HC Deb 23 March 1978 vol 946 cc1773-88

1.1 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)

I do not believe that the Minister will complain that he has not had correspondence about the issue I wish to raise. It is the subject of what are assumed to be Concorde booms over the South-West, particularly over Cornwall.

My interest in the subject began in 1971 or 1972 when Cornwall was under the flight path of the original supersonic test flights that took place over the length of the United Kingdom. My interest was aroused when one afternoon I was crossing the car park of the company for which I worked in Camborne. One of those flights was taking place overhead and I remember resolving that this noise had to be stopped and that we could not possibly allow direct overhead supersonic flights.

The noise was incredible. The Government paid out substantial damages as a result of those test flights on proven damage. Not long after I was elected to this House, the Minister announced—I think it was in 1975—that permission had been granted for the aircraft to land in America. I used that opportunity to question him further on supersonic booms and I was given the pledge that there would be no such booms over the West Country without the specific approval of the House of Commons. I felt relieved, thinking that the problem would never recur.

However, it was not so long after that that commercial flights started and the correspondence began pouring in. It has never ceased. I do not know how many letters I have had from constituents. The number must be in three figures. I have sent many of them to the Minister. He has clearly received a vast number about the subject because he has stopped the normal convention of "topping and tailing" letters himself, and has instead produced a circular which he sends out every two or three months—and I thank him for it—in response to the correspondence he gets from hon. Members.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

There is a distinction between sending an interim report as I have done and sending replies to letters which are always most elegantly topped and tailed.

Mr. Penhaligon

I intend no criticism of the Minister but merely to show that a substantial amount of correspondence reaches him on the subject other than that which I forward. A reply to a Question revealed that about 35 Members had taken this matter up at some time or another. Certainly those with constituencies neighbouring mine have experienced complaints similar to those expressed to me.

It is not just a question of the letters one receives. For each letter that a Member receives many more people intend to write. I know from walking around my constituency that the booms are a regular subject of conversation. I am frequently approached along the lines of '"'Ere, Mr. Penhaligon, when are we going to stop these booms?". Some of the letters have been remarkable documents, not the sort of thing that is written in five minutes in a fit of pique late one evening. I have received catalogues of times and dates and even indications of the intensity of the boom from constituents. Some of them I have forwarded to the Minister, and I have another which the Minister will be receiving soon. The problem is serious and widespread.

I accept that those who predict technological phenomena were caught napping on this one. I am sure that when the original Concorde test flights started along the channels on either side of Cornwall not many people estimated or thought that this problem would occur. But it does. I see from some of the papers sent to me that deceleration of Concorde destined for Heathrow starts over the Atlantic approximately 150 miles from Land's End. My first specific question therefore is just when does the aeroplane on a normal day and on a normal flight drop below Mach 1, which is the speed at which this problem occurs?

I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). It seems that Concorde booms have even been heard there, although, I gather, with nothing like the regularity experienced in my part of the world. We are told—and there is evidence to back this up—that a peculiarity of the weather makes the situation worse at certain times of the year. I get far more complaints in the winter than in the summer. We may therefore be entering a period of fewer complaints, but I fear that an increase in the number of of flights could counteract that.

The noise has been described as secondary booms, but many people in my part of the country, one or two of them of great technical expertise, question that suggestion. They argue that it is a refracted boom. A pressure wave from the supersonic flight is refracted by the changing densities of the air, and when it reaches ground level it virtually runs parallel to the surface due to temperature gradients. This means that the boom is heard over an incredible distance.

It was indicated at one time that the boom skirt would be no more than 12 miles wide. There is clear evidence that the same booms have been heard at places 40 or 50 miles apart. Information I have gathered locally indicates that impulse readings on a sound level indicator in the two-cycle/sec. range of as high as 111 decibels linear have been taken. I recognise that on the DBA scale the reading is less. The average impulse reading DBA is about 50, and that is not an enormous noise. Until I was elected to this House, I spent a lot of time trying to make rock drills and road drills a lot quieter. If we had ever achieved 50 DBA we would have regarded that as the ultimate achievement. For all that, however, the combination of suddeness and the low cycle range characteristic of the noise causes a great deal of irritation in my area.

