asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement on the turbine faults in "Queen Elizabeth 2".

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on Sir Arnold Lindley's independent assessment of the Queen Elizabeth 2's turbines prepared for his Department; and if he will publish the report.

I have now given in a Written Answer on 3rd March the full text of the letter Sir Arnold Lindley sent to me about his investigations. I am glad that the companies concerned were able to accept his assessment.—[Vol. 779, c. 42–5.]

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for accepting my suggestion in a recent Parliamentary Question that there should be a full technical inquiry and for laying this so expeditiously before the House, may I ask whether he will apply himself to the consequential losses arising from the six months delay in this ship's sailing? Who pays those losses—John Brown, or Cunard, or the public purse?

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this, but it really is not for me as a Minister to venture an opinion about the interpretation of the contractual relationships that exist between Cunard, which is, as a shipping company, sponsored by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the suppliers of the ship. It is not possible to answer that Question.

Will my right hon. Friend note that in paragraph 13 Sir Arnold tells us that there can be no criticism whatever of the work of the men who were engaged on this ship, and does not that confirm all that I have said in this House on previous occasions?

I should be happy for hon. Members on both sides of the House to find confirmation in Sir Arnold's report of what they have been saying. It is perfectly true; the workmanship was not at issue here. The trouble was caused by resonance caused by steam excitation, which led to fatigue and ultimately a break.

We all welcome the report from Sir Arnold, and I congratulate him on the speed with which he has completed it. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is now giving further thought to providing test facilities for turbines of this kind? They will not often be required, but at present the ship is the only test bed.

The difficulty with steam turbines used in ships is that they are all one-off jobs, unlike aircraft turbines where large numbers are produced. Secondly, in order to have a full-scale testing facility capable of testing under operating conditions it would be necessary to have an enormous power station to feed it. We have, however, accepted with great interest Sir Arnold's recommendation that we should look again at our research and development facilities, and we have for some time been waiting for a proposal on this point.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that some £8 million worth of export orders for similar turbines have been obtained this week, and will he regard this as a reflection of the contribution made by Tyneside and Clyde-side? Will he also thank Sir Arnold for his report?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's last comment. Our gratitude is owed to Sir Arnold Lindley for having carried through a difficult mission very expeditiously, and for having drawn attention to the fact that turbine trouble of this kind is not at all uncommon in other countries. What my hon. Friend says about the fresh orders for John Brown Engineering confirms the excellence of that firm in this field.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that world shipbuilding construction in 1968 was 16 million tons, approximately, including 8 million tons, approximately, from Japan and 900,000 tons, approximately, from Great Britain or less than six per cent. of the world construction; and what steps he is taking to enlarge British shipbuilding.

I am aware of the position, which is largely the result of the small flow of orders in 1966–67. The Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, provided substantial assistance to promote the industry's ability to compete in world markets, and last year the tonnage of new orders taken by the British industry was the largest since 1951.

Would the hon. Gentleman note that the proposal of the British Steel Corporation to raise the price of hull steel plate by 9·3 per cent. of an average of £47 per ton for that steel would have a calamitous effect on the obtaining of future orders by the shipbuilding industry, where margins are already at a dangerously low and uneconomic level? Will he go to the Prices and Incomes Board and frustrate this increase in price?

We have debated this on several occasions when the hon. Gentleman has not been present. Steel is an important element in the total cost of a ship, but it would be best to await the report of the Board for Prices and Incomes on the proposed new structure and level of steel prices before deciding any effect on the profitability of existing orders or on the shipbuilders' ability to obtain further orders.

Contrary to the pessimism about, and derogation of British shipbuilding that we have just heard from the other side of the House, is my hon. Friend aware that within the past few days Hall, Russell and Co. Ltd., of Aberdeen, has secured a contract from Hamburg to build the largest ship ever built in Aberdeen which is a tribuate to the shipbuilding potentialities of Aberdeen?

We in the Department are well aware of the virtues of Aberdeen and of its excellent representation in the House.

asked the Minister of Technology how much shipbuilding tonnage, and what value of shipbuilding, has been given to foreign shipyards by British shipowners during the past 12 months; and what are the figures for new orders abroad.

Orders for United Kingdom registration placed in foreign shipyards during 1968 amounted to 2·8 million gross tons of a value estimated at £205 million. The foreign order book for United Kingdom registered vessels at the end of that year totalled 4·6 million gross tons estimated to be worth £338 million.

