asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will seek to make an official visit to the European Launcher Development Organisation headquarters in Paris.

I have no present plans to visit the E.L.D.O. Headquarters in Paris.

What constructive proposals do the Government have as a reaction to the Americans' offer of the post-Apollo programme, particularly in relation to Phase C?

There is a team in the United States, in which the United Kingdom is taking part, to study the availability of launchers. The other matter is under consideration, and I will make a statement as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Concorde supersonic airliner.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Concorde flight test development programme.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde aircraft.

The two Concorde prototypes have now completed nearly 400 hours of flight testing, including tests at Concorde's cruising speed of twice the speed of sound. The results of these tests are now being assessed. About £500 million has been spent on development so far.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, bearing in mind that the Concorde is powered with Rolls-Royce engines, its commercial future has been gravely prejudiced by the Government's reluctance to renegotiate the contract to supply the Rolls-Royce engines for the Lockheed TriStar, and also by the disgraceful way in which the right hon. Gentleman himself knocked Rolls-Royce engines in his speech on Monday?

I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's proposition. It is thoroughly mischievous to suggest that this will happen. I am confident that the American airlines will judge Concorde on its commercial aspects. With regard to the other matter, if hon. Gentlemen will re-read the context in which I made the remark that the engine was behind, they will realise that it applied solely to time. They know that delay has destroyed the best technical advances, such as Comet, but if they like to make political capital out of a grave national disaster like this, it is up to them. I propose to give the House as honest an assessment as I can of what I believe are the prospects.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, so far from the commercial prospects being prejudiced, the flight test development so far has given the British aircraft industry every indication that it has a product which it can sell to the airlines? There have been 60 hours of supersonic speeds and six to eight hours at more than Mach 2.

I agree that the flight tests have proved very satisfactory, and certainly the French reactions to the Rolls-Royce engine in no way confirm the fears expressed from the other side of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest concern would be caused if the aircraft were to continue in production with insufficient orders, allowing it to trickle on neither making a profit nor producing enough to offset the money spent on it? Leaving aside the money already spent, what estimate has the Minister made of the numbers of aircraft required to be sold to break even?

I have explained to the House and to the hon. Gentleman in particular on a number of occasions that I am having a complete review with my French colleague in March to study the commercial prospects. It is on that review and the prospects that the future depends. As for the number, the answer is approximately 100.

Will my right hon. Friend not agree that, in addition to his remarks about Concorde, its sales prospects will not be determined by whether or not the Americans or anyone else think that we are nice chaps, but by the speed with which B.O.A.C. and Air France place orders for the aeroplane? Will he continue to do all he can to encourage those companies to convert their interest into a firm order for Concorde?

Of course, the attitude of B.O.A.C. and Air France is very important.

Is the Minister aware, with reference to the point he made in answer to the first supplementary question, that it was not only his attack upon the RB211 but his slighting reference to the 1011 compared with its competitor in the United States that has caused grave damage and made the position worse. Does he agree, too, that the credibility of Rolls-Royce has been affected and prejudiced by the decision on the RB211 and that this may affect Concorde? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make political representations at the highest level in New York State and in Washington on the noise question, which could be the decisive issue in the end?

The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I made no damaging remarks about the Lockheed 1011, except to indicate that the DC10 was clearly getting more orders.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the reduction of lateral noise and smoke pollution in Concorde.

It is a design objective of the Concorde programme that its engine noise on entry into service should be no greater than that of existing subsonic jet aircraft. Smoke emission is expected to be generally less than that of current large jet aircraft.

Will not even newer versions of current subsonic aeroplanes have to reduce their noise levels under the new regulations? Will Concorde be able to meet the new regulations?

The hon. Gentleman is right about subsonic aircraft, but he knows that no regulations for supersonic aircraft have yet been proposed. Discussions have been proceeding.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the State Assembly of New York is now having hearings through its Health Committee? Will the Government submit evidence to the committee and send a senior official or a Minister to try to satisfy the committee on the noise aspects of Concorde's operations?

I should like to think about the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what recent discussions his Department has had with airport authorities in the United States of America concerning the operation of Concorde into and out of United States airports.

This question was most recently discussed between British and French officials and the Port of New York Authority at the end of October last year. We are continuing to keep in close touch with developments in this field.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware of the evidence which I submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry about discussions held with the City of New York authorities some six months ago on this whole question and what the attitude of the City of New York would be towards the Concorde? Will he take most seriously the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on an earlier Question about the need to involve ourselves as soon as possible in direct discussions with the New York authorities on the whole question of Concorde and noise levels?

