asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of the amount of public funds being directed into private manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

About £700 million, net of repayments, in 1974–75.

Will my right hon. Friend press this policy of opening up the books of British industry with the utmost vigour and not be put off by the more mediocre sections of British management, as typified by the Chairman of Dorman Smith Holdings, who has probably taken from the State everything he thinks he is entitled to, anyway?

I share my hon. Friend's feeling. The Trade and Industry Sub-Committee recommended that the Government should be open in publishing the figures, and that I intend to be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also give the converse—the amount of public funds provided by private manufacturing industry in the form of taxation, direct and indirect, and so on?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the wealth of the community is created by working people and not solely by the boards of private companies in manufacturing industry. The wealth is created by those who work in industry, and those people must know the facts.

Does my right hon. Friend not find the argument about companies paying tax and being subsidised, as put by the right hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman), more than a little cock-eyed? Surely most working people have to pay tax, and it is part of their tax which goes to help these private companies. Where is the right hon. Gentleman's argument, therefore?

My hon. Friend is right. We shall make sense of these industrial decisions only if more light is thrown on the extent to which we are interdependent, and that is what I intend to do.

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious, for ideological reasons, to pursue this vendetta against private industry. Is it not a fact, however, that during the past five years public sector industries have received £5·3 billion by way of aid from the State? We do not need to begrudge that, but would not the right hon. Gentleman do more for national unity if he refrained from a vendetta against one sector of industry and concentrated on making both the private and the public sectors more confident about the future?

The hon. Gentleman knows that one of the arguments I have already used is that the decision by the previous Government to force the public sector to run at a loss was yet another form of subsidy for private manufacturing industry. The hon. Member would do better to admit candidly that there are figures which should be published, because the public are entitled to them. He should accept that as the basis of the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, and he should not pretend that this constitutes a statement of Government policy about the firms concerned, which he knows quite well is not the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to complete his study of proposals to designate 100 top companies which should be subject to planning agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to complete his proposals relating to the planning agreements.

The Government will be announcing their proposals in due course.

In view of the statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government do not want to engineer a confrontation with the private sector of British industry, will the Minister confirm that should his consultations with industry and the top 100 firms show implacable hostility to his proposals he will, perhaps, abandon his ideas of extending public control over the private sector.

The proposals will not be my proposals or my right hon. Friend's. They will be the Government's proposals and they will be based upon the manifesto upon which the Labour Party fought the last election. Of course, the 100 top companies were categorised by the Conservative Government in their counter-inflation policy.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will continue to enlighten the British people about the true situation, since, according to reliable economic forecasts, all they have to look forward to is a level of unemployment exceeding 800,000 in the near future, very low levels of investment for British industry, and a huge trade deficit? That is what the Tories are trying to defend.

My hon. Friend is correct. The Government intend to enlighten the British people about the present economic situation, and we also intend to deal with the situation by using new methods and new ideas to solve our problems in a positive and rational way.

Are these to be Government proposals, or are they proposals of the Labour Party? What consultations has the hon. Gentleman had with the chairmen and shareholders of the companies?

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Members on the Government side of the House happen to be members of the Labour Party. They also fought the election on the basis of a manifesto drawn up by the Labour Party. We have made it absolutely clear that full consultations will take place once the proposals are announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will estimate the level of motor car production for the remainder of 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what forecast he has of demand for new cars in 1974 and 1975: and what is his estimate of the implications of that forecast for profitability and future investment in the motor industry.

Demand for motor cars is sensitive to a number of home and overseas influences and the forecasts are not sufficiently precise to justify publication. Changes in demand are only one of a number of factors influencing production, profitability and investment.

Does the Minister agree that unless there is a much higher level of activity in the motor industry employment in that industry will be at risk? In view of the need to develop engines which use less fuel, which is expensive in development costs, will the hon. Gentleman urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to reduce the present level of taxes on the motor industry if we are to guarantee full employment in it?