While my hon. Friend can from time to time report an improvement in shipbuilding in this country, is he aware that his Answer will give rise to some concern, remembering that British shipbuilding does not have as high a share of world shipbuilding as it should have, bearing in mind our substantial shipbuilding capacity? Are our credit terms sufficient to attract British ship owners to place orders in British yards?

We now have perfectly good and competitive credit terms. This is what the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, was partly about and what the extension of that Measure, presently before Parliament, is also about. Indeed, the percentage of orders for United Kingdom registration placed in British yards has been rising, on average, over the past three years, and quite sharply, too.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of Questions about shipbuilding on the Order Paper today reflects the concern which is felt on both sides of the House about the state and potential of this industry? Will he contact the Minister of Employment and Productivity to see whether the multitudinous trade unions in this industry have anything to do with the general state and efficiency of the industry?

I do not quite know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring in that only two Questions on this subject have so far been asked. That may reflect something about the interest of the House in the matter. I assure him, however, that there has indeed been a dramatic change in trade union attitudes in yards throughout the country since the passage of the Shipbuilding Act.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the total value and tonnage of shipbuilding in British shipyards; what are the figures related to new orders; and what proportion in each case is attributable to orders from British shipowners and foreign shipowners, respectively.

Since the information is best given in the form of a statistical table, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I will read with interest the information which my right hon. Friend is circulating. Is he aware that there has been a substantial improvement in the state of shipbuilding in Britain and that, as a result, industrial relations in this industry have also improved? Would he agree, however, that this is the time when we should be increasing our capacity to attract to our yards a higher share than they are now getting of world shipbuilding?

My hon. Friend will have noticed the grant made by the Shipbuilding Industry Board towards the construction of a new building dock at Belfast. He will agree that it is precisely in this sphere that we must increase our capacity if we are to be competitive with other countries, notably Japan.

Has there been any improvement in the delivery dates of shipbuilding firms in this country?

The record of the British industry as a whole last year was splendid. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we watch this matter extremely closely. I am satisfied that, with one or two normally much-publicised exceptions, ships from British yards have been delivered on time and even before time.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement about British participation in the European Launcher Development Organisation.

E.L.D.O.'s latest plan (known as T9) has substantially different aims from those agreed by the European Launcher Development Organisation countries in 1966, and is, therefore, a "further programme" in which any member is entitled to declare that it is not interested, and hence not liable to contribute to the cost. This we have done, but we have offered to continue to contribute to E.L.D.O. at a somewhat reduced level; we intend to devote rather more than our net saving to a European satellite applications programme.

Have Ministers now agreed to have a European space authority? What is the budget for the new programme, and what conversations has the Minister had with the President of E.L.D.O.?

We have had a series of conversations with the President of E.L.D.O., but the differences of the member countries—ourselves and Italy on the one hand and the others—are not yet resolved. The E.L.D.O. budget is proceeding on a month-to-month basis at present.

What progress has been made in efforts to merge E.S.R.O. and E.L.D.O. into a single European space authority which will be mission-orientated? One of the great disadvantages of E.S.R.O. is that it is not mission-orientated.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. All these matters are being discussed.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) what is the highest price at which he estimates the Concorde aircraft will be sold; and if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with interested parties on the eventual price:

The selling price is regularly reviewed with the manufacturers. But it would not be right for me to speculate about the final price since this will be a matter for negotiation between the manufacturers and the airlines. We have accepted that a substantial part of the research and development costs will not be recovered.

As the taxpayers will have to foot the bill at the end of the day, is not it right that they should have an idea of what the estimated cost will be to them as a proportion of the research and development? Whilst one welcomes the prestige from this aircraft, will not it be of little importance by comparison with the financial cost to the taxpayer in due course if it is not a viable proposition?

My hon. Friend points out that if Concorde fails it will be a costly venture. That is true. But, although I am very keen to make available to the House as much information as I can, it is not for me to estimate what the return will be until we know finally what the cost of development is and what the market is. Even if the cost of development were to rise, if the market were to be very large indeed it would turn out to have been an investment where the taxpayer would not lose. I am giving the best estimate I can, but on the present estimates we do not expect to recover our full research and development costs.

Is it intended to impose a royalty payment on the sale of each aircraft with a view to recovering for the Exchequer at any rate some part of the massive expenditure on R and D?

