§ 5.3 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how far the hovercraft industry has progressed in the last five years. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question in my name, asking what progress the hovercraft industry has achieved over the past five years, gives me a belated opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord 892 Delacourt-Smith, who I see will be replying, both on his recent appointment to the Government and on the further honour awarded him last week. The Question also gives the House the opportunity to hear the noble Lord reply on a subject for which he has direct Ministerial responsibility—a rather rare luxury nowadays for this House.
§ The purpose of raising this question to-night on the growth and emergence of what I personally believe to be one of the most important and valuable British inventions since the war is, in the first place, to inquire just how healthy the growth state of the industry has been over the past five years, and, secondly, to see what plans the Government have for the future to ensure that the industry remains strongly competitive in face of increasing foreign activity and is not allowed to sink into a role of selling know-how rather than the hardware.
§ When one looks back over the past few years at what the industry has achieved in the way of return for the patient investment from both Government and private industry, the answer, I believe, is a good deal more encouraging than many realise. I hope the noble Lord will be able to verify some of the figures I have obtained when I say that over the years the Government investment has been something just over £10 million. Over the past two years, the period of time when sales started to pick up, the industry has been awarded over £32 million worth of orders, £9 million of which have been export orders. This is not, I would suggest, a discouraging picture. I am also informed that it is anticipated that the total world market for hovercraft within the next five-year period could exceed £40 million a year, and that the growth of the British industry could well be running at 20 per cent. a year.
§ The present role of Government investment runs, I understand, at approximately £3 million a year, and although on first sight this may appear generous, in comparison to Government support in other countries, like France, Japan, and the United States whose industries are a good deal smaller and less advanced, it is not by any means too generous. For, in practice, only a third of this investment goes to advance industry in the 893 form of research and development contracts, and to assist the exhaustive trials needed to meet the commercial requirements. The remaining two-thirds is split between running the Joint Services Military Trials Unit at Lee-on-Solent and the N.P.L. unit at Hythe.
§ My Lords, many people, I am sure, would feel a good deal happier with the size of Government support for the industry if their policy towards the development of military hovercraft were not so excessively stingy. Most of us will remember the tremendous benefit that companies like Boeing, of America, have gained over the years from military aircraft design contracts, and the subsequent spin-off into their civil side. The same pattern would surely follow with the hovercraft development. But either the Government do not accept this view, or they are deliberately showing a woeful lack of confidence. For since 1968 not only have they cancelled the Army version of the B.H.7 project, causing the break-up of a design team, but they have also brought to a stop the feasibility study of the very important large ocean-going craft. This year, with the launching of the Navy version of the B.H.7, the Government threw caution to the wind and announced with a flourish the order of one craft for the Ministry of Technology. Since then, I am glad to say, two other craft have now been ordered for the Navy—not, one might add, for the British Navy, but for the Iranian Navy. That is not a very encouraging record of support. I hope that the noble Lord will have something to say later about the Naval orders.
§ One of the most interesting developments in the many flexible uses to which the hovercraft principle can be adapted is the tracked hovercraft, or hover-rail. The House will recall that a company was set up by the N.R.D.C. some years ago and was granted initially £2 million towards developing this form of transport. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could advise us tonight of the progress report on the development, the likely cost up to the evaluation stage, and the estimated time this will take. I should also be grateful if he could tell us just how the Government propose to develop this project beyond the N.R.D.C.'s stage of evaluation. For instance, will British Rail be invited to take on some of this development?
894§ The success of the development of tracked hovercraft must surely open very wide horizons for foreign markets, particularly in America. With the French developing their form of tracked hovercraft, and making what appear to be quite rapid strides, the British development has obviously no room for complacency. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether in fact any interest has been shown recently by the Americans in this concept, particularly on a co-operation basis. Another use of hovercraft, which was developed four or five years ago, is the hoverbed, the bed for badly burned patients. This important technique was. I understand, installed in a London hospital on a trial basis for a period of nine months, and for almost a year now the clinical appraisal of the concept has lain with the Ministry of Health. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us how soon now the Ministry of Health will publish their findings and their decision as to whether the concept is acceptable. Could he also guide us as to the probable cost of installing such a bed in a hospital?
