asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the proposed purchase of Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what conditions were discussed with Rolls-Royce Limited in the course of negotiations for a further loan on or about 6th November, 1970; how far they were embodied in subsequent agreements arising from the decision to provide additional launching aid for the RB211 engine; whether he is satisfied that all parties were fully aware of the Government's position; and if he will now make a statement.

I will, with permission, answer this Question and Questions Nos.4 and 46 together.

On a point of order. I am reluctant to interrupt business at this stage, Mr. Speaker, but you will recall that exchanges took place last Friday about certain matters concerning the RB211 and statements which had appeared in the Press that day. As a result of those statements there was an exchange between myself and the Minister, who agreed to make a statement in the House early next week on this very important matter which is still causing great concern.

That is not a point of order. The way in which Ministers choose to group Questions is not a matter for me.

I was going on to say—and thereby take the opportunity of expanding on the statement I made in the House on Friday in relation to certain allegations that appeared in The Times on that morning—that in November last the Government agreed in principle to provide more launching aid for the RB211 engine. I made clear in the House on 11th November the conditions under which this launching aid was to be provided. It was subject, inter alia, to a check by independent accountants and to satisfactory contractual arrangements. These arrangements were in negotiation, pending receipt of the accountants' report, when the company went into receivership.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is making a major parliamentary statement in such a way as to make it impossible for the House to cross-examine him and I do ask, through you, whether the Minister would be prepared, by leave of the House, to answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

This is not a matter for me.

rose—

Further to that point of order. Will it be in order for the Chair to receive supplementary questions which relate to the statement which the Minister is now making as well as to Question No.1?

The question of allowing supplementary questions is a matter for me, and I will rule on it when the time comes. The practice of points of order during Question Time is very much to be deprecated. [interruption.] There are a great many questions about Rolls-Royce on the Order Paper and it would be better if the House got on with the business.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On three consecutive occasions complaints have been made from both sides of the House that hon. Members are not able to reach Ministers cited as beginning at, say, Question No.35, as, for example, today the Lord President of the Council. Have you observed my Question No.38, which will not be reached if the abuse of the House of which my right hon. Friend is guilty continues?

The hon. Gentleman's point of order has only delayed that possibility a little further.

I conclude by reminding the House that the Rolls-Royce board then decided that in these circumstances it could not continue trading in conformity with its obligations under Section 332 of the Companies Act, even if the additional £42 million launching aid and the extra credit facility from the banks were provided in full. No part of this money had been paid, nor did the accepting parties' commitment in November to renew their facilities to Rolls-Royce after April, 1971, become operative.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he said on 9th December was not precisely that? He said that the moneys available to Rolls-Royce were not dependent on the outcome of the accountants' report. If the House was misled, is it not likely that the banks and other companies were also misled? What representations has the right hon. Gentleman had from the banks about this matter?

The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "none". I think that that indicates that there is a good deal of evidence that they did not feel that they were misled by anything I said in the House.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a little confusion in the matter, to put it no higher? After the statement of 9th December. would it not be. if not the legal thing to do, the honourable thing to do to pay in full the sub-contractors and others who gave credit after that date? Would the hon. Gentleman also contradict the reports which appear to indicate that he is trying to buy the assets of Rolls-Royce on the cheap and so prevent the sub-contractors and creditors from getting an adequate return?

I am very anxious to contradict those reports. There is no question of the Government negotiating on anything other than the basis of a fair price. As I have explained in the House, I understand that the Receiver is entitled to the basis of a valuation most favourable to him.

I make it clear that we regard the statement made by the Minister in this form as totally unsatisfactory. As my Question No.46 was tabled to the Attorney-General, it is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to fulfil his obligations in the House and answer for his part in the matter.

As I made clear on Friday, the note on the meeting which I had with Rolls-Royce made it abundantly clear that these arrangements were subject to investigation by independent accountants. The heads of agreement between the banks and Rolls-Royce were matters to which the Government were not party. I do not believe that the condition was specifically referred to, but I think that it was clear.

Does my hon. Friend think that the Rolls-Royce affair and the Concorde are inextricably linked, as some have suggested, or does he recommend us to treat them as separate matters?

In my view, they are entirely separate matters, and my information is that this is the general view in America and on the Continent.

This is not satisfactory at all. Is not the Minister aware that in an internal communications memorandum submitted to the joint shop stewards of the Rolls-Royce factory at Parkside, Coventry, the shop stewards were given to understand that the £60 million had already been made available?

