CIVIL AVIATION

HL Deb 13 December 1956 vol 200 cc1129-75

3.30 p.m.

LORD WINSTER rose to call attention to matters connected with Civil Aviation and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, British civil aviation comes under continuous and pretty heavy criticism, some of it justifiable and some of it not. Amongst the things that we have to our credit—though the records move very swiftly from one country to another—are that British pilots either hold, or have held, records for speed, over 1.100 miles an hour, and the record for altitude. British air engines are famous the world over. The Rolls-Royce Conway is the most efficient and most economical engine flying. The Viscount and Canberra aircraft have earned great prestige for this country. The export figures are high. They are running at the present moment at the rate of £110 million a year—some 82 per cent. higher than the corresponding figures for last year. That value of exports is about twenty times the value of car exports, and the aircraft industry to-day has become more important financially than the car industry.

And, of course, when we sell an aircraft the matter does not stop at that transaction we also sell insurance and we sell spare parts. We have just sold five Britannias to America for over £6 million, and the President of the North East Airlines. who has bought them, says that these Britannias will set new standards on the East Coast routes (I quote his words) as the largest, fastest, quietest transport planes.

The Lufthansa, I understand, are proposing to buy up to nine Viscounts. The West German Government is said to be contemplating buying £2,500,000 worth of Gannets. Included in what there is to be said on the credit side, I should like to mention that undoubtedly the B.O.A.C. service is unrivalled throughout the world, and passengers of every nation have borne testimony to that fact.

On the other side of the picture, while America is not so far ahead of us technically—certainly not as regards engines—commercially I think they have the advantage. They seem to be first in the field with new aircraft. They produce more quickly and give shorter delivery dates. They have a larger industry and bigger plants. They employ perhaps three men to our one. And they are in the happy position of having even more public money to play with than has our industry. But also there is the fact that American airlines muster over 1,000 four-engined aircraft as against. I think, just under 100 that we have. And they carry 60 per cent. of the world traffic, whereas our share of it is 5 per cent. Those are a few things on the debit and credit sides of the balance sheet.

Now a word about the industry. Here I should begin by saying that I have heard it said that K.L.M. enjoys the success and prosperity which it does largely because it has not got a manufacturing industry to consider. It is in the happy position of being able to buy what it likes, when it likes, without having to endure a storm of criticism for buying aircraft from another country. But we should consider this question of our own aircraft industry carefully, because in something like ten years, perhaps, about £800 million of public money has been put into the industry, and in that industry we know that dividends of 17 per cent. plus bonus shares are heard of. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Weeks. is not here to-day, but I understand that the Vickers concern are financing the Vanguard themselves. If I am right in thinking so, then that is a very satisfactory and healthy step forward. I have heard it said that the industry uses its labour less efficiently than the average general level of British engineering, and that highly skilled labour is not used to full advantage and is often wasted on trivial things.

A matter about which I think the industry deserves sympathy is the way it gets its orders. Sometimes, as after 1946, there is a paucity of orders. Then, as happened with the outbreak of the Korean war, there is a series of panic orders. To go from paucity to panic in this way is, of course, a great handicap to the industry. Fits and starts is a very bad system in engineering. Another thing which is bad in engineering is to try to make too big an advance at one moment, as has happened in the aircraft industry now and again. The principle is naval design and development has been to advance by steady, regulated steps. If you try to make too big a jump at once you are liable to get a big accumulation of "bugs", owing to your having made that jump without sufficient experience at your back.

I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is going to reply to this debate, whether he thinks that there is any argument for rationalisation which is so frequently talked about. I know that certain steps have been taken in that direction. But does he think that firms ought to be grouped and projects ought to be fewer? Or does he feel that the present state of affairs is satisfactory? I think that our technical and development resources are very strained, which is one of the reasons, perhaps. why our aircraft come forward so slowly. Too many projects at once means spreading the technical butter very thinly indeed. Our industry is so much smaller than the American and we have fewer designers. smaller research establishments, smaller plants, and if we try to do everything at once we shall always reach the market after America has already got there. On that account, I feel that we must limit our field, and that there is a strong argument for concentrating on fewer projects. But can something be done about the technicians? So long as each of these many projects is manned by too many of them. I feel that we shall always tend to fall behind our competitors. To do what is better is small use if you always do it too late.

But even if you concentrate your technicians upon the development of fewer projects. the question of production remains. Production must depend largely upon the size of the orders which the industry receives. I remember Sir Richard Fairey saying that irregular orders prevent full use from being made of productive capacity. In that direction, can we, by making Commonwealth arrangements, do something to approach the size of the orders which America can give to its aviation industry? Australia and Canada are developing very considerable industries. India is also making progress, and other Commonwealth countries have great need of international services. But they all seem to be going their own ways. You find Britain and Canada developing similar projects de Havilland and Avro Canada are doing parallel work. On aero engines also Canada seems to be working parallel with us. With our smaller capacity for expenditure we really cannot afford duplication.

My remarks apply also to research, information and experience. These should be pooled and circulated to prevent the public from having to pay twice for getting the same knowledge. I think that Commonwealth co-ordination might put the Commonwealth on equal terms with, if not in advance of. American aviation, and I should like to think that some consideration will be given to building up the Commonwealth aviation industry to match up to the American industry. Finally, a question which I should like to put on this subject to the noble Earl is this. Sir William Farren has said that ten years is the accepted time for getting a big aircraft into operation from the time of the idea. I know that a baby takes nine months; we can do nothing whatever about that—but are we really accepting the fact that a big aircraft must always take ten years? I cannot believe that that would be so if the matter were tackled from the point of view that that time has got to he reduced.

May I say a word or two about jet and turbo-prop aircraft? I wonder whether the future is not with the turbo-prop. There is an economic argument involved in this question, because, especially if our aim is to get the populace into the air, to arrive at what I would call mass travel, the propeller is still the most economic way of transmitting thrust. The aircraft requires a shorter take-off run, it is flexible in operation, and there is the matter of fuel expenditure. All these things make for cheaper flying, which is essential if the aim is mass travel. I notice that to-day America is moving back to the turbo-prop for mass travel and is developing the supersonic jet for de luxe travel. The Americans seem to have a logical programme mapped out in this respect. I notice that the President of one American airline has said: We are buying airplanes that have not yet been fully designed, with millions of dollars we do not have, and are going to operate them off airports that are too small in an air traffic control system that is too slow; and we must fill them with more passengers than we have ever carried before.

That looks as if there was a certain tendency to move back to the turbo-prop in American thinking. As I see it, the operating costs of jet aircraft are too high to permit of tourist traffic. After all, tourist traffic on the Atlantic is not mainly de luxe traffic—75 per cent. of it is tourist, so that the concentration on turbo-prop may be economically sound.

The question of speed was touched upon in tae debate which my noble friend Lord Ogmore raised. I think that I must be a younger man than my noble friend, although I may not look it, because I cannot agree with him on this question of speed. I do not agree for three reasons. Human nature being what it is, the line advertising the fastest time will get the traffic. Human nature may be silly, but it likes many silly things. Again, what can be done has to be done. If engineers and scientists can show how to do a certain thing. it is inevitable that that thing has to be done. Higher speeds permit of greater utilisation of aircraft, a great factor in air operation economy. I do not want to hear about that tiresome Chinaman who asked, "What do you do with the twenty minutes saved by going a little faster?" I think that he was a very tiresome man and I hope he got his pie-tail cut off.

I saw it said at the time when Mr. Peter Twiss flew so very fast, that a tenth of the force of gravity had ceased to act upon him and that if he had gone not much faster, he would have gone for good. But gone where? I do not know whether the noble Earl who is going to answer can help me there, but I am bound to say that it mystifies me very much. I remember the Admiral who used to send a messenger off with the words, "The speed of light." He knew nothing. I expect to see advertisements soon for the Atlantic route offering travellers lunch in London at noon and mid-day coffee in New York at 11 a.m. About these odd mealtimes, I remember the story that when Sir Winston Churchill was coming back by Boeing flying boat during the war, he said to his staff when he got on board, "You know, they do very funny things with the time when you are flying the Atlantic"; and he told the steward, "Serve dinner every four hours." I believe that they were passing the port when they crossed the coast of Ireland at dawn.

I should like to say something about the economics of the Corporations. The Corporations seem to be getting along fairly well and to be making sonic progress. The new set-up in B.O.A.C. seems to be functioning rather better than the gloomy anticipations to which we listened. I remember, for instance, that we heard it said that it was bad because the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, had found it necessary to dispense with the services of Mr. d'Erlanger at one time. That may be a reflect ion on Mr. d'Erlanger, but it may equally well be a reflection on the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. It is a moot point. I do not pretend to offer an opinion, but Sir William Hildred, of I.A.T.A., says that the financial situation of world airlines is deteriorating and that analysis shows that their working capital is not sufficiently in excess of their operating expenses, so that they have not enough free funds left for expansion. Vie last B.O.A.C. Report I have seen shows a profit of about 22 per cent. gross on capital. As a matter of fact, that is higher than the world average; but still it is only 2½per cent, and the Chairman has said that 15 per cent. is necessary to take care of all requirements. If profits are to be moved up from 2½to 15 per cent, B.O.A.C. will have to get a much larger share of world traffic. So far as I can see, that can be done only by better utilisation of aircraft, and economy in administration services. I see that the Postmaster General keeps on saying that the airmail service runs at a loss of thousands of pounds a year. I think that the fares are too low, and the time must come when civil aviation will have to stand on its own feet and charge for its services prices which are remunerative.