The other peculiar factor is that virtually all the complaints are made about inward flights. I cannot believe that the aeroplane does not reach Mach I on an outward flight by the time it reaches Cornwall, and therefore it seems that the fact that the aeroplane is climbing rather than descending over Cornwall has a significant effect on the noise characteristics.

The complaints may sound frivolous but there are so many of them that it would be foolish to ignore them. There are regular complaints of cracked tiles and of china falling off shelves, particularly in caravans. Mothers worry that the bump is baby falling out of bed and rush upstairs to find that, fortunately, that is not so. In the Camborne area, which has a slight schizophrenia about noise because of the earth movements as the old mineworkings fall in, many people are genuinely worried that the noise is their back garden dropping 40 or 50 feet.

I believe that the Government recognise that this problem is unacceptable but that they will do nothing about it for political reasons. They are negotiating with African countries for permission to fly supersonically over those countries. I can see the difficulty. How can we convince the Government of Chad or the Government of the Central African Empire that Concorde causes no damage and no offence—indeed, it might even make the crops grow faster—when we cannot get our people to be prepared to stand the noise created by something flying 50 or 80 miles out to sea?

But for all that, the problem exists. The mere fact that it is politically embarrassing does not necessarily mean that we can continue to ask the people in my part of the country to stand the present difficulty. The political embarrassment revolves around the fact that if we cannot get permission to fly Concorde supersonically over those land masses there is only one route in the world where it might be a viable proposition, and that is the Atlantic route. Concorde does not have enough fuel capacity to cover the Pacific. Therefore, it is restricted to the Atlantic route unless permission can be obtained to fly supersonically over the land masses of Africa and Asia.

Nevertheless, I must ask the Minister why he does not instruct that the aeroplane slows down earlier. I cannot imagine that it could possibly take more than eight or 10 minutes more flight time from the American continent to our airport if the aeroplane slowed down 200 miles earlier. Two hundred miles might sound a long distance, but we are simply talking about 200 miles at 700 mph as opposed to 200 miles at 1,400 mph. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the difference would be about eight or 10 minutes.

I understand that the problem about doing that is that in order to make the aeroplane stable at subsonic speeds the nose configuration has to be changed and therefore the aeroplane uses more fuel. How much more fuel—and how many passengers should we lose if the plane had to slow down 200 miles earlier? I am told that the number of passengers lost would be two. So for the cost of eight or ten minutes more flight time and the reduction of profit due to having two fewer passengers—if that is so—my constituents are exposed to a "boom, boom" two, three or four times a night.

I have had a number of complaints from constituents about the response of British Airways to complaints made to it. In particular, one of my main technical informants, Mr. Vanstone, who is an aeronautical engineer, a member of the relevant institute and an export in sound technology, wrote to British Airways on 11th February complaining that a tile in his house had been broken. He received no reply, and I have been encouraging him to take a claim against British Airways to the local small claims court.

At some time or other this business must receive a legal hearing. What is the legal position? If a car drives past one's house and causes some damage, provided that one can get the number of the car or information as to the owner, one has a case which one can pursue. How can my constituents identify an aeroplane that is flying so fast that they hear it only after it has gone? What are we supposed to do? How are people supposed to know whether it is a French or a British aeroplane, or any other, if it has gone by the time the damage is done?

Even if he knows that it is a French aeroplane, how can a constituent of mine living in a small village possibly take out a claim against the French airline, especially when the damage is usually so small? We are talking about only a few pounds. But the time being saved is very little, and the convenience to the number of passengers involved is even smaller than that. I would like some indication of the legal position.

One of the Questions that I asked the Minister was answered on the line that the experts were of the view that the pressure wave would not cause damage to buildings or aggravate minor faults in sound structures. I presume that "sound structures" means buildings put up to Parker Morris standards.

My house is 200 years old, and a great number of the other houses in Cornwall are of a similar age. The tin miners and clay miners who built many of the houses in Cornwall knew nothing about Parker Morris. They built the houses by a system of shuttering, which meant building a wooden structure and each evening going out in the garden and shovelling in another foot of wall. That is the way in which many of the houses in Cornwall were built. To tell people living in my county that "sound structures" are likely to suffer no damage when their houses were built by such techniques is ludicrous. Damage is undoubtedly being caused, and it is only right that this should be recognised.

