asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he has now concluded his discussions with the Shipbuilding Industry Board on the position of the Clyde shipyards.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clydeside.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the future of the Upper Clyde shipyards.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made in solving the problems that face the shipbuilding industry on the upper Clyde; and if he will make a statement.

The Shipbuilding Industry Board is awaiting proposals from Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited which are expected within the next few days.

When will the Minister be able to make a statement? Will it be before the recess? In view of the Government's involvement in this consortium, is the right hon. Gentleman treating as urgent and important the need for a healthy and viable industry on the Clyde, and does he recognise that this is of great concern in Scotland?

As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, certainly. This is what the operation is all about. As regards the date of a further statement, I am to some extent in the hands of the U.C.S. and the S.I.B. which will want to look at it, but I shall keep the House as fully informed as I can.

Is the Minister aware that workers on Clydeside are ready and willing to work themselves out of this crisis so long as they know the size and extent of the problem? Will he therefore ensure that when the plan comes forward the men are told the precise targets which have to be met if the yards are to be saved, so that they can meet them?

I am aware of the interest and concern of the people working in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. It is a matter not just of telling the workers but of involving all those concerned in the problem of tackling this very serious situation.

Will my right hon. Friend keep before him the fact that on Clydeside today there are plenty of men to build ships, and ships are waiting there to be built? Will he see to it that he does everything he can to assist in keeping those two together?

I am well aware of that point, but my hon. Friend will recognise that the operation of U.C.S., like every other company, is to build ships in such a way as to provide a return. When I look at the money which has been made available by loans, and also money in grants, coupled with the £.19½ million in loans which was made available to Cunard for building the QE2, and £1 million a year on R.E.P. made available to U.C.S., I have no doubt that the Government have indicated their interest in this matter in a substantial way.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that satisfactory guarantees have been given, or are likely to be given by U.C.S. as to productivity, a reduction of unofficial strikes, a reduction of absenteeism, and improvement in management before public money is involved?

My most recent visits have been very much concerned with that, particularly in view of the current losses confronting the group. This, I think, is now understood, and the responsibility rests upon management and the trade unions on the Clyde to tackle it in that spirit.

Is there not a danger that unless the S.I.B. makes recommendations of a substantial character very soon, some elements in the consortium may decide to hive off and associate themselves with other sections of the industry, and thus create a great deal of unemployment in the remaining shipyards of the consortium?

My right hon. Friend is not quite right about a consortium. It is a group, and we are dealing with the group as a group. My right hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that time is of the essence here, and that is why the S.I.B. is anxious to receive the plans from U.C.S.

While fully agreeing with the Minister that eventually this organisation must make a profit, may I ask whether he thinks that as he was responsible for the shotgun marriage which created the U.C.S. he has some responsibility to see that there is a sufficient dowry to make the marriage workable?

I was responsible under the Shipbuilding Industry Act for approving the recommendation of the S.I.B. in this respect, but it is manifestly clear to anyone who looks at it that without the Board or the Shipbuilding Industry Act or the Industrial Expansion Act which provided money for the 0E2 there would have been a major tragedy on the Clyde much earlier than now, and it should be seen in that way. We have made substantial help available, but we have to look at this in terms of future prospects for the group.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and I know that he monitors the Upper Clyde group. Does he recognise that it is an integral part of the British shipbuilding industry and that some of the historical factors should be taken into account in any allocation or recommendation of the S.I.B.?

The House recognises, and did so when the Act was passed, that the inheritance, not just on the Upper Clyde but in the whole shipbuilding industry, was one of the problems which had to be overcome. It required a new type of management, a new approach by management and a new sense of responsibility by the workers involved. It would be a great mistake, because of the problems of this group, to forget the successes of other shipbuilding groups, all of which of course, have received, or are eligible to receive, substantial Government help.

asked the Minister of Technology how much public money has been invested in the Clyde shipyards since October 1964; and how much was so invested in the comparable period prior to that date.

The Government own 875,000 £1 shares in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd., and £940,000 of 7 per cent. loan stock in its Fairfield subsidiary. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has made grants of over £3 million and loans of over £4½ million to the same company. All these investments have been made since October, 1964. These sums do not take account of any payments to Clyde shipyards under the Local Employment or Industrial Development Acts.

How much of this was due to the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, which the Opposition are pledged to repeal? Can my hon. Friend say what these figures represent in terms of total grants and loans given to all shipyards in the United Kingdom?

In answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I must ask him to await the annual report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board. It is now familiar to the House that we cannot easily reveal the details of loans and grants made by the board in advance of its report.

