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

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

The authorised production programme of 16 Concordes is continuing as planned. Aircraft 205 and 206 are to make their first flights in the near future, and will be delivered to Air France and British Airways in time for these airlines to start commercial services on 21st January 1976.

Was the Secretary of State consulted by his opposite number in the Department of Trade before the potentially damaging figures about the aircraft's noise levels on takeoff and landing were announced last week? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that statement will help sales prospects for the aircraft? How soon will BAC have to lay off employees if further orders are not forthcoming?

Of course, my Department was consulted by the Department of Trade. We thought it right that the figures should be published, and their publication will be generally welcomed. The level of employment is a matter primarily for the manufacturers to decide in the light of their overall production programme. The Government will be discussing prospects on this front with BAC.

The House will welcome the Secretary of State's reply, but will he give an assurance that the maximum effort will be made to publicise the views of those who were selected by ballot to fly in this aircraft so that the world may know that passengers in it are thoroughly satisfied with its performance?

I do whatever I can to make sure that those who had the opportunity of flying in Concorde can say what a superb aircraft it is. I have not yet had the opportunity of flying in it, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has, and he confirms that it is a superb aircraft.

As a result of last week's report, is there any danger of Concorde's not being allowed to use Heathrow airport?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I can only advise my hon. Friend to take the matter up with him.

Since the "front end" of the production line of authorised production is already empty, does the Secretary of State intend to authorise further production before any new orders are confirmed?

The Government have clearly stated that the only production we are embarked on at the moment is the completion of the 16 aircraft. We should want to examine carefully future prospects, but we have taken no decision about going beyond the 16.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last discussed industrial problems with the CBI; and with what results.

I saw the CBI at the NEDC Meeting on 6th October, when there was a useful discussion on problems facing industry.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the very widespread feeling, of which I have had fresh evidence in my constituency this weekend, that the Government are prejudiced against the private sector? Will they now take further action, not just words, to back up their professed belief in a healthy and profitable private sector of industry?

I can only draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the White Paper, "Regeneration of British Industry" which was laid before this House by my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Energy, in which the first paragraph said that the Government were committed to a profitable private sector.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in dealing with industry the issue goes beyond the CBI and that there are a number of management bodies with a vested interest and a right to be heard on the very important matter of strategy?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have dissions about industrial strategy other than with the TUC and the CBI. In the first instance, the Government are committed to discussing strategy within the forum of the NEDC, but we intend that the document will be published, and that there should then be the discussion that my hon. Friend calls for.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make provisions designed to ensure that the clothing industry will use British-made cloth following modernisation, under the provisions recently announced.

No, Sir. To require clothing firms assisted under the scheme to use only British cloth would be an unreasonable interference in their commercial activities. The Government of course favour the use of British cloth wherever possible, but my right hon. Friend considered that it would not be appropriate to make this a condition of assistance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if £20 million of public money is to be paid out to the clothing industry, conditions should be attached to it? Does he accept that it has been Labour Party policy that in cases where taxpayers" money has been put into private industry, taxpayers should have some control over that money and that industry? Does he further accept that the textile industry is now so ailing that, apart from conditions being attached to the clothing industry, it is necessary for the Government to take notice of the last Labour Party conference and the call, yesterday, by the General Secretary of the Labour Party, and use selective import controls to give the issue the attention that is required? Will he give an assurance that the call by the Labour Party will be given serious attention?

If my hon. Friend will draw to my attention any reference in a Labour Party policy document to tying to State assistance conditions of the kind that he suggested in his supplementary question, I shall be glad to look at that point again. As to his reference to the speech by Mr. Ron Hayward, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Hayward is an exceptionally sagacious man, who continually makes sagacious speeches. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a speech that Mr. Hayward made at the Labour Party Conference, in addition to the one he made yesterday.

Does the Minister agree that the present foreign exchange value of the pound is in itself a strong incentive to clothing manufacturers to buy British-made cloth?