Yes, Sir; I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Assemblyman Stein, evidently a key figure in the New York Assembly, will arrive here this week? Will he arrange for Mr. Stein to visit Farnborough so that the presentation on noise suppression which can be given is given to him and, through him, made available to the State Assembly?

We are thinking along those lines. Perhaps I might have a word with the right hon. Gentleman after Questions.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of his Department's activities with those of the French Government regarding the development of the Concorde programme.

The development and production of Concorde is a joint programme, and there is very close coordination, at every level, between the work of my Department and that of the French authorities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but, again on the question of negotiations and discussions with the Americans, will he ensure that we are in a much stronger position by being associated with the French Government than we should be if we were on our own, and will he, please, ensure that the British and French Governments jointly leave the American Government in no doubt that neither of our Governments would be prepared to tolerate bogus environment arguments put up to prevent Concorde from landing at United States airports?

These are matters for very serious consideration, but I do not think that we can dictate to the United States what we are prepared to tolerate.

But when Lord Carrington visits the United States to discuss with the Government the Rolls-Royce position, will he also raise with Mr. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, and other Ministers the political importance to this country of not having Concorde endangered by a decision on environmental grounds?

I have no doubt that Mr. Volpe is fully seized of these considerations, but I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. and noble Friend.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the development and sales of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircraft and if he will indicate what arrangements are being made for its manufacture and sale with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation of the United States of America.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the supply of Harrier aircraft to the United States Marine Corps.

Development of the aircraft as an operational weapons system is now substantially completed. The United States Marine Corps has ordered 30 aircraft for delivery in 1971 and 1972 and has authorised orders for long-dated materials for a further 30 aircraft for delivery in 1973. Other countries are showing considerable interest. Hawker Siddeley Aviation has negotiated with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation for the manufacture of Harriers in the U.S.A. but the 30 aircraft so far ordered are being produced in this country.

Although, obviously, there are some advantages in using the commercial sales organisation and other facilities in McDonnell Douglas, will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to ensure that the Harriers are manufactured as far as possible by a British company?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that this is a question for the decision of the American Government. It is, clearly, preferable to us that the Harriers should be manufactured in this country.

To what extent are future major orders tied up with manufacture in the United States? Do we expect to make any sales to the United States Navy as opposed to the Marine Corps?

At the moment there is no tie-up as my hon. Friend suggests. I expect that if the United States Navy or Army reproduces these orders, the United States Government will wish to consider their attitude towards manufacture in the United States.

What pressure is my right hon. Friend bringing to bear on the Royal Navy to order versions of the Harrier for use by the Royal Navy with its carriers?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply how much Government expenditure has been incurred in each of the past three years to help finance research into the development of quieter jet engines; and whether he will make a policy statement.

Research into engine noise in the years 1967–68, 1968–69 and 1969–70 has cost £338,000, £523,800 and £857,000 respectively. But other work on aircraft noise reduction brings the totals up to higher figures, and there has also been some private expenditure by the manufacturers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the research work which has been undertaken by Rolls-Royce on its own account in recent years has been considerable, and that, as a result of this work, it has achieved a world lead in the development of quieter engines, and, in particular, that the RB211 has produced a major technical breakthrough in this regard? Will this be considered in the renegotiation?

Most certainly. On the general point, most of this work has been done at Pyestock but quite a lot has been on contracts from the Department to Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Jaguar flight test development programme.

Seven prototypes of the aircraft have flown, and the eighth is due to fly this summer. Despite the loss of EO1, progress is well up to expectation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that progress is more than up to expectation in terms of payload range and that in terms of utilisation of prototypes the rate of flying has been exceptional? This is a product powered by Rolls-Royce engines and manufactured by British and French industry in which we can all justly take pride.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting, too, that the development costs of the Jaguar programme have been held very close to the original estimates.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he expects to receive the report of the accountants investigating the financial position of Rolls-Royce.

To a large extent, this has been overtaken by events, but in the Government's assessment of the position, Messrs. Cooper Bros' preliminary assessment was, of course, of considerable assistance.

