asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the Government-appointed directors of Short Brothers and Harland of Belfast.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement as to the chairmanship of Short Brothers and Harland.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made in appointing a chairman of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wrangham. the present Chairman, and Sir Cyril Musgrave have tendered their resignations to take effect from the end of this month. I hope to announce the names of their successors shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the effect on morale in this firm through the sacking of the Chairman, the long interval and the resignation of another Government-appointed director, saying, as he did, that he was truthfully fed up with the Minister's interference? Will he not underestimate the effect of this and ensure that it never happens again?

I hope that nothing the hon. Gentleman says will make the position more difficult. He knows the circumstances of what occurred in the summer. I shall announce a successor as soon as I can.

But is the Minister aware of the resentment caused among the directors and staff by his treatment of Mr. Wrangham? Why has it taken over six months from the time that Mr. Wrangham's departure was announced to get another director? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave harm done to morale?

The prospects for Shorts in terms of its own work load and future are brighter than they have been for some time. I am conscious of the need to make the appointment.

Does not the Minister realise that the Government are a 70 per cent, majority shareholder in Shorts and that it is shocking that they should behave in this way? When will they get on with making this vital appointment and stop all the delay?

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If we are responsible for the firm, we cannot be described as interfering in making the appointments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Wrangham has been supported by all the other directors of the company, that he has rendered great service to the company and that the uncertainty created by his action is most damaging to the prospects of the company?

I have paid tribute to Mr. Wrangham's work for Shorts ewer the years, but I do not think it desirable to discuss personal appointments in the House in this way.

Is it not clear that, if the more favourable situation in Shorts is due to Mr. Wrangham, the people of Northern Ireland cannot possibly have any confidence in the Governments regional development policy while this sort of action goes on?

I think that the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland in the regional development policy is built on the fact that Shorts' work load on Skyvan and podding, and other contracts are going ahead.

asked the Minister of Technology what science-based industries will be encouraged in the Londonderry area.

The primary responsibility for promoting new industry in Northern Ireland rests with the Northern Ireland Government. The Department keeps in touch with firms in the Londonderry area regarding their plans and no opportunity is lost of interesting firms in the possibility of development in Londonderry.

If these industries are to be created, would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in this area towns such as Strabane and Limavady have the highest unemployment figure in the United Kingdom? Can he tell us anything about the smelter industries?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question should be addressed elsewhere. I must emphasise that plans for setting up manufacturing capacity in Londonderry are primarily for industrialists. They are offered inducements by the Northern Ireland Government comparable with those available in development areas in this country. We are all well aware of the problems in Londonderry.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the machinery of consultation between his Department and the Ministry of Power on matters of mutual concern.

There is continuing contact at all levels on matters which concern both Departments.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that his Ministry has some responsibility for the technology of the derivatives from coal? Is he aware that in this November's issue of the New Scientist there were reports of sulphur being extracted on the sites of conventional coal-fired power stations? What part will his Department play in this new technology?

That is a specific question. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.

Is there adequate contact over the price of shipbuilding steel, which is causing grave anxiety in the shipbuilding industry?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a great number of discussions on this question involving both Departments.

In view of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for the derivatives from coal, what is he doing about this matter? Will he make a statement?

I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that if he puts down a specific question I will make a full report to the House.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say how long we must wait before perhaps the most important issue of all—it is of mutual importance to both Departments—is fully considered, namely, the future of the nuclear reactor industry?

The Select Committee's Report came out not so very long ago. It raised very important questions. A number of consultations are required. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay on this matter.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a further statement on the merger prospects for Wear shipyards.

The three companies concerned are now conducting a joint examination of the situation. They are in touch with the Shipbuilding Industry Board, but have not been able to make any announcement or submit any proposals.

I believe that the technical committee which has been set up is making progress. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that I am not Industry Board has not been sufficiently alone in believing that the Shipbuilding positive and dynamic in promoting the negotiations? Will he see that the time-table is set for the future progress of the negotiations?

