asked the Minister of Technology what incentives are given to officers employed in the research establishments of his Department in the experimental officer, scientific assistant and technical classes, to acquire additional professional or scientific qualifications; and what steps are taken to ensure that they stay with his Department after so doing.

Financial assistance, time off and the recognition accorded to the qualifications. Sandwich course students are required to give an undertaking to remain in Government service for two years after conclusion of the course, but no similar undertaking is demanded of day-release students.

Does my hon. Friend understand that this undertaking is not binding and that we are losing one in ten of the officers who go on these sandwich courses? Is he aware that the cost to the State of the completion of these courses is between £2,000 and £3,000? Does he not think, therefore, that there should be additional incentives by way of promotion when officers take these courses successfully?

In the first place one must realise that out of some 53 of these students only 13 have left. It is very difficult to know how to make them stay. They are not lost to the State as a whole. We need more of these people better qualified and there are great advantages to industry in general in having them. Finally—and I have argued this with my hon. Friend before—I do not accept that, having been given these very big sums of public money for their training, in addition these people are entitled to specially privileged treatment over and above that of other students in the same Department who have obtained their qualifications in a different way.

asked the Minister of Technology to what extent he takes competitive prices into account when allocating contracts.

Except in the case of small purchases where it would not be economical to do so, my Department, in accordance with normal Government practice, seeks competitive tenders wherever practicable. In addition to price, the ability to meet the required technical specification and delivery date are important factors in awarding contracts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the House will welcome this prudent approach, but would he not agree that a Minister's Departmental policy towards costs and prices cannot be readily divorced from his view of the Government's general policy in the same regard? Will he, therefore, take this opportunity—which he should surely welcome—to make his own position in this respect entirely clear? Does he stand by the Government's incomes policy, or does he support the views of the Transport and General Workers' Union?

That question is out of order.

asked the Minister of Technology whether research and development of marine nuclear propulsion will continue pending the conclusion of the review which he is conducting.

Yes; certain work is continuing, including that covered by the Vulcain agreement with the Belgians which extends to 1967.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that certain members of the Padmore Committee would have wished when that Committee reported to have come out far more emphatically than the Committee as a whole did and that procrastination was regarded by some members of the Pad-more Committee as utterly disastrous in this matter as leading us into the position of having to be followers-on rather than promoters of new ideas?

I will certainly take those views into consideration, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a review is now being urgently undertaken.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take a personal interest in liaison with Belgium in this respect, because that country is very advanced in this matter? Would he not agree that it is of crucial importance that we have Anglo-European liaison on these research matters?

I will certainly take account of the right hon. Gentleman's views, which are similar to my own, of the need for co-operation in our efforts on these projects.

asked the Minister of Technology what measures he now has under consideration to assist in the application of technology.

My Department is working on the whole range of action described in the Prime Minister's reply on 16th November to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). The programme includes studies in connection with the industries for which the Ministry of Technology is the sponsor department, on engineering standards and on automation. The application of technology is also being furthered by the work of certain Government laboratories, through the Atomic Energy Authority, the new responsibilities of the N.R.D.C. and an extension of the scope of the Department's regional activities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with his rate of progress in this direction, and, if not, why not?

I am never satisfied because I am an impatient man.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the level of productivity in the industries for which his Department is sponsor; and if he will make a statement.

Present levels of productivity need to be raised in order to achieve the objectives of the National Economic Plan. Through its participation in the work of the Economic Development Committees for Machine Tools and Electronics and in the development of its own policies, my Department is seeking to ensure that its sponsored industries can make their contribution.

As Mr. Aubrey Jones has now so closely linked productivity with incomes policy, can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking to impress the Government's incomes policy upon the industries for which he is the sponsor? Secondly, can he also use such influence as he may have on the Transport and General Workers' Union?

Order. I do not propose to be troubled by this again. If it helps the House, the principle is that the Minister is responsible for answering questions relating to his activities as Minister, but not otherwise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first question?

I shall take every step in every discussion with industry, through its associations and through my own Department, to press the need for increased productivity.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the beginning of the year the First Secretary said that he would arrange for the Government to bring about diversification at Short Bros. and Harland, Belfast, by the production of machine tools? Nothing has been done about this in the intervening months. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made?

That question might more properly be addressed to the First Secretary. The subject of machine tools and the diversification of industry was the subject of an examination by representatives of the First Secretary's Department, and I understand that progress in that discussion has been made.

The right hon. Gentleman said that productivity would have to be increased considerably before the target was reached. By how much will productivity have to be increased in order to achieve its target? Does he not think that it is terribly urgent that this should be done, and will he impress that on both sides of industry in view of the terrifyingly bad import-export figures announced today?

