asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will initiate feasibility studies regarding a sub-orbital airliner.

In the present state of our knowledge it would be premature to embark on feasibility studies of a sub-orbital airliner but limited research into the problems of hypersonic flight is proceeding.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is the ultimate airliner in any further projects following on the Concord, and does not he agree that it is as well to bear in mind the implications regarding the aerospace launcher along the lines suggested by the British Interplanetary Society?

I shall bear this implication in mind, but I want to make progress, as I hope we shall, with the Concord before we devote too many energies to looking too far ahead.

asked the Minister of Aviation what has been the cost to the national airlines over the past year of reduced fares for emigrants.

I do not agree that emigrant fares involve a cost to British Overseas Airways Corporation. But for these reduced fares the bulk of these emigrants would not have gone by air. British Overseas Airways Corporation consider this traffic constitutes a worthwhile source of additional revenue.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why this has been stopped from the end of July? Are the Government worried that there might be such a rush to get out of the country owing to the present Administration that they have clamped down on this scheme?

No. This is simply a question for B.O.A.C. which considers that it is useful to provide the lower priced tickets for seats that would not be used by those paying full fare. There is no loss involved to B.O.A.C. in continuing this practice.

asked the Minister of Aviation how many technicians formerly employed in the British aircraft industry are known to have accepted employment overseas in the past nine months.

Those taking up employment abroad are not required to provide information about their prospective work to a Government Department. I am not therefore able to provide firm figures, but the indications are that the number is small.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the research conducted by the Royal Aeronautical Society suggests that about 30 per cent. of the most highly qualified persons who leave the aviation industry do so in order to emigrate? Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a matter of public importance and concern, and that a real effort should be made, either on his part or on the part of his colleague the Minister of Labour, to establish what effect cuts in the aircraft industry have had in accelerating the brain drain?

I agree that it is a matter of importance, but it is of equal importance not to see this issue out of perspective, as there has been some tendency to do. Our information is that the recent cuts may have led to five technicians emigrating from Preston, eight from Weybridge, and four from the Hawker Siddeley Group.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the extent to which Harlow will be affected by aircraft noise if the proposals to build a third London airport at Stansted are proceeded with.

My Department has undertaken to give the local authorities concerned—well in advance of the public inquiry—the best available information about the likely noise caused by Stansted in the event of its development as the third London Airport. As this information is still being prepared I am not yet able to say to what extent Harlow will be affected.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a large and increasing population, particularly if Harlow Town is expanded, will be subjected to the effects of aircraft noise if the proposal to create London's third airport is proceeded with at Stansted? Will he see that this factor is given ail due weight, along with other factors, in determining the location of this third airport, because a large number of local people think that it is very poor planning to create a problem which has given rise to so much trouble elsewhere?

It is too soon to say exactly how this will affect Harlow, but we are extremely well aware of the points which have been raised, and during the inquiry these will certainly be borne in mind.

Is the Minister having consultations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport with regard to the possible traffic bottleneck that may arise in east and central London should Stansted Airport grow to the extent that we all hope it may?

Yes, we are in touch with the Ministry of Transport on the question of the co-ordination of transport between the main airports, and certainly if Stansted is developed this will be very much in our minds.

Can the Minister give an assurance that he will press ahead as quickly as possible in the establishment of Stansted Airport, in order that the pressure of aircraft noise does not all rest on my constituency of Richmond, but is shared by some of the people living elsewhere?

We are anxious to develop the third airport—when it is required—in the best place, but I certainly do not wish to anticipate the results of the inquiry which will be held at the end of this year.

I was about to ask when the inquiry was to be held.

It will be held at the end of this year.

asked the Minister of Aviation what types of computer are in use by the nationalised airlines.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) on 7th July which gave details of the computers owned by the Air Corporations and the purposes for which they are used.

Is the Minister aware that the computer at present employed by B.E.A. is an excellent machine, which is doing valuable service and is capable of great development, but that it now appears that B.O.A.C. is planning to install—at a cost of about £6 million—a computer which, although it may serve the particular functions of B.O.A.C. quite well, is incompatible with that now in existence at B.E.A.? Is not it lamentable for the future of British aviation as a whole that these two nationalised airlines should have computers which will not be able to co-ordinate one with the other?

