asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, having regard to the drag characteristics on landing of Concorde, he will estimate the exclusions from the mean landing noise at the standard ICAO measuring point of production models of Concorde compared with the 707, DC8 and VC10 in ( a ) still air conditions, and ( b ) gusty conditions.

The variations from the mean of Concorde's landing noise will be similar to those of subsonic aircraft in comparable conditions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement is not supported by expert opinion on the landing characteristics of Concorde? Will he apply to Concorde landings at Heathrow—if Concorde lands at Heathrow—the same restrictions as already apply to subsonic aircraft? If he applies such restrictions, does he realise that Concorde will not be able to land at Heathrow, and if this is not done, will it not put in question the desirability of the aircraft?

I think that the hon. Gentleman does not envisage the possibility that Concorde will not be allowed to land at Heathrow. In its prototype form it has already landed at Heathrow, and the latest version of Concorde, the 002—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is flying—is substantially quieter than the earlier prototype. As to existing restrictions which may or may not apply to Heathrow at the time Concorde enters service, we shall have to consider the situation then.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when Concorde went to Washington—I was there at the time—it was a great success, and it confirmed many people's view that it would get plenty of American orders?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the visit to America was extremely successful. I find it surprising, as, I am sure, do many thousands of others, that this is such a source of grave disappointment to hon. Members opposite.

As the Minister knows, the 707s, DC8s and VC10s will be old aircraft when Concorde comes into service. Concorde is noticeably noisier. Will the Minister explain how the commercial types of Concorde will prove to be less noisy than the aircraft which I have just mentioned, which will be phased out at that time?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to consider this matter when he was responsible for these problems as a member of his Government. The design of Concorde was frozen in 1966. At that time, the latest technologies which were enabling quieter aircraft to come forward were not anticipated, and that is why Concorde is not as quiet as some of the most quiet aircraft now coming into service. But it is as quiet as the 707s, DC8s and VC10s, many of which will still be in service well past the time when Concorde enters service.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers where appropriate to prevent directors of insolvent companies with deficiencies from becoming or remaining directors of other companies carrying on similar businesses.

In the next Companies Bill, I propose to extend the grounds for disqualification from acting as a director to include persons who have acted in an improper or reckless manner in relation to the affairs of companies of which they were directors. A general power to prohibit directors of companies which have become insolvent from acting as directors in future would not be justifiable.

I greatly welcome that advance, but is it enough to confine the disqualification to those who acted improperly and recklessly? Is it not disgraceful that a man can set up a business, put it into liquidation, rely on limited liability, and then immediately start up another business in exactly the same field and do precisely the same again? When will the Government deal with this squalid practice?

I know that the hon. and learned Member has been interested in this subject for some time. The Government's position is made entirely clear in the White Paper on company law reform published this summer. We are taking powers, as recommended by the Jenkins Committee, to deal with people who have succeeded in steering a series of companies into insolvency. We are also considering whether additional disclosures about directors' backgrounds, qualifications and interests would help meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Member, but it would not be easy, or indeed right, to attach an automatic prohibition to every director of every company. The reasons for that are explained in paragraph 37 of the White Paper.

When he considers this matter, will my right hon. and learned Friend take into account the not unusual system by which a director of a company having to come off the board, for whatever reason, becomes an employee of that company and puts a relative on the board, so that the situation is almost as before?

I shall certainly take account of the point raised by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reply he has sent to the EEC Commission to its letter on the awarding of grants for oil rigs.

A reply was sent on 12th September explaining why we disagree with the Commission's suggestion that the shipbuilding directive prevents the payment of construction grants on mobile offshore installations.

Have we received a reply from the Commission? What will be the likely outcome of this correspondence? Can the Common Market Commission tell the British Government not to pay grants to industry, which we have unanimously decided to do?

No reply has been received. As I may have mentioned to my hon. Friend on the last occasion when he raised the matter, there are common rules in this area. What we are discussing is one application of one directive, which expires at the end of the year.

We welcome this vigorous defence of British interests, but will the Minister assure the House that he has the power to uphold the position that he takes—which wins the support of the whole House—against the possible application of Common Market rules?

We believe—I think it is a view which has support in all parts of the House—that there is an interest in having common rules, and it is as much in the interests of Scotland as of any other region to ensure that there is not a bidding up of one region against another for aid. That is what the directive is about.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any evidence to show that, as a result of the introduction of value added tax, there is widespread evasion of Section 11(2) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

Out of 155 intended prosecutions under this section of the Act notified by weights and measures authorities during the six months from 1st April, only eight related to cases where an unexpected VAT charge had been made for goods.

Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some traders advertise and display prices exclusive of VAT without indicating this, and that the first time consumers get to know about it is when they come to pay? Apart from the fact that this is misleading and prevents effective price comparison, it can be most distressing to consumers who cannot afford the increased price. Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage the trading standards officers to prosecute more often in these cases?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter. As I have indicated, the number of occasions on which this has happened and led to prosecutions has not been very substantial. However, I take this opportunity of making clear that any person who quotes a price for his goods which excludes VAT but does not make clear that VAT is to be added when the goods are sold is at risk under Section 11(2) of the Trade Descriptions Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the British Airways Board; and what discussion he has had with it about its estimated use of Maplin Airport.

My right hon. Friend last met the board on 8th May; he expects to meet it again shortly. I myself have frequent meetings with the chairman and other members. Discussions have been invited with the board about how its services might best be allocated between London's three airports, after Maplin has come into operation.

Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend told me in a Written Answer a few days ago that at no city in the world is BOAC required to operate services to more than one airport, why does he intend to shackle our national carrier with the responsibility of trying effectively to operate at more than one airport in the London area? What discussions has his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is handling the Maplin project, had with the chairman of the British Airways Board?

