HEATHROW AIRPORT (SAFETY STANDARDS)

HC Deb 27 January 1970 vol 794 cc1355-87

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I do not want to detain the House for long. I shall not indulge in electioneering. I wish simply to draw attention to four matters concerning the standards of safety prevailing at London Airport Heathrow, which seem to be both topical and matters of public concern.

I am grateful to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, for coming here at this relatively late hour to answer the debate. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for coming to listen to it. I am sorry that something has prevented the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) from attending, because I think that these are all points in which he might find an interest.

I propose to deal, first, with the consequences of the unfortunate and tragic accident last year to the B.O.A.C. 707, "Whisky Echo", which crashed at Heathrow shortly after take off, having lost an engine and suffered a mid-air fire. It was carrying 116 passengers and 10 crew, of whom four passengers and one crew member were killed. The House will, I am sure, remember Miss Harrison, the B.O.A.C. air stewardess, whose great heroism has so properly been rewarded by the highest possible honour which this country can bestow upon a civilian.

The report of the Chief Inspector of Accidents into this accident which was published in April of last year, and which I have read with some care, raises a number of very disturbing questions, not all of which have been fully answered. The ones on which I wish to concentrate are those which concern the criticisms of the organisation, deployment, and state of readiness of the airport fire services, and the general situation which was revealed as prevailing by this tragic occurrence.

I need not go through them in detail, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that on looking at pages 9 and 10 of the inspector's report one's eye falls on a series of unfortunate mistakes. There is the fact that the hose-laying vehicle was not as readily available as it should have been—there was only one on the airport in any case. The London Fire Brigade was not alerted as soon as it should have been. The foam appliances which went to the fire halted too far from the burning aircraft to be of maximum effectiveness. There was delay in getting the hydrant system working. For a variety of reasons the fighting of the fire was very much less efficient than it should have been. Although the tentative conclusion of the inspector appears to be that no lives were necessarily lost as a result of these failures, I am not wholly satisfied that we can reach that conclusion.

However, what I want to hear from the Minister is what action has been taken on the recommendations of the fire and rescue service working group, which are printed in this report, and particularly and especially on recommendation 11.11 which appears on page 54. It is that A broadly based working party, including members from Home Office, Fire Service Department, local authorities, Board of Trade and British Airports Authority should be formed to study and report on the problems of aircraft fire and rescue operations. Their terms of reference should include liaison between airports and local authorities, the siting of fire stations, manning (including command structure), fire and rescue equipment, media scales, the training of firemen and the scale of ambulance cover. The report shows that a situation in which only 14 two-stretcher ambulances are available within 15 minutes of Heathrow in case of major accident is a matter of particular significance now when larger and larger aircraft are starting to come into the airport. A situation in which, apparently, only 28 stretcher cases can be provided for in conditions of acute haste and emergency ought not still to prevail, and there ought to have been considerable improvements. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about that.

It is in the nature of a major international airport that from time to time there will be accidents. They may not all be of great seriousness. Of the 118 full emergency stand-bys which the Report and Accounts for 1968–69 of the British Airports Authority tells us there were in that year, only three involved aircraft accidents with resulting fire. Nevertheless, accidents involving fire have to be tackled.

It is a matter of some comfort, perhaps, that when an aircraft has to return in circumstances of some emergency, but is still able to circle and dump fuel and make landing half an hour or more after the original detection of the emergency, all the services are there in readiness for possible accident. But what really matters is that all the services are there in readiness for the accident without warning, the accident at or shortly after take-off or touch-down. I hope that we shall be given reassurance about that.

I come now to what I can only describe a.; the remarkable story of the B.E.A. Trident "Papa Sierra"—the abbreviation for its registration number which some of us will recognise as G-ARPS. It was lost by fire at Heathrow one day last autumn in circumstances which I have never seen fully reported in the Press. I have pieced the story together from various inquiries from various sources, so I may not have it entirely accurate.

I understand that this Trident was on the tarmac waiting to take the early morning service to Belfast, and, shortly before the crew went out to man it, it was seen to be on fire. The airport fire service attended and put out the fire, after, I am told—I cannot vouch for it—some confusion resulting from an attempt to starve the fire of air although it turned out that the cause of the fire was located close to a substantial supply of oxygen. Eventually, the fire was extinguished by the use of foam.

For some reason or other, there was then no access allowed or made to the aircraft for at least 48 hours, and the foam was not finally removed from the airframe until at least a week after the original incident. It then became apparent that the chemical reaction had been such that there had been substantial corrosion of the airframe, with the result that in the long term the airframe has been declared utterly unserviceable, and the aircraft is a write-off, although a good deal of the equipment, I understand, has been salvaged from it. The gutted hull is to be seen, I believe, at London Airport.

This case raises some major points. In ascending order of importance, I put them as follows. First, there are the tech- nical aspects of the chemistry. I do not know whether it was known that this consequence was probable. I infer that it was not, although I understand that it has now come to light that something similar happened to a Caravelle not so long ago. There seems to have been a breakdown of exchange of knowledge between the party owning that aircraft and B.E.A.

Second, there is the question of the efficiency of the airport fire brigade. Although this emergency involved no risk to life, I cannot say whether the brigade was as prompt and efficient as it could have been. But much the most important point is the security matter. The fire was undoubtedly caused by an incendiary device deliberately placed in the aircraft. Although there is a possibility, which it would be difficult to dismiss, that this might have been an act of sabotage, I understand that inquiries show that it was probably an act of arson.

Whichever it was, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen again. It was probably arson, although I understand that no charges have been laid, but I would like to know whether there has been any tightening up of the security of the airline or of the airport authority which will minimise the possibility of this kind of thing happening again. I need hardly stress the consequences of this happening if it were not discovered until after the aircraft had taken off, fully loaded.

I suggest that the Minister would also be well advised to consider the physical difficulties of imposing security at Heathrow, and whether it is desirable that there should be, as there appears to be, a fairly constant flow of utterly unauthorised traffic around the inner perimeter of the airfield, which I understand to be a favourite short cut of people travelling between Hayes and Feltham. Perhaps so many people take advantage of this short cut that if an attempt were made to control the traffic the whole airport would be brought to a standstill, but the Minister might investigate re-routing the perimeter road pattern so that the short cut was not so much of an advantage.

