MINISTRY OF AVIATION (DISSOLUTION) ORDER

HC Deb 07 February 1967 vol 740 cc1434-59

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st February]: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 17th January.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Question again proposed.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

I was about to expand one or two remarks when we last debated this Motion. One of the problems that I wish to talk about is that of control of equipment. The Minister of Technology is responsible, so far as the Government are responsible at all, for various technical equipment used on board aircraft. For instance, the blind landing equipment has been developed under the aegis of the Minister of Aviation and I presume that now that function will devolve upon the Minister of Technology. Presumably he will take control of the establishments at Hertford and other places.

I understand that the President of the Board of Trade has a measure of responsibility for airfields, and part of the blind landing equipment will be upon the ground. I would seem that after the Ministry of Aviation has been abolished, the equipment would be dealt with by two Ministries dealing with what is in the air and what is on the ground, coming under the Minister of Technology and the President of the Board of Trade respectively.

The President of the Board of Trade controls a number of people who operate this, and I presume that in future his Vote will include a certain amount of money to enable him to discharge these responsibilities. To whom do we put down Questions about blind landing? Will it be necessary to specify whether we are talking about the bit on the ground or the bit in the air, or is there some common Minister to whom we can in future apply? This is certainly not clear from the Bill.

Suppose that there is a civil airline crash. It is usual, under these unfortunate circumstances, for a statement to be made by a Government representative from the Dispatch Box. Who will make it in future? Will it be the President of the Board of Trade, who has some responsibilities in this matter, especially if the crash occurs on an airfield, or will it be the Minister of Technology, who may have something to tell us about the technical reasons for the crash? Either of those right hon. Gentlemen would have grounds to make a statement, but I suppose that the natural person to do so would be the Minister of State, Board of Trade. He knows about the technical side and the Board of Trade side.

It is right for us to be surprised if the statement is not made by a member of the Cabinet. Which of the two Cabinet Ministers concerned will make the statement? The President of the Board of Trade is within the Cabinet, but such matters would not be within his technical knowledge. He knows about other things, about E.C.G.D., about the duty on citrus fruits coming into the country after a certain date, about the quality of children's nightdresses, how to make Rhodesian sanctions work, what to do about patent law. Those are the sorts of thing that occupy his mind.

The Minister of Technology has different things to think about. He knows of scientific matters; he knows where computers come from ; about space, and he is interested in novel ways for getting stones out of olives and things like that. Which of these two Cabinet Ministers will stand up at the Box and give us the news under those circumstances? The accounting officer of any Ministry is the Permanent Under-Secretary. He is bound to present the work on the Vote of his Ministry, and he is responsible for seeing that everything is right. Who will be the accounting officer in this case, and what will be his responsibilities? In the past when we have put down Parliamentary Questions about things to do with aviation, we have sometimes found that the question was answered by the Secretary of State for Defence, and at other times it was thought more appropriate that the Minister of Aviation should answer it. For example, Questions about the F111A have in the past shifted between the two Ministries. We do not complain about that, but in so far as the Secretary of State for Defence was sometimes considered to be an inappropriate Minister to answer and the Minister of Aviation was preferred, who will now answer?

The Minister of Aviation is talking about the F111A, and that makes sense. Will the Minister of Technology talk about it? Is the Minister of State, Board of Trade charged with technological duties? Does he have any knowledge of defence and war stores? It is difficult to know to whom to put these Questions and it may be a little difficult inside the Ministries for the Permanent Under-Secretaries to sort out their responsibilities. These are genuine difficulties, and we look forward to hearing the answers.

Mr. Robert Carr (Mitcham)

On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation has already addressed the House in this debate and, as I understand it, he cannot speak again without leave. I do not wish to get into the position, on our side, where we refuse that leave on any false grounds. I wonder whether you could help us, Mr. Speaker? A number of my hon. Friends have been wanting to speak in the debate for some time, and there is also the question of E.L.D.O., which has organisational problems of Ministerial control, coming under the Order which we were not able to debate under the Consolidated Fund Bill in any way. Because of this, some of my hon. Friends might feel disinclined to give the hon. Gentleman the leave which he needs if we feel that his speech is one leading immediately to the Closure. But I did not want any of my hon. or right hon. Friends to take irrevocable action without first seeking some guidance.

Mr. Speaker

The answer quite simply is that the Chair will never indicate in advance whether it is prepared to accept the Closure. On the point of order which the right hon. Gentleman raises, the Minister is in charge of the Motion and has the right to reply without leave of the House.

Mr. Carr

Further to that point of order. Is there any difference? We notice the absence of the Minister of Technology. The House is debating the transfer to his Ministry of something which is much bigger in terms of numbers of staff and far bigger in terms of expenditure of money. The Minister is in charge in the sense that he moved the Motion, but is not the Minister of Technology really responsible?

