asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the total of financial assistance, for which his Department is responsible, provided to private industry, since February 1974.

Financial assistance for which my Department is responsible to all sectors of industry in the period from 1 April 1974, including forecast expenditure in 1978–79, totalled £6,148 million at 1978 survey prices and is included in the programme detailed in table 2.4 of the Public Expenditure Survey—Cmnd. 7439. Records are not kept which distinguish in all instances between financial assistance to the public and private sectors, but assistance to the private sector during the period in question totalled approximately £5,000 million.

In view of the colossal sums of taxpayers' money which have been given to private industry, does the Minster agree that it is high time that we introduced much better procedures to secure public accountability and value for money? Are not much tougher regulations long overdue to cover top civil servants leaving Government Departments, including the Department of Industry, for more lucrative jobs in British industry which has received large handouts from the British taxpayer?

My hon. Friend will know that there are established procedures for monitoring such appointments. Obviously we wish to secure the best value for money. During the period in question investment projects worth £7,300 million were generated from the selective assistance, 235,000 jobs were created and 133,000 jobs were saved.

Is it possible to break down the total amounts? Can they be broken down into areas or even counties? If so, what is the amount for Norfolk or East Anglia?

I do not have such detailed information available at the moment. There is a regional breakdown. If the hon. Member indicates whether he wants the breakdown on a constituency, county or regional basis, I shall attempt to provide him with all the information possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how far British industry has been affected in the first six weeks of 1979 by employment and industrial disputes.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects the level of industrial production in the United Kingdom to return to normal following the recent industrial disruption.

On the basis of early reports from industry it is estimated that about 10 per cent. of normal manufacturing production may have been lost between 7 January and 10 February as a result of the transport disputes. It is difficult to say with certainty when industrial production will return to normal, but by the week ending 10 February production was back towards 95 per cent. of normal. I believe that production may rise above normal in the next few weeks as some of the lost production is made up.

The estimated number of lay-offs rose to a peak of some 235,000 around 30 January at the height of the disruption. The last estimate made was of 85,000 laid off on 5 February. It is believed that virtually all those who were temporarily laid off as a result of the transport disputes will by now have been recalled by their employers.

Since secondary picketing contributed to that 10 per cent. drop in production and to the 85,000 people who were laid off, why did not the Government tell the public from the start that secondary picketing amounted to a civil offence, instead of leaving it to a private individual to take the matter to court, after which the picketing melted away? Was not that an abdication of government?

No. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is, from the best of motives, over-simplifying the law relating to secondary picketing. We regret that 235,000 people were laid off. But that figure is far lower than the 1,135,000 who were laid off in January 1974.

Does the Minister agree that there was a sharp fall in production in that limited time? Does he agree that further falls in production cannot be ruled out if industrial disruption reoccurs when other large pay claims come through the system? Does he feel, in that context, that the concordat document is a sufficient commitment by the unions to having a higher rate of growth than the low rate that we have had in recent years?

I am sure that the hon. Member, as a member of a party that has advocated free collective bargaining, appreciates that the consequence of free collective bargaining is a substantial job loss. Indeed, during the period of Conservative control in 1972–73 one-third more days were lost because of disputes than we lost in the first four years of office.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the news today, and especially in the Financial Times, comment that we can easily make up the ground that was lost during the strike?

As I indicated in my initial answer, it is highly likely that much of the ground lost can be made up. But we should not delude ourselves that we can go in for bouts of national self-flagellation without creating damage and injury. There is bound to be loss of output and orders. I hope that members of all unions will bear in mind the difficulties and hardships that they may be imposing on their colleagues in their own or other sectors.

The question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to the normal level of industrial production. In the light of our levels of industrial production in this country compared with our international competitors, is the Minister satisfied that we are doing sufficiently well? If not, is it the fault of the Government, the unions or the British people?

We had a considerable debate on this last week. Both sides of the House agreed that it has for a long time been a shortcoming of the British economy that we are not able to attain the levels of productivity and growth attained by some of our competitors. One of the major objectives of the industrial strategy is to secure the competitive base to enable us to do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the present rates of return on capital employed in British industry.