Like my right hon. Friend, I am anxious to make progress in this matter, but since the consultants' report is being studied by the firms concerned, it is not for me to tell the Shipbuilding Industry Board to handle this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise the deep concern in this matter of the trade unions concerned, particularly the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions? Will he try to see that wherever possible the leaders of these unions in the area should be consulted about the results of mergers, particularly as they affect the men on the shop floor?

It is well understood that the co-operation of the unions is vital for the effective implementation of the Geddes proposals. The S.I.B. takes every opportunity to stress this.

Mr. Willey.

In view of the delays, will my right hon. Friend undertake to discuss this matter —

Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman for Question No. 6.

In view of the uncertainty in this matter, I give notice that I will endeavour to raise it at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will set up a departmental committee to examine the possibilities of nuclear marine propulsion in the light of the experimental work being carried out in other industrial countries, details of which are in his possession.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 5th December, in which I made it clear that the issue is being re-examined.—[Vol. 755, c. 259.]

That was a helpful reply, but in view of the Select Committee's recommendations and of the danger that we may lose ground to our competitors in shipbuilding, will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again urgently?

I am looking at it again urgently. That was what my right hon. Friend complimented me on doing. The problem is not whether we can have a reactor in a ship, but whether it will be economic. That has always been the argument. We now bring together under the Ministry of Technology the Atomic Energy Authority, the shipbuilding industry, the nuclear industry, the marine engine industry and the British Shipbuilding Research Association. Therefore, it falls for me to examine it.

Would not the Minister agree that a committee similar to the old Padmore Committee might well be the best method of accelerating a decision in this matter? We have waited a long time for the decision. Although Lord Penney's voice is always well listened to, surely there are other considerations which demand other action.

Nobody has waited for a decision. There has been a decision that we will go ahead with this project when it shows promise of being economic. That is the criterion by which we have to judge all our investments. Nobody doubts that it can be done technically. I do not think that a committee is necessary when all the responsibilities in this matter have been, for this purpose among others, brought within my Department.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the output and export of cars during 1968 following devaluation and the change in hire-purchase conditions.

My right hon. Friend expects car output in 1968 to be significantly higher than this year, mainly as a result of an increase in exports following the competitive advantages offered by devaluation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that news will be very welcome in South Bedfordshire and other car-producing areas. Can he indicate whether the total output of cars and commercial vehicles in 1968 is likely to be anywhere near the peak total of 2½ million in 1964?

It is much too early to give such a detailed forecast. We certainly hope that production will be high, but I would not like to give precise figures.

Was the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend based on market analysis or was it merely a hope, bearing in mind the statement made by the Ford Motor Company of the effect of devaluation on sales in the first year of devaluation? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the motor car industry take the view that the first year will be difficult and that the real prospects of better sales from devaluation will come in the second year?

The assessments made by individual companies vary widely. We in the Ministry of Technology are waiting for the final assessments of the individual motor car companies. It is still too early to give any realistic or precise figures.

asked the Minister of Technology what arrangements he has made with the motor industry for implementing the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes regarding the dealer franchise system; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 14th November, in which I said that discussions were in progress.—[Vol. 754, c. 57.]

Would my hon. Friend not agree that this is a very important report, because it could lead to the public getting a better deal from the motor industry than it has got now? Could he give an assurance that the little Neddy which has been set up to look at the garage side of the business will be brought into the discussions that are now taking place?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this report. I assure him that the E.D.C. for vehicle distribution and repair has already discussed the report.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the percentage change in total value of net new home orders for United Kingdom machine tools during the current year to date compared with the corresponding figures for 1966 and 1965; what is the expected level of net new orders during the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

It is estimated that net new home orders for the first 10 months of 1967 were, respectively, about 24 per cent, and 17½ per cent, below those for the equivalent period in 1965 and 1966. It is not practicable to forecast net new orders, but I would expect some rise in home demand for machine tools during next year.

In view of the importance of the home trade in machine tool manufacture, are not those figures the most eloquent testimony to the fate of the machine tool industry since it acquired the sponsorship of the Ministry of Technology?

