asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the passenger surcharge obtainable by airlines on Concorde flights.

Our studies and those of the manufacturers suggest that airlines should be able to charge a substantial premium for the benefits Concorde will offer. The size of this premium will depend on the airlines' judgment of how Concorde can most profitably be operated.

In view of the statements by responsible representatives of Pan American, is it not clear that the responsibility for going ahead with the whole project rested with the Conservative Party, which did not carry out the kind of studies which we would today regard as normal and essential? Will my hon. Friend go into this further and see whether he is to get the kind of surcharge which will make this a viable proposition?

The decision about a surcharge and how it will operate is one for the airlines, and there are many ways in which to arrange it. Some may decide to have a single class with a surcharge while others may decide to have different classes with a surcharge relating to each. I have no doubt that Concorde will be a profitable investment for the world's airlines.

asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to authorise further production models of Concorde.

The release of further production authorities will be decided jointly by the British and French Governments in the light of the progress of the development programme.

Will my right hon. Friend make a statement to the House before proceeding further with this?

I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. Six starts have been authorised, as the House knows. The next batch would be for a further four, to take place in the summer. Long-dated materials have been made available for the first seven to 10. The position is that I shall have to discuss this further with my French colleague before we make any more progress.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Concorde project is still highly favoured in Bristol?

I do not need to be reminded of that. If any hon. Member had urged again that the project should be cancelled, I intended to take the opportunity of saying that it was time that the country took pride in this brilliant achievement.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the Yorkshire and Humberside region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to improve the current employment difficulties in Sunderland.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the East Midlands region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the South-West region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the North-Western region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the Northern region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the West-Midland region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

The Government have taken a great number of important steps over the country as a whole to reduce the hardships and difficulties of redundancies and unemployment. We have now developed a wide and flexible range of measures of assistance to industry, from which the less prosperous areas of the country are now benefiting.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the overriding need is for action to get rid of the continued stagnation of the economy of the country as a whole and the widespread lack of confidence by industry, which now restrains industry from making investment and is the real cause of the stagnation in the regions?

I could not accept any of that. The hon. Member oversimplifies the matter. He fails to understand some of the factors and forces which have been having an influence. We now have a healthy economy and a balance of payments surplus, something that hon. Members opposite did not experience in their last years of office. On the other hand, we have in every region of Britain a structure of industry, and, therefore, employment which is much more soundly based.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the regional employment situation, plus his recent inability to grant an i.d.c. in Raunds and Wellingborough—where one firm says that orders will now go to Belgium—will not only hinder much-needed diversification of industry in my constituency, but reflects the complete lack of confidence by the business community in the Government?

I cannot discuss individual i.d.c. cases, because to do so is not our practice. The hon. Member does a disservice to the East Midlands region, which I, too, represent, by suggesting that it is a depressed area. It is of course, not a depressed area, but a very prosperous area. Although there are difficulties in certain sections, by and large it is healthy.

As unemployment in the South-West is about three times greater than it was in 1966, and as all the talk has been not about unemployment but about redeployment, can the Minister say where these jobs have been redeployed to?

I do not deny that there are problems in the South-West. I know that the hon. Member and some of my hon. Friends who represent that part of the country are continually making representations to us, but this is really a very difficult matter. As I understand it, some hon. Members opposite would like to cut back on assistance to industry in development areas, and if that were done the position would be even worse than it is.

As so-called incentives to industry now cost the taxpayer nearly 18s. a week for every family in the country, how does the Minister explain the fact that in the North-West region there are more than 100,000 fewer people in employment than there were three years ago?

The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the changes which have taken place. There are several changes. More people are remaining in full-time education than was the case a few years ago; certainly more people are retiring before what we regard as the normal retiring age; and there have been tremendous increases in productivity. In the North-West generally we refused to accept the Hunt Committee recommendation that Merseyside should be rescheduled. We are about to designate North-East Lancashire as an intermediate area.

Is the Minister aware that the measures of which he is speaking have failed in the Northern region, where we have double the normal national unemployment? Can he say anything about the inquiry which his Department is making into the effectiveness of grants to development areas?

The investment grant scheme is under review. I think that the hon. Gentleman to some extent is anticipating the debate in which, no doubt, he will take part later today. I have no doubt that had it not been for our development area policies and vast assistance to industry, the North-East would be in a much more difficult position.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that for some five years the present Government have been taking steps to bring about a rise in the level of employment, which in fact for six years exactly the opposite has been taking place. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the process will be reversed?

The hon. Gentleman's Question specifically mentions the West Midlands. That is a very prosperous region. However, the hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the matter. What is really happening is a massive structural change in industry, and as a consequence the employment prospects are much more soundly based in that region than was previously the case.