The answer to the first part, about the Industrial Expansion Act, is that we should have been unable to give as much help to the industry as we are giving if we had not secured that Act, with the consent of Parliament.

What is the rate of interest on the loan and what terms of repayment have been arranged? How do these figures compare with loans made prior to 1964?

I cannot, without notice, reveal the rate of interest on the loan. In any event, the details are very much a confidential matter in the transaction between the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the company concerned. I hope that hon. Members will not press me to give details in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because if they did they would only make a difficult matter even more difficult.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it has been the practice of the S.I.B., as we saw in its first annual report, to give just the details for which the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) has asked? Are we not entitled to assume that in its next annual report the S.I.B. will continue with what most of us regard as the admirable practice begun in its first report, of giving the very details for which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has asked?

I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that there is a crucial difference between awaiting the annual report of the S.I.B., in which it accounts for its actions over the past year, and revealing in public the details of commercial transactions as they take place. To do that would make the position of a particular company in the commercial sense very difficult indeed, and that is why I cannot reveal the details.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will seek to make arrangements whereby the shipyards constituting Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited can withdraw from that consortium.

Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited is not a consortium but itself owns all but one of the shipbuilding yards in the area. The question of these yards withdrawing from the company does not arise. In the case of the other yard, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders has a majority holding in the company owning it and the relationship between the companies is a matter for them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman now rue the day when he pushed all these companies together? Has he yet realised that it is sometimes better to leave things to the free play of the market?

Had we left the shipbuilding industry to the free play of the market we should not now have a British shipbuilding industry with more orders on its books than there have been at any time. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, totally wrong. If he is talking about help to the shipbuilding industry, I hope that he will also look at the other groups which have received help or are eligible for it and which, as a result, have been able to create for themselves a viable position which will benefit our balance of payments, create employment and provide a new lease of life for the shipbuilding industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it had not been for the direct intervention of the Labour Government in 1964 there would, other than at Yarrows, have been no shipbuilding at all on Upper Clydeside?

I am very well aware of the problems facing the Upper Clyde. To give another example, if the Government had not taken action in respect of Furness in the North-East of England there would have been major unemployment, and a wonderfully equipped yard would have gone out of the industry at a time when its facilities were needed.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the future of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Orfordness, Suffolk.

In the foreseeable future there is not likely to be an adequate work load to justify keeping the Orfordness station open. The Atomic Energy Authority is therefore studying the implications of closing the establishment and transferring to Aldermaston those test facilities which will continue to be required.

Why have we had to wait for this Question before we had a statement about this? There have been rumours in the Press. Surely this is a bad way of doing it. What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to see that those employed here are given further occupation? Is his decision influenced by the building of the radar research station at Orfordness?

On the latter question, the answer is, "No" An announcement has been made to the staff concerned that this prospect is before us. There are about 170, most of whom could be re-employed at Aldermaston, if they want it, or, otherwise, in establishments in the area itself.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the present order book of Clyde shipyards.

At the end of last month the various shipbuilding companies on the Upper and Lower Clyde had ships to the value of over £80 million under construction and ships to the value of nearly £70 million on order but not yet started.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a substantial order book? Does he intend that the completion of this work will be an integral part of any plan for the future of U.C.S.?

It is indeed a substantial order book. As for the completion of work which is already on hand in the yards of U.C.S., I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not take so depressed a view of the future of U.C.S. as to assume that it would be necessary to make any special arrangements for this.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite this substantial order book, it is of supreme importance that any discussions to give success to these orders should include talks with trade union representatives on an equal footing with employers' organisations?

I agree entirely. My right hon. Friend and I have said repeatedly to all concerned that any solution to the problems facing the Upper Clyde must be found through joint effort by management and workpeople and their organisations.

Could the hon. Gentleman break down the figures which he has given between the Upper Clyde and the Lower Clyde?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I cannot do that. The figures are supplied in confidence and it would be improper to reveal the order books of individual companies.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the future of Blue Streak.

The European Launcher Development Organisation is considering its future launcher development and production programmes, including the number and type of vehicles required. Until a decision is reached, within the next few months, requirements for Blue Streak beyond the present programme will not be known. The Government have already informed Member States that they undertake to supply Blue Streak launchers at least up to 1976 on a commercial basis, provided that the orders are placed in time.

Is it true that E.L.D.O. will probably want about two a year? If so, will development work continue on Blue Streak?

