asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the proposal for a BAC3–11 aircraft.

asked the Minister of Technology what reply he has sent to the British Aircraft Corporation on the proposals for BAC3–11 aircraft.

Discussions between my staff and the British Aircraft Corporation about its proposal for the BAC3–11 are continuing.

I recognise the great care which the Minister has to exercise in these cases, but he will realise the anxiety of many of us that this has been going on for rather a long time, and that many are afraid that we might miss the market. Can the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit about the date when he perhaps hopes to arrive at a decision?

It has been discussed for a long time, but the proposals themselves came forward only recently. This is a very good example of partnership between Government and industry, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting us in this. There is no risk of missing the market, but we need to consider this against very strict economic criteria.

Does not my right hon. Friend find it rather odd that, in circum- stances like this, the Conservative Party should seem to disavow any kind of continuing dialogue or partnership between Government and industry?

It is a curious coincidence that on the day after the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in which he said that the Government should move out of industry, we have a further appeal from his hon. Friend for Government money—[HON. MEMBERS: "Assistance."]—to be made available for this private enterprise aircraft. I shall be interested to know the view of the Opposition.

If the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to read my speech in full—I shall send it to him—he will realise that it referred to the small sector, but a very important one, of British industry, of which the Government are clients. Will he accept that it is wrong for the Government to interpret the whole of British industry as being in the same state as about 10 per cent. of British industry of which the Government are clients?

The Government are not clients for the BAC3–11. The airlines are clients, and after about five years of deafening silence the right hon. Gentleman ought to consult his colleagues before he makes weekend speeches like that one.

asked the Minister of Technology what investigation he has made into the effects of present investment incentives on the distribution of capital and labour intensive industrial development inside and outside development areas; and if he will publish the results.

As explained to the House on 16th October, the study we are making of the effectiveness of the investment grant scheme will assist an understanding of these effects. The question of publication will be considered when the study is completed.—[Vol. 788, c. 124.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern at the fact that there are no means by which the country can know what value for money it is getting from Government expenditure in this field? As unemployment in each of the development areas is now higher than it was at the end of 1966, has not the time come, not simply for an interdepartmental inquiry, but for a full-scale independent inquiry into this matter?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has really understood the changes which have taken place in the employment position in some of the developing areas. There has been a rapid rundown in the coal industry, and in some of the other traditional industries, but there is no evidence to show that over a period investment grants would have cost more than the previous system of investment allowances operated under the Conservative Party.

Has my hon. Friend had his attention drawn to an article by Malcolm Crawford, in yesterday's Sunday Times, where it is clearly indicated that Conservative policy on investment incentives is still in a somewhat confused state?

I saw that report, and entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It shows that the House must know a lot more from hon. Gentlemen opposite about what they will do with investment grants if they ever get the opportunity.

As there are 300,000 fewer people employed in the development areas now than there were in 1965, do the Government really think that they are getting value for money for their regional policies?

I am absolutely convinced that had it not been for investment grants the unemployment position in the regions would have been much worse than it is today.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give, for each of the first three quarters of 1969, his estimate of the value at constant 1963 prices of investment in manufacturing industries and in the distributive trades, respectively.

The following is the information: for manufacturing industry, £306 million, £343 million and £371 million; for the distributive trades, £85 million. £82 million and £85 million.

Will the Minister confirm that those figures mean that, at an annual rate, investment in these fields is now running at more than £400,000 less than the national plan targets?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, in so far as investment is a top priority, top priority has had to be given to investment in manufacturing industry for export purposes.

Is the Minister aware that the O.E.C.D. Report says that capital investment in British manufacturing industry is about half the rate of that of our competitors in Western Europe? Is not this a terrible condemnation of the Government's economic policy?

The hon. Member will know that this is a situation which has existed for a considerable time. He will see from the Order Paper that there is a later Question dealing with this matter.

asked the Minister of Technology what study he has made of the age of machinery in use in British manufacturing industry.

This has been covered in a number of individual industrial studies carried out or sponsored by the Department.

Does the Minister consider that the present investment incentives have materially increased the rate at which this machinery and equipment has been written off?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a substantial upturn in the rate of investment, and we consider that this is highly desirable. On the other hand, we equally recognise that we want, so far as we can, to reduce the average age of machinery in industry. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite found exactly the same problem when they were in office.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give in constant 1963 prices the amount by which he estimates annual investment in manufacturing industry has increased between 1965 and 1969.

About £130 million.

Is the Minister satisfied that this is sufficient to provide the extra capacity that we need both for exports and for import saving?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware—I made the point myself at Question Time last week—that the investment levels currently indicated are at least compatible with, and somewhat ahead of, those comtemplated in "The Task Ahead".

