Lords Sitting of 17 February 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Shrewsbury—Took the Oath.
The Earl Russell—Took the Oath.
The Lord Hothfield—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NAVAL RE-ENTRY AIR PILOTS
2.37 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of pilots entering the air branch of the Royal Navy since the start of the re-entry scheme for pilots in 1951 have been re-entries; and does the Royal Navy expect these re-entry pilots to perform all or any flying duties when in their previous service they were employed exclusively or principally on one type of flying.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Lord Lord Amulree, has raised this Question. Pilots who have been granted short-service commissions under the re-entry scheme represent about 33 per cent. of the total numbers entered for, or transferred to, pilot duties in the Royal Navy since the re-entry scheme started. In arriving at this figure, those men who train and qualify as pilots in the Royal Navy during their full-time period of National Service have been excluded, except in so far as they have subsequently been granted a short-service commission. It includes, however, those officers who re-engaged immediately following earlier service. Those who came back to the Royal Navy after an appreciable break in their service comprise 26 per cent. of the total.
440
In general, it has been the practice in the Royal Navy to return each re-entered officer to the type of duty for which he had been trained and on which he was employed during his previous service; that is fighter, strike, or anti-submarine. If, however, it is found during the period of refresher training which is given to all re-entered officers, that a pilot has become unsuitable for the duty for which he was originally trained, he is given alternative employment more suitable to his present ability. Inevitably some reentered fighter pilots were found, owing to age, to be unable to stand the physical strain of high speed flight manœuvres, but the majority of these are now giving good service in anti-submarine squadrons. A very limited number have been placed in second line squadrons that is, on non-operational duties.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the full and informative reply that he has given to my Question.
I now beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of re-entry pilots employed during former service principally on non-fighter duties and during present service in fighter or all-purpose squadrons have undergone Central Air Medical Board examination for psychological defects or have been stood off flying as "not up to standard," and in what way have these two groups been disposed of.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's second Question, of those naval re-entry pilots who, during their former service, were not employed on operational fighter duties but have served during their re-entry service in fighter squadrons, one was referred to the Central Air Medical Board on psychological grounds. The case occurred during refresher operational training, to which I have already referred, and the officer's commission was terminated and he left the Service. There was also one case of a pilot in this group being stood off flying; in this instance, defective eyesight and other medical reasons were the cause. This pilot was transferred to ground duties as an air traffic control officer.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl once more for his full reply to my Question.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

CHINESE NATIONALISTS AND BRITISH SHIPPING
2.40 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any British merchant vessels on their lawful occasions have been interfered with by Chinese Nationalist warships during the last six months, and, if so, how many; whether any other vessels carrying British goods have been molested, and, if so, how many; and what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, in the last six months there have been eleven occasions on which British merchant vessels on their lawful occasions are known to have been interfered with by Chinese Nationalist armed vessels. On four of those occasions, the British ships were able to evade attempts at interception. On one occasion, the ship was allowed to proceed after establishing its identity. On six occasions, ships were detained for periods of up twelve days—three of them having their cargoes confiscated as well. There was no British interest in these cargoes.
Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to say definitely whether any other vessels carrying British goods have been similarly interfered with, but no report to this effect has been received. Protests have been made to the Provincial authorities in Formosa whenever Chinese Nationalist responsibility was established.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. May I ask whether the vessels he mentions include the "Incharran," which, according to the Press reports was fired on last Thursday by a tank landing craft?
THE MARQUESS or READING: My Lords, so far as we have any definite information about the "Incharran," she is included in the number of the most recent cases which I gave to the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I further ask whether Her Majesty's Government have considered putting our ships, and friendly ships, into convoy, if the situation gets worse?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if the situation gets worse, it may have to be reconsidered. So far, as I say, eleven ships have been interfered with in six months.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he can say—perhaps he cannot—whether the attacks took place inside the Formosa channel or to the east or north-east? It is a point of some material importance.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think I have details of the actual location of these various attacks.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Marquess one, more question? Have Her Majesty's Government taken it upon themselves to remind both the so-called National Government in Formosa and the United States Government of the "Alabama" case?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, no, they have not.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is very similar—civil war.

TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, it may be convenient if I inform your Lordships that it has been arranged, through the usual channels, that the debate on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill shall take place on Monday next, February 23, and shall continue on the following day.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
2.44 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

SUPPLY OF AIRCRAFT
2.45 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the plans and arrangements for the manufacture and supply of military and civil aircraft; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to bring before your Lordships the subject on the Order Paper to-day, because I think it is both an important and an urgent one. In recent weeks we have seen in the Press statements which, in grandeur and scope, excite our imagination; but, unfortunately, although the outline is magnificent, the details acre somewhat vague. I hope that to-day the Government, to change the metaphor, will put some clothing upon the skeleton, and also some flesh and blood, if that is possible. So far as I am aware, the Government policy has been as vague as the announcements which have appeared in the Press or which have been made by Ministers in this House and in another place. It seems clear that the Government intend, in the first place, the curtailment of the rearmament programme; in the second place, a slackening in the orders for certain military types, such as the Canberra; thirdly, the establishment of a super-priority list for the new military and civil aircraft—and for the first time there appear upon this list civil aircraft, such as the Britannia, the Viscount, and the Comet. Lastly, there is the recognition by the Government of the contribution which these new aircraftcan make to the export drive. If I am wrong in those assumptions, perhaps the Minister will inform me so but I gather that they are the main lines of the Government's policy.
The super-priority list, I believe, now embraces eleven aircraft, military and civil. As I shall be saying at somewhat greater length later on in my speech, I understand that, on the whole, the introduction of this super-priority list has had considerable effect. But obviously there
444
is a limit to the number of aircraft that can be introduced to any super-priority list: at a certain stage it must follow that there is no merit in a super-priority list if too many aircraft are placed upon it. No doubt the Government would agree to that proposition. What we want to know to-day, in effect, is, what is the precise demand for civil and military aircraft, both in this country and abroad? What are the means that are necessary in materials, factory space, men and finance to meet this demand? Are these means available? If not, will the Government take such steps as are desirable to make them available?
We are told that there are on this super-priority list certain types of military aircraft. I understand that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air does not propose to go at any great length into these various types to-day, for reasons which I fully understand; and I will only touch upon them. But I am bound to do that, because the Government's policy as regards aircraft, military and civil, is now so bound up that it is almost impossible to discuss civil aircraft without touching also upon the supply of military aircraft. The R.A.F., I believe, are concentrating on a few types. As to bombers, we have been told of the Handley Page, the H.P.80, with four Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbo-jets, and crescent-shaped wings. There are the Vickers Valiant, and the Avro Vulcan, both delta wing aircraft, both jets, with Rolls-Royce Avon engines. These three types have been announced as being able to fly on operational missions at about the speed of sound—possibly more—at heights up to 50,000 ft. They are all long-range bombers, and there is an interesting duel between the crescent wing and the delta wing aircraft. But a question which has arisen in the specialist Press and elsewhere is whether it is necessary for us to have three types of medium or heavy bombers. I appreciate that it is necessary to have development and experiment, but as against that there is the expense. None of these aircraft can cost less than£1 million each, and there is a limit to what the British taxpayer can pay for bomber aircraft or for anything else.
Is there any N.A.T.O. policy of integration? Some of us, through the courtesy of the noble and gallant Earl

445
the Minister of Defence, had the opportunity of visiting N.A.T.O. a short time ago, and they talked to us at great length on, among other things, this question of integration—the desire to have the forces of N.A.T O. integrated in regard to machines, weapons, armaments, and so on. Has there been any consideration of the necessity for the integration of bombers and the making of one or two types for the N.A.T.O. forces as a whole? As to the Canberra bomber, we know that that is a most successful light bomber, and I think the whole House would wish to congratulate the makers and those who fly in it, and the Minister, on the remarkable flight to Australia in just over twenty-two hours' expended time. It was a remarkable achievement. We are sorry to hear that the Canberra is not being made in such numbers as was anticipated, but if that means that the Royal Air Force will get machines sooner than they would otherwise have got them, possibly that is a factor in favour of the policy.
As to the fighters, we know little about our fighter policy. We are hoping that, either now or on a later occasion, the Secretary of State for Air will tell us something about it. But there are certain fighters of which we have had information. There is the Hawker Hunter, the swept wing jet fighter. I have been told that the Mutual Security Agency is ordering 200 of these machines for N.A.T.O. at a cost of about£25 million in dollars. This is obviously doing what I suggested might be done in regard to bombers—that is to say, adopting some integration and some rationalisation of the machines to be used by N.A.T.O. There is the Super marine Swift, a swept wing jet fighter, and we are told that the Mutual Security Agency is also interested in this machine. Then there is the Gloster Javelin delta wing all-weather fighter, and the Gloster Meteor. As to the Meteor, another curious fact has come to light; that is, that the Meteor forms part of a barter arrangement whereby 15,000 tons of Brazilian cotton are to be exchanged for seventy Gloster Meteors, spare parts and maintenance and trading facilities. The sum involved is reputedly£4,241,700. This, I take it, is a case of exchanging the swords for the ploughshares. I think many of us have not quite made up our minis whether it is a good thing to exchange Meteors,
446
or any other 'planes, for cotton or any other materials. We are not quite sure whether it is a good thing necessarily to exchange them with a country like Brazil, when we are told that the N.A.T.O. Powers are so short of aircraft.
If the Minister could give us some information, I should like to know something about guided missiles. I realise that here he will probably, quite properly, hide behind the skirts, always available to Service Ministers, of national security. But it seems to me that, at least so far as the bomber policy is concerned, the guided missile may have considerable effect. Has thought been given by the Government to the effect on bomber production of the guided missile programme? I was going to say something about naval aircraft, but I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who has considerably more knowledge of this subject than I have, is to speak in the debate and he will deal with that particular problem.
Now I come to the civil aircraft. There are certain propositions here upon which I think everyone in the House will be agreed. It is obviously in the interests of the United Kingdom and the N.A.T.O. countries that the United Kingdom should be encouraged to develop its strength in civil aviation. The civil air fleet forms a reserve, in case of need, for the Royal Air Force; it operates in relation to the Royal Air Force just as the Merchant Navy does in relation to the Royal Navy. For Britain to play her part in the world to-day—a very important part, as we all realise—it is necessary for us not only to have bombers and fighters but also a good sound civil aviation industry. I believe some quarters in the United States do not appreciate this point of view; other quarters, however, do. For many years—due to circumstances into which I need not go—the United States had virtually a monopoly of big civil aircraft. They have at their doorstep an enormous market. I think that British European Airways, which is the largest operator in this country—that is, the largest passenger-carrier—comes about seventh in the world. There are six United States air lines which carry more passengers than and, of course, many more which carry fewer. Therefore there is an enormous market at their doorstep. Moreover, during the

447
war we did not make any big civil aircraft, so that they have had the market pretty well to themselves. But we want trade, not aid, in this country, and we must, I think, seek to persuade the United States that it is for the benefit of us all that there should be a valuable and developing civil aviation aircraft industry in the United Kingdom.
The attitude in the United States is important in one respect, among others; that is, over the new airworthiness certificate for the British jet and turbo-prop air liners. Your Lordships know that at least one of these types, the Comet, has been ordered by an American air line operator. That is in itself an enormous achievement for British manufacturers; and there may be more. It is important that the United States Civil Aeronautics Administration should recognise the certificates granted to our 'planes as being airworthy in this country, and I understand that there is hope that they will do so. I ask the Government to give every possible help to the industry to ensure that such certificates are granted by the Civil Aeronautics Administration, Britain's enormous rearmament has to be paid for, and in the view of many of us one of the most likely means of paying for it is by the civil aviation industry. This is no new thesis. Right at the very beginning of the present Government's stay in office, both my noble friend Lord Pakenham and I, and others of your Lordships in various parts of the House, pressed this point of view upon the Government: that it was better in those days to concentrate on selling to the United States, and elsewhere, things that they wanted, rather than try to push on them things they did not particularly want. And since it was clear that in all probability they would want our aircraft—and as opinion developed, they did—it was just as well to make the necessary provisions for supplying them.
Then, as your Lordships know, the development of military aircraft and the development of civil aircraft are complementary: the two really go together in overall efficiency of design and production. It is difficult for manufacturers to ignore one and concentrate on the other. The effort and equipment necessary for research and experiment can more easily be borne if the two sides of the industry are available to the manufacturer.
448
Finally, there is the great benefit of stability of production and employment. If one talks to any of these manufacturers, one finds that there is always in their minds the bogy that the military sources will dry up; that they are not going to get many orders; that there is going to be a switch in policy, as there has been lately, and that they will be left high and dry. Therefore, if they have a good and progressive civil aviation side it helps them tremendously on the military side as well.
Now, turning to particular types, the jet aircraft, such as the Comet, and the turbo-prop, such as the Britannia—the big ones—cost£500,000 to£750,000 each. A turbo-prop such as the Viscount—smaller machines—cost between£250,000 and£300,000. Those are the terms in which we are thinking, and those three machines will undoubtedly be the basis of our civil export trade. The companies concerned have, I understand, been engaged on market research and technical salesmanship, and they have made some estimate of what is a reasonable expectation of sales over the next five to ten years. The production of Comets is going up to six a month and the Viscounts to eight or nine a month quite shortly. The companies, by the way, say they have not lost any sales over delays of delivery dates, and those people who have come here from abroad and have made a great song and dance about not being able to get Comets and other machines, and who say they are going away disappointed, have not really been quite as forthcoming as they might have been. Apparently no firm contracts have been lost because of delays.
The major airline operators calculate the operating life of a machine at ten years; so a machine costing£750,000 to£1 million will probably cost about as much again in spare parts as the whole of this amount. It may be that£1,500,000 to£2 million will have to be amortised—to be written off over ten years. That is a very large amount of money to write off. When I was Minister of Civil Aviation I found, in talking to representatives of foreign and Commonwealth airlines, that the enormous expense of these new machines and their lack of experience in handling them made them very chary about risking purchases. I have no hesitation in saying that these new and exciting