§ Turning to the marine form of hovercraft, perhaps one of the most disturbing features in recent months has been the failure of Hovermarine, one out of the four major hovercraft companies. This company was the leader in the technique of the side wall craft, a concept, one cannot help noticing, which the U.S.A. have chosen for their very large oceangoing project. I do not expect the noble Lord to comment at this stage on the failure of Hovermarine, but I hope he will be able to assure us that efforts are being made on behalf of the industry as a whole—the British industry—to retain the sidewall technique developed by this company.
§ The marine craft which of course captures the eye most of all is the present queen of the fleet, the SRN4. This craft, the largest commercial hovercraft in the world, despite its setbacks and teething problems, has I believe come through its first year of operations with some credit. The two operators, Hover Lloyd and Seaspeed, have carried no fewer than 380,000 passengers across the Channel this year; and the number is expected to double next year. Four of these craft have now been sold, two to Hover Lloyd and two to Seaspeed, and four more are 895 now in the pipeline being built, but, I am sad to learn, with no firm orders. The future success of the craft must now surely rest on its appeal to foreign customers. Its uniqueness at being the only 160-ton craft available will shortly be challenged by the French Navyplane, the N.500, which might be a direct competitor and which I understand is due to be launched next year. The time, therefore, for an important sales push for the N.4 must now seem imminent.
§ When one is talking of selling this craft to the United States of America and perhaps Canada, one often wonders whether it is good enough to give potential customers a folder of glossy publications and then tell them that if they are further interested they must travel 3,500 miles to Cowes. Is that not like telling the mountain to move to Mohammed? Would it not be better for Mohammed to journey across the Atlantic to the mountain? It is, after all, an oceangoing vehicle. The noble Lord may well say that this is no responsibility of the Government and that it is up to B.H.C. to decide if they wish to take an SRN4 over to North America. B.H.C. may say in turn that the cost is prohibitive. But if such a sales expedition were mounted, and if support was given by all the various companies involved who would benefit from ultimate sales, could the noble Lord say to-night whether his Ministry would look favourably upon supporting such a project? As the House will know, the development of many techniques of hovercraft is of course carried out at Hythe by the N.P.L. unit. This unit over the years has done splendid work for the industry, in particular of course in developing some of the industrial techniques.
§ There are two small points I should like to ask the noble Lord about this work. In the first place, what proportion of their effort is devoted to hovercraft research, and what proportion to hydrofoil research; and secondly, is any work being carried out on water jet propulsion, a technique we know that the United States are studying very closely? My final question to the noble Lord on the industry concerns the planning aspect of hoverports. As the noble Lord will know, for some time now the cry for a national and rational airport policy has been heard, and it would seem that the need 896 for this has at last been generally accepted. The siting of hoverports as well, although on a much smaller scale, requires in many people's opinion a rational policy.
§ The need for this was of course foreshadowed in the Hovercraft Act under Section 4, which gave local authorities power, subject to a Board of Trade Order being introduced, to control the siting of hoverports, even where no material change of use of land, under planning eyes, is involved. This question has been raised a number of times before, particularly in regard to the Solent. On each occasion the Government reply has been that the need for giving local authorities this control has not yet been established. I should like to know to-day from the noble Lord what criteria the Board of Trade use in testing whether there is a need or not. Secondly, could the noble Lord say whether any local authority, supported by evidence, have requested that a Board of Trade Order be introduced?
§ My Lords, the few questions I have put to the noble Lord to-day on the hovercraft industry are really only an introduction to what I hope the noble Lord will treat as an opportunity to review the progress on the industry. Although my Question on the Order Paper looks back over five years, I hope the noble Lord to-night will also be able to look forward a little and say something on the new generation of hovercraft and the potential of this splendid British invention.