The level of activity is very important, but it is a matter for the industry itself, of which it should be expected, according to the level of demand, to be able to take account. We are prepared to consider any assistance requested under the Industry Act, but any relaxation in hire-purchase charges or credit controls, or changes of tax, such as the hon. Gentleman requested, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall make sure that he is informed of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the motor car industry's production is suffering throughout the world—in Germany, Japan and elsewhere—and that that is not due everywhere to British taxation?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct to say that a major problem for the car industry is the depressed state of the economies around the non-Communist world. The May 1974 registrations in Japan were down by 45 per cent. The European car market is expected to decline considerably next year. What was a significant disadvantage for the British motor car industry was the three-day working week. The loss of output of both motor cars and commercial vehicles in the first quarter of this year compared with the third quarter of 1973 was no less than 20 per cent.

May I help the Minister with the estimates of the motor car industry itself for production and demand? Its latest estimate, in June, of the demand in the home market—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Minister aware that the motor industry's latest estimate, in June this year, of demand in the home market shows a drop of 27 per cent. compared with last year, and that the estimate for production, although showing a drop of only 6 per cent. depends on the export market and also means that a large number of cars will be going into stock? In view of the cost of money at present, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure an increase in demand in the domestic market for the motor industry?

I am well aware of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, but I draw his attention to the fact that the then DTI investment intentions inquiry undertaken at the end of last year indicated a 13 per cent. rise in manufacturing investment this year, but that as a result of the three-day working week it collapsed almost to zero, although I am glad to say that it has now significantly improved.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the figures to which he refers were collected after the end of the three-day working week?

The figures to which I referred were collected before the three-day working week, immediatly after, and most recently, some time after it ended. They showed the pattern to which I referred.

Does the Minister realise that I have here the document on which he relies, which clearly states that the contributors were asked early in April and that the replies were received in April and May?

I have already referred to those figures, but I have drawn attention to figures which come after those to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take action to limit the export of wrought nickel, in view of the present shortage facing industry; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Although there is a tight supply position in nickel products there is no evidence that export controls would be warranted.

Is not the Minister aware that as a result of the steep increase in the exports of nickel British manufacturers are having to pay a surcharge of between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent. to import the same product, and that this will necessarily be reflected in the cost of their products to consumers in this country? Will he take action to make sure that this international conspiracy in the nickel market is brought to an end?

The export position of nickel has historically been one in which Britain has been a net exporter. I do not believe that there is a special problem at present, inasmuch as neither producers nor consumers have told us that they have serious difficulties. We have received no complaints or representations about supply. As to the question of an international conspiracy, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that it is as a result of the action of his Government that we can no longer take unilateral action under the regulations of the EEC to impose an export ban.

Will the Minister examine the role that the Price Commission plays in all this? May we take it that, as usual, it is exacerbating the problems of the customers for wrought nickel and also the balance of payments by pumping wrought nickel out of this country to find more attractive and desirable markets abroad, when it is needed here?

I seem to recall that the Price Commission did not originate on the Labour side of the House, but I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Price Code is to be reviewed this summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry on what date his Department intends to publish the results of its next inquiry into investment intentions.

On 7th October 1974.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that the last survey of investment intentions carried out by his Department was done before the Budget results had sunk fully into the consciousness of industrialists, and that therefore they have not had sufficient time to take account of them? If the new survey shows a pessimism corresponding to that of the last one, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to encourage new investment? In particular, how does he intend to distinguish between what will be profitable and what will be unprofitable investment?

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the Financial Times survey of business opinion, published today, which shows that three times as many businessmen are optimistic about the future today as there were in the first three months of this year, when the previous Government left office. He will also know that there has been a general increase in confidence since the previous Government left office, and that during the period of the last Government there was a collapse of investment, in marked contrast to the substantial increase that occurred under the previous Labour Government. He will also well know that the Government's policies for industry will be designed to achieve, and will achieve, an increase in investment.

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there has been an increase in confidence he simply does not understand what the English language means. May I ask him two questions? First, in the June survey of industrial investment intentions there is what is described by his own Department as a substantial weakening of investment intentions. What will he do about that? Secondly, will he give an assurance now that the next survey of investment intentions, which is due in early September, will be published on its due date and will not be postponed or suppressed for electoral reasons?

