asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of motor car output for the United Kingdom market, and for exports in 1967, comparing total production with 1966 and 1965, respectively; the rate of reduction in output during 1967 compared with the two preceding years; and what steps he is taking to prevent further decline in output of motor cars.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the prospective level of activity in the United Kingdom Motor Industry during 1967.

No firm forecasts of car output or exports are possible, but I expect total production in 1967 to be slightly lower than in 1966 and 1965. It is likely that the total value of the industry's exports in 1967 will be higher than in 1965 and at least as high as the record 1966 figures. Production prospects are being closely watched and ways of bringing about improvements will continue to be explored by the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry, of which my right hon. Friend is Chairman.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1966, compared with 1964, the output of the car industry of Britain declined by 14.1 per cent., and that in 1967 so far this industry is having the worst year since the slump year of 1929? Why are the hon. Gentleman and his Ministerial colleagues so complacent about this disastrous position?

I would not say that this is by any means the worst year. If hon. Gentlemen opposite look back at the record of this industry under previous Governments, including their own, they will observe that in 1961 compared with 1959 production and exports fell by about one-third. The important thing here is that the exports of this industry are being maintained, and I hope that they will be increased.

Is not the hon. Gentleman ware of the dangerously low levels of profitability in this industry, and will he therefore give an undertaking that the Government's prices and incomes policy will not be used in such a way as to inhibit manufacturers from charging prices which they believe to be commercially prudent?

I am aware of the industry's record of profitability. As a matter of fact, increases in prices have been permitted to the industry. Nevertheless, the fact must be faced that the industry's record in many markets requires to be improved and I hope that it will devote itself to that object.

Will my hon. Friend say what the Government are doing to help the motor industry to improve its lamentable export performance? We have been pushed out of export markets one after another. Throughout the Commonwealth and the United States our performance compares extremely badly with other major European exporters, including Volkswagen and Renault.

I am aware of the position in relation to the United States. That certainly warrants investigation. Nevertheless, I would not say that the record of the industry is lamentable. It is good, but it nevertheless requires to be improved as compared with that of our foreign competitors. As for what the Government are doing to help, we have introduced the export rebate, which has been of considerable assistance.

Does not the Minister agree that the time has been reached when it is necessary to give some modest boost to the home sales of motor cars?

As the hon. Member knows, representations have been made to the Government, which are under consideration.

asked the Minister of Technology how many cars and vehicles were produced by the British motor industry in the first five months of 1967; how many of these have been exported; and how these figures differ from those for the identical period last year.

Production in May, 1967, is not yet known. In the first four months of 1967, 529,750 cars and 127,881 commercial vehicles were produced, of which 212,12 cars and 52,896 commercial vehicles were exported. These figures were, respectively, 13 per cent. 18 per cent. 5 per cent. and 9 per cent. less than in the corresponding period of 1966.

Is not this a deplorable performance both for the manufacturers and the motor agents, who have to sell and who live by selling? Will the Government regard is as a matter of urgency to get some stimulation of the motor industry in this country? They are responsible for this. Will they do something about it?

The hon. Member should recognise that exports this year, by value, are being maintained, which is a good record in this situation, taking into account the difficulties which the motor industry is experiencing in various markets. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, it is clearly necessary that greater efforts should be devoted to exports. As the hon. Member knows, certain proposals have been put before British manufacturers in this regard and I hope that they will lead to some result.

Can my hon. Friend give any sort of progress report on the "Little Neddy" for this industry, set up after so much pressure some time ago, which does not seem to have got down to doing anything yet?

We hope that the "Little Neddy" for this industry will come into action quite shortly.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will take immediate action to ensure that a fair quantity of British equipment is used by the World Weather Watch.

Contributing nations, and possibly the World Meteorological Organisation Secretariat, will invite tenders for equipment when requirements have been decided. Arrangements are being made to inform British manufacturers of the opportunities available.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but since this is an activity in which we have the lead, both in knowledge and in theory, and in the use of instruments, will he give full support, through the Royal Air Force or the Meteorological Office or industry generally, in order that adequate research and development is carried out, to make sure that we keep the lead in this small but vital field?

Very substantial resources are being devoted to the development of the meterological service.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will state the British content of the proposed European airbus.