The Government have repeatedly recognised that industry should become more profitable.

Is the Minister aware that in the first four years of this Government the return on capital was an average of 2 per cent., whereas the return on capital under the last four years of the Conservative Government was about 6 per cent.? Does not this prove that the mythical industrial strategy has failed?

The hon. Gentleman must turn his mind to the question that I posed to his right hon. and hon. Friends last week. If the industrial strategy has been a failure, why is investment so much higher now than when the Conservative Party was in office? Last year investment was 10 per cent. higher than in 1973 and 13 per cent. higher than in 1972. If investment by leasing is taken into account, last year investment was 19 per cent higher than in 1972 and 15 per cent. higher than in 1973.

Does the Minister recall that just over 10 days ago the Prime Minister said that he would do everything possible to put the needs of industry first? The next day the Government raised minimum lending rate by one and a half points, at a time when industry is already suffering from strikes. The most important help that the Government could give to British industry would be to cut their spending and borrowing.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a result of what happened, the Government were able to make considerable placings of gilts last week. This reduced the money supply. If he is preaching to the Labour Party about the level of public sector borrowing, I should point out to him that, during the last year of the Conservative Government in 1973, the public sector borrowing requirement was running at 6·6 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Last year it was running at 5·3 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet Sir Charles Villiers later this week.

Bearing in mind that the losses of the Corporation were £443 million in the year ended 1 April 1978, can the Minister tell the House what is his latest estimate of the loss of the Corporation for the year ending 1 April 1979? Secondly, can the Minister tell the House by how much he expects the manpower of the Corporation to fall during the next financial year, ending 1 April 1980?

At this stage I cannot give an estimate of what the annual loss is likely to be. The hon. Gentleman will know of the half-yearly figures that were given. We do not expect the second half-yearly figures to be as low as that in view of such developments as the road haulage strike. On his second point, demanning is a matter for the Corporation in consultation with the unions.

Can the Minister tell us what he estimates to be the effect on the Corporation of the recent loss of production through industrial disputes? There has been a lay-off of 26,000 people. What financial impact will this have, and how will it affect the Corporation's hope to break even by this time next year?

I sought an estimate on that from the Corporation. While the strike was taking place its tentative preliminary estimate was that it was costing £30 million. That figure may be high, but clearly it cannot have helped towards the break-even point.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Steel, will he impress on him the desirability of looking at the industry as a whole on any decisions that may have to be taken? Does he agree that the fullest consultation with the trade unions is imperative? Does he agree that there should be agreement, and not just consultation, on the future of this great industry?

Whenever the Corporation has proposals for a closure, the Government have required it to consult the Trades Union Congress steel committee and the local work force. We have asked the corporation to seek to obtain agreement, and trust that it will do so. In the past 12 months every closure has been on the basis of agreement. But I repeat to my hon. Friend that in the end the Trades Union Congress steel committee or the local work force cannot have a veto on decisions that the Corporation needs to make in order to achieve overall viability. If overall viability is not achieved, the steelworks in my hon. Friend's constituency will also be damaged.

Does it remain the Government's attitude that the Davignon plan offers the best method of securing the continuation of a viable European steel industry? If so, how does he explain the conduct of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 25 January in accepting the existence of the Davignon plan and then urging his hon. Friends to vote against it?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State cast a sensible vote. I would have followed him into the Division Lobby had I not been detached for other duties. The Davignon plan is a plan to sustain the steel market. At the Council of Ministers I have paid tribute to Viscount Davignon for that part of the arrangements. But it boils down to the Commission seeking to intervene in the right of the British Government to aid their own steel industry, and the resolution passed by this House is a resolution that I shall be taking to Brussels with me next month.

As the Opposition will not do so, will my right hon. Friend commend the Corporation for its continuing and determined efforts to achieve viability and its continuing and increasingly successful endeavour to promote the quality of production and increasingly to achieve efficiency in operation?