Would my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that in order to improve and assist the industrial environment, and thereby employment, in Bradford, it is necessary to push on with the greatest urgency with the improvement of road communications, particularly from the North-West?

The question of road communications is one for my right hon.

How can the Minister be so complacent when the record of the present Government is that they have spent £300 million a year on development area policies, there have been 300,000 fewer jobs in the development areas as a result, and the rate of unemployment has doubled?

I should like to know from the Opposition exactly what their policy is. It is not a question of complacency by the Government about the development areas. I know what would happen if hon. Members opposite had their way: there would be a vast reduction in aid to the development areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on the north bank of Humberside we are grateful for having been designated as an intermediate area? May I ask what steps are being taken by local business men generally to take advantage of this new situation to promote employment in the area, in view of our heavy unemployment?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, we are taking steps to designate certain parts of Yorkshire and Humberside as an intermediate area. Inquiries are coming through, and they are encouraging.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will withhold approval from proposals by the Central Electricity Generating Board to convert coal-fired power stations to oil.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) on 9th February, the C.E.G.B. applied, on 3rd February, for approval, under Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, to convert the Tilbury "B" Generating Station to burn oil. This is under consideration, and the implication for the coal industry will be taken into account before a decision is taken. I will bear in mind the anxieties about the future of the coal industry which my hon. Friend has expressed and of which I myself am very much aware.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he is taking notice of pages 16 and 24 of the fuel policy White Paper which refer to security of supplies, the cost of overseas foreign currency and the fact that oil would be used only in exceptional circumstances such as pollution or really exceptional cost-effectiveness circumstances?

I always spend my life in intense receptiveness to all the words of all the paragraphs of all the White Papers relevant to this matter. I can promise my hon. Friend that I will give special attention to that point. But I hope he will bear in mind what I told the House, that at the present time the demand for coal by the generating stations exceeds the capacity of the coal industry to deliver, and that there is no fall-off in demand from the C.E.G.B. The demand is running at record levels at present.

Is it not a fact that these stations, the conversion of which has recently been authorised, have been in the C.E.G.B. programme for about 15 years?

The conversions were not recently authorised but were authorised many years ago, I believe by the predecessor Government. They were not authorised by us. I am making no point of this, but the reason for now operating this permission is the difficulty of getting adequate coal supplies.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will institute a publicity campaign to draw attention to the dangers which can arise from the use of gas appliances.

The gas industry and equipment manufacturers already provide, in various ways, ample guidance about the correct use of appliances. I shall consider whether anything more needs to be done when I have the further information which I told the House on 26th January I had called for.—[Vol. 794, c. 236.]

Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to take action before that, especially in view of the fact in the West Midlands there have been a that since the introduction of natural gas number of explosions? For instance, recently a house in Malvern blew up. The right hon. Gentleman ought to redouble his efforts now without waiting.

I have a personal preference for getting information first and then taking action. I gather that the hon. Gentleman wants me to act in the reverse sequence.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time we had rather more publicity? Far too many accidents are happening in our region in particular. Would he, therefore, consider the question of an independent inquiry and in the meantime suspend all conversions?

As to the first point, I am not responsible for publicity. I am responsible for getting answers to my questions in a reliable form. My hon. Friend—I do not blame him for this—is relying on general impressions. I have to have something more definite than that before I can take additional action to the full range of action which is in course at the present time.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will issue general directions to the gas boards to ensure immediate attention, day or night, to any report of a suspected gas leak.

No, Sir. All boards already operate a 24-hour service to deal with emergency work and attention to leaks is given the highest priority. If the hon. Member has any case of delay in mind, I shall be glad to ask the board concerned to look into it.

I am grateful for the fact that, unlike what he said in a previous reply, the right hon. Gentleman is not to establish a Royal Commission to look into the matter, but there have been cases in which there have been hours, if not days, of delay.

I am continuing the policy of seeking information first and taking action immediately thereafter.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will give a general direction to the Gas Council to slow down the natural gas conversion programme.

No, Sir.

We all want the natural gas programme to succeed, but will the Minister bear in mind that there is much dissatisfaction among consumers in areas which have been converted? What positive steps have been taken to make certain that the rest of the programme goes more smoothly?

The maximum efforts are being made all the time to improve the conversions and to remedy completely the defects which arise, inevitably, from the conversion of, in many cases, antiquated apparatus to natural gas. There is ample evidence that the users are satisfied in the greatest number of cases, but there are, inevitably, some difficulties, and the Gas Council is doing its utmost to improve continuously its means of servicing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people want to see the momentum of the conversion programme maintained to the utmost, because they will then find it easier to install gas-fired appliances, as opposed to oil-fired appliances. Perhaps that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind.