It is expected that the United Kingdom would be responsible for 37½ per cent. of the airframe and 75 per cent. of the engine.

Can my hon. Friend say whether or not it is the case that the French, who are going for the jumbo-jet, want commonality of engines and therefore are sticking out for the Pratt & Whitney engine in the airbus?

There is another Question concerning the airbus, and I think that I should wait until that is reached before replying.

Is the Minister aware that the danger into which we are falling is that if we never have the lead on the airframe side we shall one day reach the stage when we no longer have the capacity to take the lead on the engine side?

I appreciate this. No final decision has been made on who should take the lead on the airframe. The Question was related to the division of work.

asked the Minister of Technology what decision has now been reached regarding the development and production of a European airbus; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in the joint production with France and Germany of an airbus.

At the meeting of Ministers in Paris on 9th May it was decided that the industrial consortium working on proposals for a European airbus should produce a design of the aircraft based on two Rolls Royce RB207 engines. A report on this work will be available in early July and Ministers plan to meet again towards the end of that month to consider it.

While that report is to be welcomed, as far as it goes, may I ask whether the Minister can give any idea when a firm decision might be expected so that work can begin and so that we can be sure of getting into the market in time and not behind the Americans? Can the hon. Gentleman give us any confidence in the firmness of the decision on the Rolls Royce engine, because he might have heard, as others have, the disturbing reports in Paris?

There is no hold-up in the development of the project here. We shall receive the preliminary report of the project design towards the end of July and I hope that a firm decision will then be made to go ahead. The project study will be completed by next spring and then we can begin to develop the first aircraft. To answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, our line has always been that it would be better to have a European engine in a European airbus. We have been firm on that and I think that the French and German Ministers have now come round to our view.

While wishing my hon. Friend well in this venture, may I ask him to assure us that in going ahead with the airbus nothing will be done to prejudice the production of an aircraft of 180-passenger capacity, which every operator in Europe now wants and urgently needs?

We must consider our priorities here. We have an opportunity of participating in the development of an aircraft with the prospect of a firm European demand. Thus, the economic viability of the airbus promises to be good and we should, therefore, give this development our first priority.

asked the Minister of Technology what consideration has been given to the possibility of a European airbus being powered by three rather than two engines.

As the majority of European airlines have expressed a preference for a two-engined airbus, the present design study is being made on this configuration based on the Rolls Royce RB207.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the airbus project is likely to be heading straight for commercial disaster and that the effects of this will be particularly serious for the air engine industry, in terms of its flexibility, if all Rolls Royce's resources are committed to straight competition with the JT9D—competition which Rolls Royce may well lose?

I do not agree that the airbus project is heading for, or is facing, commercial disaster. If we can get it going on the conditions which we have laid down, we will be building it on a clear European airline demand, which will establish a market for it and help it to be a viable project.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied that sufficient European funds are available to continue research work at Winfrith on the present scale; and if he will make a statement.

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Dragon Project at Winfrith. Sufficient funds are available to support this project until the end of 1967. The signatories of the Dragon agreement are considering further extension up to the end of March, 1970. and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has declared its willingness to participate in such an extension.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated annual cost of his proposal to send a team of experts to the United States of America with a view to persuading scientists, technologists and other professional persons who have gone to work there in preference to Great Britain to change their minds and return.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will publish the agreement with Management Selection Limited relating to Her Majesty's Government's scheme to encourage British citizens working in the United States of America to return to this country.

I have agreed, subject to contract, to advance up to £75,000 over a period of three years against the starting costs of this scheme. I do not think it would be right to publish the details of contracts with commercial organisations.

Is it not a waste of time and money to send experts all that way in order to try to get people to return? How can they be expected to change their minds when the reasons for which they left—high taxation and general frustration—are even worse, and are not likely to get any better?

The hon. and gallant Member is giving his answers to a very complex question. Those who have studied it think that there are many reasons why people go abroad—and many, we know, would like to come back. One of the objects of establishing this service with the M.S.L. is to see whether arrangements can be made to bring them back and also to encourage Americans to work here—which we believe could easily be arranged.

What can Management Selection Ltd. tell these people that they do not already know? Is not this a great waste of public money?

