asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next proposes to meet the management of Chrysler UK Limited.

I have no immediate plans for a further meeting with the United Kingdom management of Chrysler Corporation.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that in 1977 Chrysler will not have made the £3·4 million profits estimated at the time of the rescue and will not have made the £300,000 profits estimated in the recent planning agreement, but is likely to lose £22 million, of which the British taxpayer will have to find £10 million? Can the Secretary of State at least give an assurance that there is no question of any more public money being given to this company beyond that set out in the existing agreement, and that it is now entirely up to the management and work force of Chrysler to make this a competitive concern?

Yes, I can give that assurance.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable consternation at Linwood over the decision announced last week by Chrysler not to build the new model for 1979 there? Does the Secretary of State recall that in col. 1559 of the Official Report for 17th December 1975 he gave me a direct undertaking that the model for 1979 would be produced at Linwood, and that it was on that basis that my hon. Friends voted for the order?

I understand that the model policy of Chrysler UK Limited is being discussed with officials in my Department. Proposals have not yet been put to me, but I hope to be able to say something about it in due course.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the 13-point plan agreed by the company and its unions provided a satisfactory basis on which to go forward, including with the new model?

As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, the 1977 proposals have not been fully met, although it was always envisaged that they would be a struggle. The integration of Chrysler's European operations has been reasonably successful, but I hope that there can be improvements. I understand that at Linwood, for example, improvements have taken place over the past few weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what criteria he identifies as necessary to qualify industries for Government assistance by: (a) grant. (b) loan, (c) investment and (d) protection from overseas competition; and which category of assistance, and qualifying criteria, he identifies as applying to British Leyland.

Assistance to industry is provided according to statutory purposes and published criteria, in particular under the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975. This applies to British Leyland, like any other company. Following the Ryder Report, British Leyland has received assistance in the form of equity capital and long-term loans.

Will the Minister of State give an assurance that the willingness of the Government to accept and not to funk the recommendations of the Edwardes Report will be a test of their credibility in attempting to get the economy into some sort of shape after four years of Socialism? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not throw good taxpayers' money after bad in financing car-making establishments such as Speke, which seem to be more like schools for industrial unrest than car plants?

The hon. Member should have referred to the first four years of Socialism. I do not think that it is up to the politicians to say what can be done. It is for the management to say how it will do it. It is then up to the Government to say how much money they will put in. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said when she visited Cowley two months ago. I do not know that I go that far, but, on the whole, she was on the right lines.

Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the brave and sensible words that he spoke over the weekend in support of the management of British Leyland? Will he, however, assure the House that on this occasion at least he has the support of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and that he will not have to undergo a humiliating back-down?

The hon. Gentleman appears to be attributing to me words spoken by the Secretary of State, but I do not think that anyone in the House could quarrel with the statement that we must have a strategy for British Leyland which will arrest the decline and put it on a sound footing; that British Leyland will be managed by the management, not the Government; that British Leyland can succeed only on the basis of producing cars competitively, and so on. I think that those are universally accepted sentiments.

As well as giving the financial cost of sustaining British Leyland, will my hon. Friend say how many jobs are involved at British Leyland and how many jobs are involved in the private sector components industry which supplies British Leyland? Will my hon. Friend try to ascertain whether it is still the Opposition's policy that British Leyland should have gone into liquidation?

The Opposition are a bit bewildered about their policy on Leyland. They voted consistently against the rescue of Leyland, but, on the other hand, whenever there were by-elections in the Midlands, particularly Birmingham, they pretended that they were the saviours of Leyland. The Conservative Party would like to wreck a good deal of this country's manufacturing industry.

Does the Minister accept that the Opposition agree with the sentiments of the Secretary of State, if they are correctly expressed, in the weekend interview? We simply wait to see whether on this occasion he can carry the Cabinet and the Labour movement with him. At least, the Labour Party has realised the folly of the Ryder Plan, which appears to be being abandoned.

The Ryder Plan is being looked at again by the new chairman. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh".] That is very sensible. Just as the Conservative Party, when it published its White Paper on steel in 1973, said that such plans had to be flexible and subject to the course of events, so with any industrial plan. I am glad to see that the Opposition are regaining a little of the flexibility that they lost between 1970 and 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to receive a copy of the Chairman's review report into the reorganisation of British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he will next meet the Chairman of British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last met the Chairman of British Leyland.

