asked the Minister of Technology what is his latest estimate of the cost of research and development of the European airbus; and what percentage increase this represents over the last previously published figures.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects agreement to be reached to go ahead with the development of the European airbus; and what are the latest estimates for development costs for the airframe and engine separately.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the inter-governmental discussions regarding the building of a prototype A300 airbus.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the European airbus.

Full technical and financial reports were submitted by industry in May and are being evaluated by international teams of officials. Engine launching costs are now estimated by Rolls Royce at something over £70 million for a 54,000 lb. thrust engine as against the earlier figure of £62 million for a 47,500 lb. thrust engine. Airframe launching costs are estimated by Sud Aviation as at least £215 million against the earlier figure of £130 million. These new figures take into account the effects of devaluation. In all, this represents an increase of nearly 50 per cent., though the figures are of course subject to further negotiation and are not yet officially endorsed. Ministers plan to meet next month, as scheduled, to make a decision on the future of the project.

In view of that very disturbing information and of other developments with reference to the airbus, does the Minister still stick to his categoric assurance that it will be built?

We are very hopeful that it will be built, but we have always made clear that this is not a political project; it is a commercial one. We want to build an aircraft which will be commercially viable and which will be attractive to the airlines to buy it. If we can meet those terms and conditions along the lines of the strict criteria we laid down last July, we shall do it.

As the costs have escalated, I think the right hon. Gentleman said from 50 per cent. to 70 per cent., what chances are there of this being a commercial project? If it is not a commercial project, what will be left of the civil aircraft industry in this country?

The civil aircraft industry does not rely on the airbus alone by any means. I ask the House to remember that the project has been changed considerably in character during the last year. The specifications are not by any means identical with those we had in mind a year ago because, of course, the aircraft now more nearly meets what the airlines have in mind. In this sense it will be more commercially attractive than the original plans were.

Has the Minister had any recent indications from the French Government as to a change in their attitude towards this project after the recent events in France?

As I said, the Ministers expect to meet next month. In that discussion we shall understand what the current French decision is.

May we take it that my right hon. Friend in making that statement was making a categorical denial of the statements which appear in this morning's Press that the Government do not mean to proceed with the airbus 300?

We have made no such decision. We shall await the complete evaluation of the reports to which I have referred, and of course we shall be discussing it with our partners, Germany and France, at the discussions to be held next month.

Can the right hon. Gentleman either confirm or deny that he has made approaches to the Boeing Aircraft Corporation with a view to its participation in this project in return to its abandoning a competitive aircraft? If he has made those approaches, can he give an indication of Boeing's reactions and also the reactions of the French Government to that suggestion?

There is another Question on the Order Paper about my visit to the United States. I prefer to wait for that.

Has my right hon. Friend seen Press reports on the attitude of Lufthansa towards this project? What observations has he to make on this?

I fully understand the position and that Lufthansa, as with any other airline, will wish to have the full specification and particulars of any aircraft before being committed to it. The Lufthansa airline decision must be decided finally by Ministers concerned in Germany, and we have had an assurance from German Ministers that they wish the airbus project to continue.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will specify the nature of the ground tests to be carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment on the TSR2 airframe at Shoeburyness.

Firings of various types will be made at the airframe from varying distances in order to assess the vulnerability of advanced aircraft of modern construction.

Why cannot these tests be simulated by some other means? What is particular about the TSR2 which lends itself to this? Will the Minister take note that a Conservative Administration would not allow this aircraft to be destroyed in this way?

Any other form of test would cost more money. We are saving money by using remains of TSR2, which would go for scrap, and there are two models of TSR2, which are being retained.

asked the Minister of Technology what financial support the Government is planning to give towards the development of the BAC111–600.

No request for launching aid has been received from the company.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the market that this aircraft is likely to command? If so, will he give us an indication as to whether the Government will support it if the market is adequate?

The BAC111 so far has sold very well; over 150 have been sold. The market appreciation, which is not yet complete, indicates that there would be fairly good sales for the 600 series. We will be taking all this into account, particularly the export prospects, if any application is made to us.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the effect on the fixed price of the Harrier aircraft on the basis that the order is doubled.

No price has yet been agreed for the Harrier, but theoretical calculations suggest that the average unit cost of 120 Harriers would be about one-eighth less than the average unit cost of 60.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on recognising on this occasion that it is a question for him and not one for his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence? Has he consulted the Secretary of State for Defence on the possibility of increasing the order, since, if more will be needed for the Royal Air Force, it would be more successful to agree this now so that lower unit costs could be offered to those who wish to buy that aircraft?

