asked the Minister of Aviation what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about the successful conclusion of an order for VC10 aircraft from Middle East Airlines.

asked the Minister of Aviation why he was unable to complete the VC10 deal with Middle East Airlines.

We kept in the closest touch with B.A.C. and with Middle East Airlines throughout the negotiations, and were prepared to offer substantial financial support. It ultimately became apparent however that the cost of securing the order would be so great as to be unjustified.

I recognise the difficulties in negotiating this contract and the very useful part played by the Parliamentary Secretary, but is it not a fact that the day before the final negotiations were due to be concluded the Government announced the cancellation of the investment allowances and this had a material effect on the British Aircraft Corporation in trying to make a concession which might have brought useful export orders to Britain?

The change in investment allowances had no bearing on the proposal the Government were considering, which was for a sale of aircraft and involved a loan by them to the M.E.A. and finance to the company. It was a deal for a direct export sale. Therefore, no question of investment allowance arose.

Is the Minister aware of the great admiration for the Parliamentary Secretary and the hard work he did in trying to arrange this deal? Is he also aware that the right hon. Gentleman's failure to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to provide credit for this sale has damaged and depressed the sales effort of the British aircraft industry?

I am grateful for the fully deserved tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I cannot accept that the failure to give investment credit terms in this instance damaged our industry or our export prospects.

asked the Minister of Aviation what difficulties have been encountered in granting a British certificate of airworthiness for the two British Overseas Airways Corporation Boeing 707–336 freighters; and when these aircraft will be in regular service.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is satisfied that British Overseas Airways Corporation's two Boeing 707–336 freighters fully conformed with current British civil airworthiness requirements at the time when they were granted a certificate of airworthiness by the Air Registration Board; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether the Air Registration Board has granted a full certificate of airworthiness for British Overseas Airways Corporation's two Boeing 707–336 aircraft.

When this aircraft type was flight tested by the Air Registration Board for a British certificate of airworthiness, certain features were found unacceptable for certification. After these features had been rectified to the satisfaction of the Board, a transport category certificate of airworthiness was issued.

The first aircraft was put into service on 14th January and the second on 28th January.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that what he has said does not square with information I have received from the professional pilots association that the regulations have been relaxed in reference to the Boeing aircraft? Can he imagine the United States relaxing their regulations for British exports to their country? Will he bear in mind that where lives are concerned it is just as important for the crew to be safeguarded as for the 100 passengers sitting behind the crew?

I am satisfied that the A.R.B. did its job in this case and did it well. As the House will recognise, this is not a new aircraft type. The 336 is practically identical with the 320 which has been flying for a great many years and has been certificated by the American authorities. I do not think we have any cause to complain about the activities of the A.R.B. in this case.

Is it still not a fact that the Board first refused a certificate and then, after receiving certain representations and after a telephone canvass of its available members, changed its decision? Is it not unfortunate that the Board should apparently have made a concession for an American aircraft which in the past it has refused for an aircraft of British manufacture?

It is correct that originally there were features about this aircraft which the A.R.B. found unacceptable and it had these changed before the aircraft were flown here. Certain other modifications were made to the aircraft before it was allowed to fly with B.O.A.C.

When similar difficulties were encountered with a British aircraft, did not the Air Registration Board insist on boundary layer fences, and should it not have done the same with the 336?

The procedures followed by the A. R. B. with the American aircraft were similar to those with the VC10 and the BAC111. I think the A. R. B. did a good job in this case.

Does the Minister realise that there is genuine disquiet on this point? Will he consider some way of putting before us, either by a longer statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in some other way, a blow by blow account of what happened here?

Yes, I am quite prepared to give the details of the unacceptable features which the A.R.B. had to have corrected. I am quite prepared to do that and will write to the hon. Members who have raised this point with me.

asked the Minister of Aviation in view of the need to reduce aircraft noise at Gatwick, if he will ban training flights there from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and reduce training flights by day by diverting some of these to airports that are not being asked, as Gatwick is, to take the night traffic overspill from Heathrow.

Training flights are already banned between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. save in exceptional circumstances. There are other restrictions on training flying, and I do not think these need to be increased at present.

Is the Minister aware that Gatwick Airport is now being used for training flights by the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Air Force, B.O.A. C., B.E.A., and British United Airways? Will he take steps to reduce this unnecessary addition to the growing intensity of traffic and noise that Gatwick is receiving now that the Minister has limited the density of flights at Heathrow?