Yes, indeed. But, in addition, we ourselves are extremely anxious that manufacturers should buy British cloth. I sympathise with the essence of the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). What we are not prepared to do is to attach a stringent condition.

Who else in public life are exceptionally sagacious men?

According to the Sunday Times colour supplement, my hon. Friend himself.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the operation of the Regional Development Fund of the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. United Kingdom applications worth some £9 million from the fund have already been approved.

Will the moneys to be received from the fund increase the funds available in the regions of the United Kingdom, or will they go direct to the Treasury?

I think that it is well known now that the receipts from the fund will allow us to finance larger programmes than would otherwise have been possible. It has already been announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was able to agree to the increased factory programme because of the money we expect to receive from the fund.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a widespread welcome in Scotland for the sums being made available by the EEC, for 61 projects in all? Will my hon. Friend seek to give the maximum publicity to the naming and identifying of those projects, and will he tell the House how they were chosen and by whom?

We shall seek to publicise as best we can the projects which my hon. Friend mentioned. I think that he will appreciate that it is rather early in the day to make a full assessment of the contributions that we receive. As a fellow Scot, I have great hopes for the future of the fund, which I think will be of considerable value not only to Scotland but to Wales and other assisted areas.

There are those of us in the House who would be content to see Scotland as a nation and not a region—a situation that we hope to rectify fairly soon. Does the Minister agree that any aid from the European Community should be used in addition to the funds from the United Kingdom Government, and should not replace them? Does he agree that that is a matter of particular importance in Scotland, especially in the West and the areas of deprivation and extreme poverty? Can the Minister guarantee that when the Scottish Assembly is established EEC funds for regional aid will go direct to that body?

The question of the Scottish Assembly will be the subject of a White Paper to be published by the Government later this year. We shall no doubt have ample opportunity to discuss all its rôles then. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), we firmly believe that the money—it is modest in amount as yet, but we hope that it will grow in the years ahead—will be of considerable value to places such as Scotland.

Will the Minister clarify his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)? Will the money go into the Treasury first and then go to the various regions? Is there no possibility of its going to the regions direct and then into the projects direct, so that we can all see exactly what happens?

I made it clear to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) that we are not giving the money to individual firms. It will go into the Treasury and will be used by the Treasury to increase our regional policy funds. I gave the example of the money going into advance factories—something for which both sides of the House constantly press me.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress has been made towards the development of a European regional aid policy more attuned to the needs of the United Kingdom.

As the White Paper on Membership of the European Community indicated, new principles have been agreed for the co-ordination of regional aids within the Community which will allow the United Kingdom to continue to take effective measures adjusted to the particular needs of our regions. The European Regional Development Fund will contribute to the cost of these.

Will the Minister now answer the question which I put to him, namely, how the 61 projects in Scotland projected for next year were chosen, and on what criteria? Is he yet in a position to say how many new jobs will be created or existing jobs preserved?

The question of applications in respect of Scotland is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and those matters should properly be addressed to him. These matters are identified by the Scottish Office in consultation with the Department of Industry.

Will the anticipated European regional aid policy have any more effect than the Labour Government's regional aid policy has had so far?

The regional fund may make only a modest contribution, but it is helpful and will assist Scotland, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister give a clear assurance that all the funds made available in Europe will be spent on additional schemes in the regions? If that is not done, will it not be regarded as cheating by our European colleagues?

We cannot pass on every single red cent to each individual project. We have decided over a period of time that this matter is best dealt with by increasing the amount of money to be spent on regional development. The advance factory project, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced is a good example of this activity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list his remaining functions in respect of the development of industry in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend retains responsibility in Great Britain for general and sectoral industrial policy, industrial research and development, and certain aspects of regional industrial policy, as well as statutory responsibility for the British Steel Corporation, the Post Office and, once it is established, the National Enterprise Board. In carrying out these responsibilities as they affect Scotland, he will continue to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

As it was the Department of Industry that arranged the £1·2 million loan to the Scottish Daily News, is it not possible for my hon. Friend to have urgent discussions with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister to reconsider the Government's attitude towards the possibility of future help for that newspaper, whose survival is necessary to save 531 jobs and to preserve some freedom of expression in the Scottish Press, which is at present dominated by Right-wing Press barons such as Lord Thomson, D. C. Thomson and Sir Hugh Fraser?