My hon. Friend will realise, I am sure, that the British Airways Board already operates from Heathrow and Gatwick. As for conversations which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment may have had with the British Airways Board, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend to answer. However, I am sure that any conversations which we have had in the Department are readily available to my hon. Friend.

Is it not the fact that both in New York and Paris there are several airports? Is it not customary for aircraft to land at different airports? When Maplin comes into service, is it not possible that it may be extremely expensive to land at Heathrow and much cheaper to land at Maplin?

The pricing policy in respect of the three London airports in the 1980s has not yet been decided. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is often more than one international terminal in major cities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the latest information available to me Heathrow Airport will be completely cluttered and blocked by road transport unless something is done within the next two years? That is another argument for having a third airport.

There are many people who think that in certain conditions Heathrow is overcrowded now.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now reconsider his decision to restrict grants for tourist projects to the development areas.

No, Sir. The limited funds at present available ought to be devoted to tourist projects in the development areas.

Is the aim to foster tourism or help development areas? Why can none of this money be made available to Herefordshire and Worcestershire? Is it true that the English Tourist Board has been receiving fewer applications for grants and loans than it had expected, and has therefore had to undertake a publicity campaign to attract more applications in development areas?

The aim is to help both the development areas and tourism. It is true that twice as much money is available to the tourist board for this purpose in the current year, and it has been advertising the services that it has to offer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the progress of the advance factory programme in the Northern Region.

Progress has not been as fast as I would have liked. Mainly owing to shortages and delays in the construction industry, only one may now be completed within the current financial year, but I expect that all the rest will be finished by March 1975 as originally intended, save one where there is difficulty over land.

Is the Minister aware that one of the chief causes of delay is the difficulty of acquiring land? Some factories have been held up for several years because local landowners will not sell to the appropriate body. Will the Minister look into this and undertake to discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, with a view to revising their attitude to compulsory purchase in these cases?

I shall certainly take that into account. It is true that in four cases there is some hold-up in the acquisition of land.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the present share taken by coal in the generation of electricity in Great Britain and what share he estimates coal will take in one, three and five years' time.

The arrangements between the National Coal Board and the electricity generating boards for extra coal burn under the provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1973 are expected to result in an increase in coal burn of over 7 million tons, so that about 64 per cent. of total energy input will come from coal this year. Uncertainties about fuel prices and total electricity demand mean that it is too early to predict the percentage in future years.

The answer is interesting, but does not the Minister agree that we should be well advised to drive for a greater production of coal and a greater recruitment of miners in order that we may have the capacity to begin to convert power stations from oil- to coal-fire generation? Does he not further agree that that situation would allow us to make the best use of offshore oil and also help to ease the developing and critical situation with regard to oil supply and price? Does not he accept that a little embarrassment would be tolerable over phase 3, in view of the advantages that would follow?

I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that what the Government did for the coal industry under the Coal Industry Act 1973 showed a real recognition of the importance of coal, which was not always recognised by the Opposition. In the same way, what we have achieved in the exploration, exploitation and development of North Sea oil shows that the point made by the hon. Gentleman was taken on board. There is a large capacity for burning coal in the generating stations at present, and full use will be made of that.

I hope that my hon. Friend will avoid falling into the trap of trying to estimate the quantities to be consumed by power stations five years ahead. I am glad that he has avoided it today, but the difficulty will be the price of coal. No one has attempted to evaluate that and, in addition, a lot of quantitative alternative fuels may be available by that date.

My hon. Friend is right. One must keep a flexible approach and take into account availability, security of supply and relative cost—and that we try to do.

As the last two weeks have demonstrated the precarious nature of our oil supply, will the Minister at least insist that the Central Electricity Generating Board goes ahead firmly with two coal-fired power stations—one at West Burton in Nottinghamshire, the other at Drax in Yorkshire? Further to that, will he instruct the CEGB to conduct a basic re-examination of its power station policy?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the West Burton design study has been put out so that that option can be carefully considered before a decision has to be made. Consent to Drax B was given many years ago by the hon. Gentleman, but it was not implemented.

We recognise the importance of coal. We are keeping the various options open, and we must keep in mind the extent of the coal that will be available. By the 1980's the CEGB will have the capacity to burn more than 100 million tons of coal in power stations now in existence or in the course of construction.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in the light of the profits recently announced by most of the commercial banks, he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the charges made by the banks to their customers.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that most of the banks made enormous profits last year? Does he not think that some of these profits should be returned to the consumer in the form of lower charges? If the Minister will not refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission, will he refer it to either the Price Commission or the Director of Fair Trading, or take action of some other kind?

The Government have taken action relating to banks' profits, as was made clear in the White Paper on stage 3 and in the debate last week. The amount of profits remaining available to them in relation to interest-bearing business is being reduced, because no interest is being paid on a proportion of the special deposits that each bank makes to the Bank of England. In addition, some banks have reduced their charges under stage 2 and they will continue to be subject to the price code under stage 3.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a number of people would like to know why the ordinary depositor with the banks seems to have no choice about the rate of interest he receives, and that anyone who has a current account receives no interest because the banks are extremely quick to put on charges as soon as a current account is in the red?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. The position is that the banks do not agree about charges, except in respect of a few services which do not normally affect the ordinary customer. Indeed, there has been growing evidence of competition between the banks in relation to matters of that kind.

Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen the method that is, in effect, a tax on depositors, instead of using the powers they have to ask the banks to reduce the charges so as to make it possible for depositors to benefit from the increased profitability that has come by chance, as a result of rising interest rates?

The control has been clearly and sensibly divided into two halves. The price code applies to non-interest-bearing business, and the banks are complying with that. They have reduced some charges, and will continue to be subject to the code. In relation to interest-bearing business, there is obviously a limit to what changes can be made in likely current rates of interest. That is why the Government have acted as they have done directly to affect bank profits by limiting the interest paid on a proportion of the special deposits.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions with the CBI and TUC on the future of the regional employment premium.