I had no idea of that, and it is not my responsibility. But what is abundantly clear to everybody who understands these things is that launching aid is always paid subject to a contract whereby the tranches are paid in relation to the stage which the engine has reached.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he expects to make the necessary valuation of the purchase cost of Rolls-Royce by the Government.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what criteria his Department has used in determining a purchase price for the undertaking and assets of Rolls-Royce Limited.

The price to be paid for the Rolls-Royce assets acquired from the receiver by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd and the criteria to be employed in deciding this are essentially matters for negotiations which are currently in progress. I cannot, however, say when agreement will be reached.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. There is a difficulty and natural uncertainty, but, to provide additional guidance to the House, can he say whether he feels that in the ultimate the difference between assets to be purchased by Rolls-Royce (1971) from Rolls-Royce Ltd. and the assets to be retained permanently will be negligible, substantial or as large as the original gross figure?

That is a matter of pure speculation, because a great deal must depend on the success or otherwise of the negotiations currently taking place, to which I am returning immediately after Question Time.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is in the interests of the nation, the unsecured creditors of the Rolls-Royce company and its employees that the purchase price should be as generous as possible bearing in mind the worldwide reputation which Rolls-Royce enjoys and the fact that the Government are to buy those parts of the company which are a going concern?

That is not entirely true of all the assets. I cannot add to what I have said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past 24 hours there has been an increase in anxiety among the sub-contractors and creditors, not because they have not had any statement on whether they will get payment and, if so, how much, but simply because they do not have any official representation with the Receiver nor any way of achieving any such representation unless they themselves appoint a liquidator, which they do not want to do, although we may be getting to the point at which that will be necessary?

If there is any lack of liaison of that sort I will certainly draw it to the attention of the Receiver, but I have not been aware of it hitherto.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not rule out the possibility of saving a lot of money for unsecured creditors not by having a liquidation but by having a composition with them?

I made that clear on Friday.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what study he has made of the production capability, financial position, and indebtedness of firms a large part of whose output was geared to sub-contracting for Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether, in view of the nationalisation of the aero-engine division of Rolls-Royce, he will recommend continuance of those contracts negotiated by the former company, Rolls-Royce, with its suppliers of component parts for the aero-engines already in production, such as the Spey engine.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a further statement on the Rolls-Royce situation; whether he will publish in HANSARD a detailed list of the sub-contractors which will be affected by the Rolls-Royce disaster; and what action he has taken, or intends taking, to safeguard these sub-contracting firms.

As I told the House in the debate on 11th February, I put in hand at the earliest possible moment a study of the problem of the sub-contractors. This study had regard to the liabilities of Rolls-Royce to its sub-contractors as far as it was known to us and the manpower and financial position of these firms. The steps stated by the Chancellor in the debate on 8th February in respect of sub-contractors' needs for additional temporary finance have been taken, and any cases of particular difficulty have been discussed with the receiver, who has taken such measures to assist as are open to him in order to safeguard the continuity of supplies.

When is the study to be completed?

A jolly good short question.

As I explained on Friday, the study is really a continuing process. We have had a major study, but there are other factors.

Will my hon. Friend agree that what these firms need is certain knowledge of how soon the contracts will continue and that they need to know it at the earliest possible stage, and will he do all he can to expedite this matter?

Time is not on your side.

As I have already explained, I think it is clear that most suppliers supplying in relation to engines already in production will be required by the new company.

Will the Minister now answer the second part of my Question?

I do not think it will help sub-contractors or be a great deal of help to the House to answer this.

Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say that in the original answer?

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is his latest technical assessment of the RB211 engine.

It has been performing well in the development flight programme. Various technical problems remain; I am confident that they could be solved; it is a question of time and cost.

Does the Minister recognise that Mr. Daniel Haughton, of Lockheed, without, as far as I know, seeing the report of Sir William Cook, has already said that it is an excellent engine? Does he draw his own conclusions from that remark?

I think there are other alternative conclusions which can be drawn, but I certainly will draw one.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the problem now is not the technical problem of the RB211 but simply the problem of negotiating a settlement with Lockheed and the airline customers?

It is a question of the time scale which is acceptable to both Lockheed and the airlines, and a question also of cost.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines in America believe that the problem of the RB211 was the problem of the original contract?

This, I think, has been basic to all our discussions.

Will the Minister not at least agree that, whatever mistakes may have been made in the past, there is now an overwhelming case for renegotiating this contract if that can possibly be done?

If it can be done on reasonably acceptable terms.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the position of Rolls-Royce factories in Sunderland.

