asked the Minister of Technology how investment by manufacturing industry on machine tools in the United Kingdom compares, according to information available to him from international sources, with similar investment in France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Canada and the United States of America.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 5th March.—[Vol. 797, c. 166.]

Is the poor performance of one of Britain's key industries really in keeping with the Government's claim to have achieved an economic miracle?

It is difficult to draw meaningful comparisons in this matter. If the hon. Gentleman looks, for example, at the 1967 O.E.C.D. figure, at the G.N.P. and at the investment, he will draw a different conclusion. I do not want to draw invalid conclusions. I just do not support the hon. Gentleman's conclusion.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the level of purchases of machine tools for use in domestic industry during 1969; and if he will make a statement.

Machine tool investment in the United Kingdom during 1969 is estimated to be £145 million, which is about the same as the 1968 figures in current price terms. Within this figure there is rapid growth in the purchase of numerically controlled machine tools which have many times the productivity of conventional machines. Though these figures are encouraging there is room for further improvement.

Is the Minister aware that in real terms this level of new orders at home is lower than in 1965 and 1962? Is he further aware that the level of capital investment per head was lower in the United Kingdom than in any other E.E.C. country? What measures does he propose to take to alter this situation?

It is true that in real terms there has been a levelling off and a slight fall in investment, but I remind the hon. Member that if we look at the machine capacity the very substantial increase in the proportion of numerically-controlled machine tools, with their much larger machine capabilities, remedies this situation to a large extent. As for the E.E.C. point, the latest report will show that in investment we are a little behind Japan and Germany, but in front of France. As for giving encouragement to investment, we are continually at work, through our various advisory services—through the Computer Aided Design Service, and so on—to persuade machine tool manufacturers to adopt the latest technologies and so increase their productivity.

I remind Ministers that long answers usually mean fewer Questions.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now announce the result of the investigation conducted by his department into the proposals by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited with regard to the textile industry.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his policy regarding Imperial Chemical Industries' bid for Viyella.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he has yet completed his study into the British textile industry; and whether he will make a statement.

I expect to make a statement on this matter soon.

It is extremely disappointing, when the House has been led to expect a statement today, that the Minister is still vacillating. When will he make a statement on this important subject?

If the hon. Gentleman allows his expectations to be aroused by the newspapers instead of the sober and reliable comments of Ministers, he will get into this difficulty. The only statement that I have made is that I hope to be able to make a statement before the end of this month.

I am equally sorry that my right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement. Will he tell us under what legislation he expects to be able to enforce anything that he proposes to issue in his statement? How does he expect I.C.I. to be able to get below the 50 per cent. holding which some newspapers report him as wanting to see done? Is it open to foreign textile companies to bid for second-force textile companies?

I appreciate that my hon. Friend's supplementary question was prepared in the expectation that some newspaper comment might prove more reliable than it is. Nevertheless, I must tell him that I cannot reflect in public on the powers that I will have to enforce such proposals as I offer until those proposals are offered.

This is an anticlimax. We will have to overhaul the system of leaks. May I press the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that, if he is to make a statement before the end of the month, it is done while Parliament is sitting, because most of the days before 31st March are holidays?

Order. Long questions mean fewer questions.

I hope that nothing I do will ever bring the system of leaks into disrepute.

As the Minister has presumably got into trouble in getting his recommendations accepted by his Cabinet colleagues, may I ask whether he will confirm that he will be making a statement in this House while Parliament is sitting?

I can add nothing to what I have already said—namely, that I hope to make a statement as soon as possible and, if at all possible, before the House rises. That is a matter on which I will do my utmost for the convenience of the House.

rose——

Before the right hon. Gentleman excites himself, he must not infer that I have had any difficulties on this or any other subject with my Cabinet colleagues.

On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman in his answers to supplementary questions contradicted himself. He spoke, first, of making a statement "before the end of this month" and later "as soon as possible". In view of the importance of the statement being made to the House of Commons, surely it is right that the Minister should be asked to explain which he means.

That is a point of argument rather than of order.

I was referring to a previous statement that I had made in answer to a Question in the House when I promised a statement before the end of the month. In today's statement I said that I expected to make a statement on this matter soon. That is all that I can say.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the latest position in the discussions currently being held with Rolls-Royce concerning loan financing for the development of aero-engines.

The evaluation of Rolls-Royce's request for aid for the RB211–50 engine is continuing and discussions with the company are well advanced.