There were discussions with the CBI and TUC in the summer, and these will be taken into account in the decision, which will be reached as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that it is now many months since the Government threatened to abolish the regional employment premium, but since then there has been almost unanimous opinion from the CBI, the TUC, individual firms and workers, local authorities and regional development corporations all over the country that the Government should retain the regional employment premium and, indeed, increase it, as one of our most effective regional development policy aids? Is it not time that the Government came to a sensible decision about this and decided to keep the regional employment premium so that we have a good regional development policy?

The position that we have adopted, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the same as that adopted by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On 5th June 1967 the right hon. Gentleman stated—I refer hon. Members to c. 750 of HANSARD for that day—that the regional employment premium should exist for seven years and thereafter not be abolished but be phased out.

What was the Minister's reply to the CBI submissions that the regional employment premium should be continued for a further four years and that if it were phased out this would lead to an additional 20,000 to 50,000 unemployed?

The views put to us by the CBI and the TUC are being considered.

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, may we have the evidence that has been given by the CBI and the TUC to the Prime Minister? That would be a great help. It is rather odd that when the TUC and the CBI agree on something, the Government do not agree. I should have thought that the Government would have been jolly pleased to do so.

I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking that whenever the CBI and the TUC agree the Government will do so also.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has recently been made by his Department in the reduction of aircraft noise.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress being made by his Department to reduce aircraft noise.

My Department undertakes a continuing and comprehensive programme to reduce noise from aircraft and the disturbance this causes. Some recent examples of this are our massive support for the RB211 engine, and for research into the techniques of quiet engines generally; the restrictions on night movements at Heathrow and Gatwick; improvements in the runway alternation system at Heathrow; the introduction of a noise insulation grant scheme at Gatwick and the extension of this scheme at Heathrow.

Yes, but now that the Government have happily delayed Maplin for a couple of years and have given my hon. Friend more time to think, will he not agree to undertake a little research into the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of promoting quieter aircraft, retro-fitting, and new engines, instead of going in for dubious projects on the East Coast that the construction industry does not have the capacity to perform?

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government are making available substantial sums of money to the industry at large. I welcome the fact that Rolls-Royce and the British Aircraft Corporation are looking at the hush-kit technology as far as it applies to the BAC1–11. But I cannot accept that we are not doing everything within our power to assist the industry in the work that it is doing in partnership with our Department in the suppression of noise wherever possible.

Does not the Minister agree that the restrictions on the night time use of Heathrow to which he referred have been disappointing, as the ban on take-offs has been more than outweighed by the big increase during the last two years in the number of night landings? Has not the time come for a ban on all night jet movements at Heathrow?

I think the hon. Member will concede that the figures are rather better than his question implies. In 1971 there were 1,638 night take-offs at Heathrow. Up to 22nd October this year there were 261 take-offs. It is perfectly true that the number of landings has increased from 1971, but the figure for 1973 over 1972 is of the same order of magnitude. The total movements show a reduction of 9 per cent. comparing 1972 with 1973.

I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend saying what progress is being made in the reduction of aircraft noise and the substantial sums that are being spent. Does he consider that the progress that he expects in the next few years will have an effect upon the location of airports throughout this country?

One of the anxieties is the rising public expectancy of noise reduction. Although there is a continuing and welcome introduction of quieter aircraft, the public will increasingly demand an extension of the privileges that this will begin to show. This has influenced our judgment in moving to a coastal site for the third London airport.

Will the Minister now tell the House what substantial sums the Government are granting for the research and development of quieter engines, whether this includes the Spey engine, and to what extent they are enabling the industry to be financially assisted with the development of hush kits? Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in the industry that the Government are purposely denying financial aid for quieter engines in order to bolster their argument for Maplin?

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the sums made available. He will be aware that we are funding the joint project with Dowty Rotol for the variable pitch fan experimentation. The Spey engine is part of the work that BAC and Rolls-Royce are undertaking in relation to the BAC 1–11. He will realise—the point is perfectly valid—that the sums of money involved in the exploration of further technology are very small indeed and have to be seen in the context of the overall profitability of the industry, together with the substantial sums of money being put into the industry for the support of the projects at large.

While encouraging research into the suppression of aircraft noise, will my hon. Friend beware of the optimistic forecasts of retro-fit and other techniques floated by the opponents of Maplin? Will he also bear in mind the possibility that the best way for the moment, and pending Maplin, of dealing with this problem is by a 10 per cent. reduction in all aircraft movement at Heathrow?

It would be unrealistic to pretend that we see a possibility of a 10 per cent. reduction in aircraft movements at Heathrow and Gatwick. Indeed, all the forecasts indicate that there will be a substantial increase for the rest of this decade. I assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly not prepared to be led along the argument that there is some magical cure by fitting hush kits or retrofitting to existing engines. That might play a part, but could easily be viewed out of proportion unless considered very carefully.

As people afflicted by aircraft noise do not have the opportunity to express how their lives are being spoiled by it—for example, people in Ealing who suffer from the noise of Heathrow Airport—will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, hearing views of the local authorities around Heathrow Airport in order to discuss the matter from the point of view of those so afflicted?

I assure the hon. Member that although no formal consultation on the scale he suggests has taken place the Government are all too aware of the effect of aircraft noise on big urban communities. That is exactly why they decided to build a third London airport at Maplin.

Will the Minister now tell the House what substantial sums the Governments are spending on research and development of quieter aircraft engines?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the costs of the RB211 engine are running very high. That, in itself, is sufficient answer. The Dowty Rotol experiment is, again, costing over £2 million. I will let the right hon. Gentleman have full details of the figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will examine the possibility of establishing a Scottish Energy Commission.