I wish that the Opposition would on this issue, if on no other, voice the tributes paid to Sir Charles Villiers by the Daily Express, which go somewhat beyond even the admirable tributes paid by my hon. Friend.

Has the Minister seen the press reports that suggest that Corby is to be closed before Shotton because Corby is not in a marginal seat? Will the Minister confirm the doctrine that he last week spelt out as applying to British Shipbuilders, namely, that decisions on closures were decisions for management and management alone?

I have never read such bunkum as the statement in The Observer yesterday on this issue. The Observer has a long record of accuracy on many matters, and I am astonished that in about three weeks it should have printed two totally innaccurate stories about the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to meet the chairman of British Leyland.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman and chief executive of British Leyland frequently.

Will the Minister impress upon the strike-happy sections of the British Leyland work force that their company is now tenth in the world league of car makers, producing less than 10 per cent. of the world's largest, and that, unless there is parity of production and parity of productivity, there can be no parity of payment?

The hon. Member's cheap jibes do not fit in very well with the votes cast by the workers in British Leyland in favour of industrial peace and of sustaining the future of that company. Although the performance of British Leyland leaves a very great deal to be desired, as is acknowledged on both sides, the company has for the past months been the market leader in this country.

Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ask the chairman of British Leyland to explain the failure of British Leyland to implement the 5 per cent. wage increase negotiated with national officials for the whole of Leyland but not implemented at the Long bridge plant—which was the principal cause of the recent strike at that factory? Is my right hon. Friend aware—and will he take it up with the chairman—that I have in my hand a document published by the British Leyland communications and public affairs department which, only five days before the strike started, congratulated the workers of British Leyland on having increased their production over the previous year?

I congratulate the workers at British Leyland on their decision to pursue their differences with the management in the proper area of negotiation and not by striking, as they very sensibly decided a few days ago.

Will the Minister say whether the corporate plan is yet with him? Has it been revised as a result of the Longbridge strike? Will he assure the House that the Longbridge work force will be informed of any reduction in output targets resulting from that episode—that not just the shop stewards but the work force will be told what the new targets are?

As I pointed out in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) the other day, I attach the greatest possible importance to proper consultation with the work force and proper information for the work force on all these matters. On the other hand, I must point out—and that is why I hope we shall not have a series of jibes against the work force across the Floor of the House—that the work force, including the work force at Longbridge, having considered the consequencies of industrial action, decided that they preferred to pursue their problems through negotiation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome very much his condemnation of the cheap jibes from the other side of the Chamber against workers in my constituency in the car industry and in other constituencies? Is he aware, further, that the workers in my constituency have a record of industrial relations second to none? Will he also tell the management of British Leyland that brinkmanship in any circumstances at present will do no good to the industry which they serve?

It is a great pity, bearing in mind that the Opposition have been prating for weeks now about the importance of votes and ballots among workers, that when workers vote and vote for industrial peace there are no words from the Opposition complimenting those workers but just cheap attacks upon them. That is not the way in which we shall achieve industrial peace.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to my supplementary question about the corporate plan, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the leave of the House at the earliest possible moment to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he plans to meet representatives of the computer industry.

My colleagues and I meet representatives of the leading companies from time to time and keep in close touch with the activities of the computer sector working party. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for further meetings.

What lead is the hon. Gentleman's Department giving in the application of labour-saving computer techniques? When he next meets representatives of the industry, will he tell them what Civil Service jobs have been abolished in the process?

Civil Service jobs, of course, are not primarily a responsibility of my Department. But, in terms of the activities of my Department, I can tell the hon. Member that under various industry assistance schemes about £3·3 million has either been given or is under discussion and that, as part of more general schemes of support for the computer industry, about £4·5 million is currently programmed.

In view of the Minister's reply that only £7 million has been committed of the £400 million which the Government gave us before Christmas as their target for expenditure over the next four years, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time his Department got a move on?

I do not think the hon. Member can quite add up. It comes to nearly £8 million. The £400 million, of course, is a package of total support for the whole of the microelectronics industry. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the support being given to the computer industry by my Department and by the NEB, he will see that it is much more substantial than that.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the level of industrial investment during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what was the com parable figure for the previous 12-month period.

