asked the Minister of Technology what is his estimate of the total cost and volume of steel orders placed abroad by the British Steel Corporation to offset their own shortfall of production this year.

asked the Minister of Technology how much steel ouput has been lost because of industrial disputes so far this year, and with what effect on the British Steel Corporation's financial estimates.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on steel production during the 12 months ended on the latest convenient date, compared with the two preceding years; what contribution the nationalised steel industry is making to the Government policy of imports substitution; and why steel imports are rising.

Crude steel production in the United Kingdom in the year ending 30th September, 1969, was 26·6 million tons, compared with 25·1 million and 23·5 million respectively in the two previous years. B.S.C. put total losses of production this calendar year at about a million tons of crude steel, of which about 750,000 tons resulted from industrial disputes; these losses through industrial disputes are estimated to be equivalent to £40 million in turnover and perhaps £12 million in reduced profit. In order to meet rising demands from United Kingdom consumers and to minimise the reduction of exports they expect to import this calendar year about 860,000 product tons at a cost of some £37 million.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but is he not thoroughly disappointed by the inability of the British Steel Corporation to meet the production required by its own customers? Does he not realise that, unless its performance improves, we may well lose valuable export orders which have come to Britain in the past?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair and recognise that there has been a steady and substantial increase in production, although most unhappily last year we lost 1 million tons in the manner I have described.

Bearing in mind the excellent record of industrial relations in the steel industry in the days of private enterprise, what steps are being taken to reverse the recent deterioration?

The hon. Gentleman is implying too much from my reply in taking it to mean that there has been a change in the excellent industrial relations in the steel industry. The answer is that its relations are normally excellent and I am very hopeful that they will continue to be excellent but there can be occasional moments of emotional stress where difficulties arise.

But industrial disputes apart, does not the answer mean that exports will continue to fall and imports will continue to rise, all of which must be anathema to the Government policy of import substitution? When will the Government support their own policy in the context of the steel industry?

It is well to bear in mind that the increased imports of steel and the slight reduction in exports derive from the very considerable increase in the use of steel in total—that is to say, we have sacrificed some of our exports to meet the urgent needs of the home trade and there is a world boom at the moment in steel consumption.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the British Steel Corporation is doing precisely what other steel-producing countries are doing.

It is well to take my hon. Friend's adult view that what happens today is not the result only of what has been done yesterday, but is the product of what has happened several years earlier. One must be fair and recognise that over a period of years there has been a certain general background disturbance in the steel industry politically.

Does not the world boom make it all the more disappointing that British steel is not in a position to meet demands for exports? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the gap should be closed by improving productivity and deliveries rather than by trying to raise prices at home?

On the latter part of the question, the British steel industry is fully competitive in price with its European competitors and we will raise prices only so far as it is justified. Of course, we are anxious to increase productivity and over-all production to meet the boom, but the British experience is by no means unique.

asked the Minister of Technology, in view of the decision to build Drax B, what revision he has made of his estimate of total coal production and the number of jobs in the coal industry.

Drax B should burn about 3½ million tons a year and provide about 5,000 mining jobs in the later 1970s.

May we have an assurance that the C.E.G.B. still wishes to go ahead, in view of the fact that the cost of coal is likely to rise considerably above the figures in the first estimates? When is construction likely to start, and when will the power stations be in production?

Certainly the C.E.G.B. is intent on going ahead. All the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned were taken fully into account before reaching the decision to put Drax firmly into our power programme. As for the date of commissioning the second part of Drax, the work should start in the next two or three years, according to the electricity demand at the time, and we expect it to be fully commissioned by about 1978.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are serious doubts about the coal supply position four years from now? Has that been taken into account in terms of Drax B?

I entertain no doubts that there will be satisfactory supplies of suitable coals to Drax when it is commissioned. This has all been taken fully into account.

In all comparative fuel costings, including Drax, how far does the right hon. Gentleman and his Treasury friends allow the C.E.G.B. to take into account the phenomenon called inflation?

