asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the RB211 engine.

I informed the House on 10th May of the position reached in negotiations on the RB211 engine. We now await a decision from the United States Government whether they will provide the necessary support to enable Lockheed to complete the TriStar project for which the RB211 is intended.—[Vol. 817, c. 32–8.]

It now appears that the American Congress is unlikely to support the bank loan for Lockheed. Bearing in mind that the proposed legislation which the American Government are trying to put through Congress may not be concluded—

Speech.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

by the time Congress rises for the Summer Recess, will the Minister give an undertaking that work one the RB211 engine will go on? It is suggested that the main objection to the bank loan is lack of firm orders. Will the Minister ask B.E.A., as a matter of urgency, to make a decision on the purchase of the TriStar, because I believe that that could clinch the deal?

On the continuation of the RB211 beyond 8th August, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on 14th June. With regard to B.E.A.'s order, this is a matter for B.E.A.'s commercial judgment, bearing in mind that there are other aircraft available with British contributions.

What advice does the Minister have for Rolls-Royce sub-contractors?

I have nothing further to add to my previous statement on that subject.

Will my hon. Friend say whether his Department is investigating the prospect of using the RB211 engine in the VC10?

This and other matters are subject to consideration. They are only peripheral and do not in themselves, as I see it, justify the production of this engine.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the decline in employment in the textile and coal industries, and the threatened closure of Irlam Steel Works, he will now provide incentives for new industry in the south Lancashire area.

An extension of assisted area status to South Lancashire could not be justified at present.

Whilst I appreciate that there is not much foot-loose industry at the present time, if the eventual closure of this steel works is confirmed, will the Minister act quickly to encourage alternative industry to go in?

We have said that we shall keep assisted areas under constant review, and this will obviously be a factor which we shall take into consideration.

Will my hon. Friend keep a vigilant eye on the North-West of Lancashire and do what he can to encourage new industries to any part where present industries are in danger of failing or dying, especially bearing in mind the needs of areas such as Kirkham where the recent closure of a mill has caused serious unemployment?

The answer to my hon. and learned Friend is "Yes, Sir", subject, of course, to the overriding needs of areas worse affected.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further support he proposes to give the machine tool industry in substitution for the assistance given to it by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.

Private financial institutions exist to provide expert advice to concerns requiring it as well as to organise the provision of finance in suitable cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that orders for machine tools are now at a record low figure, and that redundancies are continuing to rise? Does he agree that what is necessary for the machine tool industry is a general inflation of the economy in order to encourage investment and re-equipment of industry generally so that the machine tool industry may benefit from it?

I am very conscious of the fact that the machine tool industry is particularly responsive to the climate of investment at any time. This is clearly a matter that I am keeping very much in mind.

The Secretary of State has for some months had the report of the committee of inquiry into the machine tool industry. Can he say when he will announce the conclusions he draws from that report?

I am indeed looking at the whole of the problems of the machine tool industry, and I have to see in due course whether these considerations give rise to any conclusions that I can usefully communicate.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the industries which he expects to benefit from British membership of an enlarged European Economic Community.

Probably all United Kingdom industries are potentially capable of benefiting from what would eventually be a greatly enlarged home market. Much would depend on the enterprise shown by individual firms.

Is it not clear that most of British industry is eagerly looking forward, as my right hon. Friend has confirmed, to the opportunities presented by an enlarged Community, and is this not another reason why the whole nation should approach the prospect with confidence rather than with apprehension?

My clear belief is that the balanced judgment of British industry generally is very much in favour of membership and believes that it will derive very great advantages from it.

Will the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that the White Paper, when published, will contain all the documents that may bear on industries other than steel and coal, which were recently commented on as the result of the negotiations that were conducted with the Six?

I believe that the White Paper will give a very wide field for discussion of all the issues involved. To produce all the documents would, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be quite impossible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what will be the position after entry of joint trading and business arrangements concluded prior to British entry into the European Economic Community between countries and companies within the Six and the United Kingdom affecting both Government and private enterprise, giving details of individual agreements.

Bilateral trade arrangements between the United Kingom and France, Germany and Benelux, which relate to only a small part of our trade with those countries, would cease to apply in the transition period. Intergovernmental agreements and arrangements on technological projects will continue. It would not be possible to provide the details without a disproportionate expenditure of time and money. Agreements between United Kingdom and E.E.C. companies would have to accord with the rules of the Community.