449
machines which really have put Britain on the map in aviation and in other ways, have been made possible to a large extent because the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., with the backing of the Government, ordered the new types before they were proved commercially or proved from the operator's point of view.
Now, if we assume peak results of 70 Comets and 100 Viscounts a year, with other machines as well, I understand that the industry believe that in about five years and thenceforward they will be supplying about£100 million worth a year of new aircraft, without spares. If we add on another£100 million for spares, it means that in all possibility there will be a trade in about five years' time of about£200 million a year. That would probably include aircraft supplied to this country. That is a very rough estimate, but it gives us here something to go upon when we are considering the scope of this new business.
I should like to turn for a moment to small aircraft, because in the past what I may call the "bush" operators (I hope they will net be upset by my calling them that; I mean the people who are running little aircraft businesses in Africa, Asia and Malaya, and in this country, for that matter) have been able to get their aircraft by purchasing them secondhand from big operators or, perhaps, even privately from some wealthy person who no longer wishes to maintain, or has not the money to maintain, his own aircraft. Here we come to the division of the ways. When it is a matter of dealing with aircraft costing£1 million, or£500,000 or£250,000, it is beyond the capacity of the little aircraft operator to handle these delicate, technical and complicated machines. Your Lordships who have visited Africa will have seen the places where they repair the engines and will know that they cannot send the engines to England for repairs; they have to do them on the spot, keep them going and renovate them and their facilities and finances are limited. I do not know where these people are going for aircraft in the future. This is where the Government should come in. The successors to the Doves and the Rapides and machines of that kind must be produced. I am told there is a good aircraft, I believe only at the drawing stage—the twin Pioneer, 14-seater. If the
450
Ministry of Supply would give a development contract for the production of a prototype, it might help the small operator whom I am sure we all want to keep in the field. He does a very good job, especially in Africa and the East.
Perhaps I may now say a word about the helicopter. As your Lordships know, in the future, broadly speaking, the big jets and possibly the big turbo-props, such as the Britannia, will deal with the long-distance hauls, and the turbo-prop Viscounts and machines like that the middle distance hauls up to about 1,500 miles. In spite of the things that will be said in the discussion on the Transport Bill in this House on Monday, we have a good deal of transport, and fairly rapid transport, for short hauls; and therefore there is not such a demand for aircraft in this field. It is not possible for ordinary winged aircraft to compete with the existing facilities. But, of course, the helicopter is the ideal machine for distances up to 250 miles, in a densely-populated country such as ours. I was therefore pleased to see at Farnborough last year a prototype in the air of the Bristol 173, two-engined helicopter. Up to now the Ministers concerned have not been willing, for obvious reasons, for a helicopter where it had only one engine, to fly either over water or over densely-populated areas. This is a two-engined machine, and the Mark III especially will, I hope, afford useful experience to operators in this country in the development of the helicopter. But we need more prototypes and we need tests for both civil and military purposes. For this reason I would suggest that the B.E.A. unit must be continued, to obtain operating experience. There is a most urgent need for the examination of the design studies that were recently submitted by five aircraft manufacturers for large transport helicopters made to B.E.A. specification. The industry must be asked to tender and development contracts placed as soon as possible.
I am told by those who are interested that military tardiness is responsible for the delay in development. The ideal machine for military as well as civil purposes is, I suppose, the type designed to carry thirty or forty passengers. The military people, I am told, are more fussy about performance. That may or may not be true—I see the Secretary of State looking rather dubious—but it is a fact

451
that civil operators feel that the military are holding up development. To obtain 100 large helicopters will cost about£21 million. That is a large sum, but undoubtedly the outlay would be spread over, say, ten years, and a good deal of it will be recovered from sales.
I have given some details of the new machines which we know are either in prototype or in actual manufacture, save only the naval machines, with which my noble friend Lord Pakenham will be dealing. May I now say a word about the supply position generally? In order to fulfil orders for these new machines—and there may be others of which I have not heard—has the industry the materials, the factory space, the men and the capital needed? We have the lead. For the first time since the war, I think, in a particular department of export we have the lead. The British horse is well in front, but a Yankee challenger is coming up in the distance, going very strongly, a powerful, persistent animal imbued with natural determination and carrying his owner's shirt. Unless we go into this thing in a big way, in two or three years' time we shall lose that lead; and, once lost, it will not be regained.
I should like to give your Lordships some indication of what we are up against to-day. The United States aircraft industry is turning out 1,000 aircraft a month: it is the second largest industrial employer in the United States, with enormous capital involved. It will not sit down under this challenge; it will meet the challenge. If we want to keep the lead which we have gained, through our inventive genius and our sacrifices—in sacrificing the piston engine after the war—through the work of the aircraft manufacturers and their men, and the assistance of the Government, then we must take the necessary steps to get enough of these new aircraft on to the market at the right time. We have a glorious chance, not only a chance of capturing the world's civil aircraft market, and possibly a great deal of the military aircraft market as well, but also of gaining enormous prestige. When we were over at N.A.T.O. recently we also visited S.H.A.P.E.—by "we" I mean noble Lords from this House and Members from another place. Many of the distinguished officers at
452
S.H.A.P.E. told me how much they admired the new aircraft, how much they esteemed the British people for turning out, under conditions of so much difficulty, these wonderful new aircraft which we hope will be available at a not too distant time. Many of the machines are only in prototype, but they have an enormous prestige value to us. No one in the world can say that the British are down and out, or that the British are ceasing to be an important Power, and all the rest of it, when we are scooping the world in aircraft. The two things do not marry, so it is important, from all points of view, that we get these machines on the market.
I understand that the position in regard to materials and machine tools is now easier and that it has been helped by the super-priority list—and also, may I say, by the former Government's foresight in 1950 in ordering 20,000 machine tools from the United States and Western Europe. There is still some difficulty over alloy steels and special items of machine tools, but the present position may be altered if production is greatly stepped up. Then as to factory space. There are no great difficulties at the moment, I understand, but if any do arise perhaps the Government would consider subcontracting. I notice that the Standard Motor Company, and also no doubt others, are making aero-engines in their motor factories. That is the sort of development that can well take place. With regard to manpower, recruitment is now at the rate of 2,500 a month net gain, and we have about 204,000 men in the manufacture and repair of aircraft. That total has been increasing at the rate of about 15 per cent. per annum. What is needed is a stabilised force, but the graph has not reached that point yet, so that we cannot see exactly what numbers the stabilised force will have in it. There is still a shortage of technical and skilled craftsmen, and there is likely to be so for some considerable time.
Finally, with regard to finance. Of course, the aircraft industry, like all others, has to bear heavy taxation and take considerable risks. It has been heavily strained since the war with these developments, but it has been helped by the Ministry of Supply with their accelerated progress payment and by loans of machine tools. It is interesting to note

453
that both Rolls-Royce and Hawker-Siddeley have had to increase their capital to get new money. Rolls-Royce have increased their capital by£2¼ million, and Hawker-Siddeley have increased their borrowing powers from£5 million to£16 million. In the United States the average percentage of profit is estimated at 2.2 per cent. for the aircraft companies, compared with 6.2 per cent. for all manufacturing industries. That in itself, I think, shows the risks undertaken in the aircraft world, the very considerable expenditure to which the industry is put and the lesser proportion of profits gained, in comparison with industry generally. One would expect that. The next generation of trunk route air liners will cost£1 million apiece, and it will be difficult not only for the aircraft operators to find the money to pay for them but also for the aircraft manufacturers to find the money to finance the making of them.
I believe there is some suggestion—I will not say at this moment whether or not I agree with it—that the Government should consider some sort of development contract to the manufacturer with recovery to the Government of an agreed sum for each aircraft sold. That may or may not be a good plan. I am not going to make any pronouncement to-day upon that proposal, but that is the sort of suggestion which is going around in the aircraft industry. There is also, of course, the proposal that there should be assistance under the export credits guarantee. Those are the main points that I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice to-day. They can be summed up once more in a phrase which I would reiterate, since I think it is important and should be the keynote of this debate: here we have the chance of a lifetime. How can the Government and the nation help the aircraft industry to seize it? I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for giving us the opportunity to-day of discussing the affairs of the aircraft industry. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord and his colleagues that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this regard is not vague but practical and well thought out. Of course, it cannot be written on half a sheet
454
of paper as a series of points, because the aircraft industry is a complicated organisation, and no very simple direct form of policy would be suited to its organisation or to its task. At any rate, we can all agree that in recent years the aircraft industry has risen to a position of prestige comparable with the finest of our older and established industries, and that aircraft are no longer what they appeared, at least to some of the previous generation, to be—new-fangled machines. The aviation industry is no longer art esoteric plant to be forced in the hothouse of war and allowed to wither and fade in peace. Flying has become a commonplace and not an adventure. Thus it is to-day that the aircraft industry is playing in our economy a part comparable, for instance, to the old-established and very well-known shipbuilding industry.
May I give a specific example of what I mean? The noble Lord has referred to exports, and it is a striking fact that in 1952 the exports of the industry—I am talking about aviation goods in general—totalled£43 million, which just about equalled our exports from the shipping industry.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is aircraft and spares?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: What I might call aviation goods produced in the aviation industry. We hope that in the current year the figure may rise to£60 million. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, talked about£200 million in five years. That may be an optimistic figure, but at any rate, if not in five perhaps in ten, we may seethe industry achieving really remarkable progress; and perhaps£200 million may be achieved. We must not be over-optimistic; on the other hand, we must not set our sights too low. This is a great achievement and we owe our thanks to all the many interests concerned. It is most remarkable that there are still in the industry so many of the early pioneers whose names are household words, whose spirit of adventure, inventiveness and, one might add, pertinacity have been the foundation of its success.
The noble Lord talked about our lead in the design and manufacture of modern aircraft. I agree with him. But whether we have a three, four or five year lead is

455
something on which I am not going to commit myself. I agree that, whatever our lead may be, we have got to make the most of it: it will certainly not be automatically maintained. Lord Ogmore referred to the United States aviation industry. This is certainly a most powerful, skilful and resourceful competitor, and one that is not likely to accept things as they are. Competition is the natural stimulant to American industrial and technical progress. Therefore I think it is true to say that we must expect that the great range of civil aircraft which is now in production—the Comets, the Vickers Viscount, the Bristol Britannia, which are the outstanding examples—will not much longer remain, as they are to-day, unique in their class. The general public are beginning to take a keen and. I think, commendable interest in aviation matters, and it is up to us, in all parts of the House, and to Parliament in general, to see that that interest is an informed interest.
It is only natural, when some really striking new aircraft shows its paces—let us say at Farnborough in the autumn show of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors—that there should be a general expectation, stimulated, I have no doubt, by the Press, for which I may say the Government are not responsible, that these aircraft will be produced in quantity in a very short time. People are accustomed to look upon the Farnborough Show as being rather like the Motor Show at Earl's Court. They rather expect that when a model appears in the advertisements in the Press, or on the stand, it will be in production and in the shop window very shortly. Noble Lords opposite know more about production and development than that, but it is still a fact that, unless the productive process is understood, this kind of expectation leads to disappointment. Therefore I shall not flatter myself that I am informing Lord Ogmore and his colleague, Lord Pakenham, if I go into a little greater detail than perhaps we normally do about some of the problems inherent in the production of new types of aircraft.
I think it is true to say that the industry's record with these latest types of civil aircraft is a good one. For example, it took, I believe, some seven years for the conception of the American Constellation to be translated into production for air line use. In the case of
456
the Comet I the comparable process took five years. The Comet II, which is a development of that original design, will be in production in an even shorter period, due, of course, to the development of the first Comet aircraft. The Comet III, which is virtually a new aircraft, completely redesigned, will take four years from the initiation of the project. It is important to emphasise that the Comet III, despite its family name, is not really a stretched-out Comet II; it is a new aircraft. Naturally, experience gained in the design and flying of jet air liners has proved invaluable to De Havilland's in building and designing these aircraft, but four years is not bad in the aircraft industry.
It is interesting to remember the earlier Comet of the De Havilland Company. In 1934 the aircraft was designed, built and flying in an international air race in nine months. That shows the measure of the technical advance since those days. But if a customer goes to Hatfield tomorrow and orders a Comet II he can, as I have said, have it in about two years' time. For a highly complicated machine like the Comet II, costing, as the noble Lord said, something over£500,000—as much as an ocean-going merchant ship of 5,000 gross tons—this is not bad. In fact, I think two years is a short time. I do not believe that any customer prepared to invest in an aircraft of this type—and it must be an experienced customer, otherwise he would not be dabbling in it—would regard two years as an excessive period. It is not expected that these aircraft, any more than a new ship, can be bought "off the shelf." The capital risks implicit in putting any aircraft "on the shelf" are too great for any firm or any Government to contemplate.
I hope that I am dealing with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made. May I go on to say, that the time between order and delivery is not due to lack of manufacturing capacity? It is important to know that. For instance, Vickers can see their way to increase their production of the Viscount, if necessary—which means if they get a sale for them—up to 100 a year. The noble Lord mentioned, eight or nine a month, and this figure of 100 a year is the highest production ever contemplated for a big civil aircraft, either in America or in Britain. Using all the manufacturing