I consider that increased productivity is essential. This is a principle which I have been trying to put forward for a number of years. By how much productivity should be increased depends on the industry under discussion and there can be no set figure for every industry. There is need for improvement, but productivity is a problem for all of us and not just for a Minister or a trade union.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will seek powers to establish a body to exploit the resources of seaweed in the North Sea by harvesting it and converting it into textile fibres and transparent package foil.

No, Sir; I understand that enough work has been done in this field to enable commercial firms to assess for themselves the economic prospects of exploiting seaweed for these purposes.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that the constructive suggestion contained in my Question has been adopted by other Northern countries with great success and that it is particularly suitable for Britain, with its shallow shelf in the seas around Britain, in order to increase textile production, reduce unemployment and increase exports?

I appreciate that this is a very valuable commodity. Since taking this job I have learned that one can eat it, wear it and grow roses in it. However, I am advised that textile yarns derived from seaweed have a limited application and, therefore, a limited market and that package foil derived from seaweed is not competitive in comparison with that from trees via cellulose.

asked the Minister of Technology what assistance his Department provides for industrial firms to enable them to adopt modern methods of production and distribution.

All the resources of my Department are intended to help industry in the direction my right hon. Friend indicates. In particular, a prime function of the industrial liaison officers I have appointed throughout the country is to encourage industry to adopt the results of research: and a considerable proportion of the research and development activities sponsored by my Department also have this object.

Does my right hon. Friend's Answer mean that he accepts some responsibility for assisting industrial firms to adopt modern methods of production? Does he not agree that there may be too many industrial firms which appear to have a vested interest in obsolescence and which are content with their existing positions? Has he prepared an analysis of such firms?

No, an analysis of such firms has not been prepared. However, my Department's original organisation has been strengthened, having in mind the purpose mentioned in my right hon. Friend's first supplementary question. We accept responsibility for bringing the results of research to industry in any district.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the advice which he gives to firms includes advice on how to elicit higher productivity from members of the trade unions, including the Transport and General Workers' Union?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the contribution which industry has to give to his Department about the most modern methods which could well be employed by other industries is equal to, if not greater than, his own Department can contribute to industry?

Certainly we have that in mind. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have an advisory committee of our own whose members are drawn from very high levels of British industry and which gives us advice, which we think is useful.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps are being taken to produce in the United Kingdom the low enriched fuel suitable for the advanced gas-cooled reactor system for nuclear power, at prices competitive with supplies from the United States of America.

The A.E.A. will shortly submit to me proposals on the future of the Capenhurst factory as a producer of low enriched uranium in relation to the need for this material for the second nuclear power programme. I shall not be in a position to answer questions about competitive costs until I have received and considered this submission.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, I am sure he is aware that industry is very much concerned about the success in obtaining low enrichment fuels to be available not only for our nuclear power industry but also for essential export purposes. I hope my right hon. Friend will make further inquiries to ensure that they are available.

asked the Minister of Technology what studies he has made and what information he has about the operating and installation of water-moderated, advanced gas-cooled, and fast breeder reactors for the generation of electric power; if he will instruct the Atomic Energy Authority to publish a technical report on reactor types, giving installation and operating costs; and if he will summarise this in a White Paper.

Technical and other information on the advanced gas-cooled reactor, the fast breeder reactor and the steam generating heavy-water type of water-moderated reactor has been and will continue to be published from time to time by the Atomic Energy Authority.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that many welcome the announcement of the breakthrough by the Minister of Power? Although many in the House were disappointed that he was not here but were aware that he had good reasons for not being here, we were somewhat disappointed in the reluctance of the Minister of Power to display enthusiasm for the break-through in atomic energy. We concede that there are certain aspects which are of a commercial nature. There are other aspects of a technical nature for which this House and the country would like much more detailed information. Would he consider publishing—

Order. Perhaps the Minister could now answer to what extent he is aware of these various propositions.

The Minister would have found it a lot easier to answer had he been able to hear the supplementary question. In giving the information, the C.E.G.B. will cover economic and technical details of the advanced gas-cooled reactor and a comparison with the economies of the best of the water-moderated designs submitted for the Dungeness B station. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was regrettable that I was not able to be here. I was with the Atomic Energy Authority on that day. I should have liked to participate in the discussion.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the technological implications of the advanced gas-cooled reactor.

