asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the construction of a nuclear-powered surface ship.

As I said on 22nd January in reply to similar Questions by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), we are now examining the further information recently received from shipbuilders. We shall discuss this with them and others concerned.—[Vol. 776, c. 109–10.]

Are not the Government aiming too high in expecting a prototype to be wholly economic? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the new container ship would probably be eminently suitable for nuclear propulsion, bearing in mind the high speed and the length of time to be spent at sea?

I agree that the container ship offers by far and away the best prospect for surface nuclear propulsions. I do not believe that it is fair to say, however, that the Government are aiming too high in seeking to invest in an economic and commercial proposition.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if we start on the basis of a commercial proposition from the word "go" the project will never get off the ground and that in this important sphere of marine technology the Government are dragging their feet and should get a move on?

It is easy to suggest that the Government should get a move on. It is less easy to show economic sense in what is an extremely difficult sphere. I believe that we are going as fast as we can in a way that makes economic sense.

Does the information from shipbuilders now being considered include information from the Germans, who, I understand, are building a second ship to the "Otto Hahn"?

I was, of course, referring to proposals from the British shipbuilding industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been two of these, and we are examining them in great detail.

asked the Minister of Technology whom he has appointed to the Metrication Board; and what initial task he has given to the Board.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has now been made towards metrication.

Lord Ritchie-Calder will take up his appointment as Chairman of the Board on 1st March, and Mr. Gordon Bowen, C.B., C.M.G., who is at present Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Technology, will be the lull-time director. It is my intention to appoint a deputy chairman and I hope that I shall shortly be able to announce his name and those of the other members of the Board. The Board will decide its own priorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many industrial firms, particularly engineering firms, are becoming increasingly alarmed about the costs and complications of the changeover? Has there been a serious cost-benefit analysis of the change to metric, and, if not, will the Board be undertaking this task?

The request that this country should go metric came in the first instance from industry, including the engineering industry. The Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Metrication was published last summer and contained some passages about the difficulties of doing a direct cost-benefit analysis in this case. I have little doubt that the C.B.I. was right in saying that metrication and international standardisation of units were absolutely essential for this country's future prosperity.

What is the present policy of the United States in this matter and are they remaining on the imperial system? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this transition is likely to take nearer 25 than five years and will lead to confusion and difficulty? Is he further aware that at this stage the transition must be treated as a matter of urgency in view of the difficulties that have been encountered?

As for the time scale, it will take some time to complete this task, as everyone realises. This is a transitional period involving transferring from one form of measurement to another with the two in parallal for a while, and this is bound to take time. As for the policy of the United States, there is a lot of pressure in America for a switch to metrication. I have little doubt that, measurement being international in character, it will ultimately lead to everyone coming into line, but I am not responsible for their decision.

Would the right hon. Gentleman ask Lord Ritchie-Calder to undertake urgent inquiries into the dangers of the B.S.I. staff shortage, which may inhibit the programme of change?

I do not need to ask Lord Ritchie-Calder to do that because I am myself in close contact with the B.S.I. The industries and firms involved also have an interest in seeing that the B.S.I. is not short of money. This is a joint responsibility, and we obviously do not want to see delay due to that cause.

asked the Minister of Technology whether, in view of the estimated intensity of the sonic bang which will be produced by Concorde of between two and four pounds per square foot and the estimated maximum acceptable intensity of 0·75 pounds per square foot, he will cancel Concorde.

asked the Minister of Technology what is his policy on the Concorde aircraft having regard to estimates of the sonic bang produced by it.

The intensity of the bang produced by Concorde will not be known until the aircraft has flown at supersonic speeds, but I have seen no evidence to support my hon. Friend's estimate about the maximum acceptable intensity of a sonic bang. Concorde's flights will, of course, be controlled in the interests of those below the flight paths.

As my estimate of the cost of the Concorde was correct whereas my hon. Friend's was notoriously incorrect, is it not at least possible that my estimate of the sonic bang will be correct and his will be equally incorrect?

We shall know that when it has flown supersonically.

With respect to my hon. Friend, is it not the case that there are so many variables in weight, speed and altitude that nobody knows what the sonic bang of Concorde will be? Bearing in mind that 73 per cent. of the world's long routes are over the sea, this is not really a very important matter in practice. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, make sure that the Concorde is left to survive entirely on its economic merits?

The answer to the first part of the question is certainly, "Yes". I consider, however, that the question of aircraft noise generally has its importance.