Mr. Speaker

The Minister who moved the Motion has the right to reply. The question of which Minister ought to move it or which Minister ought to reply is a point of criticism, but not a point with which the Chair can deal.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

On a point of order. I have sat through the greater part of the debate, going back to last week. I have been most anxious to raise points concerning the future and prospects of many men in my constituency. I hope that the Minister's intervention at this stage will not prevent me from raising those matters before the debate is concluded.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

Further to that point of order. I, too, have sat through the debate for two whole mornings wishing to speak. I should like to speak, and I should like an assurance from the Patronage Secretary, sitting on the Front Bench, that he will not move the Closure after the Minister has spoken. Otherwise I shall object to the Minister's speaking.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has no power to object to the Minister's speaking. The Minister does not need the leave of the House to speak. On the general issue, this is a problem which hon. Members have to face from time to time.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a few minutes to raise one or two items about aviation—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is most ingenious, but unsuccessful.

Sir A. V. Harvey

On a point of order. With great respect, I did not raise a point of order. I stood up when the previous Member finished his point of order and you called me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was addressing me on a point of order.

Sir A. V. Harvey

No; I did not say so.

7.24 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. John Stonehouse)

The House has spent a long time debating the draft Order. This is recognition of the great interest in the House and in the country in the responsibilities which my Ministry has had in the past and which are going to the Ministry of Technology. We have spent over five hours discussing this proposal. Sixteen right hon. and hon. Members have contributed to the debate. I believe that the debate has been useful and that the House would now expect me to reply to some of the points raised.

Mr. Marten

rose—

Mr. Stonehouse

We have had a useful debate, although towards the latter part of yesterday morning's discussion I felt that we were straying a little from the Order.

Mr. Kershaw

On a point of order. Whatever may be the feeling of the Minister, is it not a fact that the Chair is in charge of our debates and rules on what is in order and what is not?

Mr. Speaker

The position is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has stated it.

Mr. Stonehouse

There seems to be general agreement on both sides of the House that it makes better sense for the duties of the Ministry of Aviation to be taken over by the Ministry of Technology, although I detected a certain amount of schizophrenia on the part of the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). He was so anxious to belabour political points that he failed to give a clear line on the fundamental question. Perhaps his only argument with us is about the timing of the Order, although it was far from clear from his speech whether he thought that we had moved too quickly or too slowly.

I found the right hon. Gentleman's attack on the Prime Minister particularly nauseating as it was based on such a flimsy pretext. He quoted from my right hon. Friend's reply to Questions on 16th June last year, when he said: As to implementation of the Plowden Report and decisions consequent upon that, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation will have time while he is still within his Department to deal wth that question. On the basis of that reply, the right hon. Gentleman attacked the Prime Minister in terms which reflect no credit on his intelligence or on his honesty.

Mr. R. Carr

On a point or order. Is the Minister in order in reflecting on my honesty?

Mr. Kershaw

The Minister is talking about the Prime Minister's honesty.

Mr. Stonehouse

The right hon. Gentleman omitted, I hope not deliberately, to quote what the Prime Minister said—

Mr. Speaker.

Order. I have been addressed on a serious point of order. I did not hear the remark. If the Minister did make it, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Stonehouse

Of course, I withdraw it if that is your direction, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister said earlier in answer to questions: With regard to the question of timing, if we were to say that we should not make changes which are believed to be necessary as long as there are all the problems that the aircraft industry is facing, we should never make them. We want to get into a posture in which these decisions can be properly considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1662.] Obviously what my right hon. Friend said was correct: if we were to wait for every problem in the aircraft industry to be settled before the Ministry of Aviation is merged with the Ministry of Technology, we should have to wait for a very long time indeed. But even on the case put up by the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the implementation of the Plowden Report, the right hon. Gentleman is completely and utterly wrong. Every one of the Plowden Committee's recommendations which the Government have accepted—and we have accepted all of them either in full or in part, apart from two minor ones—has been acted upon in the last year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to disagree with that. Can he quote one major proposal on which we have not taken action within the last year?

Mr. R. Carr

One of the difficulties which the House has been in and which has led the Opposition on a number of occasions to make a simple request to the Government that they should publish a White Paper listing their decisions on the Plowden Committee's recommendations is this. There were 24 recommendations and, I think, 26 guide-lines for action. The decisions on them were announced in such a piecemeal way that, without a lot of reference, we are genuinely unable to know exactly what has been acted upon and accepted and what has not. I ask the Minister once more whether he would reconsider the decision genuinely for the benefit of the House and out of courtesy to the Plowden Committee.

