country what is intended.

When the Minister talks about telling the House at an early opportunity, will he give the House an assurance that he will make a full statement upon all the issues involved before the House rises for the August Recess? Will he then be able to tell us what consultations he has had with the Minister of Defence with respect to transferring some of these aircraft to the Royal Air Force, and other matters which I have raised in my Question?

The hon. Member realises that it is not my task to decide the policy of the Corporation in these matters. I have to receive a recommendation from the Corporation. I hope that I shall be able to make a fairly early statement about it, but there are a number of considerations, some industrial, some affecting the Corporation, which the Government will want to consider in detail. Defence matters may be raised, as the hon. Member said. I cannot give an undertaking on when I shall make the statement, but I should like to make it as soon as possible, because there are a number of seriously interested parties who want to know.

While appreciating that my right hon. Friend will need time to come to the right conclusion in this matter, can he in the meantime say whether or not the Government directed B.O.A.C. to order the number it ordered? This should be cleared up. In view of the importance of this whole matter, will my right hon. Friend consult the Leader of the House with a view to making a special statement, or perhaps having a short debate, because many millions of pounds are involved and this is a matter of debating a policy?

I should have thought that we will be debating the questions and answers put by the Estimates Committee on Transport Aircraft—

Answer the question.

This is the answer. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked whether I might arrange for a short debate to be held. That was the main point of his question and I was dealing with it first. I was saying that I should have thought that in the normal course of events, through the usual channels—although this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rather than for me—the House would be likely to debate the position generally on the Report of the Estimates Committee on Transport Aircraft. That would enable hon. Members to discuss the whole question of Government policy and any suggestion of pressure, although I would deny that there had been any direct pressure.

Will the Minister say whether or not an opportunity will occur for him to make a statement before the Summer Recess and that when Sir Giles reports to him that Report will be published in full and not as a bowdlerised version of it?

I could not possibly give that assurance, because I do not know what that Report will contain or what sections of it Sir Giles will wish to keep confidential.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he approved the cancellation of three VC10 aircraft, at a cost of £600,000, out of the original order of 45 by British Overseas Airways Corporation.

In 1961 British Overseas Airways Corporation decided to alter the proportion of Standard and Super VC10 aircraft on order. At this time, with the agreement of the Ministry, it negotiated the cancellation of three standard aircraft in order to comply with my precedessor's stipulation that the estimated cost of the whole order should not be increased.

If, as I understand from the Minister's reply, the cost of cancellation in this case was £200,000 per aircraft, what credit is to be attached to the report that the figure being considered for cancellation in the new circumstances is £1½ million per aircraft, or seven times as much? Does not this question relate directly to the question which his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) asked about pressure being put to increase the number of aircraft ordered by B.O.A.C.?

It is not my job to comment on reports in the Press about matters which are discussed between others. Even if I were a party to them, they are still very far from firm.

asked the Minister of Aviation why British Overseas Airways Corporation ordered 20 more VC10 aircraft than their first estimate; and why an option for 10 aircraft was made into a binding contract.

B.O.A.C.'s order in 1957 was for 35 Standard VC 10s. This was related to its estimated future requirements for southern and eastern routes. In 1960 it exercised an option to order 10 Super VC l0s for its transatlantic routes. To improve operating flexibility, these orders were revised in 1961 to 12 Standard and 30 modified Super VC 10s.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that because he refused permission for B.O.A.C. to buy Boeing 707s but tied the Corporation to the VC 10 programme, which has now fallen into confusion and disarray as a result of the incompetence and incompetent handling of himself and those concerned with him, B.O.A.C. is now being compelled to use aircraft which it would normally be grounding—this at a time when the traffic figures of B.O.A.C. have enormously increased and the load factor is now 60 per cent. greater than a year ago? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the sooner he makes his long-delayed statement on the subject of aircraft procurement the better it will be for B.O.A.C., and when will he make that statement?

I said earlier that I hoped to make a statement as early as possible, but I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to stand here and give the impression that he was backing American aircraft against British aircraft. I am sure that he would not wish to give that impression.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to provide for the payment of compensation to holidaymakers who are involved in aircraft accidents.