The Chairman of British Leyland will shortly be submitting a revised corporate plan to the National Enterprise Board, whose report I expect to receive in March. I meet the Chairman of British Leyland from time to time as circumstances warrant.

Does not my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major problems of British Leyland is reflected in the fact that the price of a new Mini has trebled over the last five years, in a period when the retail price index and average wages have risen by only about twice? Does he accept that this means that a smaller and smaller proportion of new cars has been bought by individuals?

Does not the Minister agree, therefore, that one of the solutions may be for British Leyland not to go up-market but to concentrate on automating its production of a more standard vehicle, which will maintain the labour at British Leyland by increasing throughput and reducing the real cost, and also perhaps meet the real need for this type of car?

I hope that the rest of the supplementary questions will be briefer.

I hope very much that the British Leyland management will have a model strategy which will command the support of the whole work force and will produce products which the British people will want to buy.

As we have the Secretary of State answering Questions and not the Minister of State, perhaps we shall have a more objective exchange of views. The "Easy Ryder Plan" has been totally overturned. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the report and recommendations arising from the new solution will have to be that much tougher now as a result of all that has happened, even if a no-strike agreement or a guarantee—putting it higher—with the unions is achieved in order to try to get back to a million vehicles per annum?

The National Enterprise Board and ' the Chairman of British Leyland have told me that they want to see the participation arrangements strengthened. The arrangements were set in train two and a half years ago, and they want to ensure that they have a successful company. It is true that two of the most important ingredients of the Ryder strategy have not been met, namely, the company has not held its share of the United Kingdom market and has not generated sufficient internal resources.

When he next meets the Chairman of British Leyland, will the Secretary of State point out to him the third criterion that the money advanced by the House was for capital expenditure and not for meeting recurrent costs? Will he inform us now whether any guarantee was given by himself or by the National Enterprise Board for the recent drawings by the company?

The recent drawings were discussed with my Department and I understand that they will be sufficient until about the end of March. Further financial requirements for British Leyland will depend on the revised corporate plan which is being discussed by the Leyland board and its work force for submission to the NEB.

When the Secretary of State says that he will give his unstinting support to the Edwardes Plan instead of the Ryder Plan, does that mean that he will give support when the going gets tough and there are proposals for redundancies, which may well be necessary, and, indeed, when plant closures may be found necessary, as the CPRS Report said in 1975? If he does, he is entitled to ask for the support of the Opposition.

I want to see British Leyland a successful company. I want to support all those in British Leyland, including the Chairman, who want to achieve objectives as a substantial British company, not only arresting the decline but improving its market share where it can. Unfortunately, that has not taken place over the last two years. I think that the matter is being tackled now and being discussed with the work force.

Will it not be difficult for a chairman, whatever his qualities and qualifications, who is on relatively short secondment from another company and therefore quite secure, irrespective of what happens to British Leyland, to obtain full co-operation from managers and workers whose jobs he is putting at risk? Does not this critically difficult task demand a man of longer and deeper commitment?

I have said publicly that I support Mr. Edwardes's appointment. Not only do I support it, but the whole of the National Enterprise Board does, including the four senior trade union leaders who are members of that board. The best way of securing jobs in British Leyland is to ensure that there is comparability of performance and continuity of production. That is what Michael Edwardes wants to achieve, as does the vast majority of those who work in British Leyland.

In view of the obvious difficulty for the Government of managing nationalised industries—we are coming to the subject of steel later in Question Time—what does the Secretary of State think of the proposal of the National Executive Committee of his party for a huge expansion of nationalisation, both of industries and firms, in Labour's "Programme for Britain 1976"?

I am always in favour of the fully worked out policies of the Labour Party, especially those expressed in the manifestos of 1974.

What will be the repercussions on the reorganisation of British Leyland so far as its overseas investments and commitments are concerned, especially in South Africa?

