TNAG-1161-FCO40-1441-Visit-by-Margaret-Thatcher--UK-Prime-Minister--to-Hong-Kong--1982 — Page 132

[MR. MA

of any gr plaints are

As the horough

1.

ber.. for having

i l

ib

near bumborough, at the Collage of Aeronautics, at Cranicki, und at South- ampton University. The Government yen1 £400,000 on this last year. It costs BOA C., which is only one airline. 410.000 a year in extra full and lost mylond because of the note: $10,000 year to maintain the suppressors ; and suppressors themselves cost B.O.A.C. 2397,000 as an item of capital equip- ment. The earth banks and muflers cost £400.000. Hon. Members will see what one airline is doing in the way of suppres eg noise to help the consti- tuents ( those who have taken part in the debate.

Mr. Hunter rose---

Ar. Murten: I must press on with my speech.

The hon. Member for Loughborough asked about the new planes and another hon. Member asked whether these would

be noisier. The development of the by; pass engine, in particular, has reduced jet noise for the same engine power. The Trident will be 8 to 10 perceived noise decibels quieter than the Comet for the sume thrust. There are signs of great progress in this respect. The B.A.C.111 is in the same range as the Trident.

I think that the hon. Member for Loughborough has taken this matter up with the British Aircraft Corporation in respect of the VC10. The Corporation tells me that the VC10, with an all-up weight of 299,000 lb., registered 101 perceived noise decibels, whereas the Super VC10, with an all-up weight of 320,000 lb., registered 102 perceived noise decibels. This is a remarkable feat for this remarkable plane. I am sure that hon. Members agree that this is progress in the right direction.

There are many more points which I would very much like to make. I have the answers to many questions and will send them to hon. Members. But time has run out and I must give way to the next debute.

to

10

and by joining the lot. Kether for ton and Slough, who has

let the Chamber, in expressing sympathy par- ticularly with those who me sick and old and who, perhaps, sufer more than any other proql from this vaj in

noise.

1.39 p.m.

}:

Dz. Jeremy Drag

East): It is many years since the He had an opportunity of ghing is full attention in debate to the affairs orale Kong. I am sure hon. Members vull feel that it is high time that we did so. I trust, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow this debate to overrun at least to the extent it has been overrun by in: predecessor.

Hong Kong is now our most populous higher than that of New Zeland and a dependent territory, with a population

foreign trade equal to half that of the whole of India. It has our sole commen frontier with the Communist world and it is our most intimate contact with the most numerous race on earth. I think that hon. Members will agree, too, thai we have a special responsibility for the 31 million people, mostly Chinese, who have chosen to live in Hong Kong.

I know that many hon. Members wish to speak so I will plunge straight into the consideration of the future of Hong Kong without dwelling on its great past achievements or upon the spell which it casts over all who visit Hong Kong, a charm which I have known since my childhood, for I was born there. Much needs to be said about the social and political developments within Hong Kong and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) will have an opportunity to say something about this. My time is limited, so I shall concentrate on the economic and external affairs of the terri-

tory.

1

';