§ 5.16 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLMEMy Lords, I am intervening in this debate, not because I am an expert on the hovercraft like the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but because I see such a good potential for this type of vehicle. At present I do not think there is sufficient co-operation between military, naval and commercial interests in the development of the hovercraft industry. This attitude must surely be wrong. I realise that money for defence is a bad smell in some Governmental minds. Still, we must defend our shores. The best way of defence is attack. The hovercraft can land troops anywhere, so it becomes an essential vehicle.
The Americans are, I understand, trying to develop a hovercraft to carry 897 4,500 tons commercially. This will most likely take ten to twenty years to develop. We have developed a hovercraft to carry about 40 tons. Commercially there is need for a craft to carry 300 tons. For this there is a tremendous potential and world market. What is needed is an inquiry into what is most needed. Is a water only vehicle wanted? Are amphibious vehicles wanted, or semi-amphibious vehicles that pull up on the shore? Surely a joint committee should be set up between the Services and commerce to investigate our requirements. This committee should have the object of recommending the Government to back the industry.
I believe that £5 million to £7 million should meet the industry's commercial requirements over the next two to three years. Surely this is a small amount to pay to set this potential industry on its feet for what it can return in money to this country. I hope that the Government in their reply can answer some of my points and give the industry fresh hopes.
§ 5.19 p.m.
§ LORD KINGS NORTONMy Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, replies, may I add a few words from a different point of view; namely, from the point of view of safety of hovercraft. For the last ten years the worthiness (and I use the term in the sense that "airworthiness" is used in relation to aircraft) of hovercraft has been the responsibility of the Air Registration Board. The Air Registration Board, of which I have the privilege of being Chairman, has taken on this responsibility at the request of Government, but always on a rather informal basis. It is an arrangement which, in its informality and its apparent impermanence, has really been very unsatisfactory. Consequently I hope—and I believe I have some reason to hope—that the noble Lord will be able to say something about a more formal remit of this responsibility to the Air Registration Board. If he is able to say that, I would assure him in advance how very pleased everyone will be who has been concerned with this rather difficult and unusual kind of worthiness.
If, indeed, it becomes the delegated responsibility of the Air Registration Board to deal with the safety of hovercraft, that can be only a stage on the 898 way to a different arrangement, because the Government have already foreshadowed their intention of creating a hovercraft Board. That hovercraft Board is, I fear, a little more distant than many of us would hope, and despite what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said about the development of the industry I feel that it has not yet developed to a scale which would warrant the creation of a special body to look after it. But it needs a special body. It is not an aircraft, it is not a boat: it is, in our view, sui generis and must be dealt with in its own particular way.
I should like to see—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, will be able to comment on this point—this Board coming into existence at an early stage. I wonder whether I may ventilate a thought (without asking the noble Lord to comment on it) which might bring this body into earlier existence than would otherwise be the case. The hovercraft has another kind of overwater craft frequently in competition with it, and that is the hydrofoil boat, which was briefly mentioned by the noble Earl towards the end of his remarks. It is strongly felt in hydrofoil circles that there is a disadvantage in being treated as a boat—which indeed the hydrofoil is—while the hovercraft is dealt with as being something approximating to an aircraft. Possibly it would be of great value to all concerned with high-speed overwater craft if, when the hovercraft Board comes into existence, it is given a rather different name and rather wider responsibilities; namely, for the safety of all high-speed overwater craft. There is more than one kind: there is the hovercraft which progresses on a cushion of air; there is the hydrofoil which progresses on planes or foils, and there is the fast boat which planes on its stem. I feel there is a case for all that kind of craft which travel over the water with their hulls mainly out of it, to be treated in the same sort of way.