The Carriage by Air Acts, 1932 to 1962, already provide for the payment of such compensation.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this does not go far enough, because an increasing number of aircraft are being pushed into service during the holiday period which places strains and stresses not only on aircraft personnel but on the aircraft themselves? Does he not agree that the people operating this highly lucrative industry should have greater responsibility to the people they are transporting?

If the hon. Member is referring to the travel agents who organise this, then if they have a contractual relationship as principal with the passenger they, of course, have a liability.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the requirements relating to the educational qualifications of applicants for posts in his Department, with particular reference to the distinction he makes between candidates who have passed the 0 level in Scotland and the General Certificate of Education examination in England to the detriment of the former.

Recruitment for the general service classes and Departmental grades in the Ministry of Aviation is generally carried out through the Civil Service Commission. Particulars of the educational qualifications required in each competition are given in the relevant competition regulations. I am satisfied that there is no discrimination between candidates who have passed the O level in Scotland and those who have passed the General Certificate of Education in England.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember the case of the educated young Scottish lady about whom I wrote to him recently, a person who was suitable in every way for a post in his Department but who was rejected? Does he deny that she was rejected because she was Scottish and not English, and will he give up this racial discrimination?

:The is no racial discrimination in this, unless it be that the applicant had a number of 0 levels but did not have a pass in English, which she had to have.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will have the words "Northolt" and "Heathrow" painted on the tops of the gasholders near Northolt and London Airports so as to avoid confusion and possible accidents arising from the use of runway 26 at Northolt instead of runway 23 at Heathrow.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion and I am glad to say that the North Thames Gas Board is now painting distinguishing markings on the gasholders near Northolt and Heathrow Airports so that pilots of aircraft approaching Runway 26 at Northolt and Runway 23 at Heathrow shall not confuse them. A flight check has shown that marking on the sides of the gasholders are likely to be more effective than on the tops and that abbreviations of the names of the respective airports are more suitable than the names in full.

Will my hon. Friend express appreciation to the North Thames Gas Board for this, because it seems that this will get over the difficulty of pilots, such as the American Boeing pilot and the Lufthansa pilot, mistaking Northolt for Heathrow?

I am grateful for those observations.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the findings of the internal working party which was appointed to review the functions, methods of working, organisation and staffing of the Directorate of Technical Costs, and which has now reported.

This working party has not yet reported.

While the working party is considering these questions, has the Minister got nothing to say about the fact that people in the Technical Costs Department start at £712 per year and that less than half a dozen among the 300 employed in that Department have an engineering qualification? Does he not consider this an urgent enough matter on which to make a decision now?

Although the hon. Member's observations might form part of a separate Question, it would, in any case, be inappropriate for me to deal with pay and salary scales and similar matters until we have received the report of the working party and, preferably, also the report of Sir John Lang.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive those two reports?

I cannot give a date when I will receive the internal departmental report. That is a departmental matter. There is a Question down about the Lang report with which I shall be dealing presently.

asked the Minister of Aviation what profits have accrued to British Overseas Airways Corporation as a result of their agreement with the Cunard Company.

B.O.A.C.'s accounts for 1962ߝ63 show that from the inception of the company in June, 1962 to March, 1963, B.O.A.C.-Cunard Ltd. lost just over £1 million, of which B.O.A.C.'s share was £744,000. Although the accounts for 1963ߝ4 are not yet available, B.O.A.C. tells me that the results will show a marked improvement.

The information we now have is that there will be a considerable profit during the current year. If that is so, can the right hon. Gentleman say how it will be divided? Is it within the agreement that shareholders of Cunard will receive dividends from the profits made by B.O.A.C.-Cunard, despite the fact that B.O.A.C., as such, is still many millions of £s in the red; in other words, that the nationalised sector will carry very heavy capital debts while shareholders from Cunard are bound to be given dividends as a result of the agreement?

Losses or profits are shared between B.O.A.C. and Cunard in proportion to the capital invested by each in the company. Cunard has shared in the losses with B.O.A.C. over the last year; if there are profits, it will share the profits.

