HC Deb 07 April 1967 vol 744 cc628-35

3.40 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I beg to move, That this House congratulates British industry, and especially the aerospace industry, on its scientific and technological achievements in defence, export, aeronautical engineering and its fertilising influence in many other fields of employment; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to lend their fullest support to the industry in its efforts to maintain its present leading world position. I must apologise because time is no longer my friend and neither my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary nor I can deal with this topic as it ought to be dealt with. I wish to make clear that my concern is for the whole range of British technological achievement and to see that it is given the widest possible publicity overseas. I have concentrated principally on aviation as an example, but I would like to know from my hon. Friend exactly what policies are guiding the Government in leading the rest of the world to a proper appreciation of the complete range of British technological excellence.

When he was director of the National Research and Development Corporation, Lord Halsbury wrote: Increasingly, the aircraft industry first tackles, then solves, and finally dominates the solution of problems which no other branch of engineering would have the incentive to attempt …. Its results react back on, and influence, general engineering industry so that, by remaining in the forefront of aeronautical engineering, we keep our position in the forefront of general engineering. The results of the industry's pioneering work are quickly reflected in all branches of our national industrial, scientific and engineering endeavours. This fertilising influence has been felt in metals, plastics, fuels, oils, synthetic rubber and transparencies, while aeronautics has contributed much to the development of streamlining and hydrodynamics. Techniques originally developed for aviation have been applied to pit props, hydraulic railway buffers and specialised radio and radar requirements, to offer a few examples.

From British aviation research have stemmed the gas turbine engine, jet vertical take-off aircraft and engines, hovercraft, variable geometry aircraft, the steam catapult, the first jet and turboprop airliners to enter service, and the first jet Atlantic service.

We did not, however, proceed with all our inventions to their logical conclusion. Had we done so, we would not have been paying £280 million in scarce dollars to the United States for its variable geometry F111K military aircraft. Barnes Wallis found in America the backing for his swing-wing idea which he failed to get in his own country. The reasons for that are not pertinent in this debate, but a warning is contained in that happening.

The United States is at present suffering from a technological manpower shortage which may soon approach crisis proportions. The National Science Foundation estimates that, to maintain the country's rate of economic growth, 1,375,000 engineers will be required in the United States by 1970. This is 718,000 more than were available in 1960. But all of America's universities are not expected to graduate more than 450,000 during the decade. Thus, leaving a deficit of over 250,000. The lack of scientists will be almost as serious. With this potential shortage, and salaries commencing at £2,800 a year, the invitation to our own newly graduated technologists to go West is almost irresistible. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is being done to meet that challenge.

The Government have taken one positive and useful step. They are to be commended for a change of policy in regard to the aerospace industry, which is no longer in the wilderness it occupied from December, 1964, to December, 1965. That was the period which covered the aircraft cancellations and the publications of the Plowden Report. Fifteen months have elapsed since that Report was issued, and during that time the Government have been active in consulting European aviation ministers on the future programme both in the military and civil aviation spheres, following Plowden's recommendations.

From those consultations have emerged the Jaguar programme and the confirmation that the British and French Governments intend to proceed with a V.G. military aircraft in the 1970s, and on the civil side there has been the decision to press on with the Concord supersonic airliner. However, one question is left which must be answered and which I hope will be answered very soon. When is a production order to be placed for Concord? The seeming lack of decision in that matter is leading to misunderstanding.

In addition, talks are now proceeding between the French, German and United Kingdom governments on the subject of an air bus. Beyond that, the industry has been active, and as a result the United Kingdom has 120 joint agreements with overseas aerospace firms and governments. Apart from those main projects, there is the collaboration in the helicopter sphere between Sud-Aviation in France and Westlands. Perhaps my hon. Friend could say how things are shaping there.

I hope that my hon. Friend will also be able to confirm today that the Government now accept beyond a peradventure Plowden's view that the British aviation industry is the right sort of industry for the United Kingdom because, to quote Plowden: … in terms of production it is exactly the sort of industry on which Britain should concentrate. It has a high proportion of value added or a high conversion rate; that is to say its products contain relatively little imported material and most of the value of the finished article derives from work carried out in British factories. I am glad that that basic fact appears to have taken root in Government thinking; and only a short time ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology referred to Britain's aero-space industry as an explosive force in the development of technology, … He continued: … its impact is, of course, much wider than on air and space travel alone. Few forms of production are likely to remain unaffected by the aviation industry's developing technologies. That is encouraging, as it comes after a long period during which it seemed that the Government did not appreciate the value of that highly technological industry to the viability of the United Kingdom as an economic unit.

What publicity is being given overseas to those achievements in technology, and in what manner and by whom are our praises being sung abroad?

I am sorry that I must cut short some of my speech, as I want to give the Minister time to say something. But I have one final point. The machinery which presently controls and guides our actions in all these matters seems to me to be somewhat casual. It depends on Ministerial consultations. These are important, of course, but they tend to be long drawn out, and they lack planning in the systematised sense.

If European co-operation on technological expansion is to become more effective, then the partnership must be more clearly defined and more efficient, and, in my view, the Prime Minister's concept of a European technological community should now take shape, particularly if we are to enter the Common Market. In any event, our geographical position places us between two powerful technological rivals, and this fact alone lends weight to the argument that if our identity in this developing world of technology is to be maintained a more formal arrangement must be made, and, despite the difficulties which surround its achievement, the European technological community appears to be the natural grouping.