My hon. Friend's question about the Scottish Daily News is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand, from what I have read, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is due to meet representatives of the Scottish Daily News.

Does the Minister accept that central control over public expenditure and industrial policy is so loose that he has nothing to fear from transferring his remaining powers to the Scottish Assembly?

I told the hon. Lady earlier that she must contain herself in patience, and wait until we see a White Paper about the Scottish Assembly.

May we have an assurance that the Department of Industry will fight in Cabinet against any proposal, such as the one that has been leaked, that a Scottish Assembly will have power to leavy a supplemental value added tax? Will my hon. Friend fight against any kind of supplemental value added tax?

My right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his best estimate of the decline in the past 12 months of the numbers of small firms.

There are no reliable figures available on which such an estimate could be based.

Is the Minister aware of the astonishing number of bankruptcies during the past 12 months, which must inevitably include a large proportion of small businesses? Will he ensure that the agenda of the NEDC meeting on 5th November includes the problems of small businesses, and that they will be given active consideration?

I agree that the bankruptcy figures are disturbing. However, they cover a range of activities, and no separate figures are available for small business bankruptcies, as such. For this reason, and as the figures take no account of new starts of businesses, they are not a reliable indicator of the small business sector. But the problems of small businesses are very much in the Government's minds.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the biggest threat to the livelihood and success of small business comes increasingly from the growth of monopolies, particularly on the High Streets?

One of the things that I have often said in the House is that, despite what Opposition Members have said from time to time, some of the larger companies are not as helpful to the small businesses as they might be. We have taken this matter up with the CBI and others, to help small businesses open lines of credit, for example, and to help with similar issues.

The Minister has not answered the Question. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to initiate studies into methods of speeding up postal deliveries and generally expanding Post Office services.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to initiate studies into methods of expanding Post Office services.

No, Sir. These are matters for the Post Office management, and a general direction would not be appropriate.

Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Post Office some of its present proposals, such as the suggested increase in telephone kiosk charges from 2p to 5p? What will that change cost? Does my hon. Friend agree that it will put a heavy burden on the poorer sections of the community? Does he accept that while we all welcome inquiries into the Post Office we believe that they should be based on the expansion of Post Office services rather than their continual contraction?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, which he has expressed before, about the needy. The Government understand his point of view.

As the recent major increase in postal charges has already led to a massive reduction in the volume of mail, and as major business users of the Post Office are actively seeking ways of reducing their dependence on the Post Office, why has there been a delay in announcing the terms of reference and the membership of the inquiry into the Post Office? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no further increases in postal charges, including those coming into effect on 5th January, until the inquiry has reported?

I cannot anticipate any recommendations which may be made to the Price Commission in respect of the Post Office. That would be unreasonable. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the terms of reference and the composition of the inquiry to be announced. We are dealing with this matter as urgently as possible and will make a statement as soon as we can.

Does my hon. Friend accept that initiating studies into methods of speeding up the postal services can do nothing but good in this country, which has a history of innovations in such work? Would it not be possible to encourage the Post Office to involve itself in studies of this kind, which would have a greatly beneficial effect on industries, such as some in my constituency, which produce Post Office equipment?

The Post Office is never complacent about matters of this kind and is constantly studying methods of improving the services.

As the Post Office is constantly stating that the letter delivery service is unprofitable, why continue to maintain its monopoly position?

We have argued about this for years. The simple answer is that those who would like to operate these services want to do so on a purely profitable basis, and are therefore prepared to take on only the profitable sectors of the Post Office, leaving the Post Office itself to deal with the rural areas and other areas, which are anything but profitable.