I am aware of the situation which my hon. Friend has indicated, which, unlike the suggestion that we should slow up or stop conversions, makes sound economic sense.

If the Minister will not give a directive to the Gas Council, will he at least point out to it the obvious unwisdom of attempting to push through the programme at this faster speed during a very cold period, as this causes more suffering and difficulty, as it has done to many of my constituents?

All aspects of the matter are kept in mind by the gas Council, which makes every effort, on the one hand, to pursue a logical course of conversion and, on the other, to help people who have difficulties which, arise, inevitably, from it.

Despite the obvious economic sense of the programme, with which I agree, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable fear among large numbers of people who are having these conversions done, and that it is not enough simply to have an assurance from the Gas Council, or from local gas boards, when there are constant leaks and explosions? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, with a view to holding an independent inquiry in order to safeguard millions of £s of national assets which are at stake?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am having a very exhaustive and speedy inquiry made within the Department and by the Gas Council. I shall take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the Gas Council fully discharges the kind of responsibilities which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is it not a fact that there is a far higher rate of call-back than had originally been expected? Is he satisfied that the conversion teams are as trained as they possibly can be? Would it not be desirable to take a little longer in preparing them for the task which they have in mind?

I do not say that this is the complete answer, but there is no sign of any increase in the proportion of complaints or difficulties, many of which arise from the fact that the apparatus being converted is often inadequate even for the use of town gas, and special difficulties are met with in relation to these conversions. We are dealing with this, and we shall intensify our efforts to improve the service that we are giving.

asked the Minister of Technology when he will announce his decision upon the request of the British Aircraft Corporation for a Government contribution towards the development of the BAC 3–11

asked the Minister of Technology whether he has now reached a decision on the proposal for a BAC 3–11 aircraft.

asked the Minister of Technology what request he has received from the British Aircraft Corporation for financial support for the building of the BAC 3–11; and if he will make a statement on the prospects of sales of this aircraft as compared with those of the A300 European Airbus.

The British Aircraft Corporation has requested a Government contribution of 50 per cent. of the estimated launching costs of £150 million, and financial help with production.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how disastrous delay in decision making can be to the best of aircraft projects? I am sure he will agree that that has been the experience in the past. Will he also bear in mind that, despite record levels of exports, present exports are of items designed many years ago and that there is precious little in the pipeline at the moment?

I am very well aware of the dangers of delay. But the party opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot go around every weekend attacking Government support for industry and then say in the House, when others do not listen, that we should be providing, with. out a full economic analysis, the amount of money involved in this aircraft.

Can my right hon. Friend indicate which version of the Rolls-Royce engine is given for the project at present? In other words, is it an engine which is available without development or one which also needs development support?

B.A.C. is considering alternative engine possibilities for the aircraft. The amount of money that would be involved in developing them would depend on the other applications for that type of engine.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his inability to make a decision quickly on the proposal is to any extent caused by the proposed short-range version of the Boeing 747 jumbo jet and the effect such an aircraft might have on the airbus market?

I am not unable to reach a decision on the matter. The proposal reached me from B.A.C. only a short time ago. I have laid down that I will not consider new aircraft proposals unless I am satisfied that the firm is prepared and able to put up a substantial sum of the money—in this case 50 per cent.—and the market is secure for the launching of the aircraft. I absolutely deny that there has been any delay by me. I am, as the House would expect, evaluating a proposal that has come to me from the firms.

Will the Minister bear in mind that I asked for a decision? I did not ask for money.

I appreciate that. At the same time, in order to spend the money in a way that accords with what the House as a whole wants, I must have time to evaluate the matter properly.

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the percentage dividend to be paid by the British Steel Corporation on its public dividend capital in respect of the financial years 1968–69 and 1969–70, respectively.

The corporation has not yet made proposals though in its annual report it states its intention of proposing that no dividend should be paid for 1968–69.

To help the corporation towards profitability, will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake that in the remaining months of the present Government there will be less interference with the industry by the Government and other bodies than there has been in the past two years?

I am sure that for the remaining life of the present Parliament, and for the remaining period of the Government's occupation of office, which will presumably come thereafter, there will be no improper interference with the corporation, nor has there been anything more than the discharge of the statutory responsibilities which the House has placed on my Department.

Does not the fact that again no dividend is to be proposed this year indicate that there is full justification for the Opposition's criticism of the p.d.c. device? What would have been the amount paid if the whole £834 million of commencing capital debt had been left as fixed interest charges?