In the Minister's reply to my intervention on Monday, he was courteous enough to say that the reason why he did not intervene in the negotiations with Lockheed was that there might be a contravention of Section 332 of the Companies Act. Is the Minister seriously saying that the reason why he did not try to renegotiate the Lockheed contract and so save the firm of Rolls-Royce in a compromise settlement was that it might be interpreted as a contravention of Section 332—as an attempt to defraud the creditors of Rolls-Royce?

There is no question of defrauding the creditors. As I sought to explain before, the situation was that the time was excessively short because the Rolls-Royce decision was made when it was, as I think I put it, right up against it from the point of view of meeting its liabilities. Within that time, we did our best, and we got in touch with the United States Government and with Lockheed.

Can the Minister say anything about the position of the unsecured creditors of Rolls-Royce, particularly the sub-contractors and suppliers? Will they be left in the same position as Lockheed? Or, if not, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose under our bankruptcy laws to arrange to discriminate in favour of unsecured creditors of United Kingdom domicile and Lockheed? If the sub-contractors go there is no point in trying to save Rolls-Royce itself, as I am sure the Minister agrees.

These are matters for the Receiver.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether the independent accountants who are currently investigating the affairs of the Rolls-Royce Company Limited at the request of Her Majesty's Government will be authorised to investigate the fulfilment of their obligations to minority shareholders by the management of this company between June, 1968 and November, 1970, with particular reference to their obligations under Section 165(b)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1948; and whether the accountants will be authorised to publish reports on such matters if they so desire.

I think this matter is now best left to the inquiry under the Companies Act that the Board of Rolls-Royce has proposed. The report will be published.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the company's announcement that it is to call for the appointment of inspectors. In view of the vital importance of the RB211 in destroying the value of investors' shareholdings in this company and the extent of the involvement of the Ministry of Technology and the I.R.C. in that contract, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the inspectors will be empowered to investigate not only the conduct of the board towards its shareholders but also the extent to which that conduct may or may not have been influenced by the Ministry of Technology or the I.R.C.?

As I understand it, the powers of the inspectors under the Act are very wide indeed, certainly wide enough to cover all the matters my hon. Friend has in mind, and wide enough for them to go in as much detail as they regard as necessary into any one aspect.

Would the Minister be prepared new, with the benefit of Monday's debate, to make a recommendation to his right hon. and hon. Friends that the Bill which is to be debated tomorrow should be amended so that full public ownership of Rolls-Royce should take place?

No, Sir.

Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the position of the suppliers for the RB211 and other existing engines? Their position is absolutely crucial, as I am sure my right hon. Friend realises, and they would be very grateful if any indication of the Government's attitude could be given as soon as possible.

I appreciate the anxieties, but I am not in any position to add to what I have already said.

Has the Department had any official approach from Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines and T.W.A. about continuing the RB211 as mentioned in this morning's Press?

Not to my knowledge.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what financial assistance his Department is giving to Rolls-Royce in the development of vertical lift engines.

The Department has supported the RB162 lift engine, to which the French and German Governments also contributed. In addition, the XJ99 experimental military engine was developed in conjunction with the Americans.

May we have an assurance that the Government will now put even more priority behind this research, in view of the importance of these engines to virtually every Western European vertical take-off project and because of their importance for recouping the finances of Rolls-Royce? Further, will my hon. Friend give particular support to the carbon fibre industry since the carbon fibre blades are crucial to these engines?

I had the honour last week of opening the first International Carbon Fibre Conference, when I said that Her Majesty's Government were giving substantial support across the board to the development of carbon fibres. On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his phraseology? He said that the Government had supported the RB162. Will he now say that the Government will continue to support the RB162?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we shall be discussing all this tomorrow.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply why the contracted details of the agreement with Rolls-Royce (Bristol Engine Division) for the further development of the Olympus 593 engine are confidential.

The negotiation of commercial contracts is conducted in confidence between the parties concerned, and it would not, therefore, be proper for the details of these contracts to be given.

That is a totally unsatisfactory reply, because it says precisely nothing. Surely one of the lessons out of the many emerging from the unhappy story of the RB211 is that more information should be freely available, particularly to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman have second thoughts?

The answer says almost exactly what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said on 7th March, 1968. I appreciate that saying nothing is more characteristic of him than of me, but that is the case.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what undertakings were sought from the President of the United States of America on Tuesday, 2nd February, or Wednesday, 3rd February, relating to a joint effort by the British and American Governments to save the RB211 project and the Lockheed Tristar; and what answer was received.