I cannot say how many E.L.D.O. will want beyond the remaining four, until it makes up its mind, which will be in September. In the meantime, development work is proceeding.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the Black Arrow programme.

The Black Arrow programme is essentially a programme of research and development on satellite technology. The first test firing of the launcher is planned for June of this year, and the first utilisation satellite is planned for launch in 1971.

What is now the Government's end purpose for this programme?

The end purpose is to take part in space activities and work on satellites which are likely to be profitable.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made with regard to desalination of sea water; which pilot schemes are in operation or have been planned; and whether he will make a statement.

Considerable progress has been made by the Atomic Energy Authority and several industrial partners. Development of the multi-stage flash distillation process for export markets has consistently reduced costs, and other processes are under investigation.

Pilot plants exist or are planned to test these alternative processes, but there are no proposals at present for desalination schemes in the United Kingdom.

In view of the suggestions in the House in recent years that there should be pilot schemes in connection with atomic energy power stations, why are no pilot schemes actually operating? What will the hon. Gentleman do about that?

Pilot schemes are operated. I am talking about schemes for desalination plants to supply the United Kingdom. A considerable investigation has been done into that, and the Minister of Housing is at present considering it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a predictable and foreseeable water shortage in this country, which, by the year 2,000, will be critical? Surely the Government should be doing a little more than this about it.

This is a matter for the Minister of Housing, but he has been having a report prepared on it and it is now being considered.

asked the Minister of Technology what additional data have emerged following the recent test flights of Concorde to determine whether or not there will be sufficient commercial demand to enable a repayment of a substantial element of publicly financed development costs by means of a levy on individual aircraft sales.

The early test flights which have been at subsonic speeds have been encouraging. The demand for Concorde will, however, depend on the performance of the aircraft at its sustained supersonic cruising speed, which is not expected to be reached until the first half of 1970.

Does it remain the Government's expectation that a substantial—I emphasise the word "substantial"—amount of the development costs will be recouped by the taxpayer, as these have been publicly financed?

We shall not be able to tell that until we know what orders will come on, but the House has already been told that we should hope to recoup about a third of the development costs.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the effect on Concorde sales prospects of the United States Government's decision not to back the manufacture of a United States supersonic civil transport aircraft.

No such decision has been taken. The United States Administration is still considering whether or not to proceed with the development of a supersonic transport.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the indications are that a decision to proceed is unlikely in the near future and that, meanwhile, since we enjoy a considerable lead over the possible competition, it would be a false economy—all other things being equal—to allow the pace of our own endeavours to slacken?

There are no indications yet available about the American attitude, but I agree that our present lead is very useful.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a further statement about Concorde.

asked the Minister of Technology what recent discussions he has had with the French authorities about progress with the Concorde project; and if he will make a statement.

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

asked the Minister of Technology what financial limit Her Majesty's Government have laid down beyond which they will not be prepared to support the research and development programme of the Concorde.

I apologise for the length of this Answer.

The results of the early flights have been encouraging.

The official estimates, published in 1966, of the costs to the two Governments of the joint extra-mural development programme comprised a basic estimate of £450 million plus an overall contingency of £50 million.

The latest basic estimate, calculated on the same price level, is £600 million. After allowing for the effects of devaluation and of pay and price increases in both countries, this becomes £730 million. This increase is obviously a matter of serious concern and is one of the points we and the French Government will be considering when examining the future of the project.

There are still many uncertainties to be resolved. The basic estimate of £730 million does not include a contingency allowance for major unforeseeable difficulties; measures to overcome such difficulties, if approved, would involve higher expenditure. If further changes involving anything more than a 15 per cent. increase in the estimates were proposed, we should probably be facing a demand for a fundamental redesign of the aircraft. I shall circulate further particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

My talks with the French Minister responsible, which will include all financial questions, have had to be postponed until after the French Presidential Elections.

I thank the Minister for his frank statement of the present position. Will he once again reassure the House that up to now all the flight testing has been highly successful—perhaps even more than we hoped—and that if all goes along these lines the full details of these test performances will be with the airlines by the middle of next year, and that we may expect orders for several hundred aircraft to be placed by the end of next year, with an in-service date for the first of, perhaps, 1973?

In view of the experience that we have had with advanced aircraft it would be foolish of me to confirm in detail a timetable of the kind put forward by the hon. Member but, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, this period of flight testing is a period of decision for Concorde and ultimately Concorde's future will be decided by airline orders. I cannot go beyond what has been said about the encouraging nature of the flight tests because the evaluation of data naturally takes some time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the statement that the French are intending to spread some of the Concorde finance to cover the A300B airbus?