That is a complicated answer. Can the Minister give an assurance that the White Paper will fully deal with this aspect? As I understand it, it will mean that we shall once again be on the losing end. The right hon. Member does not seem to be able to give us any facts or figures without spending an undue proportion of time and money. Is not he aware that the House and the country want to know what is happening? Instead of spending thousands of pounds issuing propaganda, let us have the facts and figures, and do not say that it costs money to get them.

The hon. Member should be reassured to know that the changes in these arrangements will give rise to an expansion in trade rather than the contraction that he feared.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many missing persons have been reported from the liners "Southern Cross" and "Northern Star" during the period January, 1970 to June, 1971.

During the period January, 1970, to June, 1971, three persons were reported missing from the "Southern Cross" and one from the "Northern Star".

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that reply, and also for the attention he has given to the case of a constituent. Does not my hon. Friend consider this to be a rather alarming number of cases to arise from two sister cruise ships? Does he consider that the present system of inquiry into deaths at sea is working satisfactorily? Will he not consider reopening the inquiry into this instance?

I do not think that there is power to reopen inquiries. As to any coincidence between these two ships, it would be wrong to draw any conclusions. These were, as I understand it, different types of accident occurring in different circumstances at different times. The system by which we investigate these accidents can be improved, and this will be done when regulations are laid before the House as a result of the recent Merchant Shipping Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek powers to prevent shopkeepers from making a separate charge for paper bags without informing customers that this is their practice.

No, Sir. I have no doubt that other shoppers are as alert as the hon. Member in ensuring that they are not overcharged, whether deliberately or by mistake, for goods they purchase, and that they react accordingly.

But in a time of rising prices such as this why will not the Minister take action to protect shoppers from conning devices like this indulged in by an unscrupulous minority of traders? Why will he not take action to help housewives by drawing up a code of fair shopping practice?

We have had no complaint, other than that from the hon. Member, about this matter at all. I think that we should leave it open to the shopper to take or not to take a paper bag, and I do not believe that competition is not the best answer to this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what correspondence he has had recently with the Shirt, Collar and Tie Manufacturers' Federation; what was the substance of their representations; and what action he proposes to take to maintain and promote he best interests of this section of manufacturing industry.

The Federation recently proposed a new origin marking order for men's shirts and pyjamas but has been informed that we do not consider that the arguments so far advanced justify such an order.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but is he aware that there is still very considerable concern in this important and responsible section of British industry over his decision? With respect, my hon. Friend has not replied to the final sentence in my Question, which asks him

"… what action he proposes to take to maintain and promote the bests interests of this section of manufacturing industry."

I do not accept that the absence of an origin marking order will harm British industry. It is open to British industry, if it so wishes, to mark its goods "Made in Britain", if it believes that it will be to its advantage. I am certain that that is the right course for British industry to follow.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the necktie often costs more than the shirt? Will he find out from this organisation why that is so?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), and tries to do some better shopping.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he can give an assurance that the expansion of the British steel industry will not be limited by the European Steel and Coal Community in the event of the United Kingdom becoming a member.

Yes, Sir.

In that case, will the Secretary of State now publish, so that hon. Members can have it, the memorandum on the subject from the European Coal and Steel Community which was presented to the Government on 4th May?

No, Sir. If all the documents which are part of the negotiations were published, it would make negotiation exceedingly difficult—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] I realise that something that must be very approximate to the document has recently appeared.

Following the right hon. Gentleman's last reply, will he absolutely confirm to the House that the document originally published in The Guardian and republished today in the Financial Times is the authentic document? Second, will he confirm that the British negotiators made no objection to the document, and raised no point in opposition to it? Third, will he confirm that it was the original intention of the Government not to disclose these discussions to the House or the country even in the White Paper, which is why the White Paper in this respect is now being rewritten?

The hon. Gentleman would do very well to wait for the White Paper, when the matter can be fully discussed. The Guardian article was a commentary and did not pretend to be an exact reproduction of the document itself. But, as I say, the whole matter can better await the publication of the White Paper.

Is not this another example of an anti-Market hare which is not going to run?

Yes, Sir. I do not think that it has very far to run, I am bound to say.

But since on New Zealand and on Commonwealth sugar the Government were perfectly prepared to claim that they had made objections to the original demands of the Community, even though eventually they conceded them in general, or in the main part, why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to tell the House, and the people who work in the steel industry or the coal industry, what the response of Her Majesty's Government was when this document was lodged with them? If such information could be given on the other matters, why is it being withheld in this case?