I am quite prepared to consider any suggestion for the use of airports in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I think that it is quite acceptable that an airport like Gatwick must be used for training flights for pilots who have to familiarise themselves with procedures at an airport which is being used in this way.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that he will not transfer these training flights back to Heathrow?

Heathrow is already so congested that I very much doubt whether we could find the time or the space for these aircraft to be used there.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now proceed rapidly with Black Arrow launcher; and if he will make a statement.

Work in industry on the Black Arrow satellite launcher is continuing, but a decision to proceed with a full development programme must depend on the wider consideration which is being given to our space programme.

How long has this project been on a holding contract? Can the Minister tell us what is the cause of the delay behind this decision? If it is decided to go ahead, what does the Minister envisage the ultimate use of the Black Arrow to be?

I would not accept that there has been undue delay in this matter, nor is it true to say that the work has been held up by the lack of a full development contract. The main purpose of the Black Arrow will be of a scientific research character.

asked the Minister of Aviation when he will announce a definite British national space programme; and if he will make a statement.

I am responsible only for certain aspects of the space programme. This is at present under review and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

Does not the Minister realise that the Government's complete lack of a space programme is doing enormous damage to this highly technological advance? Can he tell the House when there is any chance of getting a space programme? The Minister is to go to the E.L.D.O. meeting at the end of March. Will he state whether it is the Government's wish and hope that they should remain in E.L.D.O.?

On the second point, there have been extensions of the timetable and technical difficulties in E.L.D.O. which have considerably increased the cost of the programme. It is for these reasons that it was desired, I think by many members of E.L.D.O., that there should be a Ministerial review at the end of March. On the question of a national space programme, the Black Arrow consideration is obviously part of that, but it is also a matter of relating our national and European commitments in this field.

Would not the Minister agree that the definition of the British national space programme is made the more difficult so long as there is not a single Minister of the Crown responsible for it? What discussions are now taking place between himself and his right hon. Friends to determine who shall define the British national space programme?

This Government have followed the practice of the previous Government in dividing responsibility for space matters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible for the E.S.R.O. part of the programme. I am responsible for E.L.D.O. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is also involved. In any complicated field of this character there will inevitably be across-the-board responsibilities between Ministers.

Will the Minister consider as a first step approaching the Americans with a view to attaching British astronauts to the American space-training unit? Would he not agree that there are many Britons of courage and enterprise who would welcome this and that it would be beneficial to the possible future space programme of our own and to Anglo-American relations?

That is an interesting suggestion, but we should have to wait to see whether the United States had the same interest in it as the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

In view of the enormous cost of this space programme, would it not be better to proceed by way of cooperation with our European allies than to embark on a separate British space programme? Will the Minister, therefore, do his best to ensure that the E.L.D.O. programme is continued and strengthened?

This is exactly what I had in mind when, in answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), I said that it was necessary to relate our national and our European efforts. We do want to see a viable European programme, but it is a matter for further discussion whether the existing E.L.D.O. programmes are the best ways of achieving this.

Are not our resources sufficiently strained by what we are doing on this world without travelling outside it, and are we not sufficiently attached to the Americans on this world without attaching them to ourselves outside it?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is asking a rhetorical question. I rather think he is.

asked the Minister of Aviation what was the visibility on the main runway at Renfrew at the moment of take-off of Flight BEA 5043 on Monday 24th January; and what are the minimum standards prescribed.

The runway visual range at Renfrew when flight BE 5043 took off on Monday, 24th January, was 450 metres; B.E.A. 's take-off weather minima for day-time take-off for the Vanguard at Renfrew are zero cloud ceiling and 140 metres runway visual range.

While thanking the Minister for that only partially reassuring reply and emphasising the public confidence in British pilots, may I ask him whether he can give the House the further reassurance that no pilot's promotion prospects are handicapped by such diversionary landings or take-offs as he may have judged it necessary to make being taken into account?

I am quite sure that B. E. A. does not in any way handicap the promotion of any pilot who is controlling the aircraft in the best interests of safety.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to Australia and New Zealand.

My hon. Friend attended the opening of the Mangere Airport at Auckland at which the BAC 111 and the SRN5 Hovercraft were demonstrated. In both New Zealand and Australia he had useful talks with Ministers and airline chairmen about the prospects of Britain meeting their aircraft requirements.

