HC Deb 12 February 1968 vol 758 cc933-6
16. Mr. Ridley

asked the Minister of Technology what profit or loss was made by Beagle Aircraft Limited in 1966 and 1967, respectively.

Mr. Benn

The latest audited accounts of the company are for the periods of six months to 30th June, 1966, and nine months to 31st March. 1967; the trading losses for these periods were £251,000 and £890,000, respectively.

Mr. Ridley

First, is it true that the company has now lost more than £6 million since it was started? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that in these days, when secrecy is deplored in the private sector, published accounts for the public sector, which Beagle specifically is, have not been made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Benn

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that what are described as losses here involve money for the re-equipment and development of the company. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity to apologise for having said that the Government have been supporting the company illegally. It is a company which is developing to meet a very rapidly developing market in this field, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's contributions have helped very much.

Mr. Onslow

Leaving all that aside as irrelevant, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects the company to make a profit and how much public capital will be injected into it over the next five years?

Mr. Benn

The full amount of capital required to develop the company to take advantage of the very large market—about 12,000 light aircraft a year are made and sold in the world—will be substantial. We shall have an opportunity of discussing this during the Committee stage of the Industrial Expansion Bill. It may well be that about £5 million will be required to put the company in a position to get its share of the market.

Mr. Robert Howarth

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the company were allowed to go out of existence there would be no manufacturer of British light aircraft in this country?

Mr. Benn

It is true that the reason why the Government considered the matter and reached the decision that they did was that when Pressed Steel decided to go out of the light aircraft business this country would have lost its capability in a field where a very large number of aircraft are likely to be wanted in the future.

17. Mr. Ridley

asked the Minister of Technology how much public money has been spent on acquiring Beagle Aircraft Limited.

Mr. Benn

None, Sir.

Mr. Ridley

Does that mean that the £1 million which the Government owe to Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd. and have owed for the last 18 months has not even had interest paid upon it? Why do not the Government pay their debts to people from whom they buy things, or otherwise pay interest on the money which they owe?

Mr. Benn

The position is—the hon. Gentleman, I think, knows it very well —that under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, the Government have the power to support the production of civil aircraft. It is on this basis that every single major civil aircraft, including Concorde, has been supported. The purchase of the aircraft will require legislative authority, and this is being sought from the House in the Industrial Expansion Bill.

Sir A. V. Harvey

How many orders for aircraft are held for this company at present?

Mr. Benn

There is another Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

28. Mr. Fortescue

asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has made to the Government of the United States of America regarding their decision which has prevented Beagle aircraft with United States engines being exported to South Africa.

Mr. Stonehouse

Although I cannot reveal the nature of discussions with the United States authorities on this question, it is well known that the United States strictly enforces the United Nations embargo.

Mr. Fortescue

In view of the large sums of public money which are to be poured into this company, can the Minister assure the House that every possibility of installing French, British or any other engines in this aircraft, so that it can be exported to friendly countries, is being explored?

Mr. Stonehouse

Yes, of course, we will explore that. A re-engining of this aircraft would, however, be a very expensive job and, therefore, we would have to consider it seriously.

Mr. Corfield

Can the Minister explain why the British Government were prepared to allow this aircraft to be exported, bearing in mind its internal security effects, while refusing to allow the export of Buccaneers which, clearly, cannot have an internal security effect?

Mr. Stonehouse

We regarded this aircraft as not coming within the United Nations embargo because it was an unarmed civil aircraft. The United States did not take the same view.

Sir A. V. Harvey

A few moment ago the Minister said that he would tell us how many firm orders had been received for Beagle aircraft. By that, does he mean deposits? Will he now say how many firm orders are held?

Mr. Stonehouse

That is another question. We will obtain the information and write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Goodhew

On a point of order. The Minister of Technology, when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), distinctly said that he could not give the number of firm orders placed with Beagle Aircraft because he would be giving it in reply to a later Question. We have now dealt with the only other Question on the Order Paper dealing with Beagle Aircraft. Are we not to have an answer from the Minister? If he cannot give it, would it not be more honest for him to say so?

Mr. Speaker

Whether a Minister answers a Question in the way he answers it is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Benn

I understood from my hon. Friend that the Question tabled on the number of orders was withdrawn, and in recollecting that I said that a Question had been tabled. I thought it right to refer to the fact, but if it has been withdrawn I will give the Answer in answer to another Question.

Sir A. V. Harvey

On a point of order. I seek your protection, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my former supplementary question, the Minister was quite definite that I should get the answer, and the House should get the answer. Later on in Question Time we find that this is not forthcoming. We have been told that we require to put down a Question. Surely the Minister ought to get your permission to give this information to the House, which is very important.

Mr. Benn

I do not require the permission of the House. I require a Question asking this, then I shall give the answer.