In view of the massive concern about the situation in the Post Office, expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, can the hon. Gentleman give a more satisfactory answer about the timing of this review, which is of vital importance to the future of a public service which is rapidly decaying before our eyes?

I do not accept that it is rapidly decaying before our eyes. People in the Post Office do a useful job of work, and it comes ill from hon. Members opposite constantly to attack the talents of those people. We are treating the inquiry as a matter of urgency. As soon as we have the terms of reference ready and can announce the composition of the inquiry, I shall be happy to make the announcement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what have been the total losses incurred by each of Govan Shipbuilders, Cammell Laird and Harland and Wolff since they came into public ownership; and what is his estimate of the total losses likely to be incurred in the present year by the three concerns together.

The aggregated losses of Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. from July 1972 to December 1974 have amounted to £8·6 million. Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd. became 50 per cent. Government-owned on 10th June 1970 and up to the end of 1974 had made no losses. The audited accounts for these companies for 1975 will not be available until some months after the close of their financial years, which end in December 1975. Questions relating to Harland and Wolff should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Is it not the case that the Minister's Department is responsible for advising on the efficiency of these yards and obtaining information from them as to their cash flow and productivity? Has not the record been positively abysmal? How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the example shown by State ownership in these cases leads him to put to the House in the near future an extension of State ownership to those yards in private ownership which have been profitable by comparison with those in State ownership?

The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying. If he has a quarrel over Govan Shipbuilders, he should conduct it with his right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), who, as Secretary of State, brought it into public ownership. We did not disagree at the time. There is no doubt that the problems of the British shipbuilding industry are formidable, and I am convinced that the only way in which we shall be able to maintain a British industry is by public ownership.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is precisely because Govan Shipbuilders and Cammell Laird, under private enterprise, got into great financial difficulties that they had to be bailed out by the Government of the day, whether Conservative or Labour? Is it not clear that the whole British shipbuilding industry over the past two decades has been declining, and that only public ownership can make it viable?

I entirely agree. There is world over-capacity in shipbuilding, but our productivity has been abysmal, due partly to low investment and partly to labour problems. The only way in which we shall be able to preserve a British shipbuilding industry is by public ownership.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what changes will follow, if the shipbuilding industry is taken into public ownership, which will help to solve its problem?

We hope that an integrated structure and proper strategy for the industry will ensure that we overcome at least some of these problems, making sure that we shall be able to maintain our share of the market, which will go down if we do not have a proper structure for the industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees, and that when the Bill comes before the House, in the light of the industry's problems, the Government will receive the co-operation of the Opposition in ensuring that it reaches the statute book as quickly as posible.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much money his Department has spent since 28th February 1974 with the express purpose of aiding financially unprofitable industries.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is Government policy not to put any more public money into non-profitable companies, as the Scottish Daily News is apparently not to be bailed out any longer?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the attitude taken by the Government in dealing with the kind of case he has mentioned is always to try to ensure that the firm or industry concerned achieves viability.

In the light of that last statement by the right hon. Gentleman, what is the objective for the National Enterprise Board under the Industry Bill? Is it to act as a holding company for lame ducks, or to take over the commanding heights of British industry?

The aims and objectives of the National Enterprise Board have been fully spelt out, and were set out in the Industry Bill, in this House, but I understand that certain amendments have been proposed in the other place which would, if accepted, prevent the board from getting involved in private sectors of industry. We shall put that right on Wednesday, when the aims of the board will be restored to what they were when the Bill left this House.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that no more taxpayers' money is put into private industry without our taking effective control over the industries in which it is invested?

I do not think that I can accept entirely what my hon. Friend has said, as he will realise if he heard my hon. Friend answer earlier questions, about the clothing scheme, the textile scheme and the machine tools scheme. In schemes where money is channelled through the NEB, however, there will be an appropriate stake.

Is the Secretary of State aware that today the second of the NVT companies has called in a receiver? Is he aware that that is precisely what the workers of Small Heath always predicted, following the intervention of the Department? Further, is he aware that what has taken place is completely in contrast with the assurances of his predecessor? Will he now initiate a full inquiry, so that public accountability in this matter may be finally established?