This is not a waste of public money, because there is a great deal of interest in this scheme in the United States. It was often discussed with me when I was there recently. Since it costs £15,000 to train a Ph.D. and the Government are putting only £75,000 into this scheme, the likelihood of a good return is very real, and if there is an international market in brains, as there is, it is right that this country should adopt a rather more vigorous attitude in trying to bring them back here to work.

In the light of the not inconsiderable success that the Atomic Energy Authority, amongst others, has had in getting people back from the United States, may we be given an assurance that the methods they have employed will be made fully available, so far as procedure is concerned, to other interests?

Certainly. The whole idea is to work with British industries which have experience, and to encourage those firms which have never thought of recruiting in the United States to begin to do so. I have little doubt that this movement will be the beginning of more extensive campaigning of this kind in the United States, and that it will also bring back useful information bearing on the reason why people leave this country.

Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that there will be work for these people, especially those who, at the moment, want to go to America because there are no positions available here? Can my right hon. Friend give that assurance?

I can tell my hon. Friend that there will always be vacancies for good managers, scientists and engineers in this country.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with the French Government about the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and the Jaguar projects.

asked the Minister of Technology what is now the target unit cost of the Anglo-French variable geometary aircraft, excluding research and development costs.

The agreement on the specification and industrial arrangements for the Anglo-French Variable Geometry aircraft, which includes agreement on costs, is under consideration by the two Governments.

As regards the Jaguar, we noted the satisfactory progress being made and agreed to make further approaches to the German Federal Republic about their participation in the project.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when a firm agreement will be reached on the A.F.V.G. and, in particular, can he say anything about German participation in this project—not simply the question of sales, but participation in manufacture as well?

On the latter point, we hope very much that the Germans will consider participating, although the project is, I think, too far advanced for them to come into the initial development phase. On the first point, we hope that the final decision on this agreement can be made towards the end of this month.

Since the hon. Gentleman chose to answer my Question No. 39 with the original Question, would he please answer it in detail? He made no reference to it.

The announcement about the target cost cannot be made until a final decision has been made about the agreement to which I referred.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a further statement about the progress of the Concord project.

The structure of the first prototype is now virtually complete, and installation of the various internal systems has begun. The second prototype is also in an advanced state of construction. Structural and functional tests of various large specially-constructed airframe components are now well under way. Eleven Olympus 593 engines have been delivered and over 1,200 hours of test-bed running has been logged in Britain and France.

While agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that this progress is in many ways most satisfactory, may I ask whether he can tell the House something about the financing of production in future, as this is something in which we are all interested?

There is no hold-up in the development of the production phase, and advance materials and equipment have been bought for that.

What proposals has the hon. Gentleman made to help display the Concord mock-up to British citizens on a permanent site in central London?

That is another question, but we hope that the firm has been able to find a site to display this extraordinarily good mock-up, which my right hon. Friend and I saw in Paris last weekend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the firms engaged in the financing of the production models are expecting a decision by the end of June or perhaps in July? Can he assure us that the finance arrangements will be made by then?

The Ministry is, of course, in close contact with the firms about this, and I have no reason to think that any essential decisions will be delayed.

But since it appears likely that a decision will be needed before the hon. Gentleman next answers Questions, could he undertake to make a statement to the House when the decision has been made?

There is no need for a statement, because no earth-shattering decision will be made. We are phasing into the development of the production phase and, as far as I know, there is no hold-up to this.

asked the Minister of Technology at what date it will be possible for airlines to be given full details of performance and costs of Concord in order that firm orders can be placed for this aircraft.

The manufacturers aim to start converting existing options into orders based on firm specifications and prices during the autumn of 1968, about six months after first flight.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the importance of placing firm orders as quickly as possible; and will he do his best to expedite this?

I do not think that it could be expected that the options could be converted until towards the end of next year.

asked the Minister of Technology what monthly rate of production is planned for the Concord in Great Britain and France, respectively, once production gets under way

Current plans provide for a rate of three a month from the British and French assembly lines taken together.

That is all very well, but when does the hon. Gentleman expect metal to be cut for the production model? Is he aware that if we are to maintain our lead, these plans must be advanced as quickly as possible?

