Lords Sitting of 11 December 1957

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

DISPOSAL OF KRUPP'S WORKS
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) Whether Herr Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach was sentenced at Nuremberg as a war criminal to the confiscation of the whole of the Krupp fortune; (2) Whether the order of confiscation was cancelled in 1951 when Mr. McCloy was the United States High Commissioner in Germany; (3) Whether, under an agreement with the Governments of the United Kingdom, France and the United States signed in Bonn on 4th March, 1953, Herr Krupp undertook to sell his interests, amounting to approximately 75 per cent. of his properties, in his steel works, coal mines and coalfields within five years; and (4) What sales, if any, have already taken place.]
2.36 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FORELGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, Herr Alfred Krupp was sentenced by a United States Military Court in 1948, and the sentence included the confiscation of all his personal property and all assets of the firm of Krupp. The United States High Commissioner in Germany, Mr. McCloy, cancelled the confiscation order in 1951.
Under a plan agreed with the Allied authorities in Germany and promulgated on March 4, 1953, Herr Krupp agreed to dispose of an estimated 74 per cent. of his property—steel, iron and coal producing assets—through disposition trustees. For a period of five years from
1022
the dates on which the disposition procedures came into effect, the terms of sale are subject to Herr Krupp's concurrence. As things stand at present, the five-year periods are due to end early in 1959. At the end of the five years the trustees are to sell the interests for the best terms obtainable, unless an extension of time is granted.
The Emscher-Lippe mine was sold to a German state-owned company in 1954 for some £2·3 million. Herr Krupp's controlling interest in the Constantin der Grosse mine was sold for some £3 million in 1956. Furthermore, the stock owned by Krupp in two subsidiaries—the West-fälische Drahtindustrie (steel wire rolling works) and Capito und. Klein (tin plate rolling mills) were disposed of in 1953, in accordance with provisions in the agreed plan.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply. Arising out of it, I should like to ask one or two questions. Is it not the case that the common stock of the holding company, HÜitten und Bergwerke Rheinhausen, which took over the Krupp properties in steel and coal, as the noble Earl told us, has to be sold within five years or at the end of any extended period—though I very much hope that there is not to be an extended period—for whatever price it will fetch in the market, and that the stock must not be sold to members of Herr Krupp's immediate family or to persons acting on his behalf? May I further ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government will give an assurance to the House that they will not be a party to the release of Herr Krupp from any of his undertakings under the 1953 agreement and that the Krupp organisation, which is Germany's most powerful economic unit to-day, will be broken up, as was originally intended by the Military Court?
THE EARL OF 'GOSFORD: My Lords, the answers to the noble Viscount's first two questions are that they are generally correct. With regard to the last question, Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of these deconcentration questions. However, these questions, including those of Herr Krupp, concern other Governments and would have to be considered and concerted with them.
LORD REA: My Lords, I apologise for not having given the noble Earl notice of this question, but can be give any indication of the amount still outstanding to be disposed of at the end of the five years?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, in round figures, approximately £20 million.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government will consider publishing a list of the names of persons and firms to which sales are made by the holding company?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I will certainly consider the noble Viscount's question.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (GENERAL TRUSTEES) ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

DUNDEE CORPORATION (CON- SOLIDATED POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
2.42 p.m.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I regret having to trouble your Lordships' House with the Amendments to this Bill which appear in my name on the Marshalled List, and with your Lordships' permission I will speak to all the Amendments together. They are due to two errors in printing which have crept in between one stage and the next. In my opinion this is a most unusual thing, and for that we have to thank the efficiency of the printers. The first error is in the Schedule at page 141, line 43, where words have been omitted and other words, which should properly appear two lines later, have been inserted. One Amendment corrects that error. The
1024
second error is a small one; it occurs on page 227, line 25, where the word "or" has been omitted. The Amendments to the Preamble are consequential on these two Amendments. They are necessary because the provisional Order has not to be confirmed as drafted, but subject to the removal of the printing errors. I am now advised that it is unnecessary to amend Clause 1 of the Bill, and, with your Lordships' permission, I propose not to move the Amendment to page 1, line 11. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Preamble, page 1, line 1, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I put the remaining Amendments en bloc.
Amendments moved—
In the Preamble, page 1, line 1, leave out ("set forth in the schedule hereunto annexed") and insert ("relating to Dundee Corporation (Consolidated Powers)")
In the Preamble, page 1, line 5, leave out ("requisite") and insert ("expedient")
In the Preamble, page 1, line 5, after ("should") insert ("subject to amendment")
In the Schedule, page 141, line 43, leave out ("dealing with residual products shall be paid by the") and insert ("plant provided at the slaughterhouses in the city for the")
In the Schedule, page 227, line 25, after ("section") insert ("or").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADING AGREEMENTS ORDER, 1957
2.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to call up for registration all restrictive trading agreements not covered by the first Order which your Lordships considered and approved some twelve months ago. Your Lordships may recall that the first Order required the registration of agreements on prices or collective discrimination, and that details of such agreements had to be supplied to the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements by the end of February. 1957. We now propose to provide for the registration of other classes of agreement, the most important of

1025
which are agreements that affect the quantity or type of goods to be produced or agreements that provide for the sharing of markets or areas between different suppliers. In so far as such arrangements form part and parcel of price or discriminatory agreements they should have already been furnished to the Registrar under the first Order, but in so far as they are separate they will have to be furnished by March 31, 1958. provided, of course, that your Lordships approve the Order.
The reasons why we are now proposing to complete the task of registration are twofold. In the first place, our experience under the first Order has shown that the imminence of registration provides the incentive to industry for a careful examination of the need for agreements. The Registrar has informed the Board of Trade that the conclusion he draws from art examination of agreements already registered is that apart from the outright cancellation, about one-third of the continuing agreements were substantially amended in consequence of the provisions of the Act requiring registration. Our first objective, therefore, is to provide the occasion for careful re-examination of such agreements as industry has not yet considered. Secondly, the staff engaged on registration of agreements supplied under the first Order will be becoming available, and it is therefore sensible to allow them to turn their hands to the task of registering the remaining classes of agreement. Your Lordships may wish to be assured that this new registration will not interfere with the preparation of cases to be brought before the Restrictive Practices Court; in fact, the Registrar's office is so organised and divided that the submission of further agreements for registratration will in no way affect the preparation of these cases. I hope that, with that explanation, your Lordships will see fit to approve the Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements Order, 1957, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
2.47 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I receive your Lordships' indulgence, and especially that of my noble friend Lord Ogmore who is later moving a most important Motion, to address some comments upon the importance of the operation of the Restrictive
1026
Trade Practices Act, part of which calls for the Order for which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has asked your Lordships' agreement this afternoon. I beg to take up a little of your Lordships' time on this matter in view of its great importance to British economy at the present time. With your Lordships' permission, I will quote what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as reported in The Times of Monday, December 2:
"Now was the time for firms to abandon restrictive practices without waiting for the rulings of the trade practice's court. This is not the moment for rings designed to keep prices up or restrictive practices designed to prevent them coming down. I plead to British industry for more, not less, competition. If any firm can lower their prices it is their patriotic duty to do so and do so quickly. Don't wait for the slowest or weakest firms in the ring. Get on with it. It is later than you think."
Last night the Prime Minister on the radio underlined "It is later than you think."
During the passage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill your Lordships were told by my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and by me, who bore the burden of the Opposition, that your Lordships and the Government were going about this the wrong way. We said that before this Restrictive 'Trade Practices Act and the machinery set up by it could have any impact upon the lives and the economy of the British people years would elapse. We said that you should outlaw all restrictive practices, and let those who wanted them justify them in the national interest, instead of allowing them to carry on and for those who wanted to practise them to prove that they were not against the national interest—a vastly different procedure.
The truth of what we had to say is now coming into operation. It must be causing the Government—and my sympathies are with them—many sleepless nights, because for three years we nave had a fall in world commodity prices, and the prices to the British housewife for the essentials of life have gone up. During the last twelve months, according to charts I have here, and which have appeared in the Press—namely, the Financial Times—wholesale prices have dropped 6 per cent., and retail prices have gone up 3 per cent. At this time of the year the housewife is at the mercy of what I call "the parasites' paradise." The prices are going up. Do you wonder why

1027
you are faced with wage claims? The only machinery we have is the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The machinery is creaking so badly that it has almost come to a standstill. I am not criticising those who are operating it. We are to blame for not having had the foresight—and I know the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is far too old a campaigner and far too good a sportsman to expect me not to chide him for some of the things he said then.
One of the principal things which is militating against any improvement is Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, which allows individual price maintainance over a wide field of commodities essential for the British housewife, as I said in a letter to The Times the other day; and public money is used to keep prices up. That was pointed out with consistency all the way through the passage of this Bill. The branded article, which is given a blessing by Section 25 of the Act, is one of the chief causes why the cost of living and the retail prices go up, while wholesale prices and cost of production go down. I wish to ask what the Government intend to do about it. It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister exhorting people to bring prices down when, by their own actions, they are encouraging them to put them up. Do not forget that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, when the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill went through your Lordships' House, was its sponsor as the President of the Board of Trade.
This is, in my view, a most serious matter. I have lived with the problem all my industrial life, and I can claim to know something about it. It will be ten years before sufficient cases are brought before the Restrictive Trade Practices Court—which has not yet met, although the Act has been in operation for twelve months—and before they have circumvented the knavish tricks of the abundance of clever lawyers who are now driving coaches and horses—or perhaps in my case I should say motor cars—through the Act. Already the courts have had cases which have put quite a number of difficulties in the way. I have an abundance of evidence. I have the evidence of the Birmingham steel-ring price quotation. I have here a letter
1028
published in the Manchester Guardian. from a manufacturer of a proprietary article, who wrote to his seller and said: "I am going to put the price up in a month"—as a matter of fact, he was going to put up the price on December 16, and it is just about that date now—"stock up now and get an extra profit." This kind of thing will not be stopped by overloading a machine which is at the present time creaking.
I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether these agreements which will
have to be registered will be available as Parliamentary Papers. There was a good article in The Times some time ago. One can pay a shilling and go to Chancery Lane, to the offices of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, and Spend a profitable day browsing over some of the comic agreements that are to be found in some of the restrictive practices. A friend of mine who paid his shilling stumbled upon one which meant that if your Lordships want to buy six dustbins at a lower price instead of one, the dustbin manufacturer, under an agreement with the Dustbin Manufacturers' Association, has to get dispensation from them before he can lower the price. This Act is the only machine the Government have for breaking price rings and making some impact that may, in the end, bring down the cost of living. The Government have nothing they can use except the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and exhortation.
I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he will do two things. First, I want to ask him whether he will make available information in the form of a Parliamentary Paper, so that your Lordships can see the morass which is clogging this machine. As I say, cases have not started to come before the court. When are they going to come? Will the nature of the restrictive practices which have already been
instituted be published as a Parliamentary Paper? I know that here I am pushing at an open door, but I should have thought that one of the greatest advantages of being a Minister Without Portfolio was that he could "raise merry hell" in every Government Department and was not restricted to doing it in one. Will be consult with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and see whether we have not had sufficient