My right hon. Friends at the Treasury and all other Ministers have to take this into account, willy nilly. It is always taken into account, as far as it can be foreseen, in our calculations.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he proposes to take to preserve confidentiality between the oil companies and their partners on information obtained of the resources of the Continental Shelf.

This is entirely a matter for the companies themselves.

Lack of confidentiality between oil companies will be of concern to them and could restrict applications in the future. Is there not a problem, because different oil companies will be sharing projects with different nationalised industries under the new arrangements? Will not the partnerships raise difficulties in terms of preserving confidentiality?

If the hon. Gentleman means that there will be information passed to my Department as a result of this, all the nationalised industries have this information, and we get it in any case. Quite apart from the fact that the partner in the exploration is a nationalised industry, we get the information. We treat the information as highly confidential, even when only two oil companies are in partnership. We do precisely the same in the case of an oil company and a nationalised industry. No one need entertain any fear on that score.

asked the Minister of Technology on how many power stations, and in which locations, he expects construction will begin in each of the years 1970 to 1974.

The forward requirement for power stations is determined from year to year, largely in the light of load forecasts. I cannot therefore say how many stations will need to be started in the period to 1974 or where they will be; but as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General announced on 29th October, the Government has approved the C.E.G.B.'s programme for the next four stations at Heysham, Isle of Grain, Sizewell and Drax — [Vol. 790, c. 295–306.]

Can the Minister say roughly what he expects to be the average construction period of these next four stations, and what steps the Government are taking to reduce the period to a minimum, in view of past experience?

That is a different question about the problem of commissioning power stations in the programme as approved. I cannot go beyond what I have said in confirming that the four stations have been approved and that in general we are trying to encourage the speedy completion of power stations.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the refusal of members of the British Industrial Truck Association to give certain information to his Department.

There was no outright refusal by members of the British Industrial Truck Association to provide information to the Department, and a number of them co-operated very fully. The Association was, however, opposed to a comprehensive survey of the industry that our officials proposed.

Will my hon. Friend accept that this non-co-operation by the association is a very poor example of how industry should co-operate with the Government to the advantage of both?

The Department is very disappointed at the outcome of this matter. However, in many other areas there is a great deal of collaboration with member firms of the association, and it works very well as a general rule.

Is not this partial reluctance by an industry a note of warning to the Government to get their inquiry mania under control and return to the basic incentives of competition and tax reform?

I could not accept the suggestion that there is a mania of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman describes. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend, generally there is a good collaborative atmosphere between B.I.T.A. and the Minstry.

asked the Minister of Technology what increases he estimates will result in the cost of the Concorde project, following the French devaluation.

The effect of the devaluation of the franc is to reduce the cost of Concorde when this is expressed in terms of sterling. But there have been some adjustments to the programme which are likely to offset this decrease. I will inform the House of the revised estimate as soon as practicable.

Can my right hon. Friend say how much money has been authorised for production expenditure on Concorde?

There is a further Question on the Order Paper about the production programme for Concorde. We have had to strike a balance between maintaining the impetus of the programme and not committing more money than could be justified until we had a greater assurance of the market.

While appreciating the progress on the Concorde prototypes, may I ask the Minister to consider publishing a White Paper or some other form of document showing a budget forecast on all the information that he has so that British taxpayers will know where they stand in the future?

I will consider that point. In view of the comments of the P.A.C., as hon. Members know, I have expressed my readiness to give further information about variations in the estimate. I am meeting the French Minister in London on 18th December, and it is my intention to make a statement thereafter.

In making his further statement, will the Minister bear in mind that it is necessary to distinguish between costs which are escalating and costs which are rising because of the ability to "stretch" the aircraft?

The term "escalation" has been used too loosely, I agree. Sometimes when technical problems arise and delay progress, they amount to escalation. It is right to differentiate between the two causes.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he proposes to write-off research costs before calculating whether Concorde is likely to be a commercial success.