No. I am sure that the hon. Member has observed that export orders this year are up 34 per cent, on last year. The industry is much to be congratulated on this splendid achievement.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the statement he has made this afternoon shows that all that the Minister's predecessor said at the Exhibition of the Machine Tool Trades Association at Olympia in May, 1966, has completely failed to achieve its object? What steps are being taken to ensure that real encouragement is given to the industry?

A great many steps: pre-production orders, risk insurance for the stock-piling of machine tools, help with development of machine tools by research contracts, and increased investment grants, buyer credit scheme for the industry, and to this very wide range of stimuli the industry is responding well by bringing in new capacity, and continuing to do so.

asked the Minister of Technology what special facilities exist in his Department for giving advice to small firms in need of technological or scientific information.

My Department has established a national network of 63 industrial liaison centres at technical colleges and universities specifically to advise small firms how to make greater use of existing technological and scientific information.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that Reply. Will he accept that small firms generally seem to have little opportunity of finding out what assistance and advice is available to them in the Ministry? Will he consider going further and setting up, on the United States model, small business agencies which will assist small firms?

I think that if my hon. Friend looks at the various services which exist he will find that there is plenty of opportunity to get access to the production engineering advisory service, the low cost automation centres, the use of new industrial units, and that the "Neddy" office has published a handbook on productivity services which meets the need which he has in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the most effective things that he can do to help small firms is to get better co-ordination between the activities of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and himself over resources such as library facilities and data, and that, in so far as his Department is concerned, computery perhaps has a part to play, otherwise he should keep out of the hair of these small firms.

The hon. Gentleman really cannot be in touch with the firms which have used the services, because what we are doing is providing a communication net on to which they can connect. As regards contact between myself and the Department of Education and Science, the latter runs the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, and discussions are going on to see how this can be broadened to help industry more generally.

asked the Minister of Technology what expenditure is proposed in future for the British research programme on the control of thermonuclear fusion.

The intended reduction in expenditure on the fusion programme was indicated in my statement of 26th July and I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 751, Cols. 644–8.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the terrifying problem of atomic waste which will arise from this concentration on the fission programme, particularly as the Government are to generate so much electricity by nuclear power? Will he take steps to rehabilitate the programme for nuclear fusion?

The Culham Establishment was set up to provide a means of generating electricity by means of fusion. It is now generally recognised all over the world that this programme is well over the horizon, 10, 20 or 25 years ahead, and on the advice of the Authority I assented to its recommendations that the programme should be run down. I think it was right and that I was right to accept its advice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about the transfer of Culham from the A.E.A. to the Science Research Council, so that fusion can take its place with other long-term scientific projects in any review which the Government may be making in sacred cows on long-term science?

The hon. Gentleman has made this point before, and he will have noticed that recently I announced that part of the work at Culham on the astro-physical side is to be undertaken by the Science Research Council. I have told the hon. Gentleman before, and I tell him again now, that I take seriously the proposals that he makes.

asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has for changing the present structure of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

None at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is timely to consider a change? Is he aware of the abysmal record of the United Kingdom in the export of nuclear reactors, and is it not right to consider restructuring the Authority on the lines of the American Atomic Energy Authority?

This is the subject of the Select Committee's Report on the nuclear power industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are considering this Report, but I have no proposals to put forward at the moment.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the price advantage brought to the shipbuilding industry by devaluation; and what evidence he has that this is bringing in fresh orders to British ship-yards.

My right hon. Friend expects devaluation to improve significantly the industry's competitive position in world markets, but the effect on prices cannot be accurately estimated. There has already been an increase in the number of inquiries received by British shipbuilders. It is a bit too early to be sure how many of these will result in orders.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, to convert inquiries into fixed price contracts, more certainty is needed about the price of steel and about the whole of Government economic policy?