Most certainly, a system of levies based on the number of aircraft sold, and rising as the number of aircraft sold rises, has already been the subject of discussion. This is the way in which we would get back as much of our R and D costs as we would hope to recover.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on progress with the Concorde project.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement on the progress of the Concorde project.

The successful first flight of 001 on 2nd March has been a tremendous encouragement to the thousands of people on both sides of the Channel who have been working so hard for the success of this project. B.A.C. hopes to have the second prototype flying about April or May. Concorde now has to prove itself in flight-testing.

May I offer my sincere congratulations, which I am sure will be widely echoed in the House as a whole, to all those who were involved in Concorde's first flight, those in industry and in the Establishments?

First, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Indeed, I sent messages to both the British and the French firms and to André Turcat and his crew on the occasion of Concorde's first flight.

I hope the Minister accepts that this side of the House would like to be associated with the congratulations which he has expressed so much more generously than the Prime Minister did yesterday.

The progress of the flight testing depends on technical factors on which it would not be sensible for me to pronounce. The firms have made a statement on the timetable that they foresee. We will have to await the progress of those tests.

Whilst greatly heartened by the success of the first flight, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises that the delays on the engine side on the production runs for Rolls-Royce caused a substantial number of redundancies? Will he ensure that when he comes to make decisions, in accordance with the plan that he is unfolding, they are taken as quickly as possible so that the effects of any delays will not mean that we have more men redundant than necessary?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. I have discussed this matter with the people concerned at Rolls-Royce in Bristol. But I must make clear that decisions about Concorde will be made by customers for it, not by Ministers acting alone. We have to ascertain the market prospects for this aircraft. We have already ordered longdated materials. There are two prototypes and two pre-production aircraft being built. I think that the slight slippage in the progress will inevitably affect the production programme.

Is the Minister aware of the immense sense of pride which many people felt in the achievements of technologists in this country and in France on the take-off on Sunday? Is he further aware that if the continuing trials are successful, this aircraft will have a greater and more beneficial effect upon Britain's exports than anything which has happened in recent years?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that a successful Anglo-French supersonic airliner flying across the Atlantic will mean that we should hear a little less about the technological gap.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is now in a position to quantify the substantial rises that have taken place in the development costs of the Concorde.

Not yet, Sir. The development costs are still under review between the two Governments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is bound to cause some disquiet among many hon. Members who have the most prudent regard for public expenditure, especially in view of the reports of successive Public Accounts Committees on this project? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when he hopes to conclude the discussions he is having with the French authorities so that Parliament may be informed about this vital figure?

We are talking not about actual public expenditure but about estimates of development costs. As the project proceeds, and as the firms, particularly now that the flight test has taken place, have the opportunity to observe the aircraft under development conditions, they come along from time to time with proposals, which they cost themselves, for further work. These then have to be processed by the two Governments and an agreed figure arrived at by two Ministers. It would be wrong to leap out of this partnership to answer a question before I am in a position to give an answer. The actual costs are published. We are talking about the estimate of further development work that requires to be done.

My right hon. Friend is talking about leaping out of the partnership. Is it not the case that he is unable to leap out of it even if he wants to do so? At what point would it be possible to break the agreement? [An HON. MEMBER: "At no point."] Is that the case? Is it the fact that my right hon. Friend can never escape from this agreement if he wants to do so?

My hon. Friend has raised a separate point, which the Attorney-General would have to answer, about interpreting the agreement. I was talking about the working relationship which I must have with my partners in France if this progress is to be handled in a businesslike and competent way. That was the only point to which I was referring.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that until the prototypes have gone supersonic and done their full flight tests it is impossible to give any indication of what the ultimate market will be, and the extent to which the R and D costs may be recovered or not, and that all speculation is entirely in the air until the prototypes have completed their flight tests?

That is not absolutely accurate, because if there were insuperable or expensive difficulties which came to light early it would be possible to say before the flight tests that the thing was not a success. What one cannot be sure of until the end of the tests is that it has succeeded, but with that qualification it is true that Concorde has to prove itself.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated effect on the prospective sales of the Concorde aircraft arising from the decision of the German authorities to prohibit supersonic flight over Germany.

I understand that the Federal German Government's present view is that supersonic flights should be prohibited over populated areas. The firms' published forecasts of Concorde sales already assume that there will be some restrictions on supersonic flight over such areas.

Inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are acting on behalf of British taxpayers whose money is invested in the development costs of this aircraft, can he say what view the Government take about this? Do they feel that it would be prudent to base a market forecast of likely sales for this aircraft on the assumption that it would not be allowed to fly over land areas in Western Europe or North America?

That is the basis on which the provisional estimate for sales has been made, that there will be a total ban on overland flights, and that the plane should be able to take a trip to New York with a full pay-load.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the conflicting reports about noise levels? There have been some encouraging reports from Sunday's highly successful first test that the noise levels on take-off were not as great as had been expected. Can my hon. Friend give his view——

Order. Supplementaries must be linked to the Question on the Order Paper.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I understood that this was connected with supersonic flights and also with noise——

Order. The Question is about Germany banning supersonic flights. The hon. Member must ask a supplementary question on that.

Perhaps I might put it this way: there is concern in various places about supersonic flights and noise levels, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can comment on this and say whether the position seems to be more encouraging than we were led to expect from some directions previously?

I do not think Sunday's flight was a fair test of noise, because the engines were not on full thrust, but the reports, so far as they went, were encouraging.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now announce the date of the first flight of 002 Concorde at present being ground tested at Filton, Bristol.

The manufacturers estimate that the first flight of 002 will take place in April or May.

Would my right hon. Friend arrange, in view of the widespread public interest that exists, for this occasion to be given the maximum Press and television coverage, in contrast to the unfortunate affair at the time of the roll out?

I will discuss this informally with the firms. I know that there will be a great deal of public interest in the first flight of the 002, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps his Department has taken to assist in the development of Crossbar telecommunications equipment.

No financial assistance was sought from the Department, but, in view of the export prospects of Crossbar equipment, we were pleased to be associated with the Post Office in its decision to adopt it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is good illustration of the good potential for British technology? As it has such good economic prospects for us, I suppose one could say that the knockers of British technology have once again got a bloody nose.

The prospects for Crossbar and other telecommunications exports are good, and the collaboration between the Post Office and manufacturers in furthering these exports is very close.

asked the Minister of Technology what assistance his Department has given to the development of technology which involved adapting machine tools for left-handed operators.

None, Sir. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that it is necessary to design or adapt machine tools to meet the special requirements of left-handed people. The advances made in the automatic control and loading of machine tools will, in any event, reduce such problems as may exist.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this has been discussed very widely in engineering and industrial circles? Some research has been done into this. Does he agree that if it were developed it would have great potential for British industry? Will he consult my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity about the impact this could have on industrial retraining?

Yes, Sir. I am aware of some recent discussion not only in the Press but on the radio. But it is not obvious that a left-handed machine tool would necessarily be used more by left-handed people than by right-handed people, and the results would not necessarily be very much better.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will introduce legislation, similar to that enacted in the United States of America, details of which have been sent to him, to ensure that British shipowners have their vessels repaired in home yards.

No, Sir. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said on 19th February, we do not consider that this would be in our ultimate interest.—[Vol. 778, c. 124.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it can hardly be in our ultimate interest to have a system of discrimination practised by a number of countries against British ship repairing yards? Surely the time has come either to take an initiative to alter the terms of such Acts as the United States Tariff Act, 1930, and try to get rid of discrimination, or at least to give the British ship repairer some equality of treatment?

On the one hand, the United States flag fleet is relatively small; it is heavily subsidised and does not participate in international cross-trades in the same way as the British fleet; so the conditions are different. On the other hand, the aim of British ship repairers should be to become more competitive. This is one field in which the United States is not notably competitive, and it is hardly an example to follow.

Does my hon. Friend agree that because more and more British ships are being repaired abroad today the Government face the alternative of providing a positive incentive to this industry or the stark reality of mass unemployment in the towns that are almost entirely dependent on ship repairing?

To my mind, the industry does not require an incentive other than that provided by the commercial situation to ensure that it becomes more competitive. I hope that it will, and that we shall continue to maintain and increase our share of world ship repair.

Does the Minister agree with the Geddes Report when it identifies the fact that British ships sail the oceans of the world and should be repaired where commercially convenient, and that to tie repairs of British ships to British yards by legislation, as the Question suggests, would be detrimental to British shipping and the invisible earnings it brings into this country?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We have considered the interests of the shipping industry and its earnings as well as the interests of the ship repair industry. Many British ships trade far from our shores. It is often impracticable for them to be repaired in the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will set up an inquiry into the ship repairing industry with the aim of grouping or regrouping the industry to ensure greater efficiency.

The Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Council set up under the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, will no doubt advise us if it considers Government initiative in this matter useful and timely.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat anomalous that, at a time when various schemes for rationalisation affecting our ports, shipbuilding and shipping industries generally are being pursued, this important aspect of these various trades has so far not been subject to any comprehensive inquiry?

There is nothing anomalous in this at all. The Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association knows of our interest in the future development of British ship repairing and of our willingness to arrange discussions if it is felt that they would be useful.

Has not the ship repairing industry in Britain rather become the orphan of the British shipping and shipbuilding industries? Will the Minister see whether the same type of assistance can be given to the British ship repairing industry as our shipbuilding industry is receiving?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reorganisation and assistance provided under the 1967 Shipbuilding Industry Act does not cover ship repair. Any discussion about structural changes in the ship repair industry, the possibility of action by the I.R.C. or under the Industrial Expansion Act, would need consideration. But my view is that commercial competitiveness is the key to this matter.

On commercial competitiveness, is my hon. Friend aware that in some yards operating in other parts of the world the workers get such ridiculously low wages that it is impossible for our workers to compete with them? Is there not a need to look at this matter again and consider giving real assistance to the ship repairing industry? I should know, because I worked in the industry for many years.

Many factors affect the possibility of attracting particular repair orders to British yards. One is our geographical situation. On long tanker runs it is demonstrable that many companies prefer to undertake repairs halfway on the return journey. We are badly situated in this respect.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his proposals for the development of vertical take-off and landing civil aircraft.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress made with the consideration of the vertical take-off and landing and short take-off and landing aircraft projects submitted to him.

No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend on 26th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 304.]

Is it too soon to start discussions with European countries both on the joint marketing of V/STOL aircraft and on the provision of landing facilities in cities in Europe?

I do not think it is too soon to start considering those matters. No doubt that is being done.

Is the Minister aware that it is much later than he thinks? Has he seen the reports that the American Sikorski Company will have an 86-seater 350-miles range helicopter in service with airlines in 1973? Will the Minister assure the House that no time will be wasted in pronouncing on the British scheme which he told me a month ago is in the Minister's head?

Certainly no time will be wasted. The firms concerned have draft specifications on which they are working, and we hope to have their proposals on them in about four months.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement on the European Airbus project.

asked the Minister of Technology when he will announce his decision upon the application by the British Aircraft Corporation for Government financal support in the production of the BAC3–11.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to announce the Government's decision on the Jumbo Jet.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the progress of the European Airbus project.

My Department is continuing its evaluation of both the A300B and the BAC3-11, and I am not yet in a position to say what the outcome will be. The French and German Governments have been informed of the proposals put forward by B.A.C.

Does the Minister agree that the market is the best place for tests between the technical merits of these two aircraft to take place? Does he also agree that, whichever decision he may reach, it will not make political sense if it is not thoroughly commercial?

The view that we take about new aircraft projects is that the market has to be established before we are prepared to go ahead. This is a consideration which I am glad to say that B.A.C. fully accepts.

How many months have been consumed by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in carrying out these evaluation studies to date, and how many more months does the Minister except to go by before they are complete?

I suppose about 11 or 12 weeks. The A300 was withdrawn by the consortium just before Christmas, and the period between that date and now is the only time occupied by my Department with an evaluation of the A300B.

As by 1980 the number of passengers travelling in aircraft will be, on average, about 5½ times greater than in 1967 and cargo will have increased by 8 times, does my right hon. Friend not think that he should begin to revise his views on whether the Jumbo Jet 250 will fill the Bill? Will it not be too small by then?

The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that, although this is the greatest growth market in many ways in the world, it is calculated that by 1985 the value of aircraft in service will be £45,000 million. But we have still to get the right aircraft. Undoubtedly there will be a demand for the very big jets of the 747 type, for the Airbus 250 and for smaller feeder aircraft, and there will be a big chunk of the market for big supersonics.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best chance of commercial success for this plane lies in its being a joint European effort, in which we have the chance of the French market and probably of the German market as well? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to go it alone as one country seems beyond our powers, and that it would be more sensible to make this a joint European effort, particularly having regard to what has happened with the Concorde?