1029
experience to improve this Restrictive Trade Practices Act by amendment, and whether the time has not arrived to reconsider the whole state of the machinery which it sets up and which enables prices to be raised and the courts of this country to be used for the purpose of imposing sanctions upon the very action which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now pleads so wholeheartedly for the trade to take; that is, to bring prices down?
If the noble Lord will do that, I think we may be able to make some impact. There were 1,500 agreements registered under the first Order your Lordships passed. That was nearly twelve months ago, and the registrations had to be completed by February. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me—I do not suppose he can—how many he anticipates will be the result of this present Order. I was always told that one of the most useless observations to make in this world was, "I told you so," but it is one that we on this Front Bench could make to-day; we told the Government this would happen. If they had accepted our advice, the British public might to-day be paying retail prices more in line with the wholesale prices, instead of enhanced prices over which the Government have no control whatsoever.
3.1 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, invites me to "raise merry hell" in "a parasites' paradise." This is, as he rightly says, a serious matter, and I should like time to study carefully what he said and see what I. can do to help him. I must say straight away that I foresee difficulty in preparing the documents he requires, which will be a lengthy and complicated business. He complains that the machinery is creaking. It is very complicated machinery. Your Lordships should not overlook the fact that, because of the Parliamentary Recess, the first registration order to which the noble Lord referred could not take effect until November 30 last, and the parties had until February 28 this year to furnish particulars.
Six months after the registration order came into effect, April 15 this year, a Register containing 1.000 agreements was opened. Next day the first direction was issued to the Registrar about cases to be
1030
taken before the Court. This was followed by a second direction in September, 1957. The task for the Registrar and for industry is a very heavy one, and it must be done properly. I think one can compare this type of case to the big commercial cases which come before the Courts, and I think the speed is favourable when compared with that type of case. I am sure the Registrar is fully aware, as the Government are, of the point the noble Lord made, of trying to minimise the delay. But equally it would be undesirable that anything slapdash or casual should be done in anything as complicated and important as this is.
The noble Lord referred to his favourite case of Section 25. Having read his interesting letter in The Times, I was not wholly unprepared for it. He made some observations about the speech of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I understood him to feel clashed in some way with the Government's policy. I do not think there is any conflict between the provisions of Section 25 and my right honourable friend's speech. All he was principally doing, in the passage the noble Lord quoted, was to exhort industry to get on with the job of turning out its cupboards. Section 25 represents only one half of the provisions of the Act for dealing with resale price maintenance. The essence of the solution adopted in the Act for dealing with this question of resale price maintenance was to make unlawful the powerful systems of collective enforcement which have become common in many trades, and at the same time to strengthen the ability of individual manufacturers to enforce resale price conditions by legal proceedings.
I would remind your Lordships of what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the Second Reading. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 549, col. 1939]:
"I am quite well aware these proposals will be attacked from both flanks. Supporters of resale price maintenance will say that the removal of collective enforcement will lead to the erosion of the whole system.…Opponents of resale price maintenance will claim that the substitution of the public for the private court system represents approval of the very system which they condemn…our proposals…will provide what I judge to be adequate means of dealing with the problem of the loss leader and as an important by-product they will get rid in this large field of both the stop list and the private court.…

1031
I claim that these are important and substantial advantages in a field in which no other Government has yet dared to advance at all."
My Lords, there is nothing in Section 25 of the Act which obliges individual manufacturers to enforce resale price conditions. It is perfectly open to any manufacturer to say, "I will no longer oblige shopkeepers to resell my goods at not less than a certain price". I will not labour this point, because the noble Lord and I have debated it so often and we shall, no doubt, debate it again. I would ask him to allow me to look again at what he said and consult with the Board of Trade, and also to let me have the figures, or the reference to them. If he will do that I will gladly look into the points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy. But would he reconcile this? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it is a trader's patriotic duty to reduce prices. If I am a grocer and I reduce the price of a tin of cocoa, Section 25 of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act gives the manufacturer of that cocoa the right to sue me in the courts, at public expense, and to withhold my supplies and drive me out of business.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the noble Lord is taking the analogy too far.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not. It is happening every day.
LORD MANCROFT: I do not want to argue that Section 25 point again, because we have done so so often, and he and I will never convince each other. I would say that it has not a very great deal to do with the Order we want to pass to-day, although the whole principle is involved. In spite of what the noble Lord says about tins of cocoa and dustbins, and the clogging and the morass, I hope that that will not prevent him from allowing this Order to be approved to-day.
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I note the last appeal. For the actual administration of the Act it will be necessary to give a passage to this Order. We do not propose to try and hold it up in any way, but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put before your Lordships a
1032
statement to-day which will require very careful thought, not only by this House but the other House and the general public. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has just said—and he has given fuller information than he gave me yesterday—I am bound to say that if ever there was a case which justified making the procedure in entirely the opposite direction from that which the Government insisted on putting into the Statute, this is it.
The fact is, of course, that it is not so easy on individual commodities as it is in the case of working on a general percentage. The movement in food prices downwards has been too slow in relation to the wholesale prices; nevertheless there has been a reduction in food prices in the last two or three weeks, although the wholesale prices have been in the process of going down for a much longer period than that. In the case of the dry goods trade, the general dry goods, the common supply, there is a much larger number of restrictive agreements in these matters, usually involving branding and packing, than can be found in the other class of trade. There is no doubt, from the returns of cost of living, that starting from the very beginning, with the world commodity prime cost and wholesale cost, there has been a continuous fall in many of these fields for months, yet there is practically no result for the consumer at all. In fact in these commodities the price on the whole has been on the rise.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Three per cent.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: A net rise of 3 per cent., my noble friend tells me. We as a nation have been working this Act for the last twelve months, and nothing at all happens. How different would have been the position if Her Majesty's Government had adopted the other course, and laid down in their Statute that any such collective agreement would be illegal unless those operating it could prove that it was beneficial! That would have been the way to do it. Had Her Majesty's Government done that, they would have found, in consequence, that when there was a rapid movement in prime and wholesale commodity costs, there would have been a much quicker result in reducing the cost of living.

1033
It is ironical that it should be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who feels bound to make the appeal that he is making to-day on patriotic grounds (and I am not complaining about it), for he was the Minister responsible for bringing in the Bill which became this Statute and which is working so very badly to-day. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will direct the attention of the present President of the Board of Trade—and perhaps it might be as well to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer also—to what we are saying to-day, and to the fact that it represents a volume of opinion in the country which is perhaps much larger than we are all fully aware of at the present time; and it is much more prevalent in the minds of housewives than of any other section of the community.
Seeing that we have to work the Statute as it is, I feel that if Parliament is to represent and protect the interests of the nation at large, then, in view of the practice which has been introduced under this Act, Parliament ought not to be left without adequate information as to the progress being achieved. I am very glad, therefore, that my noble friend has asked for information, if possible in the nature of Parliamentary Papers to be furnished from time to time. We had a most interesting quotation from something which apparently the Registrar under the Act has reported to the Minister in charge of its administration; but we have seen nothing of that in print.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but the Index to the Register is published in the Board of Trade Journal.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that that is an index of all the agreements which have been registered in the Board of Trade Journal. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite would let us know the dates of the journals in question, so that we can consult them.
LORD MANCROFT: Certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, if those could be consulted with ease of reference in the Library of your Lordships' House that would be of great help. Nevertheless, I
1034
feel that it is essential, seeing how much criticism is arising in this matter, that Her Majesty's Government should consider how often a general report on the situation is to be made. And I do beg them to take into account the slowness with which this machine is bound to work, in the circumstances in which it has been set up; to reconsider the matter, in view of the urgent need for dealing with the financial situation at large of the nation, end, if necessary, to amend the present law.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 2) ORDER. 1957
3.14 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order of 1957 be approved. This Order, which will come into operation on January 1, 1958, amends further the main Order made in 1955 and amended a year ago, under which a levy is imposed on the lace industry for the financing of industrial scientific research under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The effect of the Order is to adjust the rates of charge so as to ensure that, despite the changes in the level of trade, the total yearly amount so raised remains approximately as at present—about £10,000.
The proposed changes, which are similar to those made in previous years, have been agreed by the employers' association and trade unions in the industry and are not controversial. The reason that the Order is somewhat complicated is because the lace industry is divided into six sections. By agreement of the industry, firms which, by reason of their nature, are not in the first three sections or categories pay the levy according to the number of machines in their factories during the year in question—in this case, 1958. Firms in the other three categories pay according to the amount of yarn which they purchase; and this Order brings forward the base year for the calculation thereof to 1956. It also further adjusts the rates of levy on persons and firms who newly enter the lace-manufacturing industry under the various categories during the

1035
year in question. This Order is completely non-controversial and has the approval of the lace manufacturing industry. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1957, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION
3.16 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to draw attention to the present situation in civil aviation; to ascertain the policy with reference to the R.A.F. Transport Command; to review the future prospect of long-distance British civil air liners; to request Her Majesty's Government to institute an Inquiry into the British aircraft industry as a whole; and to move for Papers. The noble Lords said: My Lords, the need for a debate on civil aviation at this time arises for two reasons: first of all, because of the vast changes in military aviation policy that have recently been announced, and secondly, because we are at the commencement of a new era in civil aviation. The defence policy as laid down in the White Paper envisages, to all intents and purposes, the disappearance in about ten years' time of the manned bomber and the manned fighter; and, as a consequence, the plans for a supersonic bomber and also a supersonic fighter have, with one exception, been abandoned. The one exception is the English Electric P.1 supersonic fighter.
With the results of the defence policy in military aviation we are not in this debate particularly concerned, but with its effects on civil aviation we are concerned, because, of course, the abandonment of plans for the production of a supersonic bomber and supersonic fighter must affect enormously the development of a supersonic airliner, owing to the vast cost of research and development which such a machine entails. So that we are now, as it were, at the parting of the ways. Always before in aviation history, civil aviation has been so to speak the "little brother" of military aviation, and has been helped tremendously by the enormous sums that
1036
have been spent on military machines, on research for military machines and on the production of military machines by the Government and by Government agencies. Some companies, in association with the Royal Aircraft Establishment, are to make a research study of this problem of supersonic civil aircraft. Her Majesty's Government acknowledge that the expense involved is far too much for any single company and the companies also acknowledge that same rather obvious fact.
That we need to have economy and to retrench expenditure no one denies; but I am doubtful whether research is the right field for retrenchment. We know, for example, or we have been told, that Russia is spending something like £2,600 million a year on research, while we are spending something like £300 million. I feel that in this field, as in others, if we fall behind in research then indeed our future will be in peril, because it is the research of to-day which provides the machines and methods of to-morrow. We have spent millions, and scores of millions, of pounds of the taxpayers' money on aircraft and aero-engine research in the last twenty or thirty years, and that gives us a right to talk, if nothing else, about the aircraft industry.
In this connection, it is interesting to recall that the first jet engine design, afterwards produced, was patented by Air Commodore Sir Frank Whittle in 1930, and the patent expired in 1935. The design of this engine was the forerunner of all jet and turbo-prop engines of to-day. In 1935 the Air Ministry wrote to Sir Frank Whittle to say that the patent was coming up for renewal and they were not prepared to pay £5 for the renewal fee. Sir Frank Whittle had not got £5 at that time, or could not spare it, so the patent expired and was open to anybody in the world. That is an actual fact; and that is the sort of thing that one comes across, and it shows how dangerous it is to economise in research and in development. I may say that the fact that that patent expired did cause considerable difficulties in the years afterwards—and it was allowed to expire in 1935, only a few years before the war broke out.
The situation which we face to-day, the virtual ending of orders for military machines and research on new types,

