asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the relationship between the NEB and its subsidiaries and on the NEB guidelines.

The text of the memorandum agreed between the National Enterprise Board and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., and published by them, has already been made available to Parliament. The draft guidelines for the NEB are being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of each House, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Opposition think that his guidelines for the National Enterprise Board are reasonable? Will he refuse to be persuaded by the TUC or anybody else to allow the NEB to follow an aggressive takeover policy? Will he confirm that the NEB must consult him before it acquires more than a 10 per cent. stake in any company?

I confirm what the hon. Gentleman put to me in the latter part of his question, but that does not mean that I shall withhold authority. It will depend on the circumstances of the case.

Has my right hon. Friend seen today's article by the industrial correspondent of The Guardian, in which he criticises the intentions of the guidelines? Does he agree that if the wildly optimistic assumptions on which the Public Expenditure White Paper has been drafted, particularly regarding economic growth, are to be met, the activities of the NEB need to be boosted tremendously and not starved completely?

I agree that the activities of the NEB need not be curtailed, and that it has an increasing rôle to play.

Who is responsible to the Comptroller and Auditor General for ensuring that public funds voted to the NEB and, through it, to its subsidiaries are spent in the way that Parliament was informed they would be spent? Is it the NEB or the accounting officer in the Department of Industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman define the relative functions of some officer in the NEB and the accounting officer in the Department of Industry in that respect?

I cannot go into that matter in great detail, because it would take too long. However, I am seized of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. My short answer is that the accounting officer in my Department, the Permanent Secretary, will be responsible to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I know that there is some controversy about that matter, and I shall be looking into it further.

The right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection have been forecasting for the current year the lowest rate of investment in manufacturing industry for 15 years. What contribution will the NEB make to improve that level of investment?

I hope that it will make a great contribution. There has already been one modest attempt, although it is early days yet, to help the machine tool industry. The NEB has further ideas about helping with investment projects of a similar kind. I hope to have regular discussions with the NEB to see what more needs to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many times he has had meetings with the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board since the Chairman took up his appointment.

On a number of occasions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is rather more precise than the non-answers I have recently been given by the Prime Minister and also by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the same point? Does he not admit that there is a conspiracy to deny the House an opportunity to know what monitoring is taking place in regard to the NEB? Will he confirm that a great many meetings are taking place behind his back, as is evidenced by the appointment of the Chairman of British Leyland?

The hon. Gentleman should not make too much of that matter, because he will know that every major appointment to a public corporation, or, as in this case, to a company in the ownership of the Government, is made in consultation with the Prime Minister of the day. There is nothing unusual in what has happened over the appointment of Sir Richard Dobson, or in the practice of appointments by the present Government compared with the practice under previous Governments.

That is not true.

I should like to have some evidence that that is not true. My guess is that when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister, he had something to say about the appointments of some of the chairmen of nationalised industries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NEB has as a basic principle the encouragement of industrial democracy? Will he explain how the appointment of a man currently on £58,000 a year, and undertaking part-time work at £22,500 a year and with well-known anti-nationalisation views, will inspire British Leyland workers?

It is not for me to comment on the level of salary that Sir Richard Dobson obtained in a previous company. Salary figures like £58,000 are incomprehensible to me. Ministers do not get salaries of that kind. I hope that Sir Richard Dodson gains the confidence of the work force pretty quickly and that he works through and takes a personal hand in ensuring progress towards industrial democracy and participation in that company.

Will Lord Ryder be running the pension fund of the National Enterprise Board? If so, it will cause some concern, considering his experience of running the Reed pension fund. Is it not time that he made a statement about his experiences?

I am not prepared to answer questions on the substance of what the hon. Member asks. In fact, I think that I am correct in saying that police inquiries are still being considered. It would be wholly inappropriate of me to comment on what the hon. Member said.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has now arranged a date for his visit to North Staffordshire.

I have arranged to visit North Staffordshire on 12th March.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he will receive a very warm welcome from the people and civic leaders of North Staffordshire, who will want to prove to him that the area is a sub-region with unique problems—not necessarily shared by the West Midlands—which have been neglected, overlooked and underrated by successive Governments? We look forward to seeing my hon. Friend.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that I shall be welcomed there as I have been welcomed in days gone by. I have arranged to meet the Staffordshire County Council. I hope that during the meeting I shall hear from the Council the range of problems that it wants to put to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will consider relaxing IDC control in the West Midlands.

