asked the Minister of Technology what percentage of the cost of the research and development of the Concorde was dollar expenditure; and what was the actual figure.

Expenditure on sub-contracts with American firms accounts for about £15 million, or about 2 per cent. of the total estimate of £730 million for the extra-mural development programme.

While the percentage falls, does not the amount indicate the enormous level to which the costs of this aircraft have escalated since the original estimate of £150 million put forward by right hon. Gentlemans opposite? Will my right hon. Friend say whether or not the £1,000 million figure is already in sight?

I do not think that the percentage of American equipment in Concorde has been affected by the escalation, although the total cost will be. I have dealt previously in the House with the figure of £1,000 million that has been quoted. I think that people have been confusing production finance with R. and D.

asked the Minister of Technology whether the routes for testing the sonic boom of the Concorde prototypes have yet been decided.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement about the conditions under which the Concorde prototypes will be tested for sonic boom.

Concorde's boom will be measured as one of the aircraft's characteristics during the flight test programme. The routes for flight tests at supersonic speed have not yet been decided.

Will my right hon. Friend make quite certain that when these routes are determined, flights will take place over populated areas so that people can experience the nature of the sonic boom for themselves?

The object of the flight tests is not to test public reaction to the boom but to test the aircraft's capability with a view to providing performance guarantees for potential customers. The attitude which Governments may adopt towards over-flight by supersonic aircraft is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and not for me.

Can we take it that Concorde will be flown at appropriate speeds over whatever areas are necessary to promote safe utilisation of the supersonic aircraft?

We are now considering what would be the right route path for this aircraft. We have to take into account the desirability, on the one hand, of minimising disturbance and, on the other hand, of providing a route path which keeps the aircraft within radar cover and other necessary services. This means that parts of straight flights for supersonic testing are bound to be over land.

asked the Minister of Technology what further information e has obtained of the noise level of Concorde at take-off, at landing and in subsonic flight; and how this level compares with that of four-engine jet aircraft at present in commercial service.

We have not yet had sufficient noise measurements on the prototype aircraft to draw firm conclusions on Concorde's noise levels in operation. It remains our aim to ensure that Concorde's engine noise should be no greater than that of existing subsonic jets.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he therefore assure the House that as a result of the flights so far undertaken there is no reason to suppose that this aim will not be achieved?

On the flights so far there is no reason to suppose that.

Can my hon. Friend say what liaison exists between his Department and the Board of Trade for contacting local authorities concerned about the increasing noise of aircraft, particularly in those areas which have large airports in their vicinity?

The liaison between my Department and the Board of Trade is very close on all these matters.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he is currently having with the French Government to ensure that there will be no slowing down of the Concorde programme, in view of the possibility that United States aircraft manufacturers may decide to construct a supersonic aircraft to operate at a lower mach number than hitherto contemplated, which would be available earlier than anticipated, and in more direct competition with Concorde.

asked the Minister of Technology what consultations he has had with the French Government about the slowing down of the Concorde programme; and what has been the outcome.

I hope to meet the French Minister of Transport shortly to discuss the Concorde programme.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the effect of the apparent slowing down at the moment on the labour requirements and labour problems in the Rolls-Royce Bristol Engine Division and the B.A.C.?

I cannot at the moment because the production programme is the one that has to be discussed. Obviously, the slowing down of the programme due to delay in first flight has itself created a problem that was not anticipated earlier. My discussions with the French Minister are designed to look at the production programme and the phasing of it, in which one is balanc- ing on the one hand the desirability of maintaining a steady flow of work for employment and economic reasons against the risk of investing too much in full production before one knows the ordering position which one will get.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the Paris Air Show I was able to consult various Frenchmen engaged at present in the production of Concorde and that all of them assured me that they would be dismayed by a slowing down in her rate of growth?

I think there is no doubt that anyone engaged in building Concorde wants to see the green light flashing whether on this side of the Channel or the other, but the question which M. Mondon and I have to consider is what is the right rate of production, given that there has been some slowing down of the programme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any major redesign of Concorde, for instance the incorporation of small nose wings, which may slow down production?

The problem in all aircraft and advanced projects is the point at which one freezes the design and the effect of this on performance on the one hand and cost on the other. I think there is the right rate of development at the moment. I think the position as it stands between the French Minister and myself on this is clearly understood. I recently made a statement on cost aspects which have important elements in this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Rolls-Royce Company has recently established a further team of research into the whole question of noise? Is not this an indication that we cannot rush forward in relation to this project until the whole matter of noise has been settled?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and, of course, the new high technology engines which Rolls-Royce has been producing include the RB211, which it sold to Lockheeds last year, which have a distinct noise advantage over the older types of engine. This, unfortunately, has not got an application in the supersonic field, but I agree entirely that broadly social costs and the technological implications in trying to overcome them must be taken into account when projects are authorised.

asked the Minister of Technology what further discussions he has had with the manufacturers of Concorde in respect of the estimated sales of this aircraft and the prices at which the aircraft and its spares and replacements will be offered to airline operators.

