SUPPLY OF AIRCRAFT

HL Deb 17 February 1953 vol 180 cc475-506

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.