Mr. Stonehouse

I am prepared to consider any worthwhile proposal, but I believe that the House has been fully informed about the Government's attitude to the Plowden Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In answers in Parliament, we have indicated our view on all but two of the recommendations; there is no doubt about that. My predecessor, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in a debate last November, gave a general outline of our reaction to the Plowden Committee's Report. I believe that this is sufficient. I have an outline of all the recommendations and it is clear that there has been a plain declaration of the Government's policy on almost every one of them.

Mr. McMaster

rose—

Mr. Stonehouse

The Plowden Committee made eight major proposals: First, that Britain should take the initiative in arranging a conference of European aviation Ministers. As the House knows, there are no directly parallel Ministers in any one of the countries with which we have to negotiate, but we have had frequent discussions with the European Ministers concerned with particular projects with a view to formulating a common policy for aircraft manufacture and procurement in Europe.

One of my first tasks when I was appointed Minister a month ago was to join the Secretary of State for Defence in talks in Paris about the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. The following week I was in Bonn talking with the French and German Ministers directly concerned about the prospects for a European airbus. We are, therefore, already acting upon the first Plowden proposals.

Secondly, the Plowden Committee proposed that we should suggest to the United States Administration that it should remove all forms of discrimination against defence products manufactured abroad. As far as British products are concerned, last year's Defence Review showed on page 11, paragraph 11, that arrangements have been made for British firms to compete without discrimination for United States defence contracts for items of equipment and supply jointly identified by both Administrations. Recently one of my senior officials concerned with aviation exports organised, in conjunction with S.B.A.C. and E.E.A., a defence seminar with the United States Air Force to explain to the aircraft industry how best to sell defence equipment to the United States.

While the right hon. Gentleman complains, we have been getting on with the job. A lot of useful contracts have already been achieved in the United States—for example, the Rolls-Royce contract for the supply of engines for the A.7 aircraft, which could be worth getting on for £100 million. These are significant facts. Rather than carping all the time, hon. Members on the other side of the House should give us some credit for all that we have been doing.

Thirdly, Plowden proposed that there should be a single Government organisation with major responsibility for promoting aircraft exports. Regarding military sales, a Head of Defence Sales has been appointed who will, after the merger, be jointly responsible to the Minister of Technology and the Secretary of State for Defence. He has already done some first-class work.

Plowden proposed that the standard period for export credits for major aircraft, including the BAC1–11, should be 10 years. In regard to the BAC1–11, this has already been agreed. Plowden recommended that the Government should decide their future helicopter requirements as soon as possible. We have made clear decisions about this field of procurement, and very satisfactory arrangements they are, too.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

I should like to ask the Minister a question dealing with his previous point about export credits. Can he say whether the 10-year period has been extended, or whether he is in process of extending it in the case of turbo-prop aircraft such as the HS748.

Mr. Stonehouse

We are currently considering whether the export credits policy for up to 10 years, which now applies to the BAC1–11, should be extended to the turbo-prop HS748 type of aircraft.

Plowden recommended that we should give financial assistance towards promising light aircraft. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends applauded the support my Ministry had given to the Islander project promoted by Britten-Norman. It is recognised that without our support they could not have gone ahead. Furthermore, we are taking over Beagle, as private enterprise is unable to get on with the job of providing stability for what can be a very worthwhile field of light aviation export. This is an example of the Government's action on Plowden. Plowden recommended, and I quote carefully here: The Government should initiate discussions with B.A.C. and Hawker Siddeley… Hon Members should note those words: …to establish the appropriate basis for the Government to acquire a shareholding in each concern". We have done just that. Negotiations are in progress.

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must link his remarks to the question of transfer of functions.

Mr. Stonehouse

These, Mr. Speaker, were all very substantial points raised in the debate. There were arguments, raised particularly by the right hon. Gentleman, representing that this Order should not be approved until the Plowden Committee's recommendations had been acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman launched into a very strong attack on the Prime Minister for the pledge he gave on this particular question. I am demonstrating that the Ministry has already acted upon the Plowden Committee's proposals that were made 12 months ago.

Negotiations are in progress with B.A.C. and H.S.A., and our objective is to combine their airframe interests into a single airframe company in those equity the Government will take up a substantial minority shareholding. These negotiations are very complex indeed, but we are pressing on with thm as fast as we can.

The Plowden Committee recommended that the Government should undertake an early review of the future of my Ministry. We have done just that. The result is the Order which we have brought to the House this afternoon.

These were the major proposals, and every single one of them has been acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman and others of his hon. Friends made heavy weather about Plowden's observations on the military aircraft procurement functions of my Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman went as far as to say: The proposal before us does not match the Plowden Committee recommendations at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 429.] He is very selective in his reading. He apparently completely omitted to read paragraph 500 of Plowden, which says: It does not fall to the Committee within our terms of reference to make recommendations on this subject. Further on it says, in paragraph 505: We have not considered this subject at all deeply. But we recommend that the Government should review it fairly soon. In our view, we were asked by Plowden to bear in mind a very important point, namely, that if defence procurement went completely into the Ministry of Defence there would be a risk that the civil interests of the industry would be unreasonably subordinated to the military.