Yes. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is considering whether the order should be increased, but he is not yet in a position, before all the studies are complete, to make any announcement.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the lateral noise of the Concorde on take-off compared with existing types of jet aircraft.

We cannot expect final confirmation of the complex noise level assessments involved until Concorde has flown. Our objective is to see that Concorde should be within the noise limits of existing aircraft, and we believe this to be achievable.

Is it not most important for the Government to indicate what they consider to be a tolerable amount of noise so that designers can endeavour to work within this tolerance? If the Government have not yet made up their minds on what the maximum will be, will they do so quickly and let the industry know?

If the hon. Gentleman studies my Answer, he will see that I am not very far away from what he wants. The noise certification scheme, which has been generally agreed, cannot be applied to aircraft already under development. An improved engine silencer programme is being worked on and we are hoping that the parameters of lateral engine noise on take-off will be within the limits of existing aircraft.

When is the Concorde expected to start its flight trials?

I think there is another Question on that subject.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement of the effect which recent strikes in France have had on the estimated date of Concorde's initial flight.

asked the Minister of Technology on what dates he now expects the first Concorde aircraft under construction in France and at Filton to make their first flights.

Just before the recent strikes in France, the manufacturers' forecasts were that both aircraft would fly some time between the second week in September and the third week in November. The effects of the strikes on these forecasts are currently being assessed: they seem bound to set the French-assembled prototype back by some weeks, but I cannot be more specific at the moment.

Could my right hon. Friend at least assure us that the initial flight of the British Concorde will not be determined by the length of industrial strikes in France?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the first flight of the British or French Concorde will be neither advanced nor set back by any decision of mine. It is a technical decision, involving a number of complicated issues, including the instrumentation programme. It is bound to have some effect, since there is no French or British Concorde —both are identical aircraft, assembled in different countries.

Can the Minister tell the House whether it is a fact that the first flight of the British-assembled Concorde will be set back as a result of difficulty in obtaining parts which are manufactured in France and which are being delayed because of the strike?

I cannot be specific, but I think that the House will appreciate that since components for both these first aircraft come from both countries, any industrial dispute, either in France or the United Kingdom, would be bound to have some effect upon flight programmes. I very much hope that this delay will not be serious.

Has not this co-operation been very good throughout and would it not be deplorable if this co-operation were to be impaired by any nationalistic claims from one side or the other? Would my right hon. Friend reiterate the fact that the decision will be taken on a technological basis, and, as this is a co-operative venture, it does not matter which aircraft flies first, but that it is the project which counts, and it is a joint project?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing that view which reflects the view of those actually doing the work in Bristol and Toulouse, and if it is any comfort to the House, whichever plane flies will be 50 per cent. British on its first flight.

Yes, but while appreciating the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made, may I put it to him that what we are trying to get from him is that there is no question of either being held up while waiting for the other? That is what we want to know.

There will be no decision by me which would hold up at all the 002 being built in Bristol, but as both aircraft, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, are entirely interdependent, I cannot guarantee that some delay at Toulouse might not affect the flight programme of the prototype 002 from Bristol.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the increased cost of the Concorde project following the recent strikes in France.

It is not practicable to isolate the direct effect of the French strikes on the total cost of the Concorde project, but it is likely to be small in the context of the programme as a whole.

Is the Minister in a position to refute the suggestion that the French strikes will increase the cost of Concorde by at least £250,000 per aircraft?

We have not calculated this ourselves, and indeed I think it would be very difficult to calculate it till there is a final settlement of the dispute involving workers in Toulouse, but when we talk of escalation of aircraft projects, as the hon. Gentleman knows, time is money, and if anything sets back a project then it tends to increase the cost. However, I have not studied the figures and I cannot therefore confirm or deny the figure he has mentioned.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether work has been resumed in France on the Concorde?

I am afraid I do not know what the position is on this, but I understand there is still some delay.

asked the Minister of Technology what assistance he is giving to the development of an all-British future combat aircraft.

We hope to be able to develop an advanced combat aircraft in collaboration with other European countries and with Canada and discussions with these countries are under way. The studies which British firms have been carrying out are continuing.

Would it not be better to build a British plane and sell it rather than continue these discussions?

What we want to ensure is that, when we build a plane, it has a very good export potential. It is more likely that it will have this export potential if the plane is built in collaboration in the first place. We are going ahead with discussions in the hope that we can agree on the building of an aircraft which will meet the requirements of many of the air defence staffs.

We recognise the advantages of that proposal, but can the Minister assure us that, if it is not possible to reach an agreed specification, he will not discard the idea of an all-British combat aircraft aimed at the same market?

I think that it is premature to look at any fall-back position. We are hoping that our present plans for a collaborative aircraft will be a great success technically and commercially.

asked the Minister of Technology what assistance he is giving to the development of an all-British 200 seat mini-airbus with RB211 engines.