It is the Government's belief that the negotiators, at the time of the negotiation, handled the essential issues which surround these problems. As I say, the matter will be very much clearer when the White Paper is issued, and I suggest that it can better be discussed then.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial development certificates have been applied for within the city of Birmingham since 1st July, 1970; how many were granted; and what were the appropriate figures for the previous 12 months.

In the period 1st July, 1970 to 31st May, 1971, 80 industrial development certificates were issued in the Birmingham Group of Employment Exchange Areas and 10 were refused. The figures for the period 1st July, 1969 to 30th June, 1970 were 160 and 23 respectively.

While appreciating that the purpose of industrial development certificates is to encourage expansion of industry in the development areas, and my hon. Friend's greater flexibility to wards this matter, as instanced by the raising of the exemption level for expansion of industry from 3,000 to 5,000 sq. ft., may I ask whether he would be pre pared to go further and state categorically that, in looking at individual applications, if a firm can show that it cannot expand in a development area it will be allowed to expand in a non-development area, bearing in mind the recent example in the West Midlands where a firm has lost £100,000 by the refusal of an I.D.C. because it was not able to open up or expand—

Order. Supplementaries must be brief.

As my hon. Friend said, one reason for the change in the figures was the I.D.C. exemption limit being raised from 3,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. It will not be practicable to change the policy generally in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. We operate a flexible policy. In Birmingham, modest expansion by firms which have strong ties with the area—expansion designed to improve efficiency—will be allowed subject to giving priority to development and intermediate areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that West Midlands Tory Members of Parliament have been arguing for years that all that the Midlands needed if they wanted industry was to get rid of the Labour Government? Is he aware that he has just about demolished the whole lot?

I do not accept that. I am saying that with the limited supply of mobile industry it is important to give priority to the assisted areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be in a position to make a further statement on the price to be paid for the acquisition of Rolls-Royce Limited assets by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, and the basis upon which such a price has been calculated.

The determination of this price is a matter of considerable complexity, and is bound to take a substantial time. I cannot at the moment forecast when it will be possible to say anything further, but the parties concerned, of course, recognise the need for an early settlement.

Does the Minister agree that the most valuable asset of Rolls-Royce is its goodwill, which includes the vast expenditure on research and development which absorbed the bulk of the capital which the company lost over the years, but without which the new company cannot make the profits which it appears to be making now? Will he confirm that this will be taken into account when the price is finally fixed?

An element of goodwill comes into this, but it is essential that we get the profit forecast accurate. By the time we have multiplied it by the number of years purchase, errors can turn out to be considerable sums.

We have the word of the receiver that the purchase price for Rolls-Royce assets will very much depend on the final settlement of the RB 211 deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what representations have been received from the United States Government about the continuation of British guarantees of support after 8th August? If he cannot do so, will he tell the House whether we shall have some statement on this matter before the recess?

I am not aware that the receiver has made the valuation in any way dependent on the continuation of the RB 211, for fairly obvious valuation reasons. I shall ensure that before the recess the House is kept up to date with the situation as it then stands.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now in a position to consider a review of the miners' over-55 redundancy agreement to take account of inflation.

Yes, Sir. Preliminary work on the review is in hand and I hope shortly to be in a position to have discussions with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

I am pleased that the Minister is getting on with the job which he promised on Third Reading of the Coal Industry Bill a few months ago. When he discusses the matter with the National Coal Board and, more particularly, with the N.U.M., will he take into account that he might take a line through, say, Lord Robens' recent award of about £2,500 after ten years' service? Bearing in mind that some of the miners get as low as 30 per cent. of take-home pay, taking into account real money values at the present time, will he see that the 90 per cent. is carried through on a proper basis?

We clearly appreciate the effects of inflation upon the scheme and, indeed, on other Government pension schemes, and we shall consider them all in that light.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the proceedings on the Coal Industry Bill the matter raised by my hon. Friend was fully discussed and a pretty firm undertaking was given by the Government that the erosion of the redundancy scheme would be taken fully into account in the discussions to which he has referred? If it is not taken into account, we on this side will regard it as a broken pledge.

The hon. Gentleman has no reason to regard it as a broken pledge. I said to his hon. Friend that we were continuing to take this into account and that we shall continue to do so in the discussions which will follow.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited.