Plowden went on to say: This factor has additional weight at present since the special problems of achieving international collaboration on civil aircraft development will need particular attention. For the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that our proposals are completely at variance with Plowden is stretching credulity to its limit. I can only assume that, as the right hon. Gentleman is not a dishonest man, he did not read the Plowden Report carefully enough.

Mr. R. Carr

The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of selective reading of Plowden. I wonder how thoroughly he has read it? In paragraph 501 the Plowden Report says: The main purpose of any change in the arrangements, would be … not "might be", but "would be" …to foster a more direct relationship on military aircraft procurement between Service Departments and the industry. What the Plowden Committee did not pronounce upon, because it said that it was outside its terms of reference, was how that more direct relationship should be brought about. It said quite definitely that the purpose of any change should be to bring that about. What we want to know—because we cannot see it and we do not understand it from anything we have heard—is how that direct relationship is being brought about by this change. According to Plowden, that should be the main purpose.

Mr. Stonehouse

The Plowden Committee did not have it in its terms of reference. It did not consider the subject deeply, and it recommended the Government to make this review. That is what the Government were doing for six months. That is why there was the delay in bringing this Order before the House, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman was complaining about in his speech. We have done exactly what the Plowden Committee asked us to do. We had a review, and we came to the conclusion that the drawbacks that were detailed in the Plowden Report were sufficiently important that we should bear them in mind. Therefore we took all the procurement functions into the Ministry of Technology.

I would make only this final general point about the Plowden Committee. I doubt if any other Committee's Report has ever been implemented so efficiently and in such a short space of time. After all, it is only 12 months since the Report was first brought out. Rather than castigating my predecessor, he deserves the congratulations of the whole House for the tremendous job that he has done to put into effect the proposals of the Plowden Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, one on the estimation of projects. I agree with him that improvements are required here and required quickly. I am very hopeful that industry will soon respond to the proposals which we have put to it for improving the techniques of cost control.

A number of questions were asked about the staff of the combined Ministry. The right hon. Member for Mitcham asked whether there would be reductions in some categories offset by increases elsewhere. The short answer is, "Yes". We hope to make economies in the clerical staff by the use of computers. I would be misleading the House, however, if I gave the impression that there would be an overall reduction in the staff required for what is, after all, a Ministry with vast responsibilities for the whole future of Britain's technology.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about research stations, as did the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in regard particularly to the Royal Radar Establishment. This point was raised also by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). As I explained last week, all these establishments are going into the Ministry of Technology. There are 18,000 staff at the establishments. Many of them are skilled and experienced scientific staff supported by the most modern equipment and facilities, some of it unique in Britain. We have a tremendous investment in these establishments amounting to a replacement value well over £200 million. It is one of our best technological assets in the United Kingdom.

At the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and Bedford, valuable research is being done in aerodynamics, metallurgy and structures. On automatic landing we have achieved results in advance of any other country in the world. We want these researches, which have such a direct economic advantage to our economy, to be strengthened and encouraged.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

I asked the Minister two specific questions. The first was that there should be no derogation or fragmentation of the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, that it should not be dispersed in any way and that the great concentration of scientific manpower should be fully maintained at Malvern. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me those assurances?

Mr. Stonehouse

Yes. I am glad to give assurances on those points.

Before leaving Farnborough, may I say that much original work is being done there in connection with our space programme. We are proceeding with the development of the Black Arrow launcher and associated programme of satellite technology.

At the Royal Radar Establishment, much advanced work is being done on ground and airborne radar. It was, of course, at Malvern, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South knows only too well, that radar was originally developed.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)

Radar started at Bawdsey. It then went to Dundee on the outbreak of war and then to Worth Matravers. Then when France fell and the South Coast was under attack, it moved to Malvern. I hope that the Minister's other facts which he is giving during his winding-up speech are rather more accurate.

Mr. Stonehouse

I said, not "invented", but "developed", at Malvern. A lot of development work was done at Malvern for radar.

At Malvern, teams are involved in physics and electronics research. Their activities include the development of solid state device circuits, lasers and new components for micro-miniaturisation and integrated circuits. This work is most vital. It is important for the civil field and in the development, for instance, of small computers. The economic potential of this to our economy could be very great.

The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South will be interested to know that an Industrial Systems Unit has been established at Malvern to identify and exploit projects which have a civil application. I am pleased to assure the hon. Member that the Radar Research Establishment will have an important part to play within the general work of the Ministry of Technology.

Sir G. Nabarro

I am grateful to the Minister for that crumb of comfort. I was otherwise engaged in 1940. I cannot, therefore, argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). I did not have a constituency association with Malvern before 1965, so I cannot comment on the historical accuracy of what has been said.