There are some questions here which the Minister may not be able to answer at all tonight, but I hope that he will assure us that the points which I have raised will be considered. They do have some substance.

My third point concerns the Northolt air miss, the near-collision on 9th January this year between an Indian Constellation seeking to land at R.A.F. Northolt, and an Olympia Airways Boeing 727 approaching Heathrow, in circumstances fairly familiar to the House. We know, from Questions which the Minister answered on 20th and 21st of this month, that an inquiry into this incident is in progress. We shall await its results with great interest. After reading what he has already said in his Answers, particularly that on 21st January, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us something positive tonight.

The right hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), whom I am glad to see here tonight, that the cause of the air miss was that the Constellation had been told by G.C.A. Northolt to climb and turn left because it was at a height and on a bearing which threatened to cause it to hit Harrow Hill, and that the consequence of this sudden instruction, which the pilot obeyed, was that it came very close to the Boeing. It entered the airspace of Heathrow control and the controller at Heathrow was notified by the Northolt controller that this was happening. However, there appears to have been no time for anybody to tell the captain of the Boeing.

I do not know the technical reason why this happened, but it must be undesirable for aircraft suddenly to be routed into conditions which cause an obvious risk of collision without the captains of the aircraft being warned. These details will no doubt come out at the inquiry and, for this reason, I do not expect the Minister to answer this question here and now.

However I do expect him to answer my next question, for the hon. Gentleman said in that Parliamentary Answer that he was considering with the Secretary of State for Defence whether any additional safeguards might be taken to avoid a similar occurrence. He has had only six days in which to do that, but I suggest that that should have been long enough. If there are ways to avoid a possible re- currence, I trust that they have been adopted.

Finally, I come to an odd report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 24th January last. Headed Pilots' Secret Tests To Control Noise it read: A group of pilots, employed by several major airlines, have carried out secret tests during take-offs of scheduled service flights to find ways of cutting down unnecessary noise around Heathrow Airport… Mr. Geoffrey Holmes, representative of Windsor Council …said the pilots, whose employers did not even know about the tests, … wanted to remain anonymous… The pilots had tried to show that by changing take-off procedure to climb as quickly as possible the noise effect could be minimised for many people. Any hon. Member who has constituents living near London Airport will agree that if it can be safely achieved the minimising of noise is a desirable objective. But when I read that report my immediate reaction was to say, "Mr. Holmes had better be joking", for if it is true it is disturbing, to say the least. The implication is that pilots are prepared to disregard the standing instructions given to them by the airlines and air traffic control for a purpose other than an emergency. Frankly, I do not believe that this is happening.

There are a large number of pilots in my constituency. They are responsible men and I believe it unlikely that they would place their aircraft in parts of the sky where nobody expects them to be, not only because they would be hazarding their own lives but because of possible danger to their passengers. Mr. Holmes should know this. After all, he is the Chief Public Health Inspector for Windsor. Does he want a major aircraft accident in his back yard? I regard it as the most astonishing statement that I have seen on this subject for some time and I trust that the Minister has looked into the matter and has satisfied himself that what is alleged is not true. I appreciate that he may find it difficult to disprove the statement, particularly as he and I have been in correspondence on the subject for some time.

On 13th January the hon. Gentleman wrote to me in answer to some questions I had put to him in connection with checks on altitudes following take-off at Heathrow. He wrote: I confirm that air traffic control relies on reports from pilots for information about the altitude of their aircraft to determine whether they are complying with the instructions issued to them in this respect. This is common practice internationally and, of course, the knowledge that the safety of the aircraft and its occupants depends on compliance and accurate height reporting is a powerful discipline on the pilot and crew. I agree, and so it should be. But to find it suggested by a public employee that for reasons of experiment in connection with minimising noise the sort of action described in the article has been taken, is disturbing, to say the least. I would rather not believe it. If the Minister has not yet been able to look into the matter, I trust that he will give an assurance that he intends to do so.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for raising this debate. I feel personally indebted to him because I have had a great deal of flying from London Airport to Glasgow and during these last 22 years when I have flown over the country I have seen one or two things and been in slight danger on one or two occasions.

One of the shocks I got was on one occasion, coming into London Airport. I happened to glance out of the window —we were under control at that point—and suddenly the tip of the wing of an aircraft appeared almost at my nose. I got an enormous fright, but I was able to attract the attention of a colleague who also witnessed briefly what I saw.

When I arrived at the House that morning—I think that it was in the last year of the Conservative Government's reign in this place—I reported the incident at once. The Minister of Civil Aviation, as he then was, had, of course, to pay attention to such an incident. It was evidently traced back to the fact that at the time control of all aircraft moving out and in at London was under the military stationed at Northolt. Consequently, no report could come to the House and we heard nothing despite all the pressure which was applied to get some sort of information.

I believe that the outcome, in practice, was that control was separated and civil aircraft the first time came under the civil authority while military movements remained with the military authority, which was a very unsatisfactory situation. To my mind, there has always been a feeling of dissatisfaction and a slight lack of confidence, as a result of that event, because one feels, particularly in fog, that one is never quite sure that something may not happen. Confidence is affected. Yet when one sees what is happening generally it cannot be affecting the confidence of most people for the simple reason that the number of travelling passengers, despite incidents like the one I have mentioned and the accidents and incidents to which the hon. Member referred still occurring, is growing.

This is the encouraging feature of the development which has occurred in the aircraft now using London Airport and other British airports. During the years over which I have been using the service we have passed from the D.H. Rapide to the Trident, from an aircraft that travelled at about 90 miles an hour to one that travels at 600 miles an hour. We are on the verge of using regularly, perhaps every day, aircraft that will be carrying, not seven or eight people as we started with about 22 years ago, but 300. Can we visualise an aircraft accident with such a plane, involving 300 human beings and the almost certain result that there will be very few survivors?

While we are in this stage of development as to speed, I wonder how near we will get to ensure complete safety, which is the important thing. I am not denying that much has been done to ensure safety. It is difficult to reconcile what seems to be the slow pace at which we are moving in passenger safety with the enormous development in the design of aircraft which has occurred; far beyond anything we imagined when we were flying the earliest versions of our civil aircraft. The size of the aircraft is now such that few of us visioned 15 years ago.