There is another problem which I do not take desperately seriously but about which a lot of people contact me. Some people allege that some of the booms are not caused by Concorde but have some other orgin. The reasons put forward are quite amusing at times, but there are allegations that there are other causes of these booms.

I should like the Minister to instruct the Observer Corps or a similar body to use its professional skills to make a chronological record of precisely when the booms are heard. In this way a meaningful record could be kept by professionals. It should be possible to eliminate the Concorde booms and to see whether in reality anything else is happening. I believe that this should be given considerable priority.

The Concorde booms ought to be stopped. I am by training an engineer and regard Concorde as a technical miracle, but it is, tragically, a technical miracle which on so many fronts has gone wrong. I do not, as a Member of Parliament representing 76,000 constituents, regard as progress the nightly exposure to three or four booms of 50 decibels intensity just for the convenience of a few passengers in an aeroplane and for the saving of eight or 10 minutes' flight time.

My constituents are asking what is to happen in 30 or 40 years if the problem is allowed to go unchecked. If world air flight should become supersonic, are the people of Cornwall and Devon to be asked to put up with supersonic booms, whether they be refracted or secondary, for every aeroplane that covers our part of the world on the way to America? I do not know how many aircraft a day fly over Cornwall to America, but it must be a substantial number. I do not believe that such a suggestion is credible.

I want an assurance from the Minister that that is a non-starter. I want an assurance that the idea of world supersonic flight arrangements, with daily flights over Cornwall, is a non-starter. It is an outrage that so many people are asked to suffer for the benefit of so few.

I have heard the argument presented in the House that those who buy houses near airports suffer greater noise disturbance than those in Cornwall. I have no doubt that that is so. But when people buy houses near airports, as some have good reason for doing, they are aware precisely of what they are taking on. People who came to Cornwall to live, or those who were born and brought up there, did not expect this phenomenon to affect their lives as much and as often as it does.

I do not believe that the problem should be allowed to continue without some action and correction. I put the following questions to the Minister. Is the problem a political one as we are trying to negotiate flight paths over the African and Asian land masses? Why cannot Concorde be made to slow down earlier? How many people would the aeroplane not be able to take because of the extra fuel used? Am I right in saying that the amount of time saved is only eight or 10 minutes? What is the legal position on claims for damages? Is it possible to use the Observer Corps to co-ordinate times in order to check out the cause of other booms, if they exist?

Finally, I should like to hear the Minister's comments on whether he believes that it is a credible proposition to ask the people of Cornwall to stand hearing the boom on three or four night a week—or perhaps even 30 times a night in 20 or 30 years—as a regular part of so-called technical advance. That is not my idea of technical advance. Technical advance must include a fair amount of quiet life. The booms caused by Concorde are for many of the elderly and others in my constituency the exact opposite of that. I assure the Minister that many people will await his reply with great interest.

1.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

One of the interesting characteristics of our business today is that I have to answer more than one debate. We have just completed a debate dealing with alleged scandals in insurance, and for that I donned my companies hat. Even the "Amoco Cadiz" was men- tioned, so I suppose that I could partially wear my shipping hat. In the present debate, I have an opportunity to wear my aviation hat, as, indeed, I shall in another debate to follow.

This is, therefore, an interesting state of affairs for me, although it has made it rather difficult to arrange at fairly short notice the necessary briefing which is essential if I am to do justice to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), which I shall now try to do.

I am very much aware of the concern in the South-West of England—and in South Wales as well—about the continuing problem of sonic boom. As the hon. Gentleman said, a number of hon. Members have lost no opportunity to remind me of it, and my regular correspondents have included the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), as well as many others.

As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, last November I circulated to hon. Members with a constituency interest in the problem an interim report on sonic boom prepared by my scientific advisers. I do not propose to go over the technical information in that report. Copies are available in the Vote Office for hon. Members—the copies have been there for some time, of course—and members of the public are able to obtain copies from my Department's Press office. I hope to publish a further report in a few weeks setting out the results up to that time of the research which has been undertaken and the means of alleviating the problem that are under current examination.