In view of the immense significance of this decision, ought not the Minister to give some indication to this House of the Government's thinking on the negotiations that they are having with Rolls-Royce? Will he indicate whether it is the Government's hope that whatever settlement is concluded will include a Government director on the board of Rolls-Royce?

I do not think that the latter part of that question arises on this proposal. The House is familiar with the thinking of the Department and of the Government on the launching of major projects—namely, that the market demand is a big, though not the dominant, factor in helping us to reach decisions.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say whether the difficulties of the Lockheed Company, on which Rolls-Royce depends so much, are in any way influencing his thinking?

It is generally known that there is already a possible application for the RB211–50 engine for the Lockheed long-range Tri-Star, and there are other possible applications. We are keeping a close eye on all potential development opportunities.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the Mensforth Committee recommendations concerning the quality and reliability of British exports.

The Committee on Quality Assurance, under the Chairmanship of Sir Eric Mensforth, has not yet submitted its report.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recommendations have already been widely revealed and that they involve a totally needless extension of bureaucracy in the establishment of British quality abroad? To save us time spent in fretting about the matter, will the hon. Gentleman now say that this nonsense will be rejected by the Government?

On the last occasion tations on the report are still taking place, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman's rather animated contribution will be taken into account.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to set up a national research and development organisation for the car industry aimed at reducing unit cost of car production by co-ordinating technological expertise, standardising parts between manufacturers and reducing unnecessary duplication of similar models; and if he will make a statement.

A good deal of collaborative research for this industry is carried out by the Motor Industry Research Association to which the Department makes a financial contribution. As manufacturers prefer to design their cars to meet market demand there is no need for further action.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there are still too many similar models being produced, and that if parts from one manufacturer could be substituted for others this would greatly help our exports? Further, since we are still a long way away from the British car as such, would he not accept that any steps taken in this direction would be helpful to the industry?

On the second point, the fact that we import up to 10 per cent. of consumption on the home market indicates that the motorist requires this kind of variation in model type. I believe this would be true of the foreign market also. Secondly, the number of models produced by any manufacturer will in the end be determined by the market found by the manufacturer.

asked the Minister of Technology what research is being carried out by his Department into fire resistance of single-storey and multistorey buildings, respectively.

Approximately 50 staff at the Fire Research Station are engaged on research concerned with the fire resistance of buildings, and the cost of the work in 1969 was £160,000. The results are applicable to both single storey and multi-storey buildings.

My hon. Friend has not answered the Question. What is being done to deal with the problem of single-storey buildings in which the majority of large fires appear to occur and cause the greatest amount of damage? These buildings are not covered by the building regulations about fire resistance.

The matter of building regulations is the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The results of any research carried out and any tests of materials, such as doors and frameworks of buildings, carried out by the Fire Research Station are communicated to that Department.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement on the BAC3-11 project.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now advance the British Aircraft Corporation £75 million to help launch its BAC3-11 aircraft having regard to the recent further information he has received as to this aircraft's commercial merit.

The British Aircraft Corporation's latest proposals for the BAC3-11 reached me only a few days ago. The Corporation are asking for approximately £100 million of Government assistance, and I am not prepared to rush a decision on an investment of this size.

Although the House will understand that the Minister does not wish to be rushed on this matter, is it too much to hope that the Minister will come to a decision before it is too late and make an announcement while the House is still sitting?

There is no question of my announcing a decision before the end of the week. I got these proposals last Tuesday and they involve a sum of £100 million. I will not be urged by the hon. Gentleman into actions of total irresponsibility.

In view of the large amounts of public money which have in the past been involved on this project, and which will obviously be involved in future, will my right hon. Friend say what further plans he has to extend the public sector and public ownership in this industry?

That raises a separate question. As the House knows, we have arrangements for the recovery by a levy on sales of money invested by the Government in aircraft projects. There are other possibilities, but I think I should not answer them at this moment.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now take the necessary steps to make processers of textile, rubber and plastic waste eligible for investment grants.

Firms in these industries may qualify for investment grants on their new machinery or plant if the processes which they carry on result in an end product significantly different from the original waste materials. Firms whose processes are limited to the sorting or grading of waste materials do not qualify.

Does that mean that processes involving these materials are eligible according to exactly the same criteria as apply to processes involving scrap metal and waste paper?