I have mentioned speed. Three and a quarter hours used to be the accepted time for the journey between London and Glasgow. It is now 54 minutes. The amount of knowledge bound up in these developments pays a tremendous tribute to the research which has been conducted. None of us ever visioned when we started flying the comfort that would go with present-day flying. There is also the expert handling of these huge aircraft while moving at such speeds.

While we show that development and application of knowledge in all those directions, on the ground there is one person talking at the same time to two aircraft using London Airport, one going out, one coming in, with the result that time and time again, though not always, their paths must cross at some point. Of course, they are under control and there should be no contact. But accidents can happen, and they have been happening. I wonder whether more up-to-date methods of directing aircraft when taking off or landing can be developed.

Accidents happen in the most unexpected places and at the most unexpected times. One might think it impossible for an aircraft to fly into another aircraft at 12 o'clock on a beautiful spring day with not a cloud in the sky. Yet a civil aircraft, full of passengers, on a flight from London to Glasgow on a Saturday afternoon, some year ago, flew in to a small Auster proceeding at right angles to its path. That was always a mystery. Neither pilot evidently saw the other. We wonder how that can happen. But it did happen, and every passenger on the Glasgow-bound aircraft and the two passengers in the Auster lost their lives.

We want to be sure that that sort of accident could not happen today. I do not think that it could happen now because air paths are more strictly controlled. But as the last few days have shown, and as my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Woking said, a similar near accident happened near London Airport, although I believe it was closer to Luton Airport.

I am sure that what has been said and what will perhaps be said later will receive the close attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He will ensure that there is careful and serious inquiry into these events and in due course will assure us that safety precautions at our airports have been made more stringent.

11.28 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for raising this very important subject.

With the great increase in the volume of aircraft traffic every year, which is inevitable, the safety factor obviously is paramount, and not only to the large number of passengers who take off and land every day and night at Heathrow, Gatwick, Glasgow and other airports in the United Kingdom. What is sometimes forgotten—I am not suggesting that the Minister of State or his Department have forgotten it—is that the safety of aircraft while taking off and landing affects not only the passengers, but the very large number of residents in the areas close to the various airports.

I speak feelingly because my constituency is one of those adjacent to Heathrow. In an aircraft accident, the number of people killed on the ground can easily be treble the number killed in the air, and that is a factor which must not be forgotten.

The great problem is how to get maximum safety with minimum noise. As the Minister knows, noise levels can become intolerable. Aircraft noise affects hospitals, schools and even people trying to telephone when an aircraft is overhead. How is essential safety to be maintained with minimum noise when an aircraft is taking off or landing? This is the problem which faces hon. Members and the designers of modern aircraft, and anybody who can square that circle will have made great progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to the Chief Public Health Inspector for Windsor, Mr. Geoffrey Holmes, who is one of my constituents. He has made an intensive study of the problems of safety and noise and has spent many hours of his spare time going into the subject thoroughly. He has produced a number of voluminous reports, some of which have been sent direct to the Minister and some of which have been sent to me, and I have forwarded them to the Minister.

I am not qualified in any way to argue the toss, but I know that Mr. Holmes's suggestions and criticisms merit careful consideration. They demand a reply, not necessarily tonight, of course, for they raise many questions about whether the system of monitoring is effective not only to test nuisance, but the safety aspect, to see whether an aircraft is following the route on which it should be flying.

I have grave doubts whether the meters which measure the incidence of noise and whether an aircraft is on the right track are technically effective or sufficiently numerous to do the job which they a -e supposed to do. I am not absolutely certain that the technical machinery for measuring noise, and, therefore, safety, is as effective as it should be, and I hope that tonight the Minister will give some assurances about this.

It is no use holding a meter out of a car window to measure noise and to test whether an aircraft is taking off on its correct line. A car cannot stand outside the perimeter of London Airport day and night. Anyway, the meters should be on tripods. I suspect that the fact that they are not permits a margin of error. Secondly, it is no good having a monitoring check, if there happens to be a spare monitoring instrument, on the less noisy south-bound traffic when the noisier heavies, although fewer aircraft, on the westward route go unchecked. I strongly suspect that that happens not every day, but frequently.

I have grave doubts also whether the monitoring machinery is effective in respect of residential areas over which aircraft ought not to fly. It is all right for area 3 over which aircraft are supposed to fly, hut when for good or bad reasons an aircraft is diverted or takes off incorrectly, perhaps because the pilot makes an error—and pilots are only human—and the aircraft flies over a residential area over which it ought not to fly, therefore on an unauthorised route, the monitoring system is not effective. This is a mater which should be looked into.

Thirdly, I should like to know from the Minister when the automatic monitoring system is to be installed at Heathrow. All sorts of dates have been suggested. There was one date, I believe, of the spring his year. Now, I am told on the grapevine, it is likely to be the summer. I do not know. It is time that a proper automatic system was installed, and it is a question of what degree of priority the Minister's Department gives to the installation. In particular, I wish to know whether the hold-up has to some extent been due to the complete inability of the Post Office to supply four telephone lines of the required technical quality or reliability.

Finally, I wish to ask the Minister about the Roskill Commission, which has been set up to inquire into the third London airport. That Commission has very wide terms of reference, including safety and noise. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Commission, which is composed of very able men, might well be directed to pay particular attention to what I call the equation of safety and noise in its deliberations, not only in respect of the third London airport, but in respect of the whole problem of air traffic over a thickly-populated island like ours, where noise, the development of new aircraft, the increase in air traffic and the question of safety and noise, and safety or noise, are bound every year, or possibly every six months, to become more urgent.

I therefore address a plea to the Minister, first, to take the report of Mr. Holmes seriously, because he has raised some important questions, and secondly, if he can, to direct the attention of the Roskill Commission to the problem of aircraft noise and safety, which I believe to be one of the most vital technical problems that this country has to face.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) that the whole House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for raising this important subject tonight. I am only sorry that it comes on at a rather late hour. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of the problems which we are discussing tonight may be solved only when the third London airport is finally built. I cannot help feeling, however, that many of the subjects that I particularly would like to raise will still be very relevant when the navigational requirements and all the other regulations for the third London airport have to be finalised.

The hon. Member for Woking has mentioned the important question of air traffic control operators having to rely upon pilots and radio-telephonic communications for notification of height. The hon. Member is, of course, dealing with the very important question of secondary radar requirements. I have already pressed my hon. Friend the Minister in the House to give a clearer indication of his Department's policy concerning the requirements for secondary radar and of the research that is being undertaken into this in this country.