1037
should have been foreseen by the industry itself. It was plain enough: the writing was on the wall that very soon there would be a virtual ending of military aircraft, and that we should go in for guided missiles, inter-continental ballistic missiles, and so on. In our debate in this House on December 13 last year, almost a year ago to-day, when my noble friends Lord Pakenham and Lord Winster, and myself, made these points to your Lordships, we pointed out this danger and gave facts and figures to support our contention. My noble friend Lord Pakenham and I (I am not quite sure about Lord Winster, but I expect he agreed with us) pressed for an inquiry into the future of the aircraft industry. We suggested that the situation should be explored by an independent tribunal and the necessary advice given to the Government and to Parliament.
Apart from the question of defence policy decisions, which I have mentioned, the public mind to-day is disturbed, first, by a number of serious accidents in recent months to civil aviation machines; secondly, by a constant series of small but irritating troubles with the Britannias now in service, causing delays; thirdly, by serious delays in the coming into service of the trans-Atlantic Britannia; fourthly, by rumours of American production of trans-Atlantic non-stop liners; and, lastly, by Russia's production of the TU.114, said to be the biggest turbo-prop airliner in the world and able to fly nonstop from Moscow to New York in ten to twelve hours while carrying 170 passengers, or to carry 230 passengers for shorter flights. Let us examine these issues and, in doing so, keep a sense of proportion.
We must realise that this is a very young industry. If any of your Lordships was born fifty-four years ago to-day (aid in your Lordships' House he would be a quite young Member) he would have been born before man, in recorded history, had ever flown in any heavier-than-air machine. So the industry is less than fifty-four years old. A Member of your Lordships' House, who last Wednesday spoke with great verve and vigour, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was the first Britisher to fly and holds the first pilot's licence. So we must remember that we are dealing with a new, young industry. Foreign countries do not, as a general rule,
1038
establish large aircraft industries. They no more expect to build aircraft than bus companies expect to build buses. Most of the countries which run aircraft have State airlines in some form, and they buy their aircraft in the most convenient market: there are very few countries which actually build aircraft as well as use them. We are the pioneers of the jet and turbo-prop airliner. We must recall all that background in dealing with the points I have mentioned.
Let us take a few of those points, one by one: first, the accidents and delays en route. The reasons for this, I think, are that British firms fly, as a rule, rather old or very new aircraft. The charter firms fly rather old aircraft because of the fantastic expense in these days of new aircraft, and they tend to buy their aircraft from the British Overseas Airways Corporation or from British European Airways, which are going in for newer types. The new aircraft are bought and used by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., the two nationalised Corporations. One of the results of the fact that the Corporations buy new British aircraft is that they are expected—or, at least, have done so—to prove these aircraft and to test them. Why aircraft Corporations should be expected to go in for extensive and lengthy series of tests, any more than a transport undertaking running buses or lorries should be expected to undertake extensive tests of new buses or new lorries, I do not know. But so it is with regard to B.O.A.C.; and this has an unfortunate effect on the crews, on the passengers, on the stations abroad and on the reputation of B.O.A.C., particularly, because in this respect B.E.A. have been more fortunate.
I have recently flown a very large mileage with B.O.A.C. in the Britannia. In my view the Britannia is a beautiful aircraft and should be a world-beater—there is no question about that. But, like all new aircraft, it has had a lot of "teething troubles." Little things go wrong. Modern aircraft require a complicated equipment—the electrical system, and so on, is very complicated—and people at such places as Bahrein or Darwin do not necessarily know what has gone wrong so the aircraft has to spend perhaps fourteen or twenty hours sitting on the ground, with a whole load of passengers, while somebody tries to find

1039
out what is wrong with the aircraft, even though it is probably a very minor trouble. This sort of thing, of course, gives B.O.A.C. a bad name. I found right throughout the East—and it was the same in the early days of the Argonaut—people grumbling about these delays of the Britannia, and these aircraft sitting on the ground while people are waiting. It is not to be wondered at. A man who flies by air usually wants to get somewhere quickly, and if he is held up for an indefinite time it worries him.
So far as I was concerned—and I travelled long journeys—my experience was entirely different. From Karachi to Singapore we were half-an-hour late, and I do not think anyone worried about that. On the next trip, from Calcutta to London Airport, we were five minutes early. So my own experience does not substantiate what I have said. Nevertheless, there is a very general experience of delay, although, fortunately, as I say, it was not mine. These matters concerning the Britannia will be worked out—there is no question about that. But the fact is that during this period when aircraft have been tested and proved, B.O.A.C. have lost a certain amount of good will. We can only hope that they will get it back fairly quickly. I shall suggest, a little later, a way in which we can overcome that difficulty.
With regard to B.E.A., they seem very successful. Anyone who has travelled either with B.O.A.C., in a Britannia, or with B.E.A., in a Viscount, never wants to travel in any other aircraft. The Viscount is a beautiful aircraft, like the Britannia. In passing, I should like to say this about B.E.A.—and it is all that I shall say about that Corporation. Under the Act of 1946 they were expected to develop services in this country. They now have a very good network of services in Europe, and I believe that they are going to buy faster and more expensive aircraft and begin to fly to Russia; but there is no doubt in my mind that we in this country are lagging behind in our own internal services. Compared with many other countries which I have been in lately we are definitely behind so far as air services are concerned. Take my own country of Wales. There is no service at all between London and Wales. In fact it takes me longer to-day
1040
to get to my own town in Wales than it took my grandfather eighty years ago. When one remembers the fantastic speeds now being attained, and when we think of Sputniks and all the rest of it, that is rather a sobering thought.
As to the second point I made, about anxieties in the public mind at the delay over the trans-Atlantic air lines, I see that to-day at Bristol, according to the Daily Telegraph, questions about delivery and so on are being considered at a meeting between B.E.A., the Bristol Aeroplane Company and component-manufacturing sub-contractors. They are attempting to deal with these problems which I have mentioned—that is to say problems arising from the fact that many components have been below specification and in some instances, have been delivered late. We are told that instances have been reported of a component being found faulty after being sent as a replacement to a Britannia delayed at an overseas airport. So all these questions of delays and difficulties relating to the supply of parts are being considered to-day.
Let us hope that the manufacturers and the Bristol Company will be able to give a satisfactory answer to B.O.A.C., and also able to give a satisfactory answer with regard to the delay over trans-Atlantic airliners in this country. B.O.A.C. is placed in a most awkward position, because an air corporation plans its future air fleet some ten years ahead, and if it does not have the aircraft coming along at the time it is planned to have them, at the time for which it has given its orders, then the whole of its gearing is thrown completely out and the corporation or airline is put in a most difficult position in relation to its competitors and its public.
We are told that the new Britannia which was supposed to have been in service by this time, will fly for the first time on a trans-Atlantic flight on the 19th of this month. What we are not told is whether a Britannia can do the trans-Atlantic flight with an economic pay- load. That is the important thing. One can fly the Atlantic, but it is quite another thing to be able to fly economically. We should like, and the public would like, to be reassured on that point, because if the Britannia cannot do this flight economically, then, of course, the Britannia and B.O.A.C. will be at a

1041
distinct disadvantage in facing competition. I was glad, as I am sure were all your Lordships, to note that a Britannia belonging to El Al Israel Airlines flew from New York to London in 8 hours, 3 minutes, on Saturday last, with thirty-seven people on board. We congratulate the airline on that flight, and we hope that they will do many more with safety speed and regularity.
Now as to the Comets III and IV. These also are coming into service, and B O.A.C. hope that they will come into service far this trans-Atlantic traffic. At the moment B.O.A.C, are testing the Comet IIE with two of the engines which the Cornet IV will use. But they are running into a lot of trouble, we understand, with icing in the fuel; and that is holding up their production and development of this particular aircraft.
I now turn to the question of R.A.F. Transport Command. Trooping in these
days is done largely by charter companies, for the reason that it is Government
policy that air corporations should not be allowed to tender for trooping
contracts, and that R.A.F. Transport Command has not been enlarged so as to deal with them itself. We on this side regard this system as unfair to the air corporations and as bad public policy. We believe that it is expensive in peace and probably unrealistic for expansion in war. The aircraft are usually rather old; they have usually been bought second-hand from B.O.A.C. or B.E.A., and they would not be very much use if war came suddenly, and there was great need for rapid movement of troops and supplies.
We also have in mind the report of Mr. Henry Phillimore, Q.C., with regard to the Viking which crashed at Blackbushe quite recently. The charter company and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation were criticised by Mr. Henry Phillimore—the company for breaches of regulations, and the Ministry for not having a proper system of pilot tests. It is not necessary to go into all the details now, but the Report of Mr. Phillimore was a very serious matter indeed, and it is one to which the Government should give great attention. I have mentioned a number of these matters to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, so I hope that he will deal with that question to-day. We in Parliament are responsible for this sort of thing. Not only are we
1042
responsible for the Ministry, but also as users and as hirers of the aircraft we are responsible when there is any trooping. It is only right and proper that we should see that every possible test and safeguard is imposed, so that any troops or families of married men in the Forces should have as safe and as comfortable a journey overseas as possible.
We should like to know something of a Comet II Jet Transport Squadron. It flew more than a million miles last year. Thirteen Britannias are now on order for the R.A.F. Transport Command. So these are very welcome developments of the Transport Command that the R.A.F. should themselves be using Comet II's and Britannias for their purposes. I should like to see them extended. I should like to see Transport Command proving British aircraft in the same way as I understand the United States Air Force test aircraft, before they are handed over to users. The policy would be that proving should be done by Transport
Command in conjunction with the manufacturers, and that Transport Command should be considerably enlarged and enhanced for the purpose. It should not be left to B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. or any other user, as it is quite unfair, in my view, that they should carry out this duty.
The makers claim that last year the Britannias flew with B.O.A.C. more hours a day, covered more route miles and carried more passengers than any other airliner has ever carried before in a similar time. That is a very substantial claim, and we congratulate them. The question is whether B.O.A.C. should have had to use such new airliners in this way and whether the R.A.F. should not have assisted in proving the aircraft in cooperation with the makers. Apart from trooping, there is the question of the Army of the future, which is going to be very small, according to what we heard in the short debate which took place in your Lordships' House yesterday. Even according to the most favourable forecasts of the Government, it is not going to be large. It probably means that we should have enough transport aircraft to take the Army we have to trouble spots, should need arise.
As I have said, on December 13 last we demanded an inquiry into the whole of the aircraft industry in the new situation which has arisen. This demand was

1043
rejected by the Government. Now the Industry itself realises that radical changes are needed, but they are divided on what these changes should be. On Monday of this week, Mr. G. H. Freeman, Chairman of the Independent Operators, called for considerable rethinking about the future of the industry and of British air transport. The Government are belatedly taking some action in this field, and since my noble friend Lord Winster and I put our Motions on the Order Paper the following statement was made in another place by the Minister [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 579 (No. 20), col. 23]:
"An inter-departmental examination of the problems involved in this transition, including the future of Government policy on aeronautical research, is now being made. The Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee, which keeps under constant review all possible outlets for British Transport Aircraft, is also in present circumstances inviting the Society of British Aircraft Constructors into its discussions.
"Lastly, it is desirable that the industry should re-shape itself into stronger units. I have accordingly intimated to the industry that in placing orders for further requirements the Government will be influenced not only by the quality of design but also by the resources, technical and financial, available to complete the project quickly and successfully; and that, in so far as these criteria are not met in isolation, the Government will require the chosen contractor to work in association with one or more other contractors."
That, of course, is a very considerable interference by the Government in the private sector of the aircraft industry. By this statement the Government acknowledge not only the need for an inquiry but also the serious situation which the aircraft industry will face if it does not rationalise itself or become rationalised in the near future. While thanking the Government for a move forward by having an inquiry, I would object to the Government's policy, first, because only the Departments involved and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors are going to be concerned in the inquiry. I know that the Society of British Aircraft Constructors are very divided on what future policy should be. Secondly, apparently none of the users are represented in this inquiry, either the Corporations or the charter companies; nor are the trade unions and professional organisations, of pilots and so on, represented. None of the parties concerned are independent; they are very much involved and financially interested in the solution of the problem.
I feel that what is needed—and I am sure that I speak here also for my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who unfortunately is not able to be present to-day owing to a business engagement in Ireland, but who would have supported me—is a court or commission or committee of inquiry, independent of the Government and of the industry, to go into the whole question of the structure and future of the aircraft industry and make recommendations, so that Government and Parliament may study them. It is by no means impossible to get such a committee, and it would follow the usual practice in this country when we are in a difficulty such as we are in to-day in regard to the aircraft industry.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say—because I am sure that he did not intend to mislead your Lordships—that he did give the impression that the charter companies had practically no modern aircraft? I think the facts are that practically every one of the major charter companies has several Viscounts and some other modern aircraft as well. Perhaps the noble Lord could answer that point.
LORD OGMORE: Yes, my Lords, I am sure they have; but generally speaking, I think it is true to say that, with exceptions, the more expensive long-range aircraft, such as the Hermes and the York, have had to be bought by the Corporations or by the charter companies at second-hand. I am not blaming the charter companies, but the colossal expense of these aircraft make it difficult for them to get the necessary finance to buy new aircraft. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
LORD WINSTERhad given Notice of a Motion to call attention to matters concerned with civil aviation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name in the Order Paper, which I shall subsequently ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw, I trust that at the end of the debate your Lordships will allow me to reply or refer to any points which are raised in regard to what I may say. I feel that the first words I must say this afternoon are words of deep regret at the tragedy which has befallen civil aviation by the death of Mr. McIntyre. He was a remarkable man.