That is a matter for the French Minister. It is not for me to comment upon the deployment of French resources.

In view of the fact that the figures which have just been given us by the Minister have been fairly widely expected, and in view of the fact that we have advanced so far in the creation of this aircraft, would it not be a very unwise action to think about turning back or abandoning it, or even proposing to proceed with it on less magnificent lines?

I think that the answer to my hon. Friend is that this aircraft has always involved great technological and economic uncertainty. As the Minister responsible in this country for advising the Government on the deployment of these gigantic sums of public money, I am bound to look at it in terms of the return. The House knows me well enough now to know that I try to apply this in the case of the A300, E.L.D.O. or any other project for which I am responsible. That is the only way we can do it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has not answered my Question No. 42? It would be interesting to know whether there is any limit whatsoever to Her Majesty's Government's commitments. Will he indicate whether, if the 15 per cent.—plus extra expenditure is incurred, and we go into a redesign phase, it will still mean that neither this country nor France will have an opportunity to withdraw?

I think that I did answer that question, because I said that measures to overcome such difficulties—that is, above the basic commitment—if approved, would involve much higher expenditure. I also made clear in my answer that, as in all other matters, the subject of my hon. Friend's question is discussed with the French Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer again to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson)? It is clear that the suggestion that the French will go slow could have a considerable effect on the continuity of employment in the various factories in this country which are concerned with Concorde. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the way in which this extra money will be spread, on an annual basis? It will obviously not be required in a lump sum. Can he give us some idea of the spread per annum?

On the hon. Member's first point, in my other capacity, as a Member for a Bristol constituency, I am concerned with the employment consequences of the development programme. At the same time, the management, in phasing the programme, is also taking account of the fact that there has been a slippage, and this is one of many important factors taken into account. As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, escalation does not mean spending more each week but that some of the problems are more formidable and require longer to solve, which, in turn, means that the total sums spent during the programme are greater. That is what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement will cause astonishment and dismay at the progress of this folly that we have undertaken, or that was undertaken by the previous Government without the necessary safeguards? Will he now use the opportunity afforded by the change of Government in France to take up with them the whole question of dropping this elaborate scheme and making sure that we concern ourselves only with those prospects which have a chance of becoming commercially viable?

I think that my hon. Friend has overdone his comments. This aircraft, if successful—and I should add that a great deal of effort is being put in on both sides of the Channel and in both Governments and industries to make it a success—will be substantially ahead of possible rivals, and if it meets the requirements of the airlines it will bring in substantial earnings to this country. Having said that, however, I am bound to look at it with that criterion in mind and not the criterion of simply saying that because it is advanced and sophisticated therefore we must necessarily abandon the normal criteria for the support of such projects.

I recognise the progress made with Concorde both in France and in Britain, but has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account—bearing in mind the lead that Britain has over the Americans—the possibility of our American friends going out of their way to baulk this aircraft flying over the United States on some pretext—noise, or some other technical factor—which could have a damning effect on the whole project, even if it works well?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the design aim in terms of noise is about the same level as that of a subsonic aircraft. As for the supersonic bang, this is a matter which is bound to be considered internationally, and by countries individually. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not read into some very difficult community pollution problems—which is what we are talking about—any particular ill will on the part of the American Government in respect of this Anglo-French aircraft. The problems are difficult enough without attributing to others motives in this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any new scientific and technical field of this kind too much immediate cost-consciousness can be financial folly in the long run for the future of this country?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the problem is not a matter of immediate cost-consciousness. If I may put it starkly to the House, the question is: do the customers want this aircraft? We must consider the possibility that because of payload, range, noise, or other reasons this or any other aircraft may not be acceptable to the market, and in that case it would not be the penny pinching attitude of the Government that would be preventing success but the fact that we have not produced something that people wish to use. These are considerations that have to be in our minds.

asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for a further series of sonic boom tests; and if he will make a statement.

We have no plans at present for separate tests of sonic booms. Concorde's boom will be measured during the aircraft's flight test programme. The test routes on which Concorde will fly supersonically have not yet been decided.

When such a decision is taken, will the hon. Gentleman make a statement so that people can understand precisely what is happening? Will he draw some profit from the last mismanaged series of tests, so that the new series of tests, when they come, are properly organised?

We will certainly make a statement before they take place.

When studying the question of sonic booms from the Concorde point of view, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the outstanding qualities of Prestwick Airport for test flying, where, because it is near the sea, 'planes may be flown in and out without booms occurring over land?