457
techniques of a great industrial concern like Vickers, the cycle of production will, I am told, still be about twenty-four months; and that is after All the difficulties, foreseen and unforeseen, of the prototype stage have been solved. These are the physical facts which govern the rate of progress in actually building the machines.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord, merely to make sure that I appreciate his meaning? He is not denying, I take it, that if capacity were greatly increased we could produce many more aircraft in two years: he is simply saying that each aircraft will take the same time.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Perhaps I make take the parallel of the building of a ship. There the materials, the labour and the machinery must be made available, and the time which it takes to build the ship would, in the nature of things, depend upon whether one, two or three shifts were worked. But I am informed (and I must rely on those experienced in these matters) that there is a cycle of aircraft production. Obviously, by increasing capacity from, say, eight to twelve a month, we might produce more aircraft; but production must be related to the market.
Coming on to sub-contracting, a point which the noble Lord mentioned, in so far as that will speed up the production of a particular aircraft it is certainly Her Majesty's Government's policy to encourage it—if, indeed, the design firms need any encouragement in a matter which is so much in their own interest. I myself have been able to discover no cases where production is being held up because of the omission to sub-contract. And, of coarse, a company ought not to sub-contract to more than a limited degree beyond what is required to meet its firm otters. I think it would be properly criticised for bad finance if it did.
Again, it is not widely realised—how could it be, in view of the limited number of people who come into really basic contact with the business of the production of aicraft?—how many tests a prototype must be submitted to before it can be cleared for production. In our present state of knowledge, no designer, however gifted and however experienced,
458
can tell his board that he is certain that design and performance will actually match. At modern speeds all sorts of unexpected things are bound to happen, requiring further exhaustive tests. With large expensive aircraft, in the nature of things there is a necessary limit to the number of tests which can be simultaneously conducted. I speak here, with all humility, as a layman, having had no engineering training, but I have had, in my present capacity, some recent opportunities of seeing and learning at first hand the complication of the problems which face design teams. In my contacts with these firms I have seen no signs of dawdling or any lack of the keenest desire to get on with the job in the shortest possible time. Therefore, it is neither lack of capacity nor lack of finance which is the limiting factor in production at the present time.
LORD OGMORE: I appreciate that; and I have said so. But there is a possibility of getting an enormously expanded market. What I was getting at was this: are facilities available if that opportunity should occur, as I think it is quite likely to occur.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I hope very much that the noble Lord will be right in his optimism, which I share, in these matters. But I do not think one can rule out that the situation depends to a tremendous extent on such factors as the aircraft, the market and the finances of the firms themselves. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply is in constant touch with industry as a whole, and with particular firms who have particular propositions to put forward. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, need fear that we are losing, or shall lose, markets which we should otherwise have, for every encouragement is being given to firms to set up their selling organisations in all parts of the world. It is one thing to make a design, and quite another to sell aircraft of that design at the right price to the people who want them. It is most important to get hold, of the customer. But firms are not being prevented by either of those causes from accepting orders or offering the shortest possible delivery dates.
The noble Lord referred to super-priority, and he stated quite accurately a

459
number of types which have received super-priority. Here again, we want to get the matter in proportion. The main emphasis in the Government's policy has been that of easing the industry's tasks in respect of labour and materials. Because without such action, there would undoubtedly have been needless delays. And I am glad to be able to report progress in both those fields. Demands for labour from firms on super-priority work have been given special attention by the Minister of Labour. Nearly every firm in the industry in this country has increased its labour force during the past year, and, all told, the total number employed in the industry rose during 1952 by 30,000—that is, by 17 per cent., which is quite a big rise. Then there is the specially important problem of housing. Local authorities have been most helpful, and with their co-operation some 4,000 houses have been provided for the aircraft workers. Some 3,000 of these houses are for firms engaged either partially or wholly on super-priority work. Behind these schemes there has been the general policy of trying to attract labour to the firms, and especially of dealing with the very difficult problem of getting skilled labour. Skilled labour, I am afraid, will always be less in an expanding industry than the amount needed. It is, in fact, almost a function of an expanding industry that it should be short of that particular type of labour.
As regards materials and machine tools, super-priority has worked. The noble Lord has referred, quite justly, to the ordering by the late Government of 20,000 machine tools, and that action has shown favourable results. Delivery dates of some materials have been reduced quite remarkably in some cases. May I give an example? Before the introduction of the super-priority scheme, alloy steel bars, after ordering, took sometimes nearly two years to deliver. Now that delivery is down to nine or six months, which is a pretty big drop. Aluminium alloys, again, are now being delivered in three months, compared with twelve months before the super-priority scheme came into operation. It is not yet possible, because of the production cycle, to point to any remarkable improvement in delivery dates of aircraft, because the aircraft to which this policy
460
has been applied are those in the first stage of production or the even earlier stage of development. That applies, of course, to the civil types, as well as to the military types. Again, it has been said, quite rightly, if we give super-priority to too many types of aircraft we defeat our own object. It is the old story of the queue for super-priorities. In fact, it is eleven types out of sixty, which is an important proportion to remember. The second point to remember is that it is not super-priority within the aircraft industry but super-priority for certain aircraft within that industry, over competing firms in the engineering industry as a whole. The queue behind is larger.
The keynote of the super-priority scheme has been co-operation on a voluntary basis between Government and industry; and the scheme has really worked. It is not surprising that it has worked, because there is a valuable record of good relations between the Government and the aircraft industry. Over this period, I think, mutual respect and confidence have been built up, and the functions of each party in this complicated set-up are, if not easy to define, well understood. It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the Government must play a big part, not only in the military field, but also in the civil field of the aircraft industry. I agree that it would not be possible, even if it were desired—and one would not desire it—to separate the civil and military fields in aircraft manufacture. The general rule is that the Government finance the prototypes of large civil types of aircraft, and a proportion of the proceeds of sales is paid by the firm to the Government. This proportion is calculated on the assumption, after market research has been done, that a stated number of aircraft will be sold. The Government get their money back if the estimated number is sold, and make a profit if that number is exceeded—as is likely in some cases. Therefore, I would emphasise that the keynote in this whole set-up is partnership.
Of course, as the noble Lord knows—I think he told the House this on a previous occasion—the Comet I was rather an important exception to the general rule. Certainly all credit goes to the firm of De Havilland and to B.O.A.C. which have combined, the one in making and the others in purchasing, these (as I may call them) revolutionary

461
new aircraft. Again, showing the relationship between military and civil design, the Comet I was designed round the Ghost jet engine which was designed and developed to Government specifications, and with Government finance, primarily for military purposes. Indeed, it is now used in the Venom fighter. As with aircraft, so with aero engines. The design and preparation for the production of a powerful new jet engine, such as the Avon or Proteus, is quite as expensive as the same process for complete new aircraft. In present conditions, it is not possible to cover the costs of a new jet, or turbo-prop, engine developed purely for civil purposes. That is why most modern civil aircraft are propelled by engines which have been designed in the first place for military purposes. It is interesting to note that one of the latest types of large jet engine under development in the United States, the Allison turbo-prop, will be financed by United States Government money, exactly on the same principle as in this country. Again, in this field it is worth noting further examples of joint enterprise that benefit our export trade. I am talking about the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine, which is being made under licence in the United States and is coming into production there. The royalties are shared by the Government, and the firm and the whole national economy benefits from the dollars earned by this joint enterprise.
I have gone into this aspect, perhaps at some length, of the partnership between the Government and industry because I believe that we cannot appreciate the scope to which the partnership has developed without some knowledge of these facts. I am sure its merit is—although not designed, in the sense that it was conceived on an a priori plan—that it works and produces results. I, for one, cannot believe that any greater control by the Government, and certainly nationalisation, would be of benefit either to the industry or to the nation—quite the reverse. The healthy rivalry and competition between aircraft firms, more especially in the field of design, with the pride of the individual firms in their own ideas and products, is at the root of the great advances made since the war, and of the lead we now hold over the rest of the world. I must, therefore, say that in my belief it would be folly to threaten
462
with nationalisation an industry which is performing so great a task. In my estimation the result would be to quench the enthusiasm and destroy the confidence which now exists, whether in the board room, the design office or on the shop floor. In my present duties I would certainly fear for the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force in these critical times, and I believe that on the civil side our prospects of gaining a greater share of the market for civil aircraft would be gravely prejudiced.
I should now like to pass on to the part which fundamental research plays in this great aviation complex. A great deal has been done by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, by the T.R.E. and others; and the universities have made a valuable contribution. Wind tunnels, and other complicated and costly equipment, are made available to the industry by the Government. These facilities, the creation of the Scientific Civil Service, to which I pay my tribute, form the reservoir which can, as it were, irrigate the complex of channels, scientific and technical, military and industrial, which may be loosely termed the aviation interest. Let me state explicitly that there is a direct connection between the efforts and resources devoted to fundamental research and the appearance of these fine aircraft to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has referred and to which I referred earlier in my speech. Here again there is a partnership between Government scientists in the. Ministry of Supply and the research establishments, and those in industry—a partnership in which, so far as I can see in my contact with the industry, neither side claims a dominant interest.
Despite the wider terms of the Motion on the Order Paper I have advisedly addressed myself primarily to the question of the production of civil aircraft. I have asked my noble friend Lord Mancroft to wind up for the Government, and to take up the points which I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will shortly be raising on the production of aircraft for the Royal Navy, a matter on which he speaks from his intimate knowledge. No doubt there will be other noble Lords who will follow the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in dealing with this aspect. I have not dealt in any detail with the production of

463
specific types of military aircraft for the Royal Air Force, for the reason that shortly we shall have a debate following the publication of the Air Estimates. Some of the ground will also be covered on the publication of the Government's Defence White Paper. I am sure that it would make for a much more complete and satisfactory discussion if our debate on this type of aviation were conducted in the light of the information to be provided. But I would emphasise, once again, that it is not because I do not agree with the noble Lord that aviation is indivisible but rather for the convenience of the House that I suggest a division of the debate.
I should like to take up one of the passages in Lord Ogmore's speech, in which he referred to three types of medium bomber. First of all, I can reassure him that they do not cost£1 million each. Perhaps a leading article in The Times may have led the noble Lord to suppose so. There was also a speech by an officer, now in the Ministry of Supply, who unfortunately was not at the time completely informed on costs. I am happy to say that the cost is somewhere between£300,000 and£400,000, which is a considerably smaller amount.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think this ought to go on record, as being the first time in recent years that an Estimate from the Government has been found to be three times greater than the actual amount. That is a triumph.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: It was not a Government Estimate.
LORD OGMORE: I thought the noble Lord said the Ministry of Supply.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: An officer who had joined the Ministry of Supply was giving a lecture in a private capacity to a body of engineers and unfortunately gave this figure which had not been checked. A million pounds is a lot of money, and although£300,000 is still a lot of money it is a good deal less than a million pounds; and we could get two or three bombers for that amount. That is the first point I think I should make perfectly plain. The Valiant was the first four-engined jet bomber to be designed, if not put into production, and inevitably later specifications have called for higher performance. Two solutions have been
464
offered by the houses of Handley Page and Avro, which are to a large degree different answers to the same question. Until the matter can be tested, as in the last war, when there were three bombers, no one can say which will be the most suitable. Indeed they might both be suitable for highly different but critical purposes. It is most important that everybody should realise that we cannot predict, until an aircraft has been in service, whether its performance will match up to what is required.
The second thing, which is also vital, is that we cannot yet tell which aircraft—to use a term of jargon—has most development in it. In the last war the Lancaster bomber was produced from the rather unpromising Manchester bomber, which had two engines. It was redesigned with four engines and proved the stalwart of our bomber force. For the purposes of defence progress, the Government would have been wrong not to be bold enough in this matter to order from the drawing board not only the Valiant, but the Victor and the Vulcan. I have gone into this point because it is important that I should correct any misconception. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to deal on a later occasion with the question of the production of other military aircraft, so that we can concentrate our attention on it.
The noble Lord referred to helicopters. I have asked my noble friend Lord Mancroft to take up that point, in order that my speech shall not be inordinately long. But as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been a little critical of the Royal Air Force on the question of helicopters I must, in fairness, explain that, although the Royal Air Force would like to develop a great many further different types, if they had more money, they have always devoted resources to those things which they consider of most importance. I concede that it has proved important in Malaya to have aircraft of that type, and the American Government, with great generosity, have advanced some which are now flown by Royal Naval pilots. But when only a limited amount of money is available—and the noble Lord and his colleagues were responsible for allocating the funds at the time really under discussion—it must be devoted to those things which seem most important. And at that time, rightly I think, it was felt

