asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent representations he has received on the position concerning the supply of scrap metal in the steel industry, particularly affecting the steel making areas of South Yorkshire; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the latest position in regard to the supply of scrap to the British steel industry.

Private sector steelmakers have, in general, been obtaining adequate supplies but I am aware that supplies of scrap to the British Steel Corporation have been falling well short of requirements in past weeks; there are particular shortages in the Sheffield area which have restricted production in BSC steelmaking plant there. The procurement of raw materials is the responsibility of the corporation, but I am advised that BSC is doing everything possible to improve scrap supplies, including a substantial increase in its purchase price.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, just when the country was emerging from the difficulties and after-math of the three-day working week and steel was most needed, the shortage of scrap in South Yorkshire led to a reduction in the volume of steel production? Secondly, is he further aware that it has been impossible to persuade the British Steel Corporation to adopt a policy of long-term stocking of steel to take care of fluctuations in demand in the steel industry? Thirdly, will he undertake to review the position with a view to advising the BSC to become much more involved in both the control and possibly the ownership of the scrap supply industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in what he has said about the three-day week. It caused a great problem in scrap supplies. The situation has, however, eased. I shall take into consideration what my hon. Friend said on the other two points and, if necessary, convey his remarks to the British Steel Corporation.

Is it not necessary to make sure that the number of arc furnaces Is balanced by the availability of blast furnace production so that over a period enough scrap is produced? Will the hon. Gentleman consider this aspect?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and remind my hon. Friend the Minister of State that in certain works production has been reduced to less than two-thirds capacity as a result of scrap shortage. Does he not feel that there have been quite sufficient mini-mill developments and electric are furnace developments? Therefore, will he look at this matter with urgency and, in conjunction with the British Steel Corporation, make sure that scrap supplies flow smoothly and that we have adequate iron-making capacity?

It is true that scrap became very short in supply. It is expected that because the BSC can now pay higher prices it will attract scrap more than it did in the past. The question of mini-steel mills is at present under discussion with the corporation.

Will the Minister make it clear that the scrap industry had electricity available on five days a week during the fuel emergency if it required it? What is he doing about the position which will arise at the end of December when there will be no protection for the steel makers and the industry will therefore be able to charge whatever prices it likes? Finally, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the differential between ourselves and Europe for ordinary destructor bundles?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had bettter tell the House about the question of destructor bundles.

The hon. Gentleman is the Minister.

The hon. Member is trying to avoid his party's responsibilities when it was in office. He is aware that industry was put on a three-day week, and because of that the engineering industry, which produces the scrap, could not produce it.

Answer the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the total figure for the annual capital investment programmes for 1973 and 1974 of the large British manufacturing and utility companies with a United Kingdom turnover in excess of £50 million a year.

I am afraid that information is not available in the form requested, but the recent CBI survey shows that larger firms are somewhat more optimistic than industry as a whole.

My Question refers to the 180 major companies which the Secretary of State was said in an interview in the Sunday Times two weeks ago to be intending to bring into a system of public accountability by virtue of a series of planning agreements. Will he consider the serious effect on the forward plans of those major companies as a result of this threat of a great intrusion by the State into their affairs?

If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the problem to which he has drawn attention in his supplementary question, he will find that the anxiety which Members on both sides of the House have shared over the years is that the forward plans of leading companies have been inadequate to maintain Britain's position as a major industrial power and there has been a decline in investment relative to other countries. Therefore, far from making it more difficult, one would be likely to identify areas of further growth.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the CBI, which, no doubt will be able to tell him what will be the effect on the investment plans of those companies of his right hon. Friend's Budget? Will he take advice from the CBI rather than exclusively from certain sections of the trade union movement which advise him or give him his orders?

As the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the previous Government, which presided over a disastrous investment record during their period in office, I certainly would not take any advice from him.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what meetings he has had with the management of British Leyland; and whether he has any plans for a future meeting.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the British motor vehicle manufacturers industry on the present state of the industry and future prospects; and if he will make a statement.