I am not sure about the latter part of that supplementary question, but, on the former part, I entirely agree that it is a magnificent airport.

Would my hon. Friend at least say whether the Concorde tests will be held under terrestial or oceanic conditions?

It is possible that, for safety reasons, there will be some overflying of land, but the bulk of tests will take place over the sea.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the progress made by the French and German Governments on the A300B airbus project and reported to him in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

There is nothing of substance to report. My Department has, of course, maintained contact with the French and German authorities.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Dutch and Italian interests now stand ready to participate in the A300B project? Can he tell the House the latest position about the possibility of a British designed and manufactured airbus?

I cannot answer authoritatively about Dutch and Italian interests because, not having participated following the conference in London, I am not privy to all the discussions going on between the French, and Germans and potential partners. As to the question of the possibilities of a British airbus—the BAC311—as in other projects, we are prepared to consider proposals by other aircraft manufacturers and we shall look at them very critically to be sure that if we were to go ahead with the support of such a project it would be commercially successful.

asked the Minister of Technology what research and development work is being undertaken with the Short SC1 vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

The prototype S.C.1. has now completed an extensive programme of research at the Royal Aircraft Establishment into basic aerodynamics, handling and performance.

The second aircraft has been fitted with an advanced control system and R.A.E. is assessing its benefits in V/STOL operations from restricted sites in all weathers.

Will the Minister ensure that the benefits of this successful pioneering work on multi-jet vertical take-off will be maintained and exploited by the British aircraft industry and not given away to our foreign competitors to the detriment of our overseas trade?

I will do my level best on that point.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about his proposals for technocentres.

I am discussing with the Council of Engineering Institutions and local interests various suggestions for centres combining exhibition facilities and supporting activities designed to increase public awareness of the engineer's contribution to society and to attract more of our abler young people into the profession.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is an imaginative concept? Where and when does he propose to start setting these up and with which local authorities and other bodies, apart from the one to which he referred, is he now having discussions?

There have been discussions in a few places with local interests—local authorities, industry, education and so on—the purpose being to explore the possibility of incorporating a technocentre as part of some other local development, such as a town centre redevelopment or a conference centre. In the only cases in which discussions have proceeded beyond the first exchange of views, there has at present been no commitment from the central Government about finance. I cannot easily reveal where these discussions have taken place.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he takes to ensure that recommendations from the Computer Aided Design Committee are adequately considered by a representative body or range of firms from the industries involved.

There is feed-back of information to industry through the membership of the Committee and its sub-committees. Also the reports of the Committee, including its recommendations, have been published and receive wide circulation. Where the application of computer aided design to particular industries has been studied the industries concerned are consulted through seminars.

As this Committee is largely composed of industrialists and was set up with the express purpose of ensuring that Mintech computer research is of practical interest to industry, how does it come about that on the first report of the Committee, which was unanimous, Mintech states that five out of eight recommendations are of no interest to industry? Either the wrong people are making the recommendations or the wrong people are listening to them.

If my hon. Friend reads the reports of the Computer Aided Design Committee he will see that while valuable recommendations were made on the design of pipework, they were somewhat general and needed to be worked out in detail in discussions with particular firms. That is under way, some useful conclusions are emerging and some contracts have been placed.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will prohibit the issue of licences to enable military aircraft of British design to be manufactured in the United States of America for sale to the American or South Vietnam Governments.

No, Sir. Our policy on the supply of defence equipment which might be used in Vietnam was stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th July, 1966.—[Vol. 731, c. 191.] Similar considerations would be involved in our approval of any licensing proposals.

Is not this in breach of British policy—the policy that we do not supply arms for the Vietnam war—and is not this one application of British research that we do not want to see?

I cannot for the life of me see how anything could have happened which is in breach of British policy, since there are no proposals currently under consideration by Her Majesty's Government for the future manufacture under licence in the United States of any British military aircraft.

asked the Minister of Technology how much public money has now been given, lent and promised to British shipyards in total.

The Shipbuilding Industry Board has made or promised grants totalling over £9,300,000 to United Kingdom shipbuilders as well as loans of over £14 million. It has also promised grants in relief of interest on these loans. In addition, the Government have certain shares and loan stock of which I gave details in reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) a moment or two ago.

So the Government have now invested some £25 million more in industry. Before further money is invested, will the Government undertake to lay before the House a prospectus showing to what purpose the money is put and the rate of return that it is expected to earn upon it, so that the House may approve the investments made in its name before they are made?