465
that the money available should be devoted to the production of what I might call offensive military aircraft, meaning bombers and fighters and other kindred aircraft.
On the question of the Pioneer, my attention has already been called to the utility of that aircraft, and all I can say is that this question is being examined again. It must come back to ends and means, and we have not unlimited funds; we have much more limited means than the United States, and we have to think carefully before we order a prototype, however attractive it may appear, to see that we are getting these things in the right order. I thought that the noble Lord was going to talk about rearward facing seats—he gave me notice of that point. In this matter, which I find of great interest, I happen to have informed myself, as best I can, about the state of affairs, and perhaps I may offer him, gratuitously, a little information about it.
LORD OGMOR.E: May I apologise to the Secretary of State for not mentioning this subject after I had given him notice? It was for the same reason that he decided to give some of his material to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I thought it would perhaps make my speech inordinately long, and possibly it is a little off the track of the main. Motion to talk about seats.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The noble Lord has rightly reminded me that we must not individually take up too much of your Lordships' time. Shortly, there is great difficulty in this matter, unless every civil air line adopts the same policy and accepts the same weight penalty. In the experience of the Royal Air Force, rearward facing seats have proved a utility, and certainly we think they have saved lives in accidents. As to any private schemes of the noble Lord, they have been examined, but technically they have been found lacking in certain important and desirable data. I have taken too long, but this is a matter which I find of consuming interest. I hope that noble Lords—though I suppose they would not be here unless they found themselves interested in this topic—will share the enthusiasm and interest which I think covers both Front Benches and both sides of the House in this great topic. I should like, in conclusion, to
466
repeat the opinion which I have on a former occasion expressed in this House, that air power is one, and that we must regard it as one. I am equally convinced that air power will play an important part in our affairs, both economically and militarily, and that the opportunities which it offers to us as a nation, to our ingenuity and contrivance, as a medium of transport and economic expansion, make it admirably suited at once to our needs and abilities.
3.55 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for intruding rather unexpectedly in this debate. I had not expected that I should be present in the House this afternoon, and even now I fear that I may have to leave before the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replies. If I do so, I trust I shall not earn the censure of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; and I hope that I shall not be handled as roughly as was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the other day. I also have my living to earn, though it is not such a lucrative living as that which I am sure comes the way of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Having mentioned Lord Hailsham, which I know is a dangerous thing to do in his absence from the House, I apologise in advance, not only partially, but completely, for any slight that may have been contained in my words. I am asked to make it an abject apology. I have known the noble Viscount too long to make an abject apology to him, but I make it a very friendly apology all the same.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L' Isle and Dudley, can be relied upon to deal with a large topic in a spacious and attractive way. I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House will feel that he has lived up to his reputation this afternoon. It would be too much to suggest that he has given us a full and complete picture, or that he has torn away the veil to the extent that noble Lords in Opposition would wish. We realise the difficulties of his task. But, having heard him speak, I should certainly feel—if it is not an embarrassment to him—that his mind, the minds, I am sure, of his colleagues, and our minds, are at one as to the urgency and importance of the task before us. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in what seemed to me a most effective introduction, referred to "the

467
chance of the lifetime." Those words I would certainly echo. I, too, feel that there lies before the aircraft industry at this moment what may well be a fleeting opportunity. I think that is only putting in other words what was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. We have this lead. We cannot say how long we shall have the lead, or how long we shall have in which to take advantage of it. One can think of variouspicturesn. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, sketched a race in which the Americans were, as it were, beginning to breathe over our shoulder, or soon would be catching us up. One can think in terms of catching or missing a bus. So far as I am concerned, I do not know whether we are catching the bus at the present time. There is the bus moving along in front of us, if you like at twenty miles an hour; and here we are running at, perhaps, fifteen miles an hour. Whether we can accelerate to catch that bus, or whether we are accelerating enough to catch the bus, I really should not be prepared to say this afternoon.
I do not believe that we shall find it easy to "collar" the jet market for a generation—to use an expression employed, I thought a little enthusiastically, by a noble Lord on the Government side last summer. I simply do not know what is going to be the result of this race. I believe it lies within our power to "collar" that market, but it will need a great increase of any effort that is being put forward at the present time. I am not making any kind of Party point, because it would need a great increase on anything that we ourselves were doing when we were the Government. At any rate, that is my own point of view. I certainly did not detect any sort of complacency in the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. If I understood him correctly, he agreed that it will not be an automatic success in this business. I believe that was the expression, or thought, at any rate, that he conveyed to us.
The real question is whether we are increasing our efforts with the kind of intensity required by this unique moment. I call it a unique moment, because, after all—I am thinking particularly about the export of aircraft—the world's export market in aircraft has for years been dominated, almost monopolised, by the
468
Americans. It will be a very remarkable thing if we succeed in crashing into that market; in getting a large share of the market when they have so long possessed a monopoly. I believe it can be done, but it will not be at all easy. I do not think the noble Lord will think it churlish, after his remarks, if I say that I am not at all sure whether we are doing it as a country at the present time.
The noble Lord referred to one or two physical questions—the all-important issues of manpower, materials and houses. I do not know whether he had time yesterday, in his busy life, to read an article in the Observer—he will forgive my not giving him notice of the fact that I was going to refer to it—but the thought may have passed through his mind as he listened to the debate to-day: "Is super-priority enough?" There are certain statements in this article which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will probably wish to deal with when it comes to his turn to speak. The argument is submitted in the Observer by Mr. Chester Wilmot, whose rather controversial talents are widely applauded. He concludes that it is desirable to extend super-priority for housing for aircraft workers, even at the cost of reimposing some controls. He has made a special study of this subject, and he assures us that the removal of building restrictions has undoubtedly made it more difficult for the Government to get the houses needed for the rearmament drive. That is Mr. Wilmot's opinion, and it is based on a careful study. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will wish to say something about it.
If any element of complacency is to be detected by the most critical in the observations of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, it was on this question of housing. He gave us the impression that things were going pretty well on the housing front. I am not in a position to correct him, and certainly not to refute him, but I wonder whether they are going quite so well. When I last went into this matter in detail last year—which was since the present Government has been in power—I did not get the impression that the local authorities were playing up quite so magnificently. I realise that when one is a Minister it is tempting to hand out tributes to those for whom one has

469
any kind of indirect responsibility—the industry, the officials, local authorities and nearly everyone concerned. But it is rather difficult for a local authority in Bristol, say, to allocate houses to people who have, so to speak, just arrived, when there are long waiting lists of local inhabitants. I think there is a problem there, and, while not criticising any particular local authority, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, after consultation with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, would care to tell us if there is still a good deal of improvement which might be forthcoming from the local authorities in this respect.
That is just one detailed point, and I should like to raise with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, a rather more fundamental issue. Here, again, I am not speaking from any completely up-to-date or inside knowledge, but from a good deal of background. The noble Lord made a point often made on behalf of the aircraft industry. I do not think there is anyone in this House who has a higher opinion of the aircraft industry than I have, and that is a very high opinion on the whole. The noble Lord made the point that we are not losing any orders at present. I wonder whether that is good enough? I wonder, in other words, whether we ought not to be producing ahead of orders more than we are doing? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will say a few words on that subject afterwards on behalf of his noble friend. Frankly, I hope that we are not waiting for orders before we move ahead on a much bigger scale than we have moved in the past.
Obviously, there is a question of balance. We have to pay considerable attention to balance, and I think we all wish that to be done. Equally, I feel we must produce aeroplanes on a large scale before having the orders. I cannot accept the view that because we have not yet missed any orders, we are producing fast enough or on a large enough scale. In my opinion, it remains to be shown whether that is so. I should have thought that some months ago the financial question was important, and I should be surprised if it had been entirely eliminated as a factor in retarding production. Some months ago, I am sure it was a limiting factor, and I was a little surprised this afternoon to learn from the
470
noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley—if I understood him aright—that to-day finance is no obstacle. I have not been in touch with that great firm De Havilland's lately and, therefore, I am in no way quoting any opinion recently imparted to me. I should have thought that some months ago there was a very real problem before that most illustrious firm: whether they could legitimately risk the money of their shareholders on the scale required in the national interest, as it seems to many of us in this debate this afternoon. Probably there is no more efficient firm in the aircraft industry—it maybe in the country—than De Havilland's. Even so, I am doubtful whether it is within the power of a single firm, unaided by the State, to launch out on the scale which this fleeting opportunity demands. That, I believe, was the position a few months ago. Are we to understand that all those difficulties have now been cleared up?
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ogmore that one cannot be dogmatic on these points. One cannot indicate precisely the form of State assistance required. It might be some sort of guarantee for aircraft produced for export purposes; it might be some sort of guarantee for the development of the Comet III and Comet IV. I hope that Her Majesty's present advisers—whose interest in this is, I know, at least as keen as ours—have not abandoned the idea of some new partnerships between the State and industry in connection with the aircraft industry. I had not intended even to refer to nationalisation. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, thought it necessary, for reasons I can well understand, to touch upon it in passing. I am certainly not going to come forward this afternoon and offer any personal opinion, or opinion on behalf of the Labour Party, as regards the principle of nationalisation. I would only say this, as, I hope, a friend of the aircraft industry: that if no more effective form of partnership between the State and the industry is discovered in the next year or two than has hitherto been arrived at, and if this fleeting opportunity is in fact missed, then I believe that, quite apart from Party politics, there will be a widespread demand in this country for revolutionary and drastic solutions. That is not said in a threatening spirit or

471
after any kind of discussion with any particular political elements.
I should like to touch upon the subject of naval aircraft. I certainly should not claim to be any kind of expert compared with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, or the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I have landed once, and once only, on a deck, and the whole performance seemed to be sufficiently miraculous, even though it was a very calm day in July. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, of course, has done many things much more dangerous in that kind of sphere. I would offer the opinion—and I should be surprised if naval Lords present disagreed with me—that the Navy has never had worthy aircraft. We have never had aircraft worthy of the Royal Navy, at any time, whatever Government was in power, whether it was Labour, Conservative, Coalition or indistinguishable. Quite apart, therefore, from any political influences, there has been a consistent failure on that part of the front.
I realise that one must use words here with discretion, and that particularly the spokesman for the Government must do nothing to give the boys who fly the idea that the machines are not adequate. Well, of course, I am not suggesting for a moment that the aircraft flown by our naval airmen are not safe. I am not wishing to suggest any kind of insecurity of that kind. But when we compare our aircraft—and I know it is difficult to compare naval, military and civil aircraft—over a long period of years with the naval aircraft of foreign countries, I should say that we come out of it rather badly: I do not mean in the flying of them—most certainly not—but in the supply. I think that as politicians who have played our part in different times we ought all to stand together in a white sheet. There may be some other prisoners in the same dock. Some blame the aircraft industry: they feel that the industry have not taken enough interest in the Navy. The industry blame the Navy: they say that what the Navy want is a kind of Christmas free upon which to keep on hanging things until the point is reached when the aircraft will not fly. We get these charges and counter-charges, and the result has been such that we, as public men, must resolve to see that the position in the future is better than it
472
has been in the past. These are general observations. I am sure we shall come back to them in the Defence debate.
I have given the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, notice of one or two questions about particular aircraft. If they embarrass him seriously I will gladly defer them. But can he tell us anything about the Attacker? For a long time we have read in, the papers that all was not well with the Attacker. There have been serious allegations about failure of one kind or another. Can the noble Lord tell us the story about the Attacker in service? If there has been anything wrong, I hope he will indicate what was wrong, and I hope also that he will not tell us that all was for the best with that aircraft. I hope he will find it possible to tell us what was wrong, and whether whatever was wrong has now been put right. And what stage has now been reached by the Sea Hawk? Can he tell us how late it will be? Will it be one year later, or two years, or more, when it does come into service? And if it is very late, can he tell us why? Can he also tell us whether the same kind of procedure which produced that aircraft so late is being applied to other aircraft?
When all is said and done there is something of a mystery here. It is not enough to say that individuals or Parties have failed, that the industry have failed or that anybody else has failed. Perhaps the machinery for ordering and producing the supply of the aircraft is unsatisfactory. I hope the noble Lord will not tell me that this machinery has always been perfectly satisfactory. It is not so very long since I was connected with it and I know it was not perfect then. If the noble Lord can say that it has been improved since then, well and good. But if he can only say that it is the same old thing, that he and others are merely imitating us, I shall certainly attack him on some other occasion.
I have here a quotation from a newspaper, which I should like to read. It is a quotation from an article by The Times Military Correspondent. I have given the noble Lord a little notice—about an hour's notice—of this, and I hope he will be able to explain the words away and send us from here more happy. The noble Lord will understand that these words are taken out of their context but I do not think he will consider

473
that this is in any way unfair. The article says:
"…the Admiralty's assent to recent policy regarding naval aircraft must have been mingled with doubts."
That alone, my Lords, makes one prick up one's ears—or, if one is in the Government, hang one's head. Perhaps I may be allowed to read another quotation. In it we are referred to economies such as those made in naval aviation. It says:
"This applies particularly to decisions such as that on conscription, which affects most families throughout the nation, and economies such as those made in naval aviation.…"
Can we be told by the noble Lord whether these two sentences hang together? Apparently in the last few months economies have been made or planned in naval aviation; and, unless I am mistaken, it is those economies to which the Admiralty's assent has been given—"mingled" presumably "with doubts." It is proper that the noble Lord should have an opportunity of replying to the disquieting suggestion in this article.
Whether we are concerned with civil, naval or military aircraft, we are all struggling for the same object; we are all conscious of the vital character of success in the aircraft field. I agree that it would be most unfair, and indeed rather foolish, to begin denouncing noble Lords opposite in connection with their general policy. Speaking broadly, it seems to me to be a policy which they have carried on from us. I, for one, am not ashamed of our own record in this connection, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will be able to tell us of even greater achievements and a better policy during his and his Party's term of office. I cannot see ally signs of that occurring, but that is my patriotic hope; and, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, to whose speech I listened with so much enjoyment, I am very glad that this debate has taken place this afternoon.