Is the Minister aware that if industrial investment had grown at the rate envisaged in the National Plan of 7 per cent., it would have been £335 million more last year than it actually was? What has happened to planning now?

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the figures I gave were of an increase of £130 million over two years. During the last two years flat the party opposite was in office, the figure fell by £300 million.

On the argument of investment allowances versus investment grants, can my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the article in yesterday's Sunday Times not only spoke of the confusion of the Opposition's case, but cast serious doubt on their claim that investment allowances were less costly?

Certainly, that would seem to be compatible with the evidence which we have. There would be no real saving to the Treasury from the Opposition's scheme. In view of the enthusiasm displayed by hon. Members opposite for cost-effective analysis of our present scheme, it is remarkable that they never bothered to carry out any analysis of their own. What it comes down to is that they prefer to go back to a system of sub rosa subsidy.

asked the Minister of Technology by how much he estimates that investment in manufacturing industries during 1970 will exceed that in 1969 in actual terms and at constant 1963 prices, respectively.

Manufacturers' forecasts given in the latest Investment Intentions Inquiry indicated a rise of about 10 per cent. at constant (1963) prices; information at current prices is not available.

Is the Minister entirely satisfied with the overall control of investment in the economy? The Minister of Technology seems to be responsible for manufacturing investment and the President of the Board of Trade for investment in the distributive and service industries. Who in the Government is responsible for overall investment, and what is he doing about it?

Of course, the Treasury has overall control of the economy, and within that overall control other Departments take certain sectional areas of control. It has to be divided in some way and this seems to be an appropriate form of division.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give for the latest available date the percentage of gross national product devoted to investment in manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom compared with the United States of America, Germany and Japan, from information available to him from international sources.

Investment in manufacturing and construction industries as a percentage of gross national product at current market prices in 1967 was: United Kingdom 4·0 per cent; United States of America, 3·3 per cent.; and West Germany, 5·8 per cent. The nearest comparable figure for Japan was 9·8 per cent.

If Japan and Germany are investing at such a much higher rate than we are, how can our manufacturing industry be expected to meet that competition in the 1970s with the equipment of the 1950s and 1960s? What are the Government doing about it?

This is a situation which prevailed during the 1950s and the early 1960s, when hon. Members opposite were in office, and they were not very successful in dealing with it. Rather than criticise the upturn which has taken place in the level of investment, they should surely now be welcoming any measure that will close the gap.

Is there not a direct relationship between the level of Government expenditure and investment in manufacturing industry, and is not investment at current prices in both Germany and Japan twice what it is in this country? Is not their level of Government expenditure considerably lower?

The hon. Member will know that there are divers factors which contribute to the differences between different countries, in particular the stage at which they have arrived in their industrialisation. The hon. Member has taken one variable and has tried to make it the key factor. It certainly is not.

Is not the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asking for still more millions of Government money?

asked the Minister of Technology what forecast he has made of the production and the registration of new cars in 1970.

There are many uncertainties, but we expect increases compared with last year.

Will nothing check the complacency of the Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the state of the British car industry? Why cannot hire-purchase restrictions be raised this afternoon, and why do the interests of this great industry have to be subject to the whims of the electoral timetable of the Prime Minister?

The industry is not subjected to the whims of either the Chancellor or my right hon. Friend the Minister, nor am I able to guarantee that the emotional reaction of either will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. He has asked for an estimate. We are satisfied that there should be some increase in the coming year.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that during the last year, while the motor car industry has been complaining about the fall in the home market, it has not even been able to hold that part of the home market which was its own and that foreign car competitors have been able to make substantial inroads into the British market? What can my right hon. Friend do to help the car industry to fight off this foreign competition?

The home motor industry has to face international competition and it is disappointing that such inroads were made last year. This is a matter for the industry. I am sure that it is aware of the need to be competitive.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement concerning motor car production for home and export markets.

Total production of motor cars in the first 11 months—forty-eight weeks—of 1969 was 1,569,028. On a weekly average basis this was 62 per cent. lower than in the corresponding months of 1968—forty-seven weeks—a 14 per cent. fall in home market production being partly offset by a 3 per cent. rise in export production.

Is the Minister aware that home production of motor cars is now at the lowest level since 1962 and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the then Chancellor, when confronted with this situation in 1962, dropped purchase tax dramatically, from 45 per cent. to 25 per cent., on 5th November, 1962? Would he not recommend the present Chancellor to take similar dramatic action to prevent widespread unemployment in my constituency and elsewhere among motor car workers?