1045
He designed aircraft; he built aircraft; he flew aircraft. He was an asset of the greatest value to the civil aviation industry. I had a great deal to do with him at one time, when I think he felt, mistakenly, that I was not a good friend to Prestwick, and he fought his corner very well. Our discussions left me with a warm admiration for him. I am sure that all who are connected with civil aviation will share the regret which I have voiced at his untimely death. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ogmore, with reservations, on a speech that has not left much meat on the bone for me to gnaw at. It is none the worse for that.
I feel that the future of British civil aviation has now to be considered in the light of the expert estimates that air traffic might well quadruple in the course of the coming decade. That seems to me to be the fact that should govern the whole situation in civil aviation to-day. We must face it: we have a long leeway to catch up to get a lead. Taking the percentages of world scheduled capacity in 1955, we find that the United States figure was 62·8 and the British only 4·8, which was in itself a drop on the figures for 1951. Unfortunately, the graph of British civil aviation shows a falling curve. As I have quoted America and as I shall have to quote America again in the course of my remarks, I should like to make it very clear that I am not one of those who are always exalting what is done in America at the price of what is done in our own country. The American civil aviation industry has some magnificent achievements to its credit, fully deserving our admiration, but we also have very fine achievements to our credit and we must not exalt what is done in America at the expense of our own industry.
The two national Corporations have done well in the face of great difficulties about their aircraft. However, there is one gap in the work of B.O.A.C. In 1946 we had a British service to South America; to-day we have not, and we have not had one for a long time. I think that perhaps it was a mistake to absorb B.S.A.A., because "out of sight, out of mind," and once B.S.A.A. was incorporated in B.O.A.C. it tended to slip from memory. I hope that the Minister will insist upon early priority being given to reconstituting that service. The gap
1046
is especially lamentable in view of the possibilities of South American markets, and it does our export trade no good when we are not represented by an air service on the South American routes.
The growth in air traffic to which I have referred raises the question of whether the two Corporations will be able to cope with that great increase in air traffic. Can we expect B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to handle that increase without involving questions of their optimum size? I have tried to make some inquiries into this question of optimum size for an airline, and it is difficult to arrive at any yardstick by which one can measure that question. I have never seen a completely satisfactory solution of it. But some people think that the two Corporations are getting near a point where further expansion might possibly be detrimental to their working. On this account, I feel that the position of the independent operators should now be reviewed. It is a matter which should not be decided in accordance with political doctrines or prejudices; what matters is the national advantage. A few licences to operate scheduled services have been granted to independents—nothing very remunerative or important. Nevertheless, the principle has been established and that is something.
Perhaps it is not always recognised that the twenty-one independent operators
are a valuable national commercial asset. They operate 152 million capacity ton
miles annually, which is one-third of the total operated by the British airline industry. They employ 700 pilots—in fact. I am not sure that they do not employ more, but the figure I have is 700. They have their part in national defence; and this question of pilots and of crews is of first importance in the event of war, because I imagine that the number of crews disposed of by Transport Command is not very large. Yet, in spite of the importance of these independent operators, I should describe them as getting the lean of the traffic and very little of the fat. Charter trooping is not very remunerative, and the tenure of the contracts is precarious.
The result is that the independents, as a body, have not got the financial resources necessary for re-equipping their fleets—after all, a Britannia costs £1¼ million to buy—and, this being so, I

1047
doubt whether some can continue indefinitely to operate independently. I should like to see the Government examine the possibility of giving the independent operators more of what I would call Government fetch-and-carry business, in addition to trooping. I cannot help feeling that there must be room for expansion here which would benefit the independents and the taxpayers alike. But the fact stares us in the face that, unless the independent operators are provided with business on a scale enabling them to renew their fleets—which, incidentally, would benefit the aircraft industry—they will be unable to compete for foreign charters and so earn foreign currency.
Foreign operators have modern aircraft; our independents have not, and with their obsolescent aircraft they cannot compete against the prices which their rivals are able to quote. In France, national and private airlines operate cooperatively and in amity. In the United States we find the operators sharing routes. Air France operates in conjunction with five independent companies. On the long routes, Air France and the French independents take 50 per cent. each, and on the short routes Air France takes 60 per cent. and the independents 40 per cent. As a result of their being given this well-worth-while share in the business, the French independents are well equipped; two of them have Super-Constellations on order, and some of them have the new big American jets on order. I do not know of any of our independent operators who have been able to place similar orders for the newest aircraft.
I should like to turn now to the question of Atlantic traffic. The North Atlantic is the prestige route. If we are top there, we shall at once begin to see the results in our aircraft export markets. The airline industry of the world does about £1 million worth of Atlantic business yearly. Our share of this, I am sorry to say, is disappointing. Since 1953 eastbound traffic has declined; westward traffic has been showing a slight increase. The Pan-American line shows increases. I quite realise the importance of the question of aircraft in this respect, but still, these are the figures. France and Holland have made remark-
1048
able progress, while we are struggling hard to keep in second place.
If British passenger figures are disappointing, the cargo figures are still more so; and I am sure that freight traffic is going to play an increasingly important part in the air traffic industry in the future. In 1956 Pan-American carried over 4,000 tons; B.O.A.C. carried just 1,000 tons. There are five all-cargo freight services operating on the North Atlantic route and not one of them is British, although K.L.M. have been operating a freight service for ten years. I think we are entitled to look to the aircraft industry and the air traffic industry to emulate the great achievements of our shipbuilders in the past and to build up for us similarly a supreme merchant navy in the air.
I do not wish to join in any depreciation of the aircraft industry. This year is expected to set a record for exports. Up to date, the exports are running at the rate of about £105 million a year—that, I think, is a very fine result. Aero-engine sales are up also at over £32 million. In fact, the aircraft industry to-day is nearly the largest earner of export currency, which is a magnificent result. I am sure that the spirit which increasingly animates our aircraft industry is not that of keeping up with America, but of getting ahead and keeping ahead of America.
I heard what was said about an inquiry into the aircraft industry. I certainly favoured that proposal some time ago, but I am wondering now whether, instead of an inquiry, which would take the heads of the industry and their key men away from their work in order to give evidence, prepare briefs, and so on, and might set projects back, the new movement for amalgamation and grouping of the aircraft industry and of greater co-operation between the firms may not on balance be the best way to proceed. Suitable firms should be invited and encouraged to cooperate in such ideas as the supersonic liner to cross the Atlantic in three hours, and in such questions as vertical take-off and landing. The co-ordination of scientists and technicians in research and development of such projects is essential and would give great speed to their accomplishment; it would accomplish things which are beyond the powers of individual firms. Such co-ordination would economise scientific and technical

1049
manpower, which is none too thick on the ground. For instance, in draughtsmen there has been, although there is not at this moment, a considerable shortage.
I have quoted the export figures for this year, and with wholehearted Government support, which I hope and feel will be forthcoming, yet higher figures of exports can be achieved, although, of course, export sales are likely to become more difficult because airlines are getting short of cash for buying new aircraft, and credit is not so easy to get. I notice that some Commonwealth orders have gone to America because Lockheed's could offer credits which were absolutely beyond the power of our firms to offer. France is proposing at this moment very heavy subsidies for her national aircraft industry. Our share of the air transport market is about 5 per cent. We ought to get more, and that is why I have ventured this afternoon to urge the case for individual operators, for one reason in particular: that they ought to be good customers of our aircraft industry, which they are not at the present time.
My noble friend Lord Ogmore has referred to the diminution of orders for military aircraft which will affect the industry. To my mind, the answer is a smaller number of stronger firms. I see that the general manager of Avro agrees that there is no room in the industry for all the present firms, and that re-grouping into larger units is essential. De Havilland and Saunders Roe have already gat together. The general manager says he thinks that three major aircraft firms and two engine firms can handle the business, but he regards the Hawker Siddeley group as one entity of those three. It costs about £20 million to develop a civil aircraft. How many firms can afford that sum, especially to-day when capital is no longer easy to raise? I think there are too many small firms, and to support them a firm getting a good Government contract is expected to farm out some of the work to other firms. I believe that the 2,000-mile ballistic missile is being developed in that way.
What we want is not sub-contracting, but amalgamation of firms. The small firms—many are efficient—do well, because they take on only what is within their capacity. But their capacity is not
1050
large, and one big firm is worth many small firms in the maintenance of a large potential capacity. I think the small firms have grown up because the Ministry of Supply have tried to give every firm some work, with the laudable object of trying to maintain a large manufacturing aircraft potential in this country in the event of war. But some of the firms they have favoured in this way have simply not got the equipment and office personnel to handle the work. I think that that policy on the part of the Ministry of Supply, if I have quoted it correctly, has been a failure, and that firms have been preserved which did not, in the national interest, deserve to be maintained.
You cannot build an aircraft in a garage with inadequate tools. I have heard it said that out of the twenty-seven or thirty firms in this country, only two or three can work on the American scale, although they are fully equal to matching America in work. Here I must mention one of my strong beliefs, about which I fully expect there will be a considerable difference of opinion. I feel that some delays and disappointments have arisen because the firms have put their own engines into their own aircraft. I have seen suggestions that it should be laid down that aircraft constructors are not to be allowed to build engines. That is a very large question—far too largo to argue here—but I feel that there is something in it, and therefore I mention it.
Referring again to the question of an inquiry into the aircraft industry, I have sometimes wondered whether civil aviation would be better served by an inquiry into the Ministry of Supply. It is a much-criticised Ministry, a Ministry like Wordsworth's maid,
"Whom there were none to praise
And very few to love."
It is an extremely exceptional thing to hear a good word spoken for the Ministry of Supply, but my own belief is that in many respects they have probably been very useful to the aircraft firms, although I shall always think it is a mistake to interpose that Ministry between the user and the aircraft industry. A great handicap to our aircraft industry, as compared with civil aviation in America, is the enormous benefits that American civil aviation has received, not only through the large orders which