May I say a word about air transport? I think there is a great need for a Chamber of Air Transport, a body we do not have at the present moment. There are many arguments in favour of setting up such a Chamber. On air transport in general, the Suez affair has shown that our available airlift is inadequate and perhaps not. entirely efficient. I compare the difficulties we had in moving our forces out to the Middle East with what the Americans are doing with their refugee airlift. They are bringing a great many Hungarian refugees into the country, employing 150 four-engined aircraft able to carry 1,000 refugees daily across the Atlantic. That is a very remarkable performance. Here, during the Suez affair, we saw planes of the independent charter companies standing idle because they had flown the quota of hours which the regulations allow them to fly.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

May I ask the noble Lord what particular information he has on that point? I do not quite understand the point. Of course, aeroplanes have to undergo their regular inspections, but I did not know that any aircraft were restricted from flying for external reasons, other than mechanical reasons.

LORD WINSTER

On the fact that aircraft were standing idle?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes. I did not quite understand the point.

LORD WINSTER

That is information which has been given to me by, or which I have seen coming from, the independent operators. I put it forward merely for consideration by the noble Earl. Of course, I shall be happy to look at my notes to see whether I can give him any information in amplification of what I have said, but, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, unless I thought the information came from a good source, and was reliable, I certainly should not make use of it.

The independent operators form the only reserve we have for Transport Command, and yet they muster only twenty pressurised four-engine aircraft; and all but four of those twenty are becoming unserviceable and obsolescent. But they cannot be replaced unless Government traffic expands and the contract trooping service is revised. At present, only about half of our trooping is done by air; in my view, that proportion might well be increased. What contracts there are for the independent operators run, at most, for two and a half years, which is a short time when we consider that a replacement aircraft may cost £1 million. In contrast, the contracts for the trooping by sea run for ten to fifteen years and are fixed at fair rates by a charter Committee of the Baltic Exchange. For the air trooping the rates are fixed by pretty "cut-throat" competition. The independent operators claim that if they were given a revision of contracts they could supply the necessary air Transport Command with its reserve, and so effect an economy there. But as things are their position in regard to replacement grows steadily worse. Encouragement of independent operators would, at any rate, open up the possibility of new customers for the aircraft industry.

The last thing to which I wish to draw attention is the question of crew complements, and some allied problems. Here I have to declare an interest, because I am connected with the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association. My interest is that that Association endeavours to look after the wellbeing and welfare of airline officers. But having declared that interest, I want to make it quite clear that I am not associated, and will not associate myself, with any suggestion that operators endanger safety by cutting down or overworking crews. As I shall endeavour to show, they may not pay sufficient attention to certain factors, but for the airline operator—corporation or independent operator—safety is virginity, which is proof against seductions of economy. I hope I have made that point quite clear, because I have seen arguments advanced in this connection that safety is seriously endangered.

The air crews complain of lack of legislation in some countries, of which I am sorry to say Britain is one, to limit hours of work. In the main, responsibility for hours of work rests with the operators who are associated in the I.A.C.O., the operators' organisation. Completely reasonable times may be laid down, but with civil aviation dependent on weather conditions and many other factors, such limits may be exceeded. I recognise this fact but, at the same time, prescription of hours is common industrial practice, and civil aviation ought to conform, while being given a proper latitude in regard to the factors I have mentioned. Safety is involved with crew fatigue, yet, as I say. there is no legislation on hours of work.

The Ministry would suggest that responsibility lies with the operators of the air line, or, in certain circumstances. with the captain of the aircraft. But as the all-up weight, and the power and speed of aircraft increase, the human factor increases in importance. Accidents are due far more to human failure than to air frame or engine failure. Of all the accidents (this is a global figure for 1954), not less than 60 per cent. were due to pilot error. In Britain alone in that year. 1954, 61 per cent. of accidents were attributed to this cause; and of that 61 per cent., 75 per cent. occurred during approach and landing. Collisions and near-misses. to which my noble friend Lord Ogmore called attention recently, may be due to pilots' having to perform multi-duties. Two jets travelling towards one another, each at 450 m.p.h. will look, at five miles' distance, like a fly-speck on the windscreen. Nevertheless, they can collide in twenty seconds. Good look-out is essential at these speeds to which we are now proceeding.

The human element is undoubtedly the most unstable element in the man-machine relationship, and it is essential to give close attention to these questions of air crew fatigue. There is a tendency to reduce air crews and to dispense with specialist officers by employing pilots with engineering and navigating certificates. An academic qualification does not turn a pilot overnight into a skilled engineer or an accurate navigator. In this connection.. I should like to read two lines from a lecture given recently by Mr. Davies, the chief test pilot of the Air Registration Board. He said that in his opinion: the captain of a modern large transport plane should be given only the primary flying controls, trimmers. et cetera. All the rest of the engineering should be given to the engineer. In respect of something I shall say in a moment or two, Mr. Davies went on to say: The engineer should not have to do his work from an occasional or jump seat It was his contention that an aircraft should be designed not for the minimum flight crew, but for the fully operational flight crew. That is striking testimony from the test pilot of the Air Registration Board. As regards navigation, these high speeds and consequent high fuel consumption leave little margin for navigational errors. The Suez crisis has shown that absolute reliance cannot yet be placed on ground aids. The Comet encountered unrecorded winds at 200 knots. We have a great deal to learn about greater speed and high-altitude flying.

I have mentioned what Mr. Davies said about a jump-seat. As I understand the situation, the operators can tell the firm building an aircraft with what crew they propose to fly it, and the cockpit is then laid out accordingly. But, surely, it is the ease that the Air Registration Board may ultimately grant a certificate of airworthiness only on condition that a larger crew is carried than that which the operators have specified to the firm, and then the cockpit gets a very unsatisfactory improvisation. I believe this happened—I am liable to correction—in the case of the Comet I. I do not know what is happening in the case of the Britannia. At the International Transport Federation Conference last year at Vienna, which I attended, the Conference passed a strongly worded resolution expressing grave concern about the growth of multi duty working, involving, the resolution said, excessive work load, crew fatigue, and overstrain prejudicial to safety. It also stressed the necessity for the design of cockpits to provide individual specialist stations.

I wish, in conclusion, to call particular attention to this point, because the information on it only came to me on Tuesday. There has just been a meeting of the I.L.O. at Geneva which was convened to discuss air crew conditions. It was attended by representatives of Governments, operators and employees. Those three interests are all represented on the governing body of I.L.O. The employers stated that they did not wish the conference to take place. Their attitude during the conference constituted t. challenge to the I.L.O. to deal with these social problems of civil aviation. Now I.L.O. has been connected with shipping for many years, and under its auspices there have been a series of conventions, recommendations and resolutions, which have done a great deal to bring about uniformity in the conditions under which seafarers work—conditions which have been found beneficial to employer and seafarer alike. With good will on the part of the employers, the same state of affairs could be brought about in civil aviation, where there is great need of uniformity, and, as I believe, to the great benefit of all concerned.

The conference, when it met, had three reports before it. The first was on conditions of employment in civil aviation, the second on hours of work of air crews, and the third on income security on retirement or grounding. The employers took no part whatsoever in the debate on the first report. They made no reply to any of the points that were raised from the personnel side, and they stated that there was no justification for the I.L.O. to expend its energies or finances, now or in the future, on discussions about employment in civil aviation. On the second report, on hours of work, they said that the employers were in the best position to decide whether their methods currently employed were adequate to meet the technical and social aspects of flight and duty hours. On the third point, about pensions, they refused again to take any part in the discussion. They said that experience had shown that effective, well-tried machinery existed for the solution of such problems.

Finally, the employers submitted a resolution recommending to the governing body of I.L.O. that there was no need for further action by the I.L.O. in the civil aviation industry. So far as I know. such an action is unparalleled in the history of the I.L.O. I consider that it was an insult to the air crew representatives who were at the conference, and a serious setback indeed to good relations in the industry. In the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Ogmore the other day, something was said about the difficulty of recruiting pilots. There will be more difficulty still. It is already difficult enough, and it will become more difficult if an attitude of this sort is persisted in by the employers. Successive British Governments have been warm supporters of the I.L.O., and I wonder what the Government think of this behaviour at this conference. There will be more difficulty with the personnel it this matter is allowed to rest where it is, and I hope that the noble Earl will take the matter into serious consideration and acquaint himself with all of the details of what took place at this conference. I beg to move for Papers.

4.6 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for raising this subject of the present and future condition of civil aviation, a subject which, as time goes on, becomes a lot more important. I must say that we have been alarmed by the information the noble Lord has just given us on the question of the I.L.O. and the employers' attitude to it. Unless there is some ex- planation, which obviously has not been vouchsafed to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, we think that, on the face of it, this is a highly reactionary attitude and not in accordance with the view of employers in other industries, many of whom have long testified to the importance of the work at the I.L.O.

I wish to deal at a little more length with another question which was raised by the noble Lord to-day, the question of rationalisation of the aircraft industry, as he described it. The noble Lord. Lord Pakenham, and myself are of opinion, having considered the matter carefully, that the time has now come for an inquiry into the situation in the aircraft industry. We feel that the time has arrived because, for reasons which are not entirely its own fault, and some of which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, it is true to say that the aircraft industry is, and has been for a long time, a pampered industry. It has had spent upon it a vast amount of public money for which there has been possibly an inadequate return. I am well aware that the estimate of the exports of this industry for 1956 is said to be £105 million, which is very good. But this export comes from a comparatively few firms, making either airframes or aero engines.