They are treated similarly, but firms whose processes are limited to sorting and grading of waste materials do not receive investment grants.

asked the Minister of Technology what is his latest estimate of the trend in investment by manufacturing industry in 1970.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will revise his estimate of the increase in investment in manufacturing industry in 1970, in view of the recent report from the Confederation of British Industry, details of which nave been submitted to him.

asked the Minister of Technology what is his latest estimate of the effect on manufacturing industry's new investment of the current credit squeeze.

asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the current level of capital investment by manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

The investment intentions published on 13th January indicated that manufacturers were expecting their investment to rise in 1970 by about 10 per cent. in real terms: a satisfactory increase given other claims on resources, particularly those of exports. The forecasts were made by manufacturers in the light of the many factors affecting future economic prospects but it is not possible to isolate the effect on investment of individual factors. It would be premature to conclude from the recent C.B.I. survey that manufacturers have significantly altered their investment intentions.

Does the Minister appreciate that the C.B.I. survey shows that the majority of manufacturers are content to spend less than they did last year, and bearing in mind the high rate of corporation tax, the high level of interest rates and the credit squeeze, from where does he think manufacturers will get the money?

Any doubt there may have been about the future of investments was probably expressed at about the time it looked possible that hon. Gentlemen opposite might end up in Government. As for the differences between the C.B.I. and the Government surveys, the C.B.I. works on authorisations, whereas we work on intended expenditure. In any case, the survey by the C.B.I. conflicts with known information from the chemical and steel industries.

When will the Government make another review, in view of recent wage increases which far exceed increases in productivity?

Those factors are common to many of our competitors overseas. It is the relative marketing position of the British product which will dictate the level of investment.

Are the Government in favour of the large current wage demands in the expectation that they will stimulate consumptiton so that that in turn will stimulate manufacturing investment?

That is not a question for my Department. So far as we are concerned, we still think that the economy is well in balance, as is demonstrated by the balance of payments figures.

Has the hon. Gentleman observed from the Government's own figures that between January, 1966, when investment grants were introduced and the last quarter of 1969 investment in the distribution and service industries, which do not qualify for investment grant, has been twice as buoyant as investment in manufacturing industries?

The hon. Gentleman must know, after numerous questions both to myself and to the President of the Board of Trade, that questions or distribution are matters for the Board of Trade.

Oh.

Could my hon. Friend confirm on this question of investment that in 1966 the C.B.I. forecast a fall of 25 per cent. when in fact it was only 3 per cent.?

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact. It was suggested at one time that this might have been due to the fact that during that year the extra 5 per cent. for investment grants was introduced. That is a notable tribute to the impact of investment grants.

But, objectively speaking, is it not true that the C.B.I. forecasts have been more realistic than the Government's forecasts?

The right hon. Gentleman has always shown a marked partiality to support whatever set of forecasts are politically most suitable to him at any given time. In view of his complete reluctance to base any decisions on investment on objective facts, and since he will not await a decision before doing away with investment grants, I am surprised that he has asked that question.

On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman did not answer the Question.

That has happened before.

I still maintain that our figures tend to be more reliable—and 1966 showed that to be so.

asked the Minister of Technology what proportion of applications at present under consideration for exploration licences in the Irish Sea involves partnership with the Coal Board and the Gas Council, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

In accordance with the announced criteria all applications for production licences in the Irish Sea provide for participation by either the Gas Council or the National Coal Board. Until consideration of the applications has been completed I cannot give further details.

I thank the hon. Member for correcting my Question. Can he give the House any idea when we may expect an announcement. Will it be in one month, two months, or what?

I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that some very complex programming discussions have to take place with the companies. It is therefore difficult to give a precise prediction of the date, but we hope that it will be soon.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the construction of a nuclear-powered merchant ship.

asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the cost estimates regarding the construction of a nuclear-powered merchant ship.

I made a statement in some detail about the present position to the House last Tuesday in a debate on the Adjournment. There is nothing more that I can say to the House at present that would be helpful.

I appreciate that this is basically a question of economic viability but, as the hon. Member is aware, the whole question has been under discussion for over 10 years. Can he say when he will be in a position to make a statement on the matter?

As I told the House on Tuesday night, we hope to have the result of this study coming forward very shortly. It will be brought before Ministers, and we shall then consider how best to bring it before hon. Members.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Chamber of Shipping and the shipbuilding interests have been consulted? In addition, will he give an assurance that before the Government embark on any expenditure on this project they will ascertain what has been the experience of the United States of America and the Soviet Union in relation to it?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that all the interests to which he has alluded have been consulted and all the sources to which he has alluded have been carefully examined.

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

asked the Minister of Technology how much has now been spent on the research and development costs of Concorde.

