LIGHTER THAN AIR TRANSPORT

HL Deb 28 April 1977 vol 382 cc775-92

7.55 p.m.

Lord GAINFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the research and development of lighter than air transport. The noble Lord said: My Lords, lighter than air transport embraces two forms—balloons and airships. The use of balloons in this country is very limited. A free balloon can present a serious hazard to air traffic control, hence balloons can be used only in certain areas. In some overseas countries where there is less concentration of air traffic they can serve a useful function in scientific research and surveying. If that helps our overseas trade at all, so much the better. But, alas! in Britain they can provide only a fascinating, challenging but very expensive sport.

I turn to airships. I understand that an airship is being constructed at Cardington —a famous place in aviation and airship history—which it is hoped will he the first of a number to form an export order to Venezuela, which is very encouraging. This airship will he of the blimp type and will have similar characteristics to the Goodyear airship which has paid several visits to this country and which will come here this year. I am one of those who have been fortunate enough to have the experience of flying in it and I certainly recommend it as a means of leisurely air travel. The Goodyear company is planning further developments, in particular with a view to a cargo-carrying airship. The Goodyear Company has also sent me some interesting details of its projects, and I understand that other countries are also interested in considering the use of airships for various purposes. Therefore, I ask this Question because I believe that this country should not be left behind.

Questions have recently been asked in your Lordships' House about the use of airships for marine patrol work, and it is for that purpose that Britain's research should begin. Shortly before the Easter Recess a Statement was made in another place, and repeated in your Lordships' House, about the new early warning system and how the Nimrod aircraft will be used for this. That Statement caused lively discussion.

Early last month I was privileged to be a member of a Parliamentary team visiting the Royal Air Force station at Kinloss. The highlight of the programme which was laid on for us was a five and a half hour flight in a Nimrod aircraft on patrol over the North Sea. We were able to see for ourselves the careful watch maintained on shipping and the oil rigs. Afterwards, I wrote letters of thanks and appreciation, but I should like to take this opportunity of expressing verbally how impressed I was by the versatility of the Nimrod aircraft and the skill of the crews who fly in them. It made me realise how the use of airships for marine patrol work could free these aircraft for far more important work. Airships would be far less expensive: they would need far less fuel and could stay aloft far longer.

In the discussion arising from recent Questions in your Lordships' House, comment was made about the problem of airships in a high wind. I remember that at least one supplementary question asked if there had been any noticeable change in the North Sea climate since World War I when blimps were used to a great extent on patrol work and managed to stay aloft in a variety of weather conditions. However, whatever effect high winds may have, there is one form of weather which is still dreaded on land, sea and air, in spite of the wonder of modern navigational aids; that is fog. Here the airship could overcome this hazard. Shakespeare's famous quotation: The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones could be parodied a little in reference to airships. Their disasters are so readily remembered and their successes are forgotten. The R.101 and the Hindenburg are vividly seared into history. But how many recall the grand old lady of the early 1930s, the Graf Zeppelin? I believe that that airship made 140 successful journeys across the North Atlantic. Even when it was foggy, with the aid of navigational equipment that must seem primitive nowadays, she could gently feel her way down to a safe mooring at the mast at Lakehurst. The USA had a number of airships used on patrol work in World War II doing coastguard work and also helping in the escort of convoys.

If we decide to construct airships for marine work, it will involve flying close to the sea surface. It is natural, therefore, that sailors should he among the crews with their experience of the sea and weather. There is also the possibility of reviving the shipbuilding companies in order to help in their construction. Here we come to the matter of design. Apart from the machine being assembled at Cardington, the future of British airships is confined to the drawing board, but if a word of encouragement be given by Her Majesty's Government some very powerful talent that is now lying dormant would be revealed.

Perhaps it would be possible to use the Concorde design and development team for the initial programme. They have done an excellent engineering job on the aircraft; with airships being simpler they should be able to manage development easily and we should not have any risk of losing such valuable people down the brain-drain. I have suggested the use of airships on a number of occasions in debates in your Lordships' House. I have suggested their use for goods transport, passenger transport and the use of such areas as the old dock areas of London as an airship port. These ideas, I admit, may have seemed a little far fetched.

To start constructing small airships for marine patrol work could be the start of a project thatcould lead to large and greater developments. The Wright brothers did not create a jumbo-jet, but the large and fast airliners which are now almost taken for granted today are the result of research that sprang from a very small machine taking the air. To quote myself in a debate about four years ago, I said that your Lordships' House is not a House of dreamers but it is a very good place for dreams to be aired. Bring up any subject in your Lordships' House, and there will be some experts who can give advice and constructive criticism as well as support or opposition.