The hon. Gentleman should not assume that we shall do what his Government did in delaying the publication of key figures. If he disagrees with the Financial Times survey, perhaps he will sort that out with the Financial Times. I have quoted the Financial Timessurvey. I remind the hon. Gentleman that investment rose by 18 per cent. under the last Labour Government and dropped by 15 per cent. under his Government. That is the actual investment performance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that some of the reasons for the collapse of investment intentions during the last few months of the last Government were, first, the collapse of the boom, second, the oil situation, third, the cuts made by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer in December and, fourth, the disastrous three-day working week, for which the hon. Gentleman shares responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will now increase the regional employment premium.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement, we intend to continue the existing rates of payment beyond September 1974 while considering further possibilities for the future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the REP has been seriously eroded by inflation? Further, does he accept that restoring the REP to its original value would help the regions to provide effective protection against the high level of unemployment that is forecast for 1975?

I think that my hon. Friend is aware that the determination of the REP is not within the scope of my Department. The Department of Industry, of course, has a view on this matter. We are all concerned about inflation and we feel that steps must be taken to deal with it.

Will the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends bear well in mind that the regional employment premium is extremely damaging to intermediate areas such as the ones that I represent, in Lancaster? Therefore, will the Minister do nothing to increase the premium, and will he try to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to abolish it?

That may be the view of the hon. Lady but it is not the view of the CBI or the TUC. They favour very much the continuation of the REP and they have expressed opinions that it might be increased. Surely the hon. Lady is aware that if the REP had not been introduced the level of unemployment would have probably been greater in the under-developed areas.

Is the Minister aware that whatever the position may be in intermediate areas, development areas or special development areas, there will be a great welcome for any extention of the REP? Further, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a requirement for certainty as to the length of time that the premium will exist for industry's investment plans in such areas?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government made clear that the REP would be continued beyond the date that it was due to be phased out and that this has meant reassurance to industry in development areas. He will also be aware that we are very concerned about building up industry in development areas. That is why we shall be bringing proposals before the House to help in that direction. They will be proposals that have not been welcomed by both sides of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will publish the list of industries in which the National Enterprise Board will not be making investments.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a further statement about his plans for nationalisation of industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many companies in the food manufacturing industry are likely to be affected by the Government's proposals for nationalisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will undertake not to propose nationalising any of the British metal mining companies.

I must asked the hon. Members to await the Government's proposals for the extension of public ownership, which will be published as soon as possible.

When considering how far the right hon. Gentleman wishes to expand the activities of the National Enterprise Board, will he give careful consideration to the figures that were given to me by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday, which showed that in the financial year 1972–73—the last year for which complete figures are available—there was a net inflow from private industry to the Exchequer, after taking subsidies into account, of £2,151 million? That is the equivalent of a net inflow of £6 million per day in comparison with a net outflow from the public sector of industry, during the same year, of £1 million per day. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to acknowledge that there is a net inflow from the private sector of industry of approximately £6 million per day and that the suggestions that he has made repeatedly that private industry is a net drain on the Exchequer are totally inaccurate and grossly misleading to the House and to the country?

In summary, the hon. Gentleman has said that private industry pays more money to the Government than is received in the support schemes. That has never been in dispute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have never disputed that. The problem that the Conservative Party must face is that despite substantial payments by the taxpayer to private manufacturing industry by all parties since the war we have not succeeded in removing the unfair disparity in regional job opportunities or in attracting enough investment in private manufacturing industry. It has remained difficult even to deal with the non-oil deficit. Those are the problems to which the National Enterprise Board and planning agreements will be directed.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of his hon. Friends believe that a rapid extension of public ownership is vital for the future of the British economy and that they would be very concerned if there were any curtailment of the activities of the National Enterprise Board? Does my right hon. Friend accept that our concern is not whether there should be an extension of public ownership but merely what form that extension should take and how democratic it will be?

I share my hon. Friend's view, and I can assure him that we shall bring forward, in the form of a Government statement, what we said in our manifesto. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to democracy. The element of democratic control will be the new and important dimension.

When the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating acquiring shares on behalf of the Government, I assume that he will be aware that under the Industry Act he, the Secretary of State, is required to dispose of shares or stock as soon as, in his opinion, it is reasonably practicable to do so? Some of my hon. Friends and I understand that some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are under the impression that it will never be—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must make his point in the form of a question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he would be acting illegally if, in his opinion, the shares could never be returned to private ownership?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to his right hon. and hon. Friends for giving me legislation that allows me to do certain things. I am well aware of the limitations that that legislation imposes. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt await with keener interest the improvements to his legislation that we have in mind.