Total investment by manufacturing industry in the 12 months ending September 1978 is estimated at £3,780 million at 1975 prices, 8 per cent. above the level of £3,496 million in the previous 12 months.

What are the Government doing to increase the demand for the products of industry without which industrial investment will never rise to the level we need?

To begin with, the fact that investment is increasing is an indication that industry is satisfied that there are adequate measures to ensure that there is demand for its products. Within the industrial strategy, much of the attention in the relevant sectors is being given to closer relationships between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers and between manufacturers which compete in the same products so that each compliments each other's range instead of drawing in imports of, say, domestic electrical appliances from Italy to supplement ranges.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he is proposing to take to aid the Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company.

We are now considering a modified proposal from KME.

Will my right hon. Friend be generous in considering what aid should be given to KME, in view of the fact that earlier today he said that £6,000 million had been given to private enterprise since 1974? This is an attempt at a workers' co-operative in an area of high unemployment, and it should be given every sympathy by the Government.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we have given financial support to KME on four separate occasions. There was a grant when it was set up. My right hon. Friend and I gave it a further grant. It has had temporary employment subsidy. I provided interim finance while the working party was in operation. My hon. Friend will also know that the working party was set up at the request of the co-operative on the strict undertaking that it would abide by the recommendations of that working party. It is to be regretted that, substantially because of action on the part of certain people within the co-operative, that recommendation was never allowed to be implemented.

Is the Minister aware that most people who have followed the sad drama of Kirkby unreservedly condemn Ministers for having given nearly £5 million worth of aid, which has gone straight down the drain, against the advice on almost every occasion of the Industrial Development Advisory Board made up of employers and trade unionists? I ask him not to repeat this folly and send more money down that drain.

The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that even the IDAB made the point in rejecting one of the co-operative's propositions that it had to bear in mind the difficulties within that locality in employment terms. This is a matter which the Government have also had to take into account. We have tried to consider each application on its merits as required under the Industry Act. The current application will be considered on the same basis.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in fact the money has not gone down the drain? If this support had not been given to KME workers. they would have been on the dole in an area with 100,000 unemployed. That would have meant paying out unemployment and other benefits to those workers. May I remind my right hon. Friend that there is a PAC report which indicates that with certain changes the co-operative can be made profitable and that the workers have worked exceedingly hard in extremely difficult circumstances? Instead of everyone always criticising them, they need assistance and management expertise. At present, the Opposition are constantly knocking workers who are doing their best in a difficult situation.

When I went, at the request of the directors of the co-operative, to speak to the workers, other than for perhaps three or four people on whom understandably the Press and television concentrated, the impression which came over to me very strongly was one of people who desperately wanted to work. One respects that wish. Our aim is to ensure that whatever work is provided there is provided on a long-term viable basis. It would not do a service to the work force in Kirkby if we kept propping up projects which were not properly considered and properly conceived. I will still consider financial support for a project which offers long-term viability.

Will the Minister confirm that the money that has gone to Kirkby is included in the sum of £600 million or so of financial assistance to private industry? Does he not agree that most of the money which goes as so-called assistance to industry goes for the same reason that this money was given to Kirkby—that is, to provide jobs in areas where people have resolutely refused to cooperate with management in making industry productive enough to stand on its own feet?

The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) could not be further from the truth—

He is a squalid little man.

Nearly all the projects which come to me—many brought and supported by Conservative Members concerning factories in their constituencies—require considerable rationalisation and restructuring. I think, for example, of the textile and footwear industries where fin- ancial support has been given with an acceptance by trades unions and management that restructuring and higher productivity with, if necessary, the shedding of manpower, are an essential part of ensuring the long-term viability of the industry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we are used to robust debate in the House. Nobody takes exception to that. However, may I ask you to say whether you think that the expression used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was in order? My hon. Friend made a comment that the hon. Gentleman did not like. The hon. Gentleman replied that my hon. Friend was wallowing in vomit. Will you, Mr. Speaker, rule that that is going too far, even taking into account the language that we sometimes use in the House?