I am most grateful to those who are to speak after me. I am sorry that we have had to wait so long. We have had a very interesting programme already today. I have tried to be as brief as possible. I have put down this Question because I believe that an investment by this country in lighter than air transport could be one of the factors in breaking the vicious circle of this country's financial problems. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say, and particularly the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will give.

8.4 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords, such as are here, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for airing this subject this evening in your Lordships' House. I also shall try to be brief. Since the oil crisis of 1973 the growth in the number of passengers to and from London by air has now again resumed, and in fact the figures for last year show that there was an increase of 8 million passengers since 1973. If this trend increases—and I can see no reason why it should not—by the mid-1980s Heathrow and Gatwick will probably be totally inadequate. The wide bodied jets, I agree, have helped to transport the passengers, and they have, through their wide bodies, reduced aircraft movements.

There are at the moment sufficient runways, and provided these runways can remain environmentally acceptable, and provided the passenger handling facilities can still remain acceptable, well and good. But with the increase that can be expected future requirements are going to be very large. Stanstead would do very well. It could take up to, I believe, 16 million more passengers if it had terminal improvements and links, either by road or rail, with the city. But then we are going to get great opposition on environmental grounds.

If we are going to assume that the only way to carry passengers by air is by conventional means, these problems that we shall have to resolve will be extremely expensive and will have a very large amount of opposition against them. As the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, let us consider a new type of aircraft which can operate much closer to and from the city centre, which would and could remove the expense of rail links to existing terminals, and would remove the environmental opposition simultaneously.

The capabilities that this aircraft must have are that it must have vertical take off and landing capability; it must be sufficiently quiet to operate from the city centre so that it will nullify any opposition to noise. There is already in existence, or nearly in existence—and I am not talking about the Venezuela blimp—an aircraft of this type; it is now under development. It is the thermo-skyship. It combines all the virtues of the helicopter and the Harrier, and all forms of other displacement aircraft. It is shaped like a fat flying saucer. I believe the official word is lenticular. If there is room it can land anywhere like a helicopter, and be controlled at low speeds by vector thrust just like the Harrier. It remains in the air through its helium like any normal airship, and its lift is increased or decreased by a varying of the air temperature inside it like a hot air balloon. It also can be lifted to improve its altitude through steam which is generated by the power plant.

The thermo-skyship is presently being developed by a tiny company which is called, for historic reasons, Mercantile Airship Transportation Limited—MAST for short, in spite of its not having to use an out-dated mooring mast associated with older airships. When not in flight it sits on the ground. MAST, this little company, is at present negotiating with appropriate sections of industry, and if these negotiations succeed an experimental prototype could be available next year and could appear at Farnborough if the funds are available. When I say funds, these funds are minute compared to the research and development funds for the conventional aircraft of today.

If the funds are produced, the prototype, I can promise, will become a reality. Sub-contractors have been organised and factory space is available. But at the moment MAST has not all of the money and until such time as all the funds are available, like many other things, alas! it will not come to being. However, last March, MAST presented its case to the Ministry of Defence because, I believe, there are many senior officers who realise the potential of the skyship. There are a number of military roles for skyships such as troop reinforcements and, as the noble Lord. Lord Gainford, has mentioned, fishery protection, the servicing of oil rigs, and the protection of oil rigs. I believe that the Army are waiting to see whether the prototype will do the job. I am sure it will, and provided it does there is no earthly reason why a skyship should not be ready for the Army by the mid-1980s.

The skyship which would be produced for the Army could also he used on short haul runs to the Continent and, inter-Britain, to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast and so on, and would thereby hive off many thousands of passengers from London and Gatwick Airports. If Her Majesty's Government gave this project their support, the objective could be achieved sooner rather than later, and certainly before astronomical sums are spent on further airport development and improved transport links.

There are numerous sites by the Thames, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has pointed out several times in your Lordships' House, which could be used as skyship terminals. The flying time intercity from London to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam, for example, would be two or three hours and the fare would be far more economical than it is today. From city centre to city centre it would take no longer than it takes now, considering the need to get to the existing airports, and it might in many instances take considerably less.