To the contrary, the events of the past two years have shown how right we were in saying that the industry should not be burdened with fixed interest charges, especially in the first year or two of its life, and especially having regard to the cyclical nature of the steel industry. Far from justifying the hon. Gentleman's strictures, this completely negates them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in spite of the last increase the price of steel generally is lower than that of our competitors abroad, and that it is far better sometimes to have a lower price to industry than simply to make a profit?

My hon. Friend raises wide issues difficult to comprehend within a supplementary reply. However, it is true that our prices, even after the recent rise, are below the world market price and that for a period before that British industry as a whole has had immense advantage from the low price charged by the Steel Corporation.

asked the Minister of Technology why steel production in 1969, at 26·5 million tons, was lower than in 1965 at 27·01 million tons; and whether he will make a statement on nationalisation progress to date.

Output in 1969, the second highest ever, would have been a record but for losses of about 1 million tons, mainly from unofficial strikes. Nationalisation has enabled good progress to be made towards re-building and expanding the steel industry, as is shown in the annual report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these turgid results from the nationalised steel industry compare very unfavourably with, for example, those of our principal shipbuilding competitor, Japan, which has increased its steel output from 25 million tons in 1962 to 72 million tons this year, almost treble in eight years, while we creep along a plateau?

If the hon. Gentleman thought that the annual report was likely to be turgid, he might have suggested to his right hon. Friends that they should await the report before debating the subject. There was a debate on the steel industry just before the annual report was made available.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why Japan is doing so well is that 15 years ago the Japanese Government encouraged private industry in Japan to invest in the steel industry, and that with that government encouragement Japan today can produce her present output? Would my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in government they did nothing to help to increase capacity?

It is true, as my right hon. Friend said during the debate, that the £900 million investment programme over the next five years, which has been approved by the Steel Corporation, gives us a real opportunity of catching up our backlog.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? He completely evaded it.

During the eight-year period in which the hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between Japanese performance and our own, we were building steel with capital investment which had been authorised in earlier years, and no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from the nationalisation of the steel industry about the very poor performance of the steel industry in this country under private ownership compared with that of the Japanese.

asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to review the basis on which industrial development certificates are issued.

No, Sir. The policy operates successfully and no changes are contemplated at present.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there will be no tailing off in Scotland's percentage of the total factory floor space completions in the next year?

I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that certainly in the congested areas i.d.c.s will be looked at very critically. Scotland's share fell last year, but short-term comparisons are misleading. In the period 1966–1969, for example, i.d.c. approvals for Scotland rose by more than half compared with 1962–65.

asked the Minister of Technology what recent evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of the industrial development certificate policy.

I maintain a continuing concern with the effectiveness of i.d.c. policy.

In view of my right hon. Friend's study of this, can he reassure those hon. Members, particularly Scottish Members, who have expressed concern that, due to pressure by the Opposition, there may be some relaxation of this policy, that it has played a crucial role in expanding industrial opportunities, particularly in Scotland?

No i.d.c. has ever been refused in Scotland and the Scottish share rose by more than half in 1966–69 compared with 1962–65, although there was some falling off last year as a proportion of the whole. I share my hon. Friend's view that the Opposition's policy towards development areas would hit Scotland very hard.

asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received from Scottish organisations advocating a change from the present system of investment incentives in the developmen areas to free depreciation and tax allowances; and what replies he has sent.

None, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend accept that this demonstrates the very widespread satisfaction in Scotland with the Government's efforts in regional development and the very great degree of disquiet over the kind of generalities talked on regional development in certain Tory quarters?

Many people would like to know exactly what the policies of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are on development areas.

Since investment grants are designed to attract capital-intensive industries to the development areas, is not it only natural that their availability should have coincided in Scotland with the loss of 67,000 male jobs? Will the Minister confirm that the Government's enthusiasm for investment grants demonstrates their desire to achieve an even faster rate of rundown in male jobs in Scotland in the future?

I reject all that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a tendency to underestimate the situation and the real structural changes taking place in Scotland and the regions generally.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) what was the value of the physical increase of manufacturing industry's stocks at 1963 prices in 1964; and what was the comparable figure for 1969;

asked the Minister of Technology what percentage of the gross domestic product was represented by the stock accumulation of manufacturing industry in the last half of 1968; and what was the comparable figure for the last half of 1969.

asked the Minister of Technology what was the level of stocks in 1964 and 1969, respectively, at current market prices and as a percentage of the gross national product; and how this compares with the level of investment in the manufacturing and construction industries for both these years.

asked the Minister of Technology to what he attributes the fall in the value of stocks held by manufacturing industry in the third quarter of 1969.