On the first point, I quite agree. B.E.A. has made a very good buy in obtaining a computer which meets its particular needs, but these needs do not necessarily correspond with those of B.O.A.C., and I understand—having gone into this matter with somecare—that the Airimp system of the I.A.T.A. will provide full compatibility between the computers of B.E.A. and those acquired, or to be acquired by B.O.A.C.

Are these British computers?

B.E.A. has bought computers built here, but B.O.A.C. is proposing to buy American computers.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is satisfied with the progress of Britain's space programme; and if he will make a statement.

As I informed the hon. Member on 23rd June, a review of United Kingdom interests in space is being undertaken. I hope that this will enable us, by the autumn, to take a more comprehensive view of objectives and possibilities than has hitherto been the case.

Does not the Minister agree that by this delay we, as a country, are slipping behind our rivals in this highly technological sphere? Could he give an interim decision as to whether Black Arrow will be fired off? Secondly, when will he get the Bondi Report?

The Bondi Report will go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and not to me. Without notice, I could not say when it is expected. In the meantime, we are proceeding with the preliminary work on the small satellite launcher based on Black Knight—sometimes known as Black Arrow. I do not think that this review is holding up proceedings. We are still participating to the full in E.L.D.O., but it is important in this difficult and challenging field to know exactly where we are going, what we can afford to do, and how we can best hope to get value for money.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although everybody would agree that it is of the utmost importance to be quite sure what are the right lines of approach, there is a certain amount of apprehension that, as a country, we are slipping behind, even in comparison with France, at present? Will he give the House an assurance that he will try to expedite the fruitful exploration of this field as quickly as possible?

Certainly I can give that assurance. I am trying to expedite it, and I hope that as soon as we come back I shall be able to make a more positive statement to the House.

Can my right hon. Friend say what expense is incurred, both preliminary at the moment and proposed in the future, and can he also say what value there is in competing with the United States of America and the Soviet Union in this space race? Have not he and the Government considered trying to get some unified attempt, and thus cut down the wasteful expenditure of all Governments? Surely we have enough problems on earth to solve at the moment without trying to spend money in outer space.

There is another Question about the expense involved, which I will answer later in precise terms. As for competition with the United States and the Soviet Union, it is our view that we cannot afford to compete on the scale on which they are operating. What we have to decide—and this is the reason why I am considering a review of the position—is what we can do which will keep us in this important technological field and bring some worthwhile economic results without an expenditure disproportionate to our national capacity.

Can the Minister give us any news of the present state of the E.S.R.O. programme, which has a distinct bearing on what has been asked?

The present state of the E.S.R.O. programme, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman must know, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to keep informed of United States and Soviet developments in manned space flight.

Manned space flight is not a present aim of this country or of any of the international organisations of which we are members, but my Department has access to the published literature emanating from the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., and frequent reports are provided by our technical missions in the U.S.A.

Is the Minister aware that there is a large body of technological fall-out from this manned space programme which is benefiting American industry? It has benefited not only industry but medicine, micro-miniaturisation, and many other things. Is he confident that the published material that he says he is getting is made available to scientists in this country and to industries which can benefit from it? Can he further say whether or not he is being apprised by the United States of possible advances being made which are not published but which are equally important?

I think that we are getting as much information as we could reasonable expect in this field. We cannot hope to have all the advantages without participation, but the cost of participation would be equivalent to the total cost of our defence budget—a point made earlier by my hon. Friend. But we have a good deal of information, and we are doing the best we can to disseminate it to industry.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement about the avionics systems to be used in the F111 for the Royal Air Force.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House on 13th April, 1965.

Will the Minister do his utmost, if and when the time comes to buy the F111, to see that the British avionics industry is given the earliest possible notice of what is required of it, so that it can get its bids in at the earliest moment?

Certainly if this eventuality should arise we will endeavour to see that no lack of prior warning and prior information will in any way tell against the British avionics industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the Press conference which I understand his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is now giving on the defence review in the Ministry of Agriculture—or, rather, the Ministry of Defence—he will not be imparting any information to the Press on the subject of the F111 which he has not already given to this House?

I do not think that wherever my right hon. Friend is holding this Press conference there is any danger of his doing that.

Can the Minister say when we are getting the F111 and also whether the Secretary of State for Defence intends to come here at 3.30 to make a statement to the House on the information that he is now giving to the Press in the conference at the Ministry of Defence?

