asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on future policy as it affects his departmental responsibilities in the field of research and development.

The Government's policy on research and development in the aerospace field continues to be directed to the effective fulfilment of military and civil needs. As announced in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government, the departmental organisation is currently being reviewed.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that as a result of the Government's chaotic policies regarding aviation, many thousands of workers in the Government's aviation research and development institutions are now in peril of losing their jobs? Will he take urgent steps to reassure these people and tell them that they are not to be thrown on the scrap-heap like the rest of the ¾ million workers already there as a result of Government policies?

The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of assumptions which are in no way warranted. I remind him that in the current financial year, 1970–71, on our Department's account about £258 million will have been spent on research and development in this field.

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

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

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the latest stage of development and progress of the Concorde project.

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

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

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

I had planned to meet M. Clamant, the French Minister of Transport, on 29th March to review the progress of the project but, at his request, the meeting has been postponed until 22nd April. In the meantime, I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 3rd March. —[Vol. 812, c. 1695–7.]

Has the postponement anything to do with the Rolls-Royce situation, and, further, has it anything to do with the possible escalating of the costs of the engine under the receiver? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the worst things that can happen is for the decision on the Concorde to be delayed and delayed while at the same time moneys are being spent, trickling into this project? Finally, what further components or materials are being ordered at this moment, pending the final decision?

On the first two supplementary questions, there is absolutely no evidence for the underlying suggestions. The third is another question and I cannot give details at present.

I thank my right hon. Friend for this reply. Is he aware of the increasing number of redundancies at the Weybridge division of B.A.C. in my constituency, amounting to an extra 500 last week, and the urgent need to get this project off the ground? Having flown across the Atlantic twice in a Jumbo jet, I am firmly convinced that this aircraft, the Concorde, has a great future.

I accept the latter part of that question. I appreciate that there are certain difficulties, but this is a partnership, and we have to operate with our French partners.

Would the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the future of Concorde will be based on nothing but economic grounds, and that Britain's application to join the E.E.C. will play no part in future determination of policy over Concorde?

Clearly the whole purpose of these talks is to examine the economic base in the light of the number of orders which seem likely, and on that basis we can make an estimate of a proper price.

Would my right hon. Friend not answer the specific question about Concorde not being part of the bargaining in the Common Market? Also, is B.O.A.C. keen to have it?

It is certainly not part of the bargaining with regard to the Common Market. B.O.A.C. has made it clear that it is anxious to operate the aircraft, and we are in close consultation with the firms to see how best this can be done.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the minor defect in the Concorde's air intake at supersonic speeds is likely to be corrected shortly, and that he also expects an early termination of his negotiations with B.O.A.C., these being the two principal difficulties in the way of reaching a conclusion?

On the first part of that question, this is indeed a minor problem as I understand it, and I do not think that it will take a long time to rectify. On the second part, the B.O.A.C. attitude is very important, and we shall wish to have a firm undertaking from it as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the meeting which he expects in April will enable him to reach a final decision on a production model of Concorde? What is being done to clear Concorde for operations over the United States?

There has never been any question that the United States was likely to permit supersonic flight over land. The problem of using United States airports is another problem, and on this we are in close consultation with the American Government, through our embassy.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had any consultations with the manufacturers regarding price? Does he realise that interference by the Government on this matter, or at least their observations on the matter, could affect the possibility of airlines ordering, and, of course, the future of the industry, of the project and of those engaged in the industry?

Of course I have had consultations with both Rolls-Royce and B.A.C. about prices. The finance will have to be found by the Government, and it is right that we should do so.

Has not the time come when B.O.A.C. should be directed, in the national interest, to place a number of firm orders for Concorde?

No, Sir, I would not accept that for a moment.

asked the Minister of Aviaton Supply whether he will make a further statement on when he expects to be able to authorise funding of production Concorde aircraft for airline service.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he is yet able to state when production orders for the next four Concordes will be placed; and if definite performance guarantees can now be given for airlines holding options.