On the latter point, there are more people working in the motor industry, and were in 1969, than in previous years and there less short time. The hon. Gentleman's recollection of history is a bit selective, because among other consequences of the policies pursued then we had a huge deficit in 1962.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very serious situation? If he is not able to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to relax total hire-purchase restrictions for the moment, would be investigate the possibility of a relaxation of hire-purchase restrictions on second-hand cars, where the bulk of the log jam is in home sales?

We have looked at the secondhand car proposition and the representations made to us, about which statements have been made in the House. I would urge my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to adopt an alarmist note here. We have been in very close contact with the industry and we understand each other's position. We will continue to watch this. I would not accept the recommendations made by either the hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend as representing the right remedy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not underestimate the importance of this matter? Is he aware that while our production has been falling, in other competing countries home production has been rising and, more important still, investment as a result of high profitability has been going up much faster than in this country? Is he further aware that, because of this, our competitive position is being eroded, which is very serious?

The right hon. Gentleman was in at the very beginning of the problem we have had to deal with, namely correcting the very substantial deficit, which has involved a restriction on the home market. It is no good appearing at this stage as if he had not left us the legacy with which the Government have to deal.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern among West Midlands car workers at the fact that imports of foreign cars are rising and that these are adding to the deficit difficulties we have to face? At a time when the home market is depressed, is he aware that they feel, rightly, that we should not be importing 10½ per cent. of our total? What does he intend to do about it?

There are two answers to my hon. Friend. One is that imported cm are operating against exactly the same background of domestic credit re- striction as home-produced cars. Secondly, the percentage of cars imported into the United Kingdom is still very much lower than say, in the case of Germany, which has a very flourishing car industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that if his Government had acted more sensitively in 1964 and 1965 they would not have had to impose the savage stop in 1966, which has led to the present problem?

This is not an occasion to go over history, but if the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to take the measures necessary in the summer of 1964 this would never have arisen.

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

asked the Minister of Technology when he will publish the National Economic Development Council's report on the motor manufacturing industry.

Publication of this report is a matter for the National Economic Development Office. I understand that it will probably be published early in February.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the report has been substantially leaked this morning already in The Times Business News? Is he further aware that many people are sick and tired of the motor industry being used as regulator for the economy as a whole; and that it simply will not be able to hold the export lead which it has secured over the last few months if it does not secure a larger share of the home market? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to do something about it?

In the second part of his supplementary question my hon. Friend seems to be going into substance which may well be covered in the report. I would therefore ask him to await an opportunity to study that report. As to his comment on the Press, I am sure that he and hon. Members will be glad to see whether or not that was an accurate newspaper report when they have an opportunity to study the report.

When will the Government learn that a flourishing export market can be sustained only by a sound home market?

Again, this is a matter which I think the hon. Member expects to find covered by the report. I would ask him to await the publication of the report so that he can study what it says on the subject.

Since Press comment on this report has been going on now for some weeks, leading to a fairly widespread expectation of relaxation of the restrictions on the home market, would it not be better for the Government to make these relaxations sooner rather than later?

Again, I think that my hon. Friend is anticipating what he hopes to find in the report. I think that if we are to discuss the report in the House we should wait until it has been made available to all hon. Members.

In view of the considerable speculation there is about the contents of the report—even if it is known—would the hon. Gentleman make representations to his superiors that the time has come for a statement by the Government?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I can only say that we expect this report to be published in the very near future.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now institute an inquiry into the cost effectiveness of the regional employment premium.

In association with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, we are considering what form any such inquiry might take.

If no such inquiry has taken place to date, on what was the decision based that it was right to drop the selective employment premium while retaining the regional employment premium? Was this based simply on hunch?

No. The House was informed when the Local Employment Bill was before it and during the Committee stage, in which, I understand, the hon. Member took part, the full reasons for this.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an acute shortage of skilled labour in the development areas, particularly in the shipyards? What is the point of subsidising labour when it is in short supply?

That supplementary question does not arise out of the original Question. As to the shortage of labour, however, it is true that in certain selected industries in the development areas there is a shortage, but, broadly speaking, the regional employment premium has assisted employment prospects.

asked the Minister of Technology the total public investment in Beagle Aircraft Limited to date; and the total loss made by the company to date.

Total Government expenditure in connection with the present company, viz. Beagle Aircraft Ltd., which was formed by Her Majesty's Government in July, 1968, is £2,659,000. This includes the cost of acquisition of the assets of the previous company from Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd. The draft accounts of the company for the period ended 31st March, 1969, indicate a trading loss of £1·1 million for the eight-month period.

Would not the hon. Gentleman now agree that the original estimate of the sum needed to make this project viable was very large indeed? With the gift of hindsight, is it not now clear that the original owners of Beagle were right in their conclusion not to carry the matter any further?