I do not think the Minister understands the point. B.O.A.C. still carries a very heavy debt—the right hon. Gentleman has refused to write off £80 million. Within this, we have a small segment of B.O.A.C. that will be profitable. Do I take it that while B.O.A.C. still has to write off deficits B.O.A.C.-Cunard can pay dividends, or has to pay dividends, if there is a profit shown on the B.O.A.C.-Cunard side of the arrangement?

That will be so, of course, but I am sure that the hon. Member would not want to question that. For example, B.O.A.C. has a number of other associated agreements with Cathay Pacific and others. If those were to be individually profitable, the hon. Gentleman would not wish those companies not to be paid a dividend because B.O.A.C. was not making a profit.

Should not one take a broad view of these matters? The fact that this joint enterprise is now showing a profit may to some extent be due to the organisation of Cunard in North America, which is throwing its weight into the sales organisation.

I have no doubt that Cunard has helped considerably on the sales side and, by rationalising the competition previously existing, both associates have been made conjointly more successful than they would be in rivalry. Some of the associated companies have not been so successful, as I had to explain in the debate last autumn, but when we have a successful association, I should have thought that that the House would have been pleased about it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the difference between rationalising competition and eliminating it?

Answer.

Of course I shall answer. It is a perfectly understood principle of economic operation that very often economic forces join together for the development of a particular market against intensive foreign competition.

asked the Minister of Aviation how many types of aircraft employ British designed and built vertical take-off engines.

Apart from helicopters, four existing aircraft types are fitted with vertical take-off and landing engines of British design and manufacture—the British SC1 and P1127, the French Balzac and the German VJ101c.

In view of those encouraging facts, and the fact that complete and developed aircraft are the best way of promoting sales, can my right hon. Friend say that every possible stop is being pulled out—to use commercial jargon—to get these aircraft into the air so that customers overseas can see them and, possibly, buy them?

Yes, indeed. The first four I mentioned are already flying—the SC1, the P1127, the Balzac and the VJ101c. Of these, the SC1, the Balzac and the German aeroplane are predominantly research aircraft. The P1127 could be an operational aircraft. The other three have not yet flown, but these will all feature one or other British vertical take-off techniques. I know of no vertical take-off technique of any other country that is being applied to any particular aeroplane.

Would not the export of vertical take-off aircraft have been encouraged if the right hon. Gentleman had not rejected the P1154 in favour of the American Phantom?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has specifically adopted the P1154 for the Royal Air Force. The only question that faced us was whether to develop a second version of the P1154 for the Royal Navy. To have done so would, on our best estimate, have added a formidable bill—over £100 million—to what would have to be spent if we bought from overseas the relatively small number of aircraft required. That is why we have been investigating the possibility of buying the Phantom aircraft from the United States to meet the Royal Navy, as distinct from the Royal Air Force, requirement. Tests on this are still going on, but the Royal Air Force requirement will be met by the P1154.

Can my right hon. Friend say what further research and development is being undertaken in this country into the Rolls-Royce multi-jet vertical take-off and landing system? is it not a shame that the "know-how" in this important field should be lost to French and German interests?

I do not think that the "know-how" is being lost. Apart from the British SC1, the German experimental Dornier 31 is the subject of a joint study which is being undertaken between Hawker Siddeley and Dornier with British engines. Our own view, which must be tentative at the moment, is that the Rolls-Royce concept is better suited to transport aircraft than to combat aircraft, where the minimisation of weight is the most important consideration.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the volume of aircraft, aero-engines, guided weapons and electronic equipment exported since 1959.