I am fully aware that there is no foolproof, comprehensive and clearcut system yet available, but I cannot help feeling that this is something in which this country could once again take a lead, not only in research, but into fitting and the requirements for a secondary radar installation in aircraft operating in and out of Heathrow.

I know that the new Linesman Mediator complex at West Drayton will have basic ground facilities to cope with secondary radar when installed in aircraft, but having myself seen the system whereby air traffic control on the ground has to ask the pilot first to give his identification and, secondly, to give his height, having myself seen reports of breakdowns in communication, and having myself realised how tenuous is the kind of thread of communication which can exist in these circumstances, I would once more tonight ask my right hon. Friend to say when the Government will require compulsory installation of secondary radar devices in aircraft operation in and out of Heathrow.

The next point I want to raise is one I have raised with my right hon. Friend on countless occasions in this House, and that is a more general one about the area navigation system. We know from figures which I have been given in a recent Adjournment debate by my right hon. Friend that over the United Kingdom airspace since 1963 there have been 91 air misses. I understand that 37 of these have involved civil airliners; the rest have been military aircraft or general aviation or light aircraft. We have been told as well that the situation is being examined and that the situation will be improved, but I cannot help feeling that, again, the Board of Trade ought to be taking a much more definite line on the requirements which they lay down with the British Airports Authority about the use of area navigation systems.

I am fully aware that it is the policy of the Board of Trade that this country is in favour of the area navigation system. I am aware that my right hon. Friend will say that at the last crucial meeting, which the British Air Line Pilots' Association calls the "Battle of Montreal", with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, this country advocated area navigation equipment. I am also aware that the Federal Aviation Agency, in the United States, has only just come round to this way of thinking. What seems to me even more important is that not only is the Heathrow ground equipment already suitable for use in the area navigation system, but that also the entire fleets of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are similarly equipped. We are now in the situation in which most major European airports, apart from certain places in southern Europe, are also fully equipped for making use of area navigation equipment.

What really is the use of having two entire nationalised corporation fleets fitted with navigational devices which cannot even be used in their home airport? I know that my right hon. Friend will say that the majority of aircraft, particularly those of Pan American, T.W.A., and other international scheduled carriers, are not similarly fitted. I know that he will also say that if the British Airports Authority laid down regulations that aircraft using Heathrow had to be so fitted, then we might lose flights coming into Heathrow and that they might be diverted to places like Orly, Bonn, Frankfurt, and other international airports with which we already find ourselves in competition.

But when we have a situation which is so serious that even the general public, who have not hitherto shown much technical knowledge about air navigation, are becoming more and more critical and more and more concerned about general aviation safety standards, I do not think that it is good enough for the Board of Trade simply to say that the majority of aircraft are not so fitted and that, consequently, we cannot make this insistence.

Why cannot this country, why cannot the Board of Trade, once again lead the world? We make the equipment already. Why do we not insist that the rest of the aircraft coming into and out of Heathrow also have this equipment, with which the majority of British aircraft, particularly those of the nationalised corporations, are already fitted?

I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) have raised the question of Northolt. We know that there is a very complex navigational pattern over what the Board of Trade calls the "North London Complex". I want the Minister to say something about the relationship and the coordination which exists between the civilian and the military air traffic control systems in this country. We know that the air space over the country is divided into that which has been allocated for military purposes and that allocated for civilian flight paths. But when one comes across situations like that of Northolt, where the take-off path comes very closely into conflict with Heathrow, the co-ordination between movements at Heathrow and Northolt must be more seriously examined, as must perhaps the whole question of continuing to operate Northolt.

The Minister will also have to admit that the Terminal Management Area for Heathrow is growing all the time. It is an often-made joke by B.A.L.P.A. that one starts coming into the Heathrow terminal management area even over Shannon, so we can conclude that the Heathrow terminal management area now comprehensively includes airports like Gatwick and Luton and the other peripheral airports around London. I know that my right hon. Friend will have something to say about a comprehensive survey which the Board of Trade has been undertaking into the navigational requirements of the North London complex and also, if he can, about why his Department feels that this report cannot be published, especially since the Department was prodded into undertaking the survey at the instigation of B.A.L.P.A., which was very much concerned about the Luton situation.

This is perhaps the point which the general public, who are more and more making use of inclusive tours and charter operations for their holidays, are becoming increasingly concerned about. In my constituency today, I talked to a constituent who runs a travel agency. He had just returned from the Air Transport Licensing Board hoping that he had managed to obtain a greater number of charter operating licences than last year.

At airports like Luton, in the Heathrow adjacent area, we shall see this year an unprecedented number of charter flights operated. Yet, at the same time, the basic and fundamental navigational requirements at Luton are such that even light aircraft have no requirement to keep in constant radio touch with the control tower. In fact, there is a situation where parachutists, carnival aircraft, gliders, BAC 111s and 211s can all fly in the same amount of air space without some of the same navigational requirements. This sort of situation prompted B.A.L.P.A. originally to prod the Board of Trade to undertake this research. This year, an unprecedented number of charter flights will, I repeat, operate from Luton, and I hope that something will be said tonight to reassure the many and growing numbers of holiday makers who will be using those flights.

It is not just a question of an increasing number of aircraft using Heathrow. I do not think that anyone on this side of the House is saying that we shall increase our aircraft movement figures to numbers now handled by O'Hare, Chicago, Los Angeles International and Kennedy. No one is saying that the 45 to 50 aircraft movements an hour at present operated by Heathrow will next year approximate O'Hare Field's 210.

The point is that from now on we will not only see one standard type of aircraft, such as the 707 or the DC8; we will see a whole range of aircraft with very different navigational requirements. In future, we will see the subsonic Jumbo 747s, for which the Federal Aviation Agency has already said a four-minute headway is required, operating side by side with supersonic Concordes. They will also be operating alongside an increasing number of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

It is not just a question of having a base load of air traffic, catering for 707s and DC8s; but it will be an increasing number of aircraft types all with vastly differing operating caracteristics. It is in this context that something must be done by the Board of Trade and the British Airports Authority to tighten their regulations and their insistence on the standards required for the fitting of equipment.