1051
they get from the Services but from the enormous number of flying hours, test and development work which is carried out for them by the American Services. I do not know what we can do in that respect, but undoubtedly it gives our American competitors an enormous lead over ourselves.
As regards the export market in the future, the potential of this market for turbo-jet and turbo-prop is enormous. Reliable estimates say that in the next ten years the demand may be in the nature of £3,000 million for jet, and only a little less for turbo-prop. Orders already placed are £700 million for jet and £300 million for turbo-prop. If we are to get our share of this £6,000 million worth of orders which the future offers, development work must no longer fall entirely upon manufacturers, the corporations and the independent operators: there must be Government and civil partnership to get our share of these glittering prizes. If I may venture to do so, so that we may get our share of these prizes, I should like to give the Government a motto: Think wisely; plan boldly; act swiftly, and plan twenty years ahead.
In our planning we have the great advantage of the finest engine designers in the world and some of the finest aircraft designers. An inter-departmental inquiry is proceeding into research. I think that in recent times Government expenditure on research has dropped by some 15 per cent. I hope that it will not go any lower. It would be disastrous if research were to be starved. If it is starved, the aircraft industry will fail just when the prospects are so good. We cannot expect our industry to face up to foreign competition unless the Government plays its full, even increasing, part in research. My Lords, I should like to say this about research. Any slow-down on research will not merely be felt by the aircraft industry; it will be felt over a very wide field. Lord Halsbury has gone on record as saying that the aircraft industry:
"tackles, solves and dominates solution of problem which no other branch of engineering would attempt. By remaining in the forefront of aeronautical engineering we keep our position in the forefront of general engineering."
1052
Radio, radar, shipbuilding, have all benefited from the research into aeronautical engineering.
My Lords, at the end of what I want to say I should like to say a word or two about the Britannia. I think the Britannia has been rather badly knocked by the Press, and by others, too. After all, there have been great disappointments, to which my noble friend Lord Ogmore has referred, and I have no doubt whatever of the damage which delays and accidents have caused in the Far East and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the Britannia has sonic achievements to its credit. It has just clipped 23 minutes off the New York—London record, which is something. It is the only long-range aircraft powered by gas turbines in the world. It is highly thought of. There are 78 of them on order, including some for countries overseas—Canada, America. Mexico, Israel and Cuba. It must be remembered that the Britannia flies what are, I suppose, the longest and most exacting air routes in the air traffic industry, and it is flying about one million miles monthly. Certainly no one would wish to deny that there are delays in deliveries, but the utilisation figures are now very high—in fact they are excelled in the first nine months only by the D.C.7C. The Proteus engine, which began with a permitted life of 500 hours, has now a permitted life of 1,050 hours, and that permitted life is expected to go higher still. The delays are certainly very bad, but I would say that they are partly due to the fact that the Comet accidents called for a series of additional tests, which of course occupied very much time. The icing trouble now seems to have been solved. It is hoped and expected that the 310 will be flying non-stop from London to New York before the end of the year. I hope that the Britannia is going to repeat the success of the Viscount; and, if so, it should for some years be the only long-range turbine-powered aircraft in service in the world.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is just leaving the Chamber. I feel that his appointment to B.E.A. has been very much to the advantage of the corporation and to the cause of civil aviation, but, most unfortunately, it deprives us of the advantage of having his counsel and advice in these debates. If I

1053
may be allowed to speak for him, I remember a conversation with him a long time ago when we were discussing airports. The noble Lord put forward the suggestion that London will require three airports, London Airport, Gatwick and Southend; and he made the most interesting suggestion that those three airports might be administered and guided by a similar organisation to the Port of London Authority. We have the Port of London Authority, and the noble Lord had it in mind that we might have a London Airport Authority. I do not think the noble Lord will mind my mentioning that conversation, because it took place some time ago before he had assumed his new duties.
The last thing I wish to say is this: that, on reflection, it seems to me, and has for a long time, that no one Minister is charged with guiding the development of British civil aviation. We have a Minister of Civil Aviation, but his duties are regulatory; he says, "Yes" or he says "No," as a good nurse does; and he regulates. But what is wanted is an inspiring leader who encourages the development of the industry. The same thing is true of the Air Transport Advisory Council. The American Civil Aeronautics Board is specifically charged with—I quote:
"the encouragement and development"
of air transport systems,
"properly adapted to the present and future needs, foreign and domestic, of the United States, the Postal Service and of national defence".
That is the actual quotation of the duties of the C.A.B. It is that, my Lords, that I feel civil aviation in this country lacks—one Minister charged with the encouragement and development of air transport, as well as with its administration. I feel that if in the future we can get that, there will be no fear whatsoever but that this country will gain its full share of what I have ventured to describe as the glittering prizes which await the aircraft industry in the future.
4.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in your Lordships' debate on this subject exactly a year ago my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who is the Chairman of the Scottish Industrial Development. Council, but who unfortunately cannot be here to-day, raised a number of matters relative to the future of civil aviation in
1054
Scotland, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to pursue that subject for a few minutes, although I am afraid I cannot talk about it with so much knowledge as Lord Polwarth.
I should like first to remind your Lordships that the number of people in Scotland who are availing themselves of air transport is increasing very rapidly, I think by about 25 per cent, every year, so that any estimates which we can make now, whether those estimates relate to the finance of any new service or to its indirect benefits to business and commercial activity, may well be out of date in a few years' time.
The first point which my noble friend, Lord Polwarth raised last year was the absence of any civil airfield in the area of Eastern Scotland, which comprises Dundee, Perth, Angus and Fife. All the trains from all these places to Edinburgh and Glasgow seem to be carefully arranged in such a way that one cannot possibly catch the early morning aeroplane to London; and business and professional men, who now have to go to London to an increasing extent, sometimes for business purposes which may not last more than a few hours, instead of being able to get the whole thing done in a day may often have to travel all the way by rail, giving up forty-eight hours of their time and spending a night in London to the considerable expense of their firms and perhaps to the even greater expense of the Revenue.
At present the only airfield in this area which is owned, but not used, by the
Ministry of Civil Aviation is the airfield at Errol. I do not know how much it would cost to adapt this airfield and make it serviceable for the use of the new Viscount aircraft which I understand British European Airways are soon to use entirely for their domestic services. I understand that B.E.A. have lately been good enough to consider the implications of an air service from Errol and that they produced some figures on the finance of the proposition based on having not a Viscount service but a service using a smaller aircraft, the Heron, which holds only thirteen or fourteen passengers. I understand that their figures show that the loss would be too great to justify the service. I cannot possibly criticise the figures which they produced, although I thought that some of the items were

1055
perhaps slightly inflated; and I do not think that any allowance was made on the credit side for the extra number of passengers which might result on journeys from Turnhouse or Renfrew to London. But B.E.A. cannot, of course, be compelled to run a service which they believe is going to lose them a large amount of money; nor, in my view, can we blame them for being cautious in their estimates.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government not to abandon possession of the unused airfield at Errol, but to retain it for the time being in the hope that future developments in air traffic and in industry may justify the adaptation and use of this airfield to give a satisfactory service to the district. If that should prove impracticable, there is an alternative suggestion which I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, at the beginning of his speech, mentioned impending changes in our Defence policy and our Defence requirements, and it may be that those changes might make it possible for the military aerodrome at Leuchars to be used partly for civil purposes. Obviously, it is not possible to produce now any figures, either about finance or about the volume of traffic, for, clearly, those would depend on the needs of the Air Ministry. But I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider that matter, because the lack of an airfield in the East of Scotland is now, and will become even more in the future, a serious handicap to commercial and business activity in the whole area.
There is only one other question that I want to ask about domestic air transport, and it concerns the Highland airfields. When B.E.A. announced that in future they would use only Viscounts instead of Dakotas, a great many people wondered what would be done with small Highland airfields, like Kirkwall, Islay, and Macrihanish. To give one example, I should not have thought there was room to extend the runway on the airfield at Sumburgh in Shetland in any direction at all. People want to know whether these Highland airfields are now to be adapted for Viscounts, or whether passenger flights are to be continued with some smaller type of aircraft.
If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to conclude with one word about the Scottish airport which is of not local but of international importance
1056
—Prestwick—which in our debate last year was described by the Minister who replied for Her Majesty's Government as a second international airport in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government are now spending money on extending the runway at Prestwick to make it suitable for Britannia aircraft, and they have also decided that a new air terminal will be necessary and will have to be built. But people in Scotland are rather concerned that while this extension (I believe to a total of 7,500 feet) for Britannia aircraft is being carried out. nothing is being done to make the runway suitable for the American jet airliners, the Boeing 707s and the D.C.8s, which are to be used exclusively in future for transatlantic air traffic from the other side. In our debate on December 13 last year my noble friend Lord Polwarth particularly stressed this matter, pointing out to Her Majesty's Government that Trans-Canada Airlines had announced their intention of using nothing but D.C.8s after May, 1960. He then said that he thought that would mean that the Prestwick runway would have to be enlarged to something between 9,000 feet and 10,000 feet, which is perfectly possible without going too near to the railway; and the noble Lord then asked Her Majesty's Government for an assurance that the necessary adaptations at Prestwick would be carried out.
So the Scottish Council was a little surprised and disconcerted to be informed, about six months ago, when they had a joint meeting with my noble friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, that Her Majesty's Government could not yet do anything about adapting Prestwick for these D.C.8s, because they had received no official information to the effect that the Canadians wanted to use the airport for these large aircraft, or any information about the dimensions of the runway which would be required. The Scottish Council accordingly wrote to Trans-Canada Airlines to find out what was happening, and at the end of August they received a reply from Trans-Canada Airlines. This is the letter, dated August 30, from Mr. G. R. McGregor, the President of Trans-Canada Airlines, to the Scottish Council:
"It is somewhat exasperating to learn from your letter of 15th August that doubt exists with respect to Trans-Canada Airlines' desire

1057
to operate D.C.8 aircraft through Prestwick and that present plans do not make provision for the runway requirement associated with such an operation. Let me repeat in more specific terms that Trans-Canada Airlines expect to be using only D.C.8 Rolls-Royce Conway-powered aircraft in its transatlantic service after May, 1960. It is this company's strong desire to continue to serve the Scottish market after the D.C.8s have replaced the Super-Constellations, at any rate in transatlantic service. The Company's plans for 1960 provided for four flights per week from Prestwick, one of which would be non-stop to and from Toronto, and the other three nonstop to and from Montreal."
He goes on to say that the D.C.8 will require a primary runway of 9,050 feet—a little less than the estimate of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth—although longer runways might be preferable for extremes of temperature and loading. He continues:
"T.C.A.'s desires in the matter of Prestwick runways were communicated to I.A.T.A."—
that, I think, means International Air Transport Association—
"London, on December 14, 1956, but I do not feel that it would be proper for T.C.A. as a Canadian airline to express its needs in the matter of airport facilities directly to the British Government. However, as there continues to be inexplicable delay in such information reaching the British authorities through I.A.T.A. and I.C.A.O."—
that, I think, means International Civil Aviation Organisation—
"channels, I will ask the Canadian Government Air Authority to convey to the British Government information as to the immediate runway requirements of Prestwick associated with a D.C.8 operation."
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether these extensions to the runway would affect Troon or Prestwick golf courses, which would, of course, be a national tragedy?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I understand there is a level-crossing. Of course, golfers might be held up for a few minutes on their way to golf, but I do not think that that would be serious, and I understand that the County Council for Ayr have a plan for eventually making a by-pass round the whole airport. I hope that the noble Lord, if he goes there, will continue to enjoy his game of golf. But one difficulty which some of us have in following out a matter of this kind is that all these great international organisations like I.A.T.A. and I.C.A.O., and so on, which control the civil aviation of the Western world, do not seem to be what one might call really "matey"
1058
about talking to each other: they seem to be governed by some kind of Byzantine etiquette which requires them to address communications to each other only through some carefully graded international hierarchy. It is rather like the game called. Russian scandal, in which everybody has to repeat sonic remark to his neighbour in a whisper so that by the time it reaches the end of the line the message is not always quite the same as when it began.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Mancroft, when he replies, may be able to assure us that this piece of information, which everybody else seems to have had twelve months ago, has now percolated through all the appropriate channels and has at last reached the ears of the British Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I think it is important that it should reach his ears soon. because, if the Government are carrying out this extension of the runway to 7,500 feet for the Britannia, surely it would be more economical to carry out the whole extension to 9,000 or 9,500 feet at the same time. We have only two and a half years before May, 1960, by which time the Canadians will have switched exclusively to the use of these D.C.8's.
The Canadian, the American and the Scandinavian air services all particularly want to use Prestwick, and the proportion of traffic at Prestwick is increasing more rapidly than it is in London. To take the figures for last year, and for the year before, in 1955–56 the number of passengers to and from Canada through Prestwick was 14,000 and in 1956–57 it went up to 20,000. In London, the corresponding figures were 46,000 in 1955–56, and 55,000 in 1956–57. When you reduce these figures to percentages you find that the total percentage of traffic through Prestwick increased from 24 to 26 per cent., while through London it fell from 75 to 72 per cent. In case any of your Lordships have taken the trouble to add up these percentages and find they total only 99, perhaps I should mention that the remaining 1 per cent. is in respect of Manchester. Taking the corresponding figures for the United States, we find that the Prestwick percentage went up from 17 to 18 per cent. in the last year, while the London percentage fell from 80 to 79 per cent. In view of these figures I was a little alarmed, perhaps quite unnecessarily so, to hear on the eight o'clock