How far did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary prosper in his attempt to effect the sales of aircraft during the course of this journey, particularly the BAC 111?

As a result of my hon. Friend's visit, I think that our prospects of selling aircraft, particularly the BAC 111, in that part of the world have been much improved. As my hon. Friend will realise, one does not sell a complicated and expensive item like an aircraft in a matter of two or three days. Inevitably long negotiations will be involved.

While welcoming the efforts to sell civil aircraft, may I ask whether there have been any discussions on the sales of military aircraft; or is it that we have none to sell?

My hon. Friend discussed the prospects of military aircraft, but so far there have been no developments.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he proposes to take to ensure wider knowledge among private pilots regarding the availability of information circulars from the Aeronautical Information Service.

None, Sir. Every candidate for a private pilot's licence is examined in his knowledge of "The Air Pilot", a Ministry publication which sets out particulars of the Aeronautical Information Service including the availability of civil aviation information circulars.

In view of the value of these circulars, particularly to pilots who are not regular members of clubs and who do not put in a great number of flying hours, would it not be advisable to issue a reminder with each re-issue of a licence?

I thank my hon. Friend for that acknowledgement of the value of these circulars. We will certainly take into account the suggestion he has made.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will impose a silent period in respect of night landings and take-offs from London Airport, Heath row.

I have sympathy for this suggestion. But bearing in mind the penalties which would be involved for air travellers, for freight traffic and for the airlines, I am afraid I cannot add to the severe restrictions already in force.

Will not my right hon. Friend accept that severer restrictions than these are imposed by most other airports in most other parts of the world, especially those near capitals? Does he sleep with his windows open? Will he stop forcing my constituents to choose between being suffocated and being deafened?

I am afraid that it is inevitable that those living near airports will suffer from noise. The problem is to strike a balance between the claims of the users of air transport, on the one hand, and local residents, on the other. I do not accept that other capital cities have the kind of ban for which my hon. Friend asks.

As one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) who is most affected, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that the hon. Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the nuisance?

This is inevitably a question of in which part of my hon. Friend's constituency a particular resident happens to live.

asked the Minister of Aviation what were the average monthly hours flown by pilots of British European Airways and the British Over seas Airways Corporation, respectively, in respect of scheduled routes; and what are the permitted monthly flying hours.

Latest available figures show that B.E.A. pilots on scheduled services average 42 flying hours per month, while the average for B.O.A.C. pilots is 45 flying hours per month. The maximum flying hours permitted by law are 115 hours in 28 consecutive days.

As these flying hours are measurably below the level which obtains in the United States, which has an excellent safety record, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that we are justified in going to the enormous expense of training a large number of new pilots when there is under-employment of the existing force?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this point was dealt with in a reply to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 1st December last. We are satisfied that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are running the Corporations in the best interests of the public and of safety.

asked the Minister of Aviation how many persons are employed per active aircraft by British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation, respectively.

185 and 408 respectively.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Pan-Am, which is a comparable airline, employs only 200 persons against 408 by B.O.A.C? In view of the fact that labour shortage is the biggest problem facing this country, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to put this matter right?

It is always a little dangerous to make a comparison of this sort between one airline and another, because the sizes of aircraft and the route patterns vary so much. It certainly would not be fair to compare B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. on this basis, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intends that. B.O.A.C. has made rapid progress in increasing the number of hours flown and the reduction of staff', and I am sure that this programme is going on.

Can my right hon. Friend say how the safety record of British aircraft compares with the safety record of American aircraft?

While we should not be complacent, we can say that we have an exceptionally high record of safety with British aircraft, but I could not give figures without notice.

asked the Minister of Aviation what instructions are given to captains of aircraft with regard to landing at Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, when a wind is blowing across the runway.

B.E.A. imposes no limitations peculiar to Turnhouse airport; nor, as far as I know, does any other operator. Normally the captain has discretion in this regard within the limits appropriate to the aircraft as indicated by the airworthiness authority and by the operator of the aircraft.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the incident which took place at the end of January in which an aircraft had to make two attempts to get down, with the strain imposed on the pilots because of the cross-wind and the alarm caused to passengers? Is it going to take an accident involving deaths before the Department is prepared to come to an agreement with Edinburgh Corporation to build another runway?