No decision has yet been taken about which of the Rolls-Royce Ltd. factories are, or are not, to be acquired for operation by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is not much comfort, and that the question of the future of the Sunderland factory cannot be divorced from Government policy for the development areas, nor from the fact that in Sunderland we have the highest persistent unemployment of any town in Britain? Can he assure me that these factors will be borne in mind when the future of this factory is decided?

I can assure the right hon. Gentlemen that the effect on this set of factories is not forgotten by my Department, but, clearly, I must remind him that there are a number of other Rolls-Royce factories in development districts.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply, what plans he now has for future production of the RB211 of Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will now make a further statement on the Lockheed/Rolls-Royce RB211 contract, and on its effect on the British aero-engine and component industries.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the supply of Rolls-Royce engines for the Lockheed TriStar aircraft.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further steps he has taken in seeking to negotiate a new contract to enable the development of the RB211 engine for the Lockheed TriStar to be completed, and with what measure of success.

Negotiations with Lockheed started yesterday, following a careful appraisal of the basis on which a new agreement might rest. Both parties are very conscious of the advantages that would accrue from going on with RB211, but it is too early to say whether a satisfactory means of doing so can be found.

Will my hon. Friend accept that everybody hopes that these negotiations will be concluded satisfactorily and wishes him and my right hon. Friend all luck and good fortune in the negotiations? Will he accept also that it would be utterly wrong for the British taxpayer to have to subsidise or keep out of bankruptcy American companies, Lockheed and the airlines?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. Of course the second part is a factor which has to be taken into account.

Will my hon. Friend have regard to the second part of my Question, in particular that this engine has a crucial impact on sub-contractors in the Bradford area, Hepworth and Grandage, whose turbine division produces 50 per cent. of Rolls-Royce turbine blades, and that the Rolls-Royce RB211 is something like 18 per cent. to 20 per cent. of that company's work, that it already stands to lose £1·6 million, and that 170 men are already out of work?

I appreciate that a situation such as my hon. Friend has described may well be inevitable in certain cases, but I have nothing to add to what I have said earlier.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, apart from other considerations already mentioned to the House today, this contract is of crucial importance to Rolls-Royce workers, and that if Rolls-Royce workers were sufficiently exasperated as to withdraw their labour at some time in the future that would cause the grounding of most of the Royal Air Force and of a very large number of airlines throughout the world?

I realise that this is crucial, but I think that it is rather inappropriate to make the sort of remark which the hon. Member has made.

To save the RB211, are the Government prepared to come to an agreement to purchase Lockheed TriStars for that purpose?

No. I could not give any commitment of that sort.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply, in view of the involvement of Her Majesty's Government in the financial affairs of Rolls-Royce Limited, whether he has made an estimate of the average earnings of employees in that company in 1971.

No, Sir. With the present uncertainties it is not possible to make a useful forecast for 1971.

Since the earnings of Rolls-Royce workers have in the last five years risen at an annual rate of about 2 per cent. higher than in British industry generally, does this not demonstrate that if they had no more than kept level with the national average Rolls-Royce would have saved about 10 per cent. of its total wage costs, about £13 million in 1970 and an even larger amount in 1971, and that all these savings would go a long way towards solving the company's problems?

In my judgment, wage inflation has not been a critical factor in the RB211 project. It lay in the nature of the contract itself.

Will the Minister not agree that labour relations within this company have been excellent over a long period of years, that productivity has been high, and that wages have not been in excess of what has been earned generally in industry by the types of skill which these workers have?

I am sure the hon. Member is right in that there have been good relations. I would not be prepared, having been a professional industrial engineer, to make a general judgment on all Rolls-Royce workers off the cuff.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make an estimate of the total penalties or damages likely to be incurred by Rolls-Royce Limited as a result of its failure to supply the RB211 engine in accordance with the terms of its contract with the Lockheed Corporation.

Both liquidated and unliquidated damages could be claimed under the contract. It is not possible to make an accurate assessment beyond what has been said already.

Will the Minister not give us an assessment of the penalties for late delivery, as distinct from non-delivery, if the engines were either six or 12 months late? Does he realise that he is fast losing the original sympathy of the House in his difficulties by his evasive answers and, in some cases, no answers at all? In Committee on the Bill I asked him several questions which he said he would study in HANSARD and answer. That was on 12th February, and I have not heard a word from him.

I apologise for the delay, but, as I explained on Friday, a good deal of work is being done on these matters. I really cannot give arithmetical answers to things that are unquantifiable. The £50 million mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in relation to a six-months' delay, but it was an estimate by Rolls-Royce of the magnitude of the claims with which it might be faced. One cannot be accurate on this.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the progress made so far in meeting the claims of the unsecured creditors of Rolls-Royce Limited with respect to debts owed by that company as of 4th February, 1971.