I am not responsible for the whole of Government economic policy. On the subject of steel prices, discussions between the shipbuilders and the Steel Corporation about the future price of steel are now in progress, and I cannot anticipate the results of those discussions. My right hon. Friend and the Minister of Power will keep in close touch with those concerned.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to help British shipbuilding after devaluation, will he explain why the Government have refused the orders of the South African Government for frigates to Yarrow's and submarines to Scott's?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question.

asked the Minister of Technology what was the gross annual amount expended in research and develop- ment in the Northern Region from 1962; what is the estimated amount for 1967; and what is the comparison with other regions.

The total amount spent by the Department in 1966–67 in research and development in the United Kingdom was £255 million of which £1·6 million was spent in the Northern Region. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of expenditure in previous years.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Reply, but does not this heavily emphasise the necessity to do much more in research and development in the Northern Region? Will he undertake to treat this matter with a greater degree of urgency than hitherto?

Yes, it does indicate the need for increased expenditure on research and development in the Northern Region. This is a matter of concern, and the Department is examining ways in which this end can be achieved.

Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that a special effort will be made to link up work with universities and individual firms to see that the most practical results can be obtained?

Yes, I am personally taking part in discussions to that end, and also with the polytechnics and International Research and Development in Newcastle.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the Rolls Royce 211 engine.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he proposes to give public funds to the development of the Rolls 211 engine.

The RB211 is a smaller scale version of the RB207 engine selected to power the European airbus. Rolls Royce are offering the engine for the American airbus. The Department is giving financial support to the initial development of the engine and has undertaken to give financial support for full development if a firm order is achieved which promises to lead to substantial production orders.

Can the Minister confirm the vital importance to our balance of payments of selling this engine to the Americans for the American airbus? I believe that £1,000 million is involved. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government intend to see this proposition through right up to the hilt?

I confirm that this order would be extremely important for Rolls Royce. That is why the Government have throughout provided every possible assistance to Rolls Royce.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the continuing protests about noise caused by aircraft? Does he realise that this piece of technology is one of the quietest creations which has ever been made, and will he further its advance in every possible way?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the attractions of this engine will be its quietness.

Has not the Government's decision not to support the BAC211 made the task of Rolls Royce in selling this engine to the United States far more difficult?

Not at all, because the time scale for the BAC211 would have been behind the application of the RB211 in an American airbus.

Is my hon. Friend convinced that the European airbus will have only two engines?

There is a later Question about that.

The Minister did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). No matter what the Government may have been doing up to now, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to see this engine through in the matter of finance up to the point at which it can be sold?

We are helping to finance the development of the RB211. Fifty per cent, of the cost is now being funded by ourselves. Rolls Royce are highly appreciative of the assistance which we are providing, and we will continue to give that assistance until Rolls Royce are in a position to land the order for the American airbus. When they do that, we will, of course, fund the full development of the RB211.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is yet satisfied that the Concorde aircraft will not require to be subjected to restrictions on its operation over inhabited areas by reason of sonic boom; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology what difficulties he envisages with regard to the operation of the Concorde aircraft over inhabited areas on account of the noise it will make.

No decision has yet been made. I am in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade about the regulation of supersonic transport over this country.

In expressing the hope that the Minister will note and follow the spelling in the Question, may I ask him whether, as this issue is vital to the sales of this aircraft, he will use all the resources of the Government to get the point cleared up at the earliest possible moment?

Yes, indeed. We realise the extreme importance of this matter, but it is too early yet to come to any decision about it.

Is not the simple fact that, once it is in operation, the only Concorde that can pass over this country is the one flying from Frankfurt and that all other Concordes coming from Europe must fly over the English Channel?

I am sorry not to be able to follow my hon. Friend in that remark. The position is not quite as simple as that.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply, can he tell us what assessment his Department has made of the effects upon the economic operation of this aircraft if a ban were to be imposed upon the making of supersonic booms over land?

We estimate that the total market would be reduced to about 65 per cent, in the event of a complete ban on overland flight.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to start international discussions now on banning supersonic flight over land and not to wait until ours is the only aircraft which is affected?

I do not think that that would be wise. We are, of course, in touch with the countries concerned, particularly France and the United States, and we will, of course, co-ordinate with them in any decision which we make.