The prospective sales and the selling price of Concorde are regularly reviewed with the manufacturers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his opinion that the ultimate sales of this aircraft will to some degree be related to the price that is charged to the airlines? When does he expect B.A.C. to be able to indicate the price it hopes to charge the operators so that we may get some idea of how many of these options will actually end up as orders?

That is what the flight testing programme is designed to find out, but it is not possible to quote a price absolutely firmly and certainly not to publicise prices curently being discussed. The market will respond in part to the price, but this may not be quite as big a feature of the ultimate market as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that in part the price for this aircraft can be achieved if it reaches the market early enough to compete in world markets and so uphold the traditions of our aircraft industry?

There is no doubt about it that the capacity of this aircraft, as with every other aircraft, to get the market will depend in part on its being there on time. To this extent we have an advantage over the nearest competitors. This should help us, but it does not encourage us to relax our efforts.

What proportion of the colossal sum we have already spent on development does the Minister expect we shall recover through sales?

It greatly depends on the market for the aircraft. Therefore, I cannot say this with any certainty at this time. Until the options are converted into orders and Concorde enters into service, and until we know when the American competitor will be coming along, we could not answer that authoritatively. But we are not expecting to get back all the money we have put into the research and development. I think this has been understood.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will specify the date by which a firm decision is to be taken to proceed with the financing of Concorde production; and whether this date is accepted by the French Government.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now allow the production of Concordes for airline service to go ahead.

Manufacture of the first three production aircraft is already under way. We are currently discussing with the firms and the French Government the programme for the subsequent aircraft.

By what date must a decision be taken on the fourth production aircraft onwards? How are these to be financed? Is it under the Industrial Expansion Act? What rate of interest is currently being charged?

The finance that will be provided for the production will be handled under the Industrial Expansion Act, and the negotiations are proceeding. This is at the going rate. As to the date, there is no doubt that the firms involved would like to have a measure of certainty as early as they can, but the Governments, particularly the new French Government, which has just acquired responsibility for the project, want time to think about the right production programme. I am discussing it with them.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in connection with the financing of the aircraft that one of the reasons for the escalation of cast is the multiplication of modifications? Will he ensure that the modifications are kept within reasonable limits?

It is true that when one introduces modifications one tends to increase cost, but they are normally introduced for very good reasons, principally to ensure that the published payload is achieved.

When the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his negotiations with his opposite number in France, will he make the information available to the House?

I certainly shall. I have not fixed the date when I shall visit M. Mondon. He needs a little time to settle in. I have a direct interest in this myself, and I will ensure that the House knows.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will use his powers under the Industrial Expansion Act to secure rapid development under public ownership of carbon fibre technology.

As my hon. Friend knows, discussions are already in hand on the possibility of expanding production. No proposal involving the use of public funds has arisen.

My hon. Friend will know that the major break-through in this technology occurred in two publicly-owned and publicly-financed research institutions of international reputation. Would it not be appropriate, since in the opinion of those qualified to know this could be a very fast growth industry, that the taxpayer should now make an investment in something which could pay off handsomely?

The provisions of the various Acts, including the Industrial Expansion Act, are available if required, but the success that we shall achieve with carbon fibre depends on our finding a market for it, and applying it in areas in which, of course, a number of firms have expertise, and it would be wrong to exclude them from the exploitation of something which would be of benefit to the economy and, indeed, to the taxpayer through royalty payments.

asked the Minister of Technology what is his policy for the future of carbon fibre technology; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology when he plans to make a statement on the Report on Carbon Fibres, House of Commons Paper No. 157.

Discussions are already in hand between I.C.I. and N.R.D.C. on the possibility of I.C.I. building a large carbon fibre plant.

While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the progress, may I ask what the rôle of the N.R.D.C. will be in this matter? Is he not averse to having too many middlemen in such a negotiation? Does not he appreciate the urgency of building this plant?

I would not regard the N.R.D.C. as a middleman for this purpose. It has great experience of handling licences of this kind. It was set up in 1948 to do this kind of job. I am reluctant to undertake tasks best undertaken by others with experience in the field concerned. It is better to leave it to them.

In view of the report that a Japanese firm is to build a carbon fibre plant with a capacity of about 150 tons a year, is my right hon. Friend aware that we are particularly delighted to know that he is going to support very fully the policy of putting up a major plant early in this country?