I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend on 3rd March.—[Vol. 812, c. 1698.]

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the time is fast drawing nigh when we must come to a decision on this matter, as his right hon. Friend has assured the House that B.O.A.C. is anxious to operate this aircraft? Is it for reasons of unit price that B.O.A.C. cannot yet make up its mind, or is it a matter of economic operational considerations?

I do not think that the latter supplementary question has anything to do with the Question.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what estimate has been made by his Department of the total number of workers currently employed in this country on research and development and production work on Concorde, including suppliers and sub-contractors; and what estimate has been made of the likely numbers employed in a typical production year.

About 25,000 people are at present estimated to be employed in a number of firms on the Concorde project, about 20,000 on development and some 5,000 on production. This is expected to increase to a maximum of about 35,000 as the production programme builds up.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the industry it has been estimated that in a production year, in the South-East of England, including my constituency, some 12,500 people will be employed and that including subcontractors and induced employment, there will be 21,500 employed in the South-East, including my constituency? Does he not agree that this emphasises the vast importance of giving the go-ahead to Concorde, not only in the national interest, but in the interests of continued employment among my constituents?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the importance of Concorde to many parts of the country.

Will my hon. Friend again look at the urgent need to assist B.A.C. with marketing arrangements in every way possible, because, while not wishing to criticise the Corporation, many of us feel that it could do with extra encouragement?

I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I will give B.A.C. every encouragement necessary to do its important job.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of Concorde to areas such as Leicester, which live largely on their light engineering industries, and the effect which the collapse of Rolls-Royce has already had on the area? In those circumstances, can he give some assurance to the people in my constituency employed in light engineering not only that Concorde will not be cancelled but that these areas, which survived even the depression of the 1930s tolerably well, will not be riddled with unemployment in a few months' time?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the facts of life as he has put them to the House, but I cannot say anything beyond what was said by my right hon. Friend earlier.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what estimate he has now made of the final research and development costs of Concorde; how much he now hopes to recoup from eventual sales; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the replies given to similar questions on 9th December and 3rd March. —[Vol. 808, c. 396–7; Vol. 812, c. 1701–2.]

That is a disgraceful reply. Outside the House the figures are being freely discussed. The Minister must be aware that there are many who think, while recognising that Concorde could never be an economically viable proposition on the basis of an individual line—[Interruption.] The Minister will be aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] The Minister is aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]. Judging from his answers, the Minister is not aware of anything, but—

The hon. Gentleman must not make observations like that. Will he put it in an interogatory form?

Will the Minister and the Minister for the Environment recognise that many people outside the House appreciate that Concorde can never be economically viable on the basis of the whole cost, but might well be economically viable on the basis of the costs yet to be paid? Will he therefore recognise that there are many who would be prepared to accept the whole project? He should therefore specifically tell the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), what further commitments have been made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]. This is expenditure involving the taxpayers' money and authorising production costs.

The hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question does not arise from the Question. I have nothing to add to what I have said about development costs. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to speculate with his hon. Friends as much as he likes, but that does not mean that his speculations are accurate.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the most beneficial results likely to come from the Concorde is that airlines flying on the North Atlantic route will be able to charge a surcharge for supersonic travel, thus enabling them to realise one of their fondest dreams, which is to put up the fares on the North Atlantic routes, which at present absorb so much of the costs and at the same time provide so little of their profits?

That is an interesting speculation on my hon. Friend's part, but nothing to do with development costs.

Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question which has twice been put to him? Have production materials and components been authorised arising from this decision? What money is being allocated from the House without the House being informed about it?

No further allocations have been authorised beyond the replies my right hon. Friend and I have given to the same question on previous occasions.

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

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 now make a further statement on Rolls-Royce.

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

No, Sir. I have at present nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 19th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 405.]

Is it the Government's intention that a senior Minister should go to Washington to ensure—

He has gone.