In support of this view, which I believe is worth serious consideration, I would refer your Lordships to a most interesting paper on the future of hovercraft by Mr. Stanton Jones, which was published earlier this year in the Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, in which he said that when the hovercraft becomes I really large it will not be possible to drive 899 it with airscrews; it will have to have water propulsion. It will not be possible to stabilise it as it now is, but it will need hydrofoils to stabilise it. So one sees these two technologies in the end coming together, and I think there is a case for serious consideration to be given to a safety organisation which will look after both, and ultimately look after the combination of the two.
§ 5.25 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH)My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has placed us all in his debt by initiating this debate this afternoon, and I should like to express my appreciation to him of the kind remarks he made about me and, if I may, of the whole manner in which he brought this matter to your Lordships' attention. I do not think I should want to contest the statistics which he gave of the present size of the industry, and I am glad that his raising the matter in this way this afternoon gives me an opportunity to give a comprehensive reply, as he said, upon a matter for which I have personal Ministerial responsibility. I hope that what I may be able to say will coincide with his own remark that the situation is perhaps more encouraging than many people are at present inclined to think.
The hovercraft industry, as your Lordships may recall from the passage of the Hovercraft Act last Session, covers all vehicular applications of the air cushion principle, and can go wider still. The story of this industry can perhaps be seen against the often expressed thought that in the past we in Britain have initiated significant inventions but have allowed their development and their exploitation to pass to other countries. This industry, of course, derives from work undertaken by Sir Christopher Cockerell, which led in the early 1950s to a study contract being placed with Saunders Roe by the then Ministry of Supply. This led in turn in 1958 to the sponsorship of hovercraft by the National Research Development Corporation, I believe following a recommendation made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, to Sir Christopher and the subsequent formation by the N.R.D.C. of a subsidiary, Hovercraft Development Limited, which holds the patents. From these an industry has been 900 developing, based upon this British invention. It is a field in which Britain has led, and continues to lead, the world.
The noble Earl directed his attention particularly to the last five years. By 1964, there were four British companies working under licence. Since then, the two largest of these, Westlands and Vickers, have merged their interests to form the British Hovercraft Corporation Limited. The licence of another of the companies was withdrawn, but since 1964 a further six British companies have been granted licences by the N.R.D.C. and five of these companies are still in operation. In addition, a number of smaller companies are emerging with whom discussions on licensing arrangements are taking place.
The first commercial craft was produced in the spring of 1964. This was the British Hovercraft Corporation's SRN.5, with its capacity to carry 18 passengers or two tons of freight, and it can move at up to 60 knots. The characteristics of this craft make it perhaps better suited to military and paramilitary use. Fourteen SRN5s have been produced to date—ten of them have been for export. A year later, in the spring of 1965, the first commercial ferrycraft was launched. This was the SRN6, a development of the SRN5, with a maximum speed of 50 knots and a capacity to carry 38 passengers. This craft, the SRN6, has been demonstrated throughout the world and is on regular commercial operations on the Solent, particularly operating ferry services between the Isle of Wight and the mainland, which have proved extremely popular. Over 30 SRN6s have been built so far, 27 of them being either in service overseas or earmarked for export.
Then we come to the third type of hovercraft in actual operation, which has already been mentioned by the noble Earl and to which I want to make particular reference because it has attracted the most attention. This is the SRN4—the largest hovercraft in the world, with its capacity for 30 cars and 250 passengers and its maximum speed of 65 knots. This is the type which has provided the cross-Channel services during the past year. The noble Earl referred to the problem of transporting large hovercraft like the SRN4 across the Atlantic, say, to the United States of America. We have 901 given thought to this matter, as have many others. We do not regard it as an immediate issue. When sales are made to distant markets and if the manufacturers find transportation a problem, our Ministry will certainly be prepared to consider any proposals from them and to discuss the problem with them.