1059
news bulletin yesterday morning, I think, the statement that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation had now decided that a third airport besides Gatwick in the London Area was necessary, but he said nothing whatever about Prestwick.
The importance to our trade of developing Prestwick is very great indeed. The
future development in trade with. North America will depend very much on better facilities in quick transit of businessmen and traders more directly and more quickly from one side of the Atlantic to another. I think this is particularly true in the case of Canada, where we have such a great potential market waiting for us to send our goods, but in which our great handicap has been for so long the lack of personal contact and the delays in communications between British and Canadian businessmen. I most strongly urge the Government to proceed as quickly as they can now with the necessary extensions at Prestwick airport, whose adaptation to the needs of these most modern trans-Atlantic airliners is really vital to the successful development of British trade and commerce with the dollar market in North America.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will forgive me if I do not follow him into the realm of Scotland: when I go to Scotland I prefer to go by car, and to motor slowly through its lovely countryside. I think we should be very grateful to my noble friends Lord Ogmore and Lord Winster for having brought this important subject before your Lordships' House this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, somewhat chided the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for leaving very little meat on the bone. After listening to the speech of my noble friend Lord Winster, I cannot help feeling rather like Mother Hubbard in finding the cupboard completely bare.
I wish, however, this afternoon to say a few words on my reasons for supporting the call for an inquiry that is being made in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Ogmore. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Government announced (I believe it was last week) that they had set up an inter-departmental committee to go into the question of British aircraft. On December 9 the Minister of Supply was asked what were
1060
the terms of reference of that particular Committee, and these are the terms of reference which he gave:
"…to assess the national importance of the industry and, in the light of this assessment and of recent defence changes, to make recommendations to Ministers on future Government policy towards the industry and, in particular, on the scale on which the Government should continue to support aeronautical research."
Looking at those terms of reference, I cannot help feeling that they are limited to our present requirements and are the result of recent defence changes.
What I should like to see, having regard to the importance of the aircraft industry, now and in the immediate future, is a full inquiry into the question of what the requirements are likely to be in, say, ten years' time and to decide whether the industry as now constituted is capable of meeting our civil requirements and our defence requirements. From the information available to me, I share the opinion that the vast amount of capital required for the modern aircraft industry is at present spread over too many independent aircraft companies, each of which is developing its own projects. I feel that what we need is concentration of effort and knowledge; not dilution. The Minister of Supply, in another place, on December 2, rather confirmed this view, when he said that in his opinion it was desirable that the industry should re-shape itself into stronger units.
I do not wish this afternoon to discuss the merits of free enterprise and competition: I am prepared to accept that there must be an element of competition in the aircraft industry. But I believe that there is a very strong case for amalgamation of the existing independent aircraft companies into, say, two or three groups. It is argued that competition brings incentive and keenest prices, but I believe that in an industry which is as complicated as the aircraft industry, which requires considerable sums of money for research and development, and, finally, for the production of aircraft, excessive competition is wasteful. Many of our famous companies have great traditions, and I can well understand that they will be loth to amalgamate. But I believe that they will do so if it can be proved to them that it is in the national interest. That, I believe, would be one of the results of an impartial and full inquiry.

1061
The Government's recent suggestion for bringing about amalgamation was the withholding of contracts. I do not believe that this policy is the answer to the problem. It is, in my opinion, a negative attitude and it will result only in curtailment, if not a holding up, of long-term research. I have said that I accept the principle of competition, but, when we remember that in this country the tax-payer already contributes very large sums of money to the industry for research, I feel that, if competition is to be retained, then these new groups should be under a duty to share the information resulting from their research, so that each can enjoy the fruits of whatever progress has been made by the other companies.
I believe that the Government and the civil airline operators should clearly state what their requirements are going to be, so that in research and development the industry can have a sound and consistent policy. I believe that today in the aircraft industry there is considerable concern over uncertainties relating to the defence policy of the present Government. I am quite satisfied of the technical ability of our aircraft industry and its skilled employees to produce the aircraft that will meet our requirements in any distant future, but I believe that an inquiry should be held to consider whether the industry, as it is now constituted, having designed and developed the aircraft, is capable of producing them in sufficient quantities to exploit all the sales potential that may arise.
With regard to delivery, I do not think there has been for many a year a debate in your Lordships' House on defence in which there has not been criticism of delay in the delivery of aircraft to the Services. Take the case of the Hunter. I noted the other day that one hundred Hunters had recently been ordered by the Swiss Government, but they will not get delivery until December, 1959. In the case of the Britannia, there was at one time considerable interest in America, but again it appeared that delivery was the biggest problem. I have often wondered, if there had been the productive capacity for 'Vickers, just how many Viscounts could have been sold. Success in an industry is not a question purely of design and development; it lies also in the ability to produce in sufficient quantities, to ensure that the buyer obtains full satisfaction. I believe that there may be
1062
many other reasons why an inquiry into the aircraft industry should be held. I have dealt only with two, but I earnestly ask the Government to give this matter very careful consideration. It does not just affect the present Government; it may well affect the wellbeing and the liberty of this country many years hence.
That brings me to the Royal Air Force Transport Command. I cannot help feeling that this Command is pathetically weak, and at present is incapable of meeting its obligations under the various defence treaties. This, again, I believe is largely an economic matter. What funds have been available for the R.A.F. have, naturally, gone largely into the Bomber and Fighter Commands. In view of our responsibilities under the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of an emergency in the Far East, and in the event of India. Ceylon or Pakistan refusing permits to military aircraft or civil aircraft carrying troops to land in those territories, we have any aircraft to-day, in sufficient quantities, capable of moving troops in effective strength to distant bases to meet our obligations under this Treaty. No doubt we could call on the independent airlines, and upon B.O.A.C., to provide aircraft. But I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that all these three groups—the independent airlines, Transport Command and B.O.A.C. all fly different types of aircraft. Can you imagine, with an emergency over some period, the chaos that would quickly arise through flying so many different types of aircraft? I believe that there is a very great case for standardisation of our transport aircraft, and that the airlines and Transport Command should seriously get down to deciding what type of air-craft is suitable for their requirements.
In conclusion, I should like to speak briefly on a matter which I believe is causing great concern to airline operators—that is the maintenance and development of existing international airports, and the provision of alternative airports or landing grounds. So far as Europe is concerned I do not think there is any major problem. Nearly every main city in Europe has an international airport. Spread across Europe are big civil and military airfields. But the position is very different when you get beyond the Middle East into the Far East.

1063
There, airports become few and far between. As aircraft become bigger, faster and more numerous, so these landing grounds will have to expand and be equipped with the latest radio and radar equipment. The personnel will need to be of the highest calibre and fully trained. All these requirements will need large sums of money, and higher costs will have to be met everywhere, but—let us face it—in the Far East and in the Middle East many countries are relatively poor, and they will be extremely loth to find the ever-increasing amount of money that will be required.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government: who is responsible for seeing that all these airfields are kept up to a standard that will keep abreast of the advances in aircraft, and who is responsible for seeing that the maintenance of fire and rescue equipment on all these airfields is in sound and proper condition? I ask this question because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows the old Singapore airfield well and can recall the terrible accident a few years ago, when, if there had been proper rescue and fire equipment available, many people who died in the most terrible circumstances could have been saved. To sum up, are we satisfied that the aircraft industry, as now constituted, can provide, efficiently and economically, the civil and defence requirements of this country to-day and in, say, ten years' time? Are we satisfied that the taxpayer, who is contributing large sums of money to research, is getting value for his money? Are we advancing with the times and really exploiting our undoubted ability in aircraft production? I have my doubts, and therefore I support the call for an inquiry into the aircraft industry.
4.53 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is no easy task for a Minister without Portfolio to face an offensive launched by two noble Lords who have both in their turn held the portfolio of Civil Aviation. I use the word "offensive" only in its technical sense. Though both noble Lords have been critical at times, they have been constructive and helpful, and I should like to thank them for the attitude they have adopted.
1064
The most important point which has been raised this afternoon is the one which features in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—namely, the need for an outside inquiry into the British aircraft industry. If I may, I should like to deal with that first. The situation arising from the reduction of
military orders following the rearmament peak is being closely reviewed by Her Majesty's Government. We hope that the surplus design and manufacturing capacity which will be thrown up by the curtailment of military work will be made good, to some extent, by expanding business on the civil aircraft side. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, emphasised the rate and growth of that business. I would remind your Lordships of one figure only: the passenger figures for London aircraft alone show an increase of about 16 per cent. every year; so obviously, as the noble Lord rightly says, we have to face the prospect of great expansion.
A number of extremely promising projects are planned and, in some cases, are already under development, which should make a substantial contribution to the continued well-being of the industry. I shall have more to say about them anon. At the same time, the plain fact must be faced that the total size of the industry must contract, and, in order to remain fully efficient, the industry will need to reorganise itself into a relatively small number of more compact and more powerful groups. The Government, as your Lordships know, are already using their influence to further this general objective. I am afraid that it will not be welcomed in all quarters—there is evidence of that already—but it has become inevitable. As your Lordships know, my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply has made it clear that in placing contracts for fresh aircraft projects, whether military or civil, he will have regard not only to the excellence of the designs submitted but also to the general strength, in financial, physical and technical resources, of the companies concerned, and where the job cannot be done satisfactorily in isolation, the chosen contractor will be required to work in association with one or more other contractors.
There has been reference this afternoon to the departmental review which is now under way. I hope that, as the result of this searching review which is now in