It may be helpful to the House and to those outside who are interested in this important issue if I describe the history of the sonic boom problem in the United Kingdom since Concorde entered commercial service and the attempts which have been made, and are still being made, to solve it.

It first became clear in 1976 that there was a serious sonic boom problem in the United Kingdom from Concorde's commercial operations. The first thing we had to do was to see where the booms were occurring and then measure their intensity. In itself, that was a difficult job because the places where the booms occurred and the days on which they occurred depended on atmospheric and weather conditions. For example, we found that our mobile monitoring units could go to a place where booms had been heard regularly for a week only to find that no booms occurred when they were there—rather like the doctor coming to a patient after being told over the telephone that he is desperately ill and finding that the patient has recovered by the time he arrives.

That was a factor which we had to face, and it did not subtract from the difficulties. However, sufficient data were eventually amassed, and at the same time the coastguards and a large number of members of the public sent us detailed reports which we were able to correlate with Concorde flights. I pay tribute to the many people within my Department, especially the coastguards, and to the members of the public for the assistance which they afforded in that connection.

It became clear that primary booms were being heard in the Channel Islands and along the South-West coast, and secondary booms were being heard throughout the South of England, although they were concentrated in the South-West. Following discussions between the United Kingdom and France, agreement was reached last September on an experimental change to the in-bound route of the Air France Concorde which was designed to remove primary boom from the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and to secure beneficial effects for the areas subject to secondary boom.

So far as we have been able to ascertain, the route change has completely removed the primary boom problem. I hope that that is right. Also, it has removed the secondary booms from most of the South of England, reaching up to Surrey, in fact, as I learned when I was receiving correspondence about that area some time ago. Nevertheless, it is clear that the problem still remains in the South-West and, to a lesser extent, in South Wales.

Studies of secondary boom have been proceeding since the problem was first discovered, and the results of the route change have been an important input. The reports of sonic booms which we have received from members of the public have been fed into a complex computer programme which attempted to correlate the booms with aircraft manoeuvres. From these studies, it seems that most of the booms which cause disturbance are the so-called focused booms caused by the secondary sonic boom carpet becoming folded by the aircraft's movements while flying supersonically well out to sea.

The two movements which appear to be responsible are, first, the turn which the Air France Concorde makes as it enters the Channel, the second, the movement which both the Air France and the British Airways Concordes make as they point themselves downwards in order to begin deceleration to subsonic speed. The hon. Gentleman had a comment to make about that, and I shall come to it later.

Tests are already being made with British Airways to see whether a safe and practicable means can be found to reduce the focused booms caused by the pointing down, without creating undesirable side effects. If these tests show that there is a safe and economically reasonable procedure which can yield real benefits, Air France and British Airways will, I am sure, be willing to use it. But for safety reasons it would be quite wrong to skimp on the tests, and it will be some time, I am advised, before we shall know whether such a procedure can be devised.

French officials are very much aware of the continuing problem of sonic boom—we have never failed to seize an opportunity to ensure that they are so made aware—and it would be quite wrong to suggest that they are unsympathetic or uncaring about the situation. A meeting is being arranged with French officials now that the joint studies by the British and French manufacturers and scientific establishments have reached a sufficiently advanced stage.

In the meantime, discussions are already under way between the air traffic controllers of both countries about changes to the supersonic routes in the Channel so as to improve air traffic control and reduce the possibility of delays now that there is an increased volume of supersonic traffic to be handled. In these discussions, the Civil Aviation Authority is bearing in mind the need to design the new route structure in a way to test whether, as we hope, a straight route into the Channel will have beneficial effects for the South-West of England.

I am advised—I emphasise this—that serious problems from secondary sonic booms are probably almost unique to the United Kingdom because of the meteorological conditions prevailing here. They may be mirrored in the equivalent part of the Southern Hemisphere, but that is not our immediate concern today. I understand that the booms which were causing some disturbance in Canada came from the edge of the primary boom carpet from the route of the Concorde down beside the East Coast, and the route has since been altered by the airlines.