We will begin to cut metal for production aircraft as soon as the development phase, which is going ahead very well, is further advanced.

asked the Minister of Technology how many computers were in use in Great Britain in 1958, 1962 and 1966; and how many he estimates will be in use by 1970.

The numbes of computers of all kinds, other than computers used for defence purposes, in use in the United Kingdom at the end of 1958, 1962 and 1966 were approximately 70,420 and 2,200 respectively. I estimate that by the beginning of 1970 the corresponding figure will be more than 5,000.

Would my hon. Friend agree that there are two problems here—getting firms to acquire the computers and then teaching them what to do with them? What steps is his Ministry considering in terms of further education of firms in computer feasibility?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are two problems, although I would put the second first, and we are discussing with various kinds of computer users how to develop further the work of the National Computing Centre and in other ways to encourage the efficient use of computers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure which he quoted of the Government's estimate of 5,000 computers in use by 1970 is a considerable increase on the figure quoted in the Department of Education and Science publication on our manpower needs and the educational needs of computer technology? Does it follow—this also followed from the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts)—that the Government will increase their aims in computer education?

The estimate to which the hon. Gentleman referred was made some time ago. The work on computer education is being examined by a working party set up by, among others, the National Computing Centre. We certainly have the matter under close review.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to give greater support to oceanography and underwater technology; and what help he is giving to the Imperial College project "Kraken" designed to enable oceanographic research to be carried out in a permanent, moveable, underwater laboratory.

I am preparing technological proposals to discuss with those of my right hon. Friends with responsibilities in this field. The Imperial College project "Kraken" has been discussed with officials of my Ministry. The provision of facilities for carrying out oceanographic research is a matter for the university concerned which is supported by the University Grants Committee or appropriate Research Council.

As two-thirds of the surface of this globe is water, can my right hon. Friend assure us that sufficient importance will be given to this matter? What additional steps are envisaged, following the atomic energy conference about the sea and the sea bed?

Following the conference at Harwell to which my hon. Friend referred, further work is going on on the proposals which emerged and I referred to this in my Answer. I entirely agree that a good deal of work needs to be done in this area, and we, as a Department, are very interested in it.

Are any discussions going on with other European countries in this sector of technology?

As my hon. Friend knows, there is a good deal of interest in this in Europe. When I was in the United States, I discussed the work being done there in this field. It is almost inevitable that most advanced countries will be concerned with this and we shall have to see what scope there is for collaboration.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on progress towards the development of an economic nuclear reactor for surface ships.

The economic opportunity for the application of nuclear power at sea is more likely to arise from ship requirements for greater power and more intensive utilisation than from a change in reactor design. However, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is keeping under review improvements in reactor and nuclear fuel technology in the special context of a ship application.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been asking this type of Question for 10 years? Is it not too much to expect the first British nuclear prototype ship to be fully economic? Is there any question of building a naval tanker or supply ship to expedite British developments in this direction?

Not only the hon. Gentleman but a number of other people have been interested in this for 10 years. The reason that no decision to go ahead has yet been taken is that there is no reason at the moment to believe that a ship of this kind not only would, in the first instance, be economic but also would prove economic in the production phase. The reason is that most merchant ships spend most of their time in port. When there are very large container ships with a very rapid turn-round and a requirement for greater power, there might be progress. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps we should wait a little longer.

How many scientists at the A.E.A. are working on this? Has not the problem in the past been that the number was insufficient?

The hon. Gentleman will find from my Answer that it is the economics of the use of a reactor rather than the technology of the reactor itself which is the barrier to progress, but that is a separate question, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although Sir William Penney considers that it is not yet necessary, some of us feel that the Padmore Committee should be reconvened in the light of the more recent developments in this sphere?

I should certainly be happy to consider that, so long as I felt that I carried the hon. Gentleman with me in my general approach, namely, that there is no point in doing something which we know is technologically possible if it has not a long-term economic benefit for this country. That is the key to the whole matter.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress he is making in his negotiations for the merger of the main airframe companies with substantial Government participation; and whether he will make a statement.

These are complex negotiations involving as a first stage the valuation of the companies concerned. This is necessarily a lengthy business not least because the companies are not quoted on the Stock Exchange. I cannot yet say when the negotiations will be completed.