1065
hand, the Government decisions of policy on the main issues facing the aircraft industry will be announced in the spring of next year. I am afraid that I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that in the Government's view no useful purpose would be served by an outside inquiry, for this reason: all the relevant information about the aircraft industry is at the Government's disposal and there is no significant difference of opinion, so far as I know, about the basic facts. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that an outside inquiry would only take up precious time in going over ground which is already familiar to us all. The problems facing the industry, so long as they are not problems primarily for solution by the industry itself, are matters on which the Government alone can take decisions, and it could only hold up these decisions if formal machinery were set up to elucidate and pronounce upon a situation which is by now pretty clear. It is far better to proceed by the usual method of departmental and interdepartmental study, culminating in Ministerial decisions on specific issues with the least possible delay.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, would that be like the departmental decision not to pay £5 to renew Air Commodore "Whittle's licence?
LORD MANCROFT: I was astonished to hear that story. I am sure it is quite true, but I should like to hear "the dog's tail". There must be another side to the story. I was not taking much interest in the matter in those days, but now I am taking a keen interest.
In the course which the Government have chosen there will not be the slightest difficulty in arranging for outside opinion, whether from the management of airlines or from the trade unions, to be obtained by Ministers and their Departments in the ordinary way, without the delay which I think would be inseparable from the full-dress inquiry which the noble Lord wants us to have.
Perhaps the most important of the decisions to be taken by the Government will relate to the extent to which it will be Government policy to support the aircraft industry by basic aeronautical research, carried out in the Ministry of Supply establishments, and by Government research contracts with the industry
1066
and the universities. So far as development, as distinct from research, is concerned, we hope that the reorganisation and strengthening of the industry will result in manufacturers being themselves in a position to finance both the development and the production of fresh aircraft projects. This, of course, does not exclude the possibility that certain major projects which it may be decided to launch will continue, by reason of their size, to require some measure of Government investment.
Already, however, there are encouraging signs of the aircraft industry's readiness to undertake development and production on a private venture basis. For instance, the new B.O.A.C. aircraft, the Vickers VC.10, is being financed on a purely private venture basis. I hope that an announcement will be made shortly of a new medium-range jet aircraft for B.E.A., and that this aircraft will be wholly privately financed by both the airframe and the engine manufacturers. I see the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, in his place wearing a particularly sphinx-like expression, but we shall all look forward to hearing the result of this in due course. This would follow the precedent set up by the turbo-prop Vanguard airframe, now under development to supplement the Viscount in the fleets of B.E.A. and of overseas operators.
The services of the Ministry of Supply and Ministry Establishments, especially the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, are, of course, at the disposal of the manufacturers to assist them in their ventures, and I expect that extensive use will continue to be made of these facilities.
The next most important matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and your Lordships have referred is the question of the future prospects of British mainline civil aircraft. Let me remind your Lordships of the distinction, because it is an important one. The aircraft flying over the world's international trunk routes can largely be classified as true long-range or medium-long range. The former, of which the only operating example so far is the American Douglas D.C.7c, can do the regular non-stop flight with an economic payload on the London—New York route. The medium-long rangers are designed for less extreme stages, such as those on B.O.A.C.'s

1067
Far Eastern routes, and can usually complete the North Atlantic route only with a refuelling stop at Gander or elsewhere.
The only truly long-range civil airliner at present in production or under development in this country is the Bristol Britannia series 310, with four Proteus propeller-turbine engines. B.O.A.C. have 18 of these on order, and received the first of them last September. Like other members of the Britannia family, the 310 series have suffered from these wretched engine icing troubles in certain weather conditions, and these troubles have delayed their introduction to regular airline service. An intensive investigation which the Ministry of Supply and the manufacturers are jointly conducting has produced, among other possible solutions, a simple device by which I very much hope there are good grounds for believing the problem has been solved. The trials now in progress in Singapore do nothing to detract from this hope.
The causes of delays to the Britannias in service have acquired significance not so much by mechanical troubles as by the time of waiting for spares to arrive. The Proteus has acquired its rather distressing reputation for reasons other than mechanical failure. Despite this, the Britannia's record in service is, in point of fact, excellent for this early period of operation. Once the icing problem and minor technical faults are eliminated, its record has every prospect of reaching a level unattained by any other aircraft, for reliability, comfort, speed and smooth flight, allied to the turbo-prop aircraft's inherent economy.
Since February 1, 1957, the Britannia 100 has been on regular service with B.O.A.C. on the Far Eastern routes, and has already flown 5½ million miles. The early period of passenger service with a new aircraft is generally reckoned to be the most testing of all. Despite the years of prolonged development, and several thousands of hours proving flying, the regular and gruelling demands of commercial flying always reveal weaknesses, usually minor ones which can be quickly overcome in an aircraft's design. The Britannia has been no exception, and has experienced one major difficulty (the ice) which has perhaps been over-emphasised. not always for wholly disinterested reasons, and numerous minor technical
1068
snags which, although not dangerous at all, are irritating because they cause delay to passengers—and passengers usually turn out to be both important and vocal. It has also suffered a little, so some people think, from the pardonable but possibly premature blowing of its own trumpet. However, the Britannia, in its very short period of commercial service, offers a record which can compare with standards of operation set by well-proven aircraft.
This is so important that I would ask your Lordships' leave to elaborate the matter a little. Let us consider engine reliability. Despite the handicap of the icing problems, the Proteus engine has a good record when judged by the usually accepted measures of engine reliability. In the first six months of operation a propeller was feathered only 17 times in 60,000 engine hours. This is three times as good, I am told, as the Wright R.3350 in the Super-Constellation with T.C.A. which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned. The overhaul life of the engine rose from 650 hours to 1,050 hours in 7½ months, a rate which I believe not to have been achieved before.
LORD WINSTER: It is going, higher.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes. Unscheduled engine changes, while, I must admit, not spectacularly good, are far from unsatisfactory for the early months of operation (the Britannia figure is one per 1,645 engine hours; Constellation one per 1,871 engine hours) and the figures I have given will decrease as remedial measures take effect. The use of redesigned Entry guide vanes has already brought about an improvement.
Aircraft utilisation is an important measure of earning power. B.O.A.C. have a target, not always achieved, of 3.000 aircraft hours per year for every aircraft. The Britannia has already reached a figure of 2,750 aircraft hours. This figure is already as good as, and in some cases better than, existing aircraft on long-range service. For airframe overhaul life, the Britannia has achieved a figure of 1,800 hours between inspections, after nine months of service. The Viscount, hailed as perhaps the most successful aircraft since the war, has taken two years to achieve 1,500 hours. The Stratocruiser and Constellation have achieved figures of 2,000 hours only after

1069
several years of service. I am told that the Britannia is almost certain to beat this record.
The Britannia is often accused of extreme unpunctuality and excessive delays. It cannot be denied that at present it has a worse record than those of proven types of aircraft. The reasons are partly due to the discovery of minor defects in components, particularly electrical circuits, which are being overcome by various modifications, and partly due to the difficulty in establishing the right stocks of spares at various points on the route—the Far East route is, of course, as your Lordships know, more difficult than the North Atlantic for the stocking of spares. In view of the publicity which the Britannia's misfortunes have attracted, I thought it proper to bring these additional details to your Lordships' notice. I was glad to hear both noble Lords opposite draw attention to the record of this aircraft on Saturday in crossing the Atlantic, and we know that E1 A1 Airlines have also expressed their warmest faith in the Britannia.
Meanwhile, B.O.A.C. are going ahead with their plans for the early use of the Britannia 310 on their North Atlantic services. The date selected for the inauguration of this service is December 19, and E1 A1 Airlines, I gather, follow suit soon after. The Britannia is the first of the world's gas turbine airliners in the medium/long-range category, and third only after the Comet and Viscount in all categories, to enter regular civil passenger service. Thirty-two of the long-range version have already been ordered, including the eighteen for B.O.A.C., and a number of tentative orders and inquiries have been received which may well lead to further firm orders. In addition, twenty—I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said thirteen—of the corresponding long-range passenger/freight version of the Britannia have been ordered for R.A.F. Transport Command.
As I have explained, the Britannia has already shown excellent qualities of engine overhaul life and reliability, and provided that the icing troubles have been successfully countered an intensification of the very real interest that already exists can be expected once the aircraft is in service. The efforts of the
1070
manufacturers and the support of Her Majesty's Government may yet be rewarded by a brilliant commercial success for this aircraft.
The longer-term prospects of the Britannia series depend, in the first instance, upon its potentiality for development. The most likely direction for this to take is the replacement of the Proteus engines with Bristol Orion engines, which would give a substantial improvement in cruise speed and take-off performance and the payload/ range relationship. This development, I understand, could be achieved by 1959 or 1960. More extensive modification of the airframe, to make better use of the new engines, would result in a propeller turbine aircraft capable of cruising at speeds only 50 to 100 miles per hour less than the long-range turbo-jet aircraft which are expected to come into service at about the end of the present decade.
But we must face the fact that, unfortunately, there will be no British contender among the first generation of long-range turbo-jet aircraft. A little over a year ago, your Lordships will remember, B.O.A.C. were authorised to order fifteen American Boeing 707 airliners, for delivery from 1960, which they intend to employ on the North Atlantic route. I think it is questionable whether we should attempt to retrieve this set-back, because I believe that the market for very long-range aircraft is relatively limited. An investigation now being made by the Ministry of Supply, based on market research undertaken independently by three different authorities, suggests that between now and 1970 (excluding the Soviet bloc and China) the world demand which remains, after deducting known orders, may be anything between 100 and 600 aircraft for operation over journeys exceeding 2,500 miles. If these figures show anything, they demonstrate little more than the number of imponderables which confront those who try to estimate in this field. But it is significant that the three sets of figures agree much more closely as to the proportion which long-haul aircraft bear to the whole demand. That proportion is slightly less than 10 per cent. The proportion of aircraft of non-stop North Atlantic range must be much smaller still, because a great number of American

1071
jet aircraft in this category have already been ordered.
Bearing in mind this American lead, it may well be that the more profitable course for the makers of British civil aircraft would be to concentrate on the much larger and more diverse market for short-haul and medium-haul aircraft. If, for reasons of prestige—and one does not underrate them—or because the demand is larger than was expected, it becomes imperative to have a British pure-jet aircraft of transatlantic capability, this should be a derivative of one of the shorter-range aircraft, about which I shall have a word to say in a minute. If, on the other hand, the long-range propeller turbine aircraft has a longer life than is sometimes predicted for it, we are well placed to exploit this field.
I should like to extend this interesting subject which the noble Lord has raised into the field of medium and medium long-range aircraft. The de Havilland Aircraft Company, as your Lordships know, are still the only aircraft manufacturers in the world to produce a turbojet airliner which entered regular airline service. The experience they have acquired in doing so, and as a result of the Comet I disasters in 1953 and 1954, will undoubtedly help to offset the temporary advantage which the Americans have gained in a section of the turbo-jet field. They are in the final stages of developing the Comet 4, a medium-sized, medium-ranged aircraft powered with Rolls Royce Avon R.A.29 turbo-jet engines. The first Comet 4 is expected to fly at the beginning of next year, and deliveries of the nineteen which have been ordered by B.O.A.C. are planned to begin in the autumn. A larger, faster, but shorter-range version, the Comet 4B, is also being developed and six of these have been ordered by B.E.A. for operations on the Corporation's longer routes from 1960 onwards. Other variants to meet the specialised demands of operators are under consideration.
I think the disproportionate interest in extreme long-range jet aircraft which most operators have shown over the last year or so probably, accounts for the failure of the Comet 4, so far, to secure orders beyond the twenty-five for the Corporations I have mentioned. There has recently been evidence of an
1072
awakening of interest, however. An order for ten which was placed in 1956 by an American operator, Capital Airlines, has had to be deferred by reason of the airline's financial difficulties. But the fact that this order was placed in the teeth of strong competition from American turbo-propeller aircraft (and, incidentally, the Britannia) shows a recognition of the potential advantages of the Comet 4 on medium-range routes which I think your Lordships will agree is encouraging.
B.O.A.C. are at present carrying out a programme of intensive flying with two Comet 2Es for the purpose of proving the Rolls R.A.29 engine, which has so far shown itself to be reliable and reasonably trouble-free. An engine overhaul life of 600 hours has already been established. The Vanguard is being developed by
Vickers-Armstrong as a private venture. It will be powered with four Rolls Royce Type turbo-propeller engines, and has been designed for B.E.A.'s use on their medium haul high-density routes from 1960 onwards. The first aircraft is expected to fly in the autumn of 1958. Twenty aircraft are on order for B.E.A., and at the beginning of this year Trans-Canada Airlines placed an order for twenty. An overseas order of this size at such an early stage in the development of the aircraft is a very encouraging sign, and testifies to the reputation Vickers have acquired as manufacturers of propeller-turbine aircraft.
Vickers-Armstrong are also developing a new medium-range jet aircraft, the V.C.10, to which I referred just now. It will be powered with four Rolls Royce Conway engines, mounted at the rear of the fuselage, and capable of cruising at high subsonic speeds over stages on the fringe of the long-haul category. B.O.A.C. have ordered thirty-five of these aircraft for service from 1963 onwards on their African, Far Eastern and Australian routes. The V.C.10 will be capable of further development—that is, to non-stop North Atlantic standards. It will have to face competition from similar aircraft which have been announced by Boeing and by Douglas, but Vickers have achieved a world-wide reputation with the success of the Viscount, and the Conway shows good promise of a brilliant career as a civil engine. It has been ordered by a number of operators for their American jet airliners.