No, Sir. This is a matter for the receiver.

Is the right hon. Gentleman still saying that he is not prepared to take a political decision on the price he will pay for the assets based on the return he wants the unsecured creditors to get? Are any of the unsecured creditors availing themselves of the suggestion of his hon. Friend, namely, that they should try to renegotiate their contracts with Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited at a higher price than the previous contract so as to recoup some of their losses?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, one cannot take a political decision on price. It must be based on valuation. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I have no information, but the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited has been in being for less than a week.

Despite what was said earlier, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the workers and the staff of Rolls-Royce in recent weeks have done a great deal to assist the company, and, therefore, the creditors, not only by not striking but by working extra hours to try to save the company in which they are involved?

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government assume legal liability for the further money that will be owed to the component manufacturers following the decision to keep their supplies going to Rolls-Royce for the three-week interim period for the production of the RB211?

I thought I had made it clear that the Government had agreed to indemnify the receiver, which I think answers the right hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the firms in Park Royal and Alperton in the Brent, South constituency supplying parts in connec- tion with orders placed by Rolls-Royce or his Department.

The Department does not have this comprehensive information in respect of firms which are suppliers and sub-contractors to its main contractors, including Rolls-Royce. 1 am listing in the OFFICIAL REPORT those firms that can be identified as located in Park Royal and Alperton that received direct contracts from our Department in 1969–70.

Is the Minister aware that in the last few years more than 40 factories have closed down in these areas because of rationalisation and that 2,000 workers were made redundant by the A.E.I.-G.E.C. merger? Will he use his influence to keep open Rotax, where 700 workers are being made redundant, by giving that firm the aircraft industry work which is available instead of having it transferred out of my area?

I am aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but he will realise that I have no direct influence over how contractors of the Department decide to spread their sub-contracts.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether, in his discussions on Government help for the RB211 engine, he will bear in mind that it is less noisy and likely to have a longer useful life than the Concorde Olympus engine.

It is true that RB211 is less noisy than Olympus 593. But which engie will have the longer useful life is not clear.

Is it not the case, as was shown by the reception given to the right hon. Gentleman's last answer, that the Government are flogging a dead horse with the Concorde? Is it not understandable that, while hon. Members on both sides of the House with constituency interests in Concorde should continue to press the Government on this matter, in regard to the country as a whole, since we can only support one major aero-engine development, should we not transfer the Government interest away from Concorde to the RB211?

I do not regard the two things as linked. One is supersonic and the other is an engine for a subsonic aircraft. They are not the same. The use of resources is a very much wider matter and should not be discussed in exchanges in supplementary questions.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether, in view of the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce Limited, and of Her Majesty's Government's intention to purchase the Company, he will now publish the Industrial Reorganisaiton Corporation's report on Rolls-Royce Limited.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are interested in this report since it could have been a base document on which we might have learnt so much more about Rolls-Royce? Was the report made only to Rolls-Royce or also to the Government? Is it an accountants' report, and, if it is not, why has there been such secrecy about its contents?

The situation is that these reports have always been based on the assumption that any information given would be treated in strict confidence. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is on record as having recommended this at the time of the passing of the Bill. I have always thought that we should stick to it. Once the I.R.C. or anybody else has taken advantage of that situation, it would be wrong to go against it. As to the nature of the report, it was initially handed to Rolls-Royce but parts of it were made available to my Department.

If the Government stick to their attitude that this is simply a matter for the Receiver, how can Members of Parliament in good faith say to sub-contractors, "You must go on supplying"? We just cannot do this.

This is a question about the I.R.C. report.

Would my hon. Friend recognise that Members, irrespective of where they sit in the House of Commons, have a real interest in full employment in their respective constituencies? If he takes this obdurate view that he cannot make available information about sub-contractors' liabilities or the situation of creditors of Rolls-Royce, is he not handicapping severely men like myself who seek to secure proper employment for Joseph Lucas employees—a company which is owed some £9 million by Rolls-Royce?

With due respect to my hon. Friend, I have not suggested that that information is confidential. I am referring to the report by the I.R.C. which was drawn up on the basis that the information given to it was confidential.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since I gave that original answer Rolls-Royce has gone bankrupt and the I.R.C. has been wound up? This document is vital and should be made available to the House as part of the assessment of the history of the Rolls-Royce contract. I must ask him again whether he is ready to have a Select Committee to which all these documents could be made available and which could go into the whole of this story?

I do not believe that a Select Committee, as opposed to an inquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry, is the best way to investigate these matters. I am prepared to undertake that the document will be made available to the departmental inquiry.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the origin and circumstances of the Rolls-Royce insolvency.