No manufacturer is currently seeking any such assistance.

As the research and development costs of the RB211 engines will now be covered in full on another project, and in view of the doubt which must be the case on the building of the A300 airbus, in the light of the Minister's Answer earlier, is it not time for the Minister to reconsider his views on our never being able to build another airliner on our own, more particularly as the kind of airliner described in the Question was B.E.A's second choice ahead of the Trident 3Bs which the Corporation will in fact get?

The BAC211 project was rejected last year because we were, not by any means certain that the market demand for it would be large enough to justify the research and development expenditure. Those strict criteria must continue to be applied to any project on which we embark, whether it is collaborative or wholly United Kingdom. We will certainly consider any proposal made to us, but we must be convinced that we shall sell sufficient numbers of these aircraft to justify the huge development costs involved.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about progress with hypersonic flight.

Expenditure by my Department on hypersonics research is being progressively reduced and is expected to fall to about £200,000 in 1969–70. This is all that can be justified at the present time.

Why, apart from the views given by the Plowden Committee is this money being reduced, considering that this country leads the world in supersonic flight, and hypersonic flight, is merely the next stage after supersonic flight? Will not the Minister reconsider the matter?

I have considered it very carefully, and I am sure that it is the right decision. Half our problems in the past have stemmed from our decision to remain in the most advanced fields and hope later to be able to sell equipment, instead of gearing our own effort to what the market really wants. I remind the hon. Gentleman that £200,000 a year on hypersonics research is still a substantial sum of money. I am sure that the right thing to do is to make room in our programme for the sort of research which will produce exports for this country in the relatively near future.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this decision in the context of what it would be right and proper for Britain to do in space in the next 10 years? There is a no-man's-land between what we call aviation and what we call space. Is there not a rôle here for Britain which is nothing like as expensive or as ambitious as the traditional space programme about which we usually talk?

The hypersonic aircraft comes in what is now called the aerospace field. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it makes sense to shape our research and development to a large extent on the basis of investment put into industry for developments for which there is likely to be a market. On that basis, I believe our decision to be right.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimate of the cost to public funds of building the Trident 3B for British European Airways; and what is the current estimated in-service date.

About £15 million for launching costs; the aircraft could be in service in 1971.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents—and, I presume, those of other hon. Members who have large Hawker Siddeley factories in their constituencies—are concerned at the delay in concluding the negotiations for the purchase of the Trident 3B? Will he use his influence to expedite matters?

I understand that negotiations are going on between B.E.A. and the firm for the placing of an order for the Trident 3B, and I hope that they will be concluded soon. I do not propose to interfere in those negotiations.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made in the negotiations with B.E.A. about the compensation agreement, as this is plainly having a deleterious effect on our prospect of selling the aircraft abroad?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his question to him.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Minister of State to the United States of America to meet aviation interests.

I met the management of the Boeing Company on 9th May and of the Lockheed company on 10th May. My purpose was to maintain the contacts I have with these companies, which I value very highly.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on reports that he discussed with Boeing the possibility of collaboration on the airbus?

I discussed with various American firms the prospects of collaboration, and the American firms appreciate that we do not rule out collaboration with them on any proposal provided that we maintain in Europe a sufficient share of the design work involved. Since my visit to America, I have reported to my French and German colleagues the results of my discussions there.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm reports that he definitely made offers to Boeing in regard to both the airbus and the Concorde, and, if he made those offers, will he say what was the reaction of Boeing and also what was the reaction of the French Government, who also are partners in these projects?

Our discussions with Boeing covered a wide field, but there were no specific proposals made from either the Boeing side or my side. We are simply looking at the broad possibilities of collaboration on aircraft for 1975 onwards which would meet the requirements of both United States and European airlines.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the cancellation costs of the 50 F111s ordered from the United States of America.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now publish details of the cancellation costs of the 50 Fills agreed with the United States Government.

Negotiations are continuing, and it may be some months before I am in a position to make an announcement.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on reports that the cancellation costs are likely to be £62 million and that we shall also lose the right to offset bids of £125 million? This is an important matter. I hope that he will be able to make a statement soon.

I am in a position to say now that there is no substance in the Press reports, and some of the estimates which have appeared are quite excessive.

Will the hon. Gentleman check on how these reports appeared in the Press? There were most authoritative reports carried in all the leading newspapers that the bill will be £60 million. Will he make sure what has happened?

What we want to ensure is that we arrange the cancellation charges so as to put the least possible burden on the British Exchequer here. It would be possible for us to agree now on certain proposals which have been made to us, but the negotiations are continuing in order that we may reduce the amount of charges which we have to pay. I do not want to add to my original reply that the reported figures are excessive.