We feel that the industry is concentrating upon producing a product so expensive that it may price itself out of the market. How can one, for example, get £1 million back—an aircraft will soon cost that—in fares, let alone all the other items that have to be met from fares? Estimates have been made that when the supersonic aircraft come into existence, two prototypes may cost as much as £50 million. If you are talking about figures like that, it is quite fantastic to think that you can ever charge fares which are going to yield a return so that this capital, and the interest upon it, can be serviced.

My noble friend Lord Winster was not here during the debate on my Motion on air safety, and I do not think he has realised the point about speed in this field. The question of speed in itself is not the important factor: it is the effect of ever-increasing speed upon the cost of aircraft and also upon air safety. That is where the question of speed came in. The person who raised this matter in the first place was not myself but the chairman of K.L.M., the company to which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has rightly paid tribute to-day. He raised this very point of the enormous expense of aircraft, partly due, to the ever-increasing speed resulting in aircraft becoming obsolete long before their serviceable life has expired, and partly due also to the high cost of aircraft which can go at the tremendous speeds that are envisaged.

Then we—or at least I, for I cannot claim to have my noble friend's views on this, but he will give them, no doubt, when he speaks—think that the conditions under which the industry grew up to a large extent no longer apply. Formerly, it was necessary to maintain a large number of firms in peace time, so that we could provide for expansion in war time. Now, there is probably no military need for a large number of firms. It is quite probable that guided missiles will to a large extent replace combat aircraft. We must remember that up to now military aircraft have accounted for over 80 per cent. of the value of aircraft produced. The number of civil aircraft in service in the world's scheduled lines is, I am told, about 3,500—slightly less than the figure given by my noble friend Lord Winster, but not very much less.

In this country the State corporations have between 130 and 140 aircraft. The independent companies, all of them together, have about 50 four-engined aircraft and 100 twin-engined aircraft. If you add all those together, you will see that there at the most about 290 aircraft of all kinds in this country which are engaged in civil aviation. Flow on earth is an industry to exist on the replacement of 290 aircraft? Of course, it has foreign sales as well, but the same remark applies there when one realises that the total number of civil aircraft in the world on scheduled routes is only 3,500. What is the annual replacement on that figure? As I have said, the fact is that the aircraft industry has relied largely upon military aircraft, and 80 per cent. of its return has come from the sale of military aircraft. If military aircraft are no longer going to be needed in anything like the numbers that have been necessary in the past, as we think may be the case, then obviously this is another reason why there should be an inquiry into the present structure of the industry to see whether it meets the needs of the times.

In total war, quantity production of aircraft in the United Kingdom can hardly be envisaged; so that, in other words, so far as military aircraft are concerned, to fight a war we must have the necessary number of aircraft ready when the war commences. This is another reason why I suggest that it is no longer necessary in peace time to keep a large potential of aircraft companies in being. For the reasons I have given, it is probable that the aircraft industry is very much swollen. There are some thirty manufacturers of aircraft or aero-engines, employing about a quarter of a million people. There will not be the demand, either military or civil, for their products. As my noble Friend Lord Winster has intimated, there is not the skilled manpower adequately to serve their needs. I think he used the metaphor that the butter was spread too thinly on. the bread.

LORD WINSTER

I referred to the technical manpower.

LORD OGMORE

Yes, the technical manpower. I am talking about manpower. These companies are subsidised directly by the State, and where they are not subsidised directly, then they are subsidised indirectly. They are subsidised through research, through the facilities they have at the Royal Aeronautical Institution at Farnborough, through orders for prototypes by the Ministry of Supply, through purchases for types that have not been very successful and through grants and contracts of one kind and another. Therefore we feel that a much smaller and more compact industry is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, called it a rationalisation. To ensure that this rationalisation takes place in the most efficient possible way, an inquiry should be instituted to obtain the necessary facts and possibly to give a guide as to the best method of carrying out the rationalisation.

I turn from that important subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, to another which has a connection with it, and that is the development of aviation in our colonial territories. Anyone who has had experience of the colonial territories in the last few years must be disappointed with the lack of development of aviation in them. They are usually scattered. Some of them are very big in area; others are not big in area but consist of a large number of islands. I believe that some of the islands in the Seychelles Group, for example, are as far as 500 miles from the capital at Mahé.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Not as far as that: ten to fifteen miles.

LORD OGMORE

From Mahéin the Seychelles?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes.

LORD OGMORE

We will not argue the matter out; we will look at the atlas afterwards. At all events, I should have thought that a much greater expanse of the ocean was covered by the islands of that group than ten to fifteen miles. Certainly, there is no question about Nigeria. Nigeria is eight-and-a-half times the size of England. There, again, is a country which at first sight one would think particularly suitable for the development of aviation. Australia has proved the value of aircraft in underdeveloped areas by the "flying doctor" service. In Sarawak there has been an interesting development by the missionaries. who have five small aircraft and land on strips outside the villages which otherwise they would find very difficult indeed to get to, because there are so few roads in Sarawak.

Coming back for a moment to Nigeria, I think it is quite true that West African Airways, with Herons and other similar aircraft, link up the main centres of population; but, so far as I am aware, there is little done to link up the centres of population which are not capitals or large cities. Throughout the Colonies generally, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, there is little use of aircraft for medical services, for agriculture and for other important activities of that kind.

Similarly, we have never developed the helicopter to any extent whatsoever, either for colonial use or for home use. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in the debate that took place the other day on the Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill, promised that he would say a word this afternoon on helicopters and also on the pilot shortage, so perhaps we shall hear something on these matters from him. But there is no doubt about it that in the Colonies helicopters would be very useful. In Edmonton, Alberta, a company called Associated Helicopters Limited has used five helicopters for the last four years, and in that period they have operated 4,500 flying hours without a single engine failure and with only three forced landings. They have found these machines invaluable for geological surveys and for other such work. We should like to know what is the Government's policy in the Colonies as well as at home in regard to helicopters.

My Lords, I now turn to—I will not call it the development in aviation in Wales, I would rather call it the lack of development in aviation in Wales during the last few years. Just recently, in August of this year, Her Majesty's Government signed an agreement with Eire. It had been long delayed and had been long in gestation: but after three years protracted labour, birth was given to a particularly small and decrepit mouse, so far as Wales was concerned. Under that agreement, Aer Lingus, the Irish air line. keep the Bristol-Dublin route exclusively to themselves. This is the paying route. The Welsh company, Cambrian Airways, whose interests one would have supposed the Government would safeguard, can apply, and indeed have applied, for the Cardiff-Dublin route in addition to Aer Lingus, but the restrictions imposed upon them are such that it probably will not pay, especially as they are not allowed to call at Bristol, which is an essential component of that particular route.

Your Lordships will be glad to hear that the Welsh company is allowed to apply for the Haverfordwest-Dublin route and for the Cardiff-Cork service. There are, however, some disabilities about those projected services. The Haverfordwest airport closed down five months before the agreement was signed, so there is no airport at Haverfordwest. As to the Cardiff-Cork service, there never has been an airport at Cork; there is not an airport at Cork, and so far as one knows, there never will be an airport at Cork. So we can see just how worthwhile those two services are to Cambrian Airways.

Then I come to the new I.T.A. mast at St. Hilary. We have heard something about the I.T.A. to-day, and of its influence upon the Government with regard to this extra hour's television that is being allowed. Here is another example of the influence that the I.T.A. possesses with the Government. If there is one thing that one must not have near an airport, it is a huge mast, whether it be an aerial or anything else. Already, at Wenvoe, unfortunately, there is a mast belonging to the B.B.C. That has always been something of a disability to Rhoose Airport, which is some four miles away, but the airlines arid their pilots have managed to overcome it. Rhoose is the only major civil airport in Wales. It was opened only about three years ago and, starting from then. in August last it handled 8,862 passengers. There is a big traffic developing between Rhoose and Paris and the Channel islands, and also with Dublin.

It would hardly seem credible to most of your Lordships that, one side of the airport already being affected by the B.B.C. mast, on the other side of the airport, straight in line with the northwest south-east runway the Government are now permitting the I.T.A. to erect another mast which will be 1,150 feet above sea level. This has caused consternation to the users of the airport. They were never consulted by the Government; the Government agreed on this mast with their friends, the I.T.A., without any consultation 'whatsoever with the two main users of the airport, Aer Lingus and Cambrian Airways, who, as I say, have expressed consternation at this. They have pointed out the extra danger and difficulty of fast aircraft getting in when there are aerials on each side of an airport, and they have also pointed out the extra expenditure in more flying hours that such a restriction will mean.

Then I come to Llandow. Unfortunately, little or nothing has been done by the Government in the last year or two to improve the airport at Rhoose by better navigational facilities or by lengthening and improving the runways. Before the Labour Government went out of office 'we had decided on Rhoose as the airport for South Wales, but time did not suffice, for us to bring it into being as such, and it was left to Mr. Lennox-Boyd to complete the arrangements and to open the airport. But since that time, not nearly enough has been done to make it a really first-class airport. A comparatively trivial sum has been allocated for the improvement of the terminal buildings and lengthening of runways, but it will need a great deal more than that. Now we hear that an airport only four miles away, called Llandow, at which your Lordships will remember, there was a serious aircraft crash some years ago, is to be abandoned as a military airport, and there are suggestions that Llandow will be substituted for Rhoose, which will be closed down.