Mr. Stonehouse

At the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock, preliminary research is undertaken through to extensive testing of aircraft propulsion systems. Pyestock has one of the largest engine test facilities in the world. In the field of gas turbines and jet engines it is helping the United Kingdom to maintain its world lead.

As I have said, the total investment must be well over £200 million. The human investment in scientists and technicians is even more valuable. It would be foolhardy to allow these skills to disperse. It is our object to strengthen and harness these skills. We aim to achieve a co-ordinated programme of research geared to the needs of the nation and of industry. There will be close co-operation with industry's own research and development programmes and with the universities. We also hope that the stimulus of the Establishments will encourage the cross-fertilisation of ideas between different industries in Britain.

The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked a number of questions about defence expenditure. The defence expenditure within the Ministry of Technology will appear in the defence budget. The hon. Member also asked about air attachés. They will report to the Ministry of Technology on aircraft export questions.

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) criticised the quality of technical advice available within the Ministry. I must disagree completely and utterly with his suggestion that the technical advice which we have available to Ministers is not good enough. Ministers are in daily contact, not only with senior administrative staff, but also with the technical side of the Ministry led by the Controller of Aircraft, the Controller of Electronics and the Chief Scientist. We also have direct contact with the research establishments, where we get the best scientific advice available in Britain.

A number of questions were raised about the space programme. The whole of the space responsibilities that were in my Ministry are going over to the Ministry of Technology. We will have continued responsibility for the E.L.D.O. projects. We are very glad that my predecessor, who is now Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, has established the E.L.D.O. project with such stability as he did in the negotiations which he conducted last year.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity of refuting the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who early the other morning launched into a bitter attack on the decisions that were made and were acted upon within my Ministry last year. The hon. Member sought to give the impression that we had annoyed our allies by deciding unilaterally to withdraw from the Organisation.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

rose—

Mr. Stonehouse

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was advised that I would make these points, and I am sorry that he is not here.

Mr. Webster

On a point of order. Did not the Minister have the opportunity to answer these points in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, Mr. Speaker, but declined to do so?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. It is a point of fact or non-fact, on which I cannot comment.

Mr. Stonehouse

I was perfectly willing at 3 o'clock in the morning on Thursday last to reply to these points. As, however, hon. Members from the Conservative benches drew attention to the attendance in the House, we were unable to continue the debate. That is well known.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs informed the House on 11th July last, the Government never had any intention of leaving E.L.D.O. Therefore, the hon. Member's case against the Government was based on an entirely false premise. The fact is that other countries were themselves concerned about the progress of E.L.D.O., and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) reminded the House, the French queried the whole project early in 1965. It was against this background that Ministers met for a series of discussions over three months up to July last year.

My right hon. Friend achieved a quite remarkable success during those negotiations. The United Kingdom's share of the cost of the E.L.D.O. project was reduced from 38.79 to 27 per cent. In itself, this provides an important saving for the United Kingdom taxpayer. We have cut the contribution by about one-third.

Mr. R. Carr

On a point of order. Is this in order on the Motion, Mr. Speaker? We on this side are interested in E.L.D.O. and would have liked the chance to debate the question of the wise expenditure of Government money. Is it, however, in order that the Minister should deal with this matter and give what in our opinion, is a very partial and whitewashing view of the proceedings, which we may well not have a chance to answer or debate?

Mr. Speaker

Whether it is partial or not is not a question for the Chair, but it can be in order only if it is connected with the question whether we transfer the Ministry of Aviation's functions to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Stonehouse

In itself this is a very important saving. We have cut our expenditure considerably, and, of course, it is a tremendous help to the Ministry of Technology which is now going to take on those responsibilities. The fact that my predecessor has been able to establish collaboration with our European allies on the E.L.D.O. project on such worthwhile grounds enables us to go forward with the space programme, for which we will now be responsible, with great confidence indeed. My right hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of the whole House on his achievement.

In addition to persuading our partners to accept a reduction in our contribution, he persuaded them to accept—

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

On a point of order. E.L.D.O. went to the Ministry of Technology a long time ago when the House set up the Ministry of Technology. It is not a new responsibility which is being switched under the present Order which is being discussed. Therefore, it would seem to be out of order and not suitable for discussion today.

Mr. Speaker

I think that what the hon. Member says makes sense to me. Hon. Members must, as the Chair has endeavoured to persuade them to do throughout this debate, link whatever they say to the question of whether the Ministry of Aviation and its functions should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Stonehouse

The Ministry of Aviation's functions at this precise moment include responsibilities for E.L.D.O. These responsibilities are being transferred, if this Order is accepted by the House, to the Ministry of Technology. A lot of hon. Members during the debate have raised questions about our space programme and its future, and, therefore, I am entitled, I think, to explain to them that the Ministry of Technology is accepting those responsibilities with every confidence because of the excellent work which has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.