I know that my hon. Friend has some Questions on this matter on the Order Paper for answer later this week, but I understand the Board of British Leyland is reviewing all its operations, both at home and abroad.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the second question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller)? Did he personally, on behalf of the Government, give a guarantee for any of the recent loans to British Leyland from the banks, totalling £50 million?

It is not my responsibility. That responsibility rests with the National Enterprise Board, and these arrangements, I understand, are satisfactory to those from whom the loans have been received.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what production output, in terms of vehicles per employee, has been achieved by British Leyland in the past year.

I refer the hon. Member to the National Enterprise Board's report on the performance of British Leyland which my right hon. Friend provided to the House on 25th July 1977.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether it is correct, as has been reported, that the equivalent Japanese output is 43 vehicles per man per year, which is an enormously higher figure than ours? Is not this difference in output really the key to the future of British Leyland?

While it is true that some of the productivity levels of some of our main competitors are higher than at British Leyland, I should warn the hon. Gentleman that direct comparison is not exactly of like with like because we are not necessarily talking about the same vehicle types.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the increase in British industrial productivity since March 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry in what respects he has so far achieved the overriding objective of improving Great Britain's industrial performance.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with improvements in output by British industry since the implementation of the industrial strategy.

Despite the deepest world recession for 40 years, genuine progress has been made in establishing conditions in which British industry can do well at home and abroad.

Is the Minister aware that, according to the figures which I received from his own Department since his party came to power in March 1974, the United Kingdom is the only major industrialised country to have merely staggered back to where it was in terms of manufacturing output per employee at that time? Does this not underline the damage done to industrial productivity in this country by the mistaken and sometimes vindictive policies of his Government, especially during the first two years of their term of office?

The overwhelming message that came from the 40 sector working parties in the industrial strategy was that the essential prerequisite for solving the problems of industry was getting the economic climate right. I draw the hon. Member's attention to an item in the Observer yesterday which made the point that shares and reserves were up, the pound was up, inflation was down, interest rates were down, medium term loans were at their lowest rate for a number of years, the country was earning its keep for the first time for many years and foreigners were putting money into this country. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] I know that the Opposition do not like this. The IMF has indicated that we are making better progress than expected. That is the assessment not of some wild Socialist but of Barclays Bank in its advertisement.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that our industrial performance is still disappointing and that without the benefit of North Sea oil the position would not be as cheerful as he and his colleagues are constantly making out? Against this background, will he try properly to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph): what is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the proposals for the extension of Government interference as outlined in the Labour Party's "Programme for Britain 1976"? We did not hear what the Secretary of State thought about them.

I clearly heard at our last Question Time the views of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Let us bear in mind that what he said then was that, for example, the Government should not be giving financial support to successful private enterprise, in which case the recently announced Ford project would be taking place in Ireland, not in Britain. The right hon. Gentleman further indicated that he deplored support for the steel and shipbuilding industries and that he would have sold out Chrysler and British Leyland. That is what the Conservatives would do for British industry.

What is the purpose of the industrial strategy if it is not to achieve a sizeable increase in output and make a dent in the appalling unemployment figures that the Government have produced?

The Opposition seem signally unaware that we have been in a major recession, just as the rest of the world has. The industrial strategy must, of course, be directed to a long-term improvement for industry. It is a medium-term to long-term policy. On 1st February there will be a discussion in NEDC on the latest proposals which will be coming from the sector working parties. The interim reports were that by 1980 they were capable of improving their market performance by £3,000 million. That is what the industrial strategy is about.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that British industrial productivity has been unsatisfactory since 1884? Is it not true that the problem has nothing to do with one party or the other but results from a weakness in private enterprise in this country?

It is a valid contention that productivity in this country has suffered from the alternating stops and gos of our economy under successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative. This has affected the investor's and the working man's attitude to new investment. What is important is that last year investment rose by 7 per cent. One can say—making certain calculations for the final quarter—that in real terms investment last year was higher than in 1972 and in 1973. As I have continually pointed out to the Opposition, they never managed to achieve again the levels of investment achieved in 1970.

But does the right hon. Gentleman think that the proposals in Labour's "Programme for Britain 1976" will make matters better or worse?