We hope to recover some part of the research and development costs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some expert opinion puts the cost of research on this project at about £1,250 million? Is it not impossible for Concorde to be a commercial success if that is taken into account? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that sum he intends to take into account?

The reason it is difficult to forecast is that it inevitably depends on the number of sales of Concorde able to be achieved. When one is looking at the commercial prospects of a project of this kind, one is balancing the changing development costs on the one hand, with, at the moment, the inevitably uncertain market on the other, but there is no doubt that on current estimates the proportion of research and development costs which we had hoped to recover is lower than some time ago.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Concorde is maintaining its lead over the American S.S.T. programme, as this is essential to the prospects of there being a return on some of the money expended by the British and French Governments?

The best estimate that we have is that the Concorde is still five years ahead of the American Boeing 2707, and this bears on the market prospects for the aircraft.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to be in a position to authorise full-scale production of the Concorde aircraft.

The manufacture of the first three production aircraft, which are required for the flight test programme, is well under way. The British and French Governments have now agreed to the next stage of the production programme, which includes work on aircraft 4–6.

Can the Minister give any indication when he expects that, assuming all continues to go well, flight trials will have reached the stage at which it will be appropriate to authorise a further batch of production aircraft?

This is dependent on the success of the tests, which are going very well, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Tests will be continuing next year, and we shall be reviewing authorisations for production in the light of the situation as it emerges from time to time. I cannot go beyond that.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House some idea of what the total research and development and pre-production costs will be before the Government are in a position to take a final decision on whether to go into production on this scheme?

It is not as simple as that, because to maintain some sort of continuing programme it has been necessary from time to time to authorise the spending of certain production money.

How much?

For the first of three aircraft, manufacture is under way, and I mentioned other aircraft which have been agreed but it is not possible to separate production finance completely from research and development costs.

How much?

First, will my right hon. Friend say how much? Second, will he indicate what tests of public reaction are to be carried out in this country to ascertain the tolerability of sonic boom?

On the question of how much, the expenditure on Concorde, which is running at a rate which has been published, is divided between research expenditure and money necessary for the early production models. I do not have the figures in my head, but I shall write to my hon. Friend to give him the best break-down.

asked the Minister of Technology whether, in the light of Anglo-French experience in the development of the Concorde, he will approach the United States and French Governments, with a view to a pooling of resources in the development and production of the proposed Boeing 2707.

I think that at this stage we should concentrate our efforts on making a success of Concorde.

Surely the Minister can give some indication whether he is thinking about these proposals which, as he knows, have been put forward by a very respected leader of the industry, namely. Sir George Edwards?

I have followed Sir George Edwards' speeches. The general idea of international participation in aircraft manufacture is sensible, and I can understand how we can help Boeing, given the fact that we are five years ahead. I am not clear how far American manufacturers could help us with Concorde. Although these ideas ought to be in our minds, they cannot be formulated into sensible proposals at this stage in the programme.

In view of the tendency of hon. Gentlemen opposite to turn to an American solution to our problems, and because of the disappointing response so far of the international airline fraternity towards the Concorde, is my right hon. Friend prepared to make pubiic funds available so that a special boost can be given to enhancing the sales pros pects of the Concorde?

The companies are engaged in a vigorous sales programme, and I do not just mean crude sales. They have invited potential customers to plan cockpit layout and the general rig of the aircraft. Some pilots from international airlines have flown the aircraft, and my hon. Friend will have seen that they are highly delighted with it. Marketing is going very well, and the Government are paying the costs of the Concorde operation at this stage.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the route to be followed in Concorde's trial flight.

We have not yet quite completed our discussions with local authorities and other interested parties. I shall inform the House as soon as possible of the route finally selected.

In the meantime, can my right hon. Friend say whether Concorde will fly supersonically when overland?