He has gone, has he? Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Minister who has gone to Washington to seek an indemnity from the United States Government for any withdrawal by Lockheed from the present contract which may be entered into? What inducement is being offered to British airlines to purchase the TRISTAR.

The answer to the first part of that questions forms part of a later answer, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have left to take part in the negotiations.

When did they go?

One hour ago. What was the second part?

About indemnity—

Order. We cannot have this backwards and forwards discussion. Dr. Gilbert.

Would the Minister first of all answer by hon. Friend's supplementary—

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the Minister has not followed by question and was only asking for clarification.

One tries to get on with questions and allow as many supplementaries as possible. There will be three or four more supplementaries and I have not the slightest doubt that the answer asked for will be given in the course of those—as I think is already about to happen.

Further to that, what attempts, if any, were made in the recent negotiations for the sale of the patents of Rolls-Royce to ascertain whether any other interested buyers were in the market for them, so that the Receiver got the highest possible price in the interests of the unsecured creditors? Can the right hon. Gentleman update the information which he gave me in his undated letter of March, in which he said that the unsecured creditors were owed something over £50 million for supplies? Has he any more precise figure?

On the last point, I have not. No pressure is being put on any British airline with regard to the choice of equipment which it buys. The patents are an integral part of the functions of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to deny the report that the compensation is not as high as the amount which he told the House? If the main reason for the liquidation was the contract for the RB211, and if there is a chance, as appears from reports, that the Government are prepared to renegotiate, perhaps giving up to £90 million, why has he allowed the Receiver to break up the company and at the same time jeopardise the interests of the workers and the sub-contractors, rather than wait for the outcome of negotiations?

There has been no breaking up of the company. I can certainly deny the report referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

As it transpires that the financial penalty for late delivery of the engines for the TriStar was much less than supposed because of the ceiling on the financial liability, and the contract included an escalation clause allowing Rolls-Royce to increase the price of the engines, what has the right hon. Gentleman to say in reply to the American feeling, referred to in The Times of 19th March, that it is doubtful whether the Receiver should have been put in, and, secondly, that the British Government have been at best less than frank and at worst positively misleading in not admitting the presence of this favourable clause in the contract?

That really is a fabrication. It was for the board of Rolls-Royce to make the decision, and it was on the advice tendered to it as to the possible costs of delay that it took it. There is no question that we could have begun to make the sort of contract which may now be possible if that had not happened.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's energetic negotiations to get the RB211 contract moving again are being received with great satisfaction, in South-East Derbyshire particularly? Will he confirm that discussions with Lockheed and the American Government have also included discussion with regard to possible American defence contracts with Lockheed and the RB211?

I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of his supplementary question, but cannot comment on the second.

Could the right hon. Gentleman publish the contract signed between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed in 1968 so that the House itself may judge whether the charges made about the contract have any validity?

I will consider that but I have made it clear that one must be guided by the legal advice one obtains at the time.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is the cost to public funds of purchasing the aero and marine engine divisions of the Rolls-Royce Company from the official receiver.

The price to be paid for the assets we are acquiring will be a matter for negotiations between Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and the receiver. These negotiations will be based upon a fair price between the receiver and a willing buyer but until they are concluded it will not be possible to say what the cost to public funds will be.

Can my right hon. Friend indicate how soon the negotiations will be concluded? Is he aware that the longer they drag on, the more difficult it is for the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited to get going and the more uncertainty is created for unsecured and secured creditors of the old Rolls-Royce board? Will he do his utmost to expedite the matter?

I appreciate the anxieties, but Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited will be able to start operations within a matter of, I hope, weeks—certainly not months. This will be possible before the final price is settled. A very large number and variety of assets are involved, and the process is, I am afraid, bound to take some time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Receiver or the new Rolls-Royce company to make an early announcement about workers' shares and industrial injury provisions which are outstanding with the old company?