My hon. Friend knows our interest and also that the development of applications for carbon fibre plays a very large part in this matter. But, as in many other areas, this is a question not just of being in advance with the latest technology but of having a market intelligent enough to use it to its fullest opportunity.

What issues are to be left to the negotiations between N.R.D.C. and I.C.I.? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee, this is a matter of urgency? Will he guarantee to make a statement before the House rises for the recess?

I cannot guarantee to make a statement before I have one to make. Clearly, in the discussions there are many commercial considerations which the firm itself has to take into account, as does the N.R.D.C. I will keep the House informed, as it is reasonable to do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the existing I.C.I. industrial complex on Tees-side provides ample space for such a plant?

I will bear that in mind, along with all the many telephone calls I received on the day the Select Committee's Report came out from people who have similar ideas about other parts of the country.

asked the Minister of Technology what action is being taken by his Department to overcome the lack of development in British industry of the application of fluidics.

The Department is seeking to encourage the greater use of fluidics in industrial applications by offering financial support for projects; by a series of conferences at Cranfield; by lectures, courses and permanent demonstrations at the low-cost automation centres; by the dissemination of technical literature; and by making films.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What action is he taking to concentrate the number of firms which are actually involved in this work?

There are not so many firms involved for this to be a problem.

asked the Minister of Technology what action he plans to take to reorganise the British electronics industry in order to increase its export potential.

The export potential of the British electronics industry has been increased by the substantial reorganisations that have already taken place. As opportunity occurs for further changes, we shall continue to support proposals which will benefit the competitiveness of British products.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, compared with West German industry, our organisation militates against exports? There they have standard catalogues, in which all the firms advertise. They have standard interfaces, which means that all their equipment is interchangeable. We do not have this. Will my hon. Friend look at this subject again, and see whether a similar pattern can be employed here?

I shall be very happy to look at the point to which my hon. Friend draws attention. We have a very far-reaching scheme in preparation with both France and Germany precisely on standards for electronic components.

Does not the Minister think that if he did as his hon. Friend wishes it would have a reverse effect? Would it not be better if the Government did not interfere with this industry, since it is producing a considerable amount of exports to the benefit of the country as a whole?

I do not think that the industry regards itself as being interfered with in any way at all. It is indeed, an enthusiastic supporter of the development of wider uses of standards.

asked the Minister of Technology what research is being done by his Department into the problem of oil pollution of Great Britain's beaches; and what results are now available for immediate, practical application.

Research, co-ordinated by the Warren Spring Laboratory, is in progress on removing oil from beaches, the sinking of oil at sea, the use of booms to protect estuaries, and the problems of burning oil in a wrecked tanker. Two thousand copies of the Warren Spring Laboratory's recommendations on beach cleaning have been sent to all coastal local authorities, and several demonstrations have been given.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am glad to know that research establishments under his Department are contributing to the solution of this horrible problem. Can he give an assurance that the members of staff employed by his research establishments are not in any way inhibited from producing solutions of their own and have an opportunity of presenting those solutions to him?

No such inhibitions exist.

The list which the hon. Gentleman has given is a great deal shorter than that contained in Appendix 33 to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Will he consider giving an up-to-date report on the progress made on the various projects listed in that Appendix?

The rule for length of Parliamentary Answers is different from that covering appendices to Reports by Select Committees, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that possibly the best research to prevent pollution would be a spot of research into those responsible for it?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the present position of the study of the vertical take-off and landing civil aircraft at present being made by his Department.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 16th April and 21st May. Firms are working on definition studies for three types of vertical take-off aircraft. Preliminary reports are expected in the autumn.—[Vol. 781, c. 1130–1 and 1132–3; Vol. 784, c. 419 and 430–1.]

Since we already have a commanding lead in the techniques of v.t.o.l. on the military side, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that every urgency is being given to this side and that we are not likely to lose this lead because of procrastination in his Department?

I consider this matter just as important as does the hon. Member. We are pressing on very fast, but it is a complex problem.

Would it not be desirable if my hon. Friend could divert some of the money being wasted on Concorde to this project, which, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has said, is extremely important and urgent?

I would not accept that money is being wasted on Corcorde.

asked the Minister of Technology what negotiations are taking place with the A300 consortium with a view to securing continued co-operation with Hawker Siddeley and the provision of a British engine.

Hawker Siddeley Aviation is actively negotiating terms with Sud Aviation and Deutsche Airbus for continuing participation in the A300B project. Rolls-Royce has offered to supply a version of the RB211 engine.

Is it true that the version of the RB211 offered by Rolls-Royce is the same as that offered for the Lockheed 1011 Transcontinental version offered to one of the Canadian airlines? If so, is it such an advance on the ordinary 211 that it will need launching aid?