I would prefer to defer any statement until fuller technical information becomes available, on conclusion of the contract negotiations between C.E.G.B. and the industrial group concerned.

asked the Minister of Technology if, with a view to promoting exports of British reactors, he will seek the agreement of the Central Electricity Generating Board and of the nuclear engineering company concerned to the publication, in as full detail as possible and in all the major European languages, of the technical features of an advanced gas-cooled reactor, as recently accepted for the Dungeness B power station.

I understand that comprehensive details of the design and cost of the advanced gas-cooled reactor accepted for Dungeness B station will be given full publicity by the Central Electricity Generating Board as soon as the contract negotiations have been completed. Our diplomatic and trade posts abroad have already been given information to enable them to make good use of the opportunities for publicity presented by the A.G.R. success at Dungeness.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this break-through gives us great opportunities for sales all over the world, particularly in Europe, and that a very high degree of responsibility rests on his Department to make sure that the information is presented correctly and in the right language and in the way in which people want to have it? Will he give an undertaking that he will look into this matter with the greatest care?

I accept fully that a great degree of responsibility rests on my Department. I am as proud as many other hon. Members must be that the advanced gas-cooled reactor succeeded. We shall consider translating the information into any language when there are prospects of trade.

In order that the Central Electricity Generating Board could have made this decision in favour of the advanced gas-cooled reactor, must not very thorough studies have been undertaken which have been documented in the presentation to the Board which the Minister now says is being conveyed to our diplomatic staff abroad? Is there any reason why this information should not be given to the House? What is the reason for this continued fatuous secrecy about the economic assessment by the Central Electricity Generating Board?

There is no question of a blanket of secrecy about this. There are commercial problems involved in discussion between the C.E.G.B. and the group which has succeeded, and I think that both sides of the House recognise that. Our diplomatic and trade posts have been given the broad information on which to work, not the detail asked for in the Question, and I hope that that will be presented as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will publish the technical assessments made by the Atomic Energy Authority of the various tenders, British and United States, when advising the Central Electricity Generating Board with regard to the Dungeness B station reactor; what steps he is taking to promote the exports of the type of advanced gas-cooled reactor selected; and what part he plans should be played by the Atomic Energy Authority to this end.

Responsibility for technical assessment of the tenders lay with the C.E.G.B.; it was assisted by the Authority. C.E.G.B. has to complete its contract negotiations with the industrial group concerned before further technical information can be issued.

While I appreciate that it may be difficult for the C.E.G.B. to make any publications until the contracts have been completed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can take his recent decision about the commercial activities of the Atomic Energy Authority to mean that the Authority can now feel far less inhibited in promoting the sale of atomic energy equipment abroad?

This was the purpose of establishing the trading fund.

Will the Minister indicate whether this increased interest in the gas-cooled reactor will mean a delay in the location of a fast-breeder reactor, which may concern Scot- land? Is he not aware that if a decision on this subject is not made soon there might well be a substantial brain drain from the Atomic Energy Establishment in Scotland?

No, this will have no effect. It will not delay the matter at all. I have answered in correspondence and earlier Written Answers that I hope to visit Scotland concerning this subject shortly. There is, however, a substantial amount of work available at Dounreay at the moment.

asked the Minister of Technology what action he is taking within his Department to implement the decision to introduce the metric system into Great Britain.

Through its research stations and advisory staff my Department will give every possible assistance to the British Standards Institution in the preparation of the new series of British Metric Standards foreshadowed in the Written Answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 24th May, 1965.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the speedy decision to go ahead with this is an indication of the Government's intention to modernise Britain? [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to make much noise, but if they had still been in office Britain would not have been decimalised, it would have been decimated. Could my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to see that the fullest possible information is being made available to industry and others involved, and can he say more specifically what is passing between his Department and the British Standards Institution?

The Ministry of Technology, through its research stations and the participation of the grant-aided research associations, is represented on more than 1,000 committees of the British Standards Institution. The measures under discussion at the moment answer the question to which my hon. Friend has referred; they include the production of a comprehensive manual of international method units used in industry and trade; also, in collaboration with the Central Office of Information, assistance has been given to the Publishers Association in revising engineering text books for the domestic and export markets.

While welcoming the Government's decision to go ahead on the introduction of metric weights and measures, could the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been complete silence on the introduction of decimal currency?

That is hardly a question for my Department.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress he is making in his plans to expand Great Britain's computer industry.

As my hon. Friend knows, I announced on 1st March a programme for assisting the development of a flourishing computer industry. Good progress has been made in implementing this programme. The Computer Advisory Service is now in operation in my Department. A review of the University and Research Council computer requirements is virtually complete. The National Research Development Corporation is working on proposals for assisting the computer industry. Consultations are in progress on the formation of a National Computer Programme Centre.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is essential to give a considerable amount of priority to this, especially in view of the need to make up the immense amount of ground lost by the last Government? Can he say in more definite terms what progress he has made with the National Computer Programme Centre?