I can go no further than I have said already—that these are matters of considerable difficulty which are still being considered. The final answer can be found only when we know the fate of the RB211 negotiations.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a further statement on the present financial position of aero-engine component manufacturers for Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on the progress of his continuing study of the problems of sub-contractors to Rolls-Royce.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what estimate he has made of the number of employees of firms engaged as sub-contractors or suppliers to Rolls-Royce who have been declared redundant or placed on short-time working since 4th February, 1971, as a result of the Rolls-Royce insolvency.

On redundancies or short-time working, no precise estimate can be given, but I understand that the Department of Employment has been notified of redundancies involving some 7,500 employees at sub-contractors or suppliers to Rolls-Royce, of whom 3,600 have already been dismissed. Approximately 8,000 employees of such firms are on short-time at present. Beyond this, I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on 11th March.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Receiver will give priority to indemnifying those companies which have suffered grievous loss on contracts specifically for Her Majesty's Government in terms of military work—non-RB211 work—as this amounts to a very large sum of money?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Receiver is governed by the Companies Act.

Without wishing prematurely to press the hon. Gentleman on a mission which all of us will welcome, may I ask him whether he can put at rest the minds of those sub-contractors who are concerned about the attachment in American law of the RB211 engines by the Pacific Airmotive Corporation of California?

I do not know how this directly affects the sub-contractors. At the moment, the engines are being released to Lockheed and there is no interference with their use.

Not to the sub-contractors?

I should not have thought so.

The right hon. Gentleman said, understandably, that he could not give any guarantee that there would be no more redundancies even if the RB211 programme were proceeded with. Can he say whether we are intended to infer that some further redundancies may be expected, and, if so, at what volume and at what time? Secondly, are any other Rolls-Royce programmes in danger at this stage? Lastly, can he say why he is not able to give with any precision a figure of the sum owed to unsecured creditors, even at this stage, several months after liquidation? Are the books of Rolls-Royce still in such a shambles?

The original figure was approximately accurate to the nearest £1 million, to which I gave it. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is "No". The only one slightly in a difficult position is the M45—and that is simply because negotiations were in progress with the German Government about financing when the Receiver was appointed. Those negotiations are going on.

Will my right hon. Friend realise that many sub-contractors are in a difficult position? I accept that of course, the Receiver cannot act outside the Companies Act, but cannot the Government find some method by which help may be given to those sub-contractors who are engaged in defence contracts through the old Rolls-Royce company?

As far as I can foresee at the moment, the only help that can be given is an assurance that these contracts can continue and that there is every opportunity of the sub-contractors being able to continue to trade. I can only add that, so far as I know, there are not likely to be further major redundancies, but I am not prepared to guarantee that.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say something about the carbon fibres, because there has been anxiety among the staff engaged at Huck-nail and redundancies have been declared at Rolls-Royce Composite Materials in Bristol?

There is a later Question specifically on that matter.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what conversations, between Ministers and the receiver appointed in connection with Rolls-Royce or his representatives, took place between 4th February, 1971, and 8th March, 1971; and whether possible redundancy schemes were discussed.

I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject in the debate on 11th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 617.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from the redundancies which have already been effective at Rolls-Royce, a number of redundancy notices were given out in the Derby engine division and then subsequently withdrawn? Is he further aware that, apart from that, many people in the division have received letters asking whether they will take cuts in grade and salary? In the light of that, is he still prepared to say that in these matters neither the Government nor the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. guide the Receiver in any way?

The situation is quite simply that in certain cases redundancies have been declared by the Receiver but a change of personnel has been requested by the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. because it clearly wanted to retain some of these people in preference to others.

Mr. Finsberg.

No. 26, Sir.

I was calling the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question to No. 27.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, you went from No. 24 to No. 27.

I did, because the hon. Member's Question No. 26 had already been answered with Question No. 10.

Further to that point of order. I believe I saw my hon. Friend rise in an effort to catch your eye when No. 10 was called.

If the hon. Gentleman saw that, he saw something which I did not see, and I think that I was looking more closely than he.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is to be the future of carbon fibre research under Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited; and if he will make a statement.

Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited proposes to continue carbon fibre research work.