It has similar characteristics. The possibility of further launching aid would have to be considered.

asked the Minister of Technology in view of the decline in output of motor-cars for home sales in the half-year ended 30th June, 1969, whether he will make a statement on the prospects for production and employment in the motor industry during the remainder of 1969.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated production of passenger cars for home and export markets, respectively, for the year to date; what percentage change these figures show over the corresponding period for 1968; and if he will make a statement on the expected levels of demand during the remainder of this year.

Total production in the 22 weeks to 31st May, 1969 was 778,232, comprising 403,462 for the home market and 374,770 for export. The weekly average production rate, compared with the 21 weeks to 25th May, 1968, was 4 per cent. lower in total, the decline being largely attributable to losses caused by industrial disputes and a 12½ per cent. fall in home market production being partly offset by a 7 per cent. rise in export production. Total production in 1969 is expected to be about 5½ per cent. below the level achieved in 1968. No significant change in employment in the industry is expected in the second half of 1969.

Does the Minister know that motor car production for the home market is now at the lowest level since 1962 and is running at a rate of less than 1 million vehicles for the home market per annum, notwithstanding that export sales for the first time in our history are exceeding home sales? How does he expect export price competitiveness to be maintained if he goes on denigrating the home market?

I was not aware that I had ever denigrated anything. The hon. Member's question might just as well have been phrased, "Is the Minister aware that export production is now running at record levels?" We have at last achieved the switch of resources into exporting which many Governments have sought to achieve.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the great advantages of the present policy dictated by the Chicago school concerning money supply is that one can do without the peripheral controls like the existing hire-purchase controls? Will he therefore recommend to his colleagues in the Treasury that as some token of concern over the decline in the home market motor car trades' sales they should scrap hire-purchase controls?

I am in constant touch with the industry; so is my right hon. Friend. We watch the position very closely. Questions on hire-purchase controls must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Should not the British motor industry, like its German competitors, make even greater efforts to concentrate in the export field; for, despite the argument about unit costs, concentration in the home market leads to a complacent attitude?

I have been delighted to see the export successes of the British motor industry since November, 1967; and I congratulate the industry on these. What is notable is that in many markets the industry has now secured a sufficient volume of sales to make export sales much more profitable, because the overheads of maintenance and sales organisations in those countries are spread more widely.

I am sure that the whole House is delighted with the success of the industry in the export field, but does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree or disagree with the opinion of the "Little Neddy" on the motor industry that a large, stable home market is an important factor in maintaining both profitability and international competitiveness?

None of us doubts that the motor industry requires a large and stable home market, but what we would want to argue about, and where there is not complete agreement, is how large is large and what is the degree of stability required.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give details of the proposed penalties for over-estimates in the pre-production stage of the multi-rôle combat aircraft, designed to lessen the risk of attempts by one nation to gain a larger share of the contracts.

I cannot give details of the confidential arrangements made with our partners, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a country overestimating its aircraft requirements in order to gain more than its due share of work in the early stages of the project and subsequently reducing them will suffer a financial penalty.

In the absence of details, how can we be persuaded that this is a carefully worked out and costed contract?

I think it is impossible for my hon. Friend to decide that in the absence of details. We have the details, and we are fully satisfied.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will seek the agreement of the Governments of Germany, Italy, and Holland to ensure that the Panavia Company, comprising the British Aircraft Corporation, Messerschmitt-Boeklow, Fiat and Fokker, should restrict tenders for the engine of the proposed European multi-rôle combat aircraft to European firms.

A competition for this engine is already under way and tenders have been invited from Rolls-Royce and the American firm Pratt and Whitney. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 14th May when he made his statement to the House, we believe that Rolls-Royce will win this competition on merit.—[Vol. 783, c. 1411–17.]

Would I be right in supposing that part of the purpose of the M.R.C.A. is to sustain a viable European aircraft industry? If by chance Rolls were not to win it, would there be any point in our continuing in the project?

In that event, which I consider to be hypothetical, it certainly would not be a European aeroplane.

Why do not we in Europe impose a penalty on American aeroplane manufacturers who are trying to compete, in Europe, analogous to the penalties which are imposed on British manufacturers trying to compete in the United States? In other words, why do we not insist that there should be a certain percentage cost advantage before we are willing to buy an American engine?

That is something for consideration, but I would much prefer to impose the penalty of greater efficiency.

Would my hon. Friend care to ponder the implications of his statement that if the Americans were to win this contract it would no longer be a European aircraft? Surely the whole object of the exercise is to devise a system whereby the European aviation industry will remain viable?

It is not the whole object. The object is to get a plane which the air forces of various countries need for the future.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the ordering of the avionics for this -aircraft is every bit as important as the ordering of the engines, and that it is very important that these should be European, in which the British avionics industry has a very strong stake?