The hon. Gentleman is using rather strong language. I do not accept that the cross-wind problem is a matter of concern from the safety point of view. The position is that B.E.A., for example, lays down a maximum cross-wind component of 25 knots and advises the pilot that he should not land in those conditions unless he has 1,000 ft. available beyond the normal landing run. A lower cross-wind figure is imposed in wet and slippery conditions. I appreciate the problems which a cross-wind causes to these aircraft but I would not say that these were serious considerations.

As the existing runway is 90 degrees from the prevailing wind, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that nearly every landing at Turnhouse has an unnecessary additional hazard?

On the figures which I have been able to obtain, only 1 per cent. of actual and planned flights have been diverted or cancelled because of cross-winds. Most of the diversions have been on account of other factors, principally bad visibility.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will speed up the construction of a second runway at Turnhouse, in view of the encouraging figures of traffic expansion.

I do not think that the traffic expansion justifies provision of a new runway at Edinburgh at present, but I will keep the matter under review.

That is a rather disappointing reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in spite of previous Answers this afternoon, there is a safety aspect in this matter? Will be give further attention to it before accepting the situation as satisfactory?

A new runway would cost between £2 million and £3 million and I therefore have to be satisfied that the traffic justifies it. Certainly I accept that in the long term a second runway is necessary, and my predecessor has already assured the Corporation that this is so, and when the time comes financial provision will be made towards it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that several years ago the Toothill Committee recommended that air transport facilities between Scotland and the South should be very much improved, but that the previous Administration did absolutely nothing about it? Will my right hon. Friend set the country a better example than they did?

I appreciate that important problems, like those of many of my colleagues, were not made easier by the legacy which we inherited.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now make inquiries into the long-term possibility of establishing a new London airport near the Thames Estuary to replace Heathrow and Gatwick.

No, Sir.

Would the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again in view of both the noise aspect and, more important, the inter-line aspect of operating from three major London airports? Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of building a large single airport out in the Thames Estuary to replace Gatwick and Heathrow in 20 years' time?

I do not think that I should comment on the suitability of the Thames Estuary, because this is one of the matters which was considered by the public inquiry which was recently concluded, the report of which I have yet to receive. On the question of moving Heathrow and Gatwick the hon. Gentleman must recognise that considerable amounts of public money have been involved in these airfields, and I find it difficult to see that it would be economically justifiable to contemplate their replacement.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his original Answer will give considerable reassurance? Will he keep in mind that the Interdepartmental Committee on a third London Airport revealed considerable objections to an airfield in this area? Will he keep those objections firmly before him?

My hon. Friend must understand that while I am awaiting the report of the public inquiry, which went into these matters at great length and in great detail, it would be most improper of me to offer observations on the relative merits of the arguments.

Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is necessary to divert some of this noise away from London, in spite of the fact that some of us have constituents who are less sensitive than others?

I am not sure how far that supplementary question was directed to me. My hon. Friend will know that the reason for building up Gatwick and the consideration being given to a third airport is a desire not to exceed reasonable traffic conditions at Heathrow.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he has come to a decision on the location of a new London airport.

No, Sir. The public inquiry into the proposal to develop Stansted as the third London Airport ended last Friday, and a decision will only be taken in the light of the report submitted in due course by the inspector.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the possibility of the location of an airport on the periphery of the south-east border of the Greater London Council area is not being considered?

If any proposal is considered and put forward to the Ministry, that proposal will be subject to the same sort of appeal and investigation procedure as adopted at Stansted.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on his predecessor's recent visit to Bonn.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and Federal German Ministers resolved that both Governments should collaborate in partnership with other countries in the aerospace field. Discussion ranged over a number of particular items of joint interest, including space research, civil transport aircraft, military aircraft and guided missiles. Possibilities for Anglo-German co-operation, and participation in joint projects within a European framework, are being pursued in further studies and discussions.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what it was that his predecessor advised the European consortium regarding the rôle of Short and Harlands in the development of the VFW 614?

Discussions have been going on for some time between the German firm and Shorts and also Hawker Siddeley. The respective parts which might be played by these two United Kingdom airframe firms remain to be settled since the discussions are still continuing.

If Anglo-German production of guided missiles was discussed, as the Minister says, is not this getting nearer and nearer making Germany a nuclear Power? How much nearer can we get?

My hon. Friend must realise that it is possible and desirable to have guided missiles without a nuclear component. I can assure him that discussions which are still going on in this field pay full regard to the position of the German Government under the Brussels Treaty.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, with reference to the Question, that those whose work is in jeopardy at Shorts will need a much more detailed and perhaps franker exposition of what happened at Bonn than we have had so far?