As private investors are apparently reluctant to invest their money in private industry to the extent that is currently needed, will my right hon. Friend tell me why the Opposition should be so reluctant for the taxpayer, whose money, apparently, is to be used, to have the same rights of ownership as a private shareholder would expect for his money?

I agree with that. The problem that the House must confront is not that this Government have no confidence in capitalism, but that capitalism in Britain appears to have no confidence in itself.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his statement today has done nothing to restore confidence and that at present confidence is one of the biggest factors which is weakening British industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the food manufacturing industry the problems of primary producers on the one hand and of restrictions on margins in retailing on the other are combining to produce the lowest level of profitability in the industry for many years?

The general problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the latter part of his question is a real one. I put it to him that to define confidence solely in terms of what the City of London thinks and not to take into account the confidence of working people as a whole explains exactly why the Conservative Government collapsed in the biggest failure of public confidence that we have had since the war.

Does my right hon. Friend not accept that the National Enterprise Board is of vital importance to British industry because the owners of capital have been loyally and patriotically exporting it at the rate of £1,100 million a year to countries like South Africa, where people can be exploited to much greater advantage?

My hon. Friend has identified another important failure, namely, that there has been a system in operation under which it was more profitable to put money into empty office blocks or invest it abroad than to put it into the means by which the British people must ultimately earn their living.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that a clear frontier must be defined between private and public in- dustry. Will he tell us where that frontier lies, as there appears to be considerable confusion in the Labour Government and more importantly within the minds of the British public, on this issue? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing he has said today helps clear up the confusion?

The hon. Gentleman ought to examine the record of his own party. He will find that legislation was introduced which represented an enormous blurring of the frontiers between the public and private sector through the support given by the taxpayer to private manufacturing industry. Of course I share the view of the Prime Minister that in extending public ownership we shall be drawing new and clearer frontiers.

Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that when the Government advance public money to private firms some share security or other security will be accepted in return?

Yes. That is our manifesto commitment.

Will the—[Interruption]—I must make it clear to hon. Members opposite that the entire country is suffering from a state of total lack of industrial confidence—

Order. There may be a time and place for doing that. This is Question Time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to his colleagues that I will not be shouted down on this matter, here or anywhere else? Will he make them understand that, for the first time that I can remember, four Members of the Government have been put up within a week to try to disclaim the policies of the Secretary of State for Industry—the Prime Minister, the Paymaster-General, the Secretary of State for Energy, and the Home Secretary's PPS? Has that ever happened under any Government before? Will the right hon. Gentleman now explain why the great dialogue of consultation that was to go on, leading to a Green Paper on industrial proposals, has now been superseded by a White Paper? Will he tell the House, following the efforts of his colleagues to tell industry that there is nothing to be worried about, whether he is still pursuing his inquiries into the affairs of 4,000 subsidiary companies in this country? Will he under-stand—

"Twenty Questions."

that the crucial difference between our use of the Industry Act, which we passed, and the use he seeks to make of it is that we did not back it up with the bludgeon effect of nationalisation.

There will be consultations on the basis of the White Paper. The uncertainty of which the hon. Gentleman complains has been deliberately created by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and himself, who, being informed that the 20 largest companies were to be asked how much taxpayers' money they had received, converted that into a claim that they had discovered a secret list of companies intended for public ownership. They then went to a published book and discovered the names of the 4,000 subsidiaries owned by those 20 companies and pretended that they had discovered Government policy. Is it not a fact that the two hon. Gentlemen have made absolute fools of themselves?

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list those companies with which he has discussed his policy of nationalisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement about his discussions with interested parties about his intentions both about nationalisation and planning agreements with industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list the bodies with whom he has recently discussed the formulation of planning agreements in respect of major companies operating in the United Kingdom.

I have had general and informal discussions with the TUC, the CBI and others about our policy thinking. But, as I have already made clear, detailed consultation must await the publication of the Government's proposals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do us two favours when he comes to that point? First, will he give those concerned more than the 20 minutes he recently gave the CBI to reply to his proposals? Secondly, when he does go to see these companies, will he share the official car with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, so that they do not have to follow him, at additional expense, to try to undo the damage that he has done?