I would agree that it is essential that we should make progress with this, whoever is responsible for the situation we were in, because I think it ought to be remedied. Discussions on the National Computer Programme Centre have been held between my Department and the various interests concerned. We have not yet reached conclusions either on location or the extent of this project. I think those who are associated with computers know this is a very complicated subject. This is particularly true in relation to programming.

The original question mentions Great Britain's computer industry. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to define what he thinks Great Britain's computer industry is? For example, is it British-owned firms only, or would a 100 per cent. American-owned subsidiary here constitute part of Great Britain's computer industry?

It is part of Britain's computer-producing industry. When one talks about a British-owned firm one is naturally more interested in a British-owned firm, as questions from that side of the House showed a short time ago when hon. Gentlemen asked me if I was prepared to give money for research projects sponsored by an American-controlled firm. We think that the British-controlled computer industry is one wholly British-owned, with its research done here and its staff situated here. But we are not discriminating against other people who are producing computers here. We are not discriminating against them in the sense that they have growing markets for production which we hope to pick up.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that businessmen and computer experts on both sides of the Atlantic are agreed that had the former Administration made available the necessary resources to the computer industry ten years ago it would not be in the poor state it is in today? Does my right hon. Friend further appreciate that industry in this country and abroad is very well satisfied and congratulate him on the wonderful work he is doing to pull the market together?

It is known, of course, that some of the foreign-operated computer firms have issued literature demonstrating that they think there is a market in Britain because we have not taken advantage of our own opportunities.

So that there should he no ambiguity about this, could the right hon. Gentleman say, even if he is not discriminating against foreign-owned subsidiaries operating in Britain, whether he is discriminating in favour of wholly owned British computer industries?

We have made clear in various discussions on the subject that we should encourage British firms to secure orders competitively against anyone.

asked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he is making for implementing the findings of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology which will report to him jointly with the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

We expect to hear shortly from the Committee suggesting a programme for its future work. Until this is available my right hon. Friend is not in a position to say whether any special administrative arrangements will be required for his Ministry.

Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to say, in the light of his right hon. Friend's statement yesterday about the machine tool industry, whether, in the implementation of the "little Neddy's" recommendations, his right hon. Friend is now going to ask this committee to make a special report with a view to implementing the expressed need for increasing scientific and technological manpower for the machine tool industry by 600 by the end of 1968?

I think, with respect, the hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the committee. It is essentially an advisory and co-ordinating body and not a committee of inquiry or an executive body. It will not be in a position to tender any substantive advice until it has examined the results of the 1965 triennial survey of scientific and technological manpower, which will not be available until later this year.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to discourage the duplication of research in industry and the use of skilled research workers to tackle similar problems in different enterprises.

I agree about the need to discourage undue duplication of research in industry. A number of the measures being taken by my Department contribute to this end. They include the dissemination of the results of researches undertaken directly by my Department, the encouragement of industrial research associations, and of other forms of co-operative research.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the fact that the creation of a modern economy in this country requires the planning of research, and will he keep this matter constantly under review in order that we may go ahead as quickly as possible in refurnishing our present industry?

I would certainly accept that. Harking back to the previous question, one of the jobs of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology will be to make a much more critical survey than hitherto of the use of qualified manpower. It would be unwise to think it is either possible to prevent duplication in research or that it is desirable to stop such duplication.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that competitive research on any one subject may be highly desirable?

As my hon. Friend mentioned, what we need is some degree of planning, and a degree of duplication takes place because it is accepted that it is desirable and in the national good. One of the problems in the past has been that nobody knew what was happening.

asked the Minister of Technology what consideration the Computer Advisory Unit will give to the importance of the introduction of decimal currency and the cost of any delay; and what provision will be made for the adaptation of present and new equipment and specifications for decimal currency.

The Computer Advisory Unit's responsibility in regard to decimal currency would be confined to advising purchasers and users of computers on any questions which might arise on its introduction. The adoption of decimal currency would pose no serious problem for the operation of computers.

Has any consideration been given to the cost of delaying a decision in view of the fact that much of the ancillary equipment is designed for pounds, shillings and pence and will have to be modified if there is a change to decimal currency?