I am reserving further remarks for the three or four further Questions on this matter on the Order Paper from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to empower him to give financial guarantees to commercial airlines in order to encourage them to develop services to cities in Scotland already possessing an airstrip.

No, Sir. Subject to licensing, this is a matter for commercial enterprise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Planning Council has re-examined the scope for air services to Dundee? Is he further aware that, without a guarantee of the kind suggested in my Question, no such service will be forthcoming?

It would be a wrong policy for there to be subsidy of civil air services of the kind the hon. Gentleman refers to. While I sympathise with Dundee's desire for such a development, unfortunately airline operators have not accepted that the traffic is adequate in view of the cost. However, an independent operator, Strathallan Air Services, has applied for a licence for scheduled services between Dundee, Edinburgh and Prestwick and we must see what the outcome is of that application.

Will my right hon. Friend keep closely in mind the fact that B. E. A. is running many uneconomic internal air services in Scotland?

I cannot answer that point today because, as my hon. Friend will perhaps know, B.E.A. has lodged an appeal against the Air Transport Licensing Board's decision not to increase fares on the Highlands and Islands services. I cannot, therefore, express a view until I have the report of the Commissioner's inquiry.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether the programme of development and research at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Alder maston, will ensure the continued useful employment of the staff and facilities of this establishment; and if he will make a statement.

I am responsible only for the military work undertaken by the Atomic Energy Authority at Aldermaston. The Authority announced two years ago that the staff required for this work would fall gradually over a period of years. I understand that the Authority expects to achieve this reduction by natural wastage. Facilities will continue to be used at Aldermaston in the most effective manner that the special circumstances of the establishment permit.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of anxiety locally and a suspicion that the Government intend to run down the facilities at Aldermaston? Can he get together with the Minister of Technology to develop a programme that will ensure the continued useful employment of the qualified staff and the facilities there?

I accept the need to maintain the staff at Aldermaston if possible and I undertake to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is satisfied with the safety standards at present prevailing on transatlantic flights; and if he will make a statement.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation decided last year to reduce the minimum lateral separation applicable to air traffic over the North Atlantic from 120 to 90 nautical miles. Accordingly we and the other countries responsible for air traffic control in the North Atlantic area put the decision into effect on 13th January.

A number of pilots are continuing to ask for the old separation standard to be applied to their particular flights. When they do so they are being allocated flight paths which provide this but at a lower altitude than the normal since it is impracticable with complete safety to apply different separation standards at the same altitude.

In view of the pilots requests the matter has been reported to I.C.A.O. In the meantime I am fully satisfied that adequate safety standards are being maintained.

Is it not still the case that this separation is thought by many pilots to increase the risks of mid-air collisions. Will the hon. Gentleman at least agree to receive a deputation from pilots' organisations to discuss this further?

We are satisfied that the standards are adequate for safety. There is no doubt in our minds about that. But, in view of the concern expressed by the pilots, I will, of course, agree to meet them and discuss it.

Will my hon. Friend also note that the British Airline Pilots' Association is unanimously opposing this change in the distance between aircraft crossing the Atlantic?

We are well aware of that. Where a pilot in charge of an aircraft demands to have a 120-mile separation we will allocate it to him, providing that he flies at 28,000 ft. Above 29,000 ft. the I.C.A.O. standard will apply.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will publish a White Paper stating the Government's proposals for the future of the aircraft industry with particular reference to the industry's need for a balanced programme of development projects and long-term objectives, the short-term measures required to overcome the dislocation caused by the cancellation of previous projects and the steps to be taken to promote further development of collaboration with Europe.

I will consider this proposal.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's most welcome assertion in the debate on the Plowden Report, that they want Britain to have an advanced aircraft industry, simply will not carry conviction at home or abroad until the industry is given a programme for the future which will fill the present vacuum? Is he aware that the answer he has just given is totally unacceptable?

I think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not fully seized of the complexities of developing a programme for the aircraft industry. For instance—and I think that he agrees with this—we want to seek partnership arrangements with our European allies and this inevitably takes longer than devising a programme of one's own. For this purpose, I am going to France to discuss the matter with my French colleague—the first opportunity to do so since the new French Ministers took office. I cannot anticipate the Defence White Paper to be published next week but it will announce fully the Government's intentions for military aircraft.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will seek to hold discussions between Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland and the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley with a view to merging their aircraft and missile construction interests; and if he will make a statement.