Those were proposals for discussion. The Labour Government's policy is spelt out in their manifesto. As our record has shown this time, it is then carried out during the period of Labour government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an established practice of Question Time that an hon. Member should be given notice if his or her Question is to be coupled with that of another hon. Member?

I think that it is a normal courtesy. The Minister may have slipped up. I do not know.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party's "Programme for Britain 1976" is a projected programme for the future, and it does not necessarily follow that it will have to be carried through in this Parliament, though it is party policy? Will my right hon. Friend also explain to the Opposition that the United States, West Germany, France, Italy and most of the European countries are not run by Labour Governments but their percentage of unemployment is higher than that in this country?

No. Rubbish.

It is worth re-emphasising the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made that unemployment is high throughout the Western world. This is an international phenomenon to which the Opposition wish to turn a blind eye. If the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) wishes to make any constructive points on this matter, I shall be glad to hear from him. All that he has said on industrial policy in the past few months has been destructive and would add to the levels of unemployment.

Does the Minister agree that the self-employed and small businesses can play a significant role in improving economic conditions and creating new employment? Will he take steps to set up a fund in Scotland, using a portion of Scottish oil revenues, as venture capital to set up new businesses, and will he abolish the discriminatory 8 per cent. levy on the self-employed?

In his recent Budget Statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made various alterations favourable to small firms. The Scots have their own Scottish Development Agency, with its own resources, which can establish its own priorities and will soon be responsible to its elective council.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the total sum that has been made available to the private sector of industry from public funds in the form of grants and concessionary-rate loans since February 1974.

It is estimated that since February 1974 payments of about £1,062 million for grants and £126 million for concessionary-rate loans have been made under the Industry Act 1972 to the private sector of industry. The total figure of £1,188 million is at out-turn prices and is net of repayments. In addition, £557 million in the form of regional employment premium has been paid over this period.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these are sensational and formidable figures? Is it not apparent that some sectors of private industry would not have survived long without public support? Has my hon. Friend had any word about the Leader of the Opposition's intentions should her party ever achieve power again? Would she long tolerate this degree of public support and public subsidy?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Opposition's policies, such as they are, are a matter for them. However, it would appear, from the occasional glimmerings of their policies that we receive, that they are prepared to cut public expenditure substantially in all areas except the individual constituencies of Opposition Members. They display their hyprocrisy by condemning public expenditure nationally but being quite happy to see it increase when they wish to make individual representations about firms in their constituencies.

Does the Minister accept that while the schemes exist the private sector would be mad not to take full advantage of them? What estimate has he made of the total involved on the many occasions when these sums need not have been taken up if private money had been sought?

There have been many occasions on which private money has not been available or has not been available until the Department has made a gesture or given an indication that a grant or loan would be available. There is much that is unsatisfactory about the private money-raising market in this country. That is one of the aspects of the unsatisfactory performance of British manufacturing industry. There is no doubt that but for Government support in, for example, the clothing and textile industries, through temporary employment subsidy, those industries would have been in grave difficulties.

Can my hon. Friend give some details of the amount of help given to private industry through the temporary employment subsidy? In view of the important help that this has been in recent months, will the Government resist the EEC demands that the TES should be suspended?

The matter is under consideration, but the view of both sides of industry which have made representations, including the unions, is that TES has been very important for the continued survival of many jobs, particularly in the clothing and textile industries, which are still our third largest employer, and also in a wide range of jobs. Those are considerations of the sort that the Government have very much in mind.

Will the Minister give the House figures for the amount paid by private enterprise to the Exchequer by way of corporation tax, rates paid by companies and employers' national insurance contributions? Does he agree that in total the amount vastly exceeds the figure mentioned and that without such payments there would not he any subsidies to other companies?

No doubt the hon. Member will table a Question for detailed answer on that point. It is worth pointing out that there is a 100 per cent. tax allowance on investment in plant and machinery, which costs just over £2½ billion per annum. Rates are allowable against tax, which is not the case for the private individual. The hon. Gentleman's argument bears rather closer examination than he suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he plans to nationalise the Hull Telephone Department.

My right hon. Friend has given his consent to an interim extension, to 30th June 1978, of the licence from the Post Office under which Kingston upon Hull City Council operates its own local telephone service, and is considering carefully the issue of a new long-term licence.