My right hon. Friend dealt with this very fully in his statement. He said that, while we hoped that the company would be viable, when the new board examined the possibilities of the company in the light of the revised estimates and looked at the market, they reckoned that considerably more money and, perhaps, a little longer time would be needed before a proper entry could be made into this difficult though important market.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern being felt by many firms which are owed a great deal of money by Beagle Aircraft? In view of the Government's involvement, does he not feel that they have a moral obligation to do something about these debts?

We are aware of the number of these firms, but that is a tot ally different question from the one on the Order Paper.

But will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it was a very short time prior to the insolvency of this company that the Government decided to purchase it? Is it not clear that it should have been possible to foresee the capital requirements much more accurately than was done? Should not an inquiry be held?

The investigation of the company showed that it seemed possible that it could be viable. It is just that the market proved particularly difficult. The Government decision, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement, was that, given the difficulties and the priorities required for Government money, he did not consider that this was a top priority.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the discussions between the United Kingdom, Germany and Holland on the development of gas centrigues for nuclear fuel enrichment.

All that I can add to the statement I made to the House on 19th December, 1969, is that the Federal German and Netherlands Governments have communicated the draft of the Agreement to the European Commission in accordance with Article 103 of the Euratom Treaty.—[Vol. 793, c. 1732–40.]

Would my right hon. Friend comment on the bellicose and naïve attitudes attributed to him by Mr. Leonard Beaton in The Times on this subject?

I read The Times, and I did see this article. I can only underline again that this is another vivid example of a good basis of partnership between Government and industry.

Referring back to the original statement, when will we get the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman promised?

The Bill on the Nuclear Fuel Company will be coming soon.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied that there is sufficient reliable electricity generating capacity to meet peaks of demand during cold spells; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) what is the total generating capacity of the electrical supply industry in megawatts at midwinter for this year and last, and the spare capacity margin over maximum demand expressed as a percentage;

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is satisfied that electricity generating capacity will be adequate to meet peak demand during the present winter; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology what has been the maximum demand for electricity so far this winter; and what was the margin of spare generating capacity then available.

The estimated maximum potential demand so far this winter has been 39,655 megawatts. There was no spare capacity available at the time and voltage reductions were necessary in some parts of the country. Apart from voltage reductions amounting to 3 per cent to 6 per cent. on 11 days the C.E.G.B. has continued to meet demand and it and the manufacturers are working hard to overcome the plant difficulties to which I referred in my answer on 15th December.

But is the right hon. Gentleman not immensely concerned that, after assurances by him and other Ministers earlier this year that there would be adequate capacity to meet all demand, we have had this amount of load shedding? Second, when does he expect that the 22 of the 47 500-megawatt sets which have developed serious faults will be available to meet the demand?

Of course, I am naturally concerned and I have expressed that view in answer to earlier Questions. I cannot give an exact figure, because it depends on technical complexities, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice the different attitude with which the Americans have treated such technical troubles as they have had with the 747, compared to the treatment accorded by the party opposite to the technical difficulties which we have experienced.

But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in column 1466 of HANSARD for 26th July, there was an answer which said that there would be 18 per cent. spare capacity? Is he now telling the country that, as far back as July, he had no idea that there would be these breakdowns? Why was no action taken then?

If he has followed this, the hon. Gentleman will know that the technical difficulties arising with the big 500-megawatt sets have been the reason why the margin of capacity which was provided for and which was referred to in that Answer, has not been able, on the days which I mentioned, to meet the full demand this winter. That is the sole and simple explanation.

But is not one of the reasons for public concern the excess of optimistic statements by spokesmen for the nationalised industries? I am thinking not only of electricity but of coal. Cannot the Government do something about that?

My understanding of the statements made in the House was that, when asked, Ministers gave the gross margin of operating capacity which would be provided in the course of the winter and that was absolutely right. In the event, there have been the technical difficulties which I have mentioned, but, on looking back, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will think that there has been any misleading of public opinion on this matter.

But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the margin of spare capacity has now completely evaporated? In these circumstances, does he think that it would have been wiser to have gone for a little more flexible plant mix? Are these faults due more to design or to manufacture?

I do not believe that I had better comment on the technical aspects of this, because this is a matter on which one would expect an engineering answer. The hon. Gentleman will know that, because of the time that it takes to erect these stations, the decisions underlying the first part of his question were taken many years ago.

But is it not somewhat surprising that, after 24 years of a nationalised electricity supply industry—and the weather is not too bad, either—there should be insufficient spare capacity, a shortage of equipment and the suggestions which we have had from some spokesmen of the industry that there might be power cuts?