There are frequent meetings between Ministers and senior officials of my Department and representatives of the motor industry, including British Leyland, and I have myself recently met the President of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. British Leyland and General Motors.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that no request for finance has been made by British Leyland and that Press reports that the Government were planning an injection of between £50 million and £70 million capital into that company were wrong? Will he also confirm that at the meeting with the President of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to which he referred the President emphasised that the lack of clarification of the Government's plans and especially the lack of clarification on nationalisation were causing immense uncertainty in the motor industry?

I certainly confirm that the Press reports were inaccurate, but my impression is that the industry is glad that there is opportunity for consultation throughout. That is derived from the fact that we were quite open in making clear our initial intentions, and we invited consultation before we published our proposals.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect Lord Stokes's comparison between the capital involved in a huge manufacturing industry employing 200,000 people and the capital involved in a single property?

I recollect that under the previous Government the values in our society were so organised that this major manufacturing capability, with a major export record and employing many hundreds of thousands of people, was valued less than property on which so much speculative effort was based.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in view of the serious situation of the industry his answer is far too easy going? If his Department is not prepared to do more than that, will he undertake to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer ways in which the Government might make the purchase price of a motor vehicle lower, even if the cost of operating a motor car continues to be extremely high and increasing? For example, why not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the car tax?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I should put on record that the motor industry suffered more from the disaster of the three-day working week than did almost any other industry and that the responsibility for most, if not all, of its problems stems from the policy of my predecessor.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that under the previous Government British Leyland announced the biggest investment programme in the history of the British motor industry?

Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that in the culminating period in which he had stewardship for the industry he did more damage to the motor industry than had ever been done by any other Minister in history.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his consideration of measures to reduce the level of unemployment in areas of greatest need, including the Northern Region.

As I said on 29th April in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), we intend to introduce a new Industry Bill to give us wider powers to promote industrial expansion. Meanwhile in the assisted areas, including the Northern region, we shall continue to apply the system of incentives contained in the Industry Act 1972.—[Vol. 872, c. 347–8. ]

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be widely welcomed in the Northern Region? Is he further aware that the level of unemployment is still far too high and that a great deal more needs to be done if we are to get the right balance of job opportunities in the region?

I entirely agree that the level of unemployment in the Northern Region is far too high. A great deal needs to be done, and that is why the Government are working hard on the National Enterprise Board and the planning agreements which we feel will make a clear contribution towards regional policy.

Is it the Minister's view that the Industry Bill will contain broad powers of acquisition, and does he intend to grab shares in private companies?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that Sections 7 and 8 of the 1972 Act provide for the possibility of the acquisition of shares. The hon. Gentleman should know his own Government's legislation. As soon as the details are available and the policies are worked out, an announcement will be made in the House.

Will the Industry Bill be used to identify the areas of growth to which the Secretary of State referred, and will those areas of growth include Beagle Aircraft, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and Triumph Motor Cycles?

The hon. Gentleman must not continue with the Government the argument he had with his hon. Friends. I think that the Conservative Government were fully behind what was done for the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. The hon. Gentleman must await the announcement in the House of the details.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has any immediate plans for nationalising the china clay industry.

No, Sir.

If the hon. Gentleman has no immediate plans, may I take it that he has also no long-term plans and that he is, therefore, discontinuing the Labour Party policy announced in its published documents of nationalisation of the country's natural mineral resources?

A former Leader of the House in reply to questions of that kind used to say "Not next week". As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry said in the debate on the Loyal Address, we are establishing a National Enterprise Board. That will be one of the matters to be covered by the Industry Bill which we shall bring before the House in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what representations he has received from British industry about the Government's policy on renegotiation of the Common Market agreement.

I have received views from several representative bodies including trade unions and the CBI.