No, Sir. The House has approved the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, the Industrial Expansion Act and the Shipbuilding Industry Act of this year. There was no dispute between the two sides of the House about the Shipbuilding Industry Acts. I cannot undertake to do what was not prescribed in those Acts. This is an industry of which every product is either an export or is import-saving, and I will not see it sold down the river, as some hon. Members would wish.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Government provided credits for the shipbuilding industry in the North-East and elsewhere, and that the money that has been granted and lent by this Government is far better spent than was the money, amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds, spent by previous Conservative Governments on the research and development and production of aircraft which never flew?

I am well aware of the provisions made by the previous Government to help the shipbuilding industry. In the first place, they were inadequate, and, in the second place, there was no precondition of any reorganisation in the industry in order to enable it to compete in the future in world markets. We are determined that that reorganisation will take place, and that we shall have a competitive shipbuilding industry.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made in the designing of machines for light engineering; and if he will make a statement.

It is primarily the responsibility of industry to ensure satisfactory progress in machine design. The Ministry encourages good design practice as one element of sponsorship activities of the engineering industries, and assists the design of new machines both by development and pre-production contracts.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency machines are being employed in the printing and knitwear industries which have had to be imported from Germany, not because of any lack of skill or material on our part but because of lack of industrial designers? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, launch some initiative to recruit designers so that we can assemble the machines in Britain, thus saving imports and helping employment?

When visiting light engineering firms, I have seen some very interesting developments in both printing and knitting machinery which will substantially help our balance of payments, but I believe that we would be quite wrong to suppose that we can be self-sufficient in all fields of machine design.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his official visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

asked the Minister of Technology what was the purpose of his visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his official visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I visited the Soviet Union from 13th-20th May for a review of the Anglo-Soviet Technological Agreement in accordance with the provisions of that Agreement. I was also able to have a useful discussion with Mr. Kosygin. I will place a copy of my programme and the Agreed Minute in the Library of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that this resumption of Ministerial contacts with the Soviet Union is very welcome; and that, although this does not affect our view of events in Czechoslovakia last August, it is precisely in developing contacts of this kind that the best hope lies for improving East-West relations? Can he confirm, on the follow-up action and co-operation between industry and Government, that industry is very enthusiastic about the prospects here?

I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. Of course, the real work that goes on under the agreement is conducted by a very large number of industrialists, led by the C.B.I., who have engaged in very active exchanges over a period now of 18 months to two years. We are here talking about the development of our British trade in the long term in a very rapidly expanding market.

I welcome increasing prospects of trade, but can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that scientific and technological teams going from this country to the Soviet Union will have the same access to factories and information as we give to our guests when they come to this country? Has the Minister been able to iron out past difficulties in this respect?

One of the reasons for an agreement of this kind is to provide Ministerial contact at the top where problems of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member can be discussed. I took the opportunity when I was there, when I visited the very successful British pavilion at the Automation Exhibition, of discussing with British business men the degree of access they can get to their customers in the Soviet Union. This is one of the matters, among many others, which I hope, under the agreement, to be able to bring to the attention of the Soviet authorities at the highest level.

Did my right hon. Friend, in his very proper and free exchange of scientific opinion and information on technological developments as between civilised countries, discuss with the Soviet leaders the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, who has been barbarously treated by the Russians for freely and openly expressing the same political opinions as my right hon. Friend and I accept?

As I explained when I arrived there, before I left, and on my return, the subject of Gerald Brooke was not on the agenda of my talks because, as the House knows, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Will the Minister say whether there has been any attempt to resolve the somewhat different opinions held between the British Government and the Department of Defence in the United States over this type of technological co-operation?

I am not aware of any difficulties which have arisen in this case. The arrangements that we have with the Soviet authorities, which are principally industrial in character, are wholly compatible with our international obligations, and are conducted in such a way as to open up areas of trade, in which, I might add, American businessmen in the Soviet Union are also very active indeed.

As the Minister apparently expressed regret for the history of British imperialism in Russia, did he draw the attention of the Russians to their own imperialism and suggest that they should do something about it?

I was lecturing at the State Committee on the problems of the modernisation of the British economy. There is no doubt whatsoever, if we look back over the last hundred years, that the diversion of effort that occurred in this country in the maintenance of a large overseas empire is one of the reasons why, in the area of management and of industrial restructuring and in a lot of other ways, this country acquired some of its current economic problems.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will state the progress made in the study commissioned by his Department with the Underwater Engineering Group of the Construction Industry Research and Information Association into the industrial research and development needs of the world's seas; and when the report will be published in whole or in part.