The hon. Gentleman probably has the Halsbury Committee's recommendations in mind, but these did not refer so much to computers as to other equipment, which will certainly be taken into account when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his announcement. Computers are not affected by this issue.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter concerns banking where great advances are being made, which brings urgency into the matter?

indicated assent.

asked the Minister of Technology what consideration he has given to the development of mechanical-handling devices in the transport industry.

The Ministry of Technology does carry out and support some research work of relevance to materials handling. As my hon. Friend is aware, transport undertakings have given, and are giving, a great deal of attention to this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one respect in which the modernisation of British industry can take place and where great economies can be made is in the trans-shipment of goods from one form of transport to the other? Will he undertake an extensive survey of the shortcomings in our country in the transshipment of goods?

A number of inquiries of this type are taking place. My right hon. Friend will be happy to consider, in consultation with the Minister of Transport, whether his Department can be of any further assistance in this matter.

Would the hon. Gentleman say what consideration he has given to the development of fork-lift trucks and other mechanical handling devices in connection with transport in the docks, and what is being done to modernise the system and to bring our docks up to date with European docks?

The Ministry is represented on the research council of the National Ports Council. The Ministry is engaged in considering just these problems.

What consideration has the hon. Gentleman given to the mechanical handling of baggage, particularly at London Airport when members of the Transport and General Workers Union are on strike?

If hon. Members were to ask questions which were intended to be serious, they would be entitled to serious anwers to them.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the future of the machine tool industry.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on machine tools which I made yesterday.

The right hon. Gentleman willl be aware that this Question was short-circuited by his statement yesterday. Would he say whether he visualises the possible Government action of which he spoke as meaning possible State intervention in some of these machine tool firms, falling short of outright nationalisation?

I said yesterday that I would not rule out anything which was necessary to improve the economic condition of the machine tool industry in the interests of both the industry and the economy of the country.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the machine tool industry is as efficient as it should be? Has he received any complaints from the machine tool industry that industry as a whole is failing to encourage the ideas which stem from the machine tool industry? Will he do something to waken up industry as a whole so that further advantage can be taken of the machine tool industry's ideas?

Certainly there have been complaints. The basis of my statement yesterday was that there was a need for an exhaustive examination of the problems in the machine tool industry. We would be prepared to do anything to assist in handling both cyclical problems, stockpiling and shortages of sophisticated machinery and to deal with any other problem in the machine tool industry.

asked the Minister of Technology the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the nationalisation of the machine tool industry.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on the machine tool industry which I made yesterday.

Does not the Minister recall that my right hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and Bexley (Mr. Heath) both asked him outright whether there was any intention to nationalise the machine tool industry? As he did not answer either of them, can he now give a clear "Yes" or "No" to that simple question?

I thought that I answered quite fully yesterday, and have continued to do so today, that I shall take whatever steps are necessary through my Department to present to this House any views that I may hold upon the industry. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite are suggesting that I should carefully study the question of the nationalisation of the machine tool industry, I will take that into account, too.

In the seven-month review of the machine tool industry which culminated in yesterday's statement, did the Minister consider the establishment of a State-owned machine tool company? If so, what evidence dissuaded him from putting it into effect?

There was not a seven-month review of the machine tool industry. There is one that has been conducted to my knowledge over the last three-and-a-half years. Two-and-a-half years ago a report was issued upon which no action was taken. We have subsequently had the reports both of Sir Steuart Mitchell's committee and of the "little Neddy" on machine tools, and I have given consideration to the factors involved in those reports and have reported accordingly. There was at no time a suggestion that there should be nationalisation of a part, a company or any total section of the machine-tool industry.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the policy upon which he decides should be determined by the efficiency of the industry in question? Would he not agree, further, that many of us in our constituencies when visiting various firms are fed up with being shown with pride Swedish, German and American machines which could well be made in this country? Would my right hon. Friend agree that if the machine-tool industry fails in his examination, we should consider nationalising it?

If, after the examinations have been completed and the steps which we propose have been taken, there is no improvement in the situation, I propose that I shall do as I keep saying: that is, come back to this House with any additional proposals that I may have. I, equally, have been quite disturbed to go into factory organisations and machine shops and find machine tools made by foreign manufacturers.

Does that statement by the Minister mean that the threat of nationalisation still hangs over the machine-tool industry? If it does, how can he expect the machine-tool industry to obtain capital?

The right hon. Member may have read in some of the Press this morning that my statement on machine tools was acceptable to the Machine Tool Trades Association. I suggest that if one continues this practice of pretending that something is a danger which does not exist—[Interruption.] There is no proposal to nationalise or partly to nationalise either a firm or any section of the machine-tool industry, but I would not hesitate to bring any necessary proposals before the House.