As the hon. Member knows, I cannot give the House any decision upon the F111. The decision will depend upon the defence review and, as has always been made clear, it will be taken in the autumn. There is no need for a decision before the autumn. One advantage of this is that we have some months in which to review it without incurring any additional costs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real difficulty as we see it is that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that he thought it possible, if not likely, that many of the avionic devices in the TSR2 could be incorporated in the F111? Is it a fact that research in and development of these avionic devices has stopped with the cancellation of the TSR2 and that progress towards providing British avionics for the F111 has therefore ceased?

No, Sir. There is a possibility of incorporating avionics which were associated with the TSR2 not merely in the F111, if a decision were taken to purchase that plane, but also in the Buccaneer Two-Star, if a decision were taken to go ahead with that plane, and also in the Phantom, where these have more general applications worthy of consideration.

asked the Minister of Aviation what approval he has given for orders to be placed with the British Aircraft Corporation for the Super-super VC10 jet airliner.

I have not so far been asked to approve such orders.

In the light of our balance of payments and the future of British civil aviation, would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be stone crazy to buy Boeings for dollars instead of going all out to get a Super-super VC10 jet off the ground? Time is running out with every month.

Yes, Sir. This is an important decision for the British aircraft industry and, as my hon. Friend says, for the balance of payments. What we have to consider and what I am trying to consider is whether there is likely to be a substantial market for a stretched VC10. The development costs, both for the airframe and the engine for such a plane, would be very heavy and they would have to be borne to a very large extent by Her Majesty's Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assist us by giving us some indication of the total size of the order below which it would be uneconomic to go ahead, on the Minister's argument, with the stretched VC10? Secondly, would he assure us that he is looking at the total cost benefit either way over the whole economy, and not simply limited to the economics of B.O.A.C.?

Yes, I am. It is a great mistake to regard this issue as turning primarily upon B.O.A.C. It turns primarily upon whether it is a worthwhile investment for Her Majesty's Government of public money. I should not like to say exactly what size of order would be the minimum, but, as the costs of the development of the airframe amount, as I have said before, to several tens of millions of £s—to which has to be added a not very dissimilar sum for the development of the engine if the larger plane is to have adequate range—clearly a reasonable size of market is required to make it an economic proposition.

Has my right hon. Friend any faith in Sir Giles Guthrie's recent rather half-hearted statement of intention to buy Super-super VC10s? Is he aware of Motion No. 311, standing in my name and the names of about 49 other hon. Members, calling on Her Majesty's Government to support the British Aircraft Corporation to get the Super-super version of the VC10 flying?

I am aware of that Motion, which I have studied with interest, and I have had conversations with my hon. Friend, but the issue remains not primarily one of B.O.A.C. but one of judgment, as to whether this is a proper investment of public funds.

Sir Giles Guthrie?

The House will be encouraged by what the Minister has said, but could he assure us still further? Could he give us an assurance that he will consider this project on its merits, and that, if it is a question of substantial Government financial backing being necessary, he will not shrink from using his influence to secure that, in spite of the current financial stringencies?

I will not shrink from using my influence, such as it may be, provided that I am convinced that it is a reasonable proposition.

Is the Minister aware that I am discouraged by what he said, because he seems to imply that, unless we get fairly substantial export orders for the VC10, there is no hope of going on with it? Is it not, for political reasons, unlikely that we shall have very large export orders for the VC10? Is it not tantamout to saying that he thinks that it will not work and will not be ordered?

No, Sir. I did not say that I took the view that firm orders would have to be placed. The view which I took, and which I am sure the hon. Member would take if he had responsibility for these matters, is that there should be a reasonable prospect of securing such orders.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in view of the need to promote air safety, he will provide suitable films on flying techniques for use by private flying clubs.

I am assisting the General Aviation Safety Committee to obtain films and other material for use by flying clubs in the interests of promoting air safety.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to make films more widely available and, in particular, available to the Parliamentary Flying Club?

Yes, I will be pleased to arrange for that to be done.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made up to date by the European Launcher Development Organisation.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 21st July last to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd).

Would my hon. Friend always take into account the fact that this country is apt to get behind in this kind of launcher development? Would he ensure that money is spent to make certain that this country, along with other countries, makes good progress?