With permission I will circulate the figures requested in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There was no fall in the value of manufacturers' stocks in the third quarter of 1969. The fall in the volume of stocks is likely to have been caused by several factors, including, probably, liquidity constraints, adjustments to counteract high stockbuilding in the first quarter of 1969 and expectations of future falls in the prices of certain raw materials.

Is it not a matter of concern that the fall in the real value of stocks should have occurred, as there is likely to be a a strain on the balance of payments when the economy picks up again, as we hope it will soon?

Stock-building is highly cyclical and fluctuates very considerably. Preliminary information suggests that it may have risen again during the last quarter of 1969—the actual figures are not yet available—at the very time when the balance of payments figures were also improving rapidly.

Does the Minister consider that when import deposits are raised and the credit squeeze limitations are removed, this will have a very marked effect on the position?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that interpretation. It may well be that industry is learning to manage with lower ratios of stock. In the past we have tended to have rather high stock levels in this country.

As the level of the value of stocks today is half what it was in 1964 as a proportion of the gross national product, will the Minister say what the likely trend is in 1970?

According to the information I have, that was certainly not the case. The total value of stocks—manufacturing, distribution and merchants'—was 41·2 per cent. of G.D.P. at current prices in 1964 and is 40·9 per cent. at current prices today.

To what extent does the Minister believe that the favourable balance of payments of the past six months is connected with a rate of stock accumulation below the average?

Hardly at all, since the actual import content of stock-building is in any case quite small. It is hard to give a precise figure as it depends on the precise stocks being built up, but it ranges between one-fifth and one-third. The figures we are talking about are not very material in relation to the size of balance of payments improvement we have achieved.

Is not the stock reduction something to be welcomed? Should not we ignore some of the underlying party political points made by hon. Gentlement opposite, with the implication on the balance of payments? Would not it be better to look at our stock ratios in relation to international ratios, rather than just our own, when we have carried much higher stocks than were warranted by good management in this country?

Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right in indicating that there has been a considerable improvement in methods of stock control in this country. This is a highly desirable development which I am sure hon. Members on both sides will welcome.

We would all welcome the fall in the secular proportion of stocks held to output, but is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that, in the Government's view, no upturn in stockbuilding is expected during the current year, even if the G.N.P. turns up?

I am not telling the House any such thing. I have already said that in the last quarter—and as yet we have not had the actual figures—it may well be that there has been a rise, but, because of the ratio to which I referred of one-third to one-fifth of import content, it still should not be significant in relation to a balance of payments surplus at the current level. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not volunteer that the opposite would have been the case when the balance of payments situation was good in 1968; then he could have made the same point in our favour.

asked the Minister of Technology what was the average level of investment over the last five years in the manufacturing and construction industries at current market prices and as a percentage of the gross national product for Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom and how this compares with

With permission, I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The figures do not suggest that a high level of manufacturing investment is associated with a low level of Government expenditure.

Is not the level of Government expenditure in Japan exactly half and the level of manufacturing investment exactly double what it is in this country? Does the Minister still say that there is no relationship between these two factors?

In the five years for which figures are available, for Germany both sets of figures have been higher, so it is difficult to establish any causal relationship between the figures.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prognostications of the Government that investment will rise this year have been directly contradicted by the C.B.I., which fears a further fall? Has he checked his figures again to see who is right?

Has the hon. Gentleman checked his reading to ensure that he is right? As I understand it, the dispute is not about whether or not there will be a fall—I do not think that anyone is suggesting a fall—but about how large the rise will be. The C.B.I. confirms that there will continue to be an increase, and I should have thought that both sides of the House would welcome this in the national interest.

asked the Minister of Technology what has been the effect of his intervention in various industries in terms of the number of graduates employed, of pay received by qualified staff and in other ways; and if he will make a statement.

I am glad to say that there is some evidence of an increase since 1965 in the total number of graduates employed in industry; and this is certainly true of employment of qualified scientists and engineers, particularly in the electronics and machine tool industries.

Is not this directly related to Government support of and intervention in these industries? Will not my right hon. Friend take pride in this rather than in the supersonic white elephant?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend weakened the impact of what he said by adding another point relevant to another Question. The number of engineering and science graduates having their first appointment in industry was 60 per cent. higher in 1967–68 than in 1964–65, which relates back to the expansion of the universities. In some key industries such as machine tools and electronics there was an increase of about one-third in 1968 over the 1965 figure.

Is not the increase of science graduates in industry a direct reflection of the decrease of science graduates in education? Is the Minister co-ordinating his efforts with those of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see that our schools and universities are not denuded of science graduates?