A team of three marine technology experts, set up by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, has begun work on a study of the research requirements of United Kingdom industry in the fields of diving technology and underwater engineering, and an interim report is expected by the end of July, 1969, with, it is hoped, a final report by the end of 1969 or early in 1970.

Does the Minister realise that from Britain's point of view the most important part of this research relates to the seas surrounding Britain, and, from Aberdeen's point of view, the North Sea? Will he make an early report on those aspects?

We are well aware that the most important part of the ocean from the British point of view is the sea surrounding Britain. I am sure that the importance of the area east of Aberdeen has not escaped the notice of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Minister of Technology at what stage his Department became involved in the siting of new technological industry in the county of Midlothian.

The Department encourages the establishment of technologically advanced industry in the development areas, including Scotland, at any stage when it can help in the furtherance of the Government's development area policy.

Do I understand from that reply that the rôle which my hon. Friend's Department has played in studying new technological industry in Midlothian has been one of continuous assistance rather than of hindrance?

The Government, and the Ministry of Technology in particular, have very good reason to be proud of their record in Scotland, in that the number of new jobs created in electronics since 1964 has been some 14,000. Midlothian is particularly well situated and can, I think, look forward with confidence to the future.

Can the Minister say whether this departmental involvement in the study of industry in Midlothian of any other county comes before or after the Board of Trade, the Department of Economic Affairs, the Scottish Economic Planning Board, the Scottish Planning Council and the local authorities? Is he at the end or at the beginning of the queue?

The concerns of different Departments come into play at different stages. Because of our close knowledge of the future plans of firms we are sometimes in at the beginning; in other cases we are concerned only at a very much later stage.

asked the Minister of Technology what is now the current rate of production per month of motor vehicles and passenger cars, respectively; and how this figure compares with the average to date this year, and the average monthly production last year.

No information about the current rates of production is available. The average rate of car production in the 13 weeks ended 29th March this year was 34,735 a week, compared with 35,966 in the corresponding period of 1968 and 34,922 a week in 1968 as a whole. The corresponding commercial vehicle weekly average rates were 9,265, 8,021 and 7,869.

Has there not been a drastic drop in production, as was suggested by Question No. 19? What now are the prospects for the motor industry? What is the percentage increase in exports necessary due to restrictions resulting from the credit squeeze, fuel tax and purchase tax? What are the trends for the industry in future?

The hon. Member has got it quite wrong; there has not been a dramatic fall in production. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There has not been a dramatic fall in production; I emphasise this for the benefit of those on the benches opposite who are more interested in prejudice than the facts. The percentage drop in the production of motorcars in March, 1969, over the previous March was almost entirely accounted for by the effect of industrial disputes. As my Answer makes clear, commercial and industrial vehicle production was substantially up over last year.

Is it not true that Question No. 19 is in the name of an hon. Member representing a motor manufacturing constituency, the City of Oxford? It says that there was a 25 per cent. drop in production of motorcars. If that figure is inaccurate, will the Parliamentry Secretary tell the House what his figure is, because I believe the figure in Question No. 19 is accurate.

I am delighted to know that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is aware that Oxford is a centre of motor manufacturing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That is the answer to the first part of his question. As to the second part, I have already answered that the drop was almost entirely due to industrial disputes.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the result of the negotiations with the Rohr Corporation to take an equity interest in Short Brothers and Harland Limited.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 16th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 1144.]

If these negotiations do not reach a satisfactory conclusion, will the hon. Gentleman take all reasonable steps to see that sufficient work is placed with this company to obtain employment in research and development both in aircraft and missiles in view of the excellent record of the company?

I am delighted to see that the company is taking those steps and I congratulate it on the Lockheed order which it has recently obtained.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will list the nuclear power stations in Great Britain operated by the Atomic Energy Authority which have been subject to breakdown during the last five years; and what were the additional costs and the loss of revenue involved.

I have already given the hon. Member the information for which he asked in respect of the one reactor at Chapelcross which has been out of commission since May, 1967. The three other reactors at Chapelcross and the four reactors at Calder Hall, which is the only other power station operated by the Authority, have all operated successfully over the last five years.—[Vol. 776, c. 1320–1.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the whole country can be proud of the technological achievement in this field, it can be argued that the same results could have been achieved less expensively and that miners' jobs would not have been sacrificed by bogus differential estimates?

I know that that point can be argued because I have heard my hon. Friend argue it, but I do not accept it.