Yes, and I think that, in evaluating what we can do in this respect, it is important to bear in mind that more is likely to be done on a collaborative than on an individual basis, but that does not affect the fact that we still need value for money.

Would not the Minister agree that it is of vital importance that the E.L.D.O. organisation should succeed, because unless we are able to provide some form of international launcher device, which will get European satellites into orbit, we shall have to accept—perhaps for all time—that the United States and the Soviet Union will have a monopoly in world telecommunications? It is, therefore, of great importance to the industry and the balance of payments of this country that we should, in some way, create a launching vehicle which will enable us to have satellite communications.

I accept a large part of what the hon. Member said. It is not the case that, since this Government came into office, we have been unco-operative in E.L.D.O.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give the total cost, up to the latest available date, of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Launcher Development Organisation project.

For the period to 31st December, 1964, our liability for contributions was £15.15 million, of which £13.02 millions were actually paid.

Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that we are spending sufficient money to make rapid progress? Would he confirm that we do not want to pay a very high rental to other countries for telecommunications when we can obtain satellite communications of our own, in conjunction with our European friends?

In this review, which is proceeding extremely actively at present, I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I am grateful to him for his expression of opinion.

Would the right hon. Gentleman assist the House, when he makes his review, by also giving the House a considerably more detailed written statement—possibly in the form of a blue book or a White Paper—than he could ever give in a statement? He will appreciate that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who are extremely interested in E.L.D.O.—he will always have our support—want to know more details of what is going on.

I will bear in mind how I can best communicate to the House—which I want to do very fully—the results of this review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, with regard to telecommunications, that we have a stake in a world system and that there is no need to go forward on this purely for telecommunications reasons, as some hon. Gentlemen have suggested?

I do not think that there is a need purely for telecommunications reasons, although this is one factor to be taken into account, with others.

asked the Minister of Aviation what height checks on aircraft approaching London Airport have been carried out by or under the instructions of his Department; whether such checks have extended to areas such as Hendon; and whether he will make a statement.

Aircraft on the last seven miles of their approach to Heathrow are subjected to random checks by precision approach radar. During the last three months less than 0·4 per cent. of the aircraft checked came below the 3 degree glide path.

Will the Minister bear in mind that low-flying aircraft cause an intolerable nuisance in areas such as Hendon? Will he pursue his efforts in this direction with the utmost determination?

Yes, indeed. I will bear this point in mind. I have instituted special discussions during the summer for I, and I think many other Members, have been worried about the degree of noise over central London, and I hope to make sure that the regulations are observed.

How many aircraft is 0·4 per cent.? The Minister told us that the figure was 0·4 per cent. without telling us the value of 100 per cent. Unless we are told the value of 100 per cent., his information is meaningless.

I do not think that without notice I could give the total number of movements into London Airport over the period, but 0·4 per cent. is clearly one in 200 of the very substantial number of aircraft approaching London Airport.

Will the Minister look into this matter? For instance, will he look into the fact that two aeroplanes were flying over Westminster this morning at considerably less than 2,000 ft.? I think that this is becoming quite intolerable.

I am giving very close attention to this matter. With the expertise of a layman, I have occasionally thought that planes were flying lower than they should have been at the entrance to the glide path. I have had this checked It occurs occasionally but only very infrequently.

asked the Minister of Aviation what percentage of the receipts of British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation, respectively, arising from scheduled international passenger services are derived from flights covered by pooling arrangements which virtually eliminate competition.

In the financial year 1964 to 1965 77 per cent. of the revenue of B.E.A. and 61 per cent. of B.O.A.C. came from routes covered by pooling arrangements. I cannot accept the implication in the Question that such pooling eliminates competition.

Is not the Minister aware that these figures, together with the fare rigging of I.A.T.A. and the bilateral arrangements, mean that effective competition in air travel has virtually ceased to exist? Does he not realise that until this is broken there is little or no hope of people flying at lower fares?

No. I do not agree that all competition is reduced. Indeed, within the B.E.A.—Air France pool on the London-Paris route there have been considerable variations in the past few years in the percentage of traffic carried by each carrier. At the same time, I have previously informed the House, and I do so again, that I have some concern about the level of certain rates on high-density European routes, and I hope that we might begin to make progress in a lower direction.

asked the Minister of Aviation what were the average actual flying hours per week for the last available year flown by British airline pilots on scheduled flights.