No, Sir. The board of the company is to call a special meeting to request an inquiry under the Companies Act, 1948. This, I think, is the right procedure to follow.

Does not this bankruptcy involve not only matters of commercial conduct but also questions of Ministerial honour? Is not a departmental inspection quite the wrong way of probing so far-reaching a national catastrophe?

The terms of reference of the inquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry are clearly laid down. I see no reason for treating Rolls-Royce any differently from anybody else. Where the inquiry involves the conduct of certain individuals in Rolls-Royce, investigation by a Select Committee would have certain disadvantages.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of the people who might wish to be interrogated in such an inquiry might, by the time the inquiry comes off, be employed somewhere else in the world and would he also bear in mind the fact that the accuracy of memory generally does not increase with the passage of time? Does this matter not need to be expedited? Many people will be surprised to learn that the directors have not yet convened a meeting to request such an inquiry.

I hardly think anybody would be surprised to learn that it has been impossible to convene a meeting during the postal strike.

Give the hon. Member an answer!

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect carefully on the situation which we have now reached? He has failed today to give satisfactory replies on matters with which we hoped the Attorney-General would deal, and he failed on Friday to answer a whole list of questions put to him in the course of my hon. Friend's debate. If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to agree to a Select Committee, surely in the interests of this House the time has now come to place the facts before us in the form of a White Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman is being unfair. During that debate I spent the whole half hour of my wind- ing-up speech answering questions. It is hardly surprising that I did not get to the end of them all.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply why Her Majesty's Government have not appointed to the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Company Limited someone with experience of the organisation of workers such as a full-time trade union official.

In making appointments to the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. the Government's aim was to secure the strongest possible managerial team. Those who have joined the board were invited to do so as individuals, not as representatives of particular interests.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the new Rolls-Royce to get off to a good start, and that it is absolutely essential that it should quickly gain everybody's confidence, including that of the staff? May I assure him that one way of achieving this would be to appoint a workers' representative, since in this way he could be sure that the staff would have confidence in the company? Would the Government be willing to reconsider this point?

I accept that it is important to get off to a good start and restore confidence, but the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that the main weaknesses in the old Rolls-Royce company was in management.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is very deep feeling in various parts of the country, such as Liverpool, where there are about 1,000 Lucas workers who are threatened with dismissal because of the Rolls-Royce situation and who are now on a three-day week? Is not it clear that we must have a management at Rolls-Royce which will also be concerned with the problems of workers in other parts of the country who are affected directly as a result of the Rolls-Royce debacle?

I accept that.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement of his conclusions on the schemes that have been put to him for assisting the financial position of the unsecured creditors, particularly sub-contractors, of Rolls-Royce Limited.

No, Sir. I am still examining those which have been put to me, and I am awaiting further proposals.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the creditors are beginning to lose patience with the Government? Is not it a fact that whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about continuing contracts, they are of no use to the debt position on 4th February, and that it is that position which is likely to send many unsecured creditors into bankruptcy, with further liquidations? Even if the Government have no legal obligation, in the exceptional circumstances of the collapse of Rolls-Royce will not the Government take on some kind of obligation to look at problems affecting creditors who may otherwise go into liquidation, with subsequent redundancies, and allow some financial help at least to them?

I cannot go further than I have gone already. I am examining these matters, and they are being considered seriously.

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

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

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a progress report on the development of Concorde and the Olympus 593 engine.

I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 10th February.—[Vol. 811, c. 496–8.]

What is the present estimate for the Concorde aircraft? Can the hon. Gentleman comment on the obvious reluctance of B.O.A.C. to operate this aircraft? What pressure does he intend to bring on the corporation?

There is a Question later on the Order Paper concerning the point raised in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and it would be fairer to the hon. Member who tabled that Question to answer it then. I have seen the article in question in the Observer. It was, as B.O.A.C. stated, an over-simplification of a complex issue. I do not think that this kind of one-sided speculation is helpful to the project.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the speech of the Prime Minister in which he pointed out that it was not Government policy to pour money away without getting an adequate economic return? Surely the Government have made a calculation of the economic return on Concorde based on various levels of sales. Does not the hon. Gentleman owe it to the House to tell us what those calculations are?

The hon. Gentleman will know that these and many other matters will be the subject of review between ourselves and our French partners later this month.

As this is an intergovernmental project, will the Government be considering the possibility of making their own approaches to other airlines and B.O.A.C.? That can be important to potential Concorde sales.