This point is very much in our minds, and is being kept there by the House of Commons.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated demand for uranium by the nuclear power industries in this country during the next five years; what source it will come from; and at what anticipated price.

Demand for uranium for the nuclear power programme in this country over the next five years is expected to rise from some 2,000 to some 3,500 short tons uranium oxide per annum.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that figures have been published which seem to indicate that there will be difficulty in meeting the demand for uranium in the future? Is he further aware that it has been suggested that there will be a fairly drastic escalation of prices?

I know that a figure was published in the Canadian Parliament for special reasons, but I know of no suggestion that there is likely to be in the near future anything like a uranium shortage.

asked the Minister of Technology what reports on geological surveys for uranium in Scotland he has received from organisations which have commissioned such surveys and which are in receipt of public funds.

The work has not yet advanced sufficiently to enable me to add anything to what I told the hon. Member on 27th November, 1968.—[Vol. 774. c. 494.]

That is a disappointing answer. In view of the exploration going on in Scotland at present, would not such finds be an additional source of wealth to the country and help to make us more self-sufficient economically? Further, what part is the Highlands and Islands Development Board playing in advancing the search for new additional mineral wealth in Scotland?

I do not think that the board is involved here. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. The survey started only last year. It is a lengthy business, and it is a five-year programme.

Will my hon. Friend say something about the researches of the Institute of Geological Science in the North of Scotland, where the story is current that interesting finds of radioactive uranium have been made?

That is one of the areas where the survey is being carried out, but so far we have no startling results.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's plans for reorganisation of the United Kingdom ball-bearing industry.

A basis for a viable British-owned element in the industry has now been established. A very full statement was issued by the I.R.C. on 21st May, copies of which I have put in the Library and sent to the hon. Member.

I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy. As the I.R.C. has used taxpayers' money to frustrate the bid from S.K.F., ostensibly on grounds of economic nationalism, and as the Government themselves miss no opportunity to encourage a take-over of British assets by American firms, can we take it that it is the view of the Government and their minions that any efforts to create companies of European scale which might frustrate American industrial colonisation of British assets are against British interests; and, if so, which?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is putting a political question on a subject which is extremly complicated and difficult. The Government's view of inward-investment has been explained on a number of occasions. Broadly speaking, we welcome it. It brings investment. It brings technology. It brings management. It creates bigger growth. However, as a Government and as a community we are bound to consider the effect of take-overs on the viability of important sections of British industry. We are guided in part in our attitude to this by the attitude of customers here who do not want to see important industries passing entirely out of British control. This was not activated by any hostility to S.K.F., as has been explained to S.K.F. both directly and indirectly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman at least recognise that the point which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has raised is of great importance, that where the throughput of British industry is not capable of becoming viable when in competition with overseas he must make a choice whether he wants to go in with Europe or in with America?

In this area it is not a matter of political choice. One is looking at it industry by industry, at the nature and character of the firm concerned, and the long-term economic and balance of payments price one might pay by allowing certain critical firms to come under overseas control. However, it cannot be presented simply as a choice between Europe and the United States. It is much more complicated than that.

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

asked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in his discussions with the shipbuilding and maritime interests over the possibility of constructng nuclear-powered container and bulk cargo vessels; and when he will make a statement about the technical and financial aspects of such a venture.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the construction of nuclear-powered container ships.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the Shipbuilding Industry Board about the use of marine nuclear propulsion for merchant ships, in particular, container ships; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the development of systems of marine nuclear propulsion.

The study of the probable costs and benefits of a nuclear ship project, of which I informed the House on 15th April, is now proceeding. Information is being sought from shipbuilders, shipowners, the Shipbuilding Industry Board and others. We hope to have the first results of the study by the autumn.—[Vol. 781, c. 230.]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that several shipbuilding companies, including Cammell Laird, have now submitted propoals for a feasibility study, the total cost of which would be the equivalent of the average daily escalation in costs of the Concorde during the past eight years? Would this not be an entirely appropriate method of investing funds in long-term technological innovation which might have an important bearing on our balance of payments position in the years ahead?

It is true that some firms have submitted proposals.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has changed greatly since the Padmore Committee reported, and that there are grounds for haste in this matter if the possibility of a class of nuclear-propelled ships is to be examined? Will he press on regardless of the fact that certain vested interests, such as the oil industry, can, obviously, have no interest in such a project?

I entirely agree that the situation has changed since the Padmore Committee. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to a class of ships. We have to look here at the economics of a fleet of nuclear-propelled ships, not simply at the economics of a single ship. As for haste, I agree that we want to reach the right decision as quickly as possible, but it must be the right economic decision, and that is where we have to take great care.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the implication of his last answer, that the study will look at the use of nuclear-powered vessels as part of a commercial fleet and not in isolation, since it is most unlikely that individually they would today be economic, but as part of a fleet the case is a good deal stronger?