While thanking the Minister for that assurance, may I ask him whether he is aware that the declaration of redundancies extending to most of the research team, and also the team at Littleover, near Derby, severely damaged the confidence of this team in the future of the project? Could he tell the House why these redundancies were declared when the 211 project in particular was still being negotiated?

I am afraid there was some misunderstanding in regard to the future of the carbon fibre plant at Hucknall. I would point out that the Question is about research and this is a production unit which the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited had decided not to take over.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm recent reports that substantial stocks of carbon fibre have disappeared from the Hucknall plant together with the machines to produce this material, bearing in mind particularly that Rolls-Royce has recently achieved a break-through in the construction of carbon fibre blades to meet the specifications required by the Americans?

I will certainly investigate the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I do not think that the question of the manufacture of blades is specifically connected with the Hucknall facilities.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what progress he has made in the negotiations with Lockheed of the United States of America to continue the development and production by Rolls-Royce (1971) of the RB211; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the negotiations for the supply of the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine for the Lockheed Tristar.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations regarding the RB211.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what progress has been made by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited in its efforts to renegotiate the RB211 contract with Lockheed: and if he will make a statement.

Lockheed has rejected the proposals put to it in London earlier this month, which I reported to the House on 8th March, but negotiations are continuing urgently following the visit to Lockheed last week of senior representatives of Her Majesty's Government and Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General are leaving today to join in the negotiations.

As most supplementary questions on this subject have been anticipated on previous Questions, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress which is being made. I assure him that most of the House and the country wish the negotiators out there the greatest success. I congratulate him and the Government on sending such a high-level delegation out there at the right time to continue and. I hope, conclude the negotiations with Lockheed. I also congratulate the Government if it is true that they have advanced the offer from £60 million to £90 million.

I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will accept that it would not be right to discuss the terms of any negotiations going on at present, but I accept the earlier part of his comments.

It is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to say much at this delicate stage of these negotiations, but would he confirm that the three main points of the negotiations are the guarantee of spares by Her Majesty's Government, the guarantee of British investment and the establishment of satisfactory production costs with Lockheed? Will he undertake to give a statement on the negotiations at the earliest possible moment?

The answer to both parts of the supplementary question is, "Yes".

Since this engine is vital and the symbol of our whole technological development in the air, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to double and redouble his efforts not to let it go?

We are making every effort to obtain an acceptable and sensible contract, but I do not fully accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

In view of the large sums of money required to develop advanced aircraft and the high degree of risk, has my right hon. Friend made any representations to the Government of the United States that they and Her Majesty's Government can help by guarantee or direct subsidy to keep this project in existence in order to keep the design teams together and prevent heavy unemployment in the aircraft companies and the repercussions throughout industry?

I must ask my hon. Friend not to speculate on the negotiations. Clearly, there are difficulties in asking the United States Government to subsidise a rival to the General Electric and Pratt and Whitney engines.

There are problems of speculation about the negotiations, and we do not want the right hon. Gentleman to speculate. We welcome the journey to Washington. Can he tell the House first what the next stage of the negotiations will be so that we shall not learn the terms from the newspapers, as we did last time?

It is always my endeavour to inform the House first, but the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there are occasions when other people make statements to the Press and when it is necessary for any statement by the Government to coincide with them. But of course it is my intention to tell the House first.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the excellent progress made in the design and production sectors of Rolls-Royce over the last few weeks and, therefore, through the negotiators, invite the airlines, which are the ultimate customers, to come and see this work at Derby?

The airlines have been involved to some extent with the negotiations with our own team but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

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

I have nothing to add to my reply of 3rd March to the hon. Member.—[Vol. 812, c. 1684–5.]

What technical assessment can the Receiver make? Can the hon. Gentleman explain the answer which the Under-Secretary gave on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) when he said that in these matters the Government had no control over the Receiver?

That is perfectly true. The Government do not have control over the Receiver in this matter.

Then how can they negotiate?