As I was explaining, the overall ceiling has been set of £118 million. Previously there had been no such ceiling, which, of course, could have led us to exorbitant expenditure.

Mr. Kershaw

On a point of order. I was myself several times pulled up for attempting to refer to the figures we are spending on E.L.D.O. and speaking on much the same lines as the Minister is now. As the rules of order are the same for back benchers as they are for Ministers, I think he should reply properly.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member will, I am sure, not want to make any suggestion that he is criticising the Chair. When he tells the Chair that the rules of order apply to Ministers as well as to back benchers he is stating a truism of which the Chair is aware.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Further to that point of order. The Minister has gone into a wide debate. May I apologise for not having been here when he started to do so? Of course, I was unaware that this matter would be raised. But may I reinforce my hon. Friend's point of order, in the sense that the Minister is seeking to reply to a debate which I initiated on another subject on a different day? This certainly is, to put it mildly, discourteous conduct. If he is in order, surely he should have let those of us interested in this subject know he was going to do it.

Mr. Speaker

That, as I have said, is out of order unless he can link the points he is making in reply to the debate to the question whether the Ministry of Aviation should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Stonehouse

I advised the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that I would seek to deal with the E.L.D.O. question within the general context of the transfer of the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology.

A number of questions have been raised about the improvement of technical efficiency within the Ministry. We have established the concept—

Mr. R. Carr

Further to that point of order. The Minister has sought to justify what he has just been saying about E.L.D.O. on the basis that he was seeking to answer inquiries which we have made in this House, and I believe that he was also referring to inquiries I made, but the inquiries which we on this side of the House made were, whether there was to be unification of management of space within the Government as part and parcel of this change. If he is going to justify what he has said by pretending to answer our questions, should he not actually do so?

Mr. Stonehouse

I was going to deal with that point, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants a reply to it now I will give it him immediately. The functions for which the Ministry of Aviation has been responsible in regard to space are being transferred to the Ministry of Technology. The other interests in space which are held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will continue to be held by those respective Ministers. It is not felt advisable to take those from the field of interests which they now have in space which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are somewhat functional, particularly as far as the Postmaster-General is concerned.

In regard to the efficient control of projects, I think the House would like to know that we have already established a concept of project managers which gives the technical men an opportunity of co-ordinating the whole programme—for instance, of Concord, where the Director General now has financial as well as technical responsibilities. This system will continue within the Ministry of Technology and I think will lead to a great increase in efficiency.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) asked whether we were following the American example of developing information banks. The Ministry of Technology has plans to provide a wide range of information and advisory services, and these will include the aircraft field as well. The intention will be to distribute carefully sifted information to interested firms, and the plan envisages the circulation of information to some thousands of firms.

The hon. Gentleman raised questions about my speech at Blyth on 21st January last, when I said that the industry was in a more favourable position than during the last year of Conservative rule. Coming from the author of "Murder of TSR/" I thought this was a particularly interesting comment. In that book the hon. Gentleman described the extraordinary muddle and lack of control of the then Conservative Ministers responsible for TSR.2. He should also know, as a director of Handley Page, that whereas the last Conservative Government, which he supported, refused financial assistance to Handley Page, we have given them direct help in the development of the Jetstream.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough on this occasion to give publicity to my book. I hope it will help, but it is only fair to point out to him that the whole theme and purpose of the book—if he has not read it I shall be delighted to send him a copy—was to show what disastrous results flowed from the decision of his Government to cancel very major projects which I mentioned in my speech. It was perfectly legitimate at the same time to have criticised the handling of these things throughout a farly long period, but the theme and purpose of the book was that and that alone.

Mr. Stonehouse

In a very interesting chapter the hon. Gentleman referred also to the muddle of Conservative Ministers in the last year they were in power.

I think the House recognises that the industry is in very good heart. It is in better shape now than for many years. It has—

Mr. R. Carr

On a point of order. In the opening speech which I made from this Box I hope and believed, or you would have corrected me, Mr. Speaker, that I kept strictly to the terms of reference of the Order before us. I did not indulge in leading into a general aviation debate and the political merits of various policies. I do ask that we should be protected from this sort of reply.

Mr. Speaker

The Minister just now replied to a question which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) raised. He had before that been seeking to argue, I gather, that the Ministry of Aviation is in a state to be handed over to the Ministry of Technology, but he must not dilate on that.

Mr. Stonehouse

Mr. Speaker, in moving this Order, I spoke for 11 minutes. In replying to my speech, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) spoke for 39 minutes.

Mr. Speaker

That may or may not be true, but we must get back to the Order.