No undertakings were sought or given on either side. Both Governments agreed that the firms should discuss the problem first.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply, like his speech on Monday, will be received with dismay in the Derby area? Why were no satisfactory undertakings sought from the American Administration or the Lockheed Corporation immediately Lord Cole told the Government on 26th January what the Rolls-Royce position was?

It was a question not of seeking undertakings at once but of putting those people in the picture and giving them some time to consider the situation. That is now going on.

In the Minister's view, is the project worth saving?

Yes, I think it is.

As the Minister presumably would wish to do something to restore some of the lost reputation of Britain, would he at least give the House an assurance that he has not ruled out the possibility of avoiding a liquidation by one of the several options still open?

Yes, I can give that assurance.

Did the Government approach the American authorities to try to find a satisfactory solution before agreeing to the appointment of a Receiver?

It was not a question of the Government's agreeing. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows, as an ex-President of the Board of Trade, that this is a matter where the law takes its course. We were left with a very small amount of time, and we did our best to make the maximum use of it.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is his estimate of the total number of redundancies directly involved in the immediate cessation of work on the RB211 engine by Rolls-Royce Ltd.

There would be very substantial redundancies. But I do not think that I should anticipate the decision on the RB211 nor the outcome of discussions between the Receiver, the staff and the unions.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman, in fact, telling the House that the number of redundancies consequent on the cancellation of the project was not calculated when the Government were doing their costing on the full effects of the cancellation? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be honest with the House on what the full effects and the numbers involved will be?

Of course these things were taken into consideration, but the plain fact is that the discussions on whether the RB211 can continue are still going on.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many suppliers and subcontractors in the Derby area face bankruptcy, and that the redundancies will be considerably increased unless we can have an assurance that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this very serious situation?

Of course I am aware of the problem. but I cannot add to what I have said in answer to a previous Question; namely, that the matter is in the hands of the Receiver.

In view of the danger of redundancies because of the continuing uncertainties about the whole future of the company, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what the Receiver said yesterday, that those who might wish to continue commercial relations with Rolls-Royce for supplies other than for the RB211 may do so certain in the knowledge that they will not commit themselves to further liabilities?

I do not think that it is for me to confirm or otherwise the Receiver's instructions.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further progress has been made in the multi-rôle combat aircraft development programme; and if he will make a statement on the anticipated total of research and development costs.

As I stated in reply to a similar Question on 20th January, the first major phase of development is now under way on a tripartite basis. I have nothing to add to the Minister of State for Defence's Statement on 22nd July, 1970, concerning the research and development costs.—[Vol. 809, c. 1050. Vol. 804, c. 555–8.]

The House will be glad to know that progress is being made and that importance is attached to this programme, but does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that a year ago he was pressing strongly for full publication of the costs involved in the programme, including the United Kingdom's share? Has he now changed his mind about publication, or, if not, can he give the House the figures?

The figure which was given is £250 million for the first phase, up to the first check point. I have no wish to hide anything, but I do not think that I can go further at this point. At present, the first stage is looking ahead to see what happens at the next stage.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether design and management responsibility in the multi-rôle combat aircraft project is in direct relationship to the participating Government's financial investment.

Yes, Sir.

Can my right hon. Friend deny a rumour that the West Germans are providing quite a large stake of the share which the Italians are purporting to put up in their 15 per cent. shareholding? If that be true, does it not give the West Germans a leading position in the consortium, with all the attendant benefits?

No, Sir; there is no question of the West Germans procuring for themselves a leading position by a device of that sort.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what evaluation studies are being undertaken of the Short SC1 vertical take-off and landing aircraft; what results have been obtained; and if he will make a statement on future plans for this aircraft.

It has never been the intention to develop the SC1 for operational use, but the fundamental knowledge gained from the research programme has contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the evaluation, design and operation of both military and vicil V/STOL aircraft. A two-year research programme has recently begun on flight control systems which ease the pilot's task. It is too early to report on results. No decision has been taken on work beyond this programme.

In view of the great interest shown in this country in VTOL and the importance of the multijet as opposed to the deflector jet for vertical take-off, will my hon. Friend consider making use of the know-how which we have gained in this pioneering work over the past 10 years by formulating a requirement for another more advanced aircraft of this type?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he asks. As he knows, these aircraft were originally delivered in 1961 as experimental aircraft. But he is entirely right in suggesting that a lot of the knowledge gained has already been incorporated in such aircraft as the Harrier.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what was the value of British imports of United States aircraft and aerospace products in the past year, compared with British exports to the United States of America in the same period; and what further action he proposes to increase British exports.