Will the Secretary of State made clear to industrialists that the industrial view is only one of many factors that have to be considered in renegotiation and that the real issue is whether or not we move towards a federal Europe? Will he at the same time say to the European Movement that if it continues to publish totally misleading economic facts about Britain and the Common Market the Government will withdraw its subsidy?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to take responsibility either for the CBI or for the European Movement, which I can do in neither case. The great change as between the previous Government and the present Government is that our intention is that the British people shall have the final say through the ballot box, and that is an argument that finds wide acceptance throughout the country.

Does my right hon. Friend detect less optimism than there used to be in the representations from the CBI?

It is not for me to try to compare the CBI's representations to the previous Government with its representations to the present Government. It is broadly true that the CBI in coming to us was less optimistic as a result of its experience in previous years.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when it is estimated that the known world resources of uranium, tungsten, copper, lead, zinc, tin, gold, silver and platinum will be exhausted.

Estimates vary according to assumptions about the economic potential of deposits, world demand and other factors. Many studies have been made of the long-term availability of raw materials. I would refer the hon. Member particularly to recent studies published by the United Kingdom Institute of Geological Sciences, the United States Bureau of Mines and the United States Geological Survey.

Is it not the fact that at the present rates of consumption the known resources of these minerals which can be mined by today's techniques are likely to be exhausted by the end of the century? Is there not a case for international action to deal with the problems that are likely to arise thereafter?

The hon. Gentleman must know that this is a complex subject. For example, I am informed that Sir Kingsley Dunham, the Director of the Institute of Geological Sciences, said that there were industrial data in 1948 which indicated that there were lead deposits sufficient for only 26 years ahead. Today the United States Bureau of Mines says that there are sufficient deposits for 27 years ahead. That is an indication of the complexity of the situation. In the few weeks available to me I have not yet made up my mind which indication is correct.

Do not such facts support the case which some of us have been making in Ten-Minute Bills and in other ways for the recycling of materials?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an urgent need for reclamation and for recycling.

Speculation!

If Conservative Members can contain themselves, I was about to tell the House that there is a real need for us to go ahead with these methods and that my hon. Friend made a valid point.

Where will the United Kingdom obtain its copper if the Labour Government continue their spurious quarrel with the Government of Chile? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that since we depend largely on the Chileans for supplies of copper to keep our industries going, it is the Government's duty to keep men in employment rather than to select a quarrel the result of which could be to cut off our copper supplies?

That is a very interesting supplementary question indeed. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the whole question is still under review.

Despite the fact that my hon. Friend has been in office for only a comparatively short time—and we hope he will continue in that office—does he not accept that these resources are finite and that, whatever might be said about the unreliability of statistics, in a number of years' time this country might be facing shortages of materials against which the present shortage of oil will be regarded as comparatively minor? Does he not agree that the Labour Government are rather better situated than were their Conservative predecessors to initiate international action in this regard?

Naturally I agree that the Labour Government are in a better situation to expedite action than were our Conservative predecessors. I hope I have not given the impression that this is not a matter of the greatest importance, because of course it is. Anybody who is not serious about this matter must get to grips with the facts of life. The fact is that we are facing a difficulty and there is a need for international discussions. Incidentally, there is a much greater need for us to eliminate waste in this country, and I am certain that there must be recyling on a much wider scale than has been the case in recent years.

In view of the considerable anxiety about the future of copper supplies, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has advised his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the importance of Chilean copper supplies to this country?

The right hon. Gentleman knows the advice I have given to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much has been paid in all forms of subsidy to private industry in the years 1970 to 1973; and if he will make a statement.

About £3,000 million, in net terms, over the four years to March 1974.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has shown us only the title of the book carrying the information that £3,000 million is going out in subsidies and that what Labour Members and the Labour movement are really concerned about is that he should open the book? Will he indicate where that £3,000 million went and perhaps produce a pamphlet showing precisely where it went? Will he send it to Aims of Industry so that its members may know how much of their dividends—free enterprise dividends—have come out of workers' pay packets?