FUTURE BUSINESS: THE FLOOD DISASTER
4.18 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to interrupt the business for a few moments in order to make a statement which I think is of some importance. It is proposed in another place that on Thursday next a Motion should be tabled—and, I am sure, passed—dealing with the floods, not only in this country but in the other countries which have suffered. The Netherlands, for instance, have suffered far more seriously than we have. It is proposed in another place to table a comprehensive Motion expressing sympathy with those who have suffered and acknowledging their sympathy with us, and also acknowledging and placing on record our deep gratitude for and appreciation of the help and sympathy which has come to us from all quarters abroad and from the Commonwealth.
I felt sure—and I have consulted the Leaders of other Parties, who wholly agree with me—that your Lordships would desire that, When that is done in another place, we should take the opportunity of passing in this House a Motion in the same or similar terms. I propose, therefore, either to-night or to-morrow, to table an appropriate Motion, which will be similar to that which will be tabled in another place and to which I shall ask your Lordships to agree. There was no Business down for Thursday, but I am sure your Lordships would wish to meet for that express purpose on Thursday. I therefore propose that the House should sit on Thursday at four o'clock to consider the Motion which I will table and which I feel sure will receive the full support of all quarters of the House.

SUPPLY OF AIRCRAFT
Debate resumed.
4.21 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord who has introduced this Motion has brought forward a very important subject and one which requires careful thought. I should like to deal in a little more detail than did the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, with the question of the supply of naval fighters. I was particularly interested in what he said about the machinery of supply, which I think is very important and in which I think there is something lacking in the Admiralty at the present time. As the noble Lord will be well aware, in connection with the design and building of warships the buffer between the naval staff and the builders of the ships is the Corps of Naval Constructors. I cannot help feeling that in asense it might be a good thing to expand that Corps, and have attached to it a Corps of Naval Air Constructors That would be likely to lead to a much more continuous programme of design bf naval aircraft. Recently, an extension of super-priority, I understand, was made in the case of the four-jet bombers, in addition to the shore-based fighters, but no such super-priority has been given for naval fighters.
We were given to understand this afternoon by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air that the super-priority list now contains the names of about eleven aircraft out of sixty. Why not a round dozen to include naval fighters? I should be the first to admit that a strong bombing force for the delivery of atomic attack to deter an aggressor is of the greatest importance, and there is every justification for building up our bomber force as soon as possible. But, on the other hand, a bomber force with a shortage of oil fuel is of little value. All oil for the bombers' use must come in tankers across the oceans, and if those tankers cannot be protected by naval fighters of the highest class they may never arrive.
I submit that it is urgently necessary that carrier-borne jet fighter aircraft should have the same super-priority as that accorded to long-range strategic bombers and shore-based fighters of the Royal Air Force. I think it is true to say that we have no naval fighters at the
476
present time which can deal with the modern jet bomber, and the defence of merchant shipping outside coastal waters obviously cannot be carried out by shore-based fighters. It is quite impossible. It has been argued, I know, in some quarters that it was the bomber offensive more than anything else which led to our air supremacy over the seas in the later stages of the last war. That may well be true, but I suggest that it would be highly dangerous to rely on a bomber offensive to destroy an enemy's war potential, such as Russia's, in the early stages of a war. The defence of our merchant shipping must be our No. 1 priority over everything else, and it cannot wait for a bomber offensive to take effect. Strategic bombing is of great importance, but I suggest that to some extent it has taken the place of the traditional naval blockade of the past in that, although its strangulation effect is, in the end, inevitable, it must take a long time to achieve. It is in the early months of a war that our merchant shipping will be in the greatest danger from the air. I maintain that our capacity to sustain a war, even for a few months, will depend on the safe passage of our tanker fleets and other war stores, and not least our food.
As I have pointed out already, the Navy at the present time has no operational jet fighter aircraft of high performance, and unless they are added to the super-priority list there will be no chance of getting them for a very long time. I suggest that this risk cannot and should not be accepted. I would go so far as to say that the whole military setup in Europe is endangered at the present time by the lack of such provision. There is no doubt that since the last war there has been a very great increase in the danger of air attack on our shipping. The twin-jet bomber, which we know is already possessed by the Russians, has a long range over the Atlantic, and is almost as fast as most modern fighters. With the aid of improved radar, and in co-operation with enemy submarines, it could be devastating to our shipping. There is only one weapon that can be really effective in such an attack in the middle of the Atlantic and far from shore: that is, the high-performance carrier-borne naval fighter, operating in task forces from light fleet carriers or from auxiliaries operating within the

477
convoys themselves. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to recast the super-priority list before it is too late, so that our merchant fleet can have the all-important naval fighter protection of the highest grade at the earliest possible moment.
4.27 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was very interested to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord opposite, but I was rather shocked at the lighthearted way in which he talked about atomic warfare offensives and so on. I hope that the atomic bomb will never be used again, and that everyone will be afraid to use it, just as gas was not used in the Second World War, though it was used in the First. This country will be the most vulnerable and the most easily attacked of any country if atomic warfare is let loose. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord was using that argument only to strengthen his very strong case, if I may say so, for super-priority for naval fighters.
I saw some interesting pictures of the Air Minister in the newspapers recently. I was delighted to see that he was trudging about in the mud of Canvey Island, where certainly his men did very good work, as they did up and down the coast, and as did the Army as well. I hope that the pictures were not symbolic. I hope the policy is not bogged down, as the Air Minister, for a time, unfortunately was. But there are certain things which I feel are rather alarming. I do not take any complacent view, and I hope the Government do not either, of our aircraft position. We are still woefully short of labour. I have not had the advantage of seeing the Observer of last Sunday, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, did. The lady members of my family always seem to get it away from me. I had given notice some days before the Observer appeared that I was going to raise this question of manpower in the aircraft industry, which I am advised is very serious indeed. As has already been mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, quoting this distinguished writer, whoever he was, in the Observer, one of the causes of the trouble is the immobility of labour. Again, that is causes by the still woeful lack of houses. So serious is the situation, and
478
so difficult is it for the aircraft manufacturers to increase their labour force, especially of skilled labour, that there is much to be said for moving the aircraft factories to where the labour is. Here, again, we are up against all sorts of restrictions, and that is why many people are uneasy that the Government are still adhering, or are allowing local authorities to adhere, to these regulations which are hampering that larger policy of moving the factories making aircraft and engines and the like to the places where the labour is to be found. I hope that that matter will be tackled very soon by those who are in a position to do so.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be speaking later in the debate. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying how glad I am that he has recovered from his recent operation and that we see him back here, apparently in his usual rude health. I am sure he will do justice to the subject under discussion.
I have one or two other matters to raise. I think we should direct our attention very closely to the whole question of the export trade in aircraft. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, spoke about£43 million worth of exports of aircraft in 1952. My figures were£44 million, so there k nothing much between us there. That of course is a very remarkable figure, and I think he was well justified, given other favourable factors, including the increase in the skilled manpower position to which I have already referred, in looking forward to an increase to£60 million in the next year or so. Our export of ships of all kinds, which has always been one of our major industries, produced only£36 million in 1952, compared with£44 million worth of aircraft and parts. I think that is very remarkable. In 1951, the export and sale of ships for abroad and the building of new shipping for sale produced£53 million. That has dropped to£36 million, partly due to the beginning of a world recession—there is a falling off in the shipping freight market in the world. It is one of the early signs—the early puff of wind which indicates the coming of a gale; and unless something is done or there are economic changes we may be facing a very serious recession. That is why there have been fewer orders

479
for ships, and, as I say, a falling off in the export of ships from£53 million in 1951 to£36 million in 1952.
Nevertheless, aircraft exports have gone up and, as the noble Lord said, I think there is a prospect of maintaining this increase. But we must have more labour, and, somehow or another, as my noble friend Lord Pakenham suggested, we must get more houses, especially for occupation by skilled workers in the aircraft industry. Alternatively, we must encourage and assist the erection of aircraft factories near and around centres of population, and particularly where engineering skill is situated. Already, on its export side, the aircraft industry is third in our engineering exports. I think that is very remarkable indeed. As one or two of my noble friends have already said, that gives us a great opportunity, if we can take advantage of it.
The other thing that rather disturbs me, apart from this question of the lack of skilled labour—I hope that noble Lords who adorn the Government Front Bench are equally alive to this unfortunate state of affairs—is that we still have not available a modern British freight-carrying aircraft. I understand that the Bristol Britannia and the Blackburn freighter will not become available for another three years. In the meantime, the business of carrying freight by air is increasing all over the world. There are six foreign companies carrying freight only across the Atlantic. No British company is able to do that because they have not the machines. Through a loan from the World Bank, backed by the Dutch Government, the great K.L.M. company have recently obtained American freighters. I congratulate the Dutch Government and K.L.M. on being able to get these freighters, and on obtaining some of this important trade and the goodwill going with it at the present time. But why have we not given the same sort of advantages to our own operators? Why, in the absence of a British freight-carrying aeroplane, have we not allowed them to purchase American planes, by making the dollars available? That is another matter which I am bound to bring to your Lordships' attention, and which I think gives ground for some uneasiness.
480
I also ventured to give notice to the Government that I should raise another matter. I am advised that it is rather bad economy to use our very expensive and, incidentally, complicated and delicate jet fighter-bombers over the battlefield in support of the Army, when that is not really their function. They are being used for that purpose in Korea, because they are the only machines available. I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter at all, but I have confidence in the source of my information. I am told that what is needed is a rather cheaper and simpler type of pistonengined aircraft, if you like, specially designed for use with the troops in the field. Such an aircraft is at present badly needed in Korea—that is one of the lessons of the Korean campaign. There is an analogy in the case of the Royal Navy, where, for a time, we had to use our expensive and necessarily few destroyers for all sorts of shipping protection work, work for which a cheaper vessel and, therefore, one capable of production on a greater scale, would have been equally suitable. So we designed the frigates to take the place of large numbers of destroyers, thus enabling the destroyers to do their work with the Fleet while the frigates did the convoy work. That, I suggest, is a parallel case. We need a cheaper and simpler aircraft for the support of the Army in the field, in order that we do not have to use the expensive jet fighter-bombers in work for which they are not really designed.
My Lords, I have made these suggestions to the Government, I hope in a helpful manner. I have tried not to be hypercritical. From all I know, I believe that the Royal Air Force is as efficient and up to date as it has ever been, and that civil aviation in this country has no rival anywhere in the world. I believe that our civil aviation companies are doing splendid work. They have the highest reputation, and deservedly so.
I gather that my noble friend Lord Ogmore was not advocating—at any rate, on this occasion—the nationalisation of the aircraft industry. Therefore, he did not put up a ninepin for the noble and gallant Lord to knock over. But the Minister put one up himself. I gather that my noble friend Lord Pakenham also avoided that subject. With great respect. I am glad that they did. I think that we