Prototype 001 is now grounded for a number of planned modifications; 002 flew again on Saturday and will extend the flight test programme up to Concorde's cruising speed of Mach 2. Flights at this speed are likely to take place during the summer. About £410 million of the present basic development of £730 million has now been spent.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the provisional orders for this aircraft to become firm orders, and also when the 002 will be carrying out her sonic boom trials over this country?

I cannot answer either question with absolute accuracy. The orders will depend upon the manufacturers being able to provide performance guarantees, based upon the characteristics that emerge from the tests. I understand that the 002 is likely to go supersonic in the fairly near future, although this must not be taken to mean that the flights up the West Coast flight route will necessarily occur at the same time.

I appreciate the difficulty of communicating decisions to the House on international projects of this kind, but will my right hon. Friend note that it was disappointing that a number of decisions were taken before this House was notified? Will he make sure that he keeps up the standard of the rest of his Department and the rest of his work by notifying to the House decisions that are taken, when they are taken?

I shall do my best. I was criticised by the Select Committee on this matter, and I took this to heart. In the case of an international project, when everything must be agreed internationally at the working level and also at the Ministerial level, it is difficult to be as exact as it is in the case of projects under one's own control, but I am anxious to keep the House fully informed.

Will my right hon. Friend use what influence he has with the Press in order that they may tell a consistent tale about this aircraft? This weekend has been "knock the Concorde" weekend; next weekend the Press will probably be enthusiastic. The Press seems to vary between the two extremes. Many of my constituents in Bristol have a vested interest in this project, and the Press causes them undue alarm when it launches into forays of this kind.

Ministers have no influence on Press treatment of matters of this kind. The more that we can put out to the Press and the more material it is given the less inclined will the Press be to put out sensational and unfavourable comment.

How soon will it be before the Minister has sufficient data to enable him to come to a decision whether or not this is a viable economic project?

It is very difficult to say, but I would expect that during the course of this year we shall have far more information, based upon the flight tests at Mach 2. When these are completed and the manufacturers know the characteristics they should be able to make these known to possible customers, and it is at that stage that we hope the options will be converted into orders. I cannot put a specific date upon that transformation.

asked the Minister of Technology when Concorde will make a trial landing and take-off at London Airport, Heathrow.

There are no plans for Concorde to make a trial landing and take-off at Heathrow. Concorde is, however, likely to use Heathrow during its programme of route proving and endurance flying. This will probably not start before 1972.

What environmental studies are being made of the noise problems which Concorde is likely to create on approach, take-off and ground running? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that these are very relevant to its acceptability at Heathrow and to the question of the siting of the third London Airport?

Certainly these are very important questions. Many studies are going on into the effects of the sound which the Concorde will create on landing. We do not expect that they will be any more than the present subsonic jets when the proper engines are fitted. At present, the prototype engines which were put in it for the test runs are not the engines which will be used for landing and take-off at international airports.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will estimate the additional passenger fare necessary to cover Concorde's running costs as a percentage of the present economy fare; and what research his Department has carried out into potential passengers' willingness to pay it.

The level of surcharge is for the airlines to decide in the light of the traffic they believe Concorde will attract and their judgment how Concorde can most profitably be operated. All the Department's studies suggest that passengers will be prepared to pay a substantial premium to travel by Concorde.

Bearing in mind that the development costs of the Concorde, now standing at £730 million, have increased five-fold since 1962, can the Minister say what proportion of the development cost he intends to get back for the Government in the fares he is talking about?

This will depend on just how many sales of the Concorde are made. While there may have been a case at one time for criticising the Concorde, I think that now that it is flying we should recognise it as a very great Anglo-French technological achievement.

My hon. Friend cannot realistically talk about the number of aeroplanes that will be sold until we have an approximate idea of the price at which the Concorde will be offered. Since the price is bound to depend on the size of the levy which we hope to impose to recoup R & D costs, now is the time to know the Department's views on the proportion we should recoup.

That is hardly a question that can be fully evaluated while the tests are still going on. We must find out how acceptable the Concorde will be to the airlines after the tests. I have no doubt that it will be very acceptable. It will be an aeroplane that will increase their revenue, but we cannot tell them that until we can tell them the findings of the tests.

asked the Minister of Technology what recent consultations he has had with the managements of motor manufacturing companies about their plans for capital investment in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

I keep in very close touch with the managements of the motor manufacturing companies and they give me a great deal of information about their future plans, on the basis of absolute confidentiality.