Will my hon. Friend take it that the cancellation is warmly welcomed on this side of the House? What would have been the cost of the order if it had not been cancelled? Second, as we are ending our east of Suez rôle, may we have an assurance that there will be no substitute for this aircraft which we no longer need?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the cancellation. I am not in a position to give him an exact figure of cost, but I can assure him and the House that the saving is considerable.

A vast sum of money has been wasted. How do the Government propose to pay this money, in view of the state of our economy? Has the hon. Gentleman tried to negotiate some form of arrangement for services to the United States in lieu of actual cash?

This is part of the negotiations which we are now conducting with the Department of Defence. The question of spreading the payments or having them earmarked against something else will be one of the matters considered.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will confirm that the agreement with the United States Government for the purchase of the F111 contained the standard clause requiring the contractor, in the event of cancellation, to take all reasonable steps to minimise the loss; and to what extent United States requirements for additional aircraft for their own forces to replace casualties and reinforce operations in Vietnam are being taken into account in negotiating cancellation charges.

I can confirm that the F111 contract concluded on our behalf between the United States Government and the firm concerned includes such a provision. The United States authorities are at present making a detailed assessment of the extent to which they can make use of items manufactured for the United Kingdom in their own F111 programme.

Can the hon. Gentleman go further and assure us that the losses which have already been sustained by this aircraft will be taken into account, as, presumably, they will have to be replaced, and is he satisfied that the contractors are doing everything possible to minimise the loss?

We are satisfied that the Department of Defence is taking into account the use of the two aircraft which have been completed and also the materials which were being built up for the F111K programme. We very much hope that this will help to reduce the amount of the charge which we shall have to pay.

It will cost this country many millions of pounds. Will these many millions of pounds be borrowed from the foreign bankers so that we may pay? Is this not one of the root causes of our economic troubles?

I was asked a detailed question about cancellation charges. I think that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not use the advantage of Question Time to enter into a discussion on the broad philosophy.

Has the Minister attempted to negotiate an offset for the cancellation charges, and if so with what success?

These are all matters currently being considered in the negotiations.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, in view of the continuing Senate hearings, that the United States intends to go ahead with the manufacture of the F111?

This is a matter for the United States Department of Defense, but I have had no indication that that Department is not anxious to go ahead with the F111 programme.

asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has for financing Short Brothers and Harland now it has been successful in obtaining the RB211 podding contract.

Proposals for financing the future programme of Short Brothers and Harland Limited, including the podding contract referred to, have been put forward by the company's board. I am now considering them, and in view of the substantial sums of public money involved, I have asked Messrs. Binder, Hamlyn and Company, a firm of chartered accountants, to assist the Department in this matter.

Is the Minister aware of the embarrassment caused to Short Brothers and Harland as a result of the inquiry by yet another firm of accountants, the second in 12 months to investigate the firm's affairs? Is he aware of the difficulties caused by the delay in making proper financial arrangements for this company? If there is to be a further delay will he ensure that there is adequate bridging finance available, because the jobs of many thousands of skilled men in Belfast are dependent upon adequate financial arrangements being made?

On the first aspect, the inquiry that was initiated and conducted three years ago was with regard to the potential for diversification at Shorts. This is an inquiry about the financial structure. With regard to the second point, we understand from the company that it will need interim finance while these investigations and inquiries are being conducted. We have to consider how best this need for funds can be met.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm has for two years running won the Queen's Award to Industry, and is doing excellent work? Does he appreciate that time is of the essence in this matter, and will he expedite these financial arrangements?

I pay tribute to the tremendous successes that this firm has achieved. There is no doubt that it is technically excellent in many of the things that it does, and I give an assurance that this series of inquiries will be conducted as quickly as possible.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware of the waiving by a Norwegian shipping line of a fine of £1,225,000 for which a British shipyard was liable under a penalty clause as a result of a 245-day delay in delivery; and what action he will take to inquire into the reason for this delay and to ensure that similar breaches of contract by British firms do not happen in the future.

I am aware of the reasons for the delay in delivery by a British shipyard and that agreement was reached on payments to Norwegian owners as a result of normal commercial negotiations. The reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry now proceeding should improve its competitive position in all respects.

The Minister says that he is aware of the reasons, but he does not tell the House any of the reasons. The whole nation must try to avoid at all costs this reputation for unpunctuality. Can the Minister give some further explanation of it?

This was a particular case which the hon. Gentleman knows about. There was an over optimism about the speed with which modernisation would be carried through in the yard in question. It was a commercial negotiation between the company and the foreign owners. In fact the contract was fulfilled, though a penalty payment had to be made. The delivery position and delivery performance in the industry are now much improved.