We have had consultations with a number of local authorities, and in the House with hon. Members on 12th November, when we explained that apart from the question of Concorde operating as a commercial aircraft overland, it will be necessary to have some straight runs, which will include some overland flying, to do the tests to provide the performance guarantees. When I am ready I shall make a statement about it.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to return industrial research functions at present carried out in Government research establishments to private industry.

The Government research establishments are not carrying out functions which were formerly those of private industry. Closer co-operation between the establishments and industry is being encouraged and my Department is continuing to contract out to private industry as much as possible of its research and development work.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I last pressed him on the possibility of transferring functions at present in the research establishments back to private industry, he said that the tax reductions which I said were necessary to encourage firms to take on these functions lay outside his responsibility? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has acquired a bigger economic empire, can he see whether they are within his responsibility and take action accordingly?

The tax concessions point certainly is not within my responsibility and I am not sure that the relevance of it to the hon. Gentleman's point is as clear as he suggests. The amount of research and development in industry financed by my Department is three times as great as that which is done intra-murally, and I have already adopted measures designed to encourage co-operation between our establishments and industry.

Is the spin-off from research establishments under my right hon. Friend's control given adequate commercial exploitation?

Of course. N.R.D.C. has a responsibility of one kind, and I have set up industrial units, notably in the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, with this point in mind. As the result of our work, the awareness of the establishments of the need to encourage industry to exploit the spin-off is pretty well understood.

asked the Minister of Technology when he will publish the results of the study of effectiveness of investment grants announced on 4th February of this year.

I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 10th November, 1969.—[Vol. 791, c. 14–16.]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it is now almost a year since the Select Committee on Estimates called for a new study of this unruly and uncontrollable element in public spending? Is it not worrying that even now we still do not seem anywhere near getting on with this study?

It was started in the Board of Trade in February of this year. A good deal of work has been done, and the C.B.I, is being approached about the study and the forms which will go out to individual firms.

Has my hon. Friend seen the report in The Times today that his Department is carrying out a study of all Government aid? Does that include R.E.P.? If not, would it not be as well to include it, bearing in mind at the same time that the seven-year guarantee has little meaning if the incentive is ineffective?

This study does not include R.E.P. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.

Is it not extraordinary that the Minister should have waited——

Order. Not a bit of it. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne to ask Question No. 11.

asked the Minister of Technology what was the proportionate share of manufacturing investment in the gross domestic product over the latest quarter for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding proportion during the calendar year 1961.

At current prices fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry accounted for 4·4 per cent, of gross domestic product in the second quarter of 1969 compared with 5·1 per cent. in 1961.

In the light of that most interesting reply, may I ask how the Minister would answer a taxpayer who asked how he could justify the expenditure of £500 million a year on investment grants to promote investment?

There are many aspects, as the hon. Gentleman knows, which would need to be studied if such a question were put. But there is reason to believe that the investment grant system may have checked the down-turn which would otherwise have occurred during the intervening period. In 1961 there was a sustained increase of investment for cyclical reasons.

Since industrial development is declining sharply in real terms under this Government, what do they intend to do about it?

The underlying figures for increasing investment in 1968–69 and 1969–70 revealed by the trend suggest a 10 per cent. increase in both years.

Will my right hon. Friend consider consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to effecting earlier repayment of investment grants? Something immediate is required and this could well produce that.

I regularly discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others of my colleagues the investment position. This proposal has been considered, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, over a long period.

asked the Minister of Technology what is his latest estimate of the level of manufacturing investment during the first two quarters of 1970; and how such an estimate compares with the out-turn, in constant money terms, in the first two quarters of each of the immediately preceding five years.

Information is collected, in the Investment Intentions Inquiry, only for calendar years as a whole. The latest inquiry indicated an increase in the volume of manufacturers' investment between 1969 and 1970 in the region of 10 per cent. Past figures of manufacturers' investment in the first two quarters of each year have been at constant (1963) prices: £647 million in 1969, £608 million in 1968, £647 million in 1967, £649 million in 1966 and £628 million in 1965.