When the sonic tests take place, will the Minister ensure that American observers are present, thus ensuring that when the time comes the Americans, who do not have the equivalent to Concorde, will not prevent this aircraft going to the United States for reasons of noise?

That is a very good idea.

asked the Minister of Technology when Concorde 002 is now expected to have its first flight.

asked the Minister of Technology what is now the estimated date when the Concorde will be in airline service.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the development of the Concorde.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimated date for the first flight of prototype 001 of the Concorde; by what amount this varies from the originally expected date of first flight; and what has been the estimated increase in costs deriving from this delay.

asked the Minister of Technology when the British and French prototypes of Concorde will now make their first flight.

The manufacturers had planned to achieve first flight of the first prototype (001) in February, 1968. They now expect it to fly next month. The first flight date of the second prototype (002) will depend upon results from the early flying of 001; but it is expected to be about six weeks after the first flight of 001. The manufacturers hope to have Concorde in airline service by 1973.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the flight of the British Concorde is not being delayed for any political reason after that of the French Concorde?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. He must believe that as I am the Member for Bristol, South-East, if there were any political factors operating they would be the other way. The truth is that from the outset the programmes were planned so that 001 would come first and 002's first flight would benefit from the experience of 001. It would be wrong for me as a political Minister and as a local Member to endanger the project by urging a change in the programme of the flight before the technicians were ready to do it.

Will the Minister confirm that the target date for the first flight is 15th February? Has not the in-airline-service date slipped since he last spoke about it at the Despatch Box?

I would rather not give a date. I have probably read the same stories in the newspapers as has the hon. Member. I am not responsible for fixing the date. It lies with Sud in the case of the 001 and I cannot comment. In answer to the second question, the manufacturers hope to have Concorde in airline service by 1973. We do not know how far the first flight delays will carry through to the later stages or whether this has meant transferring the order in which certain things had to be done.

Will the Minister say what is the expected number of orders for the new plane?

There are no orders for Concorde. There are some options that were taken out before. During the course of the flight trials the firms manufacturing hope to be in a position to give performance guarantees on which firm orders can be built. We are now at the difficult period with Concorde which is causing anxiety because a lot of money has been spent and more committed in anticipation of the first firm order from anybody to buy the aircraft.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the answer to my Question on 22nd January, to which he referred, he used the term a "substantial" rise in development cost? Will he take the earliest opportunity to quantify that rather indefinite word, and will he confirm that it is the intention of the Government that a significant share of those substantially increased development costs shall nonetheless be recovered in the sales that are made of the Concorde to the airline operators?

I used the word "substantial" for two reasons. The first is that we are still assessing the modifications proposed by the firms, which they have costed but which we have not yet costed. The second is that in an international project one has to have an agreed statement as between the Governments concerned about the latest estimate of development costs.

While many of us are still confident about the ultimate success of the project, we are also aware that the continuing delays will inevitably put up the cost, and we are alarmed at the mounting bill. Can we have an undertaking that if there are further delays the Minister will report fully and frankly to the House the real position as he sees it?

I have tried to keep the House informed as best I can, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there is too little information generally available about the Concorde project, and I should like to correct the position.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the slippage of dates is most important for this aircraft's future from the point of view of the workers involved and public confidence generally? These decisions are vital. Is it not time that the companies gave more information to this House and to everyone who has invested in the project so that we know where we stand? We understand the difficulties, but would like more information.

I must acquit the firms of failing to give information to this House or to my Ministry. The firms and my Department are in full contact. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to two other problems. One is that of communication between management and men in the factories, about which I share his view. The other is the extent to which information is available to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), and I shall see what can be done in that respect.

How does my right hon. Friend explain that the Russians seem to have put their Concorde into the air already? Is he aware that arrangements are being made for a Moscow/Tokio flight of their Concorde? Would it not be a good idea to approach the Russians and ask them to give an exhibition at Prestwick?

I cannot comment on the comparison between the two projects except to say that anyone involved in the aircraft industry must admire the technological skill that went into the flight of the Tupolov aircraft. Whether the Russians would fly it here and show it to us is another matter. It would arouse immense interest in our aircraft industry if we could see it fly.

Is the Minister aware that we are handicapped by reading Press reports of meetings held by the right hon. Gentleman in my constituency, though I think that they do me more good than harm? I would ask him to bear in mind that this constant fixing of dates for the first flight of the Concorde that are not met is the worst possible form of public relations. When he is next in contact with our French colleagues and B.A.C, Filton, will he impress upon them that we should prefer April or even May, if it is definite, to these constantly changing dates? It is always next month, and nothing happens. It is doing immense harm to the whole project.