Of course we can negotiate.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We wanted the Under-Secretary to answer that Question, not the Minister.

That is not a matter for me.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what preparations or alterations to Harrier aircraft are being made for the operation of these aircraft at sea.

Those R.A.F. Harriers which will take part in the further trials from an aircraft carrier announced in Cmnd. 4592 will have a number of minor modifications to enable them to carry out deck operations safely.

As. the current versions of the Harrier are not suitable for prolonged operations at sea and as the R.A.F. cannot supply cover out of range of land bases for the merchant fleet or the Royal Navy, should not properly designed Harriers for operation at sea be put in hand as rapidly as possible?

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

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what representations have been made to him by British European Airways about its requirement for either a short take-off and landing or a vertical take-off and landing civil airliner for service after 1975; and what reply he has given.

None, Sir.

Since we now know that the American Civil Aeronautics Board is putting VSTOL operation into service to gain service experience, is it not time that the Government brought B.E.A. and the British airframe manufacturers into co-operation to produce a prototype VSTOL aircraft so that we too can gain this vital operating experience which will be crucial if we go into production with this aircraft, as we surely shall?

I can assure my hon. Friend that B.E.A. has been closely associated with my right hon. Friend's Department in studies both of VTOL and STOL.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern over the need for a comprehensive policy on VSTOL which will bring in not only those concerned with the project but also local authorities, airport authorities on both sides of the Channel, air safety bodies and so on, because there seems to be no co-ordinated policy on the progress being made on this project?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, pretty detailed studies were done on a pilot survey of inter-city VTOL, and this has been one of the factors. Studies are carrying on across the whole area. It is a little too early to say there is an absolutely clear lead as to the precise parameters of the type of aircraft we are going for.

Would my hon. Friend agree that, since there is considerable technical conflict between the requirements of VTOL and STOL and since it is evident that STOL could be achieved more cheaply and more quickly, it would be an advantage if his Ministry could make a declaration of policy in favour of the production of STOL as soon as possible?

It had been my right hon. Friend's hope that he would by now be able to make a statement on this, but in view of the problems of Rolls-Royce I am afraid it has been put back somewhat in the time-scale.

Would the Minister agree that if transport facilities in the North of Scotland are to be properly developed then a STOL aircraft is absolutely essential?

I would not feel confident to make a declaration on what is the priority for the North of Scotland. I think the whole House would agree that if we can get a sensible specificaton for STOL and take in the whole of the ground planning and noise factors, then we can see a considerable future for it. Further than that I cannot go.

asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a further statement about research work currently being undertaken by Government establishments into quietening jet engines.

The National Gas Turbine Establishment is studying major sources of noise so as to improve both existing and new engines. Expenditure is currently about £140,000 a year.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that aircraft noise has become a major urban source of environmental pollution and, in view of the large sums of money we have discussed in this House on the possibility of building a third London airport, would not this money be better spent trying to invent "hush kits" for existing jet engines and ensuring we have engines which can be retrofitted into existing airliners?

I answered the Question my hon. Friend put to me. I should add that outside our own establishments about £1 million a year is being spent on extra-mural research projects. As to retrofit, current studies suggest that the scope for quietening existing engines may not be as great as previously thought and the cost is very high. As he knows, the question has been discussed internationally and no decision is likely for some time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to propose changes in the boundary of the Greater London Council area.

As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) on 19th March, I have no plans to change these boundaries, and I do not consider this the time to reopen the question of the extent of Greater London. This issue was settled by Parliament after full debate, and the present boundaries have been in operation for less than six years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will be received with great satisfaction and relief in the Greater London area despite the recent statement by Mr. Desmond Plummer?

I am delighted that any replies of mine should have created that great relief.

Will my right hon. Friend consider with his other right hon. Friends the question of the continuance of I.L.E.A. now that a pattern has been set up in other metropolitan areas of the country where the boroughs control education?

This is a matter much better directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that each of the regulations which will become effective if Great Britain joins the Common Market should be debated in Parliament.