Was not the latest inquiry, to which the Minister refers, conducted before the Government announced that they would not create a prior deposit scheme? Has that not changed the whole pattern completely? Is it not clear that the credit squeeze, the liquidity squeeze, which will apply with great severity in the spring, will have a disastrous effect on investment?

It is a bit too simple to put it in the hon. Gentleman's extreme terms. Obviously changes in the environment and in conditions make a difference to investment intentions. Although the Government are interested in an increase in manufacturing investment, I do not take the alarmist view taken by the hon. Gentleman.

But will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the rate of profit to British industry has been squeezed and that the fear of price control haphazardly imposed by the Government has a great influence on investment trends?

From my experience of administering prices policy with the engineering industries over a period, I can say that there has been no difficulty in our relations with the firms with which we have dealt on this aspect. I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that all these surveys that we make reflect differently on his plea a moment ago to abandon all the surveys which the Government undertake to study the developing position.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will give a direction to the British Steel Corporation to publish particulars of the fund, estimated at an amount of approximately £400,000, established to compensate a group of employees in the steel industry, thrown out of work by nationalisation, and place in the Library an audited account of such fund with all disbursements to date, solely public funds being entailed.

asked the Minister of Technology what directions he has given to the British Steel Corporation as to the disposal of the fund set up on nationalisation to compensate former employees who were subsequently and thereby displaced: and if he will make a statement.

I assume the hon. Members are referring to a trust fund established by the British Iron and Steel Federation prior to nationalisation. I understand this is an independent discretionary trust. Its control and administration is wholly within the powers of the trustees and neither my right hon. Friend nor the British Steel Corporation has any right to interfere with its administration.

Does that reply mean that the funds vested in the trust were without the nationalisation Statute and not affected in any way by the contents of that Statute? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman say so, and will he say what legal recourse applicants may have to secure moneys from the fund from the trustees for the purposes for which the fund was established?

On the first part of that supplementary question, I think that it is correct to say that the trust remaining independently in force and is not controlled by the nationalisation Statute.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that he thinks the fund is independent of the Government and of the nationalisation statute? Can he say who is in control of the fund, whether there have been any applications from those who were envisaged as possible beneficiaries, and what is happening to the fund now?

When I said "I think", I was modestly covering the possibility that there might have been some reference to this somewhere in the Act. So far as I know, there has not. I made clear that this is an ordinary trust fund governed by the ordinary rules of trust law. The trustees are in charge of the fund. They are governed by the terms of the trust deed which can only be enforced against them in the ordinary way, in the courts, by anybody who thinks that he has the right to so enforce them.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot evade responsibility completely in this way? Is he not aware that in 1966 a firm undertaking was given by a previous Minister to safeguard the interests of Federation staff both with regard to pensions and compensation? Ought he not to see that that undertaking is maintained?

That undertaking has been honoured. We are talking about a totally different matter, namely, the operation of a private trust fund governed by a private trust instrument where the ordinary law applies. The trustees have total authority, subject to the terms of the trust deed, as to how that fund shall be disbursed. It is just like any trust fund.

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

asked the Minister of Technology what assurances he has received from the Gas Council that there will be no interruption in supplies of gas to domestic consumers over the Christmas period due to the conversion programme.

I am informed that the boards have arranged their programmes so as to avoid undertaking conversions during the Christmas week.

I am glad to hear that that is so. But as so many people do not appear to be getting the promised advantages from increased efficiency and reduced prices, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the future programme will be phased out over a much longer period?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assumptions. The Council has done its utmost to achieve this progress with the maximum convenience to consumers, and it will continue to do so.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated expenditure on Continental Shelf exploration and development by the National Coal Board and the Gas Council, respectively, in each of the next five years.

Over the next five years the estimates made by the two industries of average expenditure under current licences and in respect of known discoveries are: Gas Council about £5 million a year and the National Coal Board about £4 million a year.