To digress briefly, the skyships' advantages over the conventional aircraft are threefold: fuel conservation, noise restriction and its vertical take-off and landing. We must remember that the skyship has three methods of lift: one through helium, one through the difference in air temperature and one through steam generation. The skyship can hover and it does not, because of its vectored thrust, have to depend on a low forward air speed at which the aerodynamic controls in a conventional airship do not work that well. It will be able to take off and land in any weather, short of a hurricane, and it is not susceptible to wind direction change during or after landing and, when on the ground, because it is heavier than air, it just sits there. It does not need ballast due to the altitude control being used through the varying of the temperature and, therefore, payload is improved. It will also have a central protruding hole for easy access for loading and unloading, therefore making for rapid turn-round time in any conditions.

It is suggested that the first thermal skyship will be called the TS26, which will be in the helicopter bracket and could be compared more than favourably with the Sikorsky S61M. It will carry 5,000 lbs. of payload with fuel for 250 miles, will operate at about half the cost of a helicopter and will cost to build only a fraction over half that of a helicopter. If any noble Lord would like further comparative figures and equivalents, comparing the helicopter with the skyship, I have them with me and would be happy to provide them after the debate.

The skyship is designed to keep costs down through simple construction methods. It complements the aeroplane and does not replace it. But it has a worldwide application and enormous export potential. I appeal to Lord Winterbottom to take this project up with the Secretary of State for Industry and to push very hard for Her Majesty's Government to show serious interest in this development without further delay. The company concerned is ready, willing and able to give details, facts and figures to the Secretary of State. Let Britain lead the way in this unique form of transportation and, once we are in the lead, let us remain there. Do not let us spoil the skyship for a ha'pennyworth of tar.

8.15 p.m.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, we have had a rather busy day and, because the hour is late, I shall be brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for asking this Question and to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for his remarks because he has great expertise in this matter. I had the privilege of raising this issue over a year ago in your Lordships' House and, before that, on other occasions. I received not particularly encouraging answers from the Government, although they did not condemn completely and one was left with the impression that an interest might be taken.

It should now he realised that great strides forward have been made since I and others first mentioned the firm that is already attending to an order for five airships for Venezuala. The reality of the airship is sometimes forgotten, and when people consider accidents that occurred in years gone by, they should remember they are nothing compared with some of the accidents that can and do happen with, for example, jumbo-jets.

I will speak first about the airship and then come to the thermo-skyship. I intend to be very brief, so allowing my noble friend Lord Winterbottom ample time in which to reply. Although this issue has been raised before and has been brought to the attention of the Government, I trust that people will not think of these machines as flying sausages in the sky. The theory applying to, and the aerodynamics of, the airship have advanced beyond recognition over the years and I can see a great future for them in transport. From my point of view, the beauty of these machines is the comforting reality of the simiplicity of design and the lack of decibels, the noise that is driving people mad in cities all over the world. Most of the world is going neurotic with all the decibels of sound and, what with cacophonic pop music and the noise of aeroplanes overhead, it is becoming a very funny world.

I believe that we can provide speed and comfort in transport with the airship. Some of these machines can lift 500 tons and move that sort of weight at 100 miles an hour over our cities without destroying beautiful villages and cities in the way the juggernauts do. Surely that is worth some money. I am anxious not to reiterate what other noble Lords have said because I do not want to eat into the precious time which I hope Lord Winterbottom will use to give us a good answer.

The great need today is for Britain once again to take some initiative, and here is an avenue for technological progress. We have been pioneers in this field in the past and I sincerely hope that we shall be pioneers once again. I hope opportunity will be provided on another occasion for a full debate to take place on this subject and on that occasion I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will impress on the Government the need for expert attention to be given to this matter.

I am interested in the thermo skyship. It is a project different from the lighterthan-air machine, but I have heard that its development has reached the point when, rather than being a possibility it can be a reality. The Government should look into that as well as into the other types of airships that are being developed. Having taken up three minutes of the Minister's precious time, and anxious myself to bring what has been a hard day to an end, I resume my seat in the hope that for once we shall receive a rather better answer than we have had in the past. If not, we can always raise the subject again.

8.18 p.m.

Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS

My Lords, I will do my best to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and be brief. I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Our discussion happily coincides with an order for airships, as Lord Davies said, although the figure I have is 22 airships at a total value of £13 million; that is what I read in my newspapers. This achievement by a firm called Aerospace Developments must come as a surprise to the more orthodox thinking people in aviation circles.