I should like to return a little later to the question of the hovercraft operating the cross-Channel services, and continue with one or two remarks about the manufacturing side of the industry. In addition to the three types which I have mentioned, British industry has five other types of hovercraft available for sale. Perhaps I may mention one, because it is at the very opposite end to the SRN4. This is the Hoverhawk, which is a two-seater manufactured by Hoverair Limited. During the summer the Ministry of Technology funded a trials and demonstration tour of two Hoverhawks on the Eastern seaboard of the United States and in Canada, and to date 60 Hoverhawks have been sold, most of them to overseas buyers.
There is only one country in the world where independent development of hovercraft has been taking place, and that is France. In a number of other countries, notably the United States of America and Japan, some development of hovercraft is taking place under licence—in many cases under a joint licence from the N.R.D.C. and British Hovercraft Corporation. Except in France, every commercial hovercraft sold in the world involves a royalty payment to N.R.D.C.
This is, as has been said and as the facts and dates show, a very new industry, and what is significant is the considerable amount of development work in manufacture which is going on and the number of new varieties of craft which are likely to come into production. I should like to mention two of these because I had the opportunity a few days ago of seeing both of them. The first has been mentioned already in the course of the debate: the BH.7, built by the British Hovercraft Corporation. The first BH.7 has been built under contract with the Ministry of Technology and it was launched only a few days ago. It will have a maximum speed of 65 knots and its civil version will have a capacity for six to eight cars and over 70 passengers. Already, as has been stated by the noble Earl, two of these 902 have been ordered for export. But as far as the one which has been built for the Ministry of Technology is concerned, it will begin trials in the middle of 1970, and the results of these will assist the Royal Navy to determine its hovercraft requirements, either for the BH.7 or for other types.
The other craft which I want to mention is the VT.1 the first hovercraft to be built by Vosper Limited, who have brought to the industry their long experience of lightweight marine structure and high-speed marine transport. The first VT.1 was built in August and it is still undergoing manufacturer's trials. It has been ordered by Hovertravel Limited for use in the United Kingdom, and discussions are taking place at present to enable an extended period of testing to precede its entry into commercial service. The standard version of this craft will carry 10 cars and up to 148 passengers. Thus in fact the industry is continuing to develop a wide range of sizes and types of hovercraft, virtually all of them with some substantial aid from N.R.D.C. towards their cost.
I should like to refer to the operating problems involved, but before I do so may I turn to other applications of the air cushion principle being tried, especially as the noble Earl referred to one or two of them? These are, of course, a part of the hovercraft industry, although hitherto interest has mainly centred upon the waterborne type of hovercraft. One application is of course, as the noble Earl said, in the field of high-speed land transport, and he asked what the position was there. In 1967 the N.R.D.C. set up a subsidiary company, Tracked Hovercraft Limited, to evaluate, develop and exploit a high-speed ground transport system. The most viable system is likely to be based on the use of air cushions for support and guidance and linear induction motors for propulsion. The new company established itself in Cambridge and has a test site North of the city.
The current programme involves the construction of two experimental vehicles, a three-mile electrified test track and a series of trials and evaluation up to spring, 1971. One of the experimental vehicles runs on wheels and will be used for the independent development of linear motors at what are called in this industry 903 "modest" speeds of about 100 miles per hour. The other will be air-cushion supported and used for the development of the linear motors and air-cushion suspension and guidance systems up to a design speed of approximately 300 miles per hour. Both vehicles will be fully instrumented and are expected to start running on the test track by the middle of 1970.
N.R.D.C. consider that hovertrains will have a particularly useful application as high-speed links between cities, and between cities and their airports, not only in the United Kingdom but abroad. Tracked Hovercraft, Limited, are co-operating both with the Ministry of Technology and with the Ministry of Transport on the assessment of the roles of new and existing transport systems on intercity routes. They have established and will maintain contact with Governments and with industrial and commercial concerns in West European countries, in the United States, in Canada and in Japan.
The noble Earl asked about future lines of development. It is, in our view, too early to decide how the further development and operation of hovertrains will be organised in the United Kingdom after completion of the experimental programme which I have described, but these issues will be fully considered by Tracked Hovercraft, Limited, in conjunction with Government Departments and with other interested parties.