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

No requirement has yet been found for a ship calling for the large power output necessary to make nuclear marine propulsion competitive.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that further progress can be made without trials and a prototype ship afloat? Does he realise that we, a premier maritime nation, are rapidly falling behind in this important development?

The crucial question here is whether such a project would be commercially viable. It would be madness to indulge in quite heavy expenditure, particularly if such expenditure were borne by the Exchequer, without any commercial prospect for the sale of such a vessel.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, since the Padmore Committee reported some years ago, thinking on this matter has changed considerably as a result of the concept of the container ship with a nuclear-powered hull for a quick turn-round? Will he give a little more encouragement to those who have really progressive ideas in this field?

We are encouraging the shipbuilding and shipping interests to discuss this matter in the hope that they may be able to produce a commercially viable project. In recent years, the governmental position in the matter has taken a sharp turn for the better in that both the atomic energy interests and shipbuilding interests are now concentrated in the same Department, the Ministry of Technology.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the level of radioactive fall-out at present; how this compares with previous years; and how much is attributable to the Chinese tests carried out in the summer.

The present levels of long-lived radioactive fall-out are similar to those of 1967. About half of the current long-lived radioactivity may be attributed to the Chinese explosion of 17th June, 1967.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) what location he has decided for the proposed European Technological Centre;

asked the Minister of Technology what plans his Department has to further the establishment of a European Institute of Technology and an international Atlantic research centre; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions with European Governments and industrial organisations about the European Technological Centre are continuing. The other proposal which is being developed under the auspices of the North Atlantic Assembly is for an academic research and teaching institute for science and technology, and it is for industry and the universities to decide what support they would give to this proposal.

Is there not a striking contrast between the speed with which the Government seem prepared to withdraw from some European technological efforts, such as the C.E.R.N. particle accelerator, and the slowness with which they get on with this kind of technological initiative in this field? Is there not a widespread feeling amongst our Continental friends that we must be more specific and define more clearly what the functions and aims of this kind of thing are?

I doubt whether there is much doubt in the minds of our European colleagues about this, because I have taken the opportunity of discussing this with a number of European Ministers—most recently in Denmark a few days ago. The object of the European centre was that it should be to a very large extent industrially based and motivated. Here we shall want to carry European industry with us. That is why the discussions are going on in this way. This is not a political initiative but a very serious industrial initiative.

Will not my right hon. Friend accept, however, that the speedy development of both these technological centres is vital to our technological advance? Will he not further accept that there should be some level of Government intervention in the Atlantic research project?

The second point is not for me, as my hon. Friend will realise from the Answer that I have given. On the first point, we have played a leading part in discussing this proposal and have been, generally speaking, encouraged by the response we have received.

Can the Minister tell the House the Government's precise purpose in the European Technological Centre, because he will appreciate that a number of different purposes have been put forward in relation to the phrase "a European Technological Centre"? It would assist the House if the right hon. Gentleman could define it a little more precisely.

The object of the Centre is that European industry together should analyse the forward demand, particularly in the fields of advanced technology, and then analyse the existing industrial capability in Europe and see whether, by inter-industrial and inter-governmental action, Europe can be helped to meet more of its own needs and provide the home base upon which it can compete with Americans and others and develop an export market in this field.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that within the last few months plans have been announced to establish two management-type technological institutes of the type he has just described? Is there not a danger that, if we do not move fairly soon, we shall need a further organisation to avoid overlap and duplication of all these technological institutes?

I do not think that is the case. I think that as Europe grows together, as Europe will grow together, because of the needs of technology, a number of techniques will have to be used to encourage and utilise this development. This is just not a matter of management. We are talking here about the development of European industrial capability.

asked the Minister of Technology by whom his Department was represented at the Hanover Industrial Fair; and what part his Department will play in furthering new technology arising therefrom.

I visited the fair, accompanied by senior officials of the Department. I am of course concerned to see our industry exploiting any new technological developments which show promise of economic application, and the Department is ready to help in all appropriate ways.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just reading technical journals that can give us new ideas in technology, but that visiting such industrial fairs can help us to see at first hand the new ideas that are produced?

We are very much in favour of our firms participating in the fair. I was very glad while there to see that over 150 United Kingdom firms had participated, and I am quite sure that they all gained a great deal of advantage from that participation.

Is the Minister aware that one of the greatest services he could render British firms who exhibit at such fairs would be to put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the close company rule?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take note of that point.

asked the Minister of Technology what assistance his Department gives the National Coal Board in relation to any new technology in the winning of coal.