My Department does not have information on the average flying hours a week for British scheduled services, but a sample from the larger airlines suggests that the answer is between 10 and 14 hours.

Is the Minister aware that the American average—and America has a better safety record than we have—is about 50 per cent. more per week? Is he satisfied that the trade union element among British pilots is not so strong that in fact we are working our pilots fewer hours than we ought to fly them?

I do not think that it is fair to make that sort of comparison.

Why not?

asked the Minister of Aviation what is the maximum number of aircraft movements an hour possible at London Airport under present circumstances; and what are the results of comparisons he has made with other airports of similar size.

The present capacity of Heathrow airport is a sustained rate of 48 movements per hour. By 1967 we hope to have increased this to 64. Heathrow handles many more aircraft than any other airport in Europe; more are handled at several United States airports, but the conditions at these airports are, for many reasons, not comparable.

Can the Minister say why conditions at United States airports are not comparable? Is he aware that certain experts say that at Kennedy Airport and O'Hare Airport, Chicago, three times as many aircraft movements can be handled as at London Airport?

There are a number of reasons why conditions are not wholly comparable. One is the weather. Another is the very much higher percentage of the traffic of London Airport than at United States airports, particularly O'Hare, which is international traffic, which leads to certain language difficulties with air traffic communications. At O'Hare only 2 per cent. of the traffic is international. It is also true that at O'Hare several more parallel runways are in use.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he has no intention of increasing the night movements into London Airport?

I have no intention of acting in a way which ignores the interests of those who are disturbed by noise around London Airport., about which I am very concerned and about which we have done something practical already.

In other words, no.

Is the Minister aware that many people regard London Airport as one of the car parking airports? Is it correct that we are making more money out of the car-park charges than we are out of the aircraft themselves?

Order. I do not think that that arises on this Question.

Can the Minister say whether the planned increase from 48 movements an hour to 64 will do more than keep pace with the estimated increase in traffic requirements? Will there, in fact, be an increase which will have any effect on the need or otherwise for a third London airport?

I fear that this increase will have no such effect. The need for a third London airport remains equally urgent.

asked the Minister of Aviation what studies his Department has made on automating air traffic control in the London area.

The Royal Radar Establishment and the Civil Aviation Operational Research Branch have for some time been studying the application of automation to air traffic control problems including those of the London area. Computers to process flight plans will, from next year, be progressively introduced at the Southern Air Traffic Control Centre and equipment, already in production, for the processing of radar data, will be in use by 1970.

Is the Minister aware that it is good news that at last something is being done about automating London Airport? How fast can he press ahead with this? Will he say whether the whole of this field will come within the terms of reference of the inquiry which he is proposing to set up into the third London airport?

I will press ahead as fast as I can. There is another Question down about the hon. Member's second supplementary Question. The inquiry will consider whether Stansted is the right site. It will be able to consider whether an alternative site would be a better site. It will not be able to consider whether there is a need for a third London airport. I hold the view of the previous Administration that this must be a matter for Government decision.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement about the site for the proposed third airport for London.

In its Report published in March, 1964, the Interdepartmental Committee on the Third London Airport concluded that Stansted would be the best site. As already announced a public inquiry into the proposal is to be held towards the end of this year.

Can the Minister say anything about the report that the Isle of Sheppey has been under consideration as a possible alternative? Will he confirm that in any negotiations the Island Development Committee and other local bodies concerned will be brought in?

The Island of Sheppey was considered by the Ministry of Aviation, when it conducted its survey into the matter, as a possible alternative site. It has some disadvantages. It conflicts with the Shoeburyness Range, it conflicts with the continued existence of Southend as an airport and it is not a very easy area for access by public transport from London. But it will be quite competent for the inquiry to consider this and other possible alternative sites if they are advocated by people appearing before it.

In the meantime can the Minister tell us what steps he proposes to take to try to see that greater use is made of Gatwick, which is inadequately used?

I am determined in the period between now and the development of the third London airport, whether it is at Stansted or elsewhere, to get a better spread of traffic between Heathrow and Gatwick. I am anxious to do that as far as possible by voluntary means, and the national interest here and the interest of those living around different airports are involved to such an extent that I hope that voluntary means will succeed, but I would not rule out having to take firmer measures.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that a number of passengers who formerly used British European Airways have now transferred to other lines because British European Airways no longer supplies sweets on take-off and landing; and if he will issue a general direction in the public interest to British European Airways to resume the supply of these sweets to its passengers.