It has been the practice under the joint agreement for the sales approaches to be made direct by the firms concerned and not by the Government.

When is the selling price to be agreed with the French, and when are the further production orders for aircraft seven to ten likely to be announced? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, to my certain knowledge, at least one customer airline in the United States has declined to discuss its purchase of Concorde until the RB211 question has been settled satisfactorily?

The matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the first part of his supplementary question will feature prominently in the discussions with the French to take place later this month. I should be grateful for any detailed information which the right hon. Gentleman likes to let me have on the last part.

As the Minister of Aviation Supply said a few moments ago that the RB211 and Concorde were separate matters and should be kept separate, has my hon. Friend's Department any evidence to show that the flagrant attempts by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to link them for narrow selfish party reasons is likely to injure the Concorde project? Is there anything we can do to stop this obscene interference with important matters?

I am inclined to think that exchanges across the Floor of the House have very little relevance for potential purchasers of this aircraft.

Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the very unfortunate remarks of the Minister of Aviation Supply last week about the RB211 affair have had a very prejudicial effect on Concorde and the RB211 negotiations?

I have no evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's charges, and I do not think that he helps the prospects of Concorde by continuing to repeat them.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what technical and scientific advice he has received about the tail rudder of Concorde; and whether he will make a statement.

None, Sir. There are no current development problems associated with the Concorde rudder.

Can the Minister assure the House that all necessary technical steps have been taken to ensure the safety and reliability of this very important part of the structure of the aircraft?

Yes, I can. Modifications were introduced over two years ago to guard against the possibility of flutter in the rudder, and I can assure the House that there is no flutter problem.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the latest Ministerial meeting with the French Government on the Concorde aircraft.

The meeting with M. Chamant on 18th February was one of a regular series of meetings to consider the progress of the Concorde project and to prepare for our review of the project as a whole later this month.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the French aircraft industry has the capacity to deal with Concorde and the A300B without work on the Concorde project being held up?

Broadly, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he asks for.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will now make a further statement on production funding for Concorde.

I have nothing to add to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend on 20th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 1040–1.]

I emphasise to my hon. Friend the point made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), that it is imperative to get production going soon. Does he realise that if he were to look at Aviation Weekly of 8th February he would see that the Americans, of all people, are describing Concorde as the strongest challenger in history to American domination of the international transport market?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the major review at the end of this month will be the proper time to discuss and make decisions about future production.

Has agreement yet been reached, either with B.A.C. or with the French Government, about the selling price of Concorde? If not, when does the Minister expect such an agreement, and what provision has he in mind in the selling price for research and development costs?

These are matters which I should prefer not to comment on today and which will be very much the subject of my right hon. Friend's discussion with M. Chamant in March.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) when definite performance guarantees on Concorde will be presented to airlines holding options; (2) whether he will make a further statement on Concorde's options and orders now placed by airlines.

The manufacturers are evaluating the results of flight and other trials with a view to commencing discussions with airlines in the near future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the performance guarantees and the attitudes of the airlines towards them at this stage of Concorde are vital? Will he also bear in mind that in the minds of many American airlines there is a definite link between their attitude to Concorde and their attitude to the RB211?

I cannot honestly agree with the hon. Gentleman on his latter point. We have had an exchange on this already, and he does not help Concorde, which I know he wants to succeed, by repeating these comments.

Does the Minister recognise, now that we are approaching the marketing period for Concorde, that the Government should accept some responsibility with the manufacturers for the promotion and sale of the aircraft? Will he give serious consideration to a campaign in this country and the United States to influence public opinion favourably towards supersonic transport?

These are all matters to be considered after the decisions of the March review.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what estimate he has made of the effect of sonic booms from the Concorde when flying over the Scottish coast on persons and property; and if he will make a statement.

Ten supersonic test flights have taken place down the West Coast of Scotland so far. Forty-one letters of complaint have been received, and, in addition, there have been 67 claims for damage. Thirty-two of the damage claims have been accepted and £645 has been paid in compensation. Three claims have been rejected, and the remainder are still being investigated.

Has the Minister studied carefully the effect of the sonic booms on the persons who were interviewed and on the buildings which were instrumentally monitored? Will he confirm that when Concorde becomes operational it will not fly at supersonic speeds along the West Coast of Scotland and Britain and over the mainland?

On the first group of supplementary questions, if the hon. Gentleman remembers that there were more than 400,000 people within the sonic boom carpet of these tests, the number of complaints is not excessive. The second part of his question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware how little inconvenience seems to have been caused in my constituency by the tests, and how pleased people are to be able to contribute to the future of this excellent plane?