Such suggestions, my Lords, are most disturbing. I believe that it would be a great mistake to move from Rhoose. I believe that the Government should concentrate on making Rhoose a really worthwhile airport, and should not move to Llandow a few miles away. Bet the fact that there are suggestions of that kind shows what tension there is in South Wales and how the aircraft operators feel about Rhoose and its lack of facilities. I ask the Government to treat this airport. Rhoose, very seriously. has had a splendid record in the last few years. If a little money were spent upon it, it could be an airport of the greatest distinction; and it is already handling an increasing and an important number of passengers.

I think that, so far as Wales is concerned, I have shown that in three important matters connected with civil aviation the Government have made little effort. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind, particularly in regard to the agreement with Aer Lingus, that they have completely sacrificed the interests of Wales to other interests (what those other interests may be, I do not know) which probably enabled them to give a quid pro quo to the Irish airline in its service with South Wales. I ask the noble Earl to look into this matter and to use what influence he can with his colleague the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to see whether some of these important matters that. I have mentioned cannot be dealt with in the near future, and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

4.28 p.m.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, after the momentous debate of the last two days, and the great affairs which we were then discussing, those of your Lordships who have not been too exhausted to stay for this afternoon may feel that this discussion is something of an anti-climax. But time and again in that debate noble Lords emphasised the vital importance of closer relations between ourselves and the countries of the Commonwealth and the United States. What one invention has done more than the aeroplane to make such relations possible?

My noble friend Lord Sempill, who was to have spoken after me, has asked me to say how much he regrets that he has been called away. One consequence of this is that I am now the only speaker left in this debate who has never held a position of ministerial responsibility connected with civil aviation. That, I think your Lordships will agree, is a somewhat invidious position to be in, and I think it fully justifies my not following noble Lords who have spoken on the wider aspects of the subject. However, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has given me an excellent lead in his remarks on the subject of aviation in Wales, because I intend to follow that lead and confine myself to the subject of civil aviation in Scotland. I make no apology for doing so, because of the vital importance of transport to Scotland—transport in all its forms but, above all, in this, its latest manifestation.

The services in which Scotland is interested are of two kinds. First of all, there are the domestic services of B.E.A., those linking Scotland with other parts of the United Kingdom and points inside Scotland; and secondly, the links from Scotland overseas, notably from the airport of Prestwick. I should like to say at once, of existing services within the United Kingdom, those connected with Scotland. that they are a matter for some gratification and pride, I hope to those who operate them, but most certainly to those of us who use them, and to those few of us who, in the lean years after the war. fought for their establishment.

On the main trunk routes, between London and Edinburgh, and London and Glasgow, we have the Viscount service, which has attracted so much traffic that it must be running at one of the highest load factors of any B.E.A. route. At all times of the year it is extremely difficult to get a seat without considerable prior notice. Then we have the services linking Scotland with the Midlands, Northern Ireland, and the Highlands and Islands. These latter services run with remarkable regularity in weather conditions which must be some of the most unpredictable in any part of the world. I think we in Scotland are unique in having an airport, on the island of Barra, where landings are described as being made, "weather and tide permitting."

I should like to pay a warm tribute, first to the B.E.A. for establishing and maintaining those services, and secondly, to the travelling public who have put their faith in these services, supported them and made them a practical proposition. There are, however, one or two gaps in these domestic services which perhaps B.E.A. will ultimately see their way to fill. The most acute is the lack of a service to the area of Dundee and Perth. Dundee is an industrial centre of growing importance. Many noble Lords probably associate it mainly with jute, but I can assure the House that a large proportion of its industry is now based on scientific and technical skill, and it is an interesting fact that while in the older and more traditional industries a comparatively small number of executives are in the habit of travelling regularly in the course of their business, in these newer industries, where brain counts for more than brawn, a very large number of employees are obliged to travel frequently and in circumstances in which time is important.

One outstanding example is a company in the electronics world in the Edinburgh district which has a block booking of several seats on the Viscount service to London every day, and uses a good many of them regularly. So I think there is every reason to believe that this is an area which can generate enough traffic to warrant such a service. The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation have an airfield near by, at Errol, which I gather is described as "in reserve". I ask the Minister and B.E.A. somehow to get together to provide a service from Dundee as a link with the southern services at least over an experimental period. To enable traffic to be judged correctly, that period should be not less than one year. Another internal service that we could well do with is one between Edinburgh and Inverness. By rail it is a wearisome six-hour journey, which could be accomplished by air in one hour, between existing airfields and with existing ground facilities, and possibly providing a greater utilisation of existing aircraft.

There is one shadow over the future of these northern services in Scotland. Many of them are at present operated by the Pionair, the B.E.A. version of the Dakota, which is admirably suited for the purpose. It is difficult to imagine the day when that grand old work-horse of the air will cease to fly; but inevitably the day must come, and I wonder what aircraft B.E.A. will have for operating those services at that day. For looking at the portion of their last report headed "Future Plans", one finds that the only aircraft mentioned as having been ordered are those of the Viscount and Vanguard series. While the Viscount may be able to fly into most, if not all, the available airfields, I do not think it will be able to fly into them under all conditions, and it is too large for the amount of traffic offered on any one service at a time.

Then there is the question of new routes. It will be found that the existing routes in Scotland are based on a legacy of war-time military airfields. for which we are most grateful. But there are other comparatively populated parts of Scotland to which a service of some kind would be of great value. Some of these places, such as the individual Orkney Islands and the Isle of Skye, enjoyed them before the war, while others would welcome a service for the first time—areas like Oban, Fort William and the Isle of Mull. The journey from Edinburgh to Skye alone, by rail and boat, at present takes twelve hours and could be accomplished by air in one and a half hours.

Up till now, the difficulty has been lack of suitable airfields for existing aircraft or, looking at it the other way round, the lack of aircraft which could operate from the available ground in these places. I submit that all that has been changed by the development and recent grant of a certificate of airworthiness to an aircraft built in Scotland, the Prestwick Pioneer, or, more probably, its larger version, the Twin Pioneer. Some of your Lordships may have seen this aircraft at Farnborough.. It has roost remarkable characteristics in regard to take-off and landing in a small space, and of performance and manœuvrability at slow speeds.

Some of your Lordships may have seen an article in last week's number of the Aeroplane which told of a visiting pilot who was testing this aircraft. Approaching an airfield at an uncomfortably slow speed he looked over the pilot's shoulder and asked what the airspeed indicator showed. The pilot replied that there was nothing on the clock but the maker's name. I wonder what thought has been given to the possible use of this aircraft. I agree that it is a revolutionary conception, so far as our existing ideas arc concerned, but here is an aircraft which could do that job. I believe that these services in Scotland are, in some ways, like those in the Colonies of which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke, although I shall be getting into serious trouble with my fellow countrymen if I carry that parallel too far.

I suspect that the answer to these points will be that the existing domestic services of B.E.A. are run at a loss, and that to increase or expand these services would merely increase that loss. I think it is worth while to study some of the figures in the last Report of B.E.A. There is a most interesting Appendix, No. 5. analysing income and expenditure as between international and domestic services. We find that while the revenue from domestic services accounted for 22 per cent, or just under one-quarter, of the total revenue, the "variable costs"—that is, the costs directly attributable to specific flights and operations—amounted to some 25 per cent., which is slightly more but not very much out of line. The trouble comes, however, when one comes to the "allocated and apportioned costs"—in other words, the overhead costs. This is where the operation. becomes uneconomic. We find that the principal items are "engineering base labour and overheads," which account for 30 per cent. of the total for all services; "crew pay and allowances." 42 per cent; and much the largest single item in volume, "station costs," amounting to 35 per cent., over £1 million.

Far be it from me, as an accountant, to suggest that there is any inaccuracy in these figures. I well know how difficult it is to secure an accurate allocation of overhead costs between different operations. I feel, however, that there are two directions in which a reduction in these costs might he secured. First of all. there should he the greatest possible economy in the numbers of ground staff on stations. I know that much has been done in this direction. but I believe that there s still room for further improvement. Secondly, there should be greater utilisation of aircraft, by running more services so as to spread overheads over a greater mileage. I believe that measures like these, designed to make these operations more profitable, with new services running under a new conception, with these ditch-hopping, and hedge-hopping aircraft, the Pioneers, will provide a challenge to the ingenuity and initiative of B.E.A., a challenge which, in view of their past record in respect of Scotland, they need not hesitate to take up, so long as they put their hearts into it.

We in Scotland are not only interested in our domestic services; we are very much concerned with our links with the North American Continent. That, of course, brings me to the name of Prestwick. If the name of Calais was written on the heart of Queen Mary, I believe that the name "Prestwick" will be written on the hearts of Lord Pakenham and Lord Winster and every other Minister of Civil Aviation since the end of the war. I make no apology for having done my best many times to ensure that that was the case. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with Prestwick, having passed through it on occasions. But you may not be equally familiar with its history. Before the war it was a grass airfield. With the advent of the war, it was rapidly transformed into a full-scale airfield capable of handling enormous numbers of aircraft, men and supplies from the United States. It was in fact the British end of a slender but vital lifeline during those years. Prestwick certainly owes its development partly to its strategic situation. but it owes it also to two other factors which are applicable also in peace time—first, its situation on the northern great circle route to the American Continent and, second, its remarkable freedom from the fogs and mists which afflict London Airport and. I believe, will also afflict Gatwick. This makes it a very valuable point of diversion.