Is it not highly desirable that the Hull telephone service, which is cheap and profitable and which has achieved a percentage of home installations nearly twice as great as the GPO, should remain independent to provide comparison and a stimulus to innovation to the Post Office's statutory monopoly?

Clearly the hon. Gentleman has come a long way since he voted against the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) which sought to extend the powers of local authorities in relation to commercial trading activities. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to municipal socialism.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the latest estimate of the amount of industrial investment in 1977 in: (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector; and how these figures compare with the corresponding period in 1976.

With permission, I will circulate the information in the Official Report.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government should set an example in industrial regeneration by steadily increasing investment in the public sector of industry? Why, then, is it that in the latest public expenditure White Paper we have the proposal that between 1978 and 1982 there should be no growth in the budget of the National Enterprise Board and a decrease in the amount of spending by the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies?

The figures are based on an analysis of what has been required in the past and on the finance available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also publish in the Official Report the return on these investments in the public and private sectors? Does he accept that unless there is an adequate return no further jobs will be provided?

The hon. Gentleman will know that in instances of Government assistance in rescue cases an assurance of viability is sought. He will also know that the NEB, as with the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, is expected to make a commercial return on its investment.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that unless we restore the public expenditure cuts, and indeed go further and put more money into public expenditure, we shall never be able to solve the unemployment problem?

Questions on general public expenditure levels should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Up to June of last year an extra 100,000 jobs had been created in manufacturing as a result of the policy of giving assistance to industry.

Is not this "industrial investment" merely taxpayers' money? Should not this House decide, and make it clear when it makes its decision, that the investments are made in the expectation of there being a profit to the companies concerned—and, as a result, increased taxes—or are they merely a form of industrial social security?

I am at a loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman as a member of the party which abandoned investment grants in favour of a tax allowance system, can say that investment under his party's system was not taxpayers' money.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although there is a general need to stimulate investment in the public and private sectors, there is a particular need to stimulate investment in areas of high technology—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—where we can still maintain our lead over the semi-industrialised nations, such as Korea?

Despite the displays of incredible ignorance from the Opposition, I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. This is one of the lessons that has come from the 40 sector working parties which have put forward proposals for industry schemes in those sectors where they felt that Government help was particularly relevant. Computers and electronics are cases in point, in which industries we face intense periods of development and overseas competition.

Now that the question of unemployment has been raised from the Government Benches, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity to correct his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and to tell the House that on the Government's own figures—I take no joy in this; I state the fact—unemployment in this country is now significantly higher than it is in Germany, America or France—

It is not true.

I am quoting the Government's own figures. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm this? Will he also confirm that the higher unemployment is the direct result, in the view of many people, of hostility towards enterprise practised by the Government, particularly in their first years of office, under the influence of the part of the Labour Party to which the hon. Member for Walton belongs?

It is difficult to reconcile hostility to enterprise with the right hon. Gentleman's frequent complaint that we give too much money to profligate private industry. I point out that our hostility has taken the form of £1,300 million worth of Section 8 assistance, most of which has been opposed by Tory Members. The right hon. Gentleman says that he takes no joy in the unemployment level. May I also say that he takes no constructive attitude? Over the months we have not had a single constructive suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench on how more jobs can be created.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation not to charge additional sums for installing new telephones in certain districts of big cities over and above the normal charge of £50.

No, Sir. But I understand that the Post Office is consulting the Post Office Users National Council on this matter.

Is it not astonishing that many residents or applicants in whole districts of a town are not able to have a telephone installed unless they pay an additional deposit of £37 or more on top of the £50 installation fee? Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result, many people cannot have telephones installed? Is this not a blatant unfairness since it is the poorest people who have to pay more than others for a telephone, and since the telephone industry is a highly successful nationalised industry with a large surplus?