My right hon. Friend is, I think, confusing the shortage of capacity with the technical difficulties of the 500-megawatt sets—and the production of those sets is not undertaken in the public sector.

Would the Minister not agree that it is unfair to make all these criticisms of the Central Electricity Generating Authority, when the plant which has given rise to these faults was constructed by private industry? Therefore, should not at least some of the criticism be directed against companies like A.E.I., which supplied the faulty equipment?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is himself an engineer, for making that point. At the same time, I deeply respect the C.E.G.B. for not having emphasised this point because it was well aware of the effect which this might have on British export performance. Trying to import political advant-

asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received from consumers about shortage of smokeless fuel; and what replies he has sent.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), on 19th January. The replies varied with the type of complaint.—[Vol. 794, c. 4.]

Is it not a major castigation of Government Departments that Lord Robens should criticise Government Departments for a lack of liaison on this matter? How many smokeless zones—this is one of the problems here—is he recommending should not be activated, which is meeting the criticism of the Minister of Housing?

Six zones have been suspended at the request of the local authorties. As for the comments of the Chairman of the National Coal Board, to some extent, they were a good example of poetic licence, but not of practical accuracy.^*

asked the Minister of Technology having regard to lengthy deliveries of many classes and specifications of steels and rolled and re-rolled steel products affecting adversely manufacturing industries, what steps he is now taking to expedite steel deliveries generally in the interests of improving export performance in 1970; and whether he will make a statement concerning the [^* Note: See Official Report, 27th January, 1970 Col. 1205.] age into technical difficulties is one of the least attractive methods of the party opposite in all these matters.

I keep in close touch with the industry which is making strenuous efforts to meet demands. Last year, despite the strikes, output was 6 per cent. up and delivery times should improve as new plant becomes fully operational.

Since strikes last year cost the consumer 750,000 tons of steel, why has nationalisation of steel been characterised, first, by ever-lengthening deliveries, second, by ever-increasing prices, and, third, by ever-increasing imports to meet the requirements of consumers which the industry here cannot fulfil?

The hon. Gentleman's talk of ever-increasing deliveries and prices is merely a description of the international steel scene, where there has been a sudden uprush in demand in all countries. All countries face very similar problems to our own. Far from prices having been higher in this country than in others, they have been a great deal lower and will still remain below the prices in Europe.

asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received about shortages of supplies of light steel products to the building and construction industry; and what action he has taken.

Some firms are experiencing difficulties in obtaining supplies of reinforcement material, but I am satisfied that the steel industry is doing all it can to meet the sudden upsurge in home demand resulting from scarce and expensive foreign supplies. I shall continue to keep a close watch on the situation.

While thanking him for that Answer, may I ask the Minister to keep in mind the fact that a number of building firms in East Anglia are experiencing delivery delays of four months or more? Will he give an assurance that when the tempo of building and construction picks up again, after the winter, there will not be a further deterioration in the situation?

I hope that the hon. Member is not implying any shortfall in the performance of the Steel Corporation in respect of these articles. The production of these rods is currently 50 per cent. higher than it was last year. It is proceeding at maximum pace. The House should understand that the reason for the difficulty is that a great part of this trade was supplied from abroad when foreign prices were cheaper than those of the Corporation, but the sharp rise in foreign prices led people who normally contracted from abroad for a large part of their supplies to come rather unexpectedly and suddenly on to local production.

Notwithstanding the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave about a rise in production, which I querry, is he aware that most of the steel stockholding companies are at least 50 per cent. down on what they normally hold of this type of material and that this is through lack of supplies from the steel makers? Can he explain that?

The hon. Member means lack of supply from their traditional steel makers from abroad, which was normally 32 per cent. higher than is the case this year. It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. The stockholders' supplies are, of course, down. There has been a huge rush by contractors to buy the cheap rods which are available from the Steel Corporation, instead of depending on overseas supplies. Despite a 50 per cent. increase in production, stocks are down and deliveries are difficult.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he intends to take to ensure that a fair proportion of public contracts for computers and ancillary equipment go to development areas.

The Government's policy is to encourage the development of the British computer industry and preference is given in awarding Government contracts to computers made in Britain. Wherever possible the needs of the development areas are taken into account.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is not quite the situation as companies such as Burroughs Machines in Fife see it? Is it not in the national interest that a bigger proportion of computer contracts should go to companies in development areas? Will my hon. Friend say when he intends to send me a reply to the letter which I sent to him before Christmas, with the statistics supplied to me by Burroughs? I have not yet had a reply.

I will certainly look into the matter of that letter and get a reply off to my hon. Friend as quickly as possible.

Will the Minister clarify a point in his original Answer? Did I hear him say that the Government give priority to computers made in Britain or to computers made in Britain by British companies?