481
need to know a great deal mere about the means of nationalising industries, and the way to make nationalised industries 100 per cent. efficient, before we tackle this particular industry. I can think: of many other industries to which we can devote attention before we come to that of aircraft manufacture and design. I congratulate my two noble friends on avoiding that particular subject. Therefore the ninepin was in the imagination of the Minister.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, to say that it was not in my imagination; it had already been mentioned by certain members of the noble Lord's Party.
LORD STRABOLGI: Of course, all sorts of things have been mentioned, but it is not an official policy of my Party. Therefore, I am quite free to say that I think the aircraft industry is one of the last industries to be tackled from that point of view. However, we are all in agreement on that particular subject, and I am sure we are all in agreement on the need for preserving the efficiency and strength of the air force, both from the military and the civil point of view.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I join with your Lordships who have already spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for initiating this debate. It has been an extremely interesting debate, a debate in which, when I have sat down—as I am going to do in a few minutes—the third one-time Minister of Air Transport will participate. I refer, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I listened with very close attention to the interesting speech made by the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air. As the noble Lord pointed out, the difficulty is that of speeding up the time, from conception to realisation, with aircraft for operational service on the aerodrome In the early days, as your Lordships will know, such could be achieved in about a year. To-day, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, it takes many years more than that. In fact, I suppose the noble Lord would agree with me that the time now is nearer from seven to eight years—the time is getting longer. Something, I know, can, and I urge should, be done.
482
As your Lordships know, there are two aspects in this gestation process. The first aspect is that of research and development; the second that of production. Until now, these two stages have proceeded in series, whereas it is essential, I submit, that they should proceed in parallel. If that were ensured, a great deal of time could be saved. That, of course, is vital, especially in the military field. Now as regards manpower. Some three years ago, the manpower situation in the aircraft industry was such that hands were being got rid of. Two years ago, the total number of hands in the industry was around 140,000; to-day it is some 210,000. Quite recently, the defence programme was recast, and substantial orders for aircraft had to be cancelled. This presented a tremendous problem to the Ministry of Supply and the aircraft industry, who were adjusting the situation to fit the but recently announced plan. It is not for me to go into the ins and outs of this decision, or the reasons for it; I must accept it and, as an engineer, assess the results of it. One result is that there are now available both skilled manpower and space which were not available until quite recently. My submission is that such manpower and space should be used immediately to produce a number of civil types, in which, as some of your Lordships have said, this country is leading—for example, the De Havilland Comet, the Vickers Viscount and the Bristol Britannia. I think such a policy is desirable—indeed I understood the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to recommend it. And if I am correct in that point of view, I strongly back the suggestion that the available capacity of the industry which is not now to be employed on military aircraft should be employed by the Government on the production of these civil types.
I now want, if I may, having said a few words about civil land types, to refer for a moment to flying boats, in the development and use of which Britain has for four decades played the leading part. I want to refer in particular to the Saunders-Roe 40, better known as the Princess. As your Lordships will remember, this type of flying boat will carry 105 passengers in the greatest comfort—all with full sleeping accommodation—and seven tons of freight non-stop

483
from London to New York. What is the position as regards these aircraft? It is a most extraordinary and unsatisfactory position. As I think your Lordships know, the first Princess started flight trials a short time ago, and these are slowly proceeding. She is fitted with the Bristol Proteus Mark II engines, and these are the only types available for the moment. They are just suitable for preliminary trials. Now this large flying boat, the latest of its kind in the world, has proved most satisfactory aerodynamically, and tests can proceed with the Bristol Proteus Mark II engines. The Princess, however, as your Lordships will remember, was designed for the Proteus Mark III engines, and, as matters now stand, some considerable time must elapse before such motors can be delivered to Messrs. Saunders-Roe by the Bristol Company. As your Lordships will remember, the Bristol Company are fitting Proteus Mark III engines to the Britannia, a land aircraft which has already been referred to in this debate, and one of very considerable promise. The Princess, however, requires coupled Proteus III engines, and since this is a special requirement not demanded by the Britannia, development work on the coupling has yet to be undertaken.
The other two boats, which are part finished, are I understand, to be "cocooned." It is a shaming thing to think that the latest flying boat, which Britain has done more than any other country to develop and use, should have come to this plastic grave. I might remind your Lordships of the part that the flying boat has played in the development of Empire air transport. Your Lordships will remember that the Empire boats were built by Short Bros, from the design of Sir Arthur Gouge, the designer of the Princess. They were in use for some time by Imperial Airways before that company was dissolved into B.O.A.C. These boats came into service in 1937 and were taken over when B.O.A.C. was formed in 1940. The first of the Empire boats was delivered in 1936 and subsequent boats were delivered at the rate of two a month. The whole fleet of twenty-eight boats was in use in 1937. From these boats a larger type was developed, and all gave a very fine account of themselves. They were the main carriers in the British Empire air transport system.
484
I think the maximum number of flying boats at any one time in service with Imperial Airways, and later in the B.O.A.C., was some thirty. When certain further tests with the present Princess have been completed, I propose to initiate a debate in your Lordships' House on the flying boat, its development and use.
With regard to land aircraft, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Mancroft can let your Lordships know the present position with regard to the granting by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States of a certificate of airworthiness for the Comet. As your Lordships know, the Civil Aeronautics Board lay down federal policy, and the Civil Aeronautics Authority carry out that policy. Conversations have taken place between representatives of the Ministry of Civil Aviation and of the Board and I should very much like to know what the present position is with regard to that.
With regard to the industry as a whole, the Secretary of State for Air has said, rightly, that our leading aircraft firms were all still being run, and run efficiently, by the pioneers who founded them. I think a tribute should be paid to others in touch in an important way with the aircraft industry on the Government side. As my own activities in the field of engineering take me over most of the world, I come in contact with the requirements for different types of civil aircraft in all the countries I visit. It often becomes necessary to get assistance from the Government, and I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, who handles transport matters and who has always been particularly helpful in facilitating a procedure or a delivery. In this connection, I would also mention the assistance that I have always received from the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Sir George Cribbett, and from Mr. Dunnett and Mr. Robbins of the Ministry of Supply.
On the question of production, the figures given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air show how splendid is the work which has been done by the volunteers from industry who were brought into the Ministry of Supply. Sir George Briggs and Mr. Rawson were two who have now gone

485
back to industry after serving very usefully in the Ministry of Supply. Mr. Puckey, the Deputy Controller and specialist in charge of aircraft production, is another. As a production engineer he is, I should say, the most skilled in the art in the country; and he is about to leave the Ministry. To these gentlemen we owe a great debt of gratitude for the efficient way in which they have administered the problems in the Ministry of the aircraft industry, and because they are volunteers I felt that it was appropriate that I should mention their names to your Lordships. I hope that when he comes to reply my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be able to say something about these matters, and that both he and the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Transport in another place, will use their influence to prevent the crime of the suffocation of the Princess.
4.55 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, we are certainly confronted with gem opportunities in the realm of civil aviation, and, in spite of the persuasive speech of the Secretary of State for Air this afternoon—and I am always disposed to believe anything he tells me—I am afraid I do not feel reassured that the Government is alive to these opportunities, or that, if it is alive to them, it is seizing them. This is the sort of matter in which opportunity knocks only once. It is a great opportunity. Air traffic has been increasing by leaps and bounds. The carriage of freight by air, in particular, shows a spectacular increase. Tourist class services are also on the eve of great developments. I know that figures are often considered tedious, but I should like to quote one or two in support of my statements. In the last five years passenger air traffic has shot up by 80 per cent. and freight air traffic has more than doubled. In three months of 1951, 100,000 passengers crossed the Atlantic by air, and in the corresponding three months of 1952 that figure was up by 50 per cent. This almost fabulous expansion will go on, aided, as it will be, by jet and jet-prop developments.
The emergency is said to produce the man, and the opportunity in the air has most certainly brought forth a galaxy of talent amongst our aircraft and aircraft designers who, in turn, owe a great deal to that splendid team of test pilots, whose
486
work, I think, is not always sufficiently recognised. Thinking of that, I rejoice in the triumphs of firms like De Havilland and Rolls Royce and in seeing a great firm like Avro redeeming a series of misfortunes which once afflicted it. These firms and these men have presented the Government with a chance of a lifetime. Is the Government, in turn, producing the man and the men to take advantage of the opportunity the aircraft designers are presenting to it? I have no doubt that Mr. Lennox-Boyd, the Minister of Transport, has been so preoccupied with the Transport Bill that he has not yet been able to give his full attention to civil aviation; but now that the Transport Bill is passing out of the way, I hope very much to see the Minister leave the imprint of his forceful and resourceful nature on the field of civil aviation.
We now have these two fields open to us—the air carriage of freight and the export of aircraft. This has been a country of great shipbuilders, and the Clyde and Tyneside maintain to-day the old traditions of unequalled workmanship. Always we have been the great carriers of commerce by sea. To these achievements we now have the chance to add an aircraft building and carrying industry of equal lustre. We should think of our aircraft factories as we think of our great shipbuilding yards. And we should think of our air services as we think of our great shipping services—the P. & O., the Union Castle, Runciman's and the Cunard. We have a certain lead for a few years, but if we fail to grasp the opportunity which that lead offers to us, it is unlikely to recur.
As I have mentioned the carriage of cargo by air, I should like to say that, to exploit the opportunity to the full, I think we must give a due place in the development of freighting to the independent operators. This is a sphere of work which is peculiarly suited to them, and, in my opinion, they can be given that opportunity without any detriment to the two great nationalised Corporations. There is plenty of room for the independent operators to have a cut at that particular cake. My own belief is that those who direct the two great nationalised Corporations are open-minded on this point and would not refuse co-operation. For, indeed, the opportunity is so great that this is no time for sectional jealousies, but a time for co-operation and good will

487
between all who can make a contribution. When we were building up our great shipping industry there were captains of tramp steamers who had a reputation for being able to smell out a cargo in the most unlikely and remote parts of the world. In my view, we want that same instinct in the air freight business to-day, and that is a line of country particularly suited to some of the independent operators.
If I speak strongly about this opportunity with which we are confronted, let me say at once, quite frankly, that I do so because I am tired to death of hearing that for evermore we have to play second fiddle to America. Here, in the air, is the chance to play first fiddle to the world. For Heaven's sake let us take it! But to do so, we have to move quickly. Let us look for a moment at the potentialities of the aircraft market. There are at present about 1,000 4-engined civil aircraft in service. They will require replacement during the next few years. If we add to them the twin-engined aircraft, it may well be that during the next ten years upwards of 4,000 passenger and cargo aircraft will be required. Even to-day—as I think we have heard this afternoon—aircraft exports are running at round about£43 million worth a year; and I understand that, at any rate quite recently, the aircraft industry had£75 million worth of orders in hand. I heard some figures quoted about exports of ships which rather conflict with those I have in mind; but the last time I went into the question of exports of ships it was running at about£53 million worth a year. Therefore, if that was right at that time, exports of aircraft were running at only£10 million worth a year less than the exports of our great shipbuilding yards.
We are justly proud of our cargo carrying ships, but we can and should be equally proud of our transport aircraft. I am sure that the Secretary of State will bear me out that we ought to be thinking in terms of building up the greatest air merchant navy in the world. But if this is to be done, there must be some financial backing from the Government. There has been a good deal of talk in the past about the aircraft industry not being able to accept foreign orders. I think that talk came particularly to the front when we
488
had the pleasure of welcoming here last year an American operator of great fame, Captain Rickenbacker. Certainly the idea was much publicised and in the air at that time that Captain Rickenbacker had come over here wanting to place enormous orders, but could not get any promise of delivery from the aircraft industry, and consequently he had to go back to America with his money unspent. The Secretary of State for Air, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will know the inner story far better than I do, and I can give your Lordships only what I have heard. However, I have heard of no evidence that Captain Rickenbacker was prepared to place a firm order, whatever date of delivery he was offered. He certainly told the De Havilland firm that their planned dates for the Comet III were too late for him. He said that they were too late, but I am not sure that he said what date would suit him, and I have heard of no date that would induce him to give a firm order for the Comet III. I have heard that another firm said to him: "Tell us your date, how many you want, and we will deliver them." But even on that no firm order was forthcoming from him. Therefore I do not think the case is entirely proved that our aircraft industry is unable to accept foreign orders.
But the question of finance looms very large indeed in this matter, and what the industry requires to-day is firm orders from the Government for such aircraft as the Comets and the Bristol Britannias, so that if orders come along the goods will be there for delivery when firm inquiries are received. It is too much to ask the firms to shoulder all the finance. After all, one is not asking, for anything unusual in asking for Government assistance in this matter, because without Government help we could never have built those two great ships, the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth," which I am sure to-day we all feel were a very good investment of Government money. In asking for financial assistance from the Government for some of the aircraft firms, I do not feel that we are breaking entirely new ground, or asking for something absolutely unusual.
The question of the Ministry of Supply has not been gone into in any detail this afternoon, but, after all, the Ministry of