The industrial development certificate control continues to have an important part to play in the Government's regional policy, and a temporary suspension or relaxation of the control would not be justified.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the control is almost nonexistent in the West Midlands, because the number of refusals is very small? Nevertheless, the fact that the controls are there stops business and industry from seeking to move into the West Midlands. Will my hon. Friend consider again the possibility of a temporary restriction—say, a two years' suspension—to give business men who are talking about not being able to go there a chance to put their money where their mouths are?

It is often put to me that IDC control stops firms from making applications, but I have no evidence to support that. I ought to put the matter into perspective. In the West Midlands, only seven applications were refused, and 277 were approved. It is important to bear in mind that these certificates are dealt with on their respective merits, in relation to the area for which the application is made.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that unemployment in manufacturing industry in the West Midlands is now higher than it is in many of the development areas, including Scotland; that it is of longer duration; and that wages are lower than those paid elsewhere? Will the hon. Gentleman consider what assistance can be given to the region, if he is still unwilling to relax IDC control?

My hon. Friends and I are concerned about unemployment in the West Midlands. I sometimes wish that Conservative Members were as concerned as we are about the problem. I say that because they have voted against proposals put forward in this House which would have saved a number of jobs. If Tory Members had their way, we should have lost about 56,000 jobs in the West Midlands alone.

How many civil servants are employed in assessing these applications? As so few are turned down, as unemployment is so high, and as so many firms have been prevented from developing more efficient units in the past, should not this policy be scrapped?

IDC policy is an integral part of regional policy, which is supported by both sides of the House. I know that when we are in the midst of a recession it is easy to say that we should scrap regional policy, because it does not of itself create jobs, but it would be foolish to scrap the policy in view of the successes that we have had with it over a period of years.

Is the Minister aware that regional policy is designed to help those regions that are in the most trouble, and that the West Midlands today is an area in more trouble than almost any other region? Will he accept that, far from saving jobs in the West Midlands, the number of jobs has been decimated by the restrictive policies which his Government have pursued?

The policy advocated by the hon. Gentleman and his attitude to Chrysler and other firms would have reduced the number of jobs available.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the total grants, loans and subsidies he has made to the car industry; and what is his estimate of the number of jobs in the industry saved by this support, and the cost per job.

Most of the financial assistance to the car industry is being made available to British Leyland and Chrysler. So far, £200 million has been invested in new equity in British Leyland and £18 million has been paid to Chrysler to meet losses in 1976, and these funds relate to all the activities of the two companies. It is difficult to estimate precisely how many jobs have been saved overall, but the employment of many hundreds of thousands depends on the car industry, particularly in the West Midlands.

Does my right hon. Friend expect a financial return on this investment, and, if so, when?

As my right hon. Friend knows, there are risks involved in all these cases, and these risks have never been denied. I know that my right hon. Friend will have been pleased to see the latest results achieved by British Leyland. It has much better opportunities than hitherto and it is the largest single market holder in the United Kingdom. In addition, its exports are doing well, particularly its commercial vehicles.

Is the hon. Gentleman sure that all the Ministers in the Cabinet know what is going on? If so, is it not odd that the Secretary of State for the Environment is slashing expenditure on roads for these motor cars to be driven on, and is helping the GLC to stop people from driving their motor cars into London? Is not that an odd way to run a policy?

All my Cabinet colleagues know what is going on within the Department of Industry, because I make it known to them from time to time. I am sure that the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments, and particularly that, as I understand it, although the Conservative Party is in favour of public expenditure restrictions immediately, when it comes to a particular policy—such as the road policy—the hon. Gentleman wants to go ahead and increase it.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions have taken place with representatives of the industry regarding the provision of further assistance to the motor industry.

My Department has been approached by a group of business men seeking support for their proposal to acquire Jensen Motors Limited from the receiver.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in addition to that additional request for support, he has met the latest recruit to representatives of the motor industry, in the shape of the new Chairman of British Leyland, Sir Richard Dobson? Will he say whether that appointment has his support?

I have not had an opportunity so far to meet Sir Richard Dobson, but I hope to do so shortly, with other members of the British Leyland board. Of course his appointment has my support.

As the Secretary of State seems to accept over-capacity in the motor car industry, what plans has he to ensure that firms receiving public assistance accept public accountability?

The motor car industry not only comes under the scrutiny of the House; it is scrutinised by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, and from time to time I know that hon. Members will take the opportunity, through the Public Accounts Committee, to obtain further information.