No, Sir. The many questions answered in the House on this subject have explained the Government's position. As soon as I am in a position to make a further statement I shall do so.

In view of the appalling unemployment figures on Clydeside, will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that no reconstruction of Upper Clyde will be acceptable unless it preserves all existing jobs? Will he impress that upon the four advisers whom he has appointed?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I feel sure that he will agree that, in the interests of the people employed there, the important thing is to have long-term viable and prosperous shipbuilding on Upper Clyde.

As the liquidator has money to pay wages until 5th August, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no redundancies declared in Upper Clyde during the long recess?

I shall have to look at the matter as soon as I have the advice of the team of experts which I have assembled to give advice on the subject and had an opportunity of talking further to the liquidator. At this stage I cannot go further than I have already gone.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he suspended credit guarantees in respect of ships being built by Upper Clyde Ship builders Limited.

I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and other hon. Members on 28th June.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how it is that his right hon. Friend can say that he had only 48 hours' notice of the difficulties of this concern, when it is quite clear from the answers we have had that his Department have been in touch with either the director or the company since mid-October of last year?

As I explained in answer to the last Question, we had doubts about the viability of U.C.S. in the autumn of last year. These doubts were resolved by the capital reconstruction and the injection of funds from ship owners which enabled the Government to grant credits again to U.C.S. The Government would certainly not have granted credits if they had not been confident about the viability of U.C.S. at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the letter dated 3rd May, 1971 written to his Department by Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited.

A letter sent by the company on 3rd May was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 28th June.—[Vol. 820, c. 9.]

I am aware of that, but will the Secretary of State make sure that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware of it, because he did not seem to realise the facts given in it last week. Is not this letter yet another example of the squalid conspiracy initiated by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to butcher Upper Clyde? Did not the letter make it perfectly clear that while the company was in a favourable trading position, the cash position was acutely difficult, which the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know until 48 hours previously?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman has either not read what I said or has not read the letter. The letter quite clearly accompanied a delayed statement on the state of the company at the end of March, which should have been in earlier. It was a delayed statement. The company declared in February its confidence in its own future. The Government accepted that, and renewed, as my hon. Friend has said, the provision of guarantees. The company only then, on 7th May, realised that it was not in possession of adequate knowledge about its financial future and commissioned a study of it. That study emerged on 7th June, when, for the first time, the company apparently realised that it was trading in deficit. It informed me of that matter 48 hours later, and 48 hours before it proposed to appoint a provisional liquidator. Those are the facts.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much additional public money he has now committed to keep work going at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited and to provide assistance for a reconstruction of the company.

As I said in the Answer I gave the hon. Member and others on 28th June, the best estimate of the Provisional Liquidator's total requirement from the Government until 6th August is £3 million.—[Vol. 820, c. 12.]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposed reconstruction might have been carried out at less cost to the taxpayer and with less disruption to the industry if there had been an outright acquisition by the Government?

No, I do not think so. In fact, it was not even practicable because of the inadequate notice which the Government had of the liquidation. I doubt even so that it would have been a sensible solution. The right solution is the solution that the Government are pursuing, to try to bring about a viable, effective reconstruction on the Clyde. I greatly hope that this will be the outcome of these affairs.

Will the Secretary of State now give the House his estimate of the total cost falling on public funds from the redundancies expected due to the reconstruction?

No. I have said earlier that at present it is impossible to say what the employment outcome will be on the Upper Clyde, so clearly the right hon. Gentleman's question cannot be answered. However, as the right hon. Gentleman seems singularly unable to see the difference between the two, it is worth while my mentioning that to put in £3 million to procure a healthy construction is much better than putting in successions of £6 million to bolster up.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the number of ships presently under construction at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited; those ready for launching; and the total number on the order book.

Work is proceeding on 14 ships, of which six have been launched and are fitting out. Two more of these ships are expected to be launched by the end of July. The total order book is 31 ships.

Does the hon. Member agree that ships under construction, ships ready for launching and ships on the order book all represent potential wealth? Will he promise that money will always be forthcoming to make that potential wealth a real thing in the community life of Scotland—and of England, too?

Whether it is in the interests of all concerned to complete a specific contract is a matter which the liquidator is by law bound to consider, and it would be wrong for me to seek to interfere with him.

On a point of order. Here is an issue of almost life and death—[Interruption.] Of course it is. Instead of the Minister's giving an answer that includes his responsibility he seeks to shove it on to the liquidator, over whom we have no control.