Order. There are often noises below the Gangway which I am unable properly to hear. That is not for lack of hearing. It is that nobody in this place can hear everything that is said below the Gangway. I know how fortunate I am. I know that complimentary—and other—remarks are exchanged there.

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that it behoves all of us to remember that we are the highest court in the land, that we are the Mother of Parliaments and that we should behave according to the high office that we are privileged to hold.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of British Shipbuilders.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly.

The next time that the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Shipbuilders will he ask whether the corporation will publish its proposals for manpower cuts in the industry? If it is true that these cuts have been announced to the trade unions concerned, does the Minister not think that Parliament is also entitled to that information?

The corporate plan, which has been put forward by British Shipbuilders to the Government, is being carefully considered. We will make our conclusions known at the appropriate time. The trade unions are being consulted on the corporate plan in accordance with the duty laid on British Shipbuilders by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. By consulting the trade unions British Shipbuilders is obeying the law.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether British Shipbuilders is now meeting an increased proportion of British orders?

The problem is that scarcely any orders are coming forward from British ship owners or anyone else. However, without the intervention fund we would have lost many orders which have come from British ship owners but which otherwise would have gone abroad, almost certainly to the Far East.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman will he tell him how the Government justify providing Vietnam with ships at favourable or subsidised rates when the Vietnamese Government are profiteering from a disgraceful traffic in refugees who are put into countries which are known to be too humane to refuse them entry?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development made a statement about the ships for Vietnam last week. If the hon. Member quarrels, in regard to the provision of overseas aid, with having those ships built in Sunderland, he had better have a conversation with the Opposition's favourite shipbuilder Mr. Derek Kimber who pressed the Government very hard for these aid terms.

Are British Shipbuilders able to offer the same kind of credit that Japan was able to offer Pakistan for a large order for six ships, namely, 100 per cent. credit payable over 30 years?

Since we have hopes of Pakistan, I do not think that I had better enter into any controversy on that issue.

Will the Minister of State assure the House that his own well known personal and political dislike of Mr. Christopher Bailey will not stand in the way of the possible sale of Falmouth Ship Repair to private enterprise? If some jobs can be saved in this way, would it not be wise to consider it?

Since I have never met Mr. Christopher Bailey, it is impossible for me to entertain any particular view of him one way or the other. On the other hand, if Mr. Bailey wishes to make a proposal of genuine quality and viability, British Shipbuilders will consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to meet the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman very frequently.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman will he ask him when the board proposes to pay a dividend?

If the hon. Member genuinely wants my right hon. Friend to put that question to the chairman, my right hon. Friend, when he returns from China, will think about it.

Is my right hon. Friend able to make a further statement following the exchange at Question Time on 15 January regarding the allegations about Allied Investments, apropos the NEB? Has he spoken to the chairman about the matter since then? If he has, has the name of the company Project Developments come to hand? That is the company that allegedly was used for the transfer of £3 million of bribes from Sir Richard Marsh's company to Saudi Arabian sources in order to get that order before the NEB took the company over.

As I undertook when the House discussed this matter, I communicated with the chairman of the NEB. I have had a reply from Sir Leslie Murphy in which he reiterated the assurances he gave me. I know that my hon. Friend will accept that the NEB, having twice reiterated those assurances, would not wish to move from that position. I repeat what I have said before. Anyone who feels, as a result of the various allegations that have been made, that his own reputation has been traduced has remedies available to him.

I thank my right hon. Friend for holding the conversations to which he has referred, but is he aware that the situation is not yet satisfactory? The next time he has conversations about Allied Investments and the other companies involved, will he tell the NEB that it is not sensible to concentrate so much investment of medical exports of this kind in one or two Gulf States where there is a real danger following what has happened in Iran? If we are seriously entering the business of medical exports, at least our investments should be spread rather more widely.

I am sure that by now the NEB has come to study very carefully all the exchanges in the House on these matters.