I do not want to horrify my right hon. Friend again by quoting to him the oft-quoted figures for near misses and actual collisions recorded by the Federal Aviation Agency in the United States. I know that he will be well aware that last year in the United States there were 43 actual collisions and about 2,000 near misses over American airspace. I am not suggesting that this will be the case for Heathrow, but what I do say is that those of us who live under or near the Heathrow flightpath find ourselves thinking more and more about exactly how safe are the aircraft that we either see or hear overhead.

My right hon. Friend may say that this is not a situation calling for panic or crisis action. He may also say that with the introduction of the computer-based Linesman/Mediator system into this country recently we are doing enough. I would only say that in future, if there is a collision or a near miss, we will not be involving two Boeing 707s loaded with about 160 passengers each. We will be talking about a Jumbo loaded with 360, or a charter-seated Jumbo, perhaps with 480. When we think of the consequences of such a collision, for the people living underneath, we could be talking about a possible death roll of over 1,000. The figures do not even bear comprehending, and I would suggest that they certainly merit a far more serious attitude than has so far been shown by the Board of Trade.

I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me some more definite assurances on this than we have had hitherto.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for raising this subject tonight. I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) on his last few remarks). I represent Richmond, which sits precisely below the glide path into London Airport, and if any tragedy took place—and I hope that it never will —it could well affect my constituents in Richmond and Barnes. The area is only eight miles from the threshold of Heathrow Airport.

Always at the back of my mind during the 10 years that I have represented my constituency has been a horror of a tragedy such as has been spelled out by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. Over the last few years the main concern of all of us representing constituencies near London Airport, particularly beneath the flight path—such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), whose area is situated precisely the same distance from Heathrow but to the west, as mine, which lies to the east—has been the subject of aircraft noise.

Over the past years I have raised this subject again and again with both Conservative and Labour Ministers. All of them in their own way have endeavoured to find some measures to ease the burden of noise on the part of those who live in areas beneath the glide paths into London airport, but all of them time and again have been frustrated by the Departments and by the pressures which are put upon them as Ministers.

The subject of this debate is that of safety. There is another aspect that concerns me deeply and that is pollution, a matter which has hardly been mentioned tonight. In the last few months the Government have set up a new office in charge of a Minister whose job apparently is to deal with the problem of pollution. but I have heard not one word from the right hon. Gentleman who has been appointed to this office on the problem of pollution caused by smoke from jet engines from aircraft flying over the London area approaching Heathrow. This is a major problem on which I have had no satisfactory reply from any Minister.

I happen to know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who is to reply to this debate, and for whom I have a high personal regard, is particularly interested in this subject. He and I have discussed it privately and I have received from him today a long letter which goes into the subject in great detail. But even when one sets aside all the technicalities mentioned in that letter, the situation is very unsatisfactory.

It is clear that during recent months there has been no real interest in or inquiry into the problem of smoke pollution such as has occurred in the United States. Reports have appeared in the Daily Telegraph over the past three or four months about the action being taken by the F.A.A. in the United States to deal with smoke pollution. That body is taking major steps to force engine manufacturers and airlines in the United States to use in their aircraft engines which do not pollute the atmosphere.

Even bearing in mind the sympathetic views expressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman personally, I find it hard to accept the comments in his letter that it is very difficult to identify the difference between the pollution from aircraft engines and the general pollution which emanates from a large city or built-up area. The Americans have managed to make such an identification and have also taken action to make certain that American airlines cease to pollute the atmosphere over cities on the approaches to major airports.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter again since it is important to the people who live beneath the glide paths. It is not as important as safety, but is certainly as important as noise. I hope that the initial interest shown by the right hon. Gentleman in this subject will be followed up so that action on the lines of that taken in the United States can be taken on the whole problem of pollution from engines.

I have strayed a little from the main lines of the debate. As I have said already, I think that safety is paramount. It must come before any other consideration. I am deeply worried about the potential danger to my constituents who live beneath the glide path into London Airport. Over my constituency, every 45 seconds at certain times of the year and every two minutes at other times, aircraft loaded with people pass on their way to the airport. Not only do they fill the ears of residents with a cacophony of appalling noise and not only do they pollute the atmosphere with filth from their engines; there is also the danger of accidents on a scale which would horrify anyone who gave a moment's careful thought to the possibilities.

In saying that, I do not suggest that Heathrow should be closed. I recognise that this is impossible. Incidentally, I suggest that we should build London's third airport at Foulness, well clear of the London area, and never again make the mistake of putting a major international airport so near the centre of our capital. However, that is another story.

I am concerned lest not enough care and thought is given in the years ahead to the build-up of the potential dangers of aircraft falling upon residential areas under the glide path. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Woking who spoke about the near miss which occurred on 9th January.

I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman and all the civil servants in his Department are not taking all possible steps to ensure that no such tragedy ever occurs. I am second to none in my praise of the skill of the pilots and crew who fly aircraft into London Airport amidst great hazards every day. I am second to none in my praise of the skill of the men who design and build these aircraft. Some of them are personal friends of mine, and I have seen many of them at work. I have the highest regard for the skill and devotion to duty of those in air traffic control. They are responsible for people's lives throughout the days and nights at an international airport, but it is a responsibility which is not highly paid. We all pay tribute to them.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry are alive to the problem. I welcome the skilled and technical speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. It may be that he jogged the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry in an even stronger way than I can on the various aspects of air traffic control, both civil and military, which he mentioned.

The Minister and his Department take the matter seriously, but I am not satisfied that they take seriously the problem of aircraft noise which is felt so bitterly by so many people who live in the Greater London area. A mass of documents pours out of the Board of Trade. When an hon. Member writes to the Minister, he receives a very polite answer. Great trouble is taken in going into individual complaints. Most people who telephone the airport are dealt with courteously, but nothing ever happens. We hear that rules and regulations controlling the height at which aircraft should be on the glide path are mainly adhered to strictly by pilots, and that a pilot is disciplined if there is a breach of them.

But we are never told of a case where either a pilot or an airline has been fined or disciplined for breaking noise regulations. I have heard of none during the years that I have represented Richmond at Westminster. Can the Minister give me any cases, with dates, times and the penalties that were inflicted on airlines for breaches of regulations concerned with air noise over the last ten years?