I am grateful for those remarks. This is a typical reaction in many parts of the country under the test path. I am sure the House will realise that many people think they are playing their part in a great national endeavour in suffering from these test flights.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what assessment he has made of the effect upon the Concorde programme of the simultaneous development of the TU144; and if he will seek a meeting with his counterpart in the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to discuss matters of mutual interest.

On information currently available we do not expect competition from the TU144 to have a significant effect on the potential market for Concorde. In all the circumstances my right hon. Friend sees no need to arrange a meeting with the Soviet Minister of Aviation.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that we have powerful allies in the Russians and in our French friends and that between us we could ensure that no unjustified political pressure is brought to bear on Concorde? Would he do his best to see that so far as possible the three countries involved in supersonic programmes maintain a united front?

The particular problems my hon. Friend has in mind have not yet arisen with regard to the Soviet supersonic aircraft. I am not yet aware of any intention to fly the aircraft outside the Soviet Union.

Would the Minister take the opportunity of denying the story which appeared in the Sunday newspapers that on resource grounds the Government could only fund the RB211 or the Concorde? He made some reference to this matter a moment ago in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), to whose speeches we listen as part of our acceptance of a great national project.

I would prefer not to answer that question off the cuff. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question, I shall give him a full answer.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply how much financial assistance has been given to date to the British Aircraft Corporation and to Rolls-Royce Limited to cover the development costs of Concorde; and what is now the estimated total cost of the project.

Expenditue to date at B.A.C. amounts to approximately £150 million, and at Rolls-Royce to about £120 million. The estimate of development cost is one of the questions that my right hon. Friend will be discussing with his French opposite number, M. Chamant, during the coming review of the project.

Could the Minister say at what stage B.A.C. takes over the production financing of Concorde? Will the corporation be buying the Olympus 593 engine directly from Rolls-Royce or from the Government? Could my hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to give any financial assistance for production financing?

The first and third supplementary questions put by my hon. Friend will be very much matters to be discussed in the review. On the second part of the question, I do not think that it matters now which way it is done since at present the whole project is fully funded by the Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory replies which have been given from the Government Front Bench and the inadequate comment from the Opposition Front Bench on the subject of Concorde, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he has initiated discussions with his Continental counterparts with a view to establishing a European aerospace industry.

I think we must accept that further action on the initiative referred to in my statement to the House on 2nd December, 1970, must wait until the Rolls-Royce situation is clearer.—[Vol. 807, c. 1286–94.]

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he will not agree that Britain by itself can no longer afford to support an aircraft industry which locks up one-third of all our research and development costs in one year and one-third of all our highly skilled manpower? Will he not agree that the only way Britain can play its rightful part in the aircraft industry in the world is within a European framework?

Yes. I do not think I dissent from anything the hon. Member has said.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for blind persons to be allowed normal access to the Central Lobby when accompanied by guide dogs.

This is a question which has been gone into carefully on a number of occasions. In so complex a building it has been found better for the blind person to be personally escorted to wherever he or she wishes to go. I can assure the hon. Member that the dogs are very well cared for.

While I accept that the present arrangements appear to be extremely satisfactory and possibly admirable during the busier periods, would not it be possible for access to be allowed to the Central Lobby in quieter times? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these dogs are exceptionally well-trained and that any concession allowed in this building would have an encouraging effect in the country?

This matter can be looked into. As I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the views of the public relations officer and the director of training of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Organisation have been sought. Both of them believe that our present procedure is the best. However, we are perfectly prepared to look at it again if necessary.

asked the Lord President of the Council when he intends to table resolutions concerning the Select Committee's report on Members' outside financial interests.

I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 10th February.—[Vol. 811, c. 522.]

I am not surprised at that. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so coy in seeking to sweep under the carpet the implications and recommendations contained in this report? Does not he recognise that, in view of the fact that the Government are about to introduce commercial radio when we know that there are vested interests concerned with that on the benches opposite, proposing to sell off State pubs to private brewers who are also represented by interests on the benches opposite, and proposing to hive off certain profitable parts of the State-owned industries in which a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested, it is increasingly important for the public to understand what those interests are?

I do not accept all the premises of the hon. Gentleman's supple- mentary question. Having considered this matter very carefully, I think that there is widespread support in this House for the view that it is right to rely on the general good sense of hon. Members rather than on formalised rules. That is certainly the view of the Official Opposition, and I believe that it is the view of many right hon. and hon. Members.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will examine the feasibility of providing in every parliamentary constituency a publicly-financed and staffed advice centre for the use of the Member of Parliament and local councillors.