I do not think such a body is necessary. I am well aware of Scottish interests and problems in energy matters and am satisfied that they are fully taken into account under present national arrangements.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that with the discovery of North Sea oil the need to expand refining capacity at Grangemouth and to establish refining capacity in other parts of Scotland, and, additionally, the increased demand for coal, the coal reserves at present in Scotland and the prospect of new sinkings, a Scottish Energy Commission would be the best body to handle such developments?

As the hon. Gentleman says, these are important developments and have a massive part to play in future decision-taking, but it is the decision-taking of Governments. I believe that an energy commission, as such, could not be given the powers that Governments possess to see that action is taken.

Will my right hon. Friend at least look into the situation we have had in Scotland for many years, where, despite the setting up of a British gas board, the average gas consumer pays over one-sixth more than the average consumer in England and Wales?

That is a separate question. I do not think that the creation of an energy commission will solve that problem.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he gives encouragement to the proposition to set up a Scottish energy board as long as we have, for example, a differential coal price in Scotland? We pay a higher price for coal in Scotland. Does he agree that, logically, it follows that we should have a differential price for oil? Should we not have cheaper oil in Scotland, since most of it is likely to be found off the Scottish coast? What kind of logic is that?

As, at present, no oil has been landed in Scotland, it is rather early to discuss the pricing mechanism that might be suitable.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new jobs have been created as the result of Common Market investment in the United Kingdom since 1st January 1973; in which areas the investment has been made; and what grants have been paid in respect of such investment.

The Department is aware of 39 firms with parent companies in other Common Market countries which, since 1st January 1973, have taken decisions to set up or expand operations here. These plans could eventually provide about 5,000 new jobs. I will circulate a regional analysis in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They represent, however, only a small part of total investment in the United Kingdom stimulated by our entry into the EEC. Information about regional development grants is not available in the form requested.

But were all those investments actually from the Common Market into this country? My right hon. Friend mentioned subsidiaries. Will he clarify that point? Secondly, will they receive the same grants as the British businessman investing here receives?

The answer to my hon. Friend's question about grants is, "Yes". In respect of the firms, these are 39 firms with parent companies in the Common Market. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will be delighted at the announcement by Hoover last week, for example, that it is creating many new jobs in this country, which would not have been the case had we not been a member of the Community.

Will the Minister make a statement at an early date, in view of the answer given to Question No. 9? The right hon. Gentleman's colleague said that the banks would not receive any interest on certain deposits with the Government. Under what regulations or statute is such a policy being pursued? In view of the disquieting nature of that statement, will the Minister take an early opportunity to present the Government's policy on the whole question of investments?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not called for a supplementary question on the earlier Question, but his remarks have nothing to do with the Question before us.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the regional policy to be brought in by the Common Market on 1st January next will do a great deal to stimulate investment both from this country and from Common Market countries in Britain, to the great benefit of people in such development regions as Scotland, the North-West, the North-East, Wales, and so on?

There is no doubt that as a result of our membership of the Common Market there is far more interest in investing in Britain than would otherwise have been the case, from countries both inside and outside the Community. It is also true that the regional policy will be of assistance in that respect.

Is it not a fact that overall investment has dropped 17 per cent. since 1970, though investment intentions are supposed to be moving upward? Second, does the Secretary of State intend to seek the views of Parliament on the proposed Common Market regional policy before final agreements are reached on it by British Ministers?

It is certainly true that investment was dropping fast in about 1970. No one contributed more to that trend than did the right hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to say, now that we are three years away from the right hon. Gentleman's endeavours, that there is, as he says, a considerable upturn of confidence.

Following is the information: Regions New Jobs Scotland 2,700 Wales 450 Northern 420 Yorkshire and Humberside 450 North Western 60 West Midlands 70 Eastern 860 London and South Eastern 85 South Western 15

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received by his Department in regard to alleged imperfections in package tours; and what action he now proposes.

About 53 complaints have been received in the six months April to September 1973. I propose, in concert with the Director General of Fair Trading, and in consultation with the Association of British Travel Agents, to set in hand an early study of what action may be needed.

In view of the inconvenience caused this year by last-minute currency surcharges on package holidays, will the Minister suggest to the appropriate authorities that the simple expedient of insuring against such currency surcharges, often imposed on package holidays at the last minute, might be pursued to prevent a repetition in 1974?

That is certainly one of the matters that can be considered.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of these complaints do not find their way to his Department, as a single appearance on television on this subject will show? Is the Minister further aware that what is needed is an end to exclusion clauses which take away the rights of the consumer? Is not this an ideal sector in which to try the new small claims courts, so that the consumer may take action against recalcitrant companies?

I am glad to underline what the hon. Gentleman has said about the value of the arbitration procedure now available in the county courts as one way of obtaining remedies in complaints of this kind. In respect of exclusion clauses, it is worth remembering that more than 4½ million holidays were made last year through inclusive tours. I look forward to receiving as soon as possible the Law Commission's report on exclusion clauses in relation to contracts for services. I hope to act quickly as soon as that report is received. Meanwhile, the Director General of Fair Trading will shortly be able to keep under review matters of the kind of which the hon. Gentleman complains.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increase he is expecting in coal production during the next six months.

On the basis of results so far, the National Coal Board expects production of coal in the year 1973–74 to be in the region of 130–135 million tons. Production in the first six months of 1973–74 was 63.4 million tons.

As representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers are going to see the Prime Minister tomorrow to discuss their just and reasonable wage claim, may I ask the Minister to reassure the House that coal production will not be disrupted again this year by the foolish obstinacy which the Government displayed before the last coal strike? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that, with the gross inadequacy of productivity payment arrangements in the industry and the way in which the coal miners have dropped in the table of wages, any obstinacy on the part of the Government will lead to a disastrous coal strike?