The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Her Majesty's Government has reached a decision on future special development area status for new towns in Scotland that are at present excluded.

No, Sir. But the Government hope to be in a position to announce a decision shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in, for example, the new town of Livingstone at the Government's delay in announcing a decision? Is he aware that a favourable decision would mean a considerable boost to morale in Livingstone?

I appreciate that very much. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly urged it upon me. We have to weigh the consequences of a further extension of S.D.A. status. We can justify it only if these towns can make a substantial contribution to solving the problems of the new S.D.As. We have completed our discussions with the Development Corporation. The Government are considering the matter and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement fairly soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of British exports to Australia in 1968, 1969 and 1970, respectively; and what proportion of this is represented by the products of the shipbuilding industry.

£321 million, £323 million and £346 million respectively, of which ships and boats represented between 1 and 1½ per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures do not show that Australia has been particularly anxious to give assistance to British industries in need of support? Have any representations recently been made to Australia on that subject?

I do not entirely accept everything said by my hon. Friend. I am not aware of any representations having been made in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of the total value of credits sanctioned by the Shipbuilding Industry Board for shipowners in the period October 1970 to March, 1971.

In the period 1st October, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, the Shipbuilding Industry Board recommended applications for guarantees involving a potential liability of £89 million.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will he explain why the guarantees for shipowners with orders with U.C.S. were held up apparently solely on the basis of an informal discussion between officials in his Department and the Government's director without any documentary evidence whatsoever?

The Shipbuilding Industry Board's director who is there to watch the interests of the Board, which has invested or loaned Government money, quite rightly drew the attention of the Government to the condition of U.C.S. finances. Therefore, the Government were bound, under the legislation, to take notice whether they should continue to issue guarantees for a company whose financial viability was in question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will pay an official visit to Glasgow.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will visit Glasgow and address the employees of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will pay an official visit to Clydebank.

I visited Glasgow on 14th May. I will bear the possibility of a further visit in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and give a firm date, because thousands of trade unionists want to convey to him, in firm inelegant language, what they think of the Government's policy? In view of the accumulated evidence from some of the replies which he himself has given, and in view of the conflicting statements of the events leading up to the introduction of the liquidation, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government have been far too precipitate in this decision? Will he go to Glasgow and re-examine all the facts on the spot?

I have the advantage of the guidance of a group of experts and of the liquidator. This will provide me with a great deal of information which will be of great help. However, the truth is that the precipitate action of the Government, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, was brought about by the extraordinarily precipitate action of the company, which suddenly realised that it was in deficit without the least warning to anybody.

When the right hon. Gentleman went to Glasgow, did he find out how many ships were being built in the shipyards in Glasgow? Is he saying that those ships which were being built, and are now being built, have no backing from the Government?

On the contrary, were it not for the Government's timely aid, the 14 ships currently being built in the yards of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders would not now be being built. The whole of the work force would have been dissipated and the work would not now be going on. The hon. Gentleman should certainly not reproach the Government for failure to act in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now refer the manufacture of mercury cell batteries used in post-aural hearing aids to the Monopolies Commission because of increases in their price over the last 12 months.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 1st March.—[Vol. 812, c. 301–2.]

I am very grateful for that reply, which shows me that we are, for the first time, having some imports from Germany, which is the only competitor to the British manufacturer. As these batteries are used heavily by deaf people and by the hospital services, would the Minister have another look at this matter with a view to doing something so that they are not only in those two hands?

I have told the hon. Gentleman in the House on several occasions that we are watching the position very closely. If evidence is produced which suggests that a reference would be appropriate, I would not hesitate to make it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he hopes to be able to announce further proposals for dealing with the bank cartel.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to his Question on 14th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 7.]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that now that the Treasury has come forward with this proposal for breaking up the cartel regarding interest rates, there is no excuse left whatsoever for not dealing with other aspects of the cartel's collusive practices in relation to services, charges and so on? Can we hope for some action from the hon. Gentleman's Department on this matter?

The hon. Gentleman must await the outcome of the talks between the banks and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the future relationship between the Government and the banks, and then we shall see what developments take place.

Is not the Minister aware that there is public concern at the dramatic lowering of standards by British banks, especially following many of the mergers that have taken place? Something has to be done about this, and the Government have a duty to look into the matter.