Does the Minister realise that unless confidence in the motor industry is restored very soon its investment programmes from 1972 onwards will be gravely jeopardised?

Everybody recognises the relationship between the home market and expansion plans, but I hope that the hon. Member will not suggest that exports do not provide a basis for further growth. The latest published figures suggest that the home market is beginning to pick up.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had with the Japanese about space launchers.

None, Sir.

Can the Minister say why the Japanese can have a national space launcher programme while the British Government choose to rely entirely upon American space launchers? As we have the capability to carry out this observation, is not this policy painfully short-sighted?

Some misleading articles have appeared on this question. The Japanese Lambda launcher launched a satellite with a payload of 26 kilograms, whereas our Black Arrow is capable of launching a satellite with a payload of 100 kilograms. A strict comparison of the two cannot be anything but misleading.

Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the Conservative Party about the additional expenditure it intends to allocate to space research if it gets into office?

There is a Question down concerning the cost of the British space programme, and if it is reached it will be interesting to obtain information from hon. Members opposite as to the cost of their programme.

asked the Minister of Technology if, with a view to guaranteeing the long-term growth and development of the British motor manufacturing industry, he will take steps to counter any major contraction of car or commercial vehicle production in Great Britain by international companies by providing the machinery for Government action to take over underused capital assets of such contracting companies and thus to maintain and expand the level of employment and production.

No such contraction is planned. Indeed, I expect further expansion.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that anybody with a glimmer of sense would agree with him that international companies will not abandon their large capital assets in Britain? But does he also accept that the Government have a job to do to improve industrial relations in the industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—it is their job, and will continue to be—by demolishing the type of blackmail which is sometimes put forward in this direction by one or two misguided manufacturers and some Tory politicians?

That goes a bit beyond the original Question. The international company is here to stay and, in my opinion, will grow rapidly, not only in the motor manufacturing industry, but in many others. Somehow we must, by maintaining close contact with them, see that their work is, in general, of benefit to the United Kingdom. I have no reason to doubt that the presence of international companies here is helping exports and employment.

Is it not true that the industrial unrest in the motor industry, particularly in Fords, has led the American parent company to divert much of this work to German and other Continental plants, rather than undertaking it in this country?

The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to draw such conclusions. My own understanding is that, as these companies grow, they will increasingly develop their products across national frontiers. To draw the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman has drawn from that fact would he wrong.

asked the Minister of Technology what has been the total expenditure of Government money to date on Great Britain's space programme.

The total expenditure on national space activities since 1966, including estimated expenditure for the current financial year, amounts to £56·6 million.

What have we to show for this vast expenditure?

As I said earlier, we have already had test firings of the Black Arrow. It is important to realise that the Government have considered space activities as a means to an end and not as an end in themselves. It is also important to recognise that we are co-operating with the other international bodies, in E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. and Intelsat, and that an additional £62·4 million is being spent on this. We have, of course, had a considerable success in satellite communications.

Would my hon. Friend say that it is just possible that, in relation to the industrial capacity of the country, the British space effort is not as large as it should be?

Yes, but a decision was taken by the Government that the British space effort should be directed, as I said, to ends rather than means. We were concerned with the results of what we could put up rather than merely putting something up.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the expenditure of this country over the last 10 years —this is across Governments—has suffered desperately from the lack of defined commercial and technical mission, and that we have dissipated the money, under both Governments?

That may have been so at one time, but we are trying to recover now and to see that what we put our money into is commercially viable. This is the point, perhaps, at which the question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), on Question No. 21, could be answered. If we went into the space field in a really big way, the costs would be quite out of keeping with our industrial potential.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will publish for each major sector of manufacturing and process industry twice each year the percentage utilisation of plant capacity and the estimated utilisation one year ahead;

The Department takes all action that is considered appropriate to identify any sectors of industry where plant capacity may be limiting output. There are no plans for the publication of the information requested.

Are there not signs that industry now has its capacity finely adjusted to the present level of demand and to the slow growth rate of recent years? Is there not a risk that we shall shortly be facing a capacity crisis?

I would not accept that proposition, but we do watch closely all the indicators which we receive from industry. We keep in close touch with those industries which we sponsor as a Department.

Would my hon. Friend resist any suggestions from industry that shortage of plant capacity can be tackled by the Government relaxing their I.D.C. policy, in view of the essential contribution which this is making to regional development?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of regional policy. We are well aware, from the utterances which we have heard, how that policy would be watered down by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to receive the report of the independent inquiry into north sea gas conversions; and if he will make a statement.