Any interest that I might have had to declare has sadly lapsed. A few years ago the firm Manchester Liners, a subsidiary of Furness Withy, formed a company called Cargo Airships, which was formed to carry out a feasibility study on airships in the context of containers and their transportation. That feasibility study involved a full-time aeronautical engineer and various others helping him and they researched the market for airships, their type and size, length, profile, power plants and so on.

The results of this study showed that the airship was eminently suitable for containers and not so suitable for passengers. It was economical and would be a potential money earner. Unfortunately, the terms of reference of the study did not include the building of the airship and, unlike the airship mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, this one is still on the drawing board. The board of directors of Manchester Liners decided, quite rightly, not to put any more funds into the study. This was quite a few years ago and one can only conclude that we were rather too far ahead of our time. I therefore congratulate Aerospace Development and the firm mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, with no ill feeling whatsoever. I believe it is a marvellous achievement.

The safety argument has been brought up many times, and I can only reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said. The present casualties have increased tenfold as compared with the casualties of the Hindenburg who, I believe, numbered 35 and of the R.101, who numbered 48 or thereabouts.

Very briefly, I feel that it is worth while spending a couple of minutes on the achievement of the airship. In 1919, two weeks after the Atlantic was flown for the first time, no less than 30 crew members of the R.34, together with a stowaway, went to America and back. In 1927, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, the Graf Zeppelin was on a scheduled flight to South America and flew around the world in great comfort for the passengers. In 1930, the R.100, designed by Sir Barnes Wallis and Neville Shute, flew to Canada and back, also in great comfort. However, with the loss of these rigid airships, Great Britain decided not to take any further part in the airship "race", if one can call it that. In the 1940s, when the United States lost two rigids, they also gave up. Goodyear was the only company to continue flying airships and, so far as I know, they have never had a fatality. I have had the opportunity of flying in airships both in this country and in the United States, and all I can say is that it was very comfortable, very quiet, seat belts were not required and the only pollution that I think the airship is guilty of is that it casts a big shadow.

In conclusion, I should like to see the Government give the airship a fair chance and to see them respond to the lead given by the Venezuelan Government in reviving an industry which I believe could offer jobs and be very useful in the export field.

8.24 p.m.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, one of the great strengths of your Lordships' House, in my view, is our ability to produce an expert or an enthusiast on almost any subject under the sun. Tonight we have shown that capacity yet again. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has displayed both those qualities and we are grateful to him for it.

I must confess that I come to this subject with a good deal of disbelief and scepticism—or at least I did. However, some of this evening's speeches, and particularly that of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, caused me to think again. I must confess that the thermal skyship that he described is not something that I have heard much about or studied in any depth. I shall certainly take care to do so. However, considering the basic difficulties of airship design and operation, I believe we need to take a considerable amount of care. I shall come back to the skyship in a moment.

I was also particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I believe that he should take a little care, though. He made two points of which I made a note. One related to accidents. He told us that the number of accidents was very small. I am afraid that I have not the figures in front of me, but I believe that if we compared like with like and made a calculation on the number of fatalities per 1,000 passenger miles or some suitable unit of that nature, we might find that the airship is not really such a safe means of transportation as the jet aircraft of today.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that we are no longer filling these airships with hydrogen. There is helium and the thermo-skyship does not have that problem at all. That is just for the Record.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, I take that point, but I thought that the noble Lord was making an historical point and suggesting that the record was as good as that of the modern jet aircraft of today. I doubt whether that is true. I shall come to the question of hydrogen and helium in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, also talked about the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Alexander, who was talking about Manchester Liners and their feasibility study of large, cargo-carrying airships. I believe that the economic viability of those large-scale projects has not yet been established. Indeed, as my noble friend told us, Manchester Liners, who certainly went into the matter in considerable depth, decided not to proceed, though they certainly could have done had they so chosen.

I believe that this subject was exhaustively investigated in the years between the wars and was then found to be significantly deficient. The long series of failures and tragic disasters is deeply etched on the minds of many of your Lordships, and who among us has not seen that dramatic sequence of film showing the Hindenburg as it came into the mast at Newark and was destroyed? Of course I must agree that the advance in technology since those days may enable us to overcome some of the difficulties experienced by the early pioneers. But I believe that a great many of the drawbacks that were apparent then were problems of principle rather than of detail and cannot easily be swept aside even with the help of modern technology. I should like to remind your Lordships of some of the more obvious difficulties which I believe still remain in principle.