I have no evidence to suggest that such an expenditure of public funds would be justified.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government said that they intended to operate a system of open, honest government, in which the people would be encouraged to participate? Would it not be a great improvement on the existing situation if the Government provided such facilities in every constituency so that, in a situation like we have today with the Post Office strike, members of the public could have ready access to their Members of Parliament without having to rely on private expenditure by the Members of Parliament or their local constituency parties?

In the first instance, naturally, anything to do with the facilities of local councillors is not a matter for this House. As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, I do not think, from my own knowledge, that many right hon. and hon. Members are slow in offering all the advice that they can to their constituents.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have provided this kind of service for years and will neither need nor welcome the intervention of a horde of bureaucrats to help them?

I am interested and glad to hear what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now make a further statement on the review body for pay, pensions, conditions and associated matters for Members of Parliament.

I have nothing to add to the answers I gave my hon. Friend on 20th January and 11th February in reply to his Questions about the setting up of the review body.—[Vol. 809, c. 1067; Vol. 811, c. 805.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 11th February—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rise until I call him. Sir Gerald Nabarro.

The noise was so great that I could not hear, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you had called me. I apologise. I will start again. Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 11 th February in answer to a similar Question, my right hon. Friend passed the buck to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whereupon I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister, who passed the buck back to my right hon. Friend? There is a limit to the patience of hon. Members who, like myself, have been trying to press this matter now for over two years since the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) made her first announcement of a review body. It is about time that my right hon. Friend stirred his shanks and gave us a satisfactory answer, which I shall certainly press for, even to the extent of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

There is only one comment that I would make in the first instance. Whether I like it or not, I seem to have been stirring my shanks quite a lot in recent days. Apart from that, to take the question seriously, which I do—

Yes, indeed.

—I am very anxious that, from the point of view of Ministers' and Members' salaries, this review body should be set up at the very earliest opportunity. My responsibility relates especially to my promise that Ministers' and Members' salaries would be referred to it as soon as it was set up. However, there are other problems concerned with setting it up. I can promise that it will be set up as soon as possible. As soon as it is, I will undertake to fulfil the promise that I made to this House. I regret that I have not been able to do so sooner.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of us are very grateful for that assurance? Having had experience as a junior Minister, I can assure him that junior Ministers have a particularly acute problem. Apart from that, I want to impress upon him that there are hon. Members on this side of the House who, unlike me, have families, and are now facing a really serious financial position. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say not merely that he will do it as soon as he can, but that he will look at the possibility of speeding up the process?

I am extremely sensitive to the problems and of my responsibility to this House in respect of Ministers' and Members' salaries. I am doing everything in my power to hasten the setting up of the review body. As soon as it is set up, this reference will be made to it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis. Next Question. Sausages—[Laughter.]

asked the Lord President of the Council what brand of sausage is sold in the Members' Cafeteria; on what basis he charges Members 7s. 6d. per lb for these sausages; and whether he will change his purchases to one of the retailers, details of which have been supplied to him, who are able to supply sausages at 4s. 4d. per lb to 4s. 8d. per lb and reduce the price charged in the Members' Tea Room.

I have been asked to reply.

That is a most unsatisfactory reply. I have been trying to get proof from the Kitchen Committee, but have failed, that prices have gone up 300 to 400 per cent. since Members of Parliament last had an increase. As the Leader of the House seems reluctant to get action going speedily on the salary question, may I ask whether he or the Government will at least take steps to control the prices charged by the Catering Department? For prices to go up 300 or 400 per cent. when country Members have no other place to eat is surely something which the Kitchen Committee could deal with. It is not the case with the Civil Service canteens. Their prices have not gone up 300 or 400 per cent.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be very glad to place at his disposal all the figures of the costings and selling prices which he may desire. I also assure him that the facts are not quite so alarming as they appear to be from the allegations which he has made.

On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give special attention, when the OFFICIAL REPORT is printed tomorrow, to the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on Question No. 36. I think you will find that it contains a filthy innuendo which is damaging to Parliament if allowed to stand unanswered. The hon. Gentleman stated specifically in his supplementary question that hon. Members on one side of the House, on matters to do with commercial radio and the sale of licensed premises—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question contained the specific charge that hon. Members on one side of the House would do less than their duty because of their own selfish interests. I think it will be found that the words were specific and obscene enough to have the matter investigated by a Select Committee of this House.

I hope that no steps will be taken by anyone to delete a single word which I used in the course of that supplementary question. I suggest that the best way to resolve the matter would be to have a debate on the recommendations of the Select Committee looking into the outside financial interests of hon. Members of this House. I challenge the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker. to arrange for a debate on that report.