We are trying to encourage more people to go into science and engineering at school and to this extent I coordinate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Nobody disputes that we want to get more engineers and scientists into industry. When they get there we hope that they will get responsibility at an earlier age, for it was that more than anything else that appeared to be influencing those who emigrated at an earlier period.

asked the Minister of Technology how much the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation will lend to industry in 1970

The nature of the I.R.C.'s work makes it difficult to forecast its needs with precision. But the hon. Member will find in the White Paper "Public Expenditure 1968–69 to 1973–74" (Cmnd. 4234) that the estimate for the financial year 1970–71 is £34 million.

Is the Minister satisfied that this money will be well invested, bearing in mind…Yes, I will have a glass of water, please. Because of the irritation in my throat, I will circulate my supplementary question.

I think it is clear that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question came from his heart. There was no evidence of its coming from anywhere else.

Is it expected that there will be any more episodes like the recent one when the I.R.C. solemnly lent money to the wealthiest company in the country, I.C.I., to help restructure some part of the industry with which I.C.I. was involved?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to make up his mind whether he believes, as is said very often by himself and his hon. Friends at the weekends, that industrialists should be brought into participate in Government decision-making. We decided that we would establish the I.R.C. and then ask a very distinguished body of industrialists quite independently to decide what projects they would support. It is no good saying that we should bring businessmen into Whitehall and then, when we devolve responsibilities on these industrialists, saying it is totally wrong.

Mr. Baker, Question No. 20—we hope.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects the study being made by his Department in the British textile industry will be completed; and if it will be published.

I hope to conclude my review in time for a comprehensive statement to be made on the I.C.I. proposals before the end of next month.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to be able to announce the outcome of his discussions regarding the level of jute import quotas for the second year of operation.

An announcement on the jute import quotas for the quota year was made by the Ministry of Technology on 6th February. It has been decided that the quotas should remain unchanged for the year beginning 1st May, 1970, and should be allocated to those who received a quota allocation in 1969–70.

We are, of course, relieved that the Government have finally been persuaded to freeze the jute import quota. But, as there have been approximately 1,000 redundancies in the industry in Scotland during the past year alone, is not it desirable that either the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister should come to Dundee soon and explain what the Prime Minister meant when he said that jute jobs would be safe under Labour?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take issue with my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he would get more than a sufficient answer for him to digest. This is the third occasion on which the hon. Member has sought to link quotas with the employment situation in Dundee. Broadly speaking, employment in the Dundee area has been maintained despite the shrinkage of the jute industry. The Government are very much alive to employment problems in that area and are keeping a constant watch on the situation. Both sides of the industry have acknowledged that the introduction of quotas has had no effect on the employment situation in Dundee. The hon. Gentleman really should take note of that.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he is satisfied that Handley Page Aircraft now has an adequate staff, particularly in the sphere of design, satisfactory to carry out their contract with his Department for the conversion of Victor bombers; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The firm is making satisfactory progress on the initial development work.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be possible, without subcontracting, to complete the design work that is still outstanding?

There is a possibility that subcontracting may be necessary, but the firm is now actively engaged in recruitment, and I expect it to be successful in arranging for the necessary design and other resources to be available in time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the worst possible losses, both in design and production staff, occurred during the last two years of Conservative Administration—a blow from which the industry found it very difficult to recover?

We hope, with the new work coming into the firm and the reconstruction of the firm, that this will be a thing of the past, and that the firm will move on to a secure future.

Why are the Government taking so long to confirm the orders and place contracts for this job? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that had this been confirmed at an earlier stage it might have got Handley Page through a difficult time? As it is, the Government have made life much more difficult for the firm by delaying for so long.

It is not easy to get this question settled as quickly as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The firm has contract cover for the work it is doing, and discussions are going on with the Department for further work. I am well aware of the importance of further contract cover being given or allocated, and this is being discussed within the Department.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will indicate the number of new jobs definitely listed for the Blyth constituency in 1970; and what account has been taken of pending pit closures in this estimate.

Jobs in prospect expected to arise during the next four years in the Blyth constituency in authorised new industrial buildings and in existing buildings taken over by manufacturing industry are estimated to be 3,490, including 2,480 for males. I regret it is not known how many of these will become available during 1970. The Government's regional policy in areas such as Blyth takes account of the need for new jobs to make good losses resulting from pit closures.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply about the number of jobs listed, but is he aware that the period is four years, and that there is a degree of urgency about this matter? Will his Department look into the possibility of seeing that the bulk of these jobs is available during the next few months?