Imports of aircraft, aero-engines and parts from the United States of America amounted to £86 million in 1970; the corresponding figure for exports was £49 million. We shall continue to give every assistance to British exporters that we can.

Do not those figures show the confidence of the industry in the policies of the previous Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)? Is not the conversion ratio of exports to imports higher for the British aircraft industry than for shipbuilding, vehicles and many other industries, and is there not an incentive here for continued pump-priming?

That point is a matter of economic fact. On his first point, there is no room for vast satisfaction when the imports were double the exports.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further progress has been made in the development of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what development of aero-engines specifically linked with civil short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft projects is at present being funded by his Department.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what was the expenditure incurred by him in design studies and development of vertical take-off and landing and short take-off and landing aircraft and engines, respectively, and in total during 1970; and what is his estimate of expenditure in this field during the current year and succeeding years.

I take these Questions to apply to civil projects. No expenditure was incurred on design studies or development of V/STOL projects, but the Department continued to support exploratory work. Future expenditure will depend upon the results of the studies now nearing completion and the reappraisal which must follow the financial failure of Rolls-Royce Limited.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that more and more people are looking to a project of this kind for relief from air and surface traffic congestion, and can he assure us that work is going ahead on a number of problems, including air traffic congestion, noise and other social problems? Third, is he satisfied that the local authorities as well as the airport authorities are aware of the contribution which they can make in the advancement of these projects?

I agree with a great deal of that. This is an important, though potentially expensive, development which could take many years. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, quite apart from the purely technical feasibility factors, we must be satisfied about the economics of the operation, about noise levels and about the potential market, as well as major planning considerations such as those to which he referred. This has been very much at the heart of the Southampton University exploratory studies.

Britain has the lead in this field. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will be done to neglect the lead which we now have, realising that 15 years from now we could well get rid of concrete runways and use vertical take-off?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that we are doing extremely well in the exploratory work, but I do not think it is right to say that we have a unique lead in what we are really looking for, which is a commercial civil aircraft. It it in the military field that we are so distinguished.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the importance which an aircraft of this type could have in the development of the Scottish Highlands, which are tending to lose their land transport—for instance, their railways—and will he pay attention to that aspect of it?

I have great sympathy with any interest which the hon. Gentleman expresses in the Highlands, but I am not sure that everyone in the Highlands and the Highlands Tourist Board would think that filling the glens with vertical take-off aircraft would necessarily be in the interests of the environment and the aim of attracting more tourists to the Highlands.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what progress is being made with the capital reconstruction of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.

The Rolls-Royce position has introduced a new factor which is being examined, but I confirm my reply on 20th January that reconstruction of the company is currently under consideration. I then promised to make a statement in due course, and I will do so as soon as possible.—[Vol. 809, c. 1048–49.]

In view of the substantial loss of work which may result from the failure of Rolls-Royce and also the difficult employment situation in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to expedite the decision so that the company can press ahead with both engineering diversification and aviation research, design and production work to maintain employment in Northern Ireland?

Yes, Sir. However, I am not optimistic about engineering diversification, which has been tried in the past with not very much success.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what increases have been authorised in the staff of the Countryside Commission during the last six months; and what increases are at present under consideration.

One post has been added and three have been regraded. The Countryside Commission informed me that the matter which was concerning it most was the senior staff structure, and I am pleased to say that I have now reached agreement with the chairman on the senior staff structure.

Whilst I welcome that statement to some extent, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxieties expressed in the last Report of the Commission and our general eagerness to encourage the Commission to get ahead with its very useful work?

I am very anxious to encourage the Commission in its work. I have now settled with its Chairman the matter which was most important to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply has been sent to the letter addressed to the Minister of Local Government and Development, on 15th December, 1970, by Mrs. B. Whitworth and others, requesting a local public inquiry into housing provision in the London borough of Havering.

Mrs. Whitworth's letter was received on 15th January, 1971. The reply has been delayed because of the Post Office strike, but my right hon. Friend is considering the matter urgently.