The National Coal Board's pioneering work in this field is financed out of its revenues and forms part of its research programme which is on lines settled with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. However, there are certain areas in which the Department gives limited assistance to the Board and to mining machinery manufacturers in specific technical developments.

The House will not be too clear as to what that Answer means. Is my hon. Friend aware that at the Hanover Industrial Fair there was a coal machine which introduced the principle of using isotopes, which could to some extent improve the techniques of winning coal? Has he done anything about reporting this to the National Coal Board?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will make any necessary reports to the N.C.B. but the resources of my Department and its various stations have always been available to the N.C.B., and to any other industry, and the A.E.A.'s reactor group works with the N.C.B. by providing sensing devices using isotopes fitted to coal-hewing machinery.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the reduction in manufacture in Great Britain of commercial vehicles exceeding 16 tons plated weight as a result of the provisions in the Transport Bill.

As forecast in the White Paper (Command 3470), the volume of traffic likely to be transferred to rail will be rather more than offset by the growth in the remaining road traffic. Vehicles of over 16 tons plated weight will share in this forecast growth. There should therefore be no decline in demand.

Is the Minister aware that the economic efficiency and growing popularity of large British lorries will be undermined when the frustrating processes proposed in the Transport Bill can be avoided if smaller vehicles are used? Is he aware that one estimate by manufacturers is that the reduction in the home market will be 25 per cent.

Part of the hon. Gentleman's Question involves transport policy. He asked me whether there would be a decline in demand for these vehicles. The answer is that there will not. If there were not the misleading propaganda put about by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends it is unlikely that the industry would be adversely affected.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Technology what response from industry he has had to his offer of support for microelectronic production technology.

Two microelectronic production technology contracts have been placed and as a result of more recent approaches by some of the leading firms to my Department and N.R.D.C., a wider support programme is now being examined.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that policy in this field represents something of a major success story for the Government? He referred to wider support in this field. Can he give any indication along what lines?

I think that my hon. Friend knows that when I made my original offer in March, 1967, there followed independently some rationalisation in this field. We have placed two contracts with Elliott and Ferranti, and the N.R.D.C. will be involved. But beyond describing what has happened and our general intentions, I do not think I can be drawn on details at this stage.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to receive the report of the Pressure Vessel Committee of Inquiry; and whether he will publish it.

The Pressure Vessel Committee of Inquiry has completed its inquiries and is preparing a Consultative Document which my right hon. Friend hopes to receive before the end of July. We shall then seek advice from interested parties who submitted evidence to the Committee before a Final Report is published.

When is the consultative document likely to be published?

It is not the intention that it should be published.

asked the Minister of Technology what recent steps he has made to establish the views of industry on the proposed change to the metric system of measurement; and if he will make a statement on the results.

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

Does the Minister agree that there has been a substantial shift of opinion, particularly in engineering, over this question? One firm in my constituency with a wonderful export record tells me that it will cost it £1 million over five years, and it sees no advantage, as the United States has not given any indication of when it intends to change. Does not he accept that the whole question should now be reviewed?

The hon. Gentleman's question puts one side of the case. The Government accepted in principle the first approach of industry in 1965 on this. A great deal of work has gone on, and no country has been able to establish a complete cost benefit study in this area. But the advice available to me now from the Standing Joint Committee is being studied. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await a further statement.

How extensive are the industrial contacts of the Standing Joint Committee on Metrication? Is it correct that it has recommended to the Government that British industry should go metric by the end of 1975?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the report, which is to be published, but I can satisfy him that the Government would want to know the views of a very wide number of people before reaching and announcing their final decision.

As the Government in the past 3½ years have gone back on most of their declared intentions, and as this is costing a great deal of money, will the Minister see that a decision is arrived at as soon as possible?

I accept the need for speed, but I think that the House will recognise that changing the system of measurement in a country is a very fundamental decision on which public opinion should have an opportunity of expressing itself. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment on the Government, I can only reply that as far as his targets are concerned a miss is as good as a kilometre.

asked the Minister of Technology which countries have been visited by Ministers in his Department for talks on technical co-operation; and what technical agreements have been made with other countries.

Since January, 1967 visits have been made to 16 countries, details of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and talks on technological collaboration have been a main or a subsidiary purpose on each occasion.

Does the list include Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there might be advantage in further technical co-operation with a number of countries outside Europe rather than concentrating so exclusively on European countries as we have so far?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the need for spreading our technological co-operation as widely as possible. But in our relations with Eastern Europe there are special reasons why the technological agreement type of procedure has been followed, and in Western Europe this is very closely connected with our approach to European technological collaboration. But because the Government have not so far been engaged on wider visits than these it does not mean that we are not anxious to encourage our extension of relations with these countries.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the result of the study he has made into securing more advanced foundry techniques.