The figures can be broken down in two ways: first in terms of the objectives which they were designed to serve—regional in respect of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries and so on—and secondly in respect of the firms to which the money went. In the study the figures are not dissembled in that form, but I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that it is proper that Parliament and the public should know to whom taxpayers' money is going. That would contribute to a wider understanding of some of the policy changes that now have to be made.

May I support the hon. Member's plea for fuller and more information about where the £3,000 million has gone? Does not the Secretary of State agree that it all ended in the pockets of the wage earner and that it represents a breakdown of industrial discipline?

Without attempting, in answer to a supplementary question, to assent to the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, I agree that we ought to make public the names of the firms to which the money went. That would generally be regarded as an act of enlightenment which would help us in the pursuit of our discussions.

In view of the enormous sums involved, during the four years, will my right hon. Friend say what precisely is meant by "private enterprise"?

It is a definition that I shall not attempt to give in an answer to a supplementary question, but I think it will be helpful to those who present the case for private or free enterprise to see the extent to which all Governments have supported them in maintaining their idea that they were either private or free.

May I ask whether, in the interests of an enlightened Parliament and country, the right hon. Gentleman feels that his speech in Bristol on May Day contributed anything to this exercise? It was a speech in which he drew from his figures the most fraudulent illustrations: namely, that haif the corporation tax paid by all companies was effectively paid by the Government in grant and, furthermore, that half the dividends received by shareholders likewise came from Government grant. Was that not a complete distortion of the situation?

The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the text of what I said. I gave the broad equivalence. I was not implying from the method of Government support that there was a direct return—[ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Press release which I put out, and which I followed, he will see that what I said was neither fraudulent nor misleading. I was giving general figures about the amount of public support. I said that it would be helpful to people to have the information.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what consultations he is having with both sides of industry in the preparation of his Industry Bill.

The preparatory work is taking account of views expressed by trade unionists and industrialists. When the Government's proposals are published, there will be full consultation with all those concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the view attributed to him that he was seeking to acquire blanket power to take equity positions in companies without reference to Parliament on each occasion when those powers are used? Is he aware that the Companies Act 1972 provides power to take equity positions only with the consent of the companies concerned?

I am fully aware of the provisions in the existing legislation. I am also aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have previously said about a full legislative process. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is merit—indeed great merit—in opening these issues to public consultation even before the Government have finally produced their Green Paper. It is my desire, as I made clear in my remarks, in the debate on the Queen's Speech, that these proposals should be subjected at every stage from now on to the most detailed scrutiny and joint examination.

In the preparatory work on the vitally important Industry Bill, may I ask whether due consideration will be paid to the renegotiation of Britain's entry into the EEC as this is bound to affect the preparation of that legislation?

I agree with my hon. Friend This morning I had a discussion with M Ortoli, the President of the Commission, and much of it centred on the development of our industrial policy and developments within the Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking actively to promote the development of Concorde.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to ensure that the United Kingdom contribution to the development of supersonic air travel is maintained; and if he will make a statement about how this compares with similar work being carried out in the United States of America and the USSR.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on his discussions concerning the Concorde project.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next proposes to visit Filton.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the Concorde project.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the current state of the negotiations he has undertaken on the Concorde project.

The Government are pressing ahead with their review of the project and discussions are continuing with all interested parties, including the workers at Filton, which I visited on 20th March.

In the meantime the Government are supporting the manufacturers' efforts to put the aircraft into service at the earliest practicable date. Concorde and the TU144 are at similar stages of develop- ment. Current work in the United States is confined to basic research into various aspects of supersonic design and travel.

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman might say about his support for the company and the workers, he must be aware that the workers in all the factories producing the Concorde are becoming bitter and disillusioned about the Government's attitude, especially about his own failure to champion their cause, which he was so keen to do when he was in opposition. Will he say whether he sees any reason why these workers should not have taken note of his behaviour in the case of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and does he not feel that they would be justified in behaving in the same way in order to protect their jobs and their future?