I asked Professor Morton to prepare his report as soon as possible consistently with making a thorough investigation, but am not able to estimate when this will be.

I again thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to the inquiry, and I am sure that all of us hope that the result will ensure that a great national asset will be used fully for the benefit of the public. Would my right hon. Friend stress to Professor Morton the need for urgency in presenting this report, so that the public's genuine fears can be allayed? Meanwhile, is the disquiet about conversions being relieved in any way by any change in conversion procedures?

On the first part of that question, I asked Professor Morton to let us have the report as soon as possible, but of course, not at the expense of thoroughness. As to conversions, we are continuing the conversions and intensifying the effort to mitigate the inconvenience which these cause, temporarily, to consumers.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that this inquiry will look into the whole problem of conversions? Judging from the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave me the other day, that was not apparent from the terms of reference given to the professor. When this report is given to him, will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that it is published?

There is nothing ambiguous about the terms of reference. They made it absolutely apparent that they would cover not the whole field of conversions, but the aspect of safety. That is crystal clear from the terms of reference.

Will there be any opportunity for individuals to give evidence to the professor during the inquiry? Despite his last answer, would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of widening the scope of the inquiry, so that those who are really concerned about the conduct of the conversion operation have a chance to put their case?

This was to be an inquiry into all the safety aspects of natural gas, and I see no reason to widen the terms of reference. They are wide enough and could not be clearer. As to giving evidence, that is a matter for the professor himself to decide, although I do not doubt that he would want to enjoy an opportunity of having any relevant evidence, orally or in writing, as he may determine.

asked the Minister of Technology if he has yet received the report of the Working Group for a European Telecommunications Satellite; and if he will make a statement.

A copy of the final draft was received recently. The report is now being evaluated by the European bodies concerned, and until this has been done, we shall not be in a position to make a statement.

While disagreeing with part of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) earlier, may I ask whether the Government agree with the proposal for a 500 kilogram communications satellite to be launched by a Europa III launcher?

The United Kingdom has declared its willingness in principle to participate in the programme, but until the final report has been produced and evaluated, and necessary information has come from certain bodies, like the European Conference on Posts and Communications and the European Broadcasting Union, no decision can be taken, except in principle.

In making its evaluation, will the Department study the admirable report of the hon. Member for Eastleigh presented to the Council of Europe about 10 years ago and supported unanimously by that body? Does the Minister agree that that report remains absolutely right, and that if Governments had followed it we should be in a better position in space now?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me a reference to that report. I am sure that it will be looked at when the full report is studied.

asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to receive the results of the study of the effectiveness of the investment grant scheme.

asked the Minister of Technology by what date he now estimates that his Department's investigation of the effectiveness of investment grants will be completed and published.

I hope that the study will be completed by the end of the year. The question of publication will be considered when the results are available.

I am sure that it is the wish of the House that the information should be published in full for the benefit of all. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no need for any delay in making certain changes to the investment grant scheme during the period we are waiting for the report? Can he confirm that there is evidence that changes in the amounts of the grant possibly affect investment decisions even more than the level of the grants? Will he go into that matter as well?

The question of a study is a complex matter, as my hon. Friend understands. It must take into account all the factors that affect profitability of investment and influence businessmen's investment decisions. I must ask the House to be patient.

Does the Minister recall that it is well over a year since the study was first announced and that in the meantime investment grants have gone spiralling upwards while manufacturing investment has not? There is growing evidence of a widespread waste of public money in this programme, and it is high time the report was produced—not at the end of the year, but now.

I cannot accept that there is widespread waste in the investment grant system. I am sorry that the programme has slipped a little, but we hope to get the report out by the end of the year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that very grave damage is being done to possibilities of industrial development in our development areas because of the injudicious remarks from the other side of the House about the security of investment grants?

I agree that some of the ill-judged statements by hon. Members opposite and Opposition spokesmen about the matter calling this into question affect businessmen's investment decisions and create a great deal of harm.

Will the Minister now answer the question his hon. Friend notoriously failed to answer a moment ago? How is it that since investment grants were introduced in 1966 the buoyancy of investment by manufacturing industry in real terms has been half that of investment in the distributive and service industries?

The question is about the study. I have explained that it is going ahead and that the questionnaires have been sent out. I must ask the House to be patient.

Will the Minister accept that if any changes are made by the next Government—the Conservative Government—they will, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have always stressed, be in no way retrospective?