Does not the American experience show that the sonic bangs which can be expected from full-sized airliners are much less than those which could be calculated from scaling up the results of tests on smaller aircraft? Therefore, will the Minister not enter into any commitments until the prototype Concordes have flown and the results are known?

That is a helpful remark. We cannot be certain about the characteristics of the bang that Concorde will create until Concorde is flying. There is a great deal that we can learn, and we are learning, from the intensive tests carried out in the United States.

asked the Minister of Technology what have been the results of his recent discussions with the British Aviation Corporation concerning the financing of the production run of Concord aircraft; what proportions of Government and private capital are to be used; and whether he will make a statement.

I am now working out a scheme in conjunction with the companies and banks concerned, and shall report to the House when negotiations have been completed. Meanwhile, the first steps in Concorde production are not being held up.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that Reply. Will he confirm that he will continue to press strongly for B.A.C. to put money into this development, as it seems to many people outside the aircraft industry that its failure to come across with some money for production costing shows a lack of faith by it in this very important project?

I would rather not comment on this point, but say that these negotiations are confidential and that I shall report as soon as I can.

As the Concorde will not go into production, would not my right hon. Friend do well, in spite of the objections which we hear from the benches opposite, to recognise that this is a sacred cow which he must sacrifice?

I would have thought that it was a rather different project from a sacred cow.

When Britain is struggling to export her products of this nature in the future, will the right hon. Gentleman deprecate the statement from his hon. Friend that this aircraft will never fly?

In fairness, the hon. Gentleman knows that a lot of critical remarks have been made on both sides of the House about various projects.

Answer the question.

The Government's view on Concorde has been made absolutely clear by myself and by my hon. Friend. The programme is on schedule, the production work has begun, and there is no doubt on this matter other than that created by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

On a point of order. May I make the point, as HANSARD will show, that I said that the Concorde would not go into production. I did not say that it would not fly.

That is not a point of order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in view of the comments which have been made in the past from his side of the House about so-called prestige projects, this country badly needs something to be proud of? As it cannot be proud of the present Government, will he assure us that he will stick to Concorde?

The hon. Gentleman knows the position on this very well. Most of the doubts which have been raised in recent months have been raised by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.— [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That is true, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it. The programme is on schedule, the production work is going ahead, and, as I have explained today, and whenever a Question has been put down on it, the first plane is due to fly in the spring and the next one in the summer. That is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Technology what evidence he has received of interest by foreign airlines in the British Aircraft Corporation 211 aircraft.

asked the Minister of Technology what evidence he has received of interest by foreign airlines in the Hawker-Siddeley Trident 3B aircraft.

I have kept in close touch with the manufacturers about the overseas sales prospects of the Trident 3B and the BAC 211 but the details must remain commercially confidential as no overseas airline has made a public announcement about an option for either aircraft.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the people who have shown an interest will have an opportunity to study these matters?

We have not had any indication from an overseas airline of any concrete interest in the BAC 211 or the Trident 3B. We will give every assistance to the manufacturers of British aircraft to promote sales of their planes abroad. That will always apply.

Would the Minister confirm that if either of these aircraft were to be ordered by South African airlines, the same support would be given to the aircraft companies concerned as if they were ordered by any other airline?

Of course. We are very anxious to support the sale of civil aircraft to any part of the world.

asked the Minister of Technology, in the course of his negotiations on the possible construction of an Anglo-French-German airbus, what undertaking he has received from British European Airways as to how many of these aircraft they would purchase.

asked the Minister of Technology what, in view of Lufthansa's statement about their aircraft purchasing intentions for the 1970s, is the present position of the Anglo-French-German airbus project.

The project is going well. National airline commitments are neither required nor expected before next summer, when the aircraft will be fully specified and priced.

Will the hon. Gentleman, if necessary, be prepared to exercise compulsion on B.E.A. to buy this aircraft?

I am fully satisfied that when this aircraft is defined, B.E.A., which has a requirement in the 1970s for an aircraft of this size and type, will wish to buy it.