I willingly confirm that. I think that this is where some other countries may have gone wrong, in building ships which even as part of a fleet could not be economic and certainly individually could never be economic.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will organise an international conference in Great Britain and invite to it United States, German, Japanese and British shipbuilding firms and shipping firms whch have experience in the designing and operation of nuclear-powered vessels.

The Department was represented at a seminar on this subject held in May by the European Nuclear Energy Agency, and we do not think that it would be useful at present for this country to organise a further international conference.

But will my hon. Friend confirm that at least a number of advanced industrial countries, notably Japan, apparently seem to be persuaded of the merits of pressing ahead with investment in this project, and would it not be obviously in our self-interest at least to consult them to find out why they take that view?

We have consulted those countries, at the seminar which I mentioned and on other occasions. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mislead the House: the Japanese have gone ahead with a nuclear-powered oceanographic survey ship. This is by no means the same sort of thing as a nuclear-powered container ship or bulk carrier.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that none of the countries which have operated nuclear-powered vessels so far—the Americans, the Germans, the Japanese and the Russians—has sought to break even but has done it only to acquire experience? Before going ahead in response to the pressures put on him today, will he make sure that shipbuilding companies involved in such an enterprise would be willing to put up their own money as well as making use of the Ministry's money?

It is vital in a field such as this that, if a proposition is put up which can be profitable, firms should show their own confidence in its profitability by putting some of their own money at stake.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he has taken to give support to oceanography and underwater technology; and if he will make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's future plans in these fields.

Support for oceanography comes from the N.E.R.C., which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Marine technology is under constant discussion by the Inter-departmental Advisory Committee on Marine Technology which was set up in April, 1968. A number of contracts have been placed by the Department on behalf of this committee during the past year. Information about some of these has appeared in the Press, and announcements about future contracts will be made whenever appropriate.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the task of contemporary Government is to try to assess the advanced industries which can be exploited commercially over a period of 10 or 15 years, and does he agree that oceanography is one such, and that it may well be that, if he can get the structure right in the Government, where two Departments are involved, we might consider this as a suitable project for co-ordination and collaboration in Europe?

I am interested in my hon. Friend's last proposition. It is important to distinguish the pure science aspects of oceanographic work and the part of the work which may have a payoff in economic terms, to which, perhaps, underwater technology is crucially relevant.

How did it come about that the Committee on Marine Technology was set up nearly a year before publication of the White Paper which eventually recommended its setting up? Second, will the hon. Gentleman say why industry was not brought into it, too?

On the latter point, industry is consulted regularly on a firm-by-firm basis. It would be difficult, however, to have industry represented on the committee since that would mean selecting one or two firms from a range of competitors, which could only cause ill will and produce a situation in which no one would be willing to reveal all the cards in his hand. As to why the Committee was set up so early, that is merely a demonstration of how rapidly the Ministry of Technology moves.

Will my hon. Friend say, in reference to the matters envisaged in this Question, what kind of support he gives—scientific or financial—and what tests he applies to ensure that both his support and public money are not wasted?

The support given consists in part of technical knowledge, technical expertise, but it consists also of financial support. I mentioned the contracts which the Department has placed with various outside bodies as well as Government research stations. The normal tests to make sure that the cost-benefits of such work are adequate apply in this field as in any other.

asked the Minister of Technology how many computers were in use in Great Britain in 1960, 1965 and 1968; and how many he estimates will be in use in 1971.

The numbers of computers of all kinds, other than computers used for defence purposes, in use in the United Kingdom at the end of 1960, 1965, and 1968 have been estimated at approximately 200, 1,500 and 4,000 respectively. I estimate that by the end of 1971 the corresponding figure will be over 7,000.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if we are trying to advance the British computer industry and avoid buying American, these figures are still dismal? Does he agree that the original 1965 predictions have not been met? Therefore, will he seriously consider making representations to the industries concerned to see how we can make the best possible improvement and maintain the figure he has now given for 1971?

I am not sure what 1965 estimates my hon. Friend is referring to, but we have successfully increased our estimates every time we have made any. As for the contribution of British manufacturers to this figure of computer usage, it is substantial. Indeed, it is greater than in any other country outside the United States. We are confident that the industry's contribution in future will be greater still.

What is the present proportion of British computers, and what is it estimated to be in 1971?

The proportion of British-made computers is about a half, but I could not give an estimate for 1971 without notice.

is my hon. Friend aware that many computers are unnecessarily being imported? Is he aware that Honeywell in my constituency can cope with the market quite capably, and that in many cases, even with nationalised industries, it is not afforded the opportunity to tender?