No, Sir. I think that this is a matter which could reasonably be left to the collective judgment of the board of British European Airways.

Is the Minister aware that the sucking of this barley sugar affects the ear health, if one may so call it, of passengers on take-off and landing? Does he think that this penny-pinching is worth the resultant loss of passenger traffic?

I do not agree that B.E.A. has lost traffic as a result of this. In fact, it has increased in the last eight years by 121 per cent. B.E.A. feels that with the modern aircraft which it uses nowadays there is not so much need for the customers to suck sweets. I feel that my hon. Friend has not scored a bull's eye on this point.

Is the Minister aware that we are quite willing to forgo the sweets if we can only get a seat when we want one? It appears now that one finds it difficult to get a seat unless one gives notice a long time in advance, and occasionally that makes it awkward.

I will certainly bring that to the attention of B.E.A. and I hope that the Corporation will be able to meet the requirements which are made upon it during this year.

Does not the Minister think that as a result of this decision all the suckers are on the other air lines?

asked the Minister of Aviation what are the reasons for the delay in the order by British European Airways for the Trident II E; and whether he will make a statement.

The Government have approved a decision by B.E.A. to order 15 more Trident aircraft, bringing its total order for these aircraft up to 39. The further aircraft are to be Trident II Es and are for delivery from 1968 onwards. They will have somewhat greater capacity and range than B.E.A.'s existing Tridents and are particularly suitable for B.E.A.'s longer routes.

Is the Minister aware that this will he welcome news indeed to the 6,000 people in Hatfield who work at the Hawker Siddeley works and who are supremely confident that this aircraft will prove as successful as its predecessor? Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, is he aware that because of the delay which has taken place so far there is going to be a gap in the production lines between the ending of production of the Trident I and the commencement of production of the Trident II E? Will he accelerate the signing of the contract and so keep this gap as small as possible? Secondly, to what extent are the Government backing this deal financially?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his first remarks. I agree that this aircraft has very good export prospects indeed. No undue delay has occurred in proving this aircraft, in view of the importance of the order, and I will endeavour to minimise any gap which may exist to the greatest possible extent, whether by expediting the placing of the full contract or by other measures which it might be possible to take. To answer the noble Lord's question about financial backing, the aircraft will secure from the Government launching aid along the pattern which has become normal in the last couple of years, but I would rather not go into greater detail on this matter now.

Is this not about the same configuration of aircraft as the one which de Havilland originally wanted to produce and which B.E.A. originally specified? Is it not the case that Lord Douglas, the Chairman, changed his mind so that the aircraft was produced in a smaller form with no export potential and the whole programme has been delayed? Is it not a fact that now, at long last, we may eventually get the aeroplane which should have been produced and which would have sold abroad had Lord Douglas not sabotaged the whole thing by changing his mind?

This all goes back a good deal into history, for which I was not responsible. I think that the hon. Gentleman's strictures about Lord Douglas, who ran B.E.A. with signal success for a long period, are uncalled for and unjustified. There are certain important difficulties, but I believe that this aircraft will have a very good future.

asked the Minister of Aviation why the Brazilian airline VARIG has been granted unrestricted traffic rights into London from Rio de Janeiro, when British United Airways is restricted to one flight per week through Rio de Janeiro.

I have granted a permit in accordance with the Brazilian rights under the bilateral Air Services Agreement in the expectation that the Brazilian authorities will respond in the same spirit. The British airline on the route, with which I have been in full consultation throughout, agrees with my action. If our expectations of reciprocity are disappointed, I will reconsider the position.

Is the Minister 100 per cent. satisfied as to the safety record of this airline and would he look at the matter again before British subjects are encouraged to travel from London Airport by this airline?

I do not think that there is anything which would make it right for me to refuse reciprocal traffic rights on safety grounds. However, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will look into the matter again; but I should not like it to be thought that what he said carries the endorsement of the Ministry of Aviation.

asked the Minister of Aviation what progress is being made in ratifying the Hague Protocol to the Warsaw Convention; what is delaying British accession to the Protocol; and when the new limits of liability of air carriers towards passengers will come into effect.