My hon. Friend will be aware that British manufacturers are required to build down to a noise level. Can he give an assurance that this international project will equally be required to comply with the noise level applied to British manufacturers?

We are confident that the European airbus, because it will have the RB207 engine, will be significantly quieter than existing aircraft flying on European routes.

In view of the notable lack of interest and enthusiasm by both Lufthansa and B.E.A. in this aircraft, would the Minister maintain his previous statement that 75 orders are necessary before this aircraft will go ahead?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Airlines in Europe are taking a very great interest indeed in the European airbus, and B.E.A. is assisting in advising on the project during its development stage. I confirm that we will require a commitment of 75 before we go ahead to the next stage, but I do not share the gloom and depression that seems to emanate from the Opposition.

asked the Minister of Technology what evidence he has received of interest by foreign airlines in the Rolls-Royce advanced technology engines, RB207andRB211.

The new technology engines RB207 and RB211 have aroused widespread airline interest. These engines promise to be particularly attractive to operators by virtue of their economy of operation and because they will be significantly quieter.

Can the Minister say what scale of Government funds is committed to the development of both engines, and will he give an assurance that their saleability, which will depend on their early availability, will not be held up by penny-pinching on the part of the Government?

We are associated with the French and Germans as partners in the full development of the RB207 for the European airbus. Concerning the RB211, we are continuing to give it every support during the development stage.

Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable anxiety has been expressed on the Continent about the European airbus having only two engines? Will he tell me whether this is the appropriate moment to repeat my earlier question?

I would ask my hon. Friend to await Question No. 26.

If Lufthansa does not express its intention of ordering the European airbus by a certain time next year, and, therefore, the airbus does not go ahead, because I believe that was one of the pre-conditions, what will happen about the RB207?

The Lufthansa commitment is not expected, nor required, until next summer. We have assurances from German Ministers that they will honour the agreement they signed a few months ago, which involved a commitment by the national airline to this particular aircraft. There is no doubt that the development of the RB207 depends on the European airbus going ahead, but I am confident that it will go ahead, because it will be an ideal aircraft to meet the requirements particularly of the three airlines to which reference has been made.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about his negotiations with the Hawker Siddeley Company on the problems of work-load which the cancellation of the eight Buccaneer aircraft has created.

The Department has kept in close touch with the company about all aspects of the cancellation, but the question of distribution of work between the various factories of the group is the responsibility of the management.

Is the Minister aware that Humberside is an area of low wages and, consequently, engineering work of this kind is vitally important to uplift the levels of the workers and get workers of higher skills into the Humberside area? Therefore, would he accept the fact that we are pleased that we are no longer making Buccaneers. We want work, but we would sooner have men working on civil aircraft than Buccaneers.

I admire the efficiency of the factory at Brough. The management there is first class and has achieved extremely good results. I hope that Hawker Siddeley will be able to transfer civil work to this particular factory.

If there is a principle involved in selling Buccaneers to South Africa and this has been breached, is not this the answer to the hon. Gentleman's problem? Does it not make absolute nonsense of the Government's programme to increase exports to refuse this opportunity?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not intend to be drawn on that one. A decision has been made and announced.

Is it not true, as the Minister has announced, that it will cost £2½ million to cancel these eight aircraft? Rather than saddle the British taxpayer with this expense, would it not be more common sense to follow the 16 Buccaneers which have already been sold to South Africa by the present Government, by selling these eight to her?

Bearing in mind the need for financial stringency and the cutting down of the defence programme, I am satisfied that the right decision has been made in this case.

asked the Minister of Technology what Government assistance is now being given to the Beagle Aircraft Company; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to seek legislative authority for taking over the Beagle Aircraft Company Limited.

As previously announced, the Government have agreed, subject to legislation, to purchase Beagle from its present owners, Pressed Steel Fisher Limited. A Bill to this end will shortly be introduced, and in the meantime we are meeting the company's day-to-day requirements for working capital.—[Vol. 738, c. 36–9.]

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to remind the House how long ago that announcement was made? Can he say how much money has been advanced to Beagle, and under what head? Can he say precisely when he expects legislation to be brought in to regularise this unsatisfactory position?