I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the urgency of the matter, which has been pending for very much longer than the hon. Gentleman stated, particularly in view of the disastrous collapse of the house-building programme in the London Borough of Havering, the failure of the borough council to undertake a fully comprehensive survey of the housing needs of the borough, and its failure to make further provision to assist the overall housing problem of the metropolis as a whole.

I certainly cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman says. He is asking for an inquiry into these matters. My right hon. Friend has to make a decision on that application. The hon. Gentleman talks about delays. I agree that this has gone on far too long, but, unfortunately, the complainants indicated in September that they wished to comment further and it was not until January that we received a letter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to meet the criticisms contained in paragraph 1.2 of the Third Report of the Countryside Commission.

It is not for me to defend the record of the previous Government, but as far as I am concerned I will at all times take landscape and conservation aspects fully into account when proposals for development are before me.

When doing that, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the areas now occupied by military establishments of one sort or another?

I am delighted that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed to have a committee to look into all the establishments now owned by the Defence Department. I had the opportunity of nominating such distinguished people as the Chairman of the Countryside Commission to sit on that committee.

Whilst it is quite true that it is not for the right hon. Gentleman to defend our record. is not it also true that on further mature consideration by him and his colleagues they have confirmed the original Chilterns route which their predecessors took?

It is true that one of the four points criticised in the Report is the Chilterns route, and that we confirmed our support of the original route taken. I am glad that we have now obtained the conversion of the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a distinguished landscape artist, to support our original view.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake discussions with the Countryside Commission with a view to redefining its functions and the financial resources which can be made available to it at the present time.

Discussion with the Commission on its work programme and the financial resources available to it is a continuing process.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he please take into account the introduction to the Commission's Report for 1969–70 and bear in mind that hon. Members on this side, and, I am sure, hon. Members opposite, were most anxious to see more help given to maintain and restore our national heritage in an increasingly commercially-dominated age?

Nine of the 12 months concerned were in no way my responsibility, but I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state that adequate resources of both revenue and capital will be available to the Commission so that the recreational aspects of its functions can be properly expanded?

Certainly, the Countryside Commission will have better resources than under the previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the operation of improvement grants, and take steps to ensure that they are applied to achieve the most effective use of resources.

House improvements are an integral part of the Government's housing policy, and we are keeping the operation of the grants scheme under constant review.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. This is a most wonderful scheme which is doing a tremendous job throughout the country. Will he now consider extending it to the pre-1939 houses which have bathrooms and hot water but are beginning to show signs of deterioration and need of modernisation? This would further help conserve our stock of houses which we want to keep.

Both sides of the House strongly support this policy. I agree with my hon. Friend; he is right in saying that the operation of the discretionary grant scheme for older houses would be of tremendous importance. I am delighted that Birmingham's house improvement month begins next week.

Will the hon. Gentleman further consider extending the house improvement grant to cover electrical re-wiring of houses? This is frequently the most expensive item in house improvement and its neglect is often the cause of tire damage.

I am willing to consider any suggestion for the improvement of the scheme, which is heartily supported by all people of good will.

The 1969 Act already covers this need, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities are not necessarily pursuing their powers in this respect as they should be? Is it not, therefore, most important in this connection, and in connection with general operations under the policy, that the manual which was in preparation under the last Government should be published as soon as possible and that advice should be issued specifically to local authorities pointing out that the Act was not intended to replace slum clearance programmes, as many authorities are now using it, or abusing it, in so doing?

I have no evidence that any local authorities are abusing the Act, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he has evidence I shall be delighted to look at it. I share the view he expressed in the earlier part of his supplementary question. I will look into the point about the manual. We are continually considering what further advice we should give local authorities about this matter.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for an increase in the number of lobby tickets available to the specialised and technical Press.

I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply I gave him on 20th January. This is not a matter for Ministerial decision.—[Vol. 809, c.281–2].

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for good reason or for bad, admission to the membership of the Lobby of the House of Commons is a far more exclusive matter than entry to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club at St. Andrews? Could he let us into the secret of the basis on which this mysterious decision is made?

I have no responsibility for admission either to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club or to the Lobby of the House of Commons.

asked the Lord President of the Council why no English apples, and in particular Cox's Orange Pippins, have been available in the Member's dining room, cafeteria or tea room in the second or third weeks of January, in view of their quality and price at this time of year.

I have been asked to reply.