I know that my hon. Friend lays stress on this point. There is concern on both sides of the House about the fact that there appears to be discrimination by area. It is because of this that the Post Office and the Post Office Users National Council are jointly studying the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities which pay the rental charge on telephones for disabled people are taking a share of the £7 bonus which has been given to all telephone subscribers? Does he realise that the local authority in my constituency is proposing to keep the whole bonus? Will he look into this matter and ask for guidance from the Post Office so that local authorities may reach a fair agreement with telephone subscribers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, because I know that there is concern about what some local authorities have been doing, particularly in connection with telephones provided for the chronically sick and disabled. If my hon. Friend will let me have further evidence on this matter, I will gladly look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list those powers he possesses under the Industry Act 1975 which have not yet been used.

Since the answer is lengthy, will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.

I thank the Minister for that reply—which gives me little material for a supplementary question. May I ask whether he can give any indication of those areas in which powers are not being used and say why this is so? In particular, has the failure to use the powers been due to a lack of finance? Is he satisfied with the powers that exist for the setting up of public sector ventures or joint ventures on a 50–50 basis?

The reasons for the nonuse are twofold. The first is that some of the powers are of a comparatively trivial nature—for example, the power to vary by direction the accounting year of the NEB. Secondly, they may relate to matters considered during the passage of the Bill as being important, reserved matters—for example, the question of ownership by foreign enterprises of British firms which might involve some strategic or other relevant factor. A combination of these two aspects is responsible for the situation. The amount of money which has been advanced to the NEB, in the face of opposition from the Conservatives, has been considerable, but there is always room for improvement. The NEB has been not unsuccessful in making the sort of investment envisaged for it.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that among the reasons why these powers have not been used there is not a reason to the effect that the Minister does not agree with his having the power in the first place?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with industrial progress in the Northern Region.

We shall continue to promote industrial development in the Northern Region.

Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about Swan Hunter and the Polish order? Does not he agree that, whatever the difficulties may be at Swan Hunter, the good industrial relations record and the high quality of the labour force make the Northern Region an ideal place for investment?

The shipbuilding situation is unchanged as reported by British Shipbuilders at the weekend. I endorse my hon. Friend's recommendation of his area for industrial investment. I am sorry that we recently lost an investment project which was to have been scheduled for his locality.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Northern Region has benefited considerably from the infra-structural spending, loans and grants from the EEC through the European Investment Bank, the European Coal and Steel Community and the Regional Development Fund, without which it would not have fared so well, albeit under difficult conditions? Should not the Government therefore be less churlish about the EEC and be keener to help build up the Community institutions and allow more money to be spent in this way?

I am glad to agree about the role of the European Regional Development Fund and the European Investment Bank in our regional work. As far as the Regional Fund is concerned, the question of the non-quota section has important long-term considerations, and there has been a less than adequate indication of how that section would be used and how its use would be monitored. We have asked the Commission to come forward with further information.

Is it not the fact that, if unemployment begins to decline in the rest of the United Kingdom, the unemployment level in the Northern Region is usually left stranded high and dry like a whale on a beach, and that if such is the situation again, despite the progress that has been made, there will be strong criticism of the Government's failure to provide an effective regional policy?

My hon. Friend will recognise that regional policy can operate only in the context of world growth. The international recession is not, unfortunately, within the control of an individual Government. My hon. Friend will also appreciate that recently there has been considerable discussion, stimulated by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to try to stimulate greater growth in the world economy, which is a prerequisite to getting our own economy moving.

Is it not generally unfair that the Northern Region should receive from the Regional Development Fund three times as much assistance as the North-West receives, although the percentage of unemployment in the North-West is higher than it is in the Northern Region?

It is difficult to draw such a comparison because the North consists predominantly of special development areas, since it has such high concentrations of unemployment. The hon. Lady must be careful in what she says on behalf of the North-West. For example, if one takes the gross unemployment figures, one finds that the South-East, strangely enough, becomes the area with the greatest problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has yet received any requests from the British Aerospace Corporation for assistance in launching a new civil airliner.

Apart from the special limited provisions of Section 45, the concept of launching aid for new aircraft has been ended with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked him not whether any launching aid had been requested but whether any assistance had been requested? Unfortunately, it seems that he can think of no form of assistance except money. Can he say now whether British Aerospace has yet approached him for any assistance of any sort in launching the HS146 airliner, which he led the workers in the industry to expect would be launched last year?