The Department has made a preliminary survey of the foundry equipment industry, which is relevant to the promotion of more advanced foundry techniques and which is still under consideration. A need has been identified for the capability of offering complete packaged foundries.

In view of the importance of foundries to many of the industries in my constituency of Huddersfield, may I ask the Minister to ensure that this study is given the very highest priority? Can he say whether it will be published?

Foundries are important to a very wide range of activities in the engineering industry, including the industries in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is unlikely that this report will be published, but we are anxious to see that users and makers of foundry equipment gain every benefit from the work done.

asked the Minister of Technology what action he has taken to ensure that the collective skill of those who were employed at the Associated Electrical Industries Advanced Development Laboratories, Blackheath, now closed down, is not lost to the country through dispersal.

None, Sir. I do not accept that design and development teams should be excluded from the necessary processes of rationalisation taking place in industry, and I understand that much of the work being done at Blackheath duplicated that being done elsewhere in the new G.E.C.-A.E.I. group. I am assured that almost all those who were employed at Blackheath have either accepted a transfer to other units in the G.E.C.-A.E.I. group or have already found alternative employment elsewhere.

What lessons has the Ministry of Technology, as distinct from the D.E.P., learned from this affair, and what steps has it taken to ensure that it will receive advice of any similar happening in the future, when there is to be a dispersal of collective technological skill, so that it may make representations before a final decision is taken?

The Ministry does not necessarily have to be consulted before a private sector research establishment is closed down, although where Ministry of Technology projects are in progress we would expect to be consulted. Where the closure of a research establishment might lead to the break-up of a particularly valuable research team whose work might be lost to Britain we might also wish to intervene.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will now invite Mallory Batteries Limited to withdraw its price increases for hearing-aid batteries until such time as an agreement is reached with him in accordance with the recommendations contained in Report Number 64 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and if he will, make a statement;

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he now proposes to take to implement the recommendations contained in Report No. 64 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes following his discussions with Mallory Batteries Limited.

As I have already informed the House, discussions are in train with Mallory Batteries Limited on the recom-mendations of the Report, including that of withdrawing the price increases of 1st January, 1968. The company has now made proposals which are being carefully considered, and I hope that the issue will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion very soon.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's efforts in this respect, but is he aware that we have now been paying a 50 per cent. increase for over six months? Would he do all that he can to expedite a conclusion, especially for those hearing-aid batteries which have increased by 78 per cent.?

My hon. Friend will know the complications involved in this case, because he will have read the Prices and Incomes Board's Report. I am well aware of the desirability of resolving this matter as rapidly as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it seems as though Mallory Batteries has turned a deaf ear to the Prices and Incomes Board? Is it not time that he shouted at it?

I appreciate the humour in my hon. Friend's question, but the firm is co-operating with us in the discussions now taking place.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I first corresponded with him about this matter eight months ago? Then he put me off, and passed me sideways to Aubrey Jones, Esq. After another four months we awaited a report, and now after another four months we are awaiting a statement. Is it always to take 12 months to solve a relatively simple problem of this sort?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a relatively simple problem at all. It involves the pricing of products of an international company, and various considerations which are extremely complicated. I am sure that, although everyone wants to get a rapid issue out of these discussions, the Prices and Incomes Board reference was very well worth while, and has contributed to a wider understanding of the problems raised by this sort of issue.

In these discussions now taking place is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient weight is being given to the enormous impact on the prices of these batteries that must inevitably follow from whatever type of hearing aid is adopted under the National Health Service? Has this point been fully considered?

My Department is, naturally, principally concerned with the pricing aspect, but we are very well aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, that the Health Service purchasing of a particular type of hearing aid affects the demand for, and hence the practical price of, different types of batteries.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that these batteries are produced much more cheaply elsewhere in the world than they are here? If his discussions do not succeed, would he consider the rôle that a Government-owned concern might play in the production of batteries?

I do not think that it would be helpful to speculate in answering a supplementary question, without having the figures, which are not available to me at the moment, about the cost of manufacturing these batteries elsewhere. I will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Minister of Technology what industries, for which he has indirect responsibility through the research associations, are now being subjected to technological and economic surveys by his Department; and for what purpose.

A survey of the castings industries in Scotland is being undertaken at the request of the Scottish Economic Planning Council to see what action is needed to stimulate the well being of the industry.

Is it not true that many other firms and industries have been sent questionnaires? What is the cost of all this? How many people are involved? Will consideration be given to the publishing of an annual report by the Ministry of Technology outlining the extent of this work? This is by no means all the work being carried out. Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree?