So, more and more of us who are realistic about the subject and represent areas which suffer from this problem are beginning to become cynical and to take the view that all that the Ministry is interested in doing is putting forward publicity and propaganda, trying to keep it quiet, and making statements such as, "The number of complaints sent in this year has been less than last year and, therefore, people are getting used to it." But people may not be writing letters because nothing happens when they do; not because they are getting used to the noise or beginning to accept it.

Alternatively, the Ministry says that it cannot be as bad as all that because the price of property continues to go up and this must mean that the noise is less. It forgets that we have been suffering from a major bout of inflation over the last five years—the worst that we have had since the war—and that that is the cause of house prices going up. Perhaps I should not say that, because it is bringing a political inference into a subject which tonight has been without political inferences of any kind. I will not go farther on that subject.

There is a feeling amongst those who represent areas around London Airport that the Ministry's attitude is, "Let us jolly them along. Let us just make nice noises. Let us make courteous replies and hope that they do not come back and query us again."

Many people in Richmond were particularly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to come to a special meeting arranged for next week at which he could give his views of the subject of noise. As we have now had to cancel that meeting, perhaps I can persuade the right hon. Gentleman to attend another meeting later in the summer when the noise is worse. On a nice June day we will open the windows of a hall in my constituency packed with residents who would like to hear his real views and ideas on the question of noise.

The other day I went to an interesting briefing on the subject of S.T.O.L.— steep take off and landing. Looking into the long term future of airport development in the London area, I am sure that this might be a possible solution. I do not go further than saying that it might be a possible solution. I should like an assurance from the Minister tonight that this is being studied in depth.

If it is possible within the next three or four months to let the House know the Ministry's views on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated by those of us who are suffering from the dangers of aircraft overhead, from the noise which issues from their engines, inevitably because these are big and powerful aircraft, and from the smoke and filth which lands on our houses and gardens year in, year out, day and night.

Mr. F. V. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I must tell the House that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who is seeking to catch my eye from the Front Bench, has already spoken in the debate and therefore exhausted his right to speak again. Normally only Ministers are allowed the opportunity to speak a second time, and then with the leave of the House. But, in the special circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman was sucessful in the ballot, perhaps the House may feel disposed to give leave to speak again.

12.09 a.m.

Mr. Corfield

I am duly grateful, and I promise to be very short. Indeed, there is no need for me to be otherwise, because my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has so admirably deployed all the points that we jointly wished to bring before the House in the debate.

However, there are three points which I should like to make. The first concerns the report on the 707 accident to which my hon. Friend referred. I think that one must make a reference to the fact that, apart from the adverse criticism of the fire-fighting services, it is clear from this report that there was also a serious error in the cockpit. One hesitates to dwell on this sort of thing in view of the great skill and gallantry which the crew displayed in bringing the aircraft down with as little loss of life as they succeeded in doing. I should not wish to speculate on what might have been the difference in the result had this error not been made, but it emphasises the fact that the training of pilots in this respect may leave something to be desired.

I should not have mentioned this had it not been for the fact that at the B.A.L.P.A. symposium, which the right hon. Gentleman opened not long ago, the pilots expressed some concern about the training. I am not an aviator of any sort, but it seems to me that the training for emergencies is very similar to the training for war. Its purpose is to enable one to react absolutely automatically with the right movements, however tired one is, whatever the conditions, and however difficult it is, or indeed impossible it is, to think rationally under the circumstances.

It was clear in this case that the various members of the crew concerned had not reached the standard of training which brought that absolutely automatic response which one has of slipping one's foot from the accelerator to the brake to stop a car. One does not think about it. This seems to be an ideal, and I admit that it is one that is not always possible to attain, but I think that when we are considering this matter we must ensure that enough time is given to what is a tedious and repetitive type of training, but nevertheless immensely important.

My second point relates to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). He suggested that the Roskill Commission should took at the whole question of noise and the environmental problems that arise from it. I do not think that the Roskill Commission is designed for this sort of operation at all. I should like the Minister to consider what seems to me a much more practical approach; namely, the proposal put forward by Professor Large, of Southampton University, for a mathematical model of these matters, which would require a small amount of Government funds. If the Minister is not aware of the proposal, I shall send him details of it. This seems to me a much more practical way of try- ing to decide what is the best mix of various measures that one can take to ease the problem of noise.

Obviously, reducing the number of people affected by means of town and country planning control is one method. At the other end of the scale is quietening the engines. In between there are all sorts of measures and different mixes, and it is not easy, purely as a matter of judgment, to decide what is the best mix in any circumstances in relation to noise.

On the question of safety generally, I hope that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) was not intending to imply any light-hearted attitude on the part of the Board of Trade in relation to safety, because I do not believe that there is any evidence of that. I do not believe it is true, and I do not think that anything is to be gained by implying that there is any attitude of that sort.

I very much welcome the strong expression of regard which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) has for the devotion with which the numerous people concerned with these matters carry out their duties. I feel rather more sympathy for the Board of Trade over the noise problem than the hon. Member for Nuneaton appears to do.

It is very difficult to know where to hold the balance, and the more I study this problem the more I come to the conclusion that amelioration—perhaps there is no such thing as a complete solution—is much more a medium-term to long-term operation than something that can be done overnight to make any really drastic improvement. I have some sympathy with the Minister of State when he appears merely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond. Surrey put it, just to jolly people along. It is often difficult to do anything else.

Mr. A. Royle

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, on the noise problem, it is much better for Ministers to stress what practical action they are taking in the long term, and the short term, too—my hon. Friend knows that there are actions which can be taken—rather than jolly people along and produce comfortable words which mean nothing? The general public are not stupid. They can see through it. That sort of thing seems foolish in the extreme, and it should be discouraged.

Mr. Corfield

One's definition of "jollying along" may well differ from one hon. Member to another. I entirely agree that no one wants purely empty phrases. But I was saying that I have some sympathy in relation to the difficulty in the short term, particularly as regards breaches of regulations. However well regulations are framed, it is not always possible to guarantee that they will not be infringed again.

Obviously, the question of noise is very serious. The general public are very sensitive about it. We must all take it seriously, but I sometimes feel that some of the anti-noise lobbies do not appreciate some of the technical difficulties involved.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should refer to me as light-hearted while at the same time taking up his hon. Friend's reference to the Board of Trade "jollying" things along. I assure him that in the many references which I have made to air misses and other matters of air safety in the House, I have never accused the Board of Trade of being light-hearted.