It is true that one of the major motivations for European aircraft policy is that it brings a market and some share of the research and development costs with it, as well as the fact that it brings the firms together. This is one reason why the Concorde was started in the form in which it was, why the Jaguar has been done in this way, and why the airbus has been discussed. At the same time, even international projects have to be able to establish that there is a market for them; otherwise one runs into the same difficulties internationally that we have sometimes experienced nationally.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the German and French Governments still wish to proceed with a joint venture on the basis of the 300B proposals?

The German Government have made an announcement, and the French Government have indicated that they will shortly be reaching a decision. I have made it my business to keep in touch with them and indicate the thinking, which is a market-orientated thinking, that dictates our attitude towards these projects.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the value of the work already undertaken by Hawker Siddeley Limited in connection with the European airbus, and the extent to which that work is relevant to the A300B.

Between July, 1967, and December, 1968, Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited has done work to the value of about £1·35 million in connection with the A300 European Airbus programme. The consortium has indicated that about 90 per cent. of the work done on the A300 is relevant to the A300B design.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind, once again, that time is of the essence for commercial success in all these things and do what he can to expedite a decision in this field?

I accept that time is very important, but I would rather wait until I am sure that I am right about something than go forward simply on the ground that there was a general feeling that we should move ahead. We must get these difficult decisions right.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimated European requirement, British European Airways, Air France and Lufthansa, combined, for a short medium range transport aircraft seating 250 passengers and of the timing of these requirements.

I estimate the combined requirement of these three airlines for this general class of aircraft by the early 1980s to be about 75 to 100 aircraft. Air France is likely to need aircraft of this type as early as possible, but the requirements of B.E.A. and Lufthansa are less pressing.

As there is no doubt about this requirement being quite firm, does my hon. Friend accept that it is necessary to make a decision either on the 300B or the 311 within the next six months, or are we to be pre-empted by the Boeing proposals which were announced last month?

It is important not to make a decision until the whole market has been properly evaluated for both contenders

asked the Minister of Technologoy if he will make a statement on future co-operation with other European Governments in aircraft manufacture.

As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 29th January, various proposals for new aircraft projects are now under consideration.—[Vol. 776, c. 1310–11.]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the Minister of Technology's reported statement recently that future co-operation is likely to be company to company, rather than Government to Government, and would he agree that any co-operation which might lead to the loss of design leadership capability in this country might be disastrous?

We want to keep design leadership. All my right hon. Friend's statements are always admirable. International co-operation can take many forms—Government to Government or industry to industry.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will now make a statement on his plans for the capital reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland Limited;

I have nothing to add to my replies to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on 29th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 1311–2.]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his right hon. Friend said on 27th November that there were not yet firm negotiations with Rohr Corporation? Can he say whether firm negotiations have been commenced, and why this is taking so long? On the capital reconstruction side, can the hon. Gentleman say why this cannot proceed simultaneously with these negotiations, as the negotiations with the Rohr Corporation seem to be going at a fairly leisurely pace?

Capital reconstruction and the Rohr negotiations are closely interlinked, and one will be coincidental with the other. It is difficult to say whether the negotiations with the Rohr Corporation are firm or not, but we are in regular contact with Rohr, and we hope to get some firm proposals in the near future.

Why should the capital reconstruction of Short Brothers be interlinked with the deal with Rohr, which may fall through? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable management difficulties created by the Government's delay in this field, and will he do all he can to expedite a proper financial reorganisation of the company.

We shall do all we can to do this speedily but I do not think it would make sense to have two bites at that cherry, to have capital reorganisation now and then another if and when the negotiations with Rohr are finalised.

Can the hon. Gentleman be more frank with the House? What is holding things up? When shall we get a decision?

I am always frank with the House. We are waiting for Rohr to deal with certain points that we put to it, and we hope that it will deal with them expeditiously.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will discuss with the National Research Development Council alternative methods of rewarding successful inventors.

While my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the day-to-day actions of the National Research Development Corporation, I understand that N.R.D.C. has no one set of terms with private inventors but seeks to negotiate terms with the inventor to suit the particular case.

Is it not, however, the case that inventors in this country are treated less favourably for tax purposes than inventors in other countries? Would the hon. Gentleman, therefore, make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some improvement cannot be made in this position?