489
Supply plays a great part in the matter of the supply of aircraft. Certainly it is the fact that a great many Departments—perhaps as many as four—are involved in the production of civil aircraft, and it seems rather cumbrous and to militate against speedy decisions by tile Ministry of Civil Aviation. But I believe improvements have taken place which have had the effect of placing the user in more direct contact with the builder, and I do not want to enter into that matter at any great length. However, I have one point I should like to make about the Ministry of Supply—namely, whether as at present constituted it would take the strain which would be imposed upon it in war time; or whether in war time it would be found that it had far too great a load upon it to enable it to face up to new requirements and the exigencies of war. I feel that we want to get the Ministry of Supply so organised in peace time that, if war should come, it would be able to take on its war tasks and duties without having to undergo a great deal of reorganisation, and possibly a good deal of shedding of the load at the very time when it ought to have no anxieties of that nature upon its shoulders.
Something has been said this afternoon about more factory space and more labour and machine tools being required. I wonder about that. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is to reply—and if he does not mind my saying so, I feel that he has slipped into his new duties with all the ease and elegance of a duck slipping into water—can tell me this afternoon how many aircraft factories to-day are working more than one shift. It seems slightly illogical to erect new factories and to buy a lot more machine tools to work one shift in the new factories. But with this situation confronting us, I think it would be of interest to know if any aircraft industry is at the present moment working more than one shift.
In confronting the situation to-day, we have to remember that America regards our lead as a challenge, and that America's production technique is, I regret to have to say, much better than ours. Boeing's have a jet transport in hand to-day which they hope to have demonstrated in mid-1954. They are putting£7 million into the project, and
490
they hope that air lines will be operating it in late 1956 or early 1957. Douglas have coming along in 1958 the D.C.8. which is to cost£1 million, to carry 90 to 120 passengers and to cruise at 560 miles an hour at 40,000 feet. Comets I and II will carry from 36 to 48 passengers. Believe me, the Americans are going to get very hot on our trail, and we have little time at our disposal in which to take full advantage of the opportunity which our designers have given us to-day.
There is one matter only to which I wish to refer in conclusion. Naval aviation has been mentioned this afternoon. I did not know that it was going to be referred to, and consequently I have not had time to refresh my memory on the subject. I do remember, however, that during the war nothing caused me more distress than the way in which the naval air arm was treated in the matter of supply of aircraft. It was shockingly treated. To the best of my recollection, I think there were in pre-war days two firms which were more or less earmarked to give special attention to naval aircraft. As I say, I have not refreshed my memory, but my recollection is that neither of those firms turned out any satisfactory aircraft for the Navy during the War, and that the Fleet Air Arm ended up armed and equipped, to all intents and purposes, with American aircraft. It was a shocking story. Your Lordships will recollect that the unhappy Esmond attacked the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" with those practically obsolete Swordfish aircraft. Although I cannot confirm it, I heard that they had not even the latest war-head fitted on their torpedoes. That story of Esmond and of the escape of the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" up Channel, is the measure of the way in which naval aviation was treated during the war. I hope with all my heart that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to say something in reply which will assure us that naval aviation is being treated as it deserves and given the aircraft which the skill and courage of its pilots merit.
5.15 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, when I saw the notice of this debate upon the Order Paper, I thought that as the question was being raised from the Opposition Front. Bench it might develop into a discussion on the pros and cons of the nationalisation of the aircraft industry. I

491
therefore came prepared to plunge into the fray on that subject. But as things have turned out the subject of nationalisation has been avoided. As my practical experience in aircraft supply dates from 1930 to 1936, when I was the Air Member for Supply and Research at the Air Ministry, I am very much out of date, and am not qualified to take part in today's debate except upon one point which has arisen, and that is the subject of the supply of naval aircraft. First mention was made of it by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. He did not say that the Navy had not worthy aircraft to-day; he said that they never had had worthy aircraft. Therefore my experience, although it may be out of date for most of to-day's discussion, is perhaps apposite to the broad statement that they have never had worthy aircraft.
From 1930 to 1936, as I have said, I was in charge of the technical side of research, development and supply at the Air Ministry, and I can tell your Lordships in a nutshell why the Navy never had the best aircraft. It was because they would insist on fighters which were designed for performing quite different tasks, and sometimes tasks which were almost mutually exclusive. Some names come to my mind to-day: torpedo-spotter-bomber, all to be confined in one aircraft; also, fighter-reconnaissance-bomber, and so on. That is really like asking for a horse to enter for the Derby, to draw the milk cart and to pull the garden roller in the intervals. You cannot get a first-class aircraft if you give it such divergent roles as that. I believe the basic reason, at that time at any rate, was that they had not at the Admiralty in the high positions where the orders were placed, where the specifications were made out, people with practical experience.
One particular instance comes to my mind now. When I first went to the Air Ministry, we were using wooden, canvas and wire aeroplanes. During the course of my time there, the change-over was made to metal construction, to monoplane types, and so on; and, of course, it was obvious that the weight and the dimensions of the aircraft changed correspondingly. When some new types were being asked for by the Admiralty, we sent to them competitive tenders from
492
the manufacturing firms. We were told, "Those will not do; they will not go down the hatches of aircraft carriers; they are too heavy; the span is too great: we cannot use aircraft that size; there is not room between decks." This naturally worried me a good deal, and I went to the Admiralty to see the Fifth Sea Lord, who was my "opposite number." He said, "I'm very sorry about this, but the new carrier is half built now and these things cannot be altered."
Provision had been made for a Committee, called the Aircraft Carrier Committee. It was an Admiralty Committee and there were on it two or three members from the Air Ministry who were to be called upon when the Committee met. The meeting was to be called when a new aircraft carrier was going to be designed. Now, that Committee never met at all while I was at the Air Ministry. Again, I do not think that the people in charge were competent to make operational decisions. For instance, at the beginning of the war it was decided that aircraft of the Hurricane type could not land on a carrier. Some experiments had been made at Gosport, and that was the opinion of the junior officers who made the experiments. That opinion was accepted by the Admiralty and therefore they denied themselves the use of aircraft of the Hurricane type. When we left Narvik, there were two squadrons to be evacuated. One of these was a Hurricane squadron; and they all landed on the carrier—the "Glorious"—although none of the pilots had ever had any experience of landing on a carrier. It is true, of course, that owing to a most lamentable set of circumstances, "Glorious" was sunk on the way home; but those Hurricanes had all landed on the deck without any previous practice.
It has always been difficult to introduce any startling new development to the Navy. The development of steamships was fiercely rejected; the supply of breech-loading guns was delayed for ten or fifteen years after it was due. I hope that now that a new generation has grown up, the people at the Admiralty have the necessary practical experience to avoid the kind of mistake about which I have been speaking. At any rate, since this subject had been brought up and the suggestion made that the Navy never had

493
worthy aircraft, I thought I should take the opportunity of giving your Lordships the results of my personal experience.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, since the end of the war we have had something like a score of debates on the subject of aeronautics or the aircraft industry. I believe that I have attended nearly all of them, but I have ventured to speak in only one or two, for I have felt rather overawed by the weight of technical and Service experience which was at your Lordships' disposal on this particular subject. I am no less overawed this afternoon, but circumstances prevent my restraining myself in this debate. We have had speeches from distinguished sailors, and just now from an Air Chief Marshal—always to be remembered as the victor in the Battle of Britain. I rather regretted that he spoke last, for I fancied that I heard at the end of his speech a faint trumpet call to battle from a distinguished sailor. But, alas!no answer came.
LORD STRABOLGI: They have fired all their shots.
LORD MANCROFT: They have fired all their shots, as the noble Lord says. We have also had contributions from three noble Lords who have been at the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and from another who was at one time First Lord of the Admiralty—and in this capacity the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who has been in both positions, is acting as a dual-purpose machine. If I cannot in any way match them in their experience, I hope that at least I shall be a match for them in the skill and. determination with which they have restrained themselves from bringing any attempt at Party politics in to this debate this afternoon.
The first matter to which I should like to devote my attention is that of naval aviation. That is a matter to which several noble Lords have referred—Lord Pakenham; Lord Ogmore himself; Lord Teynham, who is not able to stay to the end of the debate and who has asked me to apologise to your Lordships on his behalf; and many other noble. Lords. I have been asked point blank to say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the present state of naval aviation. The answer to that, point
494
blank, is, "No," and I suppose that the answer that has always been given by any Government to that question is, "No." I only hope that I shall be able to make it clear to your Lordships that there is no complacency whatsoever on the part of Her Majesty's Government concerning this vexed question of naval aviation. Your Lordships may have noticed a highly informative and interesting article in the magazine Flight of, I think, February 6, which in itself caused considerable comment in the daily and Sunday papers. I thought I could detect many of the opinions expressed in that article in some of the speeches made this afternoon; As I say, Her Majesty's Government are not yet happy about the position and are constantly and earnestly seeking means of improvement.
One or two specific charges have been made this afternoon. One was not, perhaps, made directly, but it was hinted at. I am glad that no one suggested that the Admiralty or the Navy or senior officers in the Navy are not air-minded. That would be quite untrue. More and more senior officers in the Royal Navy have themselves active experience of aviation or have been connected with air matters. More and more the need for knowledge of air matters is given common acceptance in the Admiralty. I was asked whether we are satisfied concerning the co-operation between the Admiralty, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Supply and the industry itself. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in particular, put that point. He speaks, of course, with far greater knowledge of that subject than I do. He knows that the situation was not perfect in his time, and he knows that, when he took over, it was not perfect. It is still not perfect. But I think I can give him the assurance that he asked for, that it is being rapidly and successfully improved. This question of co-operation is a matter commanding the strongest study in all. Departments concerned. I should not like to face a charge of complacency by telling him that we are satisfied that all is now well. I can assure him that the need for improved relations is most acutely appreciated, and that Her Majesty's Government will not rest content until they are satisfied that that complete co-operation which the noble Lord knows so well is needed has, in fact, been achieved.

495
I was also asked whether Her Majesty's Government were of the opinion that undue delays did not attend upon the provision of naval aircraft. Again, the answer to that must be, up to a point, "Yes." The reasons for that have, to a certain degree, been voiced in the debate this afternoon—the complexity of naval aircraft which have to land on and fly off that tiny space which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, knows, and as I do, so terrifies civilians like ourselves who are taken on to aircraft carriers; and the need for complex strategic rôles for naval aviation. All these factors tend to make a change of demand by the staff a temptation, to say the least of it. We know, from individual aircraft, as all your Lordships from personal experience can tell, that there have been perhaps too many changes; there have been too many demands to meet strategic requirements—but the Royal Air Force have had the same difficulties. Those are problems which are well admitted and which all concerned with the production of new aircraft for the Royal Navy are earnestly trying to overcome. I wish I could say to-day that those difficulties have now been fully overcome. I hope, however, that in the near future it may be possible to say that.
Now, as to the question of super-priority, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and one or two other noble Lords, with particular reference, of course, to naval fighters. I hope it will not be gathered from the fact that the naval fighter does not appear on the list of eleven aircraft eligible for super-priority, that a proper priority is not attached to the strategic position of the fighter aircraft. Those are two different things. The situation is this. The production delays of the Sea Hawk naval fighter have been sufficiently overcome, and it would not appear that, at this particular stage, super-priority would greatly accelerate production of that particular aircraft. If Her Majesty's Government thought that the production of fighter aircraft for the Royal Navy would be accelerated by the application of the super-priority label, they would not hesitate to apply it. But the advice given to me is that at the moment the super-priority label would not be of particular assistance to this particular type of aircraft—that is, only the fighter.
496
As your Lordships are aware, another type of naval aircraft is on the super-priority list.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should like to ask whether that view is accepted completely by the Government?
LORD MANCROFT: All I can say is that my statement is the best advice available to me at this moment. Upon that, I must stand.
I will try to answer the questions which have been asked me about three particular types of aircraft. The first was the Attacker. The Attacker is a jet fighter-bomber and it is attracting to itself a little unhappy notoriety. I can answer Lord Pakenham's question categorically. It is a good aircraft, it is doing good service. It is giving satisfaction to the staff. It is giving satisfaction to the pilots who fly it.
LORD PAKENHAM: Thank you.
LORD MANCROFT: It is satisfactory now. As the noble Lord knows full well, it is an aircraft that has passed through some difficult times. The two difficulties which I think the noble Lord probably had in mind were armament defects and defects of water in the petrol supply. I am given to understand that they were not major defects and were not widespread throughout the class of aircraft. This aircraft is, of course, only a stopgap aircraft: it should not be regarded as anything else. But I should not like the idea to be current for one moment that it is not what it is—an absolutely first-class aircraft.
I was next asked about the Sea Hawk, a jet day-fighter, which is eventually to supersede both the Attacker and the Sea Fury. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked me whether I could say exactly when it was coming into squadron use and how late it would be in its timetable. The answer to the first part of the question is: "In the immediate future." In answering the second part of the question, I am afraid that I can be no more specific than to say that the Sea Hawk, like the spring this year, will be a little late. Whether it will be of any use to the noble Lord, or to anybody else, to go into the exact details of its lateness, I will leave the noble Lord to decide. There have been serious production delays, mostly concerned, I

497
think, with labour difficulties, but those have now been overcome. The aircraft will shortly be coming into squadron use. It is by no means an obsolete aircraft—I can answer that question categorically, too. It will be a much better plane than the Attacker. It is a genuine naval aircraft, and we hope that eventually, with luck, it will have had fewer teething troubles. As I have said, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government (to deal with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander) that the application of the super-priority label to this particular aircraft would not vastly accelerate its production.
The third type of aircraft upon which I was asked to make a comment was the Gannet. This machine has, unfortunately, been seriously delayed. Noble Lords will remember that in another place there have been a number of Questions on this subject within the last few weeks; and I believe that there are mote to come. The Gannet was, of course, seriously delayed in 1950 and 1951 owing to changes of requirements, necessitating the insertion of a third seat and new equipment in the aircraft. But it is a potent anti-submarine weapon. It is a weapon which the staff have every confidence will fill all the tasks that will be allotted to it, and the production, with the super-priority label attached, is corning along well.
May I conclude on this subject of naval aviation by saying this? There is no complacency whatever in the Admiralty or in Her Majesty's Government upon this subject. There is no sitting back. There are many important developments, looking well into the future, now in train. Your Lordships will have seen in this morning's Times newspaper a photograph of the launching of the new carrier "Hermes." You will have seen reference to steam catapults and angle-deck carriers—both British inventions, both taken up enthusiastically by the Americans, both possibly revolutionary inventions—and also the introduction of the side-lift, which I think was an American invention. This is not the time or place to discuss this matter, because it does not fall within the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogrmore. I mention that merely to illustrate the point that I am seeking to make, that Her Majesty's
498
Government are thinking and acting as far ahead as they possibly can. There is no spirit of complacency. The urgency of this problem is fully appreciated. The defects of the past are recognised. A determination not to repeat them in the future, if possible, is recognised with equal firmness.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? If the noble Lord is leaving naval aviation—and I am much obliged to him for what he has told us—while he is still on the the subject, may I mention again the item in The Times newspaper to which I referred? Is the noble Lord in a position to comment on the cryptic and disturbing sentences in this connection in The Times which I read out earlier to the House? I recall for him the sentences about the economies such as those being made in naval aviation.
LORD MANCROFT: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was coming on to that point later, but I will deal with it now if he so wishes.
LORD PAKENHAM: I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would, because I have to leave the House, with many apologies to your Lordships.
LORD MANCROFT: There goes another one! The noble Lord gave me notice of this point, but I am afraid I have not had time to study it with the care that I should like; nor indeed to take the advice that I should like. Of course, I am not responsible, and he will not so hold me, for articles in The Times. I must confess that the two particular paragraphs of that article to which he drew my attention puzzled me a little, and I should like a further explanation of what the author had in mind. Economies have certainly been directed towards the subject we now have in hand in naval aviation, but they are not major economies, compared with the other economies which the author of the article envisages. So far as I know, there has been no major change of policy to which that particular paragraph could apply. That is my first reaction to the article. I may have misread it, I may completely have misunderstood it; but my first impression is that that particular paragraph is either inaccurately worded or misconceived. I do not want to be held upon that at a later date, if I have