Is it a fact that in these discussions my right hon. Friend has taken account of the more successful end of the market—namely, Ford? Has he begun the monitoring arrangements with the other motor companies on the way in which they are using our resources?

My hon. Friend has a Question later on the Order Paper, which I hope will be reached if we make good progress. The high-level tripartite group has already had a very useful discussion, and further meetings are planned.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has not met the man who has been appointed responsible for the largest single investment ever made in a company in this country? Is it not incredible that he should not take the trouble to discuss the future of that industry with the chairman and discover the chairman's attitude? Does it not come as an incredible revelation, from a Government who say that they believe in accountability and that they have responsibility for the fortunes of this industry, that the Secretary of State has not even taken the trouble to meet the chairman-designate of that company?

The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of the issue. Sir Richard Dobson was appointed by British Leyland itself, after consultation with the National Enterprise Board. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that Sir Richard Dobson was seen by the Prime Minister. In normal circumstances I would have been there, but I had an important prior engagement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the Government's plans for the future of the Concorde production line; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received a proposal from M. Cavaille, the French Minister of Transport, that there should be a ministerial meeting in Paris on 29th March to discuss the Concorde project. He has replied agreeing that such a meeting would be timely and useful. Ministers will review developments since the last ministerial meeting on 25th March 1975 and consider sales prospects and the future of the programme in the light of the decision by the United States Secretary for Transportation, Mr. Coleman, giving British Airways and Air France access to New York and Washington on a trial basis. I shall lead the British team at this meeting.

I recognise that the commercial viability of Concorde must, regrettably, remain in doubt until this and other problems are solved, but to what extent do the Government regard themselves as committed to an open-ended subsidy to the suppliers of components and spare parts? Many of these suppliers are becoming increasingly worried about the future position.

The decision about spare parts was announced when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the President of France in 1974.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Concorde is an enormous technological achievement but that it is also an enormous financial and environmental disaster? Is it not time that we got rid of the pretence that we can go on building Concordes to keep people employed and got down to the business of developing alternative methods of producing items that are much more socially useful, so that aircraft workers, who give of their best and are highly trained, can use their experience and expertise in projects that will benefit the nation?

I do not accept that Concorde is an environmental disaster. Indeed, Mr. Secretary Coleman's judgment of last month showed that its environmental effects are minimal, and these will in any case be tested during the trial period. I agree with my hon. Friend that employment in the aircraft industry will be enhanced by diversification and spin-off. When I met the BAC workers at Filton last month, the management of BAC was able to give examples of spin-off, and in a recent answer to my hon. Friend I was able to give him examples of the kind of technological spin-off that has been gained from the Concorde programme itself.

I welcome the announcement of the meeting that the Minister is to have with our French partners. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he has studied the history of pioneering civil aviation developments and is aware that world airlines very often wait until they see one airline operating aircraft satisfactorily and effectively before placing orders? From a manufacturer's point of view this means a slow placing of orders to start with but orders coming in more quickly once the aircraft is off the ground. From a marketing point of view, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that this country will not repeat the mistakes of the past, of winning the manufacturing and design battle but losing orders?

Order. Even for St. David's Day, that is a long question.

I think that the future of Concorde will be decided by the way in which it is received on the world markets—and the most important test for Concorde will come when it faces the New York route.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the money going to the flying white elephant of Concorde could better be diverted to Scottish Aviation, which is producing the Jetstream aircraft, which is something that is in demand by the aircraft industry?

Scottish Aviation will have the inestimable benefit of coming into public ownership later this year.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give an assurance that when he meets the French Minister he will put forward a proposal to increase the number of aircraft beyond the 16 at which the limit stands? This is what matters to workers in the aircraft industry.

I cannot give a commitment of that kind. We must consider this matter in cost-effective terms. We must see what kind of costs there would be for future development of Concorde, and weigh that against the other outgoings to which the Government are committed.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the liaison between the Scottish Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board.

Yes, Sir. Officials of my Department and of other Departments concerned have had extensive consultations with officials of the NEB and of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies in order to establish satisfactory working relations.

Does the Minister agree that the economic potentials of Scotland and England are now totally divergent? Does he not further agree that, because of Scotland's potential to expand and England's stagnation, it is vital for the Scottish Development Agency to be totally independent of the "lame duck" NEB? Does he agree that new jobs and new factories in Scotland can best be created by an expansionist policy rather than one that is dependent on a London-orientated, central demand management of the United Kingdom economy as a whole?