Legislation will be brought in and passed in the Session to which the first original agreement referred, namely, in the current Session. The money paid to the company to keep it going, £2½4 million, will be part of the capital of the new company. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

When will the Government return to legality in this matter? How dare the right hon. Gentleman take taxpayers money and spend it without any legal authority. Will he apologise to the House and to the country for this misuse of public funds?

The pledge to acquire the Beagle company was subject to legislation, and until the legislation is passed I will have authority to pay the company, but support for Beagle is an example of the support given by the Government to the aircraft industry.

Am I not right in thinking that the pledge was given 18 months ago? Is not this a most dilatory way in which to behave?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. When the pledge was given to the company about acquisition, it was made clear to it, and understood by it, that the legislation would be introduced and enacted in the present Session, and it will be.

asked the Minister of Technology what considerations he gave to the safety considerations involved before deciding to proceed with the development of very large passenger aircraft equipped with not more than two power-plants.

We satisfied ourselves that they could meet the same safety standards as large aircraft equipped with more than two engines.

Is it not a fact, as has been perseveringly suggested by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), that the European airbus is at present designed with only two engines? Does the safety consideration to which the hon. Gentleman referred cover the situation which would arise in the event of the failure of one of those at or shortly after takeoff?

Yes, Sir, we are satisfied that a large aircraft with two engines will be as safe as one with three or more. If one engine fails, the aircraft will be able to fly on the other. The chance of two engines failing simultaneously is about one in 300 million hours, so I think that we can discount that.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that the French and Germans are unequivocally committed to the concept of a two-engined airbus and will not withdraw at the last moment?

Most European airlines are pleased with the concept of a two-engined airbus.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the American choice of three engines is due entirely to the peculiarities of their internal routes, particularly the difficulties of crossing the Rockies, and that there is no difference in safety hazard between the two types of aircraft?

That is correct. The Americans took a long time to reach this decision and for many months a two-engined American airbus was being planned, but they have now chosen a three-engined one because of the special requirements of their routes.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress the British Aircraft Corporation design team have made on the variable geometry aircraft; and what consideration they are giving the swing wing principle for civil aircraft.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made with plans for an all-British swing-wing aircraft.

The B.A.C. project study for a military V.G. aircraft has recently been extended to enable the design team to study variations in costs, complexity and timescale which might interest other countries with a similar requirement. We have no plans at present for developing a civil aircraft with a swing wing.

Is my hon. Friend aware how much the British aircraft industry and a wide range of ancillary industries are dependent upon firm orders for new planes on a ten-year programme, and that, without this industry, we would become entirely dependent on the United States?

We are very anxious to build up a European collaborative programme for military aircraft such as we are; building up for civil aircraft.

Does the hon. Gentleman's Reply mean that the Germans were not interested in the B.A.C. design study in its original form and that it is having to be modified to suit them? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that, if humanly possible, the Germans are brought into collaboration with us on this project?

Yes, we are doing all we can to interest the Germans and the Italians in coming in with us on a joint programme to develop an aircraft which will meet their requirements as well as ours.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now withdraw Great Britain's application to join the Common Market.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the discussions at the Council of the European Economic Community, he will make a statement about Great Britain's application to join the Six.

asked the Prime Minister (1) what reply he has received from the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community to Great Britain's application for entry into the Community;

asked the1 Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement on the recent communications he has had with the Governments and Prime Ministers of the Six.

As the House knows, the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community is at present meeting in Brussels. I understand that they are continuing their consideration of Britain's application, which of course we have no intention of withdrawing.

When will the Prime Minister end this humiliation for Britain and face the realities of the situation? How, in our present economic difficulties, can we possibly afford an extra £600 million added to our balance of payments deficit? Will the right hon. Gentleman concentrate on putting the economy right and extending our trade with our traditional partners?

This is not a humiliation. We do not accept that because, so far, statements have been made by one of the Six, these represent the decision of the Six as a whole. So far as the economy is concerned, it is certainly the duty of any Government in this country, inside or outside the Common Market, to get it into the strongest possible position.