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, if I offended him, I hope that he will forgive me. They were not political speeches that I made. I talked to the management, to shop stewards, and to people at the factory gate at Filton. It was a discussion of the project itself. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On an occasion when so many Questions are asked together, turning Question time into a debate, would it not be better if they were dealt with at the end of Question time?

It has been done.

asked the Minister of Technology what negotiations are in progress with the United States Government for the sale of Harrier aircraft; and whether he will make a statement.

It is not the practice to disclose information about sales of defence equipment to other countries.

asked the Minister of Technology what support his Department is giving to the British Aircraft Corporation's 311 aircraft project; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will make a statement on the latest negotiations for the building of a European airbus;

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement on the A300 European airbus project.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the European airbus project.

My Department has continued discussions with French and German officials and with industry about the A300B. The three Governments will take a decision about this as soon as possible.

Will the Minister accept that we on this side appreciate that he is now faced with the most crucial decision for the British aircraft industry since his Government cancelled TSR2 and failed to cancel Concorde? Will he assure the House that he does not mean to destroy the aircraft industry by refusing Government support to either of these projects?

The demise of the aircraft industry has often been predicted. All I would say about the first part of the hon. Member's Question is that four years after the cancellations to which he has referred, exports per head in the industry were twice as high as in 1964. [Interruption.] All money is made out of obsolescent technology. If anybody thinks that money is made from new technology, I would say that money is made out of technology when the learning curve has been passed. The point with which I want to deal in relation to the latter part of the hon. Member's question is that we are interested, as the firms are, in making money by making aircraft. That means devising aircraft that will sell in the markets which are opening up. That alone is the reason for delay. That is why the consortium itself withdrew the A300 proposals.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's intention, however, to give support to the building of an aircraft of the size indicated in the Questions? Does he appreciate that it is suggested that the French and Germans, plus other European partners, may go ahead without us in the next few months, using an American engine? It would be tragic to miss an opportunity and waste the large amount of money which has already been spent.

I think that the money which has been spent was properly spent, because it at least helped us to avoid going ahead with support for the A300, which the firm subsequently decided to withdraw as a design. The industry is full of rumour—it is a very rumour-full industry—and I would not believe everything I read in the newspapers about alternative plans. We want to back projects that will sell. Since that ought also to be the interests of the firms, I do not see much danger of a division between us in the long term.

Will the Minister understand that there is nothing in the Government's past record concerning the aviation industry which gives us any confidence that they will get the decision right? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, at the end of a long period of muddle, which is primarily his own responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look at the export figures."]—to see the British industry prevented, because of comparatively small sums of money, from taking advantage of the opportunity which lies ahead of it, bearing in mind that if this aircraft is not built the consequences to the balance of payments will be serious?

Order. Technological questions and answers should also be reasonably brief.

Nobody knows better than the hon. Member and his colleagues about cancellations—I think, £250 million worth of cancellations. The decisions which we have taken so far have been right.

What decisions?

We decided not to proceed with the BAC211, and BAC has now come forward with an aircraft which, had we supported the 211, would not have fitted this market. The A300 proposals were withdrawn not by us but by the firms.

In the balance of argument between the two aircraft, would not the Minister agree that airlines will buy the machine which is most suitable for their route patterns and economics and will not buy for reasons of a political consortium? What is the difference in price between the two proposed aircraft?

I cannot answer the latter part of the question, because the full evaluations of price depend on the amount of money that the aircraft would cost and these have not yet been brought forward. That is why the firms have not provided the necessary figures. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that the aircraft business is now a business that begins with the market and ends up with the design to meet it and does not involve supporting every design which may be brought out by the firms.

Will the Minister bear in mind that his attitude to E.L.D.O. has already seriously undermined the confidence of our potential European partners in the Government's bona fides towards European co-operation, bearing in mind that any further prevarication or withdrawing from the consortium could do fatal damage not only to the British aircraft industry but to the whole concept of technological co-operation with Europe?

Nothing would be more fatal to international co-operation than to launch into projects, as the hon. Member's colleagues did, that were not viable in the long run. E.L.D.O. was a perfect example of a non-viable project which diverted resources from the aircraft industry or from computers or other industries in which the basis of international collaboration exists. I must underline again that under Sud leadership the firms withdrew the designs for the A300. The hon. Member will remember the Anglo-French variable geometry proposals. Everybody in Europe is now looking together to find viable projects, and that is quite right.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply to the Question, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Technology if the final report of the working party on hydrofoil craft has now been completed; if he will publish it; and whether he will now make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received the final Report of the Working Party on Hydrofoils and is considering how it may be made available to hon. Members and others who are interested.

Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a lot of public interest in the Report? Members of the public will want to make an evaluation between hydrofoils and hovercraft. Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Red Funnel Steamers, of Southampton, for instance, is, I understand, about to operate the hydrofoil and see how it works compared with the hovercraft?

I am aware of what the hon. Member has said in the latter part of his question, and I agree with him that it would be advantageous to the House if the bulk of the Report could be made available. There are, of course, difficulties with information which is commercial and confidential, but we are studying how we can best make it available to hon. Members.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the great importance of recognising the detraction which inevitably resulted for hydrofoils as a result of N.R.D.C. taking up hovercraft? Bearing in mind that N.R.D.C. obviously cannot take up everything, will the Minister ensure that the hydrofoil conception does not become downgraded unnecessarily simply because N.R.D.C. has taken up hovercraft?

I see no reason whatever why it should be downgraded because N.R.D.C. has not taken it up hitherto. We are certainly trying to look at hydrofoils and hovercraft on a level to see which is better for which job.

asked the Minister of Technology why he vetoed the export of Nimrod maritime aircraft to South Africa; and what was the value of this order.

Our policy on the supply of defence equipment generally to South Africa is in line with the Security Council Resolution of 18th June, 1964, and remains unchanged.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a maritime reconnaissance aircraft which has nothing to do with aggression but everything to do with control of the seas, in which we have a common interest with South Africa? What useful purpose is served simply by ensuring that South Africa gets her supply of such aircraft from other members of the United Nations?

The United Nations Resolution to which I referred, and to which the previous Government subscribed, makes no distinction whatever between arms for internal use and for external use.

Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government faced up to the fact that friendly relations with countries owning the eastern seaboard of the Atlantic are vital to the interests of the country? Is it not clear that if it were not for Her Majesty's Government's attitude to arms of this sort the Union of South Africa would be very willing to play its part in the protection of sea routes which are so vital to us?

These considerations were fully borne in mind when the policy was decided, and were fully debated and explained in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18th December, 1967.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will list the projects for the development and construction of either short take-off and landing or vertical take-off and landing civil airline feeder aircraft which he is now sponsoring; what has been the financial allocation; how much has been spent so far; what stage of development has been reached; and what is the capability of each project.

No proposals have yet been made by industry for Government assistance in the development of short take-off and landing or vertical take-off and landing civil aircraft. But extensive research to assess the prospects of this type of aircraft is being done. Some existing aircraft, partly backed by Government money, have a limited short take-off and landing capability.

Is it not the fact that this is the form of transport of the future, bringing aircraft down on grass landing strips near city centres or on pads in city centres? Should not this matter be given active support by the Government of the day?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that on present understanding it seems to have enormous possibilities, and we are backing it.

Will the Minister confirm to the House that, whether or not there have been definite applications for financial assistance, at least one project from a leading firm of British airframe manufacturers is on the Minister's desk at present?

I think that it is more than on the Minister's desk; it is in the Minister's head. There is not only one project; there are two, and they are extremely interesting.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the total cost to date of equipment for the Linesman ground-to-air defence system.

£68 million, excluding building works.

Since this area is, to use my right hon. Friend's phrase, rumourful, may we have an undertaking that there has not been extravagance and waste in the Linesman project?

So far as I know, not. It seems to be going extremely satisfactorily.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the latest launchings at Woomera.

The F7 launching of the Europa rocket, which took place on Saturday, 30th November, 1968, was the eighth development firing.

What are the future plans?

The next firing is on 30th June of this year.

Is it not true that every Blue Streak firing has performed almost perfectly? That being so, what is the reason for the Government's confidence that the Americans will do all the launching of our satellites for us?

It is a fact that Blue Streak has performed admirably in these tests. The second part of the question is quite a different one.

asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has for further international co-operation in the manufacture of aircraft.

Government policy is to support, where appropriate in partnership with others, those aircraft projects which promise to be economic and which will meet established demand. Various proposals are now under consideration.

Since the number of international projects within the aircraft industry, and in other areas, is almost certain to increase over the next few years, will my right hon. Friend consider the method of control over international projects, which appears at present to be quite inadequate? Although I understand that these things need to be worked out during a period of time, will he not, before making any further contracts, consider issuing in the form of a statement or otherwise information on methods of control, so that we have a chance to make sure that we avoid the bitterness and disillusion which would be an inescapable part of getting this thing wrong?