Mr. Corfield

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to conclude? I had almost done so. If he had taken the trouble to listen to what I said, he would know that I said that I was disturbed at his suggestion that the Board of Trade was light-hearted. I did not suggest that he was light-hearted. He does not amuse me in the least.

12.17 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)

I join those hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) not only on his choice of subject but on introducing it in so measured and cogent a fashion. At the outset, too, I express to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) my admiration for the tone and content of his speech. It was the reward to the House for having unanimously expressed our desire that he should speak twice. I greatly admired the hon. Gentleman's speech for its balanced view on an extremely difficult and poignant subject.

I need not tell the House that all in the Board of Trade—Ministers and officers—are genuinely and deeply concerned, first, about safety, which is paramount to our thinking and action in these matters, and also about the other hazards. I confess here that I have a personal interest—something like a passion—in helping to do something about smoke pollution. I hope that in saying that I shall in no way be taken as putting greater emphasis on what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South and I have discussed—and, I hope, will discuss further—than on other aspects of this difficult and important question of how to maintain both the airline trade, a major matter for this country, and its technical and industrial infrastructure. Both have an important bearing on our internal domestic economy and on our external viability.

Of course we take this seriously. If any letter of mine has given anyone the impression that I am seeking to divert attention from our frequent inability, despite our hard work and dedication to these matters, to produce a quick result, I am very sorry, because that is not intended. I shall watch my prose style from now on. If my letters are somewhat more polemical and less forthcoming in discussing these matters with my hon. Friends—on both sides of the House—I am afraid that the speech of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) will be partly to blame. I know he will take that in the best spirit.

As one would expect, the debate has ranged widely, and hon. Members would not expect me to do more than try to answer some of the outstanding questions. Some I cannot answer tonight. It would be unfair to the House if I tried to answer on technical points. It does the House no service to give incomplete or inconclusive answers. I have not only listened intently to all that has been said—it has been factual, well-reasoned and in the best spirit—and made a note of every point, but I shall follow up, after reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, every conceivable lead which will help us to achieve the balance mentioned by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe)—squaring the circle between safety and amenity, including freedom from noise and other things.

The hon. Member for Woking raised four points. The first was the accident to the B.O.A.C. 707 at Heathrow on 8th April, 1968. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South said that cockpit error may have intruded on to the course of the accident. The report of the Chief Inspector of Accidents drew attention to a number of deficiencies in the operation of the British Airports Authority fire service on this occasion, particularly in the deployment of fire appliances.

Two things emanated from this report. First, the Chief Inspector recommended a review of aircraft fire and rescue services at Heathrow by a broadly-based working party. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that this working party was established under the chairmanship of an officer of the Board of Trade, containing representatives from the British Airports Authority and the police, fire and ambulance services of the metropolitan and appropriate county authorities. It has met, and is making good progress, and I expect to receive its report later this year.

Secondly, interim action has been taken on a number of important points by the B.A.A. The Chief Inspector's comments were immediately brought to the attention of the B.A.A. and prompt action was taken to improve the service. This action included improvements in the crash alarm system, additional radio telephony equipment, improved maintenance of hydrants, the introduction of new fire vehicles—the Nubian Majors, as these become available—and I am informed that two are now in service—with the result that the fire service now has more than 6,000 gallons of water on vehicles, in addition to the aerodrome hydrant system. There is also additional "hot" fire training and improved liaison with local authorities.

The hon. Member for Woking asked for the terms of reference of the working party. They are to … review and report on the problems of fire and rescue operations in respect of aircraft accidents at Heathrow, including the problem of co-ordination between the British Airports Authority services and those of local authorities, and to make recommendations The directive issued to the working party included the heads, "Liaison between the airport and local authorities", "Fire equipment and manning", "Domestic fires", "Ambulance cover" and "Training"—and in this case it is training for the fire service. I agree that we must give increased attention to training. I was recently in Hamble where there is an excellent establishment. I had the opportunity to speak to the principal and staff there. Everybody in the airline industry agrees that we should constantly examine the possibility of improving training, especially for emergency service.

The hon. Member for Woking then referred to the Trident fire on 29th July 1969, and pointed out that I might feel inhibited about speaking too freely on this subject. I understand that it was concluded that the seat of the fire was on the floor of the front compartment. The evidence indicated an intense and relatively localised fire, starting virtually on the floor and spreading upwards and outwards, fed by seat cushions, bulkhead and curtains or other cabin furnishings. It was thought that the fire must have been started deliberately and that it was assisted by the addition of some inflammable agent such as paraffin.

It is important to ascertain that fire fighting media are right. I gather that the media used by the B.A.A. at Heathrow are similar to those used at other major airports in this country and throughout the world.

I further understand that the investigation carried out by B.E.A. showed that the corrosion in the aircraft resulted from—here is the chemistry point put by the hon. Member—a by-product of the combustion of the fittings and furnishings in association with the water used to produce foam. It is well known that the burning a plastic compounds such as are found in trim and upholstery fittings produces acids, largely hydrochloric acid, and these would condense within the aircraft as it cooled. Without anticipating any investigation which may be proceeding, I do not think I should say more.

I leave that, except to pick up the point made by the hon. Member about the question of tightening up security. I understand that B.E.A. has taken immediate and full note of the implications of this accident. I hope that this accident has led to a tightening up of security. I have no details of what has been done since, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point. It is one which I should like to probe, and I shall do so.

Mr. Onslow

I am most grateful. I suppose that we can take it for granted that inquiries of the most exhaustive kind have been made as to the responsibility for this fire. When considering it, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure whether there is the possibility of using dry powder as an extinguishing agency?

Mr. Roberts

Most certainly that is the kind of point one would wish to go into—the use of a dry powder in preference to a foaming substance which inevitably, if it comes into contact with certain furnishings, may generate an acid which may have very serious results apart from a fire.

The hon. Member raised the subject of the near-miss incident at Northolt on 9th January, and it was raised by a number of hon. Members. I think it would be best to await the report of the Chief Inspector of Accidents because inquiries are proceeding expeditiously. I provided, in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), information which, I hoped without prejudging the results of the Chief Inspector's inquiries, could indicate to the House what the basic facts were as I knew them.