Does the Minister of State recognise that Question Time is the time for giving information to the House of Commons? Will he therefore treat the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) seriously? The Minister of State is responsible, after the Secretary of State, for the NEB. When will the Board pay a dividend on the thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that have been put into it? It is a simple question.

I had hoped that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) was going to take the opportunity of his supplementary question to apologise to Lord Stokes for the wanton way in which he traduced his reputation in this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list those investment projects valued at £1 million or more which are currently under way or which have been completed during the last five years in the Sheffield or Rotherham areas of the British Steel Corporation.

There are 44 such projects, costing in all £337 million at outturn prices. I am arranging for the Corporation to supply my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) with details.

In view of those commendable and already justified investments, will my hon. Friend ensure that the opportunity they provide is not diminished by the unreasonable level of special steel import penetration that we continue to experience? Does he agree that urgent and emphatic action is needed in the interest both of the regions and the nation?

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the substantial achievements of the steelworks in the Sheffield area. We have acknowledged the continuing problem of special steel imports. I hope that my hon. Friend will take cognisance of the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 24 January which showed that in some sectors of that market import penetration is no longer increasing. I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in continuing contact with Commissioner Davignon on this matter.

When the chairman of the British Steel Corporation replies, will the Minister ensure that the reply is deposited in the House of Commons or is printed in Hansard? Will the Minister indicate the extent to which investment in Sheffield has given and will give the best return on capital? Will he indicate the extent to which funds have been provided by the European Investment Bank, the European Coal and Steel Community and other Community sources?

I shall certainly arrange for this reply to be placed in the Library. I shall do my best to ensure that the other information to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) has referred is included. I refer, also, to the offer that my Department has made to the special steels section of the industry of a section 8 Industry Act scheme to help that section of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has had concerning the future of the British aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement.

I regularly meet the chairmen of the publicly owned aerospace corporations, and others, to discuss a wide range of matters affecting the future of the industry.

As regards sales of military aircraft by British Aerospace, including the Harrier, will the Minister of State confirm that he is not unduly influenced by the Morning Star, by the Kremlin or by the Tribune group, all of which are singing the same song on this matter, but that his main concern is the strategic interest of NATO combined with the commercial interests of both British Aerospace and the British taxpayer? Will he take it from me that the shop stewards at BAC Hurn fully support Her Majesty's Government in a determination to proceed with the sale of Harriers to China?

I do not know what that was all about. It was the usual load of vituperative pseudo-rhetoric which we get from the hon. Gentleman, when I was in fact hoping that we should have from him a good question on Concorde, which I was all prepared to answer. On the question of the sales of Harrier, I have nothing to add to the statement made in the House last month by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

That is not good enough. After the invasion of Vietnam by China this weekend, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to exclude from his negotiations in Peking the supply of military goods to China and confine himself, as America and Germany have done, to non-military goods? Would it not be shameful if at this moment, when the United Nations are asking for restraint, we heightened the war danger not only in the Far East but perhaps in the whole world by acting as merchants of death?

I recognise the strong and sincere feelings which have motivated my hon. Friend on all these matters over many years. He has a consistent record of opposition to sales of military weapons, and the whole House respects him for that. Nevertheless, I stand on the statement on this issue made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Does the Minister realise, however, that there is considerable concern and that there is a developing pressure group from certain areas—they may be described as the extreme Left—which are trying hard to suggest that the Harrier order should not be proceeded with? Will the right hon. Gentleman take well on board that it is my belief that the majority of the British people would wish to see this magnificent British aircraft able to be sold overseas, and that an order from and delivered to the Chinese could well stimulate a great deal more orders from overseas countries throughout the world?

I know that the hon. Gentleman does not join many of his hon. Friends in the cheap way in which some of them approach these matters, and he is endeavouring to speak constructively. I know also that he will accept that some label of "extreme Left" or other is not to be attached to people who for sincere conscientious reasons have long opposed sales of military weapons to any country for any reason. Nevertheless, this Government have stated a policy on this issue, and that is their policy.