I should like to consider the specific proposal of my hon. Friend. There is also a learning curve in international collaboration; we are learning from our experience. I think that the new arrangements are better than the old, and I hope that in future collaborative projects industry will supply a larger part and the rôle of Governments will be diminished to that of agreeing in the first instance and then supervising the development of the project and watching over the Government investment.

May we have some clarification of Government policy as expressed this afternoon in the Minister's replies? He has said that the main object of the policy is that the aircraft supported should be viable in the market. Does this mean that an international project would not take precedence over an all-British project if the all-British project had a better chance of being sold?

The case for international collaboration is not so much that we need access to the technology of our European partners but that in terms of the likelihood of commanding a good sound home market collaboration helps. Secondly, a number of Governments contributing to the launching aid reduces the totality of our investment and hence our own risk.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Rohr Corporation relating to Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member on 27th November last.—[Vol. 774, c. 473–4.]

Will the hon. Gentleman say when the financial reorganisation of Short Bros, and Harland will be complete, and is he aware of the great delay there has been and the trouble which it is causing to Short Bros.?

I cannot give a date for that. I know the difficulties that the company is in about this, but it is tied up with negotiations with Rohr.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress made in the rationalisation of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland in the last four years; what effect this has had on the total numbers employed; and how much public money has been injected into the industry during this period.

Since the Shipbuilding Industry Act was passed in 1967 three groups have been formed covering respectively the five Upper Clyde yards, the bigger yards on the Lower Clyde, and two yards in East Scotland. These groupings have prevented a decrease in employment and as yard reorganisation proceeds should enable more secure employment to be given than in the past. The assistance so far provided or promised under the Shipbuilding Industry Act amounts to over £7 million in addition to the Government investment in Fairfields of £1½ million.

While that picture is generally satisfactory, can my hon. Friend assure us that there is adequate public control over the public expenditure?

In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, yes, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that neither he nor the S.I.B. will exert economic or other pressures on the Upper Clyde shipbuilders and the lower reaches firms to come together against the commercial judgments of the firms involved? When can he comment on the progress of productivity agreements in Scottish shipyards?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Shipbuilding Industry Act provides us not with sticks but with carrots. We cannot drive firms to do anything against their commercial judgments.

Can my hon. Friend ay why rationalisation on the lower reaches of Clydeside seems to be progressing so slowly? The same would apply to Tyne-side and Tees-side. Has my hon. Friend any guidance on these aspects?

I do not understand what my hon. Friend is saying when he refers to progress being slow on Tyneside and Tees-side. I think that progress has been as rapid as could have been expected.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made, in particular with France, Germany, Italy and Holland, in the development of a co-ordinated European computer industry.

This is essentially a matter for the firms in the respective countries which have been carrying on discussions with a view to making mutually beneficial collaborative arrangements.

In view of the importance to Europe and to this country of a strong and developing computer industry, is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to approach the Treasury and the other countries with a view to arranging a fiscal advantage over a fixed period of time to get the industry going?

There is no lack of financial resources in this country or in any other. The importance is appreciated in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in considering this problem we have to recognise the fact, however much it may be deplored, that many European computer firms are largely American controlled and owned? If we are to make sense of collaboration between the United Kingdom and Europe, we have to take America into account as well.

It is impossible to ignore the American position, but there are major European-controlled firms with computer interests and, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) says, it is important to keep in touch with those.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement on the multi-rôle combat aircraft project.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to a similar Question on 20th January last. There is nothing to add at present.—[Vol. 776, c. 36–7.]

Will the Minister, first, remind the House who will have the design leadership of this aircraft? Secondly, does the Minister believe that co-operation with Europe in the military sphere could survive the collapse of cooperation with Europe in the civil sphere?

The second part of the question would lead to long debate. I could not give a straight answer. On design leadership, once the feasibility study has been completed—and it has—the Germans will concentrate on the single-seat version and we shall concentrate on the double.

Might I ask the Government to be sceptical about the research estimate of £300 million and the unit cost of £1·2 million?

I think that all Governments have learned to be extremely sceptical on those subjects.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the total annual rate of support being given to science-based industry in Wales by the Government; and what is the equivalent sum for England.