I am certainly not aware of the numerous questionnaires to which the hon. Member refers. We should certainly be willing to publish a report if we had matters of substance on which to report. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to write to us and tell us to what he is referring.

asked the Minister of Technology what industries, for which he has responsibility, he has now asked the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to survey with a view to accelerating rationalisation.

My Department has close working relations with the Corporation in regard to the structural problems facing the engineering industries. As the hon. Member is aware, I recently invited the Chairman of the Corporation to advise me on the reorganisation of the nuclear power industry.

Can the Minister state whether he has extended his inquiries and asked the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to look into other industries, for instance, the machine tool industry? Has he made any specific approach? Can he give an assurance to the contrary?

I think the position is that I.R.C. itself has a responsibility to look at the structure of industry, and so, indeed, do we, and we maintain very close contact at work level with the Corporation, maintaining security of information given to the Corporation and to us by industry. In view of the importance of continual contact, I do not believe that we could work it on any other basis. Of course, I.R.C. is departmentally responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree, in view of the comments made earlier, that I.R.C. is both commercially aggressive and intelligently organised, and would he not encourage it in trying to encourage possibilities of rationalisation in Europe?

I do not think I.R.C, which is a splendid example of public enterprise, needs any encouragement from me.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the case of the nuclear engineering industry I.R.C. is merely advising the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will act directly with the companies concerned as, for instance, he did over the computer industry, and that I.R.C. has not got the right to produce a whole project, as, for example, it did in the recent scientific instruments case?

In the case of the nuclear power industry there are both public agencies like the Atomic Energy Authority and the C.E.G.B. involved as well as the consortia, and therefore any decision involving the industry would need to be a Government decision reached after further discussion with all those parties concerned; but it might well be that in the reorganisation there would be some part which I.R.C. might itself decide to play. I think I must ask the House to await the statement I hope to make on this subject later.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) whether he will seek to arrange that those who are considering the reclamation of the Welsh/Cheshire Dee, Morecambe Bay, Solway Firth, and the mudbanks off Foulness will visit the extension into the North Sea of Rotterdam/Europort, the Dutch delta scheme, and the tidal model at Delft, so as to appraise the relative importance of British tidal problems;

Staff from my Department provide advice on tidal and other hydraulic problems associated with these schemes and they are in close and continuing touch with the Dutch work mentioned. These schemes are aimed to provide a variety of benefits including land reclamation and water conservation and transport facilities. Responsibility for them rests primarily with other departments.

Is the Minister aware that land in the North Sea is being reclaimed in an area which is now three times greater than the Port of London at about £3,000 an acre all in, and that Holland is growing geographically at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum? Is it not time that Britain grew by at least half as much?

The geographical rate growth to which the hon. Member refers, the growth of the United Kingdom, is not my responsibility, I am glad to say. What we do is to provide through the Hydraulic Research Station facilities for those agencies either abroad or at home to make use of the very formidable expertise in this work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increase in remuneration of the Chairman of Hambros Bank from £20,866 to £25,145 a year in the last 12 months, in addition to share dividends.

The White Paper makes it clear that the principles of the policy apply to directors' remuneration and the Government expect directors to show the same sense of responsibility towards these principles as is being asked of wage and salary earners. We will be keeping the question of directors' remuneration under close review as details become increasingly available through the operation of the Companies Act, 1967. My right hon. Friend is having this particular case investigated.

Is the Minister aware that I very much welcome that reply? What does he think the railwaymen and the engineers feel about this—that there is one law for the poor and another for the rich, particularly Mr. Jocelyn Hambro?

I would hope that my reply made clear to the House that my right hon. Friend is determined that the policy should be universally applicable.

But is the Minister aware that my constituents are much more concerned about the 4 per cent. increase on the bus fares than the £5,000 increase in this man's salary, a large amount of which will come back in tax?

It is without question of tremendous concern that some people should apparently have an opportunity to escape the incomes policy, and we seek to put this right.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what redundancies she expects in connection with reorganisation now taking place in the motor industry; and what provision she is making to find alternative and productive work for the men made redundant.

I am not aware of any proposed redundancy in this industry —several important firms are at present recruiting production workers—but we shall continue to keep in close touch with developments.

Is my hon. Friend unaware of the great anxiety felt by the workers at Leylands, following the merger, and is it not timely for him to get in touch with both the employers and the trade unions with a view to forestalling redundancies or, failing that, at least to making provision for alternative work?

There have been some misleading Press rumours on this subject which Sir Donald Stokes, the Chairman of British Leyland Motor Corporation, has denied. He has undertaken to keep the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Employment and Productivity fully informed in advance of any public announcement should there be any change in the present position.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will define the prospective functions of Mr. George Cattell in her department.