Although I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), may I ask my right hon. Friend another question? What discussions has he had with Lucas Aerospace in relation to Merseyside, and can he say what will happen on Merseyside, especially in view of the possible forthcoming closure of the Victoria works?

Last Wednesday I took the chair at a tripartite meeting of representatives of the Government, unions—including members of the combine cooperative committee—and management of Lucas Aerospace at which we discussed the future development plans of Lucas Aerospace. A most important agreement was reached which, among other things, included a decision that Lucas Aerospace would proceed immediately with the construction of new factories at Huyton and Bradford, that the new factory at Huyton would employ 800 instead of 500 as originally proposed, that there would be no compulsory redundancies at Bradford and no compulsory redundancies at Liverpool in the next two years, that a group would be set up to consider the possible development of some of the alternative products proposed by the combine co-operative, and that if this group came up with positive recommendations Lucas Industries would use its best endeavours to manufacture those products on Merseyside so as to create or preserve jobs there. I hope that the House will agree that this is a useful and promising outcome of these meetings, and I shall arrange to publish in the Official Report the agreement which was reached after the meeting last Wednesday.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Aerospace has announced that more than half the contracts for the 146 airliner project are being let to foreign companies? Is it the wish of his Department that taxpayers' money should be used to keep foreign workers employed or to keep our workers employed?

When I announced last summer that the 146 would go ahead—of course, it went ahead only because of nationalisation—I said that British Aerospace would look to the possibility of collaboration with overseas partners in the manufacture of this aircraft. British Aerospace has been successful in finding partners, and, of course, that assists the project. If it assists the project, it therefore assists in providing jobs, including for example, jobs at Filton and Hatfield.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose to seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment but, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I am sorry to say, I propose to raise it under Standing Order No. 9.

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to set a precedent so that everyone will be rising to give me notice of applications under Standing Order No. 9. However, I understand the message which has been conveyed.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the British Council of Productivity Associations.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the British Council of Productivity Associations from time to time, but he has no plans for a further meeting in the near future. My right hon. Friend will, however, be speaking at a British Council of Productivity Associations conference on the industrial strategy and efficiency in production at Leeds Castle in April.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he remind him of this country's very low industrial production compared with other industrial countries—some 1 per cent. total improvement over the next five years—and will he ask him whether there is any correlation between that and the fact that we have the highest personal taxation of the majority of industrial nations?

The hon. Gentleman is confusing production and productivity. As regards production, there were only three European countries last year which had a faster rate of growth of output. As regards productivity—I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures and I ask him to note them carefully—the increase in output per person employed in industrial production between 1975 and the second quarter of 1978 was 13 per cent., and between the fourth quarter of 1977 and the second quarter of 1978 the increase was 4·5 per cent. That is an increase in productivity of which we should be proud.

In any case, will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Page) that his basic premise is wrong because we do not have the highest level of personal taxation? Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not know what he means when he refers to personal taxation, but would my hon. Friend agree with him if he is advocating that there should be a greater amount of taxation borne by large companies?

My hon. Friend poses a very interesting question.

Answer it.

I am about to answer it if I am only given time. If taxation incentives of the kind for which the hon. Gentleman was asking were put into practice, I can only cite what happened on the last occasion, that is, between 1971 and 1974, when they did not give the sort of investment and output effort which the hon. Gentleman imagines. In fact, it went into office blocks and property speculation.

Is the Minister aware that at the meeting at Leeds Castle to which he has referred the other speakers will include the director-general of the NEDO, the president of the CBI and—believe it or not—myself? Will the Minister draw to the Secretary of State's attention the opportunity of speaking to the chairman of the BCPA then regarding the valuable work which the council does in promoting productivity throughout all sections of industry, and on both sides of the shop floor, and will he seek to persuade his right hon. Friend that perhaps some grant from the Government could again be extended to this very valuable body?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not change his mind when he hears that the hon. Gentleman is speaking. My right hon. Friend spoke at the BCPA annual conference last year and that is evidence that we regard the association and its work as important. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.