Can the Minister say what proportion of that will be spent by Gas Council Exploration Ltd. or by any of its other subsidiaries?

I cannot specifically answer that question. I should draw attention to the fact that I am referring to current licences and known discoveries. This does not cover forecast expenditure under future licences. But I will consider whether I can give a more satisfactory answer.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects the cheap credit guarantees for British shipowners to be exhausted; when he expects repayments under the revolving scheme to exceed new guarantees; and whether he has now decided how to deal with the situation.

The limit of guarantees is likely to be reached by early next year and consideration is being given to the situation which will then arise. I do not expect repayments to exceed applications for further guarantees in the foreseeable future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when an early decision can be reached on the matter? Is he aware of the need for it from the point of view of the whole of the shipbuilding industry, and has he approached the banks to see whether they are willing to go on giving this artificially low credit?

The outstanding liability under guarantees issued or offered is £335 million out of a fund of £400 million. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that a decision one way or the other will be taken in good time so as not to prejudice anybody affected by it.

Does the Minister agree that this scheme is bound to reach a peak before it settles down to a general level of credit guarantee? Will the Minister accept that this is something which I failed hopelessly to get his former colleague to accept in Standing Committee? This is an inevitable fact of life.

If it is true that the hon. Gentleman failed with my former colleague, he can congratulate himself that I have been more receptive and have accepted his point.

asked the Minister of Technology how many representations about the excessive noise caused he received when the Anglo-French Jaguar prototype flew supersonically on 12th October last in this country.

None was reported to us.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the Jaguar flew supersonically on her trial flight, and even allowing for the difference in size between that plane and the Concorde, if it did, were any protests received?

It was not quite comparable, since the Jaguar, while it flew supersonically on 12th October, was well out to sea, in accordance with the normal arrangements for such flights.

asked the Minister of Technology how many new jobs are expected to be provided in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area in the next 12 months.

A total of 4,650 jobs, of which 3,620 are for males, are expected to arise within the next four years in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area in new industrial buildings for which industrial development certificates have been issued and in existing buildings taken over by manufacturing firms. I regret it is not known how many will become available during the next 12 months.

Can my hon. Friend say how the rate that he has given compares with estimates of the current year and the year before?

Not without notice, but I can tell my hon. Friend that good progress is being made in South-East Durham, and we hope that that progress, will continue.

In view of the really unsatisfactory position about new jobs on the North-East Coast—and I propose to give the figures if I catch the eye of the Chair during the next debate —would it not be better if the Minister were to get down to saying what the position is now? A lot of people will be dead in four years' time if we do not get on with getting more jobs into the North-East Coast area.

A great deal of progress has been made in the northern region, and I look forward to listening to the hon. Lady's speech in the debate to follow.

asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made with the erection and leasing of the two advance factories in the West Auckland area.

Both advance factories, one of 25,000 sq. ft. and the other of 10,000 sq. ft., are under construction and are expected to be completed in March and February, 1970, respectively. Applications have been received for both and negotiations are proceeding.

Can my hon. Friend say how many male jobs are likely to arise in these two factories?

I cannot give precise information, but I believe that there will be a high proportion of male jobs in these two factories.

asked the Minister of Technology under what agreement with the International Air Transport Association Members of Parliament are prevented from occupying vacant seats in his Department's chartered flight to Adelaide and Woomera.

Her Majesty's Government are not a party to International Air Transport Association agreements. As a matter of policy, and in order to avoid prejudice to the interests of scheduled air services, Departmental charter flights are not made available to persons not travelling on business connected with the Department.

Desirable though it may be for Members of Parliament to visit Australia—[Laughter.]—laughing apart, should not there be more scrutiny of these issues? If Ministers want Members of Parliament to become better informed in what they say, should not such visits be made available?

My hon. Friend should know that my right hon. Friend is always willing to consider requests by hon. Members to be informed on subjects such as what is happening in Woomera. If my hon. Friend has any particular interest that he would like to follow up perhaps he will contact my right hon. Friend.