The Hague Protocol is in force between 43 countries. The United Kingdom is not among them because up to now it has been considered that we should denounce the unamended Warsaw Convention before agreeing the Protocol. To do this would have deprived us of the benefits both of the Convention and of the Protocol in our relations with a number of important countries, including the United States of America who, like ourselves, are parties to the Convention but not yet to the Protocol. The position is being re-examined and I hope that, in consequence, it may prove possible for us to endorse this fairly soon. The Protocol and the new limits of liability for which it provides will come into force 90 days following agreement.

Will the hon. Gentleman please press on with this vigorously? Is he aware that when I tabled an Amendment about this when the Measure was going through—an Amendment designed to increase the limits of liability—it received enthusiastic support from hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is he aware that the present position is quite intolerable, because at the moment the dependants of anybody who is killed in an aeroplane will not get more than £5 14s. a week on the basis of £3,000 compensation? Would the hon. Gentleman please get on with this matter as quickly as possible, because the present position is grossly unjust to the dependants of people who are killed in accidents?

We are indeed aware of the importance of this matter. The Hague Protocol increases the liability from £3,000 to £6,000 and we have endorsed that increase. However, the problem here is that the United States has not yet agreed to this Amendment and we must try to get that country's agreement in view of the importance of our North Atlantic routes and of securing the advantages of the Warsaw Convention, with which at the moment the United States agrees.

What objection does the United States Administration see to signing this Protocol? Would my hon. Friend say whether we need necessarily wait upon the pleasure of the United States in this matter?

I do not want to go into the details concerning the United States objections, but it is a fact that if we go ahead—as we may have to do if the United States continue not to co-operate in this respect—we may lose some of the advantages which we now have in regard to our relations with the United States under the Warsaw Convention.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend was precisely the reply which I gave a year ago when I was standing at the Government Dispatch Box? Is he able to say what steps have been taken in the last 12 months to try to persuade the Americans?

We are examining the position and hope to make more progress than was made by the last Administration. As the hon. Gentleman will know—indeed, he is well versed on this question—it is extremely important that in signing the Hague Protocol we do not lose the benefits which we have under the Warsaw Convention in respect of our relations with the United States. We want to get the United States with us in this matter and that is why we are against undue haste.

asked the Minister of Aviation what additional measures he is proposing to take regarding the limits imposed on aircraft noise, particularly near London, Heathrow, Airport.

In addition to the measures already in force I am considering, with the airlines, the possibility of reducing the permitted day levels of aircraft noise at Heathrow, at the first main built-up area under the take-off path, to 106 PNdb for all jet aircraft except those loaded to an all-up weight of more than 260,000 lb. These latter aircraft will be required, as at present, to conform with the limit of 110 PNdb, and to operate as quietly as is practicable.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts and endeavours to assist people living near London Airport. Will he issue a report of the outcome of the international conference which he is arranging with other Governments? Is he aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged international consultations on the question of aircraft noise and that if he is able to issue a report on this conference it would be of great assistance to all concerned? Might I take this opportunity to wish the conference every success?

Yes, Sir. The first thing is to get the conference going, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to get it started in the not too distant future, perhaps next spring. It will be a conference not only of Governments but, as I have indicated, aircraft authorities, operators, scientists and manufacturers will be represented. In these circumstances, there would be no question of holding a secret or confidential conference. Its results will, therefore, be made public and I will also consider reporting, to the House after the conference has been concluded.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say roughly how his proposed new limit of 106 compares with the practice in other countries with major airports? Is it to be lower than the generality, or about the average?

I would not like to give a firm pronouncement on that without notice. It is certainly lower than that in application at many major airports, but one of the problems which we must face in this matter is that London Airport, from the point of view of noise nuisance to citizens, is one of the worst sited major airports in the world.

Would my right hon. Friend consider acquainting those local authorities affected with any proposals or propositions he may make ápropos this issue?

Yes, Sir. We keep in constant touch with the local authorities concerned, through the Consultative Committee, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is in particularly close touch with them.

Will the Minister say what progress has been made in research into the muffler and such devices to try to cut down noise as well as other nuisances?