As I said before the House went into recess, we take no pleasure from the difficulties of the British motor cycle industry. The hon. Gentleman is not right in trying to attribute to this Government the formation of NVT. The hon. Gentleman will recall that NVT came into existence as a result of intervention by Mr. Christopher Chataway. Mr. Chataway supported the formation of NVT.

What about Meriden?

The hon. Gentleman asks about Meriden, but he has just asked a question about NVT. Our decision, namely, that we could not support further Government funds for NVT, was taken with deep regret. Had there been a possibility of restoring the industry to viability we would have put more money into the undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry which civil aircraft projects are now being supported with public funds.

The Government are at present investing money in the Shorts SD 3–30, are supporting a small programme of work at HSA to ensure that the option of restarting the HS146 project is kept open and, jointly with the French Government, are financing the development and production of the Concorde supersonic aircraft.

As the launching aid given in respect of such programmes as the Viscount, the BAC111 and the Trident has been amply repaid in terms of investment, jobs and exports, is it not time for the Government to see their way through to at least indicating their options in relation to the Spinelli Report, which has positive proposals on what should be done by the Government in respect of the European industry?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Spinelli Report, as he calls it, has only just reached the Government. We are considering it urgently. We want to consider it fully to see whether it is practicable and whether we can support it.

Has my right hon. Friend forgotten the HS146 and one of the best design teams in the world? Is he not rather regretful that the EEC did not include it in its programme? Will he do his best to ensure that the project does not die, and the design team with it?

As my hon. Friend knows—he has made this point on several occasions—the Government have made resources available so that the options on the project should be kept open.

In the interests of British exports, in future will the Government channel public funds into only those civil aircraft projects which do not carry with them an unacceptable level of noise?

The question of noise is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, but if we had taken the severe view that the hon. Gentleman now takes, particularly about Concorde and other civil aviation projects, we probably would not have built any-civil aircraft since the Viscount.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any plans to review industrial development certificate policy; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any plans to review his policy on industrial development certificates.

I have no plans for general alterations in the basis of operation of the control. As I said in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 13th October, I am considering a limited modification of the policy in relation to speculative replacement developments.

In the review, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the special problems of the West Midlands at this moment? It has always been accepted that the West Midlands is an area of great prosperity, with relatively low unemployment, but the region is going through a period of severe recession, which is affecting unemployment figures far more severely than in many other parts of the country. Is my hon. Friend aware that IDC policy in its present form will do nothing to help?

My hon. Friend may know that I had some useful discussions last week with a number of people in the West Midlands. The matter that he has raised was one of the subjects raised with me on that occasion. I think that it would be wrong completely to scrap IDC policy as is suggested by many people throughout the country. To do so would be foolish. However, we have always exercised IDC policy with a degree of flexibility. If my memory serves me right, in the West Midlands only four such applications have been refused in recent times.

Does the Minister not consider it unfair that in the South-East the IDC limit is set at 5,000 square feet? Does he recall that in part of my constituency there is an unemployment rate of 7·8 per cent., as a result of the problems of the paper industry and other industries? Would it not be better to have a fair system of IDCs applied equally throughout the whole country?

We try to follow an IDC policy which is fair throughout the country. When we are discussing regional policy, be it IDCs or assisted areas, we must bear in mind that we have to deal with fundamental questions rather than job difficulties created by the current recession.

However sympathetic my hon. Friend may be to areas which are bearing the brunt of unemployment for the first time, does he recognise that his reply is welcomed by those of us who would wish to impress upon him the importance of not forgetting the long-term problem of unemployment in areas which have hitherto always borne a heavy burden? We welcome the indication that the Government will not weaken their resolve to assist such areas.

I think I said earlier that there was no intention to abandon the control which has existed over the years. That would be detrimental to assisted areas, and, in particular, the sort of area represented by my hon. Friend.