No, Sir; but I can assure the House that if the negotiations succeed, adequate opportunity will be provided for Parliament to debate the implications of the Instrument of Accession.

Is this not a reversal of the sovereign right of this Parliament to debate orders and regulations which affect us? Could my right hon. Friend say that if we do sign the Treaty of Rome, we would then be able to debate or pray against orders and regulations made in Brussels?

As I understand it, at the moment many of the Community regulations would be perfectly easy for us to accede to in our normal legislative processes.

The Leader of the House must know that an enormous body of continental law is now expressed in regulations. Would he consider publishing these regulations so that people in this country and in Parliament can know how large an adjustment will have to be made to our own domestic law to bring it into line with alien continental law?

I would not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman says, but I will certainly look into the points he makes.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee for the National Health Service.

I do not contemplate doing so at the present time.

Would the Lord President reconsider that? Is he aware that we spend on the National Health Service £2,000 million a year and that it affects general practice, hospitals, nurses, and many others, and that there is not often on the Floor of the House opportunity to discuss this service? Does he not agree that it deserves priority for detailed study and examination by Parliament so that we can know best what action to take and when, and to that end would he reconsider his answer, and seek to move quickly for the establishment of a Select Committee on the National Health Service?

I certainly recognise the importance of all that the hon. Member says, but in the Green Paper which I published last November I set out proposals for Select Committees at the present time. I think the hon. Gentleman will probably appreciate that the Employment and Social Services Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee can certainly examine the National Health Service from the expenditure point of view. I would like to proceed in that way at the present time, but I do not rule out the sort of Committee which the hon. Member suggests in the long term. But not, I think, at the present time.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will seek to ensure that retired Members of Parliament and their widows will be enabled to draw pensions or annuities on the same basis as those to be paid to the former Speaker King and Mrs. King.

The pension arrangements of all Members of Parliament, including that of Mr. Speaker, will be within the scope of the forthcoming review of Members' remuneration. The House has, however, shown, Mr. Speaker, that it recognises the unique responsibilities of your office.

Will the Minister see to it that this suggestion, which would be an admirable one, is put before the Review Body, because this would receive the unanimous support of all hon. Members?

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for what he says. I will certainly put it before the Review Body, but, just as a matter of interesting historical fact, the amount of the Speaker's pension remained unaltered from 1832 to 1965. In 1832 it was £4,000 a year; in 1965 it was £4,000 a year.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will appoint a secretariat to the Committee on Members' salaries and conditions of service, whose duty it will be to collect and prepare written and documentary evidence from Members of Parliament and others; and whether he will state to whom Members should write to submit their written evidence pending the submission of oral evidence.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment informed the House on 2nd November, the new Review Bodies will have at their disposal, and working to their directions, a Secretariat provided by the Office of Manpower Economics.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of his reply, but is he aware that the second part has been passed on over the past two years? Will the Minister not try to get some expedition in this matter and give us an opportunity of at least having an investigation into the question without having to wait two years before the committee is appointed? Can he give us some idea when the committee is to be appointed, and the name of the chairman, and to whom we can give information upon which the committee may form a judgment?

I am as anxious as anyone in this House that the Review Body should be appointed as soon as possible, and I am working my hardest to that end.

asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the pensions of retired Members of Parliament, and especially those who retired prior to 1964.

Representations concerning the rates of pension benefits have been received from several ex-Members of the House and from the Trustees of the Members' Contributory Pension Fund. These are receiving urgent attention.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that of the Members who retired in 1964 and, therefore, do not get the same generous benefits which other Members do, some are suffering from considerable hardship, and that it had been hoped that this House would take some immediate action without waiting for the Review Body to consider the matter?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman and I will do my very best to that end.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for the payment of an additional bonus based upon hours worked in excess of a norm for the period January, 1971, to such period to be determined in the light of future demand made upon them, to catering staff who are working excessively long hours owing to the demands of the House.

I have been asked to reply.