To computers made in Britain.

asked the Minister of Technology what is now the share of development costs expected to be recouped by a levy on the sales of Concorde.

We hope to recover some part of the development cost. The precise amount will depend on the level of sales achieved. It is difficult to give an estimate of this because it depends on a number of factors which are necessarily still uncertain.

Surely the House should be give: a more precise answer than that. Has the right hon. Gentleman indicated to the British Aircraft Corporation the target which it should have in mind in the market research which it has conducted and the sales price which it is quoting? Are they expected to aim at recovering for the British taxpayer at least one-third of the very substantial development costs invested in this aircraft?

It is a very complicated matter because it depends where one fixes the price, and that in turn determines to some extent the size of the market and the recovery by the Government under the levy arrangement. We are discussing the price. It is not yet settled. The reason it is uncertain is that the market cannot yet be known, although we are moving towards a situation in which the market for the Concorde will become more apparent.

Is my right hon. hon. Friend aware that in the publicity which it has issued the British Aircraft Corporation is writing off the cost of the R. and D. althogether? Will he ask the Corporation to correct that misleading publicity?

I should need to read the brochure before I assented to that view. The B.A.C. knows very well that there is a levy Arranged to be on the margin in the selling price, and I find it hard to believe that my hon. Friend has not misunderstood the situation.

As one who has consistently supported the Concorde project, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the very large sums of money involved, he will seriously consider publishing a White Paper informing the House and the country of all the details and of the prospects, good and bad, so that we know where we are and we may perhaps debate the matter later?

We have published quite a lot of information and the Committee cross-examined officials and others on the subject and published their comments. I will certainly consider what the hon. and gallant Member suggested. In practice, until we get to the point at which orders are forthcoming, it may not be possible to give firm estimates about the future of the project because in the end it will be determined in the market place.

Have the British and French Governments agreed whether the Concorde shall be sold at the same price irrespective of where it is manufactured? Can my right hon. Friend say whether this depends upon an agreement already reached between the two Governments about the appropriate level at which the levy should be recouped?

I should like to look at that question, but my understanding is that the Concorde will be sold at the same price, becausse there is no French Concorde and no British Concorde; each aircraft is constructed in both countries, though some of the aircraft are assembled at Bristol and some in Toulouse.

asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has to finance part of the capital requirements of the nationalised industries for 1968–69 to 1973–74, outlined in Command Paper No. 4234, in the form of a private equity or debenture participation.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite evident from that White Paper that the capital requirements, in as much as they are financed from domestic sources, must come either from higher prices or from taxation? Will he not therefore diminish his political prejudices and join with those of us who seek to tap a wider private capital market in this fast-growing area of expenditure?

If the present financing system of the nationalised industries derives from my political prejudices, these at any rate appear to have been shared by predecessor Conservative Governments. In fact, they are sensible financial arrangements. The amusing possibilities opened by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion must, I fear, be resisted.

Does the Minister not accept that unless the Government rescue Government borrowing from the public, which has slumped so disastrously under the present Administration, then, as my hon. Friend said, if the proposals in his Question are rejected, investment will come only from price increases or taxation increases?

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the Government have any difficulty in borrowing what is required for public purposes. On the contrary, the Government are at present net repayers of debt.

Would the right hon. Gentleman qualify that by saying, "Borrowing for public purposes at a record high price to the taxpayer"?

In that respect, of course, sharing the experience of every major Government in the world.

No.

asked the Minister of Technology what action he has taken to prepare the people living in the Scottish Highlands and Islands, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Wales and Devon and Cornwall for the sonic bangs soon to be tested in their areas: and if he will offer compensation for loss of amenity and for noise in addition to that for damage to property and persons.

Officials have discussed the proposed Concorde test route with the administrative authorities in these areas. Compensation will be paid only for damage caused directly by sonic bangs.

Is not that entirely unsatisfactory? Does not the French experience suggest that considerable disturbance, other than direct damage, will be caused by sonic bangs? Will not my hon. Friend look into the whole question again?

There is a later Question about the French experience in this respect. My hon. Friend will agree that to try to evaluate loss of amenities in cash terms is very difficult. Some of the other suggestions made are difficult to quantify.

In view of the importance of this project to the nation, will the hon. Member confirm that it is not unreasonable to ask some people to give up some amenity in the national interest?

That is one of the very big problems of modern technology—how much are we willing to give up in the furtherance of technology? It is a decision for the nation as a whole.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that the French Government has paid £143,000 in claims for damages by sonic bangs and that accidents caused by these bangs have caused the deaths of 13 people; and if he will take these matters into account before proceeding further with the Concorde production programme.