I am sorry that I cannot give more precise information, or the precise information asked for by my hon. Friend, but I shall look into the point raised by him.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give details of the average lengths of time taken by firms to move into development districts in the North-East and elsewhere following finalising of arrangements and agreements in regard to grants and loans by the various Government Departments concerned.

This information is not available. Firms do not necessarily await a decision on applications for assistance under the Local Employment Acts before starting projects in the development areas; and investment grants towards expenditure on plant and machinery for such projects are not paid until after the expenditure has been incurred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the jobs listed for the Blyth constituency and elsewhere are delayed because one or two firms in particular are dragging their feet on this matter? Will he see that in the negotiations with those firms about development grants the speeding-up of the timetable between the payment of the grant and the actual employment of the people by the firms is looked into very closely, indeed? This would help the unemployment figures considerably.

Our information is that the position varies from case to case. In handling these cases we keep that matter under constant review. If my hon. Friend knows of particular cases, and if he lets me have details, I shall look into them.

asked the Minister of Technology in view of the further disputes and stoppages affecting motor car production, increases in steel prices, wage and salary advances and continuing Government restraints on home market production, what estimate of motor car output and prices he has now made for 1970, both for export and home markets; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimate he has made of United Kingdom production of motor cars for home and export markets during 1970.

I expect production for both home and export markets to reach at least the lower end of the range forecast by the Motor Manufacturing E.D.C., i.e., an increase of about 10 per cent. in total production over 1969. As to prices, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member on 16th February. On the general situation, I have nothing to add to the very full statement which I made in the House in the debate on 11th February.—[Vol. 796, c. 30–1; Vol. 795, c. 1280–94.]

What level of stoppages due to strikes has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account in formulating the estimate which he has just given? Secondly, what does he think about the increase in prices of up to £100 per motor car, due to the inflationary policies of the Government, all announced last Friday? What influence will that have on the future trend of export sales?

I can only repeat that the forecast was made by the E.D.C., which is made up, of course, of representatives of the manufacturers and the unions and independent people, as well as the representative from my Department. The forecast is for a 10 per cent. increase this year on the basis of the existing economic environment. Beyond that, all forecasts are bound to be uncertain to some extent; but this forecast is very encouraging.

In view of the highly arbitrary and selective nature of credit control which is contained within the present hire-purchase restrictions, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his rather disappointing earlier attitude and give the motor industry some go ahead by relieving it from these restrictions?

I have not changed my view from that which I expressed on 11th February. However, the hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been developing credit measures which are rather more general in character and offer some reasonable hope that the selective measures which the motor industry has found difficult to meet will in future be less necessary to the management of the economy.

Would my right hon. Friend say whether there were any price increases for motor cars during the period of the Tory Government and, if so, what the reasons for them were?

This is what makes it difficult to have discussions about economic planning decisions across the Floor of the House. To hear the questions of hon. Members opposite, one would think that there had never been any strikes or price increases under the Tory Government.

We are glad to know that the Minister expects at least the lower end of the E.D.C. bracket to be reached. He will know that that bracket refers to registrations. Does he expect imports to rise and, therefore, erode the domestic producers' share of that bracket?

That depends on how competitive the British motor industry is. It remains true that our percentage of imports grows, but it is still much lower than some of our main competitors, including the Germans. It is tending to rise, but that is inevitable as people buy more in a worldwide sense and do not limit themselves simply to the home market. But we should not leave out of account the fact that the forecast also shows an export record of 5 per cent. higher than last year, which was itself a record.

asked the Minister of Technology by what date he will reach a firm decision on the proposals for the reorganisation of Government research establishments outlined in his recent Green Paper.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to reach conclusions on his Green Paper on Research in Government Laboratories.

Proposals to set up a British Research and Development Corporation were put forward for public discussion in a Green Paper published on 16th January. Both the time and the nature of the Government's decisions on these proposals will depend on the course of the debate on them in the House and outside. If it seems as a result of this that no major alterations in the proposals are needed, the Government would aim to announce their decision in the early summer. The earliest possible date for the establishment of the corporation would be 1972.

In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the widespread view of many people that the proposals in the Green Paper are basically on the wrong tack and that the effort spent in drumming up more work for Government research establishments might be better spent in putting industrial research back where it belongs—in industry.

It is curious that although we published the Green Paper to stimulate debate, in the course of the debate so far there has been no suggestion that we should do nothing, nor has there been any alternative proposal which has stood examination. However, the object of the Green Paper is to have a debate, and if the hon. Member would like to put forward his proposals—and if there were a debate in the House, that might make it easier for him to do so—we would certainly welcome that.