Yes, but it is now more than 18 months since the publication of the Plowden Committee's Report and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this continuing lack of certainty about the future structure and ownership of the industry must be holding up planning and commitments of future projects and must also be holding up the development and stability of management, on which increased efficiency primarily depends?

We want to get ahead with this, but it is a complicated business, as no one knows better that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). It is better to get this right than to hurry and then find oneself in difficulties.

Would the right hon. Gentleman take into account that this long delay is having a serious effect on the trained personnel in this industry, many of whom, as he said earlier, are leaving the country, and that an early decision would give them security of tenure in their professions?

I certainly have this point in mind, although I think that the trained personnel in the industry are more likely to reach their decision to stay or leave according to the number of projects on which they are able to work. Although I recognise the need for a rapid conclusion to this matter, I hope that people will not over-estimate the effects of the uncertainty that is inevitably associated with long and difficult negotiations.

asked the Minister of Technology what studies he has made of the potential market for the Trident 3B; what its development cost will be; and how its operating costs will compare with other equivalent British and United States aircraft.

The potential market for the Trident 3B was studied by the Department last year when the aircraft was first offered to British European Airways and has recently been reappraised. The launching costs of the aircraft have been estimated by Hawker Siddeley to be some £17 million and its operating costs per seat-mile would compare favourably with other equivalent aircraft.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Are the Government prepared to support this project or else to support the BAC 211 project so that this country does not fall behind in developing a suitable alternative to the airbus and to ensure that we are able to benefit from this type of production?

There are several aircraft projects now under consideration to fill what is sometimes referred to as the "B.E.A. interim requirement"—although that is, perhaps, a misleading term. The decision about the airbus is, in fact, a separate decision.

asked the Minister of Technology what Government financial support is being given towards the development of aircraft engines with reduced noise characteristics; and what arrangements he has introduced for liaison on this subject with other countries since the international conference on the reduction of noise and disturbance caused by civil aircraft.

The Government are supporting the initial development of a large subsonic civil aero-engine, the RB207, and are likely also to support a smaller engine, the RB203 or Trent. Both engines will make substantially less noise than existing engines. At the same time, the Department continues to sponsor, in industry and in its own establishments, research aimed at the reduction of aero-engine noise. Collaboration with France and the United States on the question of aircraft noise certification continues.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this problem of engine noise must be solved if we are to have larger aircraft in future? Does he agree that we must give the highest priority to this matter? Will he also bear in mind that this problem of noise and the disturbance it causes has now even reached the south-west of England?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a serious problem. I assure him that it is one to which the Government give very top priority.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what the prospects are for the RB207 in this and the next financial year and what is the maximum rate at which Rolls Royce is capable of developing this engine? Can he also say what prospects there are of selling this engine instead of the Lockheed 10–11?

Contracts worth £1.3 million have been placed and development is going ahead as quickly as Rolls Royce can handle it. I am not yet in a position to say what the prospects are of selling the RB207 in the United States.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he has now completed his consideration of the proposal for a modification of the VC10 aircraft for tanker purposes.

The study of the modifications proposed by the British Aircraft Corporation has been completed and is being taken into account in our consideration of the future needs of the R.A.F.

Since we are rapidly approaching the time, if we have not yet already reached it, when the V-bombers, being used as tankers, will have themselves to be refuelled while in the process of refuelling other 'planes, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a certain amount of urgency about this project?

It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to decide what are the needs of the R.A.F. in this connection.

asked the Minister of Technology whether his Department has yet completed the study of the problems related to incentive contracts; and whether he will make a statement.

We are still at work on this problem. Wherever possible it is my Department's policy to negotiate incentive contracts for both production and research and development work.

With particular reference to the aircraft industry, is the Minister still refusing to take into account the profit formula and the calculation of overheads in this matter?

The question of the profit formula is, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a subject for separate discussion and does not relate specifically to the point in question.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will state the date on which Royal Ordnance factories and other Service departments were instructed to buy British machine tools in preference to foreign, in cases where British machines were suitable.