I understand also that the loud booms heard on the United States coast were found on investigation by the United States Naval Research Laboratory to be caused by military aircraft. Secondary boom could sometimes be just audible in quiet weather in the United States and Canada, and it can be measured with sensitive instrumentation, but it is not generally distinguishable from other noise. In addition, two years of scheduled supersonic flights across populated areas of the Middle East and two years of flights down the Italian coast have led to no difficulties.

I mention those matters because they illustrate that there may well be something unique about the situation in the United Kingdom to which we have to turn our attention. As I have said, we are already engaged on considerable research in that connection.

I turn now to the specific points which the hon. Gentleman raised. I take, first, the question of damage to buildings. Extensive tests have been undertaken not only here but in the United States and in France to establish the likelihood of damage from sonic booms of varying intensity. Primary sonic boom can cause damage, but for damage to occur the building needs to be almost under the direct line of supersonic flight, the boom needs to be focused in some way and the aircraft needs to be flying fairly low. Then the damage will normally occur over a swathe of land and will be clearly identifiable.

However, tests carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in the West Country before Concorde entered commercial service showed, for example, that supersonic flight directly over Truro cathedral caused no more vibration to parts of the structure than the cathedral organ, and considerably less to the belfry than the bells did. I am assured by my scientific advisers that secondary sonic booms of the intensity caused in the United Kingdom by Concorde's commercial operations will not cause any damage to buildings in reasonable condition and are less likely to cause gradual, cumulative damage than normal wear and tear and weathering.

If there is a serious problem in this regard, as the hon. Gentleman asserted, I shall seek advice from the technical advisers and the Building Research Advisory Centre, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about a specific problem.

Given the scientific evidence on the unlikelihood of damage to buildings in the United Kingdom from sonic boom caused by commercial operations of Concorde, the question of insurance against such damage is to some extent academic, especially as, if any damage were proved, the airline concerned would be strictly liable under Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. However, I appreciate that insurance would help to set people's minds at rest, and my officials will shortly be inviting representatives of the industry to discuss the problem of insurance, on the basis that insurers might now be in a better position to assess the risk, now that Concorde has been in commercial service for some time. I hope that that will be regarded as to some extent reassuring.

The hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult to identify a particular aircraft that might have caused damage. I do not think that it is as difficult with Concorde flights, because they are comparatively rare—

Mr. Penhaligon

At present.

Mr. Davis

We are talking about the present position. In any event, it is clear from the correspondence I have received from a number of hon. Members, when I have invited their constituents to let me have details of specific Concorde flights, that the problem of identification has not been particularly serious.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of bringing proceedings. It is a difficulty that is not confined to this matter. He spoke of the possibility of a motor vehicle causing slight damage to a constituent's property, for example. The constituent would seriously have to ask himself whether it was worth while taking the lorry driver to court over a cracked tile. That is the problem one faces with claims which are almost de minimis and claims which might range up to much more than de minimis—perhaps £20, £30 or £50—although there is a small claims court. That remains a problem which is not related only to this specific issue.

There is a legal remedy, to which I have referred. But that is not the end of the story. One must consider whether it is worth while to bring an action in the courts with the risks involved and the cost that might be incurred. One must balance the possible benefits of a successful court action and the risks one runs if one is not successful. As I said, that is not related solely to this topic by any means.

It is true that nearly all the booms heard in the South-West can be correlated with Concorde movements. Whenever we receive a report that does not tie in with air traffic control records of Concorde, we check whether the noise came from a military source. If it did not, we can check with the local authority and the police whether they know of any other possible causes. We can do little beyond that.

The most likely explanation in such cases is that the time was not accurately reported, perhaps because the watch of the person concerned gains or loses. There is a whole variety of reasons why it can be inaccurately reported. Accurate information on the time of a boom is essential if we are to try to correlate it with Concorde's movements. I know that that is appreciated by many people in the South-West.