In view of the widespread public discussion which gives the impression that my right hon. Friend is on the right track, and not, as the hon. Member suggested, on the wrong track, may we have an early debate on this matter? Would my right hon. Friend make representations to the Leader of the House and perhaps combine with that subject a subject which cannot be sensibly separated from it; namely, the Report of the Select Committee on Defence Research Establishments?

I think that every Minister likes to have an opportunity for the House to debate his Department's proposals. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and I will refer my hon. Friend's suggestion to him.

Would the Minister clear up one point which is not made clear in the Green Paper? He would assist the House to come to a conclusion by doing so. In the Green Paper he proposes transferring responsibility for Risley, Harwell and Culham to his new corporation; does that mean that the U.K.A.E.A. would consequently be wound up?

It is apparent from the proposals in the Green Paper that we see the B.R.D.C. absorbing establishments of the Ministry of Technology on the Industrial side and the residual establishments of the A.E.A., and to that extent it represents winding-up the A.E.A. in the sense in which it has previously operated.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will discuss with the electricity generating boards whether their requirements will lead to the purchase of the high temperature reactor, steam generating heavy water reactor and fast breeder reactor systems over the next decade.

We are in regular touch with the C.E.G.B. about its future requirements for generating stations of all kinds, including advanced nuclear types. We also keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the requirements of the Scottish electricity Boards which are, of course, his responsibility.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, as I am sure he is, that the export potential of these three reactor systems depends largely on their proven capacity and that the competion of the prototypes in Britain is vital if we are not to lose out in the highly competitive international market?

I fully appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes, but inevitably our investment programme has to be geared to the forecast demands of the electricity industry and it is not possible adequately to assess the potential economies of the fast breeder reactor.

Why is the hon. Gentleman always so reluctant to give full information to the House about the likely time scale of the generating boards for these new reactor types? Can he say in particular when he thinks that the first order will be placed by one of the generating boards in the United Kingdom for the steam generating heavy water reactor, bearing in mind that it is most unlikely that we will sell these types abroad until one is operating on the grid in the United Kingdom?

The steam generating heavy water reactor has a much lower optimum operating level than the other reactors available and it may not necessarily be suitable to the high capacity requirements of the British market, although that does not mean that it would be unsuited to other markets. There are cases in Britain where it could be suitable, and we are discussing this with the C.E.G.B.

When can we expect an official reply from the hon. Gentleman's Department to the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Civil Nuclear Programme, which bears directly on this matter?

That is a separate question. I cannot give a date at this stage.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will give the total cost so far of the Gas Council's conversion programme to natural gas and the proportion this represents of the original estimate.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) whether the estimate submitted to him by the Gas Council of the cost of conversion of customers' appliances to burn natural gas has been revised in the light of the extensive follow-up campaign that has been necessary;

asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimate of the total cost of the Gas Council's programme of conversion to natural gas; what proportion of this programme has been completed; and at what cost.

asked the Minister of Technology what is the Gas Council's estimated total investment in conversion to natural gas for each of the next five years expressed as a proportion of total capital expenditure.

£31½ million to 31st March 1969, including £24½ million in 1968–69. This includes costs of setting up the programme and is 8 per cent of the original estimate made in 1966 of total expenditure of £400 million, which included provision for a call-back service. Since 1966 both costs and numbers expected to be converted have increased. I am currently discussing with the industry their capital development and conversion expenditure over the next five years, and am not in a position to give a revised estimate of the total cost.

Have the figures in the estimate for the cost of call-back gone up since the original programme was conceived?

Without notice of that question, I cannot give a very accurate reply.

None the less, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost of the programme is likely to be very much more than was originally planned? Is this the right moment for the Gas Council to be spending even more money diversifying further into the oil business at this stage?

I find it difficult to understand what diversification into the oil business, since a relatively trifling sum is involved, has to do with the question. If the hon. Gentleman asserts with confindence that the programme will cost more than was originally intended—

I am asking.

If the hon. Gentleman asks me that question, I can only tell him that I am not yet in a position to give the answer. However, there is no reason as yet to have the alarm or excitement which the hon. Gentleman generates.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the conversions done by the gas board have been reasonably satisfactory, what is causing a great deal of trouble is some of the sub-contracting? Perhaps it would be worth while expanding the size of the work force involved so that it will be up to gas board standards and not those of some of the sub-contractors.

We are anxious to maintain the highest standard of sub-contracting work as well as to expand our own force dealing with this matter, precisely because of the total volume of work requiring attention. But my hon. Friend will recall that in the Gas Bill we make special provisions for encouraging the highest supervision of standards of work in the case of sub-contractors.

rose—

Order, Private notice Question. Mr. Corfield.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter in the Adjournment debate on Thursday.