I certainly do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. It is worth noting that in the first six months of this year productivity was 45.2 cwts. per man shift, against 44.1 in the comparable period last year. That shows full recognition of what the Government are doing to help the coal industry find a viable and strong future.

It is a fact that the Government have done more for the coal mining industry than their predecessors did. Is it not also a fact that wages were allowed to drop back during the currency of the previous Government, and that the present Government have brought them up to date?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. Under the Coal Industry Act, the Government gave the industry a hope for the future which it had been denied under the previous administration. It was that which had led to an excessive contraction and undermining of morale of those engaged in the industry.

Will the Minister accept that in the present energy situation it is essential to retain a viable mining labour force, and that stage 3 will not necessarily permit the retention of such a force? In view of the overall importance of energy supplies, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the Government's attitude and set up a petroleum supply industry board to cater for the emergency situation in the petroleum industry?

Petroleum is a separate matter. The hon. Gentleman will have noted what I said about the viability and future of the coal industry.

What are the prospects of stepping up coal production in the event of oil prices becoming excessively high, or even of oil shortages occurring?

Following our review, which led to the Coal Industry Act and the provision of financial support, the National Coal Board has prepared a long-term plan to show the optimum level of coal production and where the coal can most effectively be produced. That is now being considered urgently so that we can make the best use of our indigenous resources and of the men employed in that industry.

In the light of the Minister's figures for black diamonds, which he gave the House in answer to an earlier Question, does he not agree that it would be an act of sheer vandalism to convert any coal-fired power station to oil? Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)? Will he assure the House that if any coal-fired power stations are in the process of being converted to oil he will instruct the CEGB to stop the change-over immediately?

The hon. Gentleman knows of conversions that have taken place, largely on environmental grounds, where it was impossible for the stations to continue in existence if they were coal-fired. They were fairly small stations, and in each case it was after full consultation with the unions concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to extend the setting up of consumer advice centres.

I have sent a document outlining my plans to local authorities and other interested bodies. I shall be meeting their representatives before the end of the year to discuss how an improved service to consumers can best be achieved.

Is the Minister aware that his plan for extending consumer advice centres is a feeble substitute for a proper small claims court system, since it is no use consumers knowing their rights if they cannot afford to exercise them? Is the Minister further aware that, despite his consumer arbitration service, and contrary to the impression he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), the county court system remains far too expensive and intimidating for the majority of consumers?

The hon. Gentleman's observations on the last subject are, as almost always, wholly unhelpful. What he fails to acknowledge is that substantial reforms were made in the procedures of the county courts, both at the beginning of last year and again on 1st October this year. It is far more sensible to make effective use of the reformed agencies which exist than to embark upon the expenditure of setting up a third network of courts which would call for resources, both financial and human, which would simply not be available. The hon. Gentleman does nothing but disservice to reforms that are of fundamental importance in helping consumers achieve their legitimate rights.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the report that he intends to set up consumer advice centres in every High Street is accurate? If so, will he advise us of the cost involved, and whether the centres are to be staffed by paid experts or volunteers?

The ultimate object of the exercise, which I shall be discussing with local authority associations and others, is to make the best possible consumer advice available, so far as practicable, to everybody in this country. Plainly, this initiative will take some time, even with the full co-operation of the local authorities and the assistance of volunteers, to bring to full effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now publish the results of his departmental inquiry into the affairs of Rolls-Royce Ltd., prior to the bankruptcy of 4th February 1971; and if he will make a statement.

The report by two independent inspectors appointed under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948 to inquire into the affairs of Rolls-Royce Ltd. was published on 2nd August. I am grateful to the inspectors for producing this report.

Does the Minister agree that a report of this magnitude was far too important to have been published in the depths of the Summer Recess, with no possibility of parliamentary debate upon it or a statement by the right hon. Gentleman? Does he further agree that the report should have gone into more detail about the circumstances in which the Government decided to bankrupt the company as well as to nationalise it?

I ask this in view of statements within the report, first that Lockheed, on 3rd February, was asking for more time to consider a compromise solution and, secondly, that the engine was likely to be a technical success at the moment the receiver was appointed.

As regards the timing, we thought it important to publish the report as soon as possible. The Government have already given a clear account of their part in these events in the White Paper, "Rolls-Royce Limited and the RB 211 Aero Engine".

Why does my right hon. Friend refuse to publish the evidence that was given in the course of that inquiry, so that hon. Members can judge whether the conclusions arrived at by the inspectors on the basis of that evidence logically followed from it? Would it not be just to all the parties concerned if the evidence were published as well as the conclusions?

In reports under Section 165 it has not been customary for this to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Hawker Siddeley company concerning the funding of the HS146 airliner.

I announced on 29th August that the Government are to invest £40 million at January 1972 prices in this project. This sum will be adjusted in accordance with movements in the general price level and any overruns in non-recurring costs, not attributable to price level movements, will be borne by the company. The Government's investment will be recovered, by levy on sales, on terms which broadly reflect the respective contributions of the two parties.

With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Whilst wishing every success to the aircraft and the workers engaged on it, may I ask my hon. Friend to expand a little on the Government's role in financing high-risk projects like this? For instance, it is presently understood that more than one-third of the expenditure on the project will be subcontracted to foreign suppliers. Is any preferential rôle written into the terms of Government loans like this in projects of this nature?

My hon. Friend is referring to the fact that the project has Lycoming engines, purchased from that American company. The possibility of work on these engines being carried out by Rolls-Royce is being discussed, although it is a matter for commercial discussion between Rolls-Royce and the engine company.