I reject that entirely. For the first time the workers in the aircraft industry have been told the truth, which was concealed from them by the previous Government. They have also had the opportunity of submitting their representations in detail, which are now Cabinet papers for examination by Ministers who have to make the review. I do not think that the delay has caused anxiety, because the French workers know as well as I do and as well as the hon. Gentleman does that during the French presidential election it was not possible to proceed with the pattern of discussions with French Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

The latter part of my right hon. Friend's answer will be welcome because it suggests that the work will continue. In his cost benefit analysis, will he bear in mind the important consideration of the smaller companies which depend on the Concorde and its production, and will he be making a statement before the Spring Recess?

As for the date of the statement, the timetable depends on our being able to resume discussions with French Ministers. As to my hon. Friend's first point about the interests of firms making components and other parts of the Concorde, I have had a number of letters from them and all the representations made by workers and industrialists are going forward to Ministers for their examination. There has never been in any major technical decision taken in this country such an atmosphere of openness before the final decisions come to be taken.

Just what are the Government playing at? Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that supersonic air travel is inevitable and that British industry already is making a leading contribution towards it. Why do not the Government remove this damaging uncertainty from the Anglo-French Concorde and give their wholehearted support to the project?

The right hon. Gentleman seeks to separate the project from the economic circumstances in which it was envisaged and continued. I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member—and certainly not the Public Accounts Committee, which has examined and reported many times on the project—will expect any Government to reach a conclusion guided solely by the considerations mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's question. In saying that, I think that I have the support not only of the House but also that of those working on the project itself.

In view of the encouraging noises coming from Persia about possible confirmation of the order for that country, and in view of recent events in the aero-engine industry concerning deliveries of engines to other countries, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to consult Mr. Scanlon and get his permission for BAC and Sud to make sales to countries overseas, or will he wait and allow Mr. Scanlon to wreck the aircraft industry when he is ready to do so? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do something about these orders?

The hon. Gentleman reveals his total ignorance of the productive process if he believes that the Concorde could ever have got out of the hangar without the work of the engineers who themselves elected Mr. Scanlon and their president. It was a very stupid remark for the hon. Gentleman to make.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers have more confidence in the future of the Concorde as a result of the information given in the eight weeks during which he has been in control of the industry than in the three years before he took office? Will he assure the House that he will not only take into account the strong representations made by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and others about the future of the Concorde but bear in mind possible policy predictions, which may follow from the Government's defence review, because if cuts are made in defence projects, civil projects such as the Concorde will have an increasing importance?

It is true that both industrialists and trade unionists who have made representations have welcomed the openness and made their representations very clear so that Ministers might consider them. Although the defence review, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, has not yet been completed, we have to see all these problems against wider perspectives. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this matter.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's undertakings earlier this year when he was seeking re-election, may I ask whether the proposed passenger flights across the Atlantic this summer by Concorde will have the Government's backing? Is it not time that the Government put the world's airlines on notice that the Concorde will be flying by the end of next year for BOAC and Air France?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the problems of transatlantic flights do not lend themselves to resolution in this country alone. There has to be approval by the Federal Aviation Authority. An environmental impact statement has to be made to which objection can be raised within a 60-day period. In Canada the fact that elections are pending has raised difficulties in the discussions which have gone on there. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the British Government will look favourably upon these flights. It would be wrong to imply that we are trying to prevent them.

Reverting to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that some of us who are sensitive to Treasury considerations and to the fact that a major project may have to be cancelled wonder why, if it comes to a choice, we should not settle on the MRCA, even though it has been overtaken by SAM missile technology, rather than the Concorde?

My hon. Friend is inviting me to step into the shoes of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence in making a choice, which it does not fall to me to make. We are reviewing a project in which a great deal of effort, money and skill has been spent, and we should confine ourselves to doing that and not introduce other considerations.

Do the Government, or that faction to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, agree with the latest French assessment that the sale price of the Concorde has doubled in the past three years, even on the unlikely assumption that customers for 30 models can be found, or does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is good Socialism to add still further to the subsidy that the taxpayer will have to pay for every super first-class passenger that the aircraft may attract?