While I appreciate the care which my hon. Friend takes in keeping our apples fresh by opening only one box at a time—this explains the short-age—since the price now charged for apples represents a 400 per cent. profit if he bought them direct from the grower, or even a 100 per cent. profit if he bought them direct from the retailer, might he not always buy a small supply daily from retailers of Cox's, make 100 per cent. profit and give us fresh Cox's every day?

I am beholden to my hon. Friend for this interesting and helpful commercial suggestion. I assure him that we had already made arrangements that, while the supply of English Cox's Orange Pippins lasted, we would continue to get them.

asked the Lord President of the Council why he has authorised the recent 12½ per cent. increase in prices in Members' eating places in the House.

I have been asked to reply.

I thank the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee for that reply. Does he not think that there have been many increases during the past year? When he wants to put up prices, should he not consult hon. Members, and certainly give them notice, which he did not do? Ought he not to give more attention to the whole subject of feeding in the House of Commons so as to improve standards?

The last increase in the price of meals and the like served to hon. Members was more than a year ago, in January, 1970, if my records are correct. I owe the House an apology in that we did not promulgate these increases, which were agreed by the sub-committee without dissension. It was my view that we should see the prices on the menus and price lists in good time, but I gather that this was not the case. Clearly, we should have asked the Whips to circulate an announcement.

asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve the quality and choice of dishes available to Members in the dining rooms, cafeterias and tea rooms in the House.

I have been asked to reply.

The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee has been singularly unsuccessful in both his aims. Is he not aware that the standard of food has decreased—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and has deteriorated to the same extent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—hon. Members opposite never eat in the House of Commons—as prices have increased? Will the hon. Gentleman spend some time in the Members' tea rooms and the cafeterias where many Opposition Members eat and where they have to eat when they are kept at the House of Commons for many hours during the day and night? Will he see whether some new ideas, such as those already put before the Committee, can be introduced in order to increase the variety?

My experience in these matters hitherto was somewhat limited until I found myself in this appointment. I must assure the hon. Lady that I do not lack good advice, and I hope that I take most of it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members who are sane think that my hon. Friend has made a great improvement in the food?

What do you think?

Is he also aware that the House as a whole would like my hon. Friend to convey to the staff our appreciation of the way that they have tried to help us? If nobody else will say it, I say that the Labour Government did not make much of a show when they chose the wrong Chairman.

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, without any reference to my previous qualifications. I am glad to have the opportunity of passing on to the staff the thanks of the House for their performance during these all night sittings. I had occasion to do so a week or so ago.

Will the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee explain why it is that, although it has no costs for heat, rent, rates, light, furnishings, cleaning or anything of that description, which form part of the heavy overheads of any private concern—accepting that wages should go up—that it is still possible to go across the road and to get food cheaper? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the Chairman follow my example and stop eating here?

I will try.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the case of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, whose imprisonment was notified to the House on 22nd January.

No, Sir.

I am sure that the House will join me in deploring any violence in Northern Ireland, from whatever quarter it may come. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) was sentenced in his absence for an offence which did not involve violence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a matter of concern to the House to know the circumstances in which this took place and the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman now finds himself?

The position is, naturally, a matter of concern to the House, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The question of imprisonment was dealt with in the recent Report of the Committee of Privileges.

asked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in recent months in improving security in the Palace of Westminster.

Following a report from the Security Co-ordinator, a number of steps have been taken to improve security precautions in the House, and the Services Committee has further measures under urgent consideration.

Have all those hon. Members, whether Government Ministers or back benchers, who have access to or are in possession of papers of a confidential nature accommodation which they can lock?

I will look into that point, which the hon. Gentleman has properly put to me. But I think he would agree that it would be unwise for me in general terms to go into details of the measures which have been taken.

What examination has been made of the possibility of installing equipment of an anti-hijacking type at the entrance to the Strangers' Gallery, representations about which have been made to the right hon. Gentleman by a firm in my constituency?

I would not wish to go beyond the terms of my original answer.

In trying to balance the requirements of better security and the proper functioning of the House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most hon. Members would rather accept some degree of personal risk than see this place turned into a fortress difficult of access to our constituents?

I note what my hon. Friend says, and I have much sympathy with it. I do not think that there is any question of trying to turn the House into a fortress of any kind.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will seek to refer to the Committee of Procedure a proposal to amend the standing orders to prevent Members from voting on matters with which they have a personal or vested interest, in a way similar to that in operation in local government so far as borough councillors are concerned.