I think that that came out loud and clear in the right hon. Gentleman's article in the Spectator. For the very first time we heard from the Opposition that they acknowledge that investment grants are no more expensive than investment allowances. I think that that also came out very clearly, and we are very pleased to have it from the right hon. Gentleman. There is still a basic difference here on the Opposition Front Bench, and it is about time the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) got together on the matter and straightened it out.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the progress being made by Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

I understand that the company is finishing off as quickly as possible the sophisticated and other nonstandard ships it has under construction and has recently announced a number of new orders for standard merchant ships. Management arrangements are being improved. As a result of these developments, discussions have been opened with the trade unions about arrangements for reducing the labour force by 3,500 rather than 2,600 agreed last summer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that considerable progress has been made towards the targets planned at the time of the last Government intervention? Can he confirm that there is a need for a demonstration by all involved in the project of the maximum responsibility and flexibility at times of difficulty like the present?

I have no reason to believe that the people working in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders have not been very well aware of the need to co-operate. All my experience of them has been of their readiness to do so.

During the last fortnight I have had the opportunity to meet both management and the chief shop stewards to discuss the problems facing Upper Clyde Shipbuilders today, particularly the reduction in numbers employed. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that reducing a labour force at any time is a very difficult and tender job. I hope he will attain his end, keeping that in mind, and that production on Clydeside will go ahead.

I recognise the difficulties, but I think that my hon. Friend will know that with the support given by the Government to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders there is a very strong case for continuing the move towards greater productivity by this and other means.

May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that there has been no need for the Government to give any completion guarantees, or have any been given?

No completion guarantees have yet been given. I should be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's view on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

On a point of order. Increasingly we notice at Question Time that questions are put to Her Majesty's Opposition. This is not a part of Question Time. Would you, Mr. Speaker, rule that questions should be answered where Ministerial responsibility rests and should not be flung across the Floor of the House? They never have been in the 20 years I have been here, and I am sure that the Ruling has not changed.

Order. I have noticed that interesting phenomenon, but it is not new.

On a point of order.

Order. Points of order take up Question Time.

Is there any means whereby the House can protect itself from the attempts of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) to usurp your position, Mr. Speaker?

Order. That is not a point of order.

Is my right hon. Friend likely to pay an early visit to the Clyde?

I have no plans to go to the Clyde. With regard to the point of order of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), I have never thought that there was any responsibility on the Opposition Front Bench.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to identify the reasons why the price paid by domestic consumers of gas in Scotland was 23 per cent. above the average price in England and Wales in 1968–69; and what estimate he has made of the extent to which natural gas supplies will reduce this differential.

This was due to differences in the underlying costs, arising principally from the different geography and patterns of consumer distribution, housing development and consumption. Because England and Wales are receiving natural gas ahead of Scotland the differential is likely to increase at first, but should begin to fall thereafter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that natural gas will be supplied to Scotland at the same price as to other areas? To what extent does he think that that will contribute to reducing the large differential of 5s. in the pound, which the Minister admits will increase?

When Scotland gets natural gas, it will get it in bulk at the same price as other regions, but the underlying costs of distribution will have to be taken into account in the final price. I think that there will be some reduction in differential, nevertheless, when natural gas comes to Scotland.

asked the Minister of Technology how much the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has invested in British industry since 1st January, 1970.

No investments have been made so far this year.

May I express the hope that this excellent record will continue throughout 1970 because is it not a fact that of the 18 major investments made by the I.R.C. no fewer than 14 of the companies concerned are now earning a lower return on capital employed than before the corporation made its investment?

I can only say that the hon. Member's scornful references to the I.R.C. are not shared by those in industry who have worked with it.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the sort of comments we hear from hon. Members opposite, because one can look at figures the other way round, such as profit forecasts for A.E.I. before the I.R.C. and G.E.C. came on the scene, and then look at the return on capital before and since? But will my right hon. Friend promise that the corporation will not help the private airlines with money in order to keep them out of the hands of B.O.A.C.?

The airlines fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had with representatives of the British motor industry about the development of a pollution-free engine; and what financial aid is being given by his Department towards the cost of such development.

The Department frequently discusses the reduction of exhaust pollution with the motor industry. It gives the industry general help by means of its annual grant to the Motor Industry Research Association, and is also supporting the development of batteries for electric cars.

Is the Minister aware that both the President of the United States and the President of General Motors, whose policy on this matter is as one, have called in America for the development of a pollution-free engine within five years as a time limit? Will he now state a time limit for the British industry?