This is precisely one of the questions that we want to discuss at the conference. We are in the position at present in which one can keep the noise down to, I would not say a totally tolerable level, but not a completely intolerable level with regard to lighter aircraft, but for the heavier aircraft we have to continue to run at 110 PNdb. What I am looking for is the possibility that as a result of discussion and forward planning we might be able to reduce that level for all aircraft in the future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has been a welcome decrease in aircraft noise over the last two of three years, for which the previous Government and this Government have been responsible, and that we are grateful for it? As there are now suggestions that London Airport is to be increased substantially in size, will he give an undertaking that night flights will not necessarily be increased as well?

I am aware of the discomfort caused by night flights, and this is something that we have very closely in mind. It is not so much a question of greatly increasing the size of the airport as of using much more intensively the facilities that are at present broadly available.

asked the Minister of Aviation what support his Department is giving to the further development of rocket engines for satellite launchers.

The United Kingdom, through contracts placed by my Department, is developing engines for the first stage of the E.L.D.O. launcher and is participating in studies for further E.L.D.O. programmes involving the development of more powerful engines using advanced propulsion techniques. We have also placed contracts on national account for preliminary work on engines suitable for a small satellite launcher. All of this is supported as necessary by work in our research establishments.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Do I take him to mean that most of the work is going on on the successor marks to the Gamma 304 engine? As to the second part of his reply, do I take it that work is taking place on high energy fuels producing better results than the traditional HTP that has been used in the Gamma engine?

I think that the answer to both of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions is "Yes", but as I move, as he will be aware, with a certain caution in these highly technical fields, perhaps I might write to him to confirm that.

asked the Minister of Aviation, in view of the need to develop and expand existing nationalised industries, if he will give a general direction to the British Overseas Airways Corporation, in the public interest, not to enter into arrangements with private catering firms for the creation of joint catering and hotel enterprises.

I see no need to object in principle to co-operative arrangements between the nationalised Air Corporations and private catering firms, but I think that all concerned will need to consider such proposals carefully on their individual merits.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the joint shop stewards committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]——of B.O.A.C., which has made representations to a number of people on this issue, is deeply concerned, and takes the view that as this is likely to be a profitable business it could well be conducted by the nationalised industry itself?

I will, of course, take account of what my hon. Friend says on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, I will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point, which is an important one. If what was involved here were a new proposal equivalent to that of setting up B.O.A.C.-Cunard, I would be most opposed to doing so, but I do not think that one wants to rule out an extension of the business of the airline Corporations into certain catering fields, where the combination of the expertise of a Corporation and of a catering firm might lead to a useful development in that respect.

Would not the Minister agree that the time, effort and skill of B.O.A.C. would be much better devoted to running the business of an airline and not to getting involved in other people's business?

I do not understand whether the hon. Member objects to the proposal or not.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in his view the consideration here is that the travelling public using the airport should get a proper catering service?

I am greatly concerned, in all these matters, in looking after the interests of the travelling public as well as with the legitimate interests of the Corporations, in which a great deal of taxpayers' money is invested.

Will the Minister bear in mind that private enterprise risks its own money and usually makes a profit, whereas, so often, public enterprise loses the taxpayers' money?

Public enterprise sometimes appears to lose taxpayers' money because of the restrictive conditions under which it was forced to operate by the party opposite.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling among members of the travelling public at Prestwick Airport, and other sections of the public, that they are being exploited by the high charges of the caterers?

asked the Postmaster-General when he will announce the Government's proposals for the allocation of the fourth television channel.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his Question of 15th June.

Would not the Postmaster-General agree that it would provide a welcome stimulus to the B.B.C. and also add competition to commercial television if this channel were handed over to the Independent Television Authority?

I am aware of the very great interest there is in the future of this channel but, because of the technical, financial, educational and political considerations, I do not propose to be rushed into a decision on how it should be allocated.

Is it not true that there is remarkably little demand for a fourth channel; and that the public would greatly prefer a real choice of programme on I.T.V. and B.B.C.1, instead of the deliberate coincidence of programmes we get at present?

That is a subject on which I think my hon. Friend has a Question later in the Order Paper.

Will the Postmaster-General give an assurance to the House that if he is to make a statement on the fourth channel, he will make it to the House, and not during the Summer Recess?

Yes, Sir. I think that it is clear from what we said earlier that when the review of broadcasting policy is completed a statement will be made to the House.