The noble Earl asked also about the stage reached with the hoverbed. Clinical trials of this were completed at the Mount Vernon Hospital in August. The Medical Research Council is studying results and will advise the potential customer, the Department of Health and Social Security, upon their outcome. I understand, however, that the results were quite encouraging, and considerable interest has already been generated here and overseas. It will be appreciated that decisions upon the development for production must depend on a complete assessment of all the factors involved, technical, commercial and medical. In connection with cost, I would make the point that the bed itself is not very expensive—something like £5,000 for a unit of two or four beds. The cost of the installation arises in the buildings and 904 the units necessary to provide the streams of sterile air.
There are, in addition, a number of other industrial applications that I should like to mention. Platforms with aircushion pads can be used for the movement of stores over relatively smooth surfaces in factories, warehouses, or in the holds of ships. The Central Electricity Generating Board has been promoting examination of the use of the air cushion principle for the transport of heavy loads by road. The significance of the use of this method, of course, is that spreading the load permits the movement of, for example, very heavy loads over bridges which would not otherwise stand the strain. It is calculated that on its first outing the air-cushion equipment commissioned for this purpose effected economies equivalent to half its own development costs. One newly formed firm, Air Cushion Equipment, Limited, is working exclusively on the application of the principle in the field of industry, where, as I have suggested and tried to demonstrate, a number of important possibilities exist. It is, I think, of interest that in its relatively short life the hovercraft industry has stimulated the growth of its own varied and well-informed technical Press, which is fulfilling a valuable function in spreading discussion of the possibilities and the problems of the industry.
I might complete my account of the manufacturing side by reference to the unhappy development in respect of Hovermarine, Limited, which, as the noble Earl said, has recently gone into liquidation. This company accounted for less than one-tenth of the employment in the manufacture of hovercraft but, as has been said by the noble Earl, it was the only company engaged in the development of hovercraft of the sidewall variety. We do not believe that the difficulties which this company experienced were due to any faults in the basic design of their craft, which was the HM.2; they were due rather to managerial and commercial problems, and to difficulties which arose in the engineering and quality control fields.
The Ministry of Technology and the N.R.D.C. were made aware of the financial difficulties of the firm in the middle of February. In response to a request, we received early in May particulars of 905 their position, and after examination and discussion the Ministry advised the company on May 27 that it could not furnish the required support. Discussions arose again during the month of October, and two successive proposals were put involving extensive reconstruction of the company with Government financial assistance. We recognised the initiative of the original members of the company and the perseverance of their financial associates, but in the case of either proposal we were not able to accept the degree of involvement of public money or of financial risk which the proposals would have meant. The company is now in the hands of the liquidator, who has invited bids. A number of parties are known to be interested. But Hovermarine, like other companies, operated under licence from the N.R.D.C., and I understand that the N.R.D.C., in accordance with the agreement which it had, has terminated the Hovermarine licences.
The Ministry of Technology and the N.R.D.C. are anxious to see the development of sidewall hovercraft technology in the United Kingdom, and the establishment here of a sound manufacturing base to cater for as much as possible of the world market for sidewall hovercraft. We are prepared and anxious to consider any proposals designed for that purpose which seem to offer the prospect of commercial success.
My Lords, perhaps this might be a suitable point for me to respond to the invitation to indicate the basic approach which we make to the sponsorship of the hovercraft industry and the lines upon which we have made, and hope to continue to make, a contribution, either from the Ministry itself or through N.R.D.C., to the sound development of the hovercraft industry. Our contribution really has three aspects. First, we are giving basic scientific assistance with the fundamental, theoretical and practical problems of hovercraft technology. Most of this work is done in the National Physical Laboratory, which has its own hovercraft unit, but the resources of all our research establishments are drawn on as required.