It is, as the House will appreciate, a question of balance to work out where the advantage lies from the point of view both of the company and of the British taxpayer in negotiating deals of this sort. The Hawker Siddeley company put to the Government a package that included an element of overseas procurement. It seemed to the Government that, as Hawker Siddeley was investing £40 million plus of its own money, the Government would like to accept its commercial judgment on the total viability of the package and not seek to interfere with individual parts of it.

Would not the taxpayer be better protected if this company were taken into public ownership?

There always has to be a precedent, and that would be a remarkable one.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on deciding to support this project. Does he think that the noise level of the HS146 will be sufficiently low for it to operate unrestricted into Heathrow?

The manufacturers are optimistic about the noise levels of the 146, but as to the precise conditions applying at Heathrow when the aircraft takes off and operates in service towards the latter part of this decade, we shall have to see what conditions are then prevailing at Heathrow.

Following are the details: I announced on 29th August that the Government are to invest £40 million at January 1972 prices on this project. This sum will be adjusted in accordance with movements in the general price level and is roughly equivalent to £46 million at current prices. It represents about half the estimated non-recurring costs of the project. Should these costs turn out to be higher than forecast, the company will bear full responsibility for any cost over-runs not attributable to movements in the general price level. I am satisfied that Hawkers have the resources to undertake the project on these terms. This is an arrangement for a full risk-sharing investment by the Government rather than the launching aid which has been given in the past. The Government's investment will be recoverable by a levy on sales. The recovery terms broadly reflect the respective contributions of the two parties and the Government will share in the profits throughout the life of the project. This is the first major new aircraft launched in this country for more than a decade. I am convinced that it has excellent prospects of success, both technically and commercially, and that it will bring great benefit to the British aircraft industry as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he is going to publish the PA Consultants report on ship repairing in Great Britain.

I have not yet received the report from the consultants and am not therefore in a position to make a statement about publication.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of ship repairing to employment throughout the country, and especially on Merseyside, and that an order book which goes up and down like the spring tides is not likely to be helpful in that regard?

Yes, Sir, and because of those difficulties we felt it right to commission this study.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is very disappointing? There was expectation that this report would be in his hands by June and that he would be making a statement in July. This continuing uncertainty can only be damaging to the ship repairing industry.

The consultants have visited a large number of ship repairers both in Great Britain and abroad. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that it has taken longer than I had hoped, but I expect to receive the report very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take the appropriate steps to investigate the affairs of London and County Securities in view of the recent revelations regarding the 1973 annual accounts.

The evidence at present available does not suggest that an investigation would be warranted, but my Department is making further inquiries.

Perhaps I can enlighten the Minister. He ought to refer to the City —[An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] I will get round to that. Mr. Speaker will put me right, not you. Is the Minister aware—does that satisfy you?—

Order. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Sometimes you are right, and sometimes you are wrong. On this occasion you are right. Is the Minister aware that I could be helpful in assisting him to give advice on this matter by referring him to the City Press columns of 31st August 1973? Is he aware, for instance, that this is the company which has as one of its directors the Leader of the Liberal Party and that it has, or had, second mortgage rates of interest which could have been included in the "Guinness Book of Records"? Is he also aware that the company has been proved to have been buying its own shares, which, if there had been a foreclosure of loans, would have resulted in its owning itself, which is breaking the law? Is he also aware that after the annual general meeting the auditor of the leading subsidiary resigned? Is this not sufficient information for an investigation to take place in order to clean up the unhealthy face of capitalism?

The facts mentioned by the hon. Member—some of them—are the reasons why further inquiries are being made. As I said in my original reply, the evidence so far available does not suggest that any investigation would be warranted. As regards the hon. Gentleman's reference to second mortgage interest rates, he ought to know that the White Paper produced by the Government a few weeks ago contains clear proposals for extending available protection to the consumer and to all those who are concerned in second mortgage transactions on their own homes. I am glad to know that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for a speedy passage of those proposals into law when the consumer credit Bill is introduced.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is to become of the tracked hovercraft site near Earith.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a statement on the Select Committee Report on the hover-train project.

As I informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) in my answer to his Question on 16th October, the Government are carefully considering the Committee's report and will respond as soon as possible. The Government are taking into account the Committee's recommendations about the future use of the tracked hovercraft site.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Earith track is of unique scientific value and that the Imperial College has offered to use it for important experiments on large linear motors and high speed suspension systems, as recommended by a Select Committee of this House? Will my hon. Friend make an early statement saying that the Imperial College is to be allowed to get on with this important job, thus helping the country to maintain its lead in this field?

The Government will make a detailed reply to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the Select Committee by means of a White Paper as early as possible.

Will the Minister amplify the phrase "as early as possible"? Is he aware that this matter is of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—in whose constituency part of the track is centred—and to me, because the company was at one time considering representations about possible prototype passenger carrying on the disused Waverley route? Will the Minister consider the Select Committee's recommendation that Lord Rothschild's "Think Tank" might consider the whole project?

The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the Government in their reply, although I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the "Think Tank" to do this particular exercise in addition to that for which the Government are responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the prices of the main qualities of smokeless fuel; and how these compare with last year's prices, those of three years ago, and those of five years ago.

Estimates of typical winter prices for various qualities of solid smokeless fuels in a number of representative towns are contained in a table which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Broadly comparable data for last year and three and five years ago may be found in the appropriate issues of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

What steps will now be taken to encourage the use of smokeless domestic fuels as an alternative to both oil and natural gas, bearing in mind that there have been some closures of smokeless fuel plants and that smokeless fuels are costly to the householder?

The price of smokeless fuel has hardly risen. There has been a marginal increase of between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. during the past 12 months, and the consistency of those prices should give every encouragement

Typical prices quoted for usually, deliveries of 5–9 cwts. Prices may vary from merchant to merchant and there may also be variations of about 1–2p per cwt. for larger or smaller deliveries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the European Space Conference meeting on 31st July 1973.