In considering the future organisation of the industry I will certainly bear this suggestion in mind

Will the right hon. Gentleman renew the pledge given by his predecessor and again by the First Secretary of State in Belfast—that he will ensure a future place for Shorts as a working part of the British aircraft industry?

I cannot add to what I said in the debate on the Plowden Report.

asked the Minister of Aviation what support he will give to the approach made by the European consortium of V.F.W. and Fokker to Short Brothers and Harland with a view to the joint design and production of the VFW614 as based on the Shorts PD65 specification.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations between V.F.W., Fokker and Short Brothers and Harland with a view to the production of a twin-jet replacement for the DC3.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will contribute the necessary finance to enable Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast, to take a 40 per cent. interest in the production of the VFW614 in collaboration with the German/Dutch consortium.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the negotiations to enable Short Brothers and Harland to join in the joint design and production of the VFW614.

In parallel with talks between representatives of the British, German and Dutch industries, my officials are discussing with the German and Dutch officials the basis on which a collaborative twin-jet feeder-liner project might go ahead. Further meetings are to be held shortly and I cannot anticipate their outcome. What rôle Short Bros. and Harland might play in such a project is not yet clear, though the possibility of their participation on some basis is by no means excluded.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that V.F.W. itself approached Short Brothers and Harland to take part in the scheme as a result of the co-operation which Shorts had been carrying on with Fokker in Germany? Will he support this co-operative effort of Shorts, which was recommended by the Plowden Report?

The hon. Gentleman has only one criterion on aircraft projects—that is, whether they will provide work for Shorts. While I sympathise with his desires in that direction, I must apply wider criteria, and the first is to estab lish whether this would be a worthwhile project in which this country should take part.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake that no project into which Shorts enters will be frustrated by Government decision if the project has been freely negotiated by Shorts itself?

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the project. I understand that no British company is able to take part without a substantial amount of Government help and it is on the question of Government help that I must reserve the position of the Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the difficulty for Shorts in this venture is money or design?

As I tried to make clear, the first matter to be established is whether there is a market—worthwhile economic possibilities—for such a joint venture. That question is being pursued between the Government and the officials of the companies concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically deny the rumour that his predecessor told the German authorities in Bonn that Shorts was not to be considered for this collaboration?

I was not present and it is not part of my job to confirm or deny rumours.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that more than half the workers at Shorts—over 4,000 of them—will lose their jobs unless the Government do something about this? What are the Government going to do?

This is a wider question which raises other issues. But even if it were possible to start this project today with Shorts in it, as it desires to be, it would not affect the production problem at Shorts, which arises from the failure of the Belfast to sell other than to the Royal Air Force.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will take steps to prevent the rapid run-down in employment at Short Brothers and Harland over the next 18 months, forecast on the basis of their present work load, by encouraging other aircraft manufacturers to place sub-contract orders in Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of Aviation what proposals he has to meet the expected reduction in the employment level at Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast, which the Plowden Report envisages.

Shorts are continuing to seek sub-contract work, with my full support and approval, but in a period when the aircraft industry as a whole is shrinking, the indications are that no sub-contract or other work likely to be available will prevent a substantial rundown.

I am, however, discussing the matter further with the company.

Would the right hon. Gentleman now consider publishing the report of the consultants which the First Secretary's Department has had and which no doubt he has had and no doubt the management has had, and which in the ordinary course of events, because there are private shareholders in the company, will probably become public knowledge in any case? As the run-down is likely to be so rapid and so many people put so swiftly out of work, cannot something be done in the meantime to hold the bridge?

On the second question we have encouraged Shorts to take and tender for sub-contract work on American aircraft and I am glad that they have succeeded in sub-contracts for the Phantom. The consultants were engaged jointly by the company and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and the report was made to them and not to me. I will pass the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend who will no doubt communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that harsh and inhuman treatment seems likely for about 4,000 employees of Shorts who may be put out of work in a relatively short time? Will he give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to make sure that neither that number nor any number anywhere near it become unemployed?

I can deal only with aircraft projects, although I am doing all in my power to find work for the company which will represent the best position.

Will my right hon. Friend consult the First Secretary to see whether the site could also be used for the production of machine tools?