The hon. Gentleman's Administration slept on this problem for six and a half years, but my right hon. Friend has already announced plans for reforming the whole system under which banking will operate in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers to compensate the Central Electricity Generating Board for the additional cost of out-of-merit running of generating plant due to the late commissioning and below capacity running of 500 megawatt turbo-alternators due to manufacturing and installation faults.

No, Sir. Consequential costs arising from the non-availability of plant are the responsibility of the C.E.G.B.

That answer was not unexpected, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the C.E.G.B. has lost tens of millions of £s as a result of slow commissioning of this plant and that many of the 500 megawatt sets are still not running at full capacity? Is this not the opportunity for the Government to do something about cutting a very significant price at a stroke?

If the C.E.G.B. has such difficulties, it is up to the Board to avoid them in the future. It would be wrong to expect others to subsidise the C.E.G.B. for purposes which are within its control.

Are there not penalty clauses in all these contracts? Could the hon. Gentleman explain why the C.E.G.B. seems almost reluctant to invoke penalty clauses against manufacturers?

The C.E.G.B. behaves completely commercially and properly in this matter. I know of many occasions upon which it has invoked penalty clauses.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new firms have been established in Scotland in the last nine months; how many have been closed; and what has been or will be the net gain in jobs provided.

I regret that the precise information is not available. But in the period 1st September, 1970, to 31st May, 1971, 131 industrial development certificates were issued in Scotland which are estimated to give rise to nearly 9,200 jobs when the projects are fully manned. In the same period 110 closures of manufacturing establishments involving 8,300 redundancies were notified to the Department of Employment.

Can the hon. Gentleman give comparable figures for the last five or six years so that we may know the trend? Is he aware that there is enormous despondency in Scotland because of the callous policies of the Government, and that there is no sign of recovery in Scotland? On the contrary, all the signs are that things will get worse before they get better—if they get better.

On the first point, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman such lengthy figures without notice. If he puts down a Question, I shall be glad to do so. Nor do I accept the extravagant and depressing language he used. It might be worth his while to bear in mind that there has been a marked improvement in I.D.C. approvals for the area and for projects over 10,000 square feet, in project numbers, floor space and estimated additional employment for the period March-May, which are all higher than the corresponding period last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Committee on Marine Technology was first established; how much it has cost to maintain during its existence; and what have been the results achieved to date.

The Committee on Marine Technology was established in April, 1968. Its costs amount only to an appropriate share of the salaries of the members and incidental expenses. It has no executive functions, but a number of useful studies have been completed or are in hand, some of which have already resulted in industrial project.

I do not quite follow my right hon. Friend's reply to my Question about costs. Does he think that the amount of money that has been spent on this Committee so far has resulted in value for money? Does he expect that the Committee will be able to make a useful contribution to marine technology which will justify the amount that will be spent on it in the future?

The approximate apportionment of the cost of the salaries to which I referred comes to £8,000. Many of the projects that have been studied and which have developed into industrial projects with, we hope, commercial potential, provide a good return. Nevertheless, these are matters which are being considered in relation to the whole field of Government research.

What has become of the Labour Government's White Paper on marine technology?

I think that it is probably in the wastepaper basket.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on Concorde.

I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 14th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 20–21.]

What is the right hon. Gentleman's latest estimate of development costs for this aircraft? What is the position now about a decision on full-scale production? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has promised us such a decision? What is causing the greatest anxiety is that this matter goes on and on, more money is being spent, and the decision is likely to be taken when the aircraft are on the runway waiting for a buyer?

I cannot accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As I have explained to the House over and over again, the whole problem is that no final decision to give the full go-ahead on the production programme can be given until the market is clearer. I have nothing to add on the subject of total estimated development costs to what I said on the last occasion when I addressed the House on this subject when I gave a figure of £885 million.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that United Airlines has just renewed its options on Concorde and that K.L.M. has, for the first time since the cancellation of the United States S.S.T., expressed a serious interest in the plane? Will he ensure that this interest is encouraged over the next few months which are likely to be the most difficult period before the world airlines start to place orders for the plane?

The next few months are likely to be crucial. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said about the airlines which are showing an interest.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect orders? Do the Government take seriously the Press reports which came from France of an interest from China in the purchase of Concorde?

In so far as there is any interest on the part of China it is at a very early stage and I should not like to commit myself in any way. I do not think that we can expect firm orders at any rate in the next three months.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the total workforce employed on the Concorde programme in the United Kingdom.