Whilst appreciating that the catering staff get overtime for the very long hours they work, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will admit that since January of this year there have been demands far in excess of the normal made upon the catering workers—and, indeed, on other members of the staff of this House? Would it not be a good idea, and a token of appreciation on our part, if the Catering Department would consider giving the catering staff an additional bonus—it would, I think, meet with the approval of both sides of the House —for the way they have looked after us during this period, which has been abnormal?

There is nothing that I and other members of the Catering Committee would like more than to be able to do that. The only difficulty is that, in spite of the fact that we are paying up to £1,000 a week more in wages currently for these excessive weeks' working, we are unable to go further because we are still losing money—

We are always losing money.

Not at the rate we are now. Before Christmas it was a matter of hundreds a week but now it is thousands; and because of the almost bankrupt condition it is difficult to find where the money should come from. At the same time I feel sure that the whole House would like me to congratulate the staff who look after us so well, and that I will gladly do. I think a bonus for those who went right through the night and this morning is not out of place. There were not many of them, and they worked terribly hard and well.

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

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that sufficient sixpences are being supplied to all bars, refreshment rooms and tea rooms within the Palace of Westminster so that this coin may freely circulate.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my hon. Friend aware that sixpences are hardly ever given out in change? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading!"] I am reading the same sort of thing as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) does; it is in black type. Would my hon. Friend assure the House that at least his Department is not trying, like the joint stock banks, to kill off the sixpence?

I think my department has very little in common with the joint stock banks.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing we can get for sixpence in the Refreshment Rooms, so that this Question is purely hypothetical? Would he tell me what we can get for sixpence under his present leadership?

I will certainly make inquiries.

asked the Lord President of the Council which officers or servants of the House are furnished with transport to their homes when the House sits after midnight.

When the House rises between 11.30 p.m. and 5 a.m. a car service is provided for all officers and staff of the House, including the staff of the Refreshment Department, who have been on duty. This service is provided only within the London area, and is to the nearest point to their homes normally served by public transport.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the very least we can do for servants who have served us well? Do they not deserve a special vote of thanks for the tremendous difficulties they put up with in last night's escapade?

I entirely agree with all my hon. Friend says.

asked the Lord President of the Council what plans are in hand for the improvement of working conditions for Members of Parliament.

I assume the hon. Member has principally in mind the question of Members' accommodation. Major improvements must inevitably await the new parliamentary building in Bridge Street, planned for completion in 1978, but the new accommodation over the Tea Room should at least provide office space for about a hundred more Members by October next year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that some Members of this House are working in conditions far worse than those in many factories in this country, and that, in fact, if factory workers had to work under our conditions they would be out on strike tomorrow—subject to the Industrial Relations Bill? Will he inject some sense of urgency into this matter to see what further provision can be made without waiting till 1978, or whatever the date is, for the provision of the new building?

I would not wish to follow the hon. Member in the first part of his remarks, but I entirely agree with him that it is important for us to provide accommodation as soon as we can. He will appreciate that the accommodation over the Tea Room is to be provided and will be ready by October of next year.

asked the Lord President of the Council approximately how many staff in each of the following categories are employed in the House of Commons at midnight on the occasions when the House is still sitting, namely, doorkeepers, police, engineers, lift attendants, refreshment department attendants, and others.

The following staff are employed in the House of Commons at midnight when the House is sitting:

Twenty-two doorkeepers,

Twenty-six police,

Fifteen engineers,

Two lift attendants,

Twenty-five refreshment department staff and Fifty-seven others, including Clerks, Library Clerks, Serjeants, and HANSARD Reporters.

Do not these very large numbers bring two thoughts to mind—first, that we are extremely grateful to our efficient and cheerful staff, as has already been said; and, second, that performances such as the Opposition's unsuccessful stratagem last night serve only to make an absolute nonsense of Parliament?

In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we are all, wherever we sit in the House, greatly indebted to our staff for the long hours they work for us and for what they do for us.