With the end of the war, Prestwick became primarily a civil airport. Apart from its function as a refuelling and diversion point, it became clear that there was substantial traffic to be found to and from Scotland across the Atlantic, traffic which found a considerable saving by cutting out the journey to London. Not only B.O.A.C. and American and Canadian operators came there but also operators from the Continent, including K.L.M. and S.A.S. Many of these now have a very firm attachment to the airport. I think its importance is clear from the fact that in the last twelve months for which figures are available 41,000 trans-Atlantic passengers started and ended their journey there, making up nearly 13 per cent. of the passengers using scheduled services to and from the U.S.A. and nearly 20 per cent. of those using services to and from Canada. I think these are rather remarkable figures.

In addition, Prestwick is an important base for other types of operators. The United States Air Force have a substantial base there. The great operation of ferrying Hungarian refugees, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred, was started from there a few days ago. Over the last few years, as many of your Lordships are aware, we in Scotland have constantly pressed succeeding Ministers of Civil Aviation for assurances that Prestwick would be maintained up to the full standards of an international airport. Those assurances, by and large, have been fulfilled, even if at times tardily or a little reluctantly. To-day I ask the noble Earl who is going to reply to repeat these assurances for our comfort in Scotland.

I believe that the Government's action with regard to this great airport has been fully justified. The already substantial traffic, I submit, is bound to grow for a number of reasons. One is our recent industrial development in Scotland. This fact may surprise some of your Lordships, but our recent industrial development includes 75 per cent. of the new American industrial enterprises set up in this country since the end of the war. These companies must be in constant personal touch with their parent bodies in the United States and Canada. Then there is the tourist industry, which is going to grow much more rapidly with the introduction of the new cheap air fares. There are other reasons, too, for increased growth in air traffic at Prestwick. I believe that before long, as was pointed out in the recent debate here on the danger of collision in the air, the volume of traffic will be such that it will exceed the capacity of London Airport and even that of Gatwick Airport also when it comes into operation. I think that not only we in the North but operators down here, too, will be glad to have another major airport available for their use.

There is another most important factor—the development of the Polar route to the Western Hemisphere. This is going to become of increasing importance. I think it is a little sad that of the first two operators to work this route, neither has a terminal point in this country: and it is a commentary on the apparatus of control in these international arrangements that one of the companies in question, Canadian Pacific Airlines, an airline based in the Commonwealth, has been unable to do so. I believe that operators on this route will be glad to have a safe haven some 300 miles short of their ultimate destination on this very long stretch. So I ask for a repetition of the assurances which have been given about Prestwick, and in particular about one or two points which are of pressing importance just now, with the advent of the new jet aircraft.

First comes the adequacy of the runway. One operator at least, Trans-Canada. Airlines, have expressed their definite intention of using Prestwick if facilities are available: they intend to fly their DC8's into it. I am not familiar with the technical requirements of these aircraft, but I understand that they require a runway length of 9,000 to 10,000 feet, which is greater than is at present available. It is likely also that in addition to being extended the runway will need to be strengthened to take the greater weight of these large machines. So I ask for an assurance that the Government are looking into the requirements of this new generation of aircraft, so that they can put into Prestwick, and that the Government will see that the improvements are made in time for Prestwick to be included on the route of these aircraft as soon as their operations start, or else we may lose the traffic and lose it for good. No less important is the apparatus of control and navigational aids. I hope that all these are being considered, and also the provision of modern aircraft buildings to replace the very temporary and rather dilapidated ones which have survived from the time of the war.

My Lords, that is all I will say about Prestwick. As I said at the beginning. I make no apology for concentrating in some derail on the problems of Scotland in the field of civil aviation. In any country it is those communities which lie on the periphery, at a distance from the centre, to which transport in all its forms is most vital. We in Scotland are in just that position. We are the small cog on the periphery of the large one, and in our turn we have our outlying communities on the rim of our smaller cog. Much has been done for us, but I ask the Government and the Corporations between them to help to maintain and build up our air communications. I hope that I have done something this afternoon to show that their maintenance and expansion is a challenge well worthy of acceptance.

4.50 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for initiating this debate in such an interesting speech. Now that civil aviation has become respectable—indeed, it is agreed that it is a success—I feel that we ought to recall that it is the noble Lord himself who must be looked upon as the father of nationalised civil aviation in this country. I salute him accordingly, and I consider it most appropriate that he should have started the debate this afternoon.

I warmly endorse almost all that was said by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, with possible reservations about his Irish references, but I will come to them in a moment, and I shall conclude by endorsing firmly his request For an inquiry. I know that we all sympathise with the heartfelt plea for the downtrodden Scots which was placed before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, may I say that I did not say that we were downtrodden, but that we are thankful for what we have already had, and merely ask for more.

LORD PAKENHAM

I was using the phrase ironically, but I know that it is a mistake to use irony in public life, and I shall try not to repeat it too often in these few observations. I was going to say to the noble Lord, whose speech was so sincere and well-addressed, chat we have a great Scotsman to reply to this debate and another on the Woolsack. I think that he has chosen a good afternoon on which to make that ardent plea, for there appear to be few Englishmen in the Chamber.

Speaking as one who was Minister of Civil Aviation for three years, I am bound to say that I was always conscious of the force that lay behind the Welsh argument at that time, which was expressed this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Ogmore. When I was Minister, the Welsh used to come to me and ask why the Scots got a far greater share of the subsidy than they did, and why should they pay taxes at least as high as the Scots (that was their assumption and no doubt they were correct; I have no reason for thinking they were not), when there was all this subsidisation of social services in Scotland but nothing at all done for Wales. Though I am a bit of a Rip van Winkle in the civil aviation world these days, I always thought of the Scots in civil aviation as the best organised pressure group in these Islands. The only disadvantage they had in my day was that it was always possible to drive a wedge between them by putting the claims of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and when that quarrel was joined, the English. Irish and Welsh were completely ignored and no further argument was listened to in view of the domestic issue.

It seems to me that the case for Wales is very strong. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will not be blinded by his Scottish loyalty, but will consider carefully, as I am sure he will, what my noble friend Lord Ogmore said on this point. I did my best for Wales and was very much criticised. It was even said that it was my pressure on B.E.A. to start a service in Wales that led to my difficulty with Mr. d'Erlanger. That was not so in my eyes. Since Mr. d'Erlanger has been mentioned, may I say, in passing, how pleased I am that he getting on so well as Chairman of B.O.A.C. and that, as I said in an earlier debate, I feel sure, so far as I can judge, that his success is more than fully justified.

I am not going to be involved in a further argument between Irish and Welsh, because that would lead me too deeply altogether into the subject. I am a cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Dinevor, who, according to my noble friend Lord Ogmore, would be the King of Wales at this moment if he had his rights, and that makes me fairly impartial.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I do not want any dynastic difficulties over this. Lord Dinevor's ancestor was Prince of Dynevor, the Lord of South Wales, of what is now Glamorgan and Camarthenshire. The last "King" of Wales, or rather, Prince of Wales, was Llewellyn, who was killed by the English hundreds of years ago.

LORD PAKENHAM

If I can claim to be only cousin of the King of South Wales, that gives me sufficient confidence to proceed.

I now turn to more technical aspects of the subject before us. Before I come to giving general support to my noble friend Lord Ogmore, may I touch on a few detailed points, of which I have given some short notice to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. First of all, may I ask him whether we are doing anything to develop a British short-haul jet transport? We are in a strong position, I think the noble Earl will agree, with regard to turbo-prop aeroplanes, but since the Comet setback, which we all regret, we have lost ground with pure jets, though I am advised that we could now resume the lead if we concentrated on a short-haul jet. I wonder whether the noble Earl has had sufficient notice from me to be able to say anything on that topic to-day, because I think that that seems to provide a better opportunity than any other in the field of aircraft development.

I strongly endorse what was said by my noble friend about the apparent dilatoriness in making helicopters. I remember that in 1950 or 1951, in company with my noble and gallant friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, chairman of B.E.A., I initiated the first helicopter scheduled service in this country, which flew from Cardiff to Liverpool. That was six or seven years ago, but to-day we seem to be no further advanced. Can the noble Earl tell us why there has been no progress in regard to helicopters, so far as the general public can see? I know that he will mention one or two little things, but can he tell us why there has been this big failure, as it seems, to follow up the start made a few years ago? I am not criticising the Corporations or anything that has been done directly by the Government, but there seems to be an absence of progress which needs some clear explanation. If we cannot afford to develop helicopters, and if we are to be told so this afternoon, is the noble Earl also going to tell us that we have to face the possibility that our neighbours in Europe may develop a helicopter service into this country with American equipment? Is that what we have to face, while we ourselves shall be doing nothing? Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to give us a more optimistic picture. If so, we shall all be grateful.

Can the noble Earl tell us anything fresh about the future of the rail link to London Airport? I am aware that it was discussed in your Lordships' House not long ago, but surely it is a subject to which we must return. It is common ground that for the next few years we shall have to continue to rely primarily on coaches for transport to London Airport, and with that in mind there is the new town terminal being built on the Cromwell Road site. But beyond that, would the noble Earl agree that we must develop a rail link to London Airport'? I know that there is a Working Party looking into this matter. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us something about the Working Party. I gather that the London Transport Executive and. B.E.A. are involved and that the Working Party are looking to the day when there will be a rail link. Have the Government accepted that idea in principle, and can he tell us whether, in fact, the Working Party are getting anywhere at the moment?