While congratulating the Atomic Energy Authority on the remarkable reactors it has been operating since its inception, may I ask what are the additional costs and the loss of revenue involved as a result of the welding defects on the prototype fast reactor now under construction?

I believe I have given that information to the House, but I have not got it in my head. I shall certainly take steps to give it to the House if I have not already done so.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reactors operated by the Atomic Energy Authority are in the main prototype reactors and a fair comparison with coal-fired stations is in looking at the costs with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Will he confirm that the utilisation of British reactors by the two generating boards is higher than any reactors operating anywhere else in the world?

Yes, I confirm that with pleasure.

asked the Minister of Technology why the Dounreay materials testing reactor was closed down after 11 years; where and when its unfinished work will be resumed; what employment will be offered to the workers there; and what effect this will have on the employment conditions in the City of Aberdeen.

The reactor was closed down because the Atomic Energy Authority decided, after careful consideration, that its needs for materials testing irradiation facilities could best be met by concentrating remaining work at Harwell. Staff will be transferred to other work at Dounreay, and employment conditions in Aberdeen should not be affected in any way.

Does my hon. Friend realise that this closing down is very serious from the point of view of not only interference with the valuable work carried on there but interference with workers who live there who will have to transplant their homes to another area? Will he therefore give the evidence on which his deep consideration was based?

I understand that there will be no uprooting whatever. The staff will be transferred to other work at Dounreay itself.

asked the Minister of Technology what consideration has been given to assisting the development of a jump-jet airliner.

As I told the House on 16th April, studies have been commissioned of various aircraft concepts, and also of the traffic and environmental problems which are connected with intercity VTOL services. Decisions on further assistance must await the outcome of these studies.—[Vol. 781, c. 1132–3.]

Does my hon. Friend realise that if the jump-jet airliner can be developed successfully it will make a tremendous saving in money and the construction of runways? Will he bear in mind that if there are any possibilities for this they should receive immediate attention?

Yes, most certainly. We expect to have the preliminary studies by the autumn. We shall evaluate them very carefully, and hope to begin design studies about June next year. This subject is of immense importance.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what killed previous progress, as for instance the rotodyne, was the high noise level? Does he agree that the multiple lift system is inherently better than the vectored-thrust system for civil aircraft applications?

I will take note of what the hon. Member says in his second point. Of course, noise could vitiate the whole project, and a great deal of money and effort are being expended to keep down the noise.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will publish a Green Paper showing the Government's proposals for the future of the British aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement.

The future of the British aerospace industry depends on its ability to develop and produce equipment for a highly competitive international market. The Government, through their defence procurement and in other ways, will continue to support the industry in its efforts. I do not consider that it would be appropriate or helpful to publish a Green Paper.

In view of the continuing uncertainties about the rôle of the British avionics and aero-engine industries in such European projects as the multi-combat aircraft, is it not vital that this House, the country and informed opinion should have an opportunity to discuss just where we are going in these European ventures?

The policy of the Government towards the aircraft industry is well known to the House and to the aircraft industry. Should my hon. Friend wish to have a debate in the House we would welcome it, but it would be a matter for him to put to the Leader of the House.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into account some of the recommendations of the recent Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which could have considerable healthy repercussions on the wellbeing of the aerospace industry?

Yes certainly, and not only those, but the Report produced by Mr. Elstub and his Committee as well as the S.B.A.C.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the effects in Scotland of the proposed increase in selective employment tax; and what reply he has sent.

Two such representations have been received. The replies drew attention to the wide range of inducements available under the Government's regional policies and emphasised the desirability of supporting the development of the Scottish economy in this way rather than by shielding it from general taxation.

Does not the sparsity of representations show that the many people in Scotland whose interests are seriously damaged by this obnoxious tax have lost any confidence that the Secretary of State can any longer do anything about it? Does the Secretary of State for Scotland consider that this tax is good for the Highlands and Islands?

No, Sir; it does not show that. The representations, which were confined to the Perth branch of the Communist Party and the Dundee Chamber of Commerce, show what bad company the hon. Gentleman is keeping.

What is the net gain to Scotland, taking into account the S.E.T. and the regional employment premium?

The net yield of the tax itself—that is, at the rates to be applied from 7th July—will be about £57 million a year, as against the £10 million in S.E.T. additional payments to manufacturers and regional employment premium payments of £39 million, which place Scotland in a more favourable position than Great Britain as a whole.

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) asked the Minister about the position qua the Highlands and Islands. The Minister did not answer that. Will he now answer it?

If the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to table a Question, I will certainly give him the up-to-date figures.