No, Sir. These matters were very thoroughly considered last Session by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which recommended the continuance of our present practice in this respect.

It may have been very well considered by the Committee, but the House has never really given it consideration. Is it not strange that borough councillors should be more strictly controlled than Members of the House of Commons? If borough councillors are so strictly controlled, should we not set a good example by at least having the same sort of system as they are subject to?

The problems which arose from the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests were carefully considered. In general terms what it proposed has much to commend it. I have always believed that to have put general resolutions would have raised considerable problems, as is widely accepted. I believe that we are right to proceed on the present basis.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might have cut down a great deal of debate on the Industrial Relations Bill had hon. Members opposite been to inhibited in this matter?

I think I would be wise not to follow too far in that direction in present circumstances.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet outside the House about the number of hon. Members, particularly on his side of the House, who have outside financial interests which should be made public? If he cannot accept the recommendations of the Select Committee, will he at least provide time for a debate on the Report?

I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in his strictures on one side of the House or the other in this regard. Following the Report, there was very careful consideration of whether the resolutions proposed would be suitable or would, in certain circumstances, be very much more restrictive than would be wise. It was felt that they would be so restrictive. I will consider the question of a debate but I cannot promise time in the near future.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to initiate a system for election of delegates to the Council of Europe and other international organisations and conferences which delegates representing the British House of Commons, have to attend on similar lines to the Ballot for Private Members Bills and Motions.

No, Sir.

That is an amazing reply. One would not have expected the Lord President of the Council to give such a reply. Is he aware that he has a reputation, as have most other hon. Members, for believing in extending democracy? Surely in the Council of Europe and everything connected with the E.E.C. we should show how democratic we are. A good way to start is by having a democratic system of electing those who are to go, instead of having the same old faces appointed by the Whips.

The present procedures in this matter have been followed by successive Administrations of both parties, and I believe that they have provided widespread satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am told that they have not, of course we can reconsider them, but I believe that they are the best way to proceed. No one has a closed mind on the matter, however, and if some better procedures can be proposed, by all means let them be considered.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I do not want to be sent to Strasbourg, thus involving me in a kind of dichotomy of loyalties not dissimiliar from the situation yesterday and on earlier days when I was required to be in the Coal Industry Committee upstairs while the Industrial Relations Bill was being considered downstairs, thereby effectively preventing a proper concentration and debate in either place?

I do not think that there is any danger of my hon. Friend going to the Council of Europe unless he wants to. His movements in the House are a somewhat different matter and in the long run something which inevitably he determines for himself.

asked the Lord President of the Council what is the minimum time which will elapse between the announcement of terms for joining the Common Market and the taking of a definitive vote in the House of Commons on the proposals.

If the negotiations succeed and Parliament is invited to approve the Instrument of Accession, the Government will ensure that adequate time is allowed for consideration and discussion of the terms of the agreement.

I apologise for the slightly hypothetical nature of the Question. Would my right hon. Friend agree that we shall want about three months for discussion in the country and at least six weeks for probing in the House before we have a vote on this issue, if it should ever arise?

At this stage, I could not state the exact period of time which may be required. It would, clearly, depend on many factors, but, of course, I will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Would my right hon. Friend arrange for the vote to be taken on a day when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is detained in his constituency?

It would certainly not be proper for me to enter into any such matters.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for television annunciators to be placed in selected positions in the Chamber of the House of Commons, to indicate to visitors in the Strangers' Gallery who is speaking in the House.

I will ask the Services Committee to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I am grateful for that answer. Would my right hon. Friend say when this can be installed for the benefit of the House?

Speak up.

In answer to what I think my hon. Friend asked, we will certainly look into the question, and if it proves technically feasible it may be for the general convenience of the House and for members of the Press Gallery, but it is a question of whether it is technically feasible.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will provide facilities in the House of Commons for musical recreation.

Judging from some recent performances here, it seems that existing facilities are adequate.

In view of the past and perhaps future choral performances of Her Majesty's Opposition, who are clearly in need of efficient leadership of all kinds, would my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he could not at least offer the Opposition some musical leadership and a better choice of music which would be more fitting to Westminster than the Kremlin?

What right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may sing in the Chamber and how they do it must be a matter for them and nobody else.

asked the Lord President of the Council why he has not yet moved for the appointment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; and if he will treat this as a matter of urgency.