First, to take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, it is now agreed by even the most ardent advocate that hydrogen is not an acceptable gas. It is of course still used in some of the smaller, unmanned balloons which are used for meteorological research, but I do not believe that anybody suggests that it is a possibility for any other purpose. So we are left with helium. Since the Second World War, it has become possible to synthesise this gas, so that we are no longer dependent upon what was previously the only world source of supply; that is, the United States. However, helium is heavier that hydrogen and is therefore less efficient as a lifting agent. On the other hand, it is the only presently available possibility.

Another problem is the basic control system of the airship. Those of your Lordships who have some scientific training will remember that a gas subjected to heat, for example, from the rays of the sun, expands. It is indeed the case that, as an airship warms up in the sun's rays, it rises quite rapidly. Gas is then vented overboard to restore equilibrium. Alternatively, if it is desired to rise intentionally, ballast can be jettisoned to achieve the same effect. It can easily be understood that the venting and jettisoning process cannot be continued indefinitely because either the gas or the ballast will soon be exhausted and the airship will no longer be able to be controlled.

My Lords, one of the uses for airships that has been suggested this evening is the possibility of maritime patrol in the North Sea, and as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said, those operations are conducted close to the surface of the water. In that situation, the problem of keeping the airship in equilibrium at a low altitude is particularly critical: the problems of loss of ballast or gas are particularly critical. Another problem—and this again applies to the North Sea—is the need to protect the airship from the accretion of ice. This was a major problem with piston-engined aircraft before and just after the Second World War. However, modern jet aircraft by and large fly above the levels at which icing is encountered, but airships cannot, or would not, normally fly that high, and indeed in the past a number have been lost from this difficulty. The great aerodynamic surfaces of airships make the problems of ice prevention and removal for all practical purposes insoluble.

Yet another difficulty is the limitation imposed on the operation of airships in high winds. There were many accidents, both minor and major, from this cause while they enjoyed their heyday before the war. Again, somebody has suggested that these airships could be used for supplying drilling rigs in the North Sea. I believe that that would be a major problem, bearing in mind the climatic conditions of that area.

Finally, even if these difficulties can be overcome or ignored, we must ask ourselves whether the construction and operation of these airships is likely to be economically viable. In that connection, I would recall the order that was mentioned by several noble Lords, for a number of airships for operation in Venezuela. My understanding was that it was an order for one airship, with an option on a further 20. It was not exactly an order for 22, as I think somebody mentioned, but I would stand open to correction on that. In any event, those airships are not, I gather, designed for carrying cargo, but for carrying advertising slogans, which is of course a very different thing.

But we have to ask ourselves, my Lords, whether the operation and construction of these ships can overcome the basically adverse economic problems. Of course. I agree that that depends on many factors, not least of which is the operating revenue to be expected. But I am advised that the costs of construction, particularly of the larger freighter airships which we have considered, are likely to be very high when related to the productivity of the machine. I would concede that the direct operating costs may well be attractive, but I believe that the standing charges relating to the high initial investment would render these airships uneconomic, particularly remembering that they could operate only during comparatively calm weather.

I have touched on the point, as indeed have many noble Lords, on the use of airships for patrolling the North Sea, and I have to concede that that is the least impractical, I believe, of the tasks proposed. As the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, mentioned, the American authorities have used airships for this purpose for a number of years, and I believe still do so. It might therefore be desirable to conduct some tests in the North Sea, perhaps with an airship on loan from the United States authorities, but before we embark upon that we should remember that the climatic conditions of the area where these airships operate in the United States are considerably more favourable than those of the North Sea or the Western Approaches. However, as I have said, it may be that the RAF or the Royal Navy could borrow such an airship for some trials.

Undoubtedly, there are some areas where additional research and development would be justified. As from tomorrow, we have a new British Aerospace Corporation, for tomorrow indeed is vesting day, and maybe it would be appropriate for the new Corporation to conduct some limited research into this matter and perhaps to advise the public generally, and particularly the various companies (enthusiastic, small companies, by and large) which are involved in these matters. One of the great attractions of nationalisation to noble Lords sitting on the Government side of the House was that the research and development possibilities opened by virtue of nationalisation would be very great, and here perhaps is a way to prove the point. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for raising this matter and invite the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to tell us how the Government view the situation.