I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend on those lines.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be much more frank about what happened at Bonn? Does he not want to clear up a rumour which is concerning the workers at Shorts?

I do not know where this rumour arose. I have made it quite clear, although this allegation persists in spite of what I have already told the House, that we are continuing talks to see whether this project is worth while and in that context we are considering what part Shorts will play.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to these questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give an undertaking that he will not intervene in any contracts for aircraft design and production work which Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast, obtain by their own efforts.

I can give no such undertaking. I must, for example, ensure that such contracts do not seem likely to involve unacceptable risks to public money.

While bearing that Answer in mind, may I ask how the Minister reconciles it with that which he gave earlier this afternoon when he said that the Government were positively encouraging Shorts to tender for certain work?

It is quite simple. I encourage Shorts to tender for work where there is not a Government financial involvement. Obviously I do not rule out Government assistance to any aircraft project but I do at least need to be consulted before commitments to this end arise.

asked the Minister of Aviation what is the latest estimate of the total research and development costs of the Concord project; what proportion will be for the account of the United Kingdom Government; how the total compares with the estimate made by the British and French Government early last year; and what are the reasons for the difference.

We and our French partners are at present conducting a thorough review of the cost of the project and I am therefore not yet in a position to give a a revised estimate.

As regards the division of costs, the Anglo-French Agreement of 29th November, 1962, provides that they shall be shared as equally as possible between the United Kingdom and France.

Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has not rejected the idea of the possible extension of the Select Committee system to controlling this type of expenditure?

I have not rejected any ideas of this kind, but I should like to have much more information about how a Select Committee could run a very complicated aircraft project being shared on an international basis.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations contained in the second report of the inquiry into the pricing of his Department's con tracts, Command Paper No. 2581; and whether he will publish a White Paper detailing the revised procedures.

The majority of the recommendations and conclusions in Sir John Lang's second report have been accepted and implemented. A number of others are under discussion with the industry.

I do not consider that the publication of a White Paper would be appropriate at this stage.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to promote direct air services between Scotland and the Continent and, in particular, between Aberdeen and Scandinavia.

I would be glad to see more direct services between Scotland and the Continent, provided there was traffic to justify them. But their provision is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the operators.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to promote these services. Is he aware that there is a grave insufficiency of direct links with some development areas and that it seems contrary to regional policy to channel freight and passenger transport services through London? Will he discuss this with B.E.A., because there is a considerable demand from the development areas for direct links to the Continent?

We know that B.E.A. and the independent airlines have been considering whether direct flights could be arranged, and we are in close touch with them about it, but, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, we shall see that they are consulted again.

asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent in the formation of Government aerospace policy, he proposes to take account of paragraph 165 of the Plowden Report, and of the effect of the industry on the technological progress of the nation.

The Government will naturally pay regard to the views expressed by the Plowden Committee on this subject.

Is this not perhaps the most important proposition in the entire Plowden Report—that no other industry has such a pervasive effect on the technological progress of the nation? Is it not at variance with the conclusion at the end of the Report that support for aviation should be cut? Will the Minister please pay attention to this when he presents his White Paper.

The hon. Member will appreciate that I have no responsibility for the preparation of the Report. The hon. Gentleman should read paragraph 172 of the Report in conjunction with paragraph 165. I accept that there is important technological fall-out from the aircraft industry, but I would not accept that this meant that we had to go on supporting the industry if it was not able to produce projects that would in other respects pay their way.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in the formation of Government aerospace policy, he pro poses to take account of the views stated in paragraph 214 of the Plowden Report, on the probably level over the next decade of sales of military and space products to governments, and on the length of time, if present trends continue, before civil air craft sales are as great as military.

Yes, Sir.

If 80 per cent. of the sales of aviation products over the next decade are to be military or space products, is it not absolute nonsense for this country to go out of the production even of complicated military projects?

As the House knows, we are engaged on a number of projects and we have two very important projects operating in conjunction with our French allies. The House will not expect me to anticipate the Defence Statement to be made at the end of the month.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give the number of personnel in his Department who possessed an engineering qualification, for each of the past 10 years; and what estimate he has made of the comparable number for the year 1970.

The Ministry of Aviation was not formed until 1959. The information requested is available for the years 1962 and 1965 only, when the numbers were 1,950 and 2,050 respectively. No estimate has been made of the number of engineers the Department will have in 1970.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is great feeling in this House that his Department has not moved along with the scientific and engineering trends in society today? Would he consider rectifying this defect in his Department? May I ask whether he will publish from time to time regular estimates of expensive projects in his Department?