The hon. Gentleman is confusing ideological with economic objectives. Certainly no one can argue that the motivation of our principal partners in this matter, the French Government, has been the Socialism that the hon. Gentleman detects in the faction of the Government to which he supposes me to belong. We are examining a joint project jointly, and I think that the House wishes that to be done.

In view of the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has made about openness in this matter, will he use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to ensure that we are told the assumptions behind the statement about British Airways' operating figures which he made in March and which the Secretary of State for Trade said he would do his best to let us have before the recess?

I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to see as many figures published as possible. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. But we have made it possible even now, in advance of possible publication of the figures and the assumptions underlying them, for BAC to examine some of them. To this extent a genuine discussion is going on which has never gone on before between the airline operators and the manufacturers on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the size of the United Kingdom zip fastener market.

The industry estimates it at about £15 million a year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware how large a quantity of this market is taken by a Japanese company with a so-called manufacturing plant in this country which does not manufacture but packages and assembles components imported from Japan? In the end we shall have a diminishing sector of this market with our own employees involved, because the whole market will be swamped by Japanese imports. Is my hon. Friend aware of this situation?

My hon. Friend should bear in mind two points. The first is that the zip fastener plant to which he referred was set up in 1970, which was well before the recent policy. The second is that, while I am concerned about investment from Japan, the Zip Fastener Manufacturers Association has said that it would like to discuss the matter with me. [ Interruption. ] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House do not regard zip fasteners as of very great importance. I regard the industry as of considerable importance. I assure the House that we are meeting representatives of the industry this week

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the anticipated timescale of the Government's nationalisation plans.

I shall be putting forward proposals for an extension of public ownership in due course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why engineers, shipbuilders and manufacturers throughout the country should invest in such an uncertain future? Why is he so determined to reduce the management and performance of ICI, Distillers, Shell and other successful companies in this country to the dismal level of the National Coal Board, the British Steel Corporation and British Rail? What is it about the Civil Service that convinces him that the mandarins of Whitehall can and should run British industry?

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension about our proposals, as the last sentence of his supplementary question revealed. He will know as well as does the House that we put forward our proposals, notably on shipbuilding and aircraft, during the election as named industries. He will also know from a study of the figures that there have been massive injections of public money into those industries. The figures that I revealed earlier indicate that over the last four years about £550 million went into the aircraft industry in assistance. That was not to purchase aircraft but was in the form of assistance of one kind or another. There is a similar position with regard to shipbuilding. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the problem is one of inadequate investment and that Britain must somehow remedy it.

The right hon. Gentleman confirmed that the shipbuilding and aircraft industries were in the list contained in the Labour Party's manifesto and that therefore he is proceeding with plans for their nationalisation. In the same list were the pharmaceutical industry, machine tools and road haulage. Will he confirm that those industries are also on his list?

Not all the industries to which the right hon. Gentleman referred fall within my departmental responsibility. However, I have said that I shall be putting forward proposals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in putting forward his proposals he will include an undertaking that there will be a chance for referenda in the various industries which may be on his shopping list to determine the true wishes of those employed in them?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is putting forward the idea of national referenda or is coming out at this late stage in favour of workers' control. Anything that he said would be examined by the Government to see what merit it contained.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to set up a National Enterprise Board.

The proposed Industry Bill will provide for the establishment of a National Enterprise Board.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this proposal will greatly widen the area in which it will be possible to strike not against the employer but against the taxpayer for more wages? Has he made any calculations of how much the pound will fall in value when he publishes his proposals on this matter?

The hon. Gentleman, like so many of his hon. Friends, has not understood what the establishment of a National Enterprise Board means. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, may I explain that the board will be the intervention of the State in profit-making industries. [ interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman should understand that this is a new form of public ownership. When the details have been worked out, the proposals will be put before the House at the earliest possible moment.

Is my hon. Friend in a position to speculate why the Opposition are so keen to put public money into private industry but reluctant to see the taxpayer benefit from some of that investment?