I understand that the French Government did pay the sum mentioned in compensation for damage caused by sonic bangs. Their investigations, however, did not reveal that any deaths were directly caused by sonic bangs.

Is not the operative word in my hon. Friend's answer the word "directly"? Were not the deaths caused indirectly? Be that as it may, is it not also the case that part of the misleading publicity to which I have referred, and of which his right hon. Friend has not yet heard—I will send him a copy—describes the sonic bang of the Concorde as a low rumble which will disturb no one? Does he think that is an accurate description?

I have never heard it described as a low rumble, but I will look forward to reading what my hon. Friend has to send. As for the French experience, there was one fatal accident involving the collapse of a farm building following a sonic bang. It was found afterwards that the building was in a highly unsafe condition and could have collapsed at any moment. The effects of the sonic bang will be carefully assessed during the tests before the Government decide how civil supersonic flying over this country should be regulated.

Would the hon. Gentleman take some action to warn people about what they can do to prevent damage—to prevent not just one pane in a greenhouse going, but the lot? Is he aware that nothing has so far been done by the Ministry and that it ought to be done soon?

The Ministry has been having many discussions, for instance, with ecclesiastical authorities, about our cathedrals. We have discussed the possibilities of damage and of examining these buildings. We have advised that buildings over the test route in an unsafe condition should be attended to.

Would my hon. Friend reject in no uncertain terms the statement put forward by the official Opposition spokesman that somehow, in the national interest, I think it was put, we should expect people 1.0 give up amenity and accept the case that if there is noise and disturbance it will incommode people, but we will have to accept it? Is he aware that many of us have constituents engaged in this vital work and believe that it is a technical problem to do with the aircraft? We have to solve the disadvantageous problems. Would he make that clear?

There is always a balance to be struck in this. The important thing is that test flying starting during the summer will be carefully observed and evaluated before decisions are made as to civil flying over land.

asked the Minister of Technology what advice he has now received from the Advisory Committee on Legal Units of Measurement on the need for a Standing Advisory Body on Units and Standards of Measurement in the place of the commission envisaged in the Weights and Measures Act, 1963.

The Committee has not yet been asked to consider this problem, but it will be invited to do so as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Committee itself will advise on the matters which were to be assigned to the Commission envisaged in the 1963 Act.

As it is now some months since the Minister's statement on the subject and the Weights and Measures Department is now split between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology, can we have some guidance on which Department will be responsible for future legislation, particularly on metrication—the Ministry of Technology or the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade?

The hon. Gentleman has followed this, and knows what has happened and why. Metrication was given to us to look after because of its importance in industrial standards. I do not believe that the residual responsibilities in the Board of Trade will be any barrier here. We are expecting advice from this body to reach us in time for legislation.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now review the regulations which the Atomic Energy Authority follows in making decisions on the award of pensions to employees on ill-health grounds, with a view to making provision for employees exposed to radiation hazards who subsequently contract leukaemia: and if he will make a statement.

I do not think that the arrangements in the Authority's schemes need to be amended. However, I will circulate a fuller reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is serious concern about this matter, especially since the unfortunate case of Mr. McDonald? Would he agree that any employee who is exposed to radiation hazards and who subsequently contracts leukaemia ought really to be given the benefit of the doubt in pension entitlement?

With regard to the personal case mentioned by my hon. Friend, he knows that I have this in my hands at the moment. The argument that he puts forward in his supplementary question raises quite different considerations and he had better read my fuller reply before he pursues this.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to set up joint committees with those Eastern European countries with which Great Britain has technical agreements; and if he will make a statement.

Proposals along these lines have been discussed with the Soviet authorities and are under consideration.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the technical agreements can be a serious commitment to scientific and technical collaboration or they can be nothing, and if we do not follow the French Government in preparing the manned committees, involving industry and Government, we shall not gain the benefits about which he is talking? Would he agree that other countries than Russia are involved here?

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I do not believe that a big machine is always necessary to get the results out of the agreements. As I have told my hon. Friend and the House, we are considering these proposals.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) whether, in view of the financial position of the British Steel Corporation, he proposes to approve further price increases this year;

The Government have decided that they will raise no objection to an increase in the British Steel Corporation's prices of 10 per cent. on average. This takes account of the Corporation's formal programme of cost-saving, which is designed to save £15 million in the year to September. I am circulating details on these closely-related matters in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what criteria he has given permission for the rise being accepted by the Government? Does he recall how the Government were criticised in June of last year for refusing the appropriate rise asked for by the Steel Corporation? Can he say what effect this rise will have on many steel using industries, including our motor car industry? What does he propose to do about that?