The contribution of American computer manufacturers in this country is very welcome, and the terms under which they sell their machines to the public sector have been well known for a number of years. There is no restriction on Honeywell sales to the public sector.

Is the Minister saying that the number of computers at present in operation in the United Kingdom exceeds that in operation in France and West Germany and Japan?

The latest figures I can find that are in any way comparable are for 1967, and are as follows: United Kingdom, 2,600 France, 1,400: West Germany, 3,100 Italy, 1,400.

Does not the Minister agree that numbers of computers tell us nothing? It depends entirely on the size, computing power and software pro- gramme. Could he not, with the industry, think of a more effective method of measuring the computing power from year to year than simply talking of numbers of computers, which are meaningless?

We have just published figures for the turnover of computer service firms, which is a step in the direction the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, I think that the figure for total numbers of computers in use is meaningful, because there is a distribution of the different sizes in use in different countries.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now publish or place in the Library in advance of the next annual report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, further details of the financial forecasts on the basis of which further public money is being advanced to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

I have considered this proposal very carefully but have concluded that it would not be right to do so.

In view of the amount of public money—I believe about 48 per cent.—now invested, is not the House entitled to the same kind of information as shareholders would have, particularly in view of the rather disquieting stories of resignations, another of which is reported in the papers today?

I think that the hon. Gentleman understands the difficulty about doing this whenever the Government do business with any firm. We have had business with the aircraft firms for a very long time without information of any kind being given to the House or authorisation sought. We now have the innovations of the Shipbuilding Industry Act and the Industrial Expansion Act, under which much more information is made available. If anybody needed to be convinced of the damage which can be done by unnecessary publicity, one need only look at the case of the firm with which we are here concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us appreciate the dangers of over-exposure in the affairs of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Is he aware that he is extremely popular in Glasgow, and that he may be invited to take part in the Gorbals by-election campaign? Will he try to find out before then which Conservative voice is stating official policy?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner we get away from the atmosphere of continuing crisis in Clydeside and back to the business of building ships the better it will be for U.C.S. and those who work for it? In view of the concern about the number of resignations, when does he expect that the gaps in its board may be filled?

I have made it clear in the House many times that it has never been my purpose or intention to run Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. The purpose of the exercise has been to get the company to take responsibility for its own affairs, and to provide the support necessary through the Shipbuilding Industry Board.

As the S.I.B. has no abiding place in the shipbuilding structure, why should it have such power over Clydeside in settling its shipbuilding affairs?

The power of the Shipbuilding Industry Board is entrusted to it by Parliament. If we did not have the board one of two things would happen. Either no support for the industry would be made available or it would be given by direct Ministerial intervention at every point. That would be highly undesirable compared with the operations of a board which has on it business men, experienced trade union members and others with the objective of creating a viable industry.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will publish a White Paper on the experience to date of Anglo-European co-operation in aircraft manufacture.

Mainly because of the need to preserve military and commercial confidentiality, I do not think it would be helpful to publish a paper. If, however, bearing in mind these limits, the hon. Member has any specific points on which he desires information, I should be very ready to consider them, and, where possible, to provide the House with the answers.

I had hoped that the Minister might go slightly further. Is he satisfied that there are no Anglo-European projects in which additional costs have not proved excessive, or where the surrender of design leadership on the British side has not been very damaging to our future capabilities?

We have not reached the point of full-scale production on any major project, so it is very difficult to say how they are going. However, I would expect to find some increase in total costs because of collaboration, but to find the share of each country substantially lower.

Is not the truth that the best form of Anglo-European co-operation is in marketing? Will my right hon. and hon. Friends do their best to persuade the Europeans of the merits of the Harrier?

I will persuade anybody of the merits of the Harrier at any time of the day or night. I am sure that marketing is an essential part of collaboration.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the future rôle of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford.

Subject to any decision which may be taken as a result of the Commission of Inquiry into the siting of the third London airport, the rôle of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford, will remain as at present to carry out research in wind tunnels and in flight in support of new aerospace projects.

Is my hon. Friend aware that precisely because this might be selected as the site for London's third airport there is considerable disquiet and concern about the future of the staff at the R.A.E., Bedford?

We are well aware of the problems and are conducting our own studies into this matter. We shall give evidence to the Roskill Commission.

asked the Minister of Technology over what period of time beyond the current financial year he is currently budgeting for the research establishments under his control.

Four years, Sir.

Do I gather that the four-year programme is a rolling programme and not static? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Treasury will guarantee to honour the commitment of this four-year programme when the actual year of expenditure is reached?

This is a rolling programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I can give no guarantee on behalf of the Treasury.

asked the Minister of Technology when he now expects to publish the White Paper on Research Policy forecast in the February, 1968, number of New Technology.