That is already being done and I think that the House and the country have formed a very high opinion of the excellent research work being done at our research establishments. This is not only ahead of what is being done elsewhere in Europe but it is in many respects ahead of what is being done in the United States.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many of these qualified engineers are in the direct administrative chain of command rather than in purely technical services or advisory capacities?

About 9 per cent.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will publish a White Paper on the progress of existing development projects in the aircraft industry, on their cost so far, on the estimated future cost of these projects, and on how much has been spent in the last eight years on projects which have been abandoned.

No, Sir. It would not be in the public interest to give information about the progress and costs of military projects still under development. A list of cancellations and the costs involved was given on 14th April, 1965, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the pressure for new projects from the benches opposite, it might be salutary if the taxpayer knew just how much the costs had escalated and were escalating?

I think that it would be contrary to the usual practice to give interim statements on military projects, but I have no doubt that these matters will be further discussed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence presents his White Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be much further information about military projects in the Defence White Paper when it is published? Will he assure the House that there is no difference between the White Paper to which he has referred, and which would be published, according to him, towards the end of this month, and the Defence White Paper which, according to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is due for publication on 22nd February?

When I referred to the White Paper I was using the general term "the end of the month" because it is not my responsibility to publish to the House the statement on the Defence Estimates.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will introduce legislation to take over the powers of the Air Transport Licensing Board, in order to ensure the co-ordinated development of civil air services in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when the 1960 Act was going through the House the Opposition, which is now the Government, strenuously opposed it on the grounds that we believed that this authority ought to rest with the Minister? Is he aware that if there is to be a co-ordinated development of civil air services in Scotland the only body which can do that is B.E.A., for the simple reason that the private operator only wants to run from Glasgow to London because of the profit margin and that no private operator has ever asked to run any other services in the whole of Scotland?

We believe that this system works in the best interests of the community and of the airlines. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is in the system a right of appeal to the Minister.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will prohibit the use of airports in the United Kingdom by Boeing 727 aircraft until the causes of the recent series of accidents befalling this aircraft have been determined.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the series of accidents involving a very high loss of life, each of which has taken place with this aircraft on approach, and that no cause for these accidents has been established, whether aircraft defects or handling technique? Will he take steps to prohibit the use of these aircraft in the United Kingdom until the cause of the accidents has been established and remedied, thereby preventing the occasion of an accident of this kind in airports within his jurisdiction?

I am aware of these facts. As the House will be aware from the Press, the F.A.A. which is responsible for the aircraft in the United States, has called a conference to investigate the position in regard to the 727. If a British airline wishes to acquire these aircraft I am quite sure that the A.R.B. will want to carry out an intensive investigation.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he has taken to initiate the conference of European aviation ministers as recommended in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Aircraft Industry, Command Paper No. 2853.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he proposes to take to implement section 7 of the Council of Europe Recommendation 448 which refers to the suggestion made in the Plowden Report underlining the necessity of European co-operation in aircraft construction.

As I told the House during the debate on the Plowden Report, we intend to pursue—perhaps about the end of this year—the proposal for a European conference on co-operation in aircraft construction. I welcome the interest being shewn in this matter in the Council of Europe.

Is not the end of this year rather a late date? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the great urgency of getting a proper plan for the British aircraft industry in conjunction with Europe, this ought to be dealt with considerably sooner?

I understood that in his own contribution in that debate the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be pointless to have a conference unless a good deal of detailed preparation had gone on. We have to explore the possibities of a number of individual projects before we can have a wider conference. Ministers are probably not the best people, meeting collectively, to determine the technical problems which arise in an industry of this sort.

In view of that reply, will the Minister give a progress report on the Spey-Mirage?

I am afraid that I do not understand that question.

Will the Minister give further consideration to the question of timing? Anglo-European co-operation is not a new idea; it has been going on for some years. The Plowden Report was in his hands some three months ago. Does he not think that there is time for the detailed preparation in a much shorter period?

The important point is to meet my colleagues and to discuss these projects with them. I am therefore going to France to-morrow. My predecessor had many talks with his European colleagues and initiated two military projects with the French. We shall explore all these possibilities, but I cannot today give a date when I think that it will be feasible for the conference to take place.