I was most grateful for, and glad to hear, the tribute which the noble Earl paid to the National Physical Laboratory, and its hovercraft unit in particular, because it has done and is doing most 906 valuable work. The noble Earl asked about the extent to which it has done any work on hydrofoils. The National Physical Laboratory has done, and is doing, some work on hydrofoils, but the hovercraft unit is exclusively devoted to hovercraft technology—although I should say that I am informed that on one occasion a test rig was used for the measurement of hydrofoil propellors. But in terms of total National Physical Laboratory effort, that on hovercraft is many times greater than that on hydrofoils.
The noble Lord particularly asked a question about water-jet propulsion. The National Engineering Laboratory and the National Physical Laboratory are both working on this as a possible means of development. The second aspect of our contribution takes the form of research and development contracts placed with firms to develop major components required for hovercraft. Examples of this form of assistance are development contracts for engines, propellors, skirt design and so forth. Our object is really to anticipate the requirements of designers for such major components.
The third form of contribution is made generally by N.D.R.C., and consists of financial support for manufacturers. This, of course, represents investment of public money, and it has to be made on terms that make commercial sense. The noble Earl mentioned a figure of £10 million as the total amount spent by the Ministry of Technology and N.R.D.C. up to a recent date. I can confirm this figure. It takes into account the expenditure on tracked hovercraft. Of the expenditure other than on tracked hovercraft, £7½million has been incurred in the last five years; and, as the noble Earl said, we are spending at present at the rate of between £2 million and £3 million a year. The future rate of investment will of course have to be determined by the practical needs and the prospect of commercial viability of hovercraft projects which are proposed for such assistance.
Perhaps I might now make reference to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. The growth of the industry and the increasing use of hovercraft, both at home and overseas, emphasises the need to match our technical lead with legislation to regulate construction and operation at home. We have already recognised, I think, that 907 this new means of transport is unique. Noble Lords will recall the discussion on the Hovercraft Act and, as foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, I have the agreement of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, to indicate the Government's intentions in respect of worthiness.
The design, construction and maintenance of hovercraft are at present supervised, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, by the Air Registration Board, who issue a certificate of construction and performance. It is the Government's intention that the Air Registration Board should continue to exercise these functions for the time being, and that formal authority to do so, and to issue certificates of safety, should be conferred on the Board by means of Order in Council under the Hovercraft Act 1968. When the A.R.B. become absorbed into the new Civil Aviation Authority we see no reason why the functions should not be transferred temporarily to that new Authority, on the assumption, of course, that the expert staff will be transferred at the same time. When, however, the growth of the industry justifies it, the Government consider that the certification functions should be entrusted to an independent Hovercraft Authority. The President of the Board of Trade has in mind the appointment of a committee on which the A.R.B. and Lloyd's Register of Shipping would be represented, to make recommendations about the constitution, the terms of reference and the financing of such an independent authority.
I trust that what I have been able to say will give satisfaction to the noble Lord. I take note of the points he made on which, as he said, he would not expect me to comment at this stage. Broadly, under the Hovercraft Act, the Board of Trade are concerned with safety arrangements at hoverports, and they intend to include in a draft Order in Council to be made under the Act, and to be laid before Parliament early next year, a requirement that operators should take adequate safety precautions at hoverports. Control over the use of land for hoverports is dealt with by the local authorities under the provisions of the 908 Town and Country Planning Act. I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer all the points which the noble Earl raised in that connection, but I will examine them and will write to him.
My Lords, I am conscious I have spoken for a long time, but the problem in talking about this industry is not what to say but what one must regretfully leave out. I should like to turn to the experience of those who are operating hovercraft commercially. All such operating companies have emerged in the last five-year period to which the noble Earl's question refers, and the longest established of them, Hovertravel, ended the last financial year profitably. In addition to the regular passenger services they have found a new application for hovercraft in seismographic exploration. Indeed, one feature of the industry is the rapidity with which the recognition of the variety of uses to which hovercraft may be put is growing.