Tax questions are, of course, a matter for the Chancellor and not for the Ministry of Technology, but some recent statements in the Press have not correctly represented the position. For example, the sale of shares in a company set up in 1959, on which Sir Christopher Cockerell wrote, would be hardly liable to tax, if at all.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he intends to take to improve the financial rewards for British inventors.

The first necessity is to see that worthwhile inventions are fully and effectively exploited by industry, without which the possibility of reward cannot arise, and much of the work of the Ministry of Technology is directed to this end.

Would the hon. Gentleman and his Ministry consider this proposal, that the bar on development of many inventions—namely, the close company legislation—should be altered so that proper development of inventions can be proceeded with and not penalised as at present?

That suggestion affects many things other than inventions and is really a matter for the Chancellor.

Would the hon. Gentleman recall that until 1945 capital sums involved in patents were not subject to tax? Bearing in mind the considerable emphasis which his right hon. Friend himself seeks to give to innovation and improving the balance of payments, particularly on patents and licensing, is there not a strong case for him and his right hon. Friend to insist to the Chancellor that something be done?

Questions of taxation on all matters are best addressed to the Chancellor. Our concern in the Ministry is to ensure, as I said in my first reply, that the invention is applied, and effectively applied, and that inventors are given every encouragement by industry.

Would these rewards cover supersonic research?

Any invention put to N.R.D.C. will be considered by it.

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

asked the Minister of Technology if he will list the names of those already appointed to the Metrication Board.

I have appointed Lord Ritchie-Calder to be Chairman, and Lord Bessborough to be Deputy Chairman of the Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the change-over to metrication is proceeding apace and that the burden of co-ordination is falling on the C.B.I. and the B.S.I.? Is this board now operative, since the longer the right hon. Gentleman spends setting it up the more confusion and complexities will arise?

I absolutely accept the need for speed. There is, of course, a conflict between the desirability of appointing the board early and the need for very wide consultations to be sure that it is really composed of the best possible people. I hope that the first meeting of the board will be this month. As the hon. Gentleman said, metrication is proceeding apace, in any case.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will list the technico-economic studies which he has authorised this year; what will be the cost of each; which organisations are carrying out these studies; and how many consultants from outside the country will be employed in each case and in total.

A list of technico-economic studies authorised in the current financial year is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Of the 24 studies costing £570,028 one study costing £17,000 is to be carried out by an organisation from outside this country. Its study team will include one member of British, and three of non-British, nationality.

This reference is to the machine tool industry. I welcome the appointment of independent outside agents to do this, but where does the Machine Tool Industry Research Association come into this? Has the industry been consulted by the hon. Gentleman's Ministry in making the decision to do the survey of the machine tool industry?

No, the survey is on the manufacture of dies and moulds by the Battelle Institute, Ltd. In this matter, it is particularly valuable to tap European experience. This is an organisation of which we and many others in this country have had a good experience, and it is a wholly appropriate choice on which consultations have been carried out with a number of interested industrial users.

asked the Minister of Technology what considerations led him to the final closing of the Pametrada turbine research station in 1967.

I did not close Pametrada. This body was an autonomous turbine design organisation controlled and supported by industry. By 1967 it was clear that there was no future for the organisation, and it consequently wound up voluntarily in 1968.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with paragraph 22 or Sir Arnold Lindley's report on the turbines in s.s. "Queen Elizabeth 2", in which he said that more should be done in development under running conditions? Is it not a pity that any place where testing can be done should not be kept in being?

The test rig which was inherited from Pametrada went to the Ship Research Association and not a great deal of use has been made of it. It does not meet a major test requirement for a turbine of the kind which the QE2 had at full power. This is being considered separately—I think that there is another Question on this matter—but I shall examine Sir Arnold Lindley's report in the light of what the hon. Gentleman says. If there is anything in this direction which seems right, I should not hesitate to do it.

To whom was it clear that there was no future?

To those who organised it. That is to say, it was not closed down by me; it was supported by industry, and industry had to decide what to do. I should add that from 1945 a grant was given by D.S.I.R., and it came to a conclusion, and the Geddes Committee recommended the reorganisation of the marine engine side. These things taken together no doubt contributed to the decision.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure adequate management skills for the industrial monopolies which are being created in the industries for which he is sponsor.

In general, monopolies are not being created, but particular attention is paid to management when the Government consider possible mergers.