May we be told in intelligible language what this is all about?

If the hon. Member had been following the Questions which have been put down by my hon. Friend during recent Question Times he might have followed the meaning of this. A charter flight leaves this country for Australia. The aircraft is chartered by the Ministry of Technology for technicians, scientists and cargo going to the test ranges at Woomera. My hon. Friend was asking whether any space could be made available on that aircraft for Members of Parliament who have a particular interest in travelling to Woomera.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the net cost to public funds of a return journey to Woomera by a Member of Parliament, taking advantage of a seat on a Ministry of Technology chartered flight, which would otherwise be unoccupied.

The net cost to public funds of an authorised return journey on the Department's chartered service to Australia is £60.

Are my right hon. Friends aware that this is not an issue of jaunts for Members of Parliament; it is a fairly serious issue of scrutiny? Could not such places be made available?

I thank my hon. Friend for putting this matter in perspective. As he knows—and as I hope the House now knows—this charter flight is for cargo, scientists and technicians going to Australia, and any other authorised persons, going to visit the site at Woomera on business.

Since the aircraft is going there anyhow, if the seat would otherwise not be occupied why should it cost £60 for a Member of Parliament to go?

That is the cost that the charter undertaking charges to the Department when chartering this plane.

Can the Minister say why this should be confined to Members of Parliament? Why should not some industrialists be allowed to participate in this cheap seats arrangement, in order to sell exports in Australia?

My hon. Friend asked specifically why Members of Parliament should not be allowed to use this flight. I think I said in my answer that any authorised journeys to study what is happening in Woomera would be accepted.

On a point of order. Can you give us some guidance on this latest series of questions, Mr. Speaker? The questions answered from the other side were extremely difficult to hear, and we were left at the end of the exchanges with a sense of total confusion. We are wondering what has been going on.

I cannot help the hon. Member's confusion.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will set up a Departmental Committee to look in detail into the problems and future of the motor industry.

No, Sir. These subjects are constantly under examination in the Motor Manufacturing E.D.C., on which the Department is represented. My right hon. Friend keeps closely in touch with developments through his regular meetings with the major firms, individually and collectively, and through the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry, of which he is Chairman.

We know all that. Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to consider the long-term problems of this industry? Does he not agree that it is high time that it ceased to be the whipping boy of the economy? Does he not also agree that his Department has certain responsibilities for seeing that Treasury measures are used to counter the seasonal cycle in the industry? Does he not also accept that his Department has a responsibility in connection with problems such as comparative wage rates between different areas in relation to this industry?

That is a long question.

I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The question of wage rates is not a matter for the Ministry of Technology. I cannot agree with him, either, that the industry is a whipping boy of the national economy. But with regard to my hon. Friend's last point, the Motor Manufacturing E.D.C. has recently submitted a report to the National Economic Development Council on the problems and prospects of the industry for the next five years. This is now being examined, and I should have thought that it would meet the main points raised in my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

On the technical aspect of this matter, has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the safety factors which are now statutorily required in respect of motor cars by the United States Administration? Has he had discussions on this matter with British motor manufacturers, in the interests of future exports?

This matter has been drawn to our attention and has been discussed.

Is not the answer quite simple? Is it not that the Government should stop interfering with the motor car industry?

asked the Minister of Technology, what measures he is taking to assist in improving the efficiency of the motor manufacturing industry.

As its production and export achievements show, the British motor manufacturing industry is a large and efficient one, and the managements of the companies are constantly striving to improve efficiency still further. The Department keeps in constant touch with them in order to be aware of their problems and to give the fullest possible assistance.

Will my hon. Friend place in the Library of the House of Commons the report of the Motor Manufacturing Economic Development Council which he is at present studying? Will he also make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that we need to stimulate the whole market over the coming months in order to combat the disparity in seasonal sales between winter and summer?