The Government are encouraging the establishment and growth of science-based industry in Wales through measures such as support for industrially oriented work at the university and colleges of technology, research and development contracts, and, more generally, through investment grants and assistance under the Local Employment Acts. It is not possible to say how much of this expenditure in Wales, which is running at over £30 million a year, relates specifically to science-based industry, and accordingly no comparable figure for England can be given.

Is it correct that, apart from two out-stations of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, there are no Government-financed research and development establishments in Wales? It has been estimated that out of every £1 paid by taxpayers in Wales, only 3d. is spent in Wales by the Government for this purpose.

There are a number of non-Ministry of Technology Government laboratories in Wales of great distinction—for instance, the Welsh Plant Breeding Station at Aberystwyth and so on. What is lacking in Wales is direct industrial support of firms. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of increasing support, and we shall try to find ways and means of doing so.

How does the Minister or his Department define a science-based industry? Does he agree that all industry is, to a greater or lesser extent, science-based, not least of which is agriculture, which is well represented in Wales?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to avoid what we regard as a very damaging distinction. It is important to make sure that the basic industries get as much support as some of the more glamorous.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the total value of grants given for research and development to existing firms in Wales.

In 1967/68 Ministry of Technology expenditure in support of research and development by existing firms in Wales totalled approximately £200,000.

Is not this a pitifully small sum? In view of the dependence of Wales on the older industries and their decline, what do the Government intend to do to remedy the situation, as we shall depend more and more on research resulting from the development of modern, technological industry?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that more research and development should be done in Wales. However, he is wrong to associate employment and economic prosperity with locally conducted research. For example, the major expansions of the Rio Tinto Zinc smelter in Anglesey and the Baglan Bay project of BP are based on worldwide research and are of great value to Wales.

Can the Minister confirm that about 35 per cent. of jobs in Wales result from money spent by the Treasury under the Local Employment Acts and that, therefore, the Welsh are getting a fair slice of the cake?

I think that development areas generally are benefiting enormously from the development area provisions of this Government. But it is right to say that previous Governments, including the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member, have been biased against development areas by failing to put Government research and development resources and Government defence spending into them.

Is it not absurd to start trying to divide research and development as between Wales and England? When many companies have bases in both London and Cardiff, should we engage in such a fatuous exercise?

We certainly need to look at research and development not only in this country but internationally. To be fair, I think that the hon. Gentleman who put the question is quite right in asking that industrial activities in the development areas should be well-paid industrial activities, not those at the most menial end of the industrial spectrum.

Speak for England for a change.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in the reorganisation of the nuclear power industry.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) when he will appoint the proposed Atomic Energy Board;

asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the progress he is making with the formation of a second nuclear power plant company; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology what is to be the future of Atomic Power Constructions Limited consequential upon the reorganisation of the nuclear engineering industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made towards the completion of the reorganised consortium structure of the nuclear engineering industry; and if he will make a statement.

Hon. Members will have seen the announcement on 15th January of the formation of the second of the two nuclear design and construction companies envisaged in my statement of 17th July last year. The industry should now be better equipped to meet our needs at home and compete abroad. I am grateful to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation for the work it has done. The two parent companies of Atomic Power Constructions—Fairey's and International Combustion—have, for the time being at least, not found a place in either of the two new companies.

I welcome the statement to which my right hon. Friend has referred. But may I ask, first, whether he acknowledges that the unfortunate delay in setting up this new structure has led to growing disquiet among employees of the Atomic Energy Authority, particularly about the future of their careers in the new organisations?

Order. Long questions mean fewer questions and fewer answers.

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I had noticed the disquiet. As is evident in the House from Questions on Concorde and other subjects, disquiet is inseparable from advanced technology. We cannot have certainty in this area.

Apart from the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which my right hon. Friend has largely ignored, is he now satisfied that the structure which is emerging for the nuclear reactor industry is that which he set out to obtain? Has not my right hon. Friend been pushed by events rather than the other way round?

I think that any Minister who believes he will get everything he wants is very optimistic. What my hon. Friend calls "being pushed by events" I would call "taking account of the realities", including the realities of international collaboration in this sphere. I think that the I.R.C. has done a good job on the remit that I gave. I believe that it will put this country in a better position to exploit the hundreds of millions of pounds which it has put into research in the peaceful development of nuclear energy.

Does the Minister agree that the main cause of the delay was due to the desire of the Government and the I.R.C. to do the Tote double and produce two out of the three consortia at the same time as producing mergers amongst the boiler-making firms?