Meantime, I conclude in this firm belief, that the British aerospace industry is in better heart today than seemed likely two years ago, and I am sure that when the Paris air show comes along in May Britain will fill the star rôle.

3.51 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I shall not in any way seek to be unfair to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), but only say how sorry I am there has not been more time to discuss a matter which, I am sure, the House will agree is of the utmost importance. In rising to speak at all, I realise, if I may mix Greek and Latin derivations, that I must make a micro-mini maiden speech from this Box. What I wish to do is to add one further question to those which the hon. Member has asked.

It is to elicit a little more the reasons why today we have scientific attachés to our overseas missions only in Bonn, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo and Washington. I suspect that the United States take a great deal more trouble over their overseas missions to ensure that their scientific efforts are represented wherever they can be. It would seem to me essential that we should in these days be very certain that we lose no opportunity open to us in having overseas missions.

I think all of us would wish to join with the hon. Member in the terms with which he has couched his Motion, whose terms are somewhat different from the terms of the Motion of which he said he was going to give notice. I feel that we certainly need more Government assistance overseas in promoting British ideas and British technological excellence. There are a number of questions begged in the terms of the Motion. If we were to examine, for example, the electronics industry and the marine engines industry and a number of others we would find that the Government's expectations had not been fulfilled to the stage they said they were going to take the sponsorship of four of the most important industries. I only regret that time does not allow us to deal with these matters further.

3.54 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell)

First, I would congratulate the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on his maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench, and also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on choosing this Motion, though he has, unfortunately, had such a short time in which to move it.

I can certainly assure him that the Government accept the fact that the aerospace industry is an industry which this country must have, and I would go further and say, in connection with his remarks about the European technological community, that it is an industry which Europe must have. Certainly, during 1966, it achieved a very successful export record of £230 million, which, I hope, will be followed by as good a year this year.

The aerospace industry therefore has an important part to play in our economy and I hope that, as he has said, with the projects now under development both in this country and on an Anglo-French basis, it will be shown that the aerospace industry has a very great future in this country, and I emphasise, in Europe.

My hon. Friend expressed some concern about Concord, and asked when production orders will be placed. Let me assure him, as I believe he has been assured by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, that all necessary finance to keep the programme on schedule is being allocated, and there is no reason why he should imagine that anything which the Government do will delay the development of this project.

May I answer one point which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely raised, before trying to consider the more general aspects of this problem? He referred to our scientific representation abroad and compared it unfavourably with that of the United States. Although it may compare unfavourably with that of the United States, none the less it is expanding. He mentioned four capitals in which we have current scientific representation. There is a fifth, Stockholm. We have recently reinforced Paris and Tokyo by posting there First Secretaries (Scientific), and we are expanding the general level of scientific representation in the various capitals where we are represented—

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

There has been a withdrawal, too.

Mr. Dell

It is true that we have withdrawn from India, where scientific matters are now handled by the British Council. That bears some relation to the importance of that particular post in the world context. Nevertheless, we are building up in those five important capitals, and, therefore, the trend is in the direction which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely would wish.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

The hon. Gentleman refers to five capitals. Stockholm makes six, I think.

Mr. Dell

No. Stockholm makes five altogether.

If I might consider certain more general aspects, the reason why one welcomes the excellent export record of the aerospace industry in 1966 is precisely because the best overseas publicity for British technology is exports. We do not want to publicise British technology overseas simply in order to boast. We want to achieve exports, and our exports to overseas countries and the examples which they present of the levels of British technology are the best publicity that the industry can have.

I certainly join with my hon. Friend the Member for Govan in the tribute which he pays in his Motion to the achievements of British industry generally in selling British products overseas and thereby enhancing the reputation of British technology. One can say that exports are the test of British technology, and they are the test because British technology produces the process which produces the product economically to sell against the best competition that the world can offer.

Nevertheless, although that is primarily a job for industry and one which industry is doing with some success, I agree that the Government must assist industry in the work which it has to do. Many Departments assist in that respect, among which is the Ministry of Technology. It is assisting industry to develop British technology and to achieve the great success to British technology which is represented by the regular increase in British exports. We are doing that by our work on the structure of industry, by the publicity which we give to the products of British technology and by the contacts which we are developing with foreign Governments.

Obviously, it is not possible for me to develop any of these themes in the time available, but the structure of British industry is particularly relevant to problems in the areospace industry. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now engaged in talks with the airframe manufacturers on the structure of that industry with a view to producing a merger between the main elements in the industry.

The same theme is represented in other technological industries with which we are concerned where we feel that an improvement in structure will lead to an improvement in technological performance and, consequently, an improvement in our exports. I refer there to industries such as telecommunications and the motor car industry, and the House knows of the discussions which are currently being conducted with the nuclear consortia.

Through our scientific representation overseas, through the Central Office of Information and the British Council, we are giving the maximum pubilicity that we can to the products of British technology. We are also doing everything we can by developing contacts with foreign Governments to make them aware of the important role which we can perform, both in European technology and in our relations generally throughout the world. The House knows—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.