The hon. Gentleman talked about British Airway's failure to respond properly or at all to a constituent's complaint. I am sorry about that. I am not responsible for British Airways' capacity to deal with it, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with a specific matter in mind I shall see that it is conveyed directly to the chairman of British Airways and is fully investigated. Alternatively—and this would be just as good—the hon. Gentleman could take it up directly himself.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether our concern was being diminished by overwhelmingly political considerations in negotiating routes for Concorde. That is not so. Indeed, the reverse is true. It is not to the advantage of Concorde operations that this sort of debate takes place or that it is public knowledge, as a result of letters written by hon. Members to me or letters published in the Press, that there is a disadvantage applying to Concorde's operations. Therefore, it follows that concern is felt by us as a sponsoring Department for airlines, by the Department of Industry, responsible as a sponsoring Department for the manufacturing aspect, and by aviation interests, whether manufacturers or airlines. It would be absurd to conceive that they were unconcerned, because it is completely contrary to their interests that anything adverse to Concorde's operations should rightly be ventilated here or anywhere else. They want to cure these matters.

Mr. Penhaligon

If the weather characteristics are unique and if the Concorde booms are found virtually nowhere else in the world, why is not the perfectly obvious, sane and sensible solution adopted—that the aircraft is made to slow down 150 or 200 miles earlier, thus adding a whole six minutes to its flight times?

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman's zeal is amazing. I am trying to deal with his points in order, and that question is directly relevant to what I was going to say next.

The hon. Gentleman legitimately asked—it seems a very simple matter—"Why doesn't Concorde slow down earlier?" The answer is that there is a substantial load factor penalty, far greater than the hon. Gentleman has been informed. I am advised that if Concorde were to slow down as he suggests—I understand that at present the British Airways Concorde goes subsonic 50 miles west of Combe Martin and the Air France Concorde goes subsonic 50 miles west of Guernsey—the load factor penalty would be 12 persons, which is substantial. We must carefully consider that, and not simply accept it at its face value. These are factors being taken into account in the assessment of the position now being undertaken.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about supersonic overflight. He would rightly regard that as an abomination if practised over the South-West of England, perhaps, although he did not say this, in consideration of getting subsonic overflight rights somewhere else. It has been stated in this House and in another place on a number of occasions that there is no intention on the part of the Government of carrying out supersonic flights. My recollection of the undertaking is that there would be absolutely no question of this move being contemplated without Parliament being fully consulted. I hope that I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

It had not occurred to me to utilise the Observer Corps. I do not know whether it is being used. We have had the advantage of the co-operation of the Coast Guard and the public, who are alerted to the situation and concerned about it. These have provided us with a good deal of valuable help, of which we are making use in our investigations. If there is any additional help that can be usefully employed I would be glad to look into the suggestion and write to the hon. Gentleman.

I believe that I have dealt with all of the points put to me by the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising these matters because it gives me the opportunity to state publicly what is the other side of the coin, that there is a problem here of which we are aware. We are not unconcerned about it. We are trying to resolve it.

Mr. Penhaligon

I am pleased to hear that so much effort is being made to resolve this problem. Let us consider the possibility that changing the flight path and something else does not resolve the problem. There have been two or three attempts so far which have failed. Can the Under-Secretary give me an assurance, which I can take back to my constituents, that in that circumstance he will instruct the aeroplane to slow down earlier? Or is he telling me that if the problem cannot be solved by changing the flight path my constituents will simply have to put up with it for ever?

Mr. Davis

I am not saying that. The hon. Gentleman is trying to jump the gun a little. He is asking me a hypothetical question which, as far as I know, no Minister in any Government ever answers. We are undertaking a step-by-step analytical approach and conducting a research programme into this. We have seen a benefit in terms of the primary boom. We know that, as a result of the public help that has been given, we are making some progress with the secondary boom. It would be wrong for me to mislead the hon. Gentleman or anyone else about the eventual results of this research programme. I believe that some gain will arise but I do not want to be too optimistic.

I do not say that the problem will disappear. That is unlikely. My concern is to mitigate it considerably. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am deeply concerned about this issue. The French Government, too, have taken the problem on board. I hope that when I next report to the hon. Gentleman he will see that considerable progress has been made. Perhaps in the not-to-distant future it will be possible to provide relief to those whom he represents so well, on this issue and others.