No such instruction has been needed. It has always been the policy of the Government that the Royal Ordnance factories and other Service Departments should buy British machine tools when they are suitable and available when required and at a competitive price. About a year ago purchasing departments started to consult the Ministry of Technology before placing any substantial orders for imported machine tools.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming what I already knew. Would he say why he completely misinformed me in the House on 11th April by telling me that such instructions had been given? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would he agree that there is a balance of payments benefit to be gained, in cases where we are beaten on a contract by a very small amount, by introducing something like the Buy American Act to persuade people to buy British when British machine tools are available?

I do not believe that I in any way misled the hon. Gentleman, as he will find out if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of what I said. As to the question of any preference being given, this is a very wide question affecting Government procurement in general and does not arise on this Question.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give details of the representations which he has made in his official capacity to Associated Electrical Industries following the announcement of its decision to close its factory at Barton Hill, Bristol.

I have made it clear to the company's senior management that, quite apart from their decision to close the factory, there should have been prior consultations with the trade unions concerned in order to give the opportunity of commenting on the proposed closure and, in any case, they should have been given ample notice of the actual announcement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the firm, besides not negotiating with the people engaged by it—who have given loyal service over many years—has so far refused to allow them to find other jobs so that they can take advantage of redundancy payment, but expects them to work right to the last minute and then go out and find work? As I say, these people have given many years of loyal service. This is not good industrial relations. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to this firm?

I am very well aware of this position, because the firm is in my constituency. I have discussed the case with the people who came up to represent their view. I do not know that there is a great deal I can do to help but, as I said in my original Answer, I have been in touch with the firm on the genera] question.

asked the Minister of Technology what subjects of research in addition to nuclear fusion he intends should be continued at the Culham Laboratory.

This is an important aspect of the proposals for the future of Culham, which the Government are now considering. I am not yet ready to make a statement.

I appreciate that this matter requires a very great deal of consideration, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the future of plasma physics research? In particular, the high energy pulse techniques at this laboratory are of extreme importance and of some considerable commercial value, and it would be a tragedy for us to lose those resources.

I am very well aware of this. It is universally recognised that Culham is a centre of international excellence, but I am not yet ready to speak definitely about the future. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me a little more time to consider the subject.

In his consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that, whereas it may not be right for the A.E.A. to continue to give the same support to plasma physics as hitherto, the right answer might be to turn Culham into some form of national plasma institute, possibly associated with a university?

I will consider that suggestion.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of desalination during the last 12 months with a view to converting sea salt water into fresh pure drinking water for human and animal use.

Weir Westgarth has recently been successful with a tender for a large distillation plant of advanced design in Qatar. Developments in electrodialysis, to make it the most economical commercially available process for desalting brackish water, are now being tested in a pilot plant. Britain can now offer these plants with a guaranteed performance up to 6 million gallons per day (U.S.). The A.E.A. and industry are also working on the freeze process. Other possibilities being studied include package plants and ship-borne desalination plants to cater especially for the needs of island communities.

Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that constructive Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that Britain, as an island nation, should, especially in time of incalculable war, take account of all the possible resources in the technology of his Department?

I very much agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, at the Water for Peace Conference I attended recently in Washington, the British stand aroused a great deal of interest, and British technical leadership in this field is widely recognised.

Has the Minister considered what a great advantage such a process would be to many seaside areas which suffer shortage of water during the summer? A modern desalination process could assist them considerably in creating an adequate water supply.

There are two pilot plants now under construction or in use. There is the sea water test facility at Troon, in Ayrshire, and the 50,000 gallon-a-day plant which has been built in association with William Boby in Essex. We are advancing our technology very rapidly in those areas, and I dare say that the point made by the hon. Gentleman will indicate future commercial use, although it may be a bit early to say.

asked the Minister of Technology how many orders have been placed from abroad for advanced gas-cooled reactors.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made during the last two years in promoting exports of advanced gas-cooled reactors and associated nuclear power station equipment.

The British Nuclear Export Executive has been active in some 20 countries in pursuing possible sales of advanced gas-cooled reactors. While no firm orders from overseas have yet been received, the advanced gas-cooled reactor is already being considered in one major tender competition and there are a number of prospects in the offing.

Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary think it significant that a large number of boiling-water reactors have been sold? Does he not feel that it might be appropriate to have an inquiry into whether the monolithic structure of the United Kingdom A.E.A. should not now be broken up in order to provide more and different outlets, and different sorts of design and experience?

The advanced gas-cooled reactor offers many advantages in other countries which are now developing an electricity distribution system similar to that in Britain, and we are quite confident of the competitive position of the A.E.A.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his visit to the President of the United States of America.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his visit to North America.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent discussions in Washington.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Canada and the United States of America.

asked the Prime Minister whether he discussed the war in Vietnam with President Johnson during his recent visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will answer all these Questions at the end of Question Time.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a further statement on Rhodesia.

I have at present nothing to add to the previous reports which have been given to the House on this subject.

Can the Prime Minister say whether any fresh approach has been made by Mr. Ian Smith or by Sir Humphrey Gibbs since the House rose for the Whitsuntide Recess; and, if not, whether numerous Press reports to that effect are false?

We have had no new approach whatsoever from Mr. Smith or any of his colleagues. Exchanges with the Governor are, of course, always confidential, but we have had no reason whatsoever to think that Mr. Smith is prepared to enter into discus-cussions that could be meaningful.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Governor's views are at the moment as to the advisability of continuing negotiations?

As I say, it has always been our practice not to communicate the confidential exchanges between ourselves and the Governor, but nothing I have seen from the Governor or anywhere else suggests that Mr. Smith or his colleagues are prepared to enter into meaningful discussions, or, if they did, that they would have any intention of carrying out any agreement reached, or that they would be allowed to do so.

The Prime Minister has gone so far as to say that his own judgment of what the Governor has said does not suggest that any contacts would be fruitful. Having gone so far, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to be quite clear as to whether, in the Governor's judgment, there ought not to be the beginning of talks?

We would be prepared to have talks at any time if the necessary conditions were fulfilled. Last year, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, it was we who took the initiative on every occasion. Many months were wasted when we did so and, in the end, the agreement reached on H.M.S. "Tiger" was turned down by the extremist members. There is no reason to think that Mr. Smith can have any more freedom on this occasion.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now amalgamate the Commonwealth and Foreign Offices and appoint a single Secretary of State for External Affairs.

No, Sir.

As no other country, including any Commonwealth country, now has more than one external affairs department, and in view of the inevitable duplication and occasional confusion that the present arrangement entails, does not my right hon. Friend feel that the time has come to reconsider this rather anachronistic set-up?

No, Sir. When this matter was considered in 1964, as a result of the Plowden Committee's Report, it was felt that any amalgamation could be misinterpreted as implying a loss of interest in the Commonwealth partnership. I believe that this reason still applies today as an argument against amalgamation. Where necessary, responsibilities have been transferred from one Department to another.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the Plowden Report is not inconsistent with the proposal made in this Question? Has he consulted Commonwealth Governments about it? Is he not aware that, if he did so, he would find a large degree of support for the proposal?

The Plowden Report is not inconsistent. It recommended unification of the overseas service, and this has now been carried through. As to the views of Commonwealth countries, I do not think that there would be any-anything like the unanimity which the hon. Gentleman suggests. Very many Commonwealth countries attach the greatest importance to the fact that there is a Department specifically dealing with Britain's relations with the Commonwealth.

asked the Prime Minister when he will visit India.

I have at present no information to give the House.

When the present tension in the Middle East subsides, will my right hon. Friend consider an early visit to India where, as he knows, in the past there have been doubts and apprehensions about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, of my right hon. Friend towards relations between the United Kingdom and the Indian Government?

I am not aware what those doubts are. I have had, of course, fruitful discussions with the Prime Minister of India on her visit to this country, which was long after the kind of events my hon. Friend has in mind. I should very much like to go, but it is extremely difficult at this time to forecast the time and date when that will be possible.

asked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the newspaper industry concerning its current difficulties.

None, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the impending closure of the Sunday Citizen comes disturbingly quickly after the pessimistic forecasts in the Economist Intelligence Unit's recent report and any further closures will impair Press freedom? Does he not think that if the industry itself is reluctant to approach the Government it is now time that the Government themselves took the initiative in trying to seek a solution to this problem?