8.35 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for raising this Question because it provides a useful opportunity to clarify the Government's position on the development of airships. Since the mid-1960s there has been a growing interest in the use of airships for a variety of tasks in the developed and developing countries. The United Kingdom companies working in the field are among the world leaders, and I have been most impressed with the enthusiasm and hard work that has gone into their projects. It is perhaps natural that the claims made for the airship are somewhat overstated, but they are nevertheless worthy of con- sideration. In particular, while it is doubtful whether the airship could compete with established ground transport or with large cargo aircraft for carrying general cargo in the developed countries, its potential in the developing countries, where transport facilities are often nonexistent, is impressive. This is not to say that they will not have a role to play in the developed regions like Western Europe. Indeed, they are thought to have a decided advantage on the movement of large indivisible loads, and there will no doubt be other uses, perhaps in the tourist trade; but first there are a number of problems that have to be overcome.

The basic problems which brought the first great age of the rigid airships to such a spectacular and premature end were those of safety and controllability. The safety problem caused by the use, in Europe, of highly inflammable and, in certain cases, violently explosive hydrogen gas as a lifting agent has now been greatly eased with the general availability of helium, a welcome spin-off of the American space programme. In addition to this great advance, the effectiveness of which has been shown by the excellent safety record of the small helium-filled non-rigid airships operated by the United States Navy for so many years, there have been major advances in materials for the manufacture of gas bags and envelopes, in propulsion units, and in our ability to understand the type of stresses imposed on this kind of craft.

Over the past year or so the Civil Aviation Authority has put in a great deal of work on preparing draft airworthiness regulations to cover not only the small non-rigid airships currently being developed both here and abroad, but also the massive rigid and semi-rigid airships which have been proposed. It is essential that if such craft are to become a common feature in the transport scene, they should conform to the standards of safety and structural integrity we demand of modern aircraft. The size of some of the airships being proposed, with maximum dimensions in excess of 1,000 feet and lifting weights approaching 1,000 tons, could in themselves pose considerable risks to other air transport, particularly at night. The risks of collision in the busy airspace of Western Europe must be seriously considered, and the regulations needed to safeguard against such a possibility may greatly reduce their usefulness.

There are also the technical problems, such as the operation of vehicles of this size near the ground, and the control of lift as the weight of the ship changes during loading and unloading; problems relating to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I believe that a number of companies have done some work on these problems, but the need exists for such techniques to be thoroughly proved, and it would appear prudent to approach these large airships by stages. Such an approach, building on previous knowledge, reduces the risk of a major incident which could, by its accompanying adverse publicity, set back the use of airships for years.

The problems I have mentioned are only some of those which must be solved if the credibility problem facing airships and their manufacturers is to be overcome. The Government are ready to consider providing financial support for airships, but it would be wrong to speculate with public money, particularly when the private sector has not yet shown any great enthusiasm for the product or any willingness to provide money for its development. Therefore, as I am sure Parliament would demand in cases where public moneys are involved, very strict criteria must be applied before the Government could agree to invest in any project. and the need for restraint in public expenditure has greatly added to the stringency with which these criteria must be applied. The Department of Industry has had meetings with a number of the airship companies at which the criteria applying to "launching aid" has been explained. To date, however, these companies have not submitted a case in sufficient detail for a decision either way to be made. In any case, my Lords, I doubt that "launching aid" under the Civil Aviation Act 1949 is the most appropriate way to help in such cases. The NRDC powers to help with finance are, we believe, much more appropriate to this sort of development, and currently the NRDC are considering several requests for aid.

In reply to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in the case of the thermo-skyship I understand that the NRDC are currently considering a request for financial aid from the company, and a decision is expected shortly. These projects relate to the manufacture of prototype airships, and not to research as such. While such applications would of course be considered, the pressure on the funds available is very great, and it would pose the problem of discriminating against many other potentially fruitful areas. The Government, while perhaps unable to offer direct financial aid, stand ready to help in a number of other ways. In particular, the services of the British Overseas Trade Board and of the Ministry of Defence's "Defence Sales" organisation, et cetera., can, in principle, be made available. In addition, it is possible that facilities at the Government's research establishments could be offered.

Finally, my Lords, I should like to offer my best wishes to all those who are so enthusiastically trying to re-establish a market for the airship. We will do what we can to help, but unless they—that is, the companies—can break down the "credibility barrier" which exists, it is difficult to see a long-term future for such craft. Nevertheless, the Government heartily commend those people, and their efforts, to potential users and backers. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Davies that that may not be a good answer, but it is a better answer than some we have already had.