But since the hon. Gentleman's Department is forcing or encouraging amalgamations in certain sections of industry which amount to monopolies, will he ensure that, before these are forced on industry through his Department, adequate management exists, because great combinations do not necessarily give the adequate management which is so vital to our survival?

There is no question of people being forced into mergers, which are negotiated with the parties concerned. I repeat that the management quality of different companies is a major factor in assessing the merits of any proposal. I also appreciate very much that any merger results in the displacement of many managers who are, nowadays, having to find new jobs. Their personal position, of course, is also a factor needing consideration.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that some very adequate managers with long experience and skill are being discarded with utter ruthlessness by some industrial interests and mergers? Is not this a scandal under a Labour Government?

I am sure that managers with a useful job to do in industry will be retained to the same extent as any other worker, although perhaps to no greater extent. We on this side could not provide for management a different kind of security to that which we seek to supply to the ordinary worker.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will issue a direction to the Atomic Energy Authority under Section 4 of the Science and Technology Act, to carry out research on improving the quality of welding.

As part of its nuclear development programme the Atomic Energy Authority is making a substantial effort in this field. We are keeping under review the possibility of the issue of a requirement to the authority in respect of non-nuclear applications.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the work which has been done by the Reactor Fuel Laboratory at Springfield has been in connection with the nuclear programme and that substantial fall-out could exist in the general welding sphere, in which hundreds of millions of £s have been wasted annually through welding defects? Will he consider my suggestion carefully and issue a Section 4 direction and so enable this work to be dispersed throughout the welding industry?

We will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion carefully. We are aware of what is being done at Springfield. We already support to the tune of £290,000 a year the work that is done at the Welding Institute.

What efforts are being made by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in this respect? Is the fullest possible advantage being taken of the research that has already been done by the research association?

There is close co-operation between the authority and the Welding Institute, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he referred to the "research association". Both my Department and the authority have nominated representatives on the Research Board of the Welding Institute.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the length of the main runways at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford.

There is one main runway, 10,500 feet long.

Since my constituents are concerned at the prospect of a major airport appearing at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, can my hon. Friend say whether the longest runway runs north-south or east-west?

It runs east-west.

On what other matters of importance is the hon. Gentleman being consulted in connection with the decision about the siting of the third London Airport? What obstacles, other than financial, does he see concerning the transfer——

Order. The Question is about the length of a runway.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to improve the quality of British research and design in the manufacture of advanced turbines in the light of the experience gained from the "Queen Elizabeth 2" passengership.

Sir Arnold Lindley's Report published in the OFFICIAL REPORT for Monday, 3rd March—[Vol. 779, c. 42–5.]—indicates that the difficulties encountered with the turbines of the S.S. "Queen Elizabeth 2" were of a type known to designers of turbines. No action by my right hon. Friend to initiate further research is required, but he is considering Sir Arnold's recommendation that high power marine turbines should undergo a period of investigation under running conditions to ensure reliability in service.

On the assumption made in paragraph 10 of the report, which indicates clearly that there were substantial faults in design, does not this matter merit some special attention for the future by his Department?

As my right hon. Friend explained in an earlier Answer, every marine turbine is different. This is not a similar pattern to that found in aircraft gas turbines. The "Q.E.2" turbines, for which the design schedule was designed by Pametrada, was of the same general type of design as a long series of successful turbines, although they are the largest built in that series. I do not believe that wide-ranging conclusions should be drawn from faults in these turbines.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the trouble was that Pametrada was not a research and development organisation but a design and licensing organisation?

There may be something in what my hon. Friend says.

Without minimising the value of Sir Arnold's report, would it not be prudent of Cunard and others concerned not to think that all the troubles are over in fixing sailing dates, and would it not be better to wait and have further sea trials first?

I think Sir Arnold's report made perfectly clear, as everyone else has done, that no one can make a final judgment on whether these turbines will be successful in service until further sea trials. We shall not know for certain until they have been in service for a long time. We cannot say this about any turbine.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the firm which made these turbines yesterday announced some £6 million of export orders which, together with the Lindley report, should remove the unjustifiable cloud that has hung over the reputation of Clydeside engineering?

I noticed the orders announced by John Brown Engineering for land gas turbines, which were from a different division of the firm. I was delighted to see that the reputation of the firm had apparently not suffered from this unhappy incident.