The criteria mainly concerned are, first, the competitiveness of the steel industry at the new prices and, secondly, the commercial viability of the Corporation earning its living and making a contribution to the development of the steel industry. Prices will remain very competitive with those of other producing countries.

Surely it is self-evident that the British Steel Corporation is here seeking to take advantage of buoyant market conditions. If this is acceptable to the Government in the case of a nationalised monopoly, why do the Government still seek to interfere with the rest of British industry when it attempts to do the same sort of thing?

There is a great deal of difference between one industry and another, quite irrespective of whether it is nationally owned or privately owned. The particular circumstance of the steel industry is that it has already held its prices very substantially below world market prices for a long time. It is now necessary, in order that this industry should make a moderate return on its capital, to bring its prices nearer into line with world prices.

rose—

Mr. Christopher Price—Sir Keith Joseph.

rose—

But is it not the fact—

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Did I not distinctly hear you call Question No. 31?

It is not the first time that I change my mind in calling Members at Question Time. Sir Keith Joseph.

But is it not the fact that if a privately-owned industry—one in competition amongst itself—had raised prices far more than the cost increase, which is what has happened in the case of the British Steel Corporation, the Government would have made an almighty fuss, and would have referred that industry to one of their many tribunals?

We did, in fact, refer this industry to the Board and I will not have any difficulty in deciding to send the industry to the Board again when it might be useful to do so, but the last reference was only very recent. This price rise is fully justified, and that is the unanimous view of the Government, who have given very close consideration to it.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the effect of the quota system for imports of jute goods in its first year of operation, and about his plans for future adjustments in quotas.

The quota system for imports of jute goods came into effect on 1st May, 1969, and has therefore not yet been in operation for a full year. The Department is currently reviewing the operation of the system with a view to deciding the level of the quotas in the year beginning 1st May, 1970. Present indications are that in the first quota year an increase in imports from Asian countries of the jute goods subject to quota restrictions will be more than offset by a decline in imports from other sources, notably E.F.T.A. and the Irish Republic. We hope shortly to announce quota levels for the 1970–71 quota year.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary noticed that following the introduction of the quota system there has been a marked increase in redundancies locally in Scotland? In view of this, and in view of the pledge which the Prime Minister gave in 1964 in Dundee that jute jobs would be safe under Labour, what does he propose to do to control the situation when he comes to revise the quotas?

The hon. Gentleman's Question relates to the quota system. Both sides of industry have attributed the decline in demand for Dundee jute goods, not to imports but mainly to the effect of credit restrictions. Another very important factor is the many substitutes appearing for jute which end users are taking up.

asked the Minister of Technology what representations have been made to him to permit the importation of coking coal; and what reply he has sent.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a world shortage of coking coal and that representations to him on this matter may well be imminent? Will he resist the importation of coking coal whilst pits in such places as North-West Durham which still have reserves of coking coal are being progressively run down?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in referring to a worldwide shortage, but there is as yet no shortage here. A study is being undertaken by the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board to establish whether there will be any shortfall, and we hope to have the report very soon.

Will my hon. Friend condemn the S.N.P. in Scotland which is in favour of the importation of coking coal and, which at the same time, for political party purposes goes round scaremongering about threatened pit closures which many pit managers are valiantly trying to prevent?

I think that we are all accustomed to the inconsistencies we get from small fringe parties.

Will the hon. Gentleman do something about this absurd situation whereby Scottish steelworks are traditionally expected to pay £1 a ton more for coking coal than the average price in England and Wales; and try to do something about the very real problem which is restricting expansion of Scottish steel?

Hon. Members opposite really must make up their minds whether they want the industry to operate according to commercial criteria. It seems proper that in this case charges should as far as possible be related to actual cost.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the extent of the research and development work now being carried out by research establishments, research associations and other organisations for which he is responsible, on 500 megawatt and larger electric power generators; and what is the estimated annual expenditure.

The research Lind development work being carried out by the Central Electricity Generating Board on 500 MW units and larger is concentrated primarily on turbines, alternators, lubrication and bearings with the aim of realising in full the operating economies they are intended to achieve. The board's estimate of expenditure on this work in the current year is about £850,000, rising to nearly £1 million next year. The board is, of course, working in close collaboration with the manufacturers who themselves are carrying out the bulk of the overall research and development effort on these large units.

The installation of 500 megawatt, and subsequently larger, units presents this country with a problem. What steps are being taken to implement the Wilson Committee's Report, which recommended that any prototype should be tried for two years before subsequent models are ordered for general production?

These machines are so large and so expensive that inevitably the first one that is ordered is of itself a prototype. Any subsequent machine which is installed also has commissioning problems which are very much related to that of a prototype. I do not think building a machine prior to its installation for test purposes and not using it in a power station would justify the expense involved.