In the period 1959 to 1963, total exports of aircraft, aero-engines, guided weapons and parts of these equipments, together with complete electronic equipments, were valued at £840 million, or an annual average of £168 million. During this period, exports of aero-engines and parts of aircraft and engines slowed a substantial rise.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very fine achievement by the British Aircraft industry, and does he think that those figures could be sustained if our aircraft industry were nationalised? Further, what steps are the Government taking to deal with American competition in the N.A.T.O. countries, where more orders should be forthcoming?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that this is a creditable achievement. I think that it gives the lie to the persistent efforts of some hon. Members opposite to "knock" the efforts of tie British aircraft industry. We are doing our very best in N.A.T.O. and outside to support and encourage the export of British equipments. We face very serious competition, particularly from the United States We are doing our best to meet it, and meet it on the same terms

Can the Minister say who are the "hon Members opposite" who have been trying to "knock" the aircraft industry? Would he agree that in the years concerned in this Question there has been a rather disappointing response in the export of airframes—that, indeed, we owe a great deal to the export of aero engines and pay tribute to the firms concerned, but that if this complacent attitude towards airframes is to be adopted, when, in fact, exports are not increasing as they should, we cannot expect to get an adequate return on the great public expense incurred? As to nationalisation, to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) referred, perhaps the Minister can tell him that 75 per cent of the French aircraft industry, which has a far better export record than we have, is nationalised?

Am I to interpret the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question as an argument in favour of nationalisation? If so, I am grateful to him, and we shall proceed on the assumption that that is what he is maintaining. When the hon. Gentleman asks who has been "knocking" the industry, I would say that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) himself has been fairly prominent in doing this, and even more prominent—though he is not here at the moment, and I have not been able to give him notice that I would mention this—is the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who never stops knocking the TSR2 and every other serious project on which we embark. It would not, I think, be difficult to find a list of substantial quotations from other hon. Members opposite. The right hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself has probably prejudiced the export of a substantial amount of equipment, particularly in regard to the Buccaneer aeroplane.

Does the Minister realise that there is a great difference between criticising, as is our right and duty, doubtful aspects of Government policy and being accused of "knocking" the industry? Is he aware that if he talks to any leading manufacturer in the industry he will find that he himself is the man whom they regard as the one who has done the most damage?

Who says it? Who is he?

I am in pretty regular contact with the leaders of the industry. It is possible that they are very diplomatic because they are sure that we are going to win the next election, but they certainly do not speak in the kind of terms which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has suggested. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there could be and should be a difference between legitimate criticism and knocking, but I fail to notice the distinction in the spokesmen of the party opposite.

asked the Minister of Aviation what plans he has for the future development of Heathrow and Gatwick.

Our policy is to develop both airports to their fullest capacity. We reckon that a third airport for London will be required in the early 1970s. The plans for Heathrow involve the construction of piers from the passenger buildings, a second short-haul passenger terminal, a new freight area, runway extensions, additional car parking facilities and the redevelopment of the Bath Road frontage. At Gatwick we are doubling the size of the terminal building and extending the runway. Our plans for Gatwick include the construction of an office block over the terminal building, apron and car park extensions, a second runway and a second maintenance area.

While appreciating that the long-term plans will go a considerable way to meet the widespread dissatisfaction about the amenities at London Airport, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he will take into account that this year they are considerably worse than last year—the congestion and lack of space and capacities? Will my hon. Friend take remedial action right away to give passengers at London Airport the reasonable services which they are not getting at the moment?

We constantly have this question under review and I go to London Airport from time to time to look at these matters; but it is true to say that the number of people going through London Airport increases greatly each year.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether plans for developments include the provision of retractable gangways such as have been in operation in American airports for a number of years?

If the hon. Member is referring to the aero-bridge which joins the aeroplane to the pier, that is a question for the airlines. I understand that B.O.A.C., for example, hopes to bring these into operation as soon as possible.

When will the new runway be completed, and will it enable four-engined jet aircraft to take off fully loaded?

I cannot give the completion date. The plans have not been finalised, but I imagine that when they are the runway will cater for modern jets to take off fully loaded.

asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent British European Airways in appealing against the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board regarding the air service licence granted to Eagle Airways for the Glasgow route based their appeal on Section 2(2,c) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960; and what inquiries he made about the terms and conditions of service of the employees of Eagle Airways.

This was not an issue in the appeal and so I had no occasion to make any such inquiries.