I would prefer to await the Chief Inspector's report before commenting any further except to say that I quite understand the hon. Member's difficulty about the reference to the direction given to this plane. It would normally have had to turn right. In fact, it was directed to turn left. I must reiterate what I said in that Answer, that the control saw that this aircraft, flying at 500 feet—quite 850 feet below what it should be flying at—was headed, if it proceeded directly, to ground higher than itself, and also if it turned right.

Therefore at this stage, speaking personally, I do not know what the alternative could have been other than to direct it to turn left. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this must be—and it is, in fact—the subject of the most searching inquiry. Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall look forward to studying the Chief Inspector's report in full when it is published.

The hon. Member for Woking also referred to Press reports of experiments conducted by pilots without the knowledge of their airlines. I have indeed seen these Press reports. I assure the hon. Member for Windsor that any comments, reports, suggestions, which Mr. Holmes or anybody else—I am aware of Mr. Holmes's great activity and interest in these matters—cares to put to me will receive the most sincere and careful attention. I have not so far received, either from Mr. Holmes or from anybody else, any formal report about this. The Board of Trade welcomes constructive suggestions, preferably from an aviation source, if they relate to flying techniques which may make air traffic safer and quieter. Any such proposals are considered, and will be considered, on their merits.

I emphasise that safety and noise aspects would obviously need to be tested under properly controlled conditions. I very much agree with what has been said about this kind of activity, if it has happened. Procedures followed by pilots at take-off and landing contain some flexibility for pilots' discretion, but I am sure that it will be generally agreed that ad hoc experiments, especially in the course of passenger-carrying operations, involving departures from the procedures laid down, are to be discouraged on safety grounds.

I say no more at the moment. I would like to see any report that is available. I can assure the House that the matter does not rest there so far as I am concerned.

I hope that the House will bear with me if in coming now to a number of unrelated but none the less important points I depart from the glide path from time to time and do not make a continuous speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is constantly and informedly urging the Board of Trade and myself, as is his right, to do more for safety in particular. I listen to my hon. Friend with great pleasure always but cannot always decide precisely what he is urging upon us. It is not enough to say that the Board of Trade does not take these matters sufficiently seriously. My hon. Friend must put forward proposals.

One proposal which my hon. Friend constantly urges upon us is for area navigation facilities. We discussed this question fully in the Adjournment debate in which my hon. Friend and I took part last November. I will not go over the ground tonight. But I urge him, ant; invite the House, to read the report of that debate, in which my position was fairly stated.

On area navigation facilities, my hon. Friend is well aware of the increasing provision we have made for VORs and DMEs. He is well aware of the increasing provision of radar. He knows about Mediator. I will not go through all that again; it is enshrined, I hope in impeccable prose, in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th November, 1969.

In recent times there has been increasing interest, I am glad to say, in the greater flexibility in the use of busy air space which might accrue from the general availability of area navigation facilities. This subject was discussed recently at a meeting of European states under the aegis of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. There has been reference to the fact that aircraft of the corporations and other aircraft are fitted with this instrumentation.

The United Kingdom is a firm proponent of such navigational capability provided it is accurate and reliable enough to facilitate closer spacing of aircraft in busy air space without lowering safety. Clearly, any new aid intended for international use requires standardisation or recognition by I.C.A.O. My hon. Fri end was getting very close to asking us to place some kind of sanction on foreign aircraft which did not conform with what we have done in fitting area navigational systems in Britain. I do not know how one does this.

We must negotiate with other users. Civil aviation is an inward as well as an outward process. It will take some time to accomplish, bearing in mind the necessity for demonstration and proving, the varying national interests—and I mean "interests"—and the very large sums of money involved. Also, airlines must be given the opportunity to compare the merits of competing systems before they can be expected to embark on the costly and lengthy task of equipping their fleets. But I can give this assurance: the United Kingdom intends to maintain its interest in developments in this field and to encourage, as far as possible, the eventual adoption of suitable systems.

My hon. Friend mentioned the position at Luton. I agree that airports which are less busy than the so-called international airports and the London group of airports are growing in activity and are presenting problems as well as opportunities. The study group's report was internal, covering many other problems as well as Luton's problems. The gist of the report on Luton has been sent to the Civil Aviation Control Advisory Committee for discussion next month.

The hon. Member for Windsor mentioned the Roskill Commission. It is not for me here to speak on the scope of this inquiry, but I note what the hon. Gentleman said. It is perfectly right that I should draw the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend to this part of the debate. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South that there is some dubiety about how this fits in with this kind of inquiry, but considerations similar to those raised by the hon. Member for Windsor should at least be noted. I am answering a Question about an automatic monitoring system tomorrow, and I prefer the House to await that considered answer.

I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey that we have to look ever more carefully at the subject of pollution. I hope that he will remember that I said that by talking about these things and not being able to do much about them one must not be thought to be diverting criticism or avoiding the issues.

The hon. Member made some interesting comments about what is happening in the United States. I am inquiring into this, and I was doing so before the hon. Member mentioned it. If there is anything that we can learn from the United States, we shall learn it.

The hon. Member referred to the potention of S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. This is linked with the prescient and balanced remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, who said that there was little that we could do about noise in the immediate short term for all our efforts, but that the industry was working on it. S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. are distinct possibilities. I should like at some time to discuss the engineering and technological improvements of engines; I find them very hopeful. One's experience is that while one is careful to look to the long term for technological improvements, one is often startled when the time scale is shorter than had been expected.

I cannot honestly pretend to the House, and I never have done so, that this serious problem of noise is susceptible to an easy and quick solution, but I assure hon. Members that we are doing everything we can and we look to improvements in the not so distant future.

Mr. A. Royle

I have been immensely impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I have heard many speeches in the House on this subject over many years, but the right hon. Gentleman's was the best speech on this subject I have heard from a Minister in either Government over the last ten years. He has answered many questions extremely well in the course of a very able speech, and the very fact that he has given such an excellent exposition makes it even more important that he should meet my constituents and make these points to them. Will he answer my question and say that he will come to my constituency?

Mr. Roberts

I thought that that encomium would lead to something. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to say that if I could not go I would see to it that an expert official from my Department attended. I make no promise—the hon. Gentleman understands how Ministers are placed—to come at a later date, but, as always, I will carefully consider whether it is possible. If it is, nobody will be more pleased than I, although I do not know how the hon. Gentleman's constituents will feel after hearing me.