1073
The types I have been talking about, and their immediate derivatives, will probably cover most of the needs of the next decade. Beyond 1970 (the noble Lord, Lord Winster, asked us to look even farther ahead), the prospect depends upon what can be done in the supersonic speed range. This raises novel and far-reaching problems. As your Lordships may know, a group of British aircraft and engine companies, in association with the Royal Aircraft Establishment, are making a fundamental research study in this new, exciting and all-important field.
One or two of your Lordships have raised the question of relationship between the scheduled services and the independent companies. I should like to say a word or two about that. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have over a number of years built up a strong position on their international routes. Their reputation and general goodwill are valuable assets to British civil aviation, and the Government have no intention of undermining the position that they have established. There is therefore no question of taking away from the Corporations their existing routes and handing them over to the independent companies. To do so, I feel, would weaken the United Kingdom's position in the face of foreign competition, rather than consolidate it.
Nevertheless, the Government believe that the independent companies have an important part to play in the development of air transport. Apart from their general charter activities, including air trooping, they have been allowed over the last five years to operate a number of scheduled services. Some of the companies have made the most of the opportunities made available to them under the policy announced in 1952. They have, for instance, developed the highly successful car-ferry services, the air/coach and Colonial coach services; and, more recently, they have been given a large share of the rapidly expanding "inclusive tour" traffic in Europe. Several of the companies have found it possible to order new aircraft, and with the rapidly expanding market there is no doubt that they will find an opportunity to employ these aircraft profitably.
There are not twenty-one companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster said, but, I believe, no fewer than twenty-five separate independent companies, and I
1074
would have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this is probably too many for the most efficient operation. The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation do not, however, control the formation of independent companies. No formal approval or licence is needed to set up a company. It is therefore for the companies themselves to decide on amalgamation or other rationalisation. I must, however, make this clear: that the Government would welcome some reduction in the number of companies if this is likely to result in the formation of larger and more firmly based companies. Such companies would be better able to afford the high cost of re-equipping their fleets with modern aircraft; and with a better fleet the companies would be able to bid more effectively in the international field for charter work, as well as to operate more efficiently the scheduled services allocated to them.
I would refer to one scheduled service which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned; that is the service to South America. B.O.A.C. intend to extend to Venezuela and Colombia the services which they now operate through Bermuda to the British Caribbean. They hope to make a beginning in the autumn of next year by operating as far as Caracas. B.O.A.C. have recently completed a survey of the prospects for resuming a route across the South Atlantic to Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile, from which they withdrew in April, 1954, after the lost of the Comet had suddenly depleted their aircraft resources. The Corporation intend to return to this route, but I am afraid that that return will not be to-morrow. Her Majesty's Government recognise the need to foster commercial relations with South American countries, and would therefore welcome resumption of services, both as a means of facilitating visits of United Kingdom businessmen and also for their less tangible prestige and good will effects. I am sure B.O.A.C. are fully aware of these considerations. They cannot, however, be expected to embark upon provision of services until they can see their way clear to operate on a sound commercial basis, in competition with the many other airlines providing services between South America and Western Europe. Her Majesty's Government hope to be able to make a further statement on this subject at an early date.

1075
My Lords, may I come a little nearer home than South America—back to Scotland, and to the problems of the potential flying Scotsmen? I am sorry that, without notice, I cannot answer the questions put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but I do know that the matters he raised are the subject of a very careful consideration in the Ministry at the moment, particularly the question of the lengthening of the runways at Prestwick. The question of the smaller airfields in the Highlands is a very difficult one. My only personal experience of it was at Benbecula and of flying over the air-strip at Barra, which is usable only at certain stages of the tide, and, I imagine, can be very frightening. Everybody has complete confidence in B.E.A. in their operation of that route. I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will bear in mind that the Heron service from Errol to Glasgow, which B.E.A. have been pondering, would result in a loss of at least £45,000 a year. I emphasise that to show that the problem of linking up these smaller airfields in Scotland is not an easy one.
The last subject on which I wish to touch, and a very important one, is the question of air safety. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, drew our attention to the number of accidents that have occurred, unfortunately, in the last few months, all of which, of course, have been properly investigated. They show, I am glad to say, no pattern with each other, and one must assume that they are purely coincidental. The present safety arrangements have been in force for many years, but in view of the circumstances revealed at the inquiry to which the noble Lord referred, those arrangements are being examined to see what changes, if any, should be made. Details of these are still being worked out, but I can assure your Lordships that action will be taken as quickly as possible to remove the grounds for the main criticisms.
I must add this word of warning. Any action will leave with operators the responsibility for periodic checking of their pilots to ensure their continuing competence. The principle was established many years ago that the regulations should place upon operators, in broad terms, responsibility for the safe conduct of their operations. The international standards are formulated on this basis, and Her Majesty's Government do
1076
not see any reason for departing from this general principle—indeed, it would be quite impracticable to do so. But the question it raises of whether the present arrangements for the supervision of operators are adequate to ensure proper compliance with the regulation is, as I say, being reviewed.
My Lords, I think I have answered most of the major questions put to me, and I must apologise for having taken such a while in doing so. When we debate road traffic, as we have done on many occasions in your Lordships' House, it has been frequently said that every noble Lord has a Road Traffic Bill in his dispatch case. I think it is also true to say that everybody knows how to run a civil airline. I think this debate may possibly have shown that it is not quite so easy as some people think. Compared with other industries, other trades, other enterprises and other professions, one factor, such as, for instance, the disaster to the Comet I, or one outstanding success, such as the success of the Viscount, can throw everything else out of proportion. What is more, both the airlines and the manufacturing industry have to pay the price which pioneers often have to pay. Pioneering has always been an outstanding feature of the aircraft industry. We face a risk by being pioneers, but I am certain that it is a risk we are prepared to go on facing. I say "we" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, we are all in this together—Government and Opposition, both political Parties; private enterprise and national airlines; private airlines and the public.
The noble Lord mentioned competition. He will forgive my saying so—I do not wish to introduce a Party point—but one of the things that makes the national airlines of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. slightly different from other nationalised industries is that they are subject to intense competition from other international airlines; and right well they respond to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would not the noble Lord agree that excessive competition is wasteful? Where you have on particular routes a large number of international airlines competing against each other, perhaps uneconomically, it must be wasteful.
LORD MANCROFT: I certainly would not deny that for a moment.

1077
I was saying that the interest which the public takes in this subject is immense. Hardly a day goes past without the papers carrying some item of news concerning civil aviation, its development, administration and various things about it. I will not deny for a moment that mistakes have been made by all of us; there will probably be more. But the Government are determined to do all they can to make certain that they profit by experience, and I am certain that every branch of the industry will do the same. For my part, speaking personally, I shall always, and not only for patriotic reasons, fly, whenever I can, by British airlines or British aircraft, in marked preference to all other aircraft of all other airlines; and, despite certain exceptions which we have discussed this afternoon, and certain difficulties, which I do not minimise, I am glad to see that increasing numbers of people seem to be doing the same thing.
5.30 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, for obtaining for the House the views and intentions of Her Majesty's Government on this important subject. I did not altogether agree, or at all agree, with some of his views, but there were others with which I did agree. In this field there is a great deal of what may be called matters of opinion, not matters of fact; and we are all entitled to our opinion. I was, however, glad to hear of the good prospects for the Vanguard and also to know that Her Majesty's Government are taking very seriously the question which was raised by the Chairman of the Tribunal which I mentioned, and are looking into the whole question of regulations for the testing of pilots, and so on. I believe that that is important.
I do not intend to debate with the noble Lord at this stage, but because I feel it is important I would say simply this: if all the industry were agreed on what was required and there was not much doubt about it, then an inside departmental inquiry would be sufficient. But we have here a case where there is a wide divergence of opinion within the industry, and, it may be, within Departments, for all I know. In such a case, therefore, I should have thought that there was strong reason for an outside body to inquire into the situation. I believe that the noble Lord is a little
1078
optimistic over the amount of business that is going to fall to the lot of the aircraft manufacturers. Up to now, 80 per cent, of their business has come from military aircraft. The total number of aircraft for hire in civil aviation in this country is something like 260. The total number of aircraft plying for hire in the world is something like 2,500; so we can see that there is going to be a very severe reduction in the amount of business in this field, in spite of the fact that the use of civil aviation is going to increase in the future.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Shepherd for his support. I thought he produced good arguments in my support and made some interesting points. Both he and I raised a question which was not dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—namely, whether Transport Command should be much extended in order to cope with some of the difficulties to which we directed their attention. There is only one other point that I should like to make. We are often told in this House, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that the great jewel in the casket of this House lies in the distinguished Peers who make rare appearances in our midst and are able to contribute on these subjects from their special knowledge. I constantly speak to your Lordships on various matters like civil aviation, the Army, the Commonwealth and the Colonies, and unfortunately, as we have seen to-day, rarely do these distinguished personages give us the benefit of their experience and knowledge. I think it is a great pity, especially in regard to this field. My noble friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, of course, is not able to speak because he is Chairman of the British European Airways—
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him to remember that there are three or four other Members of your Lordships' House who are also inhibited from speaking by reason of their capacity on one or other of the Boards, and who, but for that capacity, would have spoken as frequently as they did in the past?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, those noble Lords are absolutely absolved from

1079
any criticism that I am making; but there is a number of Peers not so placed who either have had distinguished careers in aviation or have been or are in fields connected with civil aviation; and I do not absolve them. I do not see why we on these Benches should constantly have to bring forward these subjects of great public importance—which are not Party subjects at all—and have no support at all from these personages whose duty I say it is to come here and to give us their opinion. They can speak elsewhere on these subjects, but they do not come here and speak, and I believe that that is quite wrong. If they came here we should be able not only to hear what they say but, if necessary, to challenge what they say, and should not have to read what they have said in public or written in newspapers without being able to challenge them.
There is one other remark I should like to make. As a frequent traveller on B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. aircraft I should like to express my gratitude to both Corporations for the sympathetic and efficient way in which they deal with their passengers. They are, in my experience, without equal in the aircraft world, and I hope that their future will be as prosperous as we all wish it to be. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
5.36 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Ogmore has said about the regrettable fact that so many noble Lords of great experience and knowledge choose outside platforms to give their views instead of giving them here, where they could be debated and criticised and
1080
could draw a report from Her Majesty's Government. I should also like to join my noble friend in thanking the Minister for the thoroughness and the patience of his reply. I am always astonished at the amount of knowledge he possesses and I find it quite extraordinary that he possesses it, although he has no Portfolio to put it into. I feel that that ought to be seen to, and I hope that Santa Claus may take some notice of it and present him with a Portfolio in his stocking at Christmas this year.
There are only two small points that I should like to mention. I believe that I quoted twenty-seven or thirty as the number of independent companies, and I quite agree that a process of rationalisation among them would be very advantageous. I should also like to make it clear that I did not suggest for a moment that any scheduled services should be taken away from the Corporations and handed over to independent operators. My remarks were made in connection with the fact that, at the rate at which air traffic is growing, the Corporations may find that they have more to handle than they can manage. Then will be the time for the independent operators to step in and take over some of the scheduled services, as I believe they will be quite able to do. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before six o'clock.