I should like to say something particularly about the cross-Channel services which have been provided by the SRN 4 craft. There are four of these craft operating this service, and it must be borne in mind that this new form of travel is still in an early stage of development. I would remind noble Lords that the SRN6s—the smaller craft which have been operating regularly now over a rather longer period, but still for only three years—have been brought by the combined action of the operators, manufacturers and the A.R.B. to a service reliability exceeding 99 per cent.
All the operators who are operating the SRN4s, especially British Rail and Hover Lloyd, are in our view to be congratulated on their skill and enterprise in beginning these services. They have been attended with considerable maintenance difficulties, and during the winter we are mounting an extensive research programme, particularly on the SRN4s, in full conjunction with the operating companies, aimed at assisting with the problems both of reliability and of maintenance costs.
This is perhaps an appropriate point to refer to one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, who spoke particularly of the military application and the part which hovercraft 909 could play in the operation of the different Services. Last week I had the opportunity of seeing a little of the Inter-Services Hovercraft Unit at Lee-on-Solent, and there also, of course, extremely valuable operating and practical experience is being gained for the purposes of evaluating future uses, particularly military uses, of hovercraft. It is significant that the Inter-Services Unit has the largest single fleet of hovercraft to be found anywhere in the world.
In concluding, I must again emphasise how much basic work still has to be done to gain a full knowledge of the possibilities of economic and reliable operation, and our research establishments are co-operating and will co-operate fully in this. A number of measures—the design and production of instrumentation systems; the fitting of television cameras which can record what is taking place underneath the hovercraft while it is in motion, and other methods of gaining detailed information about performance—are all being used.
The hovercraft manufacturing and operating industries in this field are at an early stage in their development. We hope and believe that with the proper exercise of commercial judgment and initiative they will become substantial industries. I have described the contribution which the Government and the N.R.D.C. have made, and are prepared to continue to make, on the basis of partnership and co-operation with these industries, provided, of course, that it continues to make commercial sense to do so.
There is naturally a great deal of speculation about the ultimate possibilities of this new method of transport. I think again it was the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, who said that some of the scale of craft which are being talked about now are really unlikely to be developed for a number of years to come; but it is not only, in this industry, a question of the feasibility of hovercraft taking over services already performed by existing forms of transport, it is also, and perhaps even more, a question of hovercraft fulfilling transport tasks which are outside the compass of any existing forms of transport. Transport over rough ground; in the estuaries and 910 deltas of great rivers; these may provide some of the fields in which hovercraft will have no competitors. Possibly a lead in this field is given by one recent development—the design and adaptation of hovercraft, either self-propelled or trailers, for use in such difficult areas as the Alaska North Slope. We are, therefore, in the stage with the hovercraft industry in which very many new applications of the air cushion principle, both in transport and in other fields, are rapidly becoming apparent. On the other hand, the tasks which confront us are very practical ones: that of seeking in a steady and organised fashion solutions to immediate problems of manufacture and of operation, and so enabling the industry to establish itself, with the prospect of continuing growth, on viable foundations.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and concludes his most interesting, encouraging and important speech, I wonder whether I might ask him one question? In speaking about high speed land transport, the 300 miles an hour tracked hovertrain, the noble Lord referred to international co-operation and the interest of other countries. I wonder whether he can tell us whether any international consortium, a European consortium, or a consortium with other countries, is being formed perhaps in order to share research and development costs. This is a new area where the R. and D. costs are extremely high, and, as your Lordships know, in our debate on European technological co-operation there was considerable interest in these new fields in our sharing R. and D. costs with other countries. I wondered whether there was anything in the Government's mind on those lines, particularly, of course, with regard to France.
§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITHMy Lords, as noble Lords will know, there is a separate development in France. In response to the noble Earl's question, I do not think I can go beyond saying that contacts have been established with Governments and industrial concerns in the countries which I mentioned, which includes the countries of Western Europe.