Is not it the case that Section 2(2,c), which I mention in the Question, lays on the Board the need to consider whether an applicant takes unfair advantage over other operators? Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the terms and conditions of employment of pilots in B.E.A. as compared with those employed by Eagle Airways? Is he aware that the senior pilots of B.E.A. are paid £1,000 a year more than those of Eagle Airways, and that the flying hours and duty hours of B.E.A. are much shorter than those of Eagle Airways? Does not the Minister realise that this is a case of defying the conditions of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act? Can he say whether or not the Air Transport Licensing Board took into consideration these facts when it granted Eagle Airways permission to fly between London and Glasgow?

I am sure that this matter has been considered very carefully. In licensing Eagle Airways on this route in 1961 the Board said that it was satisfied that Eagle Airways was complying with the criteria in Section 2(2,a-c). In appealing in December, 1961, against the licensing of Eagle Airways on this route, B.E.A. did not quote Section 2(2,c) among its grounds of appeal and, therefore, the matter has not been formally presented to me. It is significant that the Board said that Eagle Airways was complying with the criteria when the Board made its decision and that B.E.A. did not quote these arguments in its appeal against Eagle Airways. After all, those are the two parties principally concerned.

asked the Minister of Aviation when he now expects to receive the report of Sir John Lang's Committee on the Ferranti Bloodhound contract; and when it will be published.

Sir John Lang has been pressed to produce his report as soon as possible. While accepting the need for speed, he has stated that it will not be possible to make the first part of the report, which deals with the Ferranti profit, available to the Government before the second half of July. It will then be published as soon as possible. The second part of the report, on organisation and procedure, will not be available until later this year.

As this Parliament ends for good next month, may I ask whether this means that there will be no possibility of the House discussing the Lang report: Will the Minister be prepared to accept the long-standing Parliamentary position that the Minister bears responsibility for what goes seriously wrong in his Department? Lastly, since the Lang investigations started, has Ferranti made any offer to repay the excessive profit?

The hon. Member has asked a number of questions. I hope and believe that it will be possible for the House to have the Lang report before the House rises. I had undertaken to the House that Sir John would make it available by June but this was before Ferranti agreed to open all its papers to Sir John. The bulk of these is pretty considerable. It will, therefore, take slightly longer than I thought, but I still hope that it will be possible for the House to have the report before we rise, and this should give some opportunity for discussion of it. The other part of the hon. Member's supplementary question would best form the subject matter of a separate Question.

Is not it the case that the new information which will be made available to the Lang Committee, and which will be helpful to that Committee and in due course helpful to the House, is additional to the information which was first expected to come from that Committee? Is not it the case that the Committee is concerned with matters within the Ministry and not specifically with the precise £ s. d. of the profits of an individual company? Would it not, therefore, be beneficial to the House to be told in an interim report whether the Ministry Department over which the present Minister has control has carried out its duties efficiently or not?

I should have thought that the hon. Member, for whom I have the greatest respect, is misrepresenting the wishes of the House in this matter. I thought that the first thing that the House wanted to get down to was how the Ferranti profit arose, what went wrong, and an analysis of this particular case. Obviously we are all very concerned whether there are some general lessons to be learned from this, but I thought that the first thing with which we were all concerned, and certainly about which the Government were most concerned, was to find out what happened in this particular case. That is why I was so very anxious to get Ferranti to show all its papers to Sir John Lang. I had hoped at the time of the recent debate that when I was able to assure the House that Sir John Lang would have all the papers the anxieties that remained in the minds of hon. Members opposite would be at least postponed until that inquiry was completed. At least some hon. Members felt that Sir John's report would not be worth much unless he had access to all the books. Now that he is to have access I should have thought that his report on Ferranti would be of the very greatest value. The other matters are of equal importance but of a long-term character and in no way affecting the credit of the Government.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the launching of Blue Streak from Woomera; and if he will indicate his further plans with regard to this project.

The E.L.D.O. Convention came into force on 29th February, 1964, but since November 1961 an agreed programme of work has been in progress in member countries.