But if the Council decides to let the British application lie on the table, where the Prime Minister slammed it down, what is the next step for Britain, and what are the alternatives of which the Prime Minister has spoken?

That is a question which the hon. and learned Gentleman might well think of putting down if and when that hypothetical situation arises. As to alternatives, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have answered him a number of times on that question.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing short of full membership is contemplated and that this principle applies not only to the question of associate membership but also to the suggestion for Britain's possible entry by stages and to the French idea for a so-called "arrangement" while Britain fulfils the necessary conditions?

None of these ideas has been fully spelled out. I gave the position of the Government on the question of association or any vague kind of arrangement in a speech which I made in another part of the Palace of Westminster, a copy of which I placed in the Library, a fortnight ago.

As the French veto is almost certain, would the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider what looks like the only possible alternative—a North Atlantic Free Trade Area?

I have answered questions about the North Atlantic Free Trade Area on a number of occasions. I have said that it is not immediately or for the foreseeable future an available alternative. I have also said what our position is on the application which we have made.

But in view of the fact that these negotiations are not proceeding with pace and momentum, would my right hon. Friend consider convening a meeting of the Commonwealth Trade Ministers to see what can be done to boost trade in the Commonwealth? If he accepts that proposition, would he suggest that some of them might do a little more trade with us and a little less with those countries which are supplying arms to South Africa and helping the Rhodesians?

On pace and momentum, there is at least a great deal of activity in Brussels. What we are concerned to see is what direction this leads, and how far there can be agreement. We have had repeated consultations with Commonwealth Trade Ministers to see what can be done to increase the mutual flow of trade among Commonwealth countries.

If the Six reach a conclusion today, even though it be an agreement to differ, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before the House rises?

It would certainly be our intention to make a statement from this Box. There are a number of Questions down on Thursday. If a clear situation develops as a result of today's meeting, that would have to be dealt with in answer to those Questions.

Is it the Prime Minister's intention still to maintain an office for Lord Chalfont in Brussels, when we already have three embassies in Belgium?

It was thought desirable to have a Minister in charge of negotiations, if negotiations are agreed to. We will, of course, review the situation in the light of today's decision.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we have had a very disappointing—one might say utterly negative—response? Would he further agree that the time may be very soon approaching when we shall have to say, "Enough is enough"?

I hope that my hon. Friend will restrain his impatience and enthusiasm for an outcome to these matters. As I said, our application is to the whole of the Six and it is from the Six that we are expecting an answer.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that even if France's point of view prevails temporarily, he will advise Her Majesty's Government to leave our application on the table? Will he further assure us that, unlike the former Administration, he will not permit Her Majesty's Government to indulge in petty anti-French actions?

I made it clear in my original Answer that we have no intention of withdrawing our application. We must, of course, wait to see the response of the Six as a whole to that application.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of Information.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 8th December, 1966, to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of his hon. Friends feel that a central authoritative source of information would greatly assist with Press relations and would enable the Government to, for example, mount a buy British campaign to back up devaluation?

I think that the existing arrangements whereby Government decisions are notified to this House —and by other appropriate and well tried channels—are perfectly adequate in this matter. I am aware that former Governments have had Ministers specially charged with this duty, but experience of that has shown that there are better ways of communicating decisions reached by the Cabinet.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say which Member of the Cabinet is now the "Minister for Misinformation"?

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his television broadcast on 23rd November dealing with the economic situation.

I did so on 28th November, Sir.

That made very interesting reading. However, will the right hon. Gentleman clear up two small points about the non-appearance of Mr. Jay on this programme? Will he, first, confirm that his office approved the appearance of Mr. Jay on this programme on Wednesday? Will he, secondly, agree that he countermanded that approval after reading Mr. Jay's article on Thursday, in which he said that he, the Prime Minister, had destroyed papers relating to devaluation?

The hon. Gentleman has already been given the answers to that question, although they do not seem to have satisfied his curiosity.