I agree that this decision is an extremely disappointing one. When the House last debated this matter, the Government took the view that the industry, which had asserted its ability to deal with the situation, must look after it. I agree that the industry itself should be considering the situation which has arisen in the case of this newspaper and which might arise in the case of other newspapers if this trend were to continue.

Are we to understand from the original Answer that the account given by Lord Thomson of a recent discussion with the Prime Minister on this subject was not accurate?

Lord Thomson himself described his account as a joke. A number of hon. Members, I believe, heard it given at a gathering downstairs. What I said to Lord Thomson, and I thought it right to say so, was to ask whether there was anything he could do to secure the viability of the paper. He has great expertise in the matter of commercial management of newspapers, securing advertising revenue and the rest. I never suggested, as some thought afterwards, that I was reflecting on the editorial quality or journalistic content of the paper.

Will my right hon. Friend do something even at this twelfth hour to help the Sunday Citizen, as he promised to do not long ago?

Nationalise it.

The problem of the Sunday Citizen, as we know, is of very long standing and has recently been intensified. It is not disconnected, I believe, despite its high quality, with the regrettably low circulation it has managed to achieve.

High quality?

I said "high quality". Obviously the hon. Member does not read it. I do not believe the House as a whole would feel it would be right to intervene directly on behalf of an individual newspaper with a subsidy—most of the schemes proposed are for newsprint subsidies or pooling arrangements for advertising revenue. This must be a matter for the industry as a whole.

Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to the whole question of the placing by Departments of Government advertising?

Yes, this has been very carefully considered. In general the practice has been to do it on what might be called commercial grounds. In relation to advertisements which are designed to secure particular results—such as recruiting—a close examination—I have seen the figures—has shown that a more proportionate distribution would have made very little difference to the revenue position of the Sunday Citizen.

Do more of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends subscribe to Tribune than to the Sunday Citizen ?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks with King Faisal of Saudi Arabia.

As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the Prime Minister say whether these talks cover the question of the international status of the Gulf of Aqaba and expressions of opinion made on both sides?

No, Sir. Two of the three talks had taken place before the crisis arose in the Middle East. When it arose we indicated to His Majesty our views on the position. He said categorically, and he said publicly later in the day, that if it was a question of a confrontation of the Arab States and Israel, whatever his difference with other Arab States, he would be solidly ranged with them against Israel. In these circumstances, the Gulf of Aqaba question could not be pursued further.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us if King Faisal came here to get more armaments, and did he explain what he wanted the armaments for?

No, Sir. He did not come here to get more armaments. He came here for a general discussion on questions of interest to both of us in the Middle East.

Can the Prime Minister say whether the talks covered the problem of Buraimi and whether proposals for resolving the difficulties there were made? Secondly, can he say whether they covered the problem of Aden and whether this influenced the Government's policy? When may we have a statement to remove uncertainty about Aden?

The talks certainly covered the question of South Arabia and Aden in the present situation and of prospects after independence. It is, I think, no secret that the Saudi-Arabian Government and we do not see eye to eye on all aspects of this matter, but there was no difference at all about the question of independence being given. As to a statement, I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend to see whether one can be made.

If this gentleman did not come here in order to obtain arms for his country, having regard to the situation he must have envisaged, in heaven's name why did he come here? What was the reason for the lavish hospitality? What did Her Majesty's Government get in return for it?

My right hon. Friend will know that a very large number of distinguished Heads of Government and Heads of State come—

You do not call him distinguished, do you?

My right hon. Friend will know that a large number of distinguished Heads of Government and Heads of State come here not to buy arms. They come for discussions on questions of mutual interest. This was the position here. This was a State visit which we felt was well worth while. The present situation in the Middle East was not foreseen, and I do not think that the present situation in the Middle East in any way detracts from the value of the talks.

asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to coordinate Great Britain's national space programme; and what criteria he uses in deciding the priorities of the requirements of the various Departments concerned in space activities.

Co-ordination of our space programme and the assessment of priorities between them is achieved by the normal methods of inter-departmental consultation, Sir.

Can the Prime Minister say whether the Zuckerman Committee is considering this point as reported and, if so, would it be advisable for the Committee to make its recommendations known before the European Space Conference in July?