Finally, can the noble Earl tell us anything more about F.I.D.O.? Some of us have been informed that there has been this modern development of the war-time F.I.D.O., which burns heavy oil instead of petrol and is far more economic and efficient in operation. I gather that this could be installed now at London Airport, from the technical point of view, if the Government and the air lines could agree on the method of financing the installation. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us whether it is purely the financial issue that is holding back the installation of this new at London Airport. I gather that two years ago the, Government decided to defer putting in the installation at London Airport until a trial installation had been tested at an R.A.F. station. I understand that these trials are now going ahead, but I am told that, as things are now, it is unlikely that we shall get F.I.D.O.at London Airport for at least five years. Perhaps the noble Earl can confirm whether that is right, and also say whether he does not feel that that is far too long a time, and whether we cannot somehow or other accelerate the process.

Those are some of the questions I wish to put. As regards B.O.A.C., I do not wish to raise anything special or peculiar. I know that there is one issue about which some of our friends in B O.A.C. are rather concerned—it does not arise only in the field of civil aviation: I suppose that it arises in a number of the nationalised corporations. It is often asked in B.O.A.C., when people point to what a small profit they make, whether the Corporations can be expected to pay a fixed amount annually by way of interest, regardless of results. I know that it is felt in B.O.A.C. that whereas in private industry there is fixed capital and risk capital, they are being asked at the present time to pay a considerable rate of fixed interest which is more than the rate of the average earnings of international operators.

I gather from a speech by Sir William Hildred last September that the average earnings in 1955 of international operators all over the world were of the order of 1.1 per cent., and B.O.A.C. are expected to pay a higher rate of interest than that. I know that this is a. wider question and, therefore, cannot be answered quickly, but would it be possible to modify these arrangements in the future so that the capital is placed partly on what I might call a fixed basis and partly on a risk basis? I raise that point because to some of the more active spirits in B.O.A.C. the present arrangement seems somewhat unreasonable. I do not want to commit myself clearly to a view, because it has such wide implications.

Speaking more broadly, I do not want to offer a general opinion about the progress of the Corporations now. The news that reaches me is, in general, satisfactory. B.O.A.C. have not had long to get together under the new leadership, but, as I said earlier, I believe they are getting on well. However, I should like to defer a final or more considered comment until we have had longer to review their progress. B.E.A. have a new chief executive, and again, speaking generally, I think that on personal grounds we can feel well satisfied with the men now running our Corporations. I should like to say—and I am sure all noble Lords will agree—how sorry we are to think that Sir George Cribbett has had a period of acute illness. I know that all noble Lords, and certainly the noble Lords, Lord Winster and Lord Ogmore, who worked with him for so long, will join in expressing the hope that he will soon recover completely.

I should like to end by returning to the subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, placed perhaps his chief emphasis—namely, the need for an inquiry into the aircraft industry. I am aware that there are certain arrangements which the Government could make, irrespective of the efficiency or otherwise of the aircraft industry. We are aware that the American aircraft industry is heavily backed by military orders, and it might be possible to take steps which would, as it were, tie up the military and civil arrangements more closely in this country, to the benefit of the Corporations. At the moment, however, I am not thinking of that, although it is of importance. I am seriously raising the question of whether all this money that we have been spending, and are continuing to spend, on subsidising the aircraft industry is being well spent. It is difficult for anybody, even one who has been connected with the industry, to rise in his place and say that he feels sure the aircraft industry is inefficient. I am sure that that sort of sweeping charge would not be made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and it is not made by me. But I would say that things, on the whole, have gone seriously wrong in the aircraft industry on many occasions since the war, and no sufficient explanation has been forthcoming. We have had the great success of the Viscount, but we have had little else to show for all the money that has been lavished on the aircraft industry.

I hope that I have not antagonised the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, by any remarks that I made about the Scots at the beginning of my speech, and I hope that he will join with us in pressing for this inquiry. We shall not cease to press for it. Nothing will convince us that all is well. We believe that there is ground for disquiet, and we hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. will do his best to answer all our questions carefully and studiously. I hope, in particular, that he will leave us with the conviction that he will not leave matters where they are, because in the national interest I do not think they should be left there.

5.7 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has put down his Motion in somewhat wide terms. I should like to say how much I appreciate his kindness in sending me notes of some of the subjects that he proposed to raise. We have had a wide debate, ranging from the Royal Family in Wales to the Seychelles Islands. I find, on a broad interpretation, that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is right about the Seychelles. They are dependencies which are perhaps part of the archipelago. It might be convenient if I deal first with the subject of the aircraft industry, as apart from the subject of aviation services raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and referred to by both noble Lords opposite who have spoken. I would mention one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Winster. He said that the Americans were moving back from the turbo-prop.

LORD WINSTER

I said that there were signs that they were.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I hardly think that that is justified. They have not yet got any in operation in their civil airlines, except those that have Viscounts. I agree that, both in the turbo-prop and in the pure jet, they are probably behind us; I think we have an advantage there. However, it would be erroneous to give the impression that civil aviation is not moving to that type of engine over a fairly wide field. The noble Lord dealt with the various aspects of pure jet and turbo-prop. This is a highly technical subject, and I do not want to deal with it in detail. It is too early to say with any certainty how the economics are likely to work out, but there seems to be some suggestion that the limits of the turboprop will be about 450 knots, and any speeds above that will necessarily be pure jet. That may raise the question, which the noble Lord mentioned, whether the economic gains at higher speeds. with all the traffic and passenger attraction which can be associated with it, will set off the superior economic operation of the turboprop. I do not want to give an answer to that question, because I do not think it is easy to give a simple answer. At the present time there are no separate fares for pure jets and turbo-props; that is to say, the fares are of the same structure.

In passing, I would refer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. of a short-haul jet. I cannot say more at present than that that matter is being discussed between the manufacturer and the Ministry of Supply. If these discussions seem profitable. then I hope we shall be able to proceed with it. Comparisons are made, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, did, with the United States, and he is perfectly right: there are about three limes as many people employed in the aviation industry in the United States as there are in this country. What is more significant is the fact that those people produce about eight times as much in terms of structure weight of aircraft as we do here: that is to say, somewhere about three times as much per man as we do. They are, of course, much bigger firms, and I think the bigger firms will be at an advantage as aircraft become more complicated, more technical, faster and bigger. None the less, at the present time our aircraft compare quite favourably with American aircraft in price.

The noble Lord raised the question of rationalisation and the structure of the aircraft industry. Although I think we have a lot to be reasonably proud of in this country in our Viscounts, Comets and Britannias, I agree that we should not regard the industry with any complacency at all. Although we have the edge on the engine side, I have no doubt we must look carefully to see how the best use can be made of our ability on the constructional side. Rationalising the industry is, I think, a fairly well accepted policy. We are certainly anxious that it should take its course. We do not feel that we can press it on the industry unless they show that they feel it is a desirable course. A certain amount has already taken place. The Hawker Siddeley Group now includes four airframe manufacturers and one engine manufacturer; and there is also the Bristol Aeroplane Company, who now have a financial interest in Short Brothers and Harland, who are closely associated in the manufacture of the Britannia.

LORD PAKENHAM

I do not want to quibble, but what the noble Earl has said is important, and I should like to look at the words more closely to-morrow. I understood him to say that this idea of rationalisation is what he called an accepted policy. That means "accepted by the Government" and not, as I understand him, yet accepted by industry, because he said it cannot be pressed upon industry.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I apologise. I merely contended that it was the accepted policy on both sides of the House. That is all I meant. I should like to emphasise the importance of it. We have a limited number of technical personnel, and we must see that they are used to their utmost. It is probably true to say that, on the whole, the aircraft industry have a fair share; but, of course, that share is inadequate. The other point which is important is that if you want to construct large aircraft you must pat an immense amount of effort and concentration into it. For those two reasons it looks as if it will be necessary for the industry to operate by larger firms of one sort or another.

The noble Lord, Lord Winster, asked: Are we to accept it that we take ten years in order to build an aircraft? It is not a question of accepting it: it is the fact. And it is not a fact exclusively confined to this country; it is just as much a fact in the United States of America. If the noble Lord is interested I will give the figures. The Viscount. from the time it was first conceived until the time it went into service, took eight years, the Ambassador nine years, and the Britannia ten years. The Comet took six years, although, of course, it will be more by the time it goes into service again. But the figures are not so different for American aircraft. The Boeing 707, developed from 1949, should go into service in 1959, which is ten years, and the Douglas DC.8, developed from 1950, should go into service in 1960, which is also ten years. The point I would make is that time can be saved only in the very early stages; and that presupposes that one knows exactly what we shall be Able to do and can make proper allowances for the scientific development which is likely to take place over the next six or seven years—and that, of course, you do the right thing. That is a large assumption, and I think there is no way in which one can be entirely sure of being able to achieve it. Another way of saving time is in regard to teething troubles when the aircraft first goes into operation.

The noble Lord has pressed for an inquiry. Of course, it is nice to say that you should inquire into a thing to see whether it can be done better. I do not say that that may not be necessary. I only ask the noble Lord who would conduct the inquiry, because this is essentially a matter of industry, technique and science, and it seems to me that the people to conduct the inquiry must be the people who are running the industry now. Has the noble Lord a suggestion to make?