I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend. It is something in which I have been interested for a long time. I have never understood how Tory Members could argue so passionately for money to assist private industry but when the State is to have a stake in it be up in arms and totally oppose our proposals.

Does the Minister propose to carry out these plans for further nationalisation before or after the next election?

That depends on the date of the next election. I have said that proposals will be put before the House for its consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has plans for the democratisation of industry by means of workers participation in decision making; and if he will make a statement.

One of the objects of the continuing discussions by my right hon. Friend with trade unions and management is the wider sharing of decision-making. This is an aspect of our more open style of Government. The Government's overall plans for advancing industrial democracy are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and the planning agreements to be provided for under our industrial policy will play a significant part.

Does my hon. Friend accept that workers' control is better achieved through workers' ownership? Does he also accept that the nationalised industries are in need of further democratisation? Will he arrange for elections to the boards of nationalised industries directly from among employees in those industries?

My hon. Friend has raised the wider question of industrial democracy. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a good question."] I agree that it is a very good question. The point is that industrial democracy in its wider aspects is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Just in case this industrial democracy business should turn out to be a great nonsense, may I ask whether the Government are prepared to try it out in one sector before applying it throughout industry, since experiments in other countries do not lead us to believe that it is a great success?

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the very point he has made is under consideration.

Will my hon. Friend immediately consider the worker-director aspect in the steel industry? Does he agree that that is a good place to start examining closer links between the trade union movement and the worker-director with perhaps the right of recall to the trade unions concerned?

I will consider all the points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides. I reiterate that the matter is under consideration.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when a company is about to be nationalised he will consult the employees to see whether they agree with its nationalisation?

My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that where the extension of public ownership is being considered the trade unions and workers in the industry, as well as the CBI and other sections of society, will be consulted.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to take into public ownership the aerospace industry, including airframes and aeroengines; and whether he will make a statement on the timetable he has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether it is his intention to bring the aircraft industry under public ownership.

Yes, Sir. Our intention to bring the aircraft industry into public ownership has been made clear but no decisions have yet been taken on the scope, method or timing.

While expressing gratitude for that reassurance, may I tell my right hon. Friend that it seems to me that he should possibly be able to give us a little more information about the timing of the plan? Would he care to say what discussions have taken place with the trade unions in the industry about the process of public ownership and whether that helps him to speed up the process?

I have had informal discussions with both the management and the trade union side. As my hon. Friend knows, this proposal has the support of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Enginering Unions. I am sure that the right way to proceed is by maintaining the closest contact with those whose livelihood depends on the future of the industry.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a rather longer-term view than that given in the Labour Party's manifesto? As our aerospace industry's future is almost certainly linked with that of Western Europe, what is the point of nationalising the industry into one unit when it may be better for the sake of Western European collaboration to have two groups?

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware—or perhaps he is—that the aircraft industry in France has been under public ownership for some time. Perhaps I may tell the hon. Gentleman that from 1970–71 to 1973–74 the taxpayer put £555 million into what is allegedly, on the airframe side, a private industry at the rate of £138 million a year, or approximately £2·6 million a week or £380,000 a day. If that does not entitle the Government to look at how the industry is organising itself, I do not know what does.

asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation removing the privilege from actions for libel or slander enjoyed by the Press in reporting Parliamentary proceedings.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the privilege to which his Question refers is qualified privilege. The report of the Faulks Committee on defamation is expected to be published later this year. Its recommendations will be considered before decisions are made on new legislation on defamation.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how many South Wales coal miners, Merseyside dockers and Luton car workers last year issued writs for libel, and will he express that as a percentage of the number of writs issued by Members, journalists and scientologists? Has not the time come to replace the concept of damages for loss of reputation by a simple public apology system? Can my right hon. and learned Friend explain why this House reserves to itself and to the Press certain privileges which it denies to other citizens?

I cannot without notice answer the first of those questions. The other questions will no doubt be matters to which the Faulks Committee will have given consideration and upon which it will report.