:I am sure that the report to which I referred in my earlier reply will be made available to hon. Members.

When?

At this moment I cannot say precisely. On my hon. Friend's point about the treatment of the industry on the economic front by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that my hon. Friend is well capable of bringing that to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Since this was one of the first industries to be restructured by the I.R.C., what follow-up has been done to see whether the effects of that restructuring proved to be right or wrong?

One of the best tests of the effectiveness of restructuring, or, indeed, of any other economic measures taken in connection with the motor industry is to consider the present trends in export figures. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be delighted to know that the annual value this year is running at the rate of £1,000 million, one of the very highest figures ever recorded.

Is there any evidence that current restrictions at home have hampered our exports of motor cars? Is there not at least some evidence that some of the trouble with our home market is the inability of the industry to compete with foreign imported cars?

I have given the rate at which exports are running. In the present year, about half the total number of cars, and over 40 per cent. of commercial vehicles, are being produced for export. This is an increase on last year's figures.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to make the present methods of regional development more effective.

The recent changes in the responsibilities and structure of the Department will facilitate appraisal of the regional implications of our industrial and economic policies. My right hon. Friend intends to keep a close watch on the effectiveness of those regional measures for which he is responsible.

Is the Press announcement of today correct, namely, that a Government study is starting on the effectiveness of investment grants? In any case, will the hon. Gentleman consider more effective methods of attracting industry and creating new jobs in Scotland, where the net loss of 67,000 jobs in the last three years has been very disappointing in relation to the amount of money involved?

The hon. Member will recall that I dealt with the question of investment grants in answering an earlier Question. That may have been before he came into the House. The hon. Member has pursued the question of jobs lost in Scotland at previous Question Times, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, and on every occasion he has been given a satisfactory reply. I can say that I.D.C. approvals between January, 1965, and September, 1969, were estimated to represent over 100,000 additional jobs for Scotland.

If my hon. Friend has not already done so, will he read the article which appeared in November of last year in the National Institute Economic Review, containing an analysis of regional policy and showing that the present system tends to attract capital-intensive industry to development areas, which are not appropriate to them?

I have not seen that article, but I do not think that I can accept at this stage that the full range of policies should not apply to development areas. We are convinced that the full range must apply.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the total tonnage of coal being used by the Central Electricity Board; what is the cost per therm in the respective areas; and what is the projection of costs in 10 years time.

68·9 million tons in 1968–69 and about 70 million tons in 1969–70. I will, with permission, circulate cost figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It would not be practicable to give estimates of the costs of coal in ten years' time.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in the interests of this nation, it is time that the denigration of coal and its miners ceased? Would he not agree that when people opposed to the mining industry compare its costs to those of other sources of energy, they are generally not very factual?

It is not the only area in which people want to quote figures without adequate study in depth. I agree with my hon. Friend.

What progress has been made in the negotiations for a contract between the C.E.G.B. and the National Coal Board for its total coal requirements?

This is a matter for those two bodies to negotiate. I cannot make any statement on the state of their negotiations.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied that the change of regime in Libya will not endanger energy supplies to this country; if he will seek to ensure that security of supply is given a higher priority than cheapness; and if he will make a statement.

The recent change of regime in Libya has not affected oil supplies to this country in any way and 1 have noted the new regime's undertaking to honour all oil concessions. The Government's fuel policy pays full attention to security of supply; diversification of sources is reducing the risk of a shortfall in supplies to the United Kingdom.

But would not my right hon. Friend agree that such a situation as exists in Libya is the cause of great anxiety when we depend so much on energy supplies outwith this country? How long has the contract to run with which we were saddled by hon. Gentlemen opposite for very expensive gas from Libya?

I cannot give my hon. Friend offhand that last statistic, but I can understand his zeal for wanting us to take into account—as we do—the usefulness of domestic supplies of energy, but I cannot cut off oil supplies. What I can do is to assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step to ensure our security in respect of oil supplies.