About 25,000.

As my right hon. Friend will have noticed again this afternoon the anxiety of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and his hon. Friends that this project should be cancelled and all those engaged on it thrown out of work, will he repeat that figure still more loudly, for their benefit?

Yes. Twenty-five thousand currently, rising after full production is reached to 35,000.

Can the Minister give me any idea of the workforce employed on the Concorde project in Coventry today?

No. I have no breakdown from area to area, but about two-thirds are employed in the Bristol area.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from the Lanarkshire Development Council for a meeting to discuss unemployment in the county; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

The Lanarkshire Development Corporation has asked me to receive a deputation. Arrangements are being made for a deputation to be received in the near future.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that the reply that he sent to the Lanarkshire Development Council was not greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm? As in the county of Lanark 7·9 per cent. of the insurable population is unemployed, which figure does not include school leavers who have not been taken care of, will the hon. Gentleman now assure us that he will meet the premier Development Council as quickly as possible to try to give the Council an insight into what the Government's policy is for solving this very serious problem?

I am looking forward to meeting the Council and to judging its degree of enthusiasm or otherwise. I will try to arrange a meeting as soon as possible. No doubt all these matters can be discussed. At the same time we can reflect that there has been a marked improvement in I.D.C. approvals and a substantial increase in applications for local employment assistance and other financial assistance recently.

As I was in very early consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very important matter, may I have an assurance that Members of Parliament of both parties will be on the deputation so that we can have a balanced consideration of this issue?

I shall always be delighted to see my hon. Friend at any time mutually convenient to us, but this meeting relates to Lanarkshire.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to seek to give evidence before the Banking Committee of the United States House of Representatives currently investigating the proposed guarantee to Lockheed Aviation.

The Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee of the United States House of Representatives has asked the British Government to give evidence on this subject. He has been told in reply that we do not propose to put forward witnesses but are prepared to make a further written statement, if that would be helpful to the Committee.

I appreciate that we should be under no illusions as to the motives of those who may wish the Government to testify before this Committee, but is the Minister aware that the situation has changed significantly since similar requests came from the Senate Committee, first because there is now no prospect of the necessary legislation going through the two Houses of Congress before 8th August and, second, because the British Government's guarantee of further financial support for this engine and for this great project will itself run out in four weeks' time? Is the Minister therefore aware that, if he wishes to continue to have bipartisan support in the House for his efforts to rescue this engine, there must be an unequivocal statement that further support for the RB211 is forthcoming?

The hon. Gentleman does not help his constituents or anybody else by pressing for a statement of that sort at present.

Is there any precedent for the British Government giving any evidence before a Committee of either House of the American Congress?

I believe that there are precedents where they have given evidence on purely technical matters but not on matters affecting policy.

Is the Minister aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) was inadequate? The House has a right to ask him what he intends to do in the event of Congress not agreeing to go ahead with the loans to Lockheed. What is the Government's intention? Do they intend to carry on producing the engine, awaiting the final outcome in the United States?

My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear the other day that, in the event of no decision being reached on 8th August, we, together with the other parties involved—that is, the two companies and the United States Government—would get together and decide what to do collectively. That is the only sensible way of behaving.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding the extent of imports into the United Kingdom of furs and skins of the jaguar, leopard, cheetah and ocelot; and whether he will now introduce a Bill banning their import, on the lines of the Endangered Species Bill of the United States of America, a copy of which has been sent to him.

The official statistics do not show separately imports of furs and skins of the particular species mentioned. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) on 14th June, he will consider the practicability of controlling imports of furs and skins of certain rare animals as soon as he has the necessary technical information. Powers to restrict or ban imports are available under existing legislation.—[Vol. 819, c. 3–4.]

Is the Minister aware that the extensive and vicious commercial poaching that is going on in East Africa, South America and Asia—poaching that is encouraged by the wealthy ladies of leisure in London, who wear these skins on their backs—is connived at by Her Majesty's Government, who will not pass legislation? Will not he attempt to get us in line with the Americans, who are doing something in this field?

The hon. Member is a little unfair to Her Majesty's Government. I banned the import of vicuna, which I think was a wise decision. We are wholly sympathetic to the needs to conserve species which are in danger of dying out. We have had meetings and have considered the representations of the British Fur Trade Association. We are sympathetic to what it does, and at the moment we are awaiting further technical information from it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the continued failure of the British nuclear industry to export reactors and the inability of the generating authorities to provide enough work for two nuclear manufacturing groupings, he will take steps to revise the recommendations of the former Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and apply the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the last Parliament for the creation of one British nuclear design and construction grouping.