On the latter part of the question, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put that matter to the Minister of Power, because I am not responsible for nuclear power stations being built for the C.E.G.B., even indirectly. But it has had industrial implications in the negotiations that have taken place, and I would add that to the factors which were mentioned as being the cause of such delay as there was. However, it was done very quickly and we should not grumble at the way that the I.R.C. carried out its duties.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, first, which of the two new companies will be responsible for exploitation of the steam generating heavy water reactor and the high-temperature reactor, respectively? Secondly, can he say whether there have been any fresh implications concerning the arrangements that he has announced for international co-operation between our companies and those in Europe?

On the latter question, these would be industrial links in which I should be interested but for which I am not responsible. This work is going on. Both B.E.E.N. and T.N.P.G. are to be licensed to exploit the fast reactor and the S.G.H.W. One will go ahead almost certainly on an inside track. The H.T.R. must be the subject of further discussion, though availability of the technology will not be restricted to one or the other.

Would the right hon. Gentleman now be prepared to lay a White Paper giving his full comments on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which reported on the future of the nuclear reactor programme?

I did, in a sense, give the answer. It is part of the answer—which bore upon the structure of the industry—in the statements which I made in May and July on the industrial arrangements that have taken place. I wrote to the Chairman, dealing with all the other recommendations which bore on my responsibility, but not those which did not. The final duty remaining on me is to deal with outstanding issues involving the A.E.A., and this I shall do as quickly as I can.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the cost to date of the breakdown of the Atomic Energy Authority's reactor at Chapelcross; how long the reactor is expected to be out of action; and what estimate he has made of the total resulting loss of revenue from electricity sales.

About £200,000. It is not yet possible to forecast how long the No. 2 reactor will be out of commission. The loss of electricity sales to date is put at £1,700,000 and this will increase by £90,000 per month while the reactor is out of action.

Everyone will be glad that these faults have been remedied in the interests of the men employed, if nothing else, but does not my hon. Friend agree that this incident is a classic example of the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Science and Technology that all forms of energy production in this country should be subpected to independent investigation on the question of cost?

This incident, which is most unfortunate, is not typical of anything which is now known. This reactor is a very old design, and what happened there is most unlikely to happen with a modern design.

Does not the Minister agree that the staff have shown great skill and initiative in trying to overcome this exceptionally difficult breakdown? Can he confirm that there will be no redundancies because of it?

I should like notice of that question, but I very much hope that no redundancies will arise. I agree with what the hon. Member says about the great work that the staff are doing in trying to put this right.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the causes and treatment of dry rot in in-shore fishing vessels.

Dry rot in fishing vessels is a problem which has been largely overcome. It is caused by the growth of fungi in a moist atmosphere. The treatment is to remove infected timbers and replace by naturally durable wood or by wood that has been treated with a preservative.

Does the Minister realise that the boats that are affected are the newer ones rather than the older ones? Can he give the reason for this? Secondly, does he fully appreciate that the effects of this dry rot in boats may cost many thousands of pounds' worth of repairs? Will he go further into the subject because, in spite of what he says, the problem has not been solved?

I am a little surprised at the hon. Member's suggestion that dry rot is found more frequently in new boats, since in new boats the use of decay-susceptible timbers is avoided and design modifications have been made to improve the circulation of dry air round timber structures. Perhaps, when the hon. Member refers to "newer" he does not mean "very new". I can assure him that the problem has been brought effectively under control—and relatively inexpensively.

asked the Minister of Technology what inquiries he has made and with what results in the matter of turbine and other faults in the "Queen Elizabeth 2".

I understand that the turbines are being repaired and the origins of the trouble fully investigated to prevent any recurrence.

Having regard to the fact that approximately £20 million of public money is invested in this enterprise, would it not be appropriate for a Ministerial inquiry to be established to ascertain to what extent the builders of these turbines are responsible for the faults—which cast a grave reflection on British engineering construction—or whether sabotage has occurred, or what is the cause of this national disaster?

The hon. Member is overdoing it. It is most unfortunate that these turbines should have caused trouble. They are very much more sophisticated and complicated, and carry more power, than any turbine of their kind ever placed in a British ship before. Turbine trouble is not unknown elsewhere. We have no reason to suspect sabotage, and no reason to believe that a Ministerial inquiry would help in what is basically an engineering problem that is being tackled with great care by many people, including people from my own Department involved—namely, the National Engineering Laboratory. That is the right way of doing it. It is a disappointment, but not a disaster.