I think that it is impossible to develop a motor car engine which is totally pollution-free, but what can be done at a cost of about £20 or £30 is to develop the technical aspects of an existing engine in order to meet the present Federal regulations in the United States of America.

asked the Minister of Technology (1) why all Government contracts with Handley Page Aircraft Limited were transferred to Hawker Siddeley Limited on Monday 2nd March;

asked the Minister of Technology what alternative arrangements he is making for the conversion of Victor bombers to the tanker role, in view of the going into liquidation of Handley Page Aircraft Limited.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement in regard to the contract between his Department and Handley Page Limited for the conversion of Victor bombers.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his actions in relation to Handley Page.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the Adjournment debate on 12th March, 1970.—[Vol. 797, c. 1696–708.]

Is not the Minister aware that a great deal of harm was done to Handley Page Aircraft Limited by the delay in awarding the Victor bomber tanker conversion contract; and that had it been granted last summer, something might have been done? Why were the Government so quick to write off the firm, and not so quick to do something to preserve it?

On the last occasion I answered the hon. Gentleman's question and other questions very fully, and the hon. Gentleman then agreed that it was dependent on the two factors, one being the conversion programme and the other, Jetstream, and that if one could not be operated successfully the other could not stand on its own. The contract could not be let until the Government were assured that Handley Page design and design capability could handle the contract. The pre-studies for the design were all covered by contract, but we had not received the final costs from Handley Page when the receiver went in.

Can the Minister say what delay the liquidation of Handley Page Aircraft will cause in the programme of the conversion of the Victor bomber into the tanker rôle, and what delays it will mean in getting those aircraft into service with the R.A.F.?

This delay will be minimised. Handley Page Aircraft Limited was in liquidation last October, but at that period contingency planning had taken place, and Hawker Siddeley had been questioned about the possibility of its taking over. Therefore, when Handley Page Aircraft Limited went into liquidation these contingency plans were made with Hawker Siddeley and there should be the minimum delay because of the transfer to Hawker Siddeley.

As this is a serious defence requirement, can the Minister tell us whether there is now a firm contract with Hawker Siddeley and whether he is satisfied that the firm has all the facilities available either at Radlett or elsewhere to carry out the contract with the utmost speed?

We are sure that Hawker Siddeley has all the facilities, and we believe that as the contract has gone to a firm of the size and type of Hawker Siddeley there will be the minimum delay compatible with this type of job. The final contract has not been let, but we hope that it will not be very long before it is.

Is the uneconomic course to be pursued of sending the work to Woodford, near Manchester? What is to happen to the 2,800 employees in respect of superannuation, holidays with pay and all the other moneys they were owed when the firm went into liquidation?

The extra cost of moving the work should not be exaggerated. On the question of the position of those who were working at Handley Page Aircraft Limited, I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity last week met two groups of representatives of the workpeople, and with them we went through many of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I think that we were able to reassure them on many of the points, but some of them, unfortunately, are matters for the receiver to handle.

asked the Minister of Technology what was the value in sterling of research work undertaken under contract by the Atomic Energy Authority in the Dounreay fast reactor in 1967, 1968 and 1969.

The income earned from undertaking irradiation of materials in the Dounreay fast reactor in the calendar years 1967, 1968 and 1969 was £160,000, £210,000 and £860,000 respectively. In addition, a further £40,000 was earned in 1969 from post-irradiation examination work. This income was all in foreign currency.

Will my hon. Friend agree that this has been a most useful exercise by public enterprise in helping our export drive and can he give any prognosis? Does he expect that the work will continue, or that international competition may reduce its volume?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is certainly an example of public enterprise going into a new market and being very successful in penetrating it and developing its potential. The figures for the earlier years were depressed by the shut-down of the reactor for leak testing, but the present figures for this year show an increase that we hope will continue.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the work on the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay.

Progress is continuing satisfactorily, and this suggests it should be possible to complete the P.F.R. by the end of 1971, and the reactor should be on power by the end of 1972.

Can my hon. Friend say for how long he expects it will be necessary to retain the Dounreay fast reactor in commission to back up the work on the prototype?

I am afraid that I could not give an estimate of that period of time without prior notice.

asked the Minister of Technology what is now the expected commissioning programme of the Dungeness B advanced gas-cooled reactor.

The C.E.G.B. has advised me that commercial operation by 1972 is no longer possible, but I will inform the House of the revised date when the C.E.G.B. has completed its study of this matter.