The conference agreed on a fourfold programme comprising: (1) the establishment of a European Space Agency and of agreed measures for the future harmonisation of national and European programmes; (2) the development of Spacelab within the American post-Apollo programme; (3) the development of the L3S launcher; (4) the development of a maritime communications satellite. This package was the outcome of bargaining and compromise but represents in my view a significant step forward towards the achievement of a meaningful European space effort.

Although I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on his effort in setting up the European Space Agency, may I ask him when he expects it to become operational, and is it his intention that Britain's own space project and contributions should now be channelled through the agency, or does

for people to use smokeless fuels in substitution for other fuels.

Following are the estimates:

he intend to keep a separate space programme going as, for instance, with the geostationary satellite?

The intention is that the agency should come into operation on 1st April 1974. It was the intention of all the countries negotiating for the establishment of the European Space Agency that we should seek to harmonise our programmes within Europe. With that in mind, it is not the Government's intention to proceed with the geostationary satellite.

How was it that on 31st July the Minister allowed himself to be bullied by the French into supporting a project, namely, the L3S launcher, in which, on the basis of his own frequent public utterances, he and his Department did not for a moment believe?

As I have explained to the House, it was the intention of the Government to seek a proposal which was acceptable to all the European nations. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member could suggest that we were bullied into support for a project when all we agreed to do was to contribute a certain part of that particular project, the cost of which would be met by the British taxpayer and all of which would be matched in kind by the French, who had been investing in a different project organised by this country.

Will the new European organisation go in for a geostationary satellite?

The new organisation's programme will be that which is taken over from ESRO, the existing organisation. It includes the OTS project and the additional programmes agreed at the space conference.

Will the Minister say to what extent he has financially committed Her Majesty's Government to the European Space Agency?

The arrangements reached in the summer are, of course, accepted by Her Majesty's Government in full.

Answer the question.

Managerial supervisory and security staff are not involved in the dispute and are maintaining all essential security, emergency and nuclear monitoring services. The plant has been shut down apart from one reactor which is operating at less than half power to provide a source of steam and electricity. Inspectors of nuclear installations are making frequent visits to the site and are satisfied with the measures being taken by the management.

I am grateful for the reply, but will the Minister confirm that the normal safety and security staff are not doing their jobs and that in the event of a fire none of the regular fire services could be provided within the site? Will he also say what is to happen to those elements which may be in transit either by sea or rail to the Windscale plutonium factory and what precautions are being taken to safeguard them if they arrive in the Cumberland area and cannot gain access to the factory?

Will he further reassure the House that everything is being done by his Department and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to resolve this dispute? Is he aware that because of the nuclear incident at Wind-scale some weeks ago a considerable number of workers were heavily irradiated, some of them still not having been given medical clearance? In view of that the trade unions have used the full negotiating procedure to try to reach a settlement with the management of British Nuclear Fuels. They have been rebuffed and no date has been set for a further meeting. Is that not a serious state of affairs?

I must reassure the hon. Member again. All emergency and security services are being fully maintained. As for the fire services, while it is true that the works fire brigade is taking part in the dispute, the management has made arrangements with the local fire brigade to ensure that all these services are available and will be properly manned.

As for the transfer of spent fuel elements, these will be retained at the respective power stations until conditions are suitable for them to be accepted. There should be no problem here. The hon. Member asked about intervention to resolve the dispute. He will not expect me to comment on the dispute. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that I understand that there are meetings of the joint industrial council tomorrow and no doubt the differences will be discussed. I hope they will be resolved.

As the dispute is linked to an incident involving the safety of the plant and as that incident and earlier incidents occurred when the plant was working normally, does not the Minister see that there is a case for intervention not only to give assurances about safely of the public at large but also so that those working there recognise that the Government take the question of safety as seriously as I am sure they do?

Every assurance to the public about safety is given in the statement I made. If there is doubt left in any hon. or right hon. Member's mind, let me repeat that all necessary security emergency and monitoring services are being fully maintained so that there is no risk.

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the incident itself. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a reply I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown). There will be a report in due course from the nuclear inspectorate which will be considered when it is received. But it would not be appropriate to comment upon the incident while the investigation is proceeding.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Middle East.

The House will know that the Security Council passed a resolution last night calling for an immediate end to the fighting in the Middle East; for the immediate implementation of Resolution 242 in all its parts; and for immediate and concurrent negotiations between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the area. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will, I am sure, welcome the news without reserve.

As I told the House last week, all our diplomatic efforts have been directed towards achieving a cease-fire and a full settlement. I have been in close touch with the parties to the conflict, with the Americans and the Russians, and with our European allies during these anxious days. I cannot be absolutely sure of the positon, as I speak now, but the indications at present are that the Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian Governments will accept the terms of the Security Council resolution, which calls for a cease-fire by 6 p.m. today London time, and I have just heard before I came into the Chamber that President Sadat has given orders for the cease-fire to be observed at the time fixed. The Israeli Government has issued a similar statement. Each party's acceptance is of course contingent on the acceptance by the others. The attitude of Syria is still obscure. Hon. Members will I am sure join with me in appealing to the parties scrupulously to observe the Security Council's call for an end to the fighting.

As the British Permanent Representative to the United Nations said in the Security Council last night, we realise that the road to a settlement will not be easy. This time the momentum towards peace must not be allowed to slacken. As I assured the House last week, we remain ready in this country to contribute in any way we can both to making the peace and to keeping it. I believe that the international community should and will have a part to play in providing guarantees. We will help in this if required to do so to the extent of providing a part of a peace-keeping force.

Dr. Kissinger's present intention is to stop briefly in London on his way back to America from Moscow and Tel Aviv. Obviously his programme is liable to change, but if he is able to stick to his plan I shall see him later tonight and will be able to discuss this and other matters with him.