499
entirely misunderstood it. But that is my first impression.
LORD PAKENHAM: With great respect, although the noble Lord says that that is his first impression, the official world has had a few hours since just before lunch this morning to be able to form an opinion. I assume that the noble Lord is speaking with a measure of authority.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is entitled to assume anything he likes. I have given him, as best I can, the answer to the question which he asked me.
The next question which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me concerned helicopters. The noble Lord pleaded for a more rapid development of helicopters and for the introduction of this type into commercial service. One or two other noble Lords also touched upon this point. I agree that we are at a critical period in the design of helicopters. Our experience is accumulating rapidly. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are now operating a substantial number of the smaller types of helicopter, which have proved themselves well in service. They are, of course, limited in their range of usefulness, because of their size, but within their range they are of high value. From my own personal experience recently in Malaya (I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was there too) I can say that they are performing great service and are being used in increasing numbers. Your Lordships would probably like to be reminded that nine Royal Naval Dragonfly helicopters have recently been lending most gallant and valuable assistance to our stricken neighbours in Holland and have, I understand, been responsible for saving something like 700 lives.
My Lords, the Helicopter Experimental Unit, which was established in B.E.A. over five years ago, has also provided a great deal of information on the civil uses of the helicopter. The scheduled passenger services with helicopters, which began in June, 1950, were discontinued last year, but not because either the Corporation or Her Majesty's Government had lost faith in the helicopter. The work of the Unit has been largely experimental, and cannot be justified on merely commercial grounds. Further progress in civil operations will depend on availability of the
500
twin-engined Bristol 173 (to which more than one reference has been made in the debate this afternoon), of which the second is expected to be delivered to B.E.A. for development flying for a period beginning next June. It is hoped that the Bristol 173 may prove suitable for certain routes in the United Kingdom, although development of the basic design may have to make more progress. Its use is still likely to be restricted by the high cost of operation, which I am given to understand works out at about one shilling per passenger-mile. B.E.A. have been able, from the experience gained in the Helicopter Experimental Unit, to produce a specification for a larger and more economical type, of which design studies from five firms have been commissioned by the Ministry of Supply. I think that point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. So, my Lords, we see that the future of the helicopter is bright, and one, clearly, to which great attention must obviously be given.
I was also asked, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Sepal, and by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, questions on the subject of transatlantic capacity and services, and ability to make use of the tourist fares recently introduced into the Atlantic trade. The tourist fares introduced on the North Atlantic in 1952 led, of course, to a considerable increase of traffic. In the eight months from May to December, 1951, 95,000 passengers were carried by air between the United Kingdom and North America. In the corresponding eight months of 1952, 134,000 passengers made the trip, of whom 69,000 used the new tourist services. This increase in demand was met by a very considerable increase in capacity, and while flights were at times fully booked there were never, so far as I can understand, any really serious shortages of services. Traffic on the North Atlantic is rather a specialised and seasonal traffic, particularly in the summer, when the movement is much greater in one direction than in the other, and some excess of bookings has obviously to be expected. This being Coronation Year the capacity will be increased still further. B.O.A.C. have acquired two more Constellation aircraft for their tourist services, and other airlines are introducing new aircraft of high seating capacity. While a further increase in demand is predicted, there is no reason to suppose that the aircraft

501
available for this important traffic will not be sufficient.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, about certificates of airworthiness in America, with particular reference to the Comet III. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also mentioned that point. It was rather unfortunate that the impression got abroad some week or ten days ago that the Americans were being difficult about this matter. I do not believe that to be so at all. As the noble Lord knows, there is and has been for a long time, nearly twenty years, in fact, a system of interchange of airworthiness between the two countries, with the only proviso that in unusual circumstances both countries can insist upon new conditions of air-worthiness. And that is exactly what has happened in the case of the Comet III The Americans have had no experience of flying or operating an aircraft of this type, and they Are naturally a little chary of accepting everything we say about it. After all, we have not yet flown the Comet III. But there is no suggestion whatever, I am certain, that the Americans are deliberately being difficult, out of a sort of "dog in the manger" attitude, because they themselves have not produced a Comet III. Nothing could be further from the truth. There have recently been close conversations in America on this subject, and I gather that in the very near future my right honourable friend will be in a position to announce a final and satisfactory result. In the meantime, all I can say is that I am certain that the result will be satisfactory.
My Lords, there are one or two other points on which I should like to touch. I have mentioned the question of The Times newspaper article to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred. He also raised the point of waiting for orders. I can assure him that there is no case of aircraft manufacturers having their initiative damped, when they can go out into the market, because there is no Government support or backing. I can settle the noble Lord's fears on that point. As to the question of housing, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and by Lord Pakenham, at the moment that is not a serious difficulty. In certain specified areas there may be some difficulty, but on the whole the question of housing is not at the
502
moment standing seriously in the way of aircraft production. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also referred to the question of a British freighter. I agree with very much that he said in his remarks. I would remind him, though, that production of the Blackburn Beverley, the freighter to which he referred, was stopped by the previous Government in 1949, and it has been re-started and ordered only within the last year. So that may prove one answer to the question which he put. I agree very much with many of the remarks which the noble Lord made on that. subject.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Lord address himself to my suggestion that we should do what the Dutch Government have done in the case of K.L.M. and give them credits to buy American freighters?
LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that interesting point. I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's question at the moment.
Lord Sempill raised the vexed and difficult question of flying boats, with particular reference to the Princess. Since he himself has given us notice that he intends to raise the whole matter in a debate in the future. I think he would agree that it would probably be preferable if I restrained myself from indulging in the pleasure of answering his question now, in order to see how the debate develops when he himself raises it. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, made, as usual, a most interesting speech. In the course of it he asked me, point blank, whether I think the Ministry of Supply—which I have the honour of speaking for in a very junior capacity in this House—is fit to do its job when called upon. I have put his question a little strongly. I can, I think, answer him by saying that, obviously, you cannot keep all Government Departments at war-time pitch in peace time. When war breaks out, all Government Departments have to undergo considerable change, particularly those concerned as closely as the Ministry of Supply with the immediate conduct of the war. I do not for a moment deny that some branches of the Ministry of Supply may have to hive off and attach themselves to other or new Ministries. I can reassure the noble Lord that the

503
point which he mentioned is being borne strongly in mind, and I can tell him also that the nucleus of the Ministry of Supply is trained and equipped to facilitate the change-over to war work in the manner he suggested, though, of course, there might well have to be some adjustments when the time actually came.
LORD WINSTER: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for one moment? I regard the Ministry of Supply as the fourth wheel of the lorry which the Minister of Defence drives, the other three wheels being the three Service Ministries. They do not have to undergo a radical reorganisation when war breaks out, and my own feeling is that the Ministry of Supply ought to be treated on the same footing, and that just as the Service Ministries require no reorganisation in the event of war so the Ministry of Supply should not. That is my point.
LORD MANCROFT: With great respect, I would not agree that Service Ministries do not require radical reorganisation at the outbreak of war. Having been at the War Office at the very beginning and at the very end of the last war, I certainly noticed some slight change. The parallel is not a complete one but I think it is fair to say that, in varying degree, all Ministries need certain reorganisation. I accept the noble Lord's point that the Ministry of Supply might well be the fourth wheel and should require far less reorganisation than other Ministries. I accept that point.
May I end on a note which Lord Winster sounded? I know I have not answered all the questions put to me. I hope that noble Lords who have not received answers in detail to questions they have put will allow me to say that they will be individually answered. I have attempted to concentrate on what I thought to be the more important of the questions raised. Every speech, I believe, raised this point: "Here," it was said in effect, "is a wonderful opportunity. Here we see an industry forging ahead and bringing immense credit, both to our national prestige and to our purses. Are we going to waste this opportunity?" If I, in my remarks, have concentrated more upon the complaints made in the course of the debate and have not emphasised the praiseworthiness of that which my noble friend, the Secretary of State for
504
Air, said about the opportunity in his interesting speech, it is only because that is the function of a winder-up in a debate. I do heartily agree with the sentiments expressed.
"The hill discovered the dale".
and I have been dwelling largely in the dale of complaints. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that this opportunity is here and we should be mad if we let any aspect of it go by default. I can assure the noble Lord and the House that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of letting this opportunity go. We have heard many references to "missing the bus," and to the vital importance of taking the opportunity when it presents itself. I have not the exact quotation by me, but I believe it comes from Heine, and I think it runs something like this:
"Your opportunity only presents itself to you once in a lifetime. Grasp it, for it will never come back."
Her Majesty's Government, in this matter, recognise the opportunity and are determined to grasp it as firmly as they possibly can.
5.57 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the Secretary of State for Air and Lord Mancroft, who wound up so ably and did his best on a somewhat difficult wicket, speaking, as he does, for the Department in which he is an occasional lodger. The noble Lord described the coming of naval aircraft as "like spring, somewhat late this year." I would say that this debate is obviously the first swallow of that spring, because when the Defence White Paper is before the House and when the Estimates are presented in another place, there will be a number of opportunities, so far as military and naval aircraft are concerned, to consider these various matters. I think this debate has enabled us to find out what are the Government's intentions on many points which were worrying us. They have put some flesh on the skeleton of our knowledge, and—although I will not say it is fully clothed—for that we are grateful.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Pakenham and Lord Winster, I was a little disappointed with Lord De L'Isle and Dudley's statement. I thought he had not quite grasped, or the Government had not

505
quite grasped, the great opportunity, and were not quite aware of the fact that the opportunity might be lost. I realise that possibly we may have been doing the noble and gallant Lord an injustice in so thinking, but we did think it, and both of my noble friends who spoke before me mentioned it in their speeches. I must say, however, that after Lord Mancroft's speech we are by no means so despondent. Whether it is that he has not quite the same responsibility as the Secretary of State for Air, or whether it is that he was, so to speak, hitting balls which were loose and lying about the place after the Secretary of State's speech, I do not know, but, at all events, he gave us very much more the feeling that the Government are with us in this matter and are anxious to enable the aircraft industry to take the opportunities which we feel are there.
I was surprised to hear the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, say that the aircraft industry had the finance they wanted. I do not speak for the aircraft industry at all, and I have no responsibility for them. Indeed, I should probably be the last person they would choose to speak for them. But, according to the information which I have, they are by no means happy about the financial position, and they are very worried because aircraft are getting more and more expensive to make and, of course, restrictions on credit are making credit more difficult to obtain. Lord Mancroft—perhaps wisely—did not say a word on that particular topic but it is one on which we must have some definite information before the next debate. It goes to the root of the whole matter. If the aircraft industry are satisfied, well and good. If not, some provision must be made to enable them to seize this opportunity. Most of the debate has turned on naval aircraft—quite by accident, I think it was not intended—and that, in itself, is significant. I have listened with great interest to the various authorities who have spoken, and it seems to me that in the result a very sad story has been displayed to the House. It is matter for alarm, otherwise the several noble Lords, without any combination, would not have come along and, one after the other, informed the House of their worry about this matter. It is a sad story, there is no doubt about that, and I think it is time it was put right.
506
I must say I was a little astonished to hear the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, say that he was surprised we had not turned this into a Party political debate. On a subject like this, the last thing I should want to do would be to turn it into a Party political debate. This is so important a question that I feel that both sides of the House want to give every support to the aircraft industry in this field. I, for one, should regret any attempt to bring Party politics into this question, at this stage at all events.
To wind up this interesting debate, I should like to say that while the British have always had an inventive genius—there is no doubt about that—for many years past we have not been so good at applying our knowledge. I remember that when I was closely in touch with the D.S.I.R., as Chairman of the Colonial Research Council, I was told that industry was ten years behind the results of industrial research. Industry had not taken advantage of the knowledge that research had made available. We do not want that to happen here. I repeat that this is the chance of a lifetime, and I hope that the aircraft industry and the Government will take it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.