Was not this matter almost finally disposed of in the course of the debate on shipbuilding last Thursday, when the House was practically unanimous? Is it not about time that this carping criticism about the "Queen Elizabeth 2" and the turbines, and John Browns, was put a stop to, because the effect is to discourage foreign shipowners from having ships built in this country?

I entirely share my right hon. Friend's view that making too much of what has been a technical difficulty in respect of the turbines does very great damage to an industry which we have, by collective action in the House, allowed the Government to help reorganise and so exploit world markets.

Does not the Minister agree that in the debate last Thursday it seemed to be very much the opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House that no useful purpose would be served at present by having an inquiry and diverting those involved from the necessary and urgent job of getting the ship to sea, but that if long delays should continue, and if the technical difficulties should turn out to be greater than appear at the moment, the House would no doubt wish to reconsider the question whether there was any purpose in having such a technical inquiry?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Obviously, new and entirely unforeseen circumstances might arise, and it would be foolish for me to rule out in advance the possibility of an inquiry, but on the basis of present evidence, I think it right to leave it to the engineers, and I hope that they will soon find the answer to problems which are more difficult than those which confront some hon. Members.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regard that reply as very unsatisfactory, and beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will arrange for a full and detailed inquiry into the reasons which have so far prevented Cunard from accepting the "Queen Elizabeth 2"; and what action has been taken by the Shipbuilding Industry Board in the matter.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will set up an inquiry into the delays in connection with the building and completion of the "Queen Elizabeth 2".

For the reasons I explained to the House during the Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, I do not propose to set up an inquiry.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the men who helped to build this ship are feeling a certain responsibility in the matter? They feel that they are being regarded as persons who have had a major part in creating this trouble. That is what they told me a week ago, as I told the House. It is therefore important that it should be demonstrated that, although there has been pilfering, it is only a small part of the trouble. Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter, in view of the fact that the S.I.B. has £7½ million, free of interest, in the venture. Can he say whether the S.I.B. has been con ducting any inquiry, and could we hear the outcome?

I understand the arguments given, but I do not believe that they override the arguments against. I dealt with this last week, and the Shipbuilding Industry Board and I have been in close contact.

Since most of the allegations have been grossly exaggerated, would not one way of cutting them down to size be to hold an inquiry and scotch the matter now?

No, it would not. The ship will sail months and months before any inquiry could report.

Would the right hon. Gentleman resist all these demands? Surely this is not the time to allocate the blame. Will he ensure that the men on Clydeside are allowed to get on with the job? Would he not agree that this will be a wonderful advertisement for Clydeside when it is finished?

That is my motive, and I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said both inside and outside the House.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that far too much publicity has been given to this unfortunate occurrence and that if hon. Members on both sides of the House want to help British shipbuilding and British shipping, we should leave this matter to the Upper Clyde ship builders and Cunard to sort out themselves?

I agree. Self-denigration in this country has long overtaken cricket and football as our favourite national sport. It does absolutely no good and simply demoralises a country which is seeing its way through its economic difficulties.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if an equivalent sum of £29 million were invested in either a chemical or an engineering plant it would take many months to get the teething problems right, and that the trouble is not in the building of the ship but in the management having given a promise of a delivery date and the operating company having advertised sailings before it was certain that it could achieve them?

If there were an inquiry, probably everybody involved would have some comment made about his behaviour and activities, but it would be very wrong of me to confirm criticisms made by the hon. Member, which he, no doubt, sincerely believes, for technical trouble in the turbines, which is what the trouble is about and lies behind much of the questioning for an inquiry, is very complex. I do not think that an inquiry in this respect need be held. I agree with him that these are very complicated questions which the engineers can best sort out.

asked the Minister of Technology what increase in output from the motor industry he has estimated will occur in 1969, percentum and ad valorem, compared with 1968; and, having regard to the present state of the home market for motor cars, what estimate he has made of increased exports of motor vehicles in 1969.

The output of the motor industry as a whole is expected to increase by under 5 per cent. in 1969 in volume terms. Exports of all motor vehicles and parts may increase by about 5 per cent. in volume terms. The increases in value are expected to be slightly larger.

Is the Minister aware that after four years of expostulation by the Labour Government about the motor industry the level of production in 1968 is still lower than the level of production that the Tories left in 1964? How does he account for this dreadful state of affairs?

Clearly, the hon. Member is not aware that last year, when production was virtually at the level of 1964, the boom was export-led. There was a 42 per cent. rise in production for export last year over the year before, and the proportion of production for export was very much higher than in 1964. That is what we have been seeking to achieve.