If the suggestion in the Question were adopted, would it not mean that the Press would report our proceedings even more scantily than it does now?

In 1970 a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, under the chairmanship of the late Lord Donovan, recommended that the existing law should remain as it is, but it is still a matter for the Faulks Committee to look into and we shall consider what it says in its report.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the last thing we want to do is to place new restrictions on the freedom of the Press to report? Can he say what progress is being made in removing the restrictions which now exist on the Press, in particular in connection with the law of contempt and official secrets?

The law of contempt is a subject on which the Phillimore Committee will report in due course. The Government are fully in support of the proposition that the freest possible comment should be available to those who criticise the activities of Parliament as well as of other places.

asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions recent breaches of Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925—prohibiting the taking of photographs in or near the courts—by the Press and television authorities, with a view to prosecution.

I am informed that there have been no prosecutions for this offence since 1966. The purpose of the section which created the offence was to prevent any interference with parties or witnesses which might affect the administration of justice. It is for the prosecuting authorities to consider whether there should be proceedings in any specific case.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether there should be a prosecution under Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 in respect of one recent case which has been reported to him.

Does the Attorney-General agree that this is a valuable safeguard for both defendants and witnesses and that any erosion of their rights, especially by mass exposure on television before trial, is much to be deplored?

I agree that it is an important safeguard. As I have said, the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering one case in which a prosecution may eventuate, but that I cannot foretell.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that this whole photographic racket and manoeuvring is getting completely out of hand? There is no privacy for people approaching or leaving the courts. Cameras are stuck in their faces, mostly by freelance cameramen who are attached to no newspaper but rather to Hitler and who have no authority but that of Hitler. Is it not time we had an official pass for official photographers to record official court business?

I note what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute the National Union of Students for incitement to a breach of the peace in respect of its proposed disruption of meetings held in universities by certain political organisations.

This is primarily a matter for the police, but if any evidence is sent to me which indicates that a criminal offence has been committed. I will ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether a prosecution is justified.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Monday Club meeting addressed by Mr. Soref at Oxford University was peacefully attended not only by Conservative but by Labour students, whose conduct throughout was in the best British and university tradition of free discussion, whereas the NUS resolution and the ensuing thuggery was worthy of the Nazi student groups under the Weimar Republic? Will the Attorney-General ensure that appropriate action is taken both in this case and to prevent further such outrages?

I have seen a Press report on the meeting in question. I understand that two persons have already been charged. In those circumstances it would not be proper for me to comment further upon the matter.

I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. It is wrong to allege that the NUS national executive had anything to do with the events last Friday, which everyone will deplore. [ Interruption. ] It is wrong at this stage of the investigations to make that allegation without any evidence being available to Opposition Members. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in the view of many friends of the NUS, its decision is wrong and it ought to rescind it and that nobody should support the union in its request for speakers until that decision has been rescinded?

If it be the fact that the NUS has incited a breach of the peace, I should not defend it, and in any case which came to my notice of that having happened I should ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider a prosecution. As regards the Oxford situation, however, it would not be right for me to give an answer which would prejudge any possible proceedings hereafter.

As the Attorney-General has rightly said that this is primarily a matter for the police, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Constabulary on the circumstances in which the police who were charged with the protection of the meeting in the Union at Oxford were withdrawn at the last minute immediately before the violent disruption took place?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will, I am sure, take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I loathe the rubbish and nonsense which Right-wing speakers frequently emit at these meetings, but will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of us on the Government side are deeply disturbed by the anti-democratic and anti-libertarian decision of the NUS?

I have already expressed my view about that. The more public statements there are by the Monday Club, the more pleased I am.

The Attorney-General's announcement that the police are taking action in connection with this deplorable incident at Oxford will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does he agree that it is in the interests of the vast majority of law-abiding and peaceful students that when breaches of the peace occur they should be vigorously prosecuted by the law?

On the first part of the question, I must not comment; on the second part, I have already made my view clear. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.