We are at the beginning of a long and complicated process but the opportunity for a real peace does now exist. I shall continue to keep the House informed.

We join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming what seems to be the end of hostilities for the time being and we express, too, the fervent hope that this will be the beginning of a genuine peace. The immediate implementation of Resolution 242 in all its parts is as ambiguous a phrase as could be adduced at present. I recognise that it is probably the Americans and the Russians who have played the major part in getting the resolution together, but do the words immediate and concurrent negotiations between the parties concerned mean in the Foreign Secretary's understanding that there will be direct discussions between Israel and Egypt, which has always seemed to be an essential part of the negotiations?

Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman raise with Dr. Kissinger when he comes to London this evening whether Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Brezhnev have discussed the future of the Palestinians, because I noticed that the resolution was silent about that and I have heard nothing about that particular matter.

Thirdly, it is my preliminary estimation that there would be no difficulty in any part of the House in accepting the right hon. Gentleman's view that Britain should help to provide part of a peacekeeping force if conducted under United Nations' auspices and there is general agreement to it. If this were one of the ways of achieving a peaceful settlement, we would want to play our part.

Can the Foreign Secretary, either now or later, report to the House after his conversation with Dr. Kissinger what he understands to be the future of our oil supplies?

The implications for the United Kingdom of the decision by the Arab producers to reduce oil production are not clear. As I told the House last week, there is no indication that the restrictions which are being talked about are specifically directed against this country. Nevertheless, we could be affected, and the Government are naturally reviewing the contingency arrangements to deal with any situation in which our supplies might be significantly reduced.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will keep the House informed on this matter and on the situation as it develops. But it is not at the moment clear. In the meantime, it makes good sense for all consumers to see what they can do to economise by cutting non-essential use of fuel. I shall discuss this with Dr. Kissinger to see whether he knows more.

It is true that interpretation of Resolution 242 has been the centre of difficulty all the time. I should not like to anticipate now the discussions, but I am sure that demilitarised zones, to provide a buffer of security for all the countries, must be part of the settlement.

Will these be direct discussions between the parties? That, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, has been the difficulty up till now. I hope there will be direct discussions, but I am sure they will have to have help.

The Palestinian problem must be part of a final settlement—otherwise, of course, the settlement would not stick.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether any progress has been made in the Council of Ministers towards a European underwriting of any final settlement?

The Middle East experts of the European countries of the Nine are meeting today to discuss the matter. There has been a pretty good unanimity in the Council that the European countries would help in peacekeeping if that proved to be necessary.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there will be worldwide relief that the fighting is likely to stop. Since the cease-fire is conditional upon general acceptance by all concerned, and since Syria and Iraq have not yet expressed their view—and, indeed, Syria has never accepted Resolution 242—will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind, and put to Dr. Kissinger, that, in the event of there not being acceptance from that quarter, there might none the less be a cease-fire on the Egyptian and the Israeli front in Sinai, even in default of the other?

Since it is generally accepted that Resolution 242 was accepted because it meant different things to different people, should there be ambiguity whether talks and withdrawal are to be immediately concurrent, would the right hon. Gentleman consider what sort of machinery ought to exist, possibly under the Secretary-General's chairmanship, to try to remove ambiguities which could cause the cease-fire to be ended with one or either side claiming that it had not been honoured?

Finally, although this move for a cease-fire was clearly on the initiative of the super-Powers, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if anyone had any doubts of the necessity for a world forum such as United Nations, the events of the last 24 hours have proved it?

Any settlement must be under the broad umbrella of the United Nations and the Secretary-General will, I think, have to take a part, and would want to do so. On the right hon. Gentleman's first question whether, if Iraq stood out alone, let us say, she could be in a position to stop the process of the cease-fire and negotiations, one has to remember that Iraq never did, since 1948, accept any cease-fire. In the documents, although I hope to know more about this tonight, the word "reciprocity" is used about relations between the Israelis and Egyptians, for example, and the Israelis and the Jordanians, and so it is possible that we might have a cease-fire on one or two fronts even if Iraq stood out.

Would it be true to say that this conflict may have brought nearer the achievement of a common foreign policy between the nine members of the EEC?

I hope that that would be so. They are completely agreed now on the arms policy which they are pursuing and which will have to be reviewed, just as we review ours. We are completely united on that. I think they are united, too, that, when it appears how Europe could help in the Middle East, it would be willing to do so.

The Foreign Secretary will recall that the needs of the Palestinians form part of Resolution 242. Will he assure us that he recognises that in the weeks ahead, if a settlement is to be lasting, some generous restitution needs to be made to the Palestinians, not only by the Israelis but with the help of other countries, including Britain?

May I suggest also that recent events present a considerable justification of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in Harrogate and the decisions that he has taken since?

One can only hope that in this situation any contribution one makes is helpful to somebody. It is not an easy job to find the right policy in this kind of situation. I hope that Harrogate was one contribution that may be useful.

The question of the Palestinians must clearly form part of a complete and long-term settlement. I hope that we shall not become too euphoric at this moment because there are many difficulties in the way. One step at a time is perhaps enough.

At the end of his statement, my right hon. Friend said that Britain would be prepared, if necessary, to contribute to any international peace force. Would he make it clear to the House that, if we are prepared to contribute to such a force, that force may not be withdrawn at the whim of one side or the other?

After the performance of the last Secretary-General of the United Nations, that would have to be a condition.

In reaching a settlement, will the British Government take the initiative among the Big Four to stop all future arms supplies to both sides? Secondly, would the Foreign Secretary agree that, although a few days ago it looked as if this were going to be a fatal blow to the détente, if a cease-fire takes place it may well be that we are much nearer a détente and world peace than we were before the whole business started?