Various developments in our research policy have already been announced; and others are under discussion. These will be made known as soon as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the same Question as I put down on 1st April, 1968, when he said that he had decided to defer publication of a White Paper? Will he produce a White Paper some time before the end of this Parliament?

My answers have improved every time the hon. Gentleman has put down Questions to me about this matter. I discovered, in considering the question of a White Paper, that I would be imposing a rigidity on myself in that I would be unable to do things in advance of a White Paper, which would be delayed until everything was tied up. We have the A.E.A. reorganisation which is part of this; we have introduced a new scheme for industrial control of research programmes; and we have also looked at this from the point of view of the ceiling on civil developments and civil applications coming along and the rundown of military developments. Therefore, I would rather not commit myself at this stage as to when I would publish a White Paper.

While recognising the strain that a White Paper imposes on a Department, could I ask my hon. Friend whether he would consider issuing a Green Paper which would also refer to the industrial exploitation section of the Ministry, which would be helpful.

We have considered issuing a green paper, a White Paper with green chapters and various other things. But I would prefer to do it as soon as I am able to say what should be done.

asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received from the machine tool industry about the current intake of orders.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States the figures of orders for machine tools in May were produced in June? Is there any reason why we should not issue our figures for May in June and not have to wait until the middle of July?

We publish the figures within a week of receiving the returns from firms. My right hon. Friend has written to them asking them to speed up their returns but the response has not been good enough.

While welcoming the improvement, may I ask what attention the Ministry is giving to the fact that for the latest three months of this year our deliveries of machine tools were 9 per cent down on the previous three months? This is serious.

One has to look over a somewhat longer period. The trend this year of deliveries has been generally upwards and will continue upwards in view of the increased order intake. In the first four months of 1969, compared with the same period in 1968, the increase was 10 per cent.

Surely the shortcomings in this matter are the responsibility of the firms and not of the Government.

We have got confused between the sending of returns and the level of orders and deliveries. The level of orders and deliveries is extremely satisfactory, encouraging and improving, and is much to the credit of the firms.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects the Process Plant Expert Committee to report to him.

We hope to receive the report and recommendations of the Process Plant Expert Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend in the near future.

When my hon. Friend says "the near future", no doubt he means the future, but how near is "near"?

Days rather than weeks.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure that the process plant industry is able to meet the increased demand recently forecast by the National Economic Development Council Process Plant Working Party.

Rationalisation among firms making process plant, including pressure vessels, pumps, valves, instruments, desalination and electrical equipment, is bearing fruit in increased efficiency and capacity. Closer contacts between makers and users are being established. Consultations will take place on further action when the report of the Process Plant Expert Committee has been received.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a large potential export market for our process plant manufacturers? Does he think they are now in a position to seize it?

Yes, Sir. I am well aware of this, and United Kingdom-based chemical engineering contractors have set themselves ambitious targets for exports of British-made equipment.

asked the Minister of Technology whether, in view of the reduced ordering by the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will take steps to increase the export activities of heavy electrical manufacturers.

Heavy electrical manufacturers are well aware of the need to increase the proportion of their deliveries going overseas. Government support for the increase includes the adoption of standards suitable for overseas markets, the rationalisation of the industry, the encouragement of the use of the experience of the Central Electricity Generating Board, area boards and the Atomic Energy Authority by overseas operators and the activities of diplomatic posts.

I thank my hon. Friend but will he bear in mind that in the past large producers such as Reyrolle Parsons on Tyneside have relied heavily on C.E.G.B. orders to give them a base for research and development work vital for overseas markets? In view of this, will he continue to encourage and co-ordinate and help all the companies involved in order to capture these vital markets in future?

We are in close touch with the heavy electrical manufacturers on their programmes, and when we can join collaborative projects with them we are ready to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman, as a sponsoring Minister for this industry, have urgent discussions with the Ministry of Power to ensure that the comments of the Wilson Committee are implemented and that there is better and more even planning of power generation capital investment programmes of the electricity board?

The recommendations of the Wilson Committee are under active discussion. I have discussed them with the major manufacturers.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will institute a study of the world market for electricity generating and distribution equipment, with a view to ensuring that the combined efforts of the electrical manufacturers, the consultants and the Central Electricity Generating Board are being deployed to the best effect in support of British exports.

A contract is being placed with the Science Policy Research Unit under Mr. Christopher Freeman at Sussex University on the factors significant for success in the world market for heavy electrical generating and distribution equipment, following the valuable survey carried out by this unit on process plant.

That is an encouraging reply. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the companies involved in this work readily respond to the Government if the Government give any kind of encouragement? I hope that he will continue to work with them.