This question is primarily one for the industrial interests involved. In any case it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to take account of the results of the current review of reactor programmes before forming a view on the hon. Member's suggestion.

Does not the right hon. Member agree that the position of the nuclear reactor industry at the moment is very serious, and that, in retrospect, the Select Committee has been shown to have had considerable insight into the future? Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the Vinter Committee is, and when is proposes to report?

I agree that the situation in this industry is very difficult at the moment, but I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that whatever foresight the Select Committee showed, it ultimately agreed that it was sensible to go for two companies instead of one. The Vinter Committee is carrying out a purely Departmental study of reactor problems, together with the C.E.G.B. We hope that it will report in about October.

Does not the Minister agree that the implication of this Question is that Government representatives should apologise at the Dispatch Box for making miners unemployed and for closing pits, on the false premise that nuclear power would be cheaper than coal? Will not he reconsider this question, with a view to trying to institute a real nuclear power programme, rather than continuing to fuss about as he is at present?

It is precisely because there was so much fussing about in the past that we are having a jolly good review of the situation.

I do not underestimate the difficulties of coming to a decision in this matter, but will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to the recommendation of the Select Committee on the export aspects of this problem, in respect of which it had some constructive suggestions to make?

I accept that, but it is right to point out that in the light of the situation then ruling the Select Committee agreed with the proposals of the previous Government that two companies were most suitable in those circumstances. I agree that the matter now needs reviewing, and that is what I am doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about his recent change of policy on charter flights from the United Kingdom in larger aircraft by fifth freedom carriers.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 17th June.

As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, that reply was not very informative. Is he aware that it represents nothing but a few sniping shots in what is becoming a charter bilateral war with the United States? Would not he do far better by offering a more comprehensive review of charter rates and by supporting B.O.A.C. in its endeavour to reduce fares in Montreal this week?

We are reviewing the complex position of charters. What the hon. Member says will be borne in mind, but I am not able to announce a change of policy at this moment.

Will the Minister take note of the extraordinary reduction of fares reported in newspaper articles? They are so far out of line with the fares on the scheduled routes that even the more respectful citizens will be tempted by them. Is the Minister aware that that is not a healthy state of affairs and that something needs doing urgently?

I accept that. We are aware of it and are reviewing the position carefully. But it is largely an international problem.

Can my hon. Friend say when he is likely to reach a decision that no changes are required in this matter? The situation now is becoming somewhat chaotic on both the schedule and the charter side and something should be done.

I am not in a position to say when this will be completed, but my right hon. Friend and I will take note of the urgency expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of Australian purchases of the products of the British aircraft industry in 1968, 1969 and 1970, respectively.

£11 million, £8 million and £5 million, respectively.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show a considerable drop in the last three years, and underline yet again the fact that the Australian economy in this sector is looking elsewhere than to Britain—particularly towards America—for its exports and imports?

Yes. I believe that in this field about 80 per cent. of Australian imports come from North America and only 6 per cent. from the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that many Australians' enthusiasm for British exports began to expire with the first of our series of attempts to enter the Common Market?

There was a certain sign of their expiring at the time of the TSR2 decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made with his review of company law.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made towards proposals for a revised Companies Act.

The work is still in its early stages, but we are pressing on as fast as possible.

Is not my hon. Friend able to give us an approximate estimate in months of when it is likely to be completed?

It is a major task, and there is a great deal of consultation and discussion to take place in the course of the review. I cannot yet give my hon. Friend any indication when we may come to a conclusion.

Rather than review the company law, why does not the Minister ensure that his Department carries out the existing law, which it continually refuses to do? Although about 20 companies now have been milking the public, not one of the Ministers at the Department will take any action to enforce the law which is laid upon them by Statute.

That is not the impression which a good many company directors have of my Department. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the review of comany law to which I have referred gives him a way by which he can help constructively to improve the arrangements for the future.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in this review of company legislation he will pay particular attention to the long-standing and continuing problem caused by the way in which the interests of minority holders of equities are prejudiced? This is a long-overdue reform, and I earnestly hope that my hon. Friend will pay close attention to it.

I assure my hon. Friend that this is one of the matters which we are considering and which arises out of the Jenkins Committee's recommendations.