LORD PAKENHAM

Since the noble Earl has put the question to me, may I say that I can answer it more easily than most questions. It may be recalled that only a few months ago the aircraft industry was sharply criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—who I am sorry to say is not speaking to-day—and I myself would have no difficulty at all in choosing the noble Lord as chairman of the inquiry.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If the noble Lord is making a specific suggestion, I can understand the basis of it. None the less, whilst I have great confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—and he has conducted inquiries into the future of aviation—it does not seem to me that that is going to resolve these problems. I would not exclude it for one moment, But what I think you have to do is to get at the people themselves in the industry. Merely reorganising them without their voluntary co-operation may, or may not, achieve a useful result. I will certainly consider what the noble Lord has said.

LORD OGMORE

May I interrupt the noble Earl? I was going to suggest that an inquiry often leads the people in the industry to reorganise themselves. By an inquiry, you often obtain facts and figures upon which future action will be based.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It is quite possible that that may happen. I would not say it is an impossible thing to do. But, quite frankly, any inquiry, unless it is extremely long, would be quite superficial. I should have thought that getting the people themselves to work in the closest co-operation was the most useful line to take.

The noble Lord, Lord Winster, raised the question of time-flight limitation. Since the time when he was Minister of Civil Aviation the policy of his successors has been that this is essentially a matter which should be dealt with by the operating company itself, and that it should carry the responsibility. The reason is this. Conditions vary considerably in different circumstances. Fatigue is quite different in different forms of operation. None the less, we have been examining this matter very closely by a Working Party under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Bowhill, and we have decided, without taking away the responsibility resting on the operating company, to lay down overriding maxima by rather more detailed regulations than exist at the present time. They are complicated, and have proved rather difficult to draft, but that is what we propose to do in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, rightly raised the question of the backward areas, and I am glad that he did. In these debates we perhaps spend too much time discussing fast aeroplanes and not enough discussing slow aeroplanes. I am afraid I cannot add much to his information on this subject at the present time. We do not, of course, subsidise these airways, but we encourage them through the two large groups, and in some cases we provide services through independent airways to the backward areas.

The noble Lord has raised a number of questions in regard to South Wales. I am sorry that he did not give me notice, for then I should have been rather better informed. In regard to the I.T.A. mast, I am informed that it has not yet been erected and that it is being objected to both by Aer Lingus and by Cambrian Airways, supported by the Welsh Advisory Council. It is at present under urgent consideration by the Department. The noble Lord asked about the arrangements for Aer Lingus. This matter stems from the Agreement of 1946, which was not a very favourable Agreement with the Irish and which has somewhat tied our hands ever since that date. I am, however, given to understand that Cambrian Airways have applied for a service from Haverfordwest to Dublin and from Haverfordwest to Cork.

LORD OGMORE

There are no aerodromes there.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

There are aerodromes, but neither of them is open. I understand it is hoped that the Pembroke County Council will open Haverfordwest and that the authorities in Cork will open their aerodrome. In any case, it. is the Cambrian Airways themselves who made the application. They run a number of services from Cardiff to Liverpool. Manchester, Bristol and, I am told, to Paris, as well. I entirely agree with the noble: Lord that, if these services can be developed—and they can be developed only by support from the public—lt would be of considerable benefit to South Wales.

LORD OGMORE

Can the noble Earl tell us anything about Cork airport? My information is that there is no airport at Cork. Certainly there is no airport that could be utilised at the moment for a cross-channel service.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I can only tell the noble Lord that my information is that there is an aerodrome at Cork and that it is hoped that the authorities there will open it. I have the impression,. that it is an aerodrome which is not open at the present time, but I will certainly inquire into that matter, if I may.

The noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Pakenham, raised the question of helicopters. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. complained that development was dilatory. The fact is that helicopters have been a constant disappointment for about twenty-five years. That is the real answer to it. It is true that they have been in commercial work for about ten years, but, so far as passenger-carrying is concerned, so far as we are able to judge, they are not yet on an economic basis. It is true that the Belgians use them, and they may even run a service into this country, but 'we know that those services are not economic in themselves and can only be justified as feeder services to the longer routes to the Congo and elsewhere.

It is generally known, I think, that we ran a service for nearly a year from South Bank to London Airport, but that service has now 'been discontinued. It has been removes and has been operating from Nottingham and Leicester to Binning-ham, but this service has not been very well patronised. The, real answer, I am afraid, is that so far as helicopters are concerned, the small ones are just uneconomic to operate. We hope to get the Bristol 192C, which will earn' from seventeen to twenty-two passengers, by about 1960. Even that will operate on only an extremely narrow basis. The more useful one is the Fairey Rotodyne which operates on a now principle, with the rotor driven by jet thrust and two traction propellers. This may be in operation in three or four years' time.

EARL JOWITT

How many passengers will that carry?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

That will carry, I think, thirty or forty passengers. It is quite a big one. The difficulty with helicopters is that they operate in restricted air spaces which are generally either in isolated places or in the centre of urban areas. If they are in isolated places, it is very difficult to get sufficient passengers, and if they are in urban areas, there is generally trouble about noise. The noise from helicopters is not inconsiderable. If we can get over that difficulty and provide a good service, it may well happen that we shall be able to operate them over neighbouring countries. B.E.A. have been interested in this subject for some time. Indeed, they are disappointed that this form of travel has not come on a good deal sooner.

The noble Lords, Lord Winster and Lord Ogmore, raised the question about the possible shortage of pilots. A potential shortage did emerge earlier this year, but I think it would be wrong to give the impression that there was any grave deficiency in the number of pilots available. This difficulty is arising substantially because there are very large replacements required in B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and there is also some extension of the number of aircraft they are flying. With the replacements, it means that quite a substantial number of pilots have to be withdrawn for training on new types of aircraft. The difficulty here is that, if you train the men up to commercial standard, it costs about £2,400, and not many people are likely to undertake that expenditure. I agree that the normal source of pilots is from the R.A.F. or from the Fleet Air Arm, but not all of those pilots either want to be civil pilots or necessarily have the qualities or personality which would make them into first-class airline captains.

It is quite true that B.O.A.C. have been advertising both in the Commonwealth and in the Colonies for certain personnel. I think it is fair to say that this is not a matter of immediate urgency. B.O.A.C. are taking a great deal of trouble to bring on good candidates, whom they can find, both by training them under the Corporation and, in certain cases, by assisting their training through the Airways Aero Club. It is fair to say that we require, or we are likely to require. at least for a few years now, about 250 civil pilots a year. These pilots can eventually rise to a scale of salary of over £3,000 a year. I should like to encourage good men to think seriously of entering this profession.

The noble Lord, Lord Winster, raised the question of a recent meeting of the I.L.O. The noble Lord seemed to me to make a very ex parte statement. So far as my official information goes, there was a discussion with I.L.O., and the discussion was as to whether civil aviation should be dealt with by a separate committee or whether it should be dealt with by the Inland Transport Committee. There was no Government representative at the meeting. In fact, the meeting dealing with this subject terminated only on December 6, and as I have no official report about it I should prefer not to make any comment. I only say that I hope that what the noble Lord said will not necessarily be taken as the whole story.

The noble Lord has referred to fares. I will not say much about that subject except that I think it is true to say that some fares may be too low, particularly the first-class fares. But I agree with the noble Lord—I think it is a point he made—that, if we are to bring in more passengers, we must keep some of the fares low. It is striking to think that, by better utilisation and economy, the operating costs per capacity ton-mile over the last ten years have fallen from just under 70d. to 38d., whilst revenue per capacity ton-mile has remained, with minor alterations, almost static. That is how the Corporations have been dealing with fares. It is difficult to know how far this process of declining costs and steady revenue can be maintained, but I am sure it is preferable to proceed on that basis so far as possible, without resorting to substantially increased fares. And it is worth remem- bering that the aviation companies have I.A.T.A., which is similar to the Shipping Conference, so that, should they find it necessary, they can prevent themselves from being ruined by intense competition.

I am glad the noble Lord raised the question of independent operators. We attach great importance to maintaining strong Corporations and strong independent air services in this country. I believe we are right and wise not to put all our eggs into one basket or, indeed, into two. I think it is satisfactory to note that the volume of traffic carried by the independents in recent years has quite substantially improved. Of course, the main improvement is in troop transport. Although the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said that it was only 50 per cent., in fact 60 per cent. of our troop transport overseas is carried by air, excluding trooping to Germany. That is a rise from 22½ per cent. in 1951–52, which I think is quite striking. And of that figure, between 90 and 95 per cent. is carried by independents, who carried about 150,000 personnel in the last year.

I realise that there is a difficulty about the contracts which they get, in that they are not of greater length; but it is extremely difficult for the Air Ministry, who give out these contracts, to know for certain how long they can be maintained. In general, I am given to understand that they are of one year, with a possible extension to two or to three years. What I think is encouraging is that in the last three years United Kingdom traffic carried by independents has risen from 4 per cent. to 9 per cent. Last year they carried about 200,000 passengers, and to-day they operate thirty-seven scheduled services to various places, including places in France, Germany and Austria. They also run coach-air services, combining travel by coach and air, to various places in Europe, and combined holidays, particularly to the North of France. My Lords, 1 think their position is stronger, but I will not pretend that either the Corporations or the independents hold as important a position as we should like them to do. The noble Lord mentioned in this respect a Chamber of Air Transport. I would entirely agree with him. I think that would probably be a useful step to take, but of course it is a matter for agreement between the aviation companies themselves. I think it would certainly pro- duce a more coherent organisation than exists at the present time. The noble Lord is aware that there is already a British Independent Air Transport Association.