Are not these technical delays rather disappointing, after the expenditure of £100 million and years of work on the project? Is not the Minister aware that there is widespread disappointment among British scientists that it is not a purely British launcher development? Is he delaying and restraining British scientific effort in this respect purely to ingratiate himself with the Common Market countries?

In suggesting that we should be worried about these postponements, the hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands the nature of rocket development. The Black Knight programme, about which a great deal less has been said, encountered a great many difficulties of this kind. The first two Atlases blew up on the pad in the United States, and so did the first Thor. The kind of difficulties we have encountered so far have been weather for the best part of last week and two minor defects in the electronic components. There has been no question of any failure of the test, and I am personally confident that the test will show, and show quite soon, that the Hawker Siddeley-Rolls Royce designs are valid and that the telemetric and radar observation facilities at Woomera are valid.

May we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is not to pay a second visit to Woomera? At the same time, will he inform the House—this is very important—what was the cost of his visit to Woomera and how long he remained there? Will he also inform the House what this device is intended to achieve? Is it to be part of the British independent nuclear deterrent, or what is its purpose? Is it not, in fact, going to prove just a white elephant?

My visit to Woomera, which was, indeed, long overdue—I tried to go there a year ago—was only a part of a visit I was paying to my colleague Mr. Alan Fairhall, the Australian Minister of Supply, many of whose functions overlap with mine. I took the occasion to go to Woomera. I heard that the launch was likely to take place, so I tried to be present at it.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will allow the British Overseas Airways Corporation to submit tenders for trooping contracts.

My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on 15th April, 1964.

Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that this is an aspect of airline operation which needs rationalisation? Does he think it sensible for B.O.A.C. to be flying planes only half full over routes for which trooping contracts are being let but for which it is not allowed to tender?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to ad hoc trooping rather than long-term trooping contracts. The value of ad hoc trooping work is by no means negligible to B.O.A.C., and I understand that, over the past 12 months, B.O.A.C. has secured contracts of this kind worth the best part of £1 million.

Is not this as disgraceful as the Minister of Transport's attitude in refusing to allow British Railways to tender for trucks and other things? We are not asking for a monopoly of this kind of work for the nationalised Corporations, but is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, where large amounts of public money are involved, it is right and proper that the two Corporations should have the right to tender along with the independent aircraft operators? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to stop "knocking" the nationalised Air Corporations to the tune of hundreds of thousands of £s of public money?

There is no question of "knocking" here. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, this goes back in history to the Civil Aviation Licensing Act. The independents attach great importance to these trooping contracts and, until they have gained enough in the way of licensing under the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, we cannot justify a change in the present trooping arrangements. But my right hon. Friend has the matter constantly under review.

asked the Minister of Aviation what is now the policy of his Department towards the manufacture of civil aircraft primarily for a British specification rather than for a world market

Under the policy announced in February 1960, the Government are willing to consider affording financial support for promising civil aircraft projects. In considering applications, full account is taken of the export potential of the projects as well as the extent to which they meet domestic requirements.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the experience with the VC 10 suggests that the initial specification for an aircraft needs very careful watching in relation to world markets and that any pressure by the Government on the aircraft industry to manufacture to a purely British specification would in the future be a mistake?

It is too early to judge as regards the VC 10, until we have seen it in airline service for a little while, when, I hope, orders will come in.

Could not the Government give the British aircraft industry much more help in the export market if they extended more credit facilities to it?

The Government, in principle, match the credit facilities of foreign countries in exports.

From his recent visit to the Biggin Hill Air Fair, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the efforts being made by Beagle Aircraft to sell its very promising light aircraft in export markets. Could the hon. Gentleman say what help has been given by the Government to this project?

The R.A.F. has purchased 20 Beagle 206 aircraft, which I think has been a great help in getting the 206 off the ground. I know that Beagle Aircraft is making a very determined effort to sell this splendid little machine overseas.

The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) has asked me to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, he will call attention to the problems of brucellosis, and move a Resolution.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, he will call attention to the problems and opportunities of automation, and move a Resolution.

I myself beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th June, I shall call attention to the rapid progress made towards the aim of a property-owning democracy, and move a Resolution.