Mr. Stonehouse

The only point that I wanted to make is that the Ministry of Aviation may be dying but, during the last two and a half years, a remarkable job has been done to save the industry from the errors and mistakes made by the last Conservative Administration. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the Plowden Committee and the implementation of its recommendations, they forget that that Committee was set up because of the errors of the last Conservative Administration, and not because of errors and mistakes made by any of my right hon. Friends.

During the debate, a particular question was raised by the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I know, too, that it interests the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). The Shorts concern is a very important one in terms of employment in Belfast. In regard to that firm, I have this afternoon had a useful discussion with Mr. Faulkner, the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce. We have exchanged ideas about the future of Shorts. I have told Mr. Faulkner that we want Shorts to be a viable aircraft-producing unit. We do not want it to undertake projects that will not be successful in financial terms. We want it to be a useful part of the aircraft industry, and we hope that there will be projects which it can undertake that will help it to maintain a large part of the employment for which it is now responsible.

We have had an extremely helpful debate, and I have done my best to reply to the detailed points which have been raised in the course of the two mornings that we have discussed this proposal. I hope that the House is now ready to give approval to the transfer of functions from the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology.

8.2 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

I am very glad to follow the hon. Gentleman, because he is one of the few Ministers in the Labour Government for whom I have had any respect in the last two years. He has done a good job of work compared with his colleagues.

However, when he talks about the success of the industry in the last two years, may I remind him that the exports of the airframe and engine sides of the industry amounted to something like £212 million, but the orders in respect of that sum were placed well before the General Election of 1964. The Labour Government have nothing to crow about when they talk about this industry. They have done a great disservice to it. At first, the present Home Secretary had a direct responsibility for Concord. What happened within a matter of weeks of the Labour Government taking office was that the wretched Home Secretary, at that time one of the few pro-Europeans in the Labour Party, was sent over to Paris to cancel it. Of all the disgraceful acts, that was one.

However, it has been agreed that the Concord is to go on, and it is a great and hopeful project which can put Britain and France well in the forefront. But I have still some doubt about the Government's intentions. It is extraordinary, for example, that foreign airlines have placed orders and are about to "firm up" on them, when B.O.A.C. has not firmed up. If the British Government are looking for export orders for this enormous investment, I should have thought that firm orders from B.O.A.C. would clinch the matter. I have always been confident that British scientists and technicians could produce what they were expecting to. We have a three-year lead over the Americans who are still talking about an aircraft on paper, and they have their own problems on the engine side. Here is Britain's opportunity. The prototype Concord will fly within a year. Why does not B.O.A.C. place an order, with a Government guarantee behind it? It is very important for this great project that something should be done in that direction.

Every few weeks we hear rumours that the project might be cancelled. I suppose that they are circulated by Americans who are trying to denigrate British efforts. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) shaking his head, but I am sure that he reads his newspapers—

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I have met not only French but also British personnel engaged in the building of the Concord. I have never heard any of the rumours which the hon. Gentleman is now voicing.

Sir A. V. Harvey

I do not want to go into this matter too far, and it would not be right if I did. The hon. Gentleman must know that American aircraft salesmen go round the world, including such places as Australia, saying, "If you buy British aircraft now, in five years' time you will not get spares because there will not be any aircraft industry". The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of what is going on.

Before the project is handed over to the Ministry of Technology, I want to see the Government firming up, giving real orders and not paper ones. Can we be told what is the position about noise? Sales of this aircraft in the future depend a great deal on the tests which the Government are carrying out on supersonic noise.

Another point which concerns me is one which has already been handed over, and that is the provision of aircrew to fly British aircraft. The brain drain is taking place to a greater degree than ever before. Aircrew are tempted away from Britain to foreign countries both in the Commonwealth and in North

America, by large salaries. Some have gone, although a few have come back. The number of pilots being trained at the various training schools such as Hamble, Kidlington and Perth, allowing for wastage, will not meet the demands of British airlines in the years ahead.

I come, then, to the question of Shorts. This firm is the oldest airframe company in Great Britain, and it has splendid achievements behind it. I recognise that there must be a limitation upon the magnitude of the research work put into any new project, but I well remember the present Foreign Secretary standing at the Dispatch Box almost two years ago and saying about Shorts that the Government would bring in machine tool manufacture. However, nothing has happened. It was an empty promise. It is not good enough for a Cabinet Minister to tell the people of Northern Ireland, with their high unemployment rate, that Shorts will be given machine tool manufacture and then do nothing. The workers of Northern Ireland expect a better deal than that.

I ask the Minister to come to the Box again tonight by leave of the House or at a future date to give an assurance to the House of Commons and in particular to Northern Irish Members about the future of that firm. The Government have had two years to think it over, and nothing has been done. It is about time that something was done.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 128.