The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. raised a number of questions about Scottish routes. I can tell him that it is the intention of B.E.A. to replace the Dakota with the Viscount. They are apparently confident that the Viscount can operate from all the aerodromes which are now used by the Dakota. The noble Lord raised the question of Errol Airport. Here I can only say that I think that the points he has made are important, but we are not in e. position to compel any operator to run a service if he does not want to. I am given to understand that this matter has been looked at by B.E.A. and by Hunting Clan, but neither of them considers that it is a commercial proposition.

The noble Lord raised certain questions about Prestwick. The new control tower has been designed, and it is hoped that work on it will be started next summer. It is being laid out so that it will provide for the possible terminal building when traffic warrants. We are also keeping in mind, of course, the possibility of rail access to this new site. I would also say that the second runway at Prestwick is now provided with a G.C.A., and we also hope that shortly it will be provided with an I.L.S. which will be brought into operation. The noble Lord asked me to give certain undertakings. I will only say, in regard to runways in general, that as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has said, the operators have been asked to provide early information on the performance requirements of new big jet airliners, and, of course, only a few days ago he said that Prestwick is still the second international airport in the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked about communications between London and London Airport. I can tell him that a firm of consulting engineers, Messrs. Rendel, Palmer and Tritton, are surveying a rail connection to London Airport which will probably be routed from London Airport Central via Whitton Junction to Victoria. I understand that their report may be available in the not too distant future; but of course it would then be for British Transport Coin-mission to decide whether they thought it would be a commercial proposition. The noble Lord is aware, of course, that the Cromwell Road Extension is taking place—indeed, part of it is already open, I would agree with him that communications between London Airport and London should be improved; I think they are unsatisfactory but I believe that the Cromwell Road Extension will make a substantial improvement: to the journey.

The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, then asked about F.I.D.O. I am given to understand that experiments carried out in the United States have not been entirely successful. These were experiments on a full-scale basis. We are carrying out experimental trials at an R.A.F. aerodrome before deciding whether to install this system at London Airport. I am given to understand that the operating companies are not entirely convinced that they will be anxious to have this installation at present.

LORD PAKENHAM

May I interrupt the noble Earl? My impression is that B.E.A. are very keen on Is the noble Earl putting me right on that matter?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

No, I would not contradict that. I am given to understand that, in general, the operating companies are not—I daresay B.E.A. may be different.

I have tried to answer, I am afraid rather laboriously, a number of complicated questions. I am afraid that these debates decline into a factual summary, but I have done the best I can. B.O.A.C. have to-day issued a statement in which they say that the Britannia will go into service on February 1.I am sure that everybody will be glad to know of that. It will be on the route from Johannes-burgh to London. They hope that in March of next year it will be on the flight to Australia, and later in the year to Hong Kong, Japan, Aden and Singapore.

My Lords, we have at present the second largest civil aviation fleet in the world. I do not entirely agree with Lord Winster's figures, but one can add them up in different ways. What is significant, I think, is that over the last ten years, in terms of passenger air-miles, civil aviation has increased three times; it is a 'vastly increasing industry. At the same time, revenue, which is based roughly on passenger ton-miles, has remained extraordinarily static. Nevertheless, we retain a steady share of the international services of the world. I think that, in so far as that is the case, we can take some satisfaction. My last word is this: we hope that in the sphere both of the independents and of the Corporations, the coming years, with the new equipment, will show us carrying an even bigger share of the international air trade.

5.39 p.m.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships, and particularly to the noble Earl, for a slip either of the tongue or of the pen. Of course, I should not have said that aircraft were standing idle during the Suez airlift because they had exhausted their quota of flying. I should have said that it was the pilots. I apologise; I am very sorry. It was a bad slip on my part.

I think that this debate has served some useful purpose. It became a little parochial at times. We have heard the views of Wales, of Ireland and of Scotland. I almost expected to hear something about the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that this is the United Kingdom Parliament, and that we are quite entitled to raise questions relating to all parts of it without being called "parochial"?

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, I have not questioned that point for one moment; nobody would do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said something on my remarks about speed. I may be quite wrong (I am speaking only from recollection), but I thought that the noble Lord expressed some personal content with lower speeds than those at which we are aiming at the present moment. With regard to what he said about the industry, I believe that some of the troubles are due to the fact he mentioned; that during the war we required a very large potential of firms and that perhaps there has been rather too much of a hangover from that situation into the post-war years. The Ministry of Supply may still have been actuated by a wish to keep in existence as many firms as possible, to form a reserve potential should war or crisis come again.

I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. I hope your Lordships will notice that I am adopting the Scots, not the Irish, pronunciation. There always seems to be a breath of romance about anything to do with Scotland, and I noticed with great interest his reference to the island where the timetable says, "Landings, weather and tide permitting,". It called back to my memory, and before my eyes, so many of my experiences in the islands, of both the East and West coasts of Scotland. I think it was my good fortune to be the first to nominate Prestwick as an international airport and to say that that must be the standard by which we did things in the future. I have always taken a great interest in Prestwick, and I take this opportunity of wishing the best of luck to the Prestwick Pioneer and the other aircraft mentioned by the noble Lord.

The noble Lord's remarks on the expense of runways suggest that up to date we have been tailoring airports to fit aircraft, and I am not at all sure that, if speeds go on as they are doing, we shall not have to work the other way round and tailor the aircraft to fit airports; because the expense is becoming almost prohibitive. Of course we have to bear in mind something called "vertical take-off", which may or may not solve some of these problems in future. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, spoke about the possibility of small jets. I believe that the jet is proving more flexible than was at one time anticipated would be the case, and I have heard something about an air company whose longest route is 500 miles but who are contemplating ordering a jet—which seems to be evidence in that direction.

With helicopters it is always "tomorrow": never "to-day". I noticed in an American newspaper this week that the United States Army is selling all its mules and replacing them with helicopters. Except that neither a helicopter nor a mule has any hope of posterity, I cannot see how a helicopter can replace a mule. I cannot see a helicopter doing the work that we associate with mules. I am sorry to see that at the same time they are selling off their carrier pigeons and replacing them by electronic devices. Little by little, all the romance goes out of war—even the carrier pigeon is disappearing. I join most warmly in what the noble Lord said about Sir George Cribbett. I do not know the nature of his illness, but if the basis of it is not overwork I shall be greatly surprised, for he is a man who for years has been driving himself almost beyond the limits of human endurance.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that the Motion was in very wide terms. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part: when there is such a vast field to cover, as there is in civil aviation, it might be advisable to put down a Motion in rather more restricted terms, dealing with only one or two of the present problems. I see signs that the Americans are coming back to the idea of the turbo-prop and their minds seem to be working towards developing a turbo-prop for what might be called mass travel, with the supersonic jet for de luxe travel. I thought that what the noble Earl said about rationalisation of the British aircraft manufacturing industry was very satisfactory and encouraging. I was glad to hear that his mind is working in that direction. I am afraid that I am obstinate about ten years as the period for production of an aircraft. I believe that the time could be cut, and it is on this matter that I should like an inquiry. I do not know that I would wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to preside over such an inquiry. I believe that it is an engineering problem, and that a committee of people very well versed in all engineering problems would be better fitted to carry out such an inquiry. I also agree most thoroughly with the noble Earl that co-operation inside the industry could do a great deal towards solving that problem of whether we can cut down the time. Even a year would be a very valuable saving.

I cannot say that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, gave me a very satisfactory answer in regard to hours of work. I quite agree, as I believe I mentioned in my speech, that a completely hard-and-fast rule cannot be laid down: there must be a certain amount of flexibility. But I do not think civil aviation ought to be (as I imagine it is) the only industry in this country which has no regulations whatever covering hours of work.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I think I said that we proposed to lay down overriding limits, besides the responsibility of the operator.

LORD WINSTER

I believe that that would be very helpful. I agree that there must be flexibility in any regulations of that nature. I fully realise that the noble Earl has not had time to go into the matter of the meeting at Geneva, about which I spoke, and that further information will be required. I received the information only on Tuesday last. It is an important matter, however, and I believe that there will be trouble inside the industry if the attitude taken up by the employers at Geneva is maintained. I will go into it again myself and try to check and re-check the information on the subject, and I am sure the noble Earl also will look at the matter. It may be necessary, however, to put down next year a Motion on this subject, and this subject alone, because I believe that my noble friends on this side, like myself, attach great importance to it.

I thought the noble Earl was sympathetic in what he said about the independent operators. I am sure that they will notice that and be grateful. On trooping, I am not quite clear why there can be a long-term contract with shipping but such a very short-term contract for aircraft. There may be good reasons for that, but I should like to hear what they are. At the moment I am rather puzzled. Moreover, there should he a better method of fixing the terms of these contracts than exists at present—something analogous to the Charter Committee on the Baltic Exchange, which I mentioned.

I should like to conclude by saying that fares are the only thing that have gone down in the last few years, and to my mind it is extraordinary that, while the cost of aircraft and everything to do with the operation of aircraft has gone up so very greatly, fares have come down. As I said in the course of my speech, there must be something uneconomic about that. I think the fares must be too low for economics really to be playing their part. At any rate, I repeat that, if the revenue of B.O.A.C., and therefore its profits, is to increase, I feel sure the main line of approach must be a better utilisation of aircraft and economies in administrative staff. Sir William Hildred, who is most interested in this question of revenues of international airlines, has said that he thinks B.O.A.C. overdoes it on passenger-handling business. I thank the noble Earl very sincerely for so fully and faithfully answering the many questions put to him. I also thank the many noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.