I am not sure what other kind of assistance British Aerospace could ask us for. It has far better designers than we could provide in the Department of Industry, for example, and its technicians are very good. British Aerospace is involved in collaborative discussions with our potential partners in Europe. What the hon. Gentleman simply cannot get into his head is that collaboration implies joint decisions with partners. We cannot launch our part of the aircraft without the launching of the rest as well. One has heard of flying on a wing and a prayer, but this is ridiculous.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the present unemployment situation at Hatfield, there is urgent need for a decision on the HS146? When is such a decision likely to be made?

I shall give some information to my hon. Friend when her Question on the subject is reached later.

In pursuit of the Prime Minister's stated aim that all new civil aircraft projects must be commercially viable, should not British Aerospace at least be prepared to consider co-operation and collaboration with American companies?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, British Aerospace has been involved in discussion with Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed. These are potentialities which must be considered before new projects can be decided upon, as well as discussions with our European partners.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals the Government have to assist the electronics industry.

The Government are already engaged in providing assistance to the electronics industry over a wide front and in developing further means of promoting its competitivity.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the industry can cope for itself, given a reasonable environment? Is he aware that leading industrialists have recently said that the major problem of the industry is recruiting and maintaining the best of its staff in the environment of the top tax rates in this country, which drive people abroad, as against the attractions of Government service, which offers a decent salary rate and safe, index-linked pensions?

I do not agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but when I met the industry's representatives on the last occasion they pointed out that, in competition with other industries, it is finding difficulty in obtaining the high quality personnel that it needs for both the production side and for research and development. I indicated my willingness to discuss the matter further with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to offer greater inducements to private and nationalised industries to provide new manufacturing jobs in the South Yorkshire districts where large pockets of high unemployment have existed over a number of years.

South Yorkshire already benefits from substantial Government assistance to industry, including selective financial assistance, regional development grants on buildings and advance factories. The latest advance factory programme, announced in November, included three units in Goldthorpe and one in Barnsley, which will help areas with high unemployment. The Government do not consider that an increase in the incentives already available would be justified.

Does my hon. Friend realise that, no matter what the Government have done over the past few years, there has been no help towards combating the large unemployment that exists in these pockets, especially in the Mex borough and district employment exchange area? If the present system cannot be of benefit in reducing unemployment in such areas, should the Government not consider South Yorkshire as a special development area? If that cannot be done, let us have mini-special development areas, such as Mexborough, where unemployment is very high.

All parts of the country are experiencing higher levels of unemployment than are acceptable because of the general economic situation, and that is undoubtedly influencing the position in South Yorkshire. But the incentives available have done something to counteract the situation. In Mexborough, for instance, there have been 12 projects which have received offers of regional selective assistance and are expected to create some 800 jobs. We are constantly examining ways to combat the level of unemployment. It depends to some degree on private investment by private enterprise in an economy which is largely private enterprise, and our incentives and inducements are an attempt to provide that investment.

Will the Under-Secretary agree that it is uncertain whether regional policies will do anything to help depressed areas such as South Yorkshire but that it is overwhelmingly certain that regional policies do a great deal of harm to once properous areas such as the West Midlands?

The regional policies have been undertaken in this country for many years, and certainly since the last serious depression in the 1930s. It was because of the very high levels of unemployment which occurred in the regions—for example, on Merseyside and Tyneside—that successive Governments have introduced regional policies. There is no question whatsoever that if there had not been a progressive regional policy developed and maintained by the present Government unemployment in those areas would have been a great deal worse than is complained of at present.

Did my hon. Friend see a BBC North programme on television last year called "No Jobs for Spanner", filmed in the South Kirkby area in my constituency, where young male unemployment is over 12·8 per cent.? It is all very well announcing advance factories but what is wanted is real assistance such as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright).

I understand very well the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), and this is a very serious matter, but the fact is that already very large and significant sums of assistance are being given. South Yorkshire was rightly included in the advance factory programme, and we shall have to see just how well these situations work out and whether private enterprise answers the call which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are making for investment to take place in order to provide jobs.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unfortunate that no Question has been reached on the subject of the steel industry and the great problems affecting the British Steel Corporation?

The hon. Gentleman's point of order should be raised at the end of Question Time. I point out to him that we reached Question No. 21.