Division No. 267.]	AYES	[8.10 p.m.
Alldritt, Walter	Booth, Albert	Crawshaw, Richard
Allen, Scholefield	Boston, Terence	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Anderson, Donald	Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Dalyell, Tam
Armstrong, Ernest	Bradley, Tom	Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Ashley, Jack	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, [...].)	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Buchan, Norman	Davies, Harold (Leek)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Barnett, Joel	Cant, R. B.	Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Bence, Cyril	Carmichael, Neil	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Dell, Edmund
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Chapman, Donald	Dempsey, James
Bidwell, Sydney	Coe, Denis	Dewar, Donald
Binns, John	Coleman, Donald	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Bishop, E. S.	Concannon, J. D.	Dickens, James
Blackburn, F.	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Dobson, Ray
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Doig, Peter
Dunn, James A.	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Park, Trevor
Dunnett, Jack	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Lawson, George	Price, William (Rugby)
Eadie, Alex	Leadbitter, Ted	Probert, Arthur
Edelman, Maurice	Lee, John (Reading)	Randall, Harry
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Rees, Merlyn
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Reynolds, G. W.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Ellis, John	Lipton, Marcus	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ensor, David	Lomas, Kenneth	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Faulds, Andrew	Loughlin, Charles	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Fernyhough, E.	Luard, Evan	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Finch, Harold	Lubbock, Eric	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Rose, Paul
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McBride, Neil	Ryan, John
Foley, Maurice	McCann, John	Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	MacColl, James	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Macdonald, A. H.	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Ford, Ben	McGuire, Michael	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Forrester, John	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Skeffington, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald	Mackie, John	Small, William
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mackintosh, John P.	Snow, Julian
Gardner, Tony	Maclennan, Robert	Spriggs, Leslie
Garrett, W. E.	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gregory, Arnold	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Stonehouse, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Mapp, Charles	Symonds, J. B.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Marquand, David	Taverne, Dick
Hamling, William	Mason, Roy	Thornton, Ernest
Harper, Joseph	Mellish, Robert	Tinn, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mendelson, J. J.	Tomney, Frank
Haseldine, Norman	Millan, Bruce	Tuck, Raphael
Hazell, Bert	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Urwin, T. W.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Varley, Eric G.
Hooley, Frank	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Horner, John	Molloy, William	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wallace, George
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Moyle, Roland	Watkins, David (Consett)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Murray, Albert	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon A Radnor)
Howie, W.	Neal, Harold	Weitzman, David
Hoy, James	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)	Wellbeloved, James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Norwood, Christopher	Whitlock, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Oakes, Gordon	Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Ogden, Eric	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hunter, Adam	O'Malley, Brian	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Orme, Stanley	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Oswald, Thomas	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Janner, Sir Barnett	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Woof, Robert
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Yates, Victor
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Paget, R. T.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Pardoe, John	Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.
NOES
Baker, W. H. K.	Corfield, F. V.	Gurden, Harold
Batsford, Brian	Costain, A. P.	Hall-Davis, A. G. P.
Bell, Ronald	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Crouch, David	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Biffen, John	Dance, James	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Black, Sir Cyril	Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Bossom, Sir Clive	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Hastings, Stephen
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Doughty, Charles	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Braine, Bernard	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Heseltine, Michael
Brewis, John	Elliott, R.W.(N'c'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Errington, Sir Eric	Holland, Philip
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Eyre, Reginald	Hordern, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Farr, John	Howell, David (Guildford)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N & M)	Fortescue, Tim	Hunt, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Foster, Sir John	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Jopling, Michael
Carlisle, Mark	Glover, Sir Douglas	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Goodhew, Victor	Kershaw, Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.	Gower, Raymond	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Clark, Henry	Grant, Anthony	Knight, Mrs. Jill
Clegg, Walter	Grant-Ferris, R,	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Cooke, Robert	Gresham Cooke, R.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Cordle, John	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Loveys, W. H.	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Temple, John M.
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Tilney, John
MacArthur, Ian	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
McMaster, Stanley	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Marten, Neil	Peel, John	Vickers, Dame Joan
Maude. Angus	Peyton, John	Wall, Patrick
Mawby, Ray	Pink, R. Bonner	Walters, Dennis
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Pounder, Rafton	Ward, Dame Irene
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Prior, J. M. L.	Weatherill, Bernard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Pym, Francis	Webster, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Quenneli, Miss J. M.	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Miscampbell, Norman	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Ridley, Hn, Nicholas	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
More, Jasper	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Russell, Sir Ronald	Wylie, N. R.
Murton, Oscar	Scott, Nicholas	Younger, Hn. George
Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Sharples, Richard
Nott, John	Sinclair, Sir George	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Onslow, Cranley	Smith, John	Mr. Timothy Kitson and
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Mr. Hector Monro.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 17th January.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.