Reverting to the remarks made about Meriden, will the hon. Gentleman remember that unemployment in the Birmingham area is now more than 7 per cent.? That being so, the West Midlands represents the area with the most rapidly growing unemployment. It is acknowledged by both sides of industry—the trade unions are joining strongly in this view—that it is essential that new industrial investment be attracted to the area if we are not to suffer serious and growing unemployment in the future. Will the hon. Gentleman bear all those points carefully in mind in his review?

I indicated that I had a series of useful meetings last week with a number of people in the West Midlands. The whole question of IDCs was put to me. I indicated that uppermost in our minds must be the assisted areas. We are conscious of the problems of the West Midlands, and we are operating our policy with a degree of flexibility which I hope will find acceptance throughout the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will extend the period allowed under the Wool Textile Scheme regulations in which firms may be entitled to a closing-down grant.

The Wool Textile EDC is currently examining the progress of the Wool Textile Scheme and the desirability of extending it. The EDC will put its recommendations to the Department when it has completed its review later this month.

Will the Minister bear in mind his Government's desire to see this industry partly restructured? Will he also bear in mind that the past 16 months have been so uncertain for trade as to be a close season for making decisions of the kind to which reference has been made?

We take into account the difficulties that the industry is undergoing, and we shall continue to do so in coming to our conclusions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it might well be time to transmute the realisation scheme, and the money available to it, to a scheme for enabling wool textile manufacturers to commit themselves to capital investment, so that they can take advantage of the upturn which may be coming in a year or two's time?

We recognise that there is dissatisfaction about the realisation scheme. That is one reason for our having extended the scheme for another month. I assure my hon. Friend that further constructive suggestions will be taken into account before the Government arrive at their decision.

When discussing the continuation of the scheme, will the Minister bear in mind the problem of smaller firms which do not currently qualify for the £50,000 limit? Is he prepared to make a further statement on guards for carding machines, which cost the wool industry some £4 million?

We take into account the problems of small firms. I know that the hon. Gentleman will accept that these are matters which must await a further statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's reactions to the Expenditure Committee's report on the Government's plans for British Leyland.

The report on the motor vehicle industry by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee is being carefully considered and a response to the recommendations and comments on the Government's plan for British Leyland will be made as part of the reply to the whole report.

I thank the Secretary of State for that holding reply. Will he give some idea of the return which he expects the Government to enjoy as the result of earmarking a considerable amount of taxpayers' money for this project?

That is a question properly for the new board of British Leyland and for the National Enterprise Board.

When does the Minister expect the Government's reply to the Expenditure Committee to be available? Does he not agree that it should be made available before the House can debate the report? How long are we to wait, because the report was timely and events are moving fast?

I cannot be precise, because the Government are considering a whole range of matters—matters affecting not only British Leyland but the motor vehicle industry in general. I hope that the reply will be available as soon as possible.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that public funds given to British Leyland will not be used to acquire private component manufacturers in the West Midlands? Is he aware that this matter is already causing a great deal of anxiety?

If the hon. Gentleman has in mind specific projects which he thinks are threatened, I shall be pleased if he will supply me with that information. I hope that the House will accept that British Leyland and its board will be responsible for the conduct of business and that its activities will be connected with the National Enterprise Board. I do not want to get involved in day-to-day decisions of British Leyland.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that return on capital will be a matter for the British Leyland board, surely he is forgetting that the Government are responsible for deciding whether to invest money. What do the Government consider should be the standard rate of return on projects put up by British Leyland?

We have already made it plain—certainly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it plain recently—that the progress of capital development and the injection of Government finance should be staged. Each stage will depend on the evidence of some tangible contribution, and the company's work force and management must get together to ensure that there is an improvement in performance and industrial relations. We shall have to be satisfied on that score. The return on capital and other matters must surely be left to the British Leyland board—[Interruption.]—and also to the National Enterprise Board. We are convinced that British Leyland will be a success. I hope that the whole House, including the Opposition, will ensure that we do everything possible to ensure viability.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to announce the Government's decision regarding the British Steel Corporation's proposals for the closure of primary steel making at Shotton.