I should always be glad to get a lift from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and therefore I take that point. All I would say about the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman—the case of the Court Line—is that, to the best of my knowledge, the Conservative Government did not consult either the CBI or the TUC, and the TUC certainly found that it was able to say that it hoped, whatever the solution, that the jobs in the development areas could be saved. I am not complaining that the CBI felt unable to give a detailed answer, but it is important that those who have general policy views to push upon the Government should also recognise that Governments themselves face very difficult problems at short notice, and that Ministers often do not have a great deal of time to reach their own conclusions.

In view of the serious state of the National Health Service, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will take steps to take over parts of the pharmaceutical industry—which we included in the manifesto—and also, through the proposed National Enterprise Board, establish a public purchasing agency to enable the NHS to make considerable savings by purchasing its equipment through a public board of that kind?

I suspect that my hon. Friend is anticipating a Question which he put down to me and which was to have been transferred to another Minister but could not be so transferred because of an industrial dispute on HANSARD. I understand what he has said, however, and the reasons for it.

Inasmuch as these discussions will touch on the private sector of the steel industry, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to discuss them, or has he already discussed them with the European Community? Will he indicate whether he has any plans which will touch upon the investment plans of the private steel sector, and whether the Press reports which have appeared concerning his talks with the European Commission are broadly accurate?

I have made no proposal with respect to the private sector, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the terms of the Treaty of Paris, which govern the Coal and Steel Community, have, in effect, removed control over the steel industry, both public and private, from national Governments and conferred it upon the Commission. Indeed, when the Conservative Government, in the Counter-Inflation Act, sought to take control of steel prices, albeit temporarily, they fell foul of the Commission. These general problems of the steel industry were discussed by me in the context of what was a purely fact-finding visit to Brussels last week.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will define the functions and give the salary of the trade union adviser whose appointment was made known in his note on the current work programme of his Department.

Mr. K. J. Griffin was appointed to advise me on all aspects of the work of my Department as they affect trade unions. As to salary, I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on 2nd May.

Is this paid adviser of the right hon. Gentleman's a candidate for Parliament? If he becomes a candidate, will the right hon. Gentleman cause him to resign?

The hon. Gentleman should do his homework. Mr. Griffin served throughout the whole of the four-year period of the Conservative Government. He was invited by Ministers in the Departments of Trade and Industry to stay on. I have confirmed his appointment to advise on trade union matters, and there is no question of his being a candidate for Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is now his estimate of the savings on the Post Office investment programme during the current financial year resulting from the December 1973 public expenditure statement; how this compares with the original estimate; which specific items he has introduced into the programme; and how these additions will be financed.

In accordance with the statement made on 17th December 1973 by the then Chancellor, the Post Office programme for 1974–75, as recorded in the last White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 5519), was cut by 20 per cent. For telecommunications, the cut was subsequently reduced by 14 per cent. for the first half of the year, and we have recently reduced it to 12 per cent. so that the cut for this year as a whole will be 13 per cent. Its application is a matter for the Post Office. The partly restored programme will be financed in the same way as the original one.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, particularly in the light of his spineless incapacity to prevent the Price Commission cutting the revenue to the Post Office by £60 million, that the reinstated programme which he has introduced will further swell the Government's net borrowing requirement and thus fly in the face of the Chancellor's budgetary objectives?

The true position—the hon. Member knows it better than most—is that we have undone some of the damage done by the previous Chancellor to the Post Office investment programme. We are doing what we can to deal with the accumulated deficit relating to telecommunications never made public under the previous Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reduction of the former Chancellor's capital cuts in the telecommunications industry will be welcomed throughout the whole of that industry? Is he further aware that it will put right a programme which would have set the industry back for at least a decade? Does he appreciate that the membership of my union, the Post Office Engineering Union, welcomes this step?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I might add, since there are so many pleas that there should be greater confidence in industry about future prospects for investment, that the partial restoration of the damaging cuts by the previous Government will greatly help confidence in the telecommunications industry and save jobs in the development areas.

When the right hon. Gentleman refers, as he constantly does, to the difficulty of securing adequate investment in industry, will he undertake to consult—and that means listening to the opinions of other people, as well as voicing his own—those responsible for the difficult task of running industry? Will he pay attention to such people? Does he realise that unless he does so he is in danger of going down in history as a kind of music-hall comedy Mussolini?