Is the Minister aware that the closure review has now been going on for 20 months and that because arguments over Shotton are still taking place the whole strategy of Welsh steelmaking is at stake, as is the future of Port Talbot? Will he assure the House that the matter will be resolved speedily, because at present the cost of the programme is escalating violently?

The hon. Gentleman must reconcile his view with that of his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who takes a contrary view about the way in which the Government should seek to arrive at their decision. In addition, uncertainty was caused in the industry in earlier years, following the activities of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and his two henchmen at the time. Therefore, to arrive at our decision we have had to look at the matter again. We shall take a decision as soon as possible, but we shall not rush into it, since it is a decision of vital consequence for a large community in Wales.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me, as a Member in the area concerned, that closure of steelmaking at Shotton would have the gravest economic and social consequences throughout the whole of North Wales and also in Cheshire and on Merseyside? Does he agree that it is important that the Government should consider this matter most seriously, because unemployment in the area is unacceptably high?

The human attitude taken by my right hon. Friend contrasts with the arid book-keeping attitude adopted by so many Opposition Members. We are trying to look at the human as well as the corporate problems. We shall get our decision right, and will not be rushed into it by the Opposition.

Does the Minister agree that if, after the lengthy delay, which is causing doubt and dismay, the decision goes against Shotton, the consequences for the area will be terrible indeed?

I recognise the serious consequences for the area if Shotton were to be closed. That is why we are taking our time over the decision. If the Opposition had remained in office, I believe that Shotton would now be on the verge of closure.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people in the North-West, particularly on Merseyside and in North Wales, are delighted that the Governmetn are looking at this matter so carefully? In an area such as Merseyside, with an unemployment rate of 10·6 per cent., we cannot afford to have Shotton closed, with the consequent loss of jobs in many surrounding areas. We accept that the Government are right to take their time.

Because of the serious problems in the North-West and in the special development area of Liverpool, and the effects of a decision about Shotton, as well as its effects in North Wales, we have decided to examine the matter very carefully indeed. We shall get the decision right, and shall not be rushed into it.

Is it not a fact that there are now well over 1 million people out of work, and that if the Government delay much longer the modernisation of the steel industry, that phenomenon will continue for British manufacturing industry until we come to understand that the shortage of high-quality steel at a price which the world is able to afford undermines the credibility of our industry throughout the world?

The credibility of the British steel industry was undermined by the activities of the joint steering group set up by the then Conservative Government, by the prying and meddling of McKinsey, which they set on to the British Steel Corporation, and by the then Tory Ministers—the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—in their attempts to arrive at a corporate plan. The kind of language used by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) ill becomes the Tory Party.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will discuss with the Law Society and representatives of the legal profession ways in which decisions of judges in legal cases, which take place towards the end of a legal term, can be speeded up so that participants do not have to wait until the beginning of the autumn term to learn of the decision.

No, Sir. Rules of court already permit judgment to be delivered during the Long Vacation in an urgent case if the parties so wish and the judgment can be ready. I am not aware of any difficulty which has arisen in this respect, but I shall gladly consider any particular point which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Will the Attorney-General reflect on what happened in Court No. 4 in July, when it seemed to some of us that the distinguished Lord Chief Justice was taking a long time to produce a judgment?

I explained that, in the ordinary way, when a case is not concluded at the end of the term before the Long Vacation, judgment is given in the next term unless the parties wish otherwise. If the parties in that case had applied to the Lord Chief Justice, I have no doubt that he would have given full consideration to their application.

Will my right hon. Friend think again about his answer and hold this meeting? Will he consider inviting the police to attend, so that the use of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act against a known pacifist, who yesterday at Aldershot gave out leaflets calling for a withdrawal of British interests in Northern Ireland, can be discussed? Does he accept that there appears to be in this case a blatant misuse by the police of this Act on that occasion?

That is a slightly different question.