I should be happy to have my record compared with the right hon. Gentleman's in history but, beyond that, I think he will agree that in partly restoring the damaging cuts in telecommunications investment the Government enjoyed the full support of the telecommunications manufacturing industry, which would have been worst hit had the last Government's programme of cuts gone forward in full.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what estimate he has made of the cost of the operations of the proposed National Enterprise Board in terms of compensation for assets acquired.

I must ask the hon. Member to await the announcement of the Government's proposals.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that time is running out for the British economy and that every pound of lousy printed money he gives in compensation will bring closer the demise of the economy? Is he further aware that this is not the time for boy scout Fabianism of the sort that the Government are undertaking?

I did not know that I was a boy scout Fabian, but I do know that I am a Minister of Her Majesty's Government and that that means that once the proposals are totally formulated they will be placed before the House. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends should not exaggerate the situation and cause the precise lack of confidence about which they are complaining.

When the Government draw up their proposals, will they take into account the resolution of the National Union of Mineworkers this week, dealing with the takeover by the National Coal Board of all the manufacturing of mining equipment, especially in view of the massive amounts of money which have been milked out of the NCB and from the ribs of the miners by the roof support manufacturers, as evidenced in the Select Committee report last week? If there is any question of compensation, would it not be a good idea to use the £74 million which it is suggested has been made in excessive profits by the roof support manufacturing firms out of the NCB?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will take note of the decisions of the NUM, both on this and other points. We have not yet put to the House our proposals about compensation, and I ask all hon. Members to await those proposals before they make all sorts of statements, exaggerated or otherwise.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the value to this country of investment by foreign companies? Is he aware of the massive amount of damage which is being done to the confidence of foreign companies which may be contemplating investment here?

On a number of occasions Ministers have met representatives of foreign companies which wish to come to this country, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have not been discouraged from investing here. In relation to this matter the present Government are pursuing much the same policy as the last Government did. Hon. Members may shake their heads, but that is the situation. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) should understand that we also wish to rely on our own efforts in this country to deal with our own problems, and the way to do that is to come forward with our proposals, such as the establishment of a National Enterprise Board and planning agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further steps he intends to take to aid the entry into service of Concorde, following the recent transatlantic flights.

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

As I said in reply to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 24th June, the Government are pressing ahead with their review of the project. In the meantime, work is continuing on the existing programme with the objective of ensuring that Concorde can be put into service at the earliest practicable date.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for manufacturing industry, does he not agree that the low-import high-labour content of Concorde should fit in very nicely with the general thesis that he has been propounding this afternoon? Does he not agree that new orders from airlines for the aircraft are most unlikely to come forward in large numbers until British Airways and Air France have it in service? Will he continue his efforts to ease off the fence as many of his colleagues as possible?

The hon. Gentleman follows this matter carefully and will know that these points have been put forward powerfully to Ministers in the review. He will also have read in the papers that the prospects of possible orders from Iran Air have now come about. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members would stop booing a moment and listen, they will find that I used the word "possible". HANSARD will confirm it. Prospects of possible orders from Iran Air have come in, and no doubt the whole world will have noted the Atlantic trip of Concorde to Rio de Janeiro and back, demonstrating the superb technical capability of the aircraft.

In making this review, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that British Airways must continue to buy the Boeing 747, with con- siderable adverse effect on our balance of payments position, amounting probably to £320 million between now and 1976? Might it not be better to buy fewer Boeings and more Concordes?

The responsibility for British Airways lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. Anyone who followed the British Airways figures which were published recently will have drawn from them the clear conclusion that British Airways believes that there will be a creaming-off from subsonic aircraft into supersonic aircraft. At the same time, the figures estimated the effect of this on British Airways' profitability.

Will the Minister persuade the British Aircraft Corporation to fill up a Concorde aircraft with hon. Members who oppose Concorde and flip them across to New York for lunch and back in the evening for the 10 o'clock Division? What is the total cost of Concorde so far, what would be the cost of cancellation, and how many jobs would be at risk?

In reply to the latter part of the supplementary question, I published the figures in March and I am afraid that I cannot, off-hand, give an updated account of the ultimate costs, because they would need to be accurately worked out. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who have observed the transatlantic flights would have no doubt whatsoever of the superb technical achievement that Concorde represents.