I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question. Parliament decided the basis on which the NEB and the Scottish Development Agency should operate.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in recent Government announcements to indicate that diminished resources will be available to the Scottish Development Agency, as has been asserted by certain hon. Members? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the Scottish Development Agency retrains General Electric Company workers who are now redundant as a result of a diminution in Post Office orders, so that those workers can produce the new equipment that the Post Office urgently needs?

Questions about the Scottish Development Agency are for the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer, but I take an interest in the Post Office-supplying industries, and I take on board what my hon. Friend has said.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish Development Agency is more concerned with local government and the regeneration of the environment in Scotland, and does not have the resources or ability to regenerate Scottish industry?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn from the position he took when he and his party voted for the NEB to be kept out of Scotland. That was a totally opportunist vote.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will publish in the Official Report the full list of conditions attaching to the rescue of Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.

Copies of the agreement that I reached with Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler United Kingdom, together with supporting documents, are available in the Library. The conditions are set out in the agreement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the expenditure of £162 million, the legal conditions are woefully inadequate? Does he further agree that there is nothing to stop Chrysler's siphoning off this money to America? When spending public money the Government should impose stricter conditions before they indulge in such largesse.

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The £162 million is a contingent liability. Whether that liability falls on the Government will depend on a series of factors, which have been debated on many occasions in the House. There is no reason to believe that it will happen. The money will not be siphoned off to the United States. The monitoring is being conducted by Coopers and Lybrand, the Department's advisers, and we shall receive up-to-date reports, as required.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what commitments have been made with Chrysler should the losses in the current year exceed £60 million.

None, Sir.

I understand that there is a limited liability and that the company will make no further payments beyond £10 million, should the debts go beyond £60 million. Some of us are worried because there is still no information about monitoring. Who are the Government's representatives monitoring the company?

I read with great interest my hon. Friend's letter in The Times this morning. I have already announced that Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand have been engaged on behalf of the Department to help with the monitoring. I am not yet in a position to announce the names of the Government directors. I hope to be able to say something within the next few weeks. Chrysler United Kingdom is to enter into a planning agreement with the Government, and I hope to be able to initiate discussions on that very soon. It is also to resuscitate its worker-participation scheme, which it mooted some time ago.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the main Question? As Chrysler's share of the market is still substantially below what it will have to achieve to meet its objectives, there must be a chance that its losses will exceed £60 million. Just what is the taxpayer's liability if that should happen?

It is far too early to jump to the conclusion that there will be losses exceeding £60 million. I think that £18 million has so far been paid to Chrysler. The information that Chrysler gave to the Government in our discussions suggested that losses this year could be £40 million. There is a formula for the other £20 million. If the losses exceed £60 milion, which I do not think they will, the Government will have to consider the situation afresh, but no provision has yet been made.

To revert to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), does my right hon. Friend consider a net increase in the size of the board of Chrysler United Kingdom to be justified? Does he agree with middle and senior management of Chrysler United Kingdom being made redundant and then retained as industrial advisers? Does he not think that that it is a highly dubious practice?

I am not going to get involved in the day-to-day management of Chrysler United Kingdom. We have made provision, so far as possible, to undertake the monitoring. It would be intolerable for me to assume that I can run Chrysler United Kingdom. I shall not do that or attempt to do it. As for the way in which the board is constituted, that is a matter for the Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State said that he had made provision for monitoring, and then said that he did not intend to become involved in the day-today activities of Chrysler. Is it not outrageous that three months after the matter arose there are still no Government representatives? Since the Secretary of State appears to wash his hands of the matter, will he put in some Government directors to ensure that this vast amount of taxpayers' money is properly overseen.

Shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will reconstitute the board of the British Steel Corporation.

My right hon. Friend has recently made three new appointments to the board, and he is considering making further appointments.

That is a welcome answer. Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is now a crisis of confidence between the workers in the steel industry, the British Steel Corporation and management? That situation exists not only at the top but in firms in Sheffield, such as the River Don Works. Does he not agree that until there is a radical change of structure in management, confidence is not likely to be restored?

I was pleased when, on 23rd January, the BSC and the TUC Steel Committee were able to sign an agreement that shows that they are in accord about the future, but I should welcome any initiative for improving industrial relations and better communications between workers and management.

When can we expect an early announcement from the BSC that the £1,000 million investment for Hunterston will go ahead? That is the only way to ensure that steel-making in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire is maintained and that jobs there, and those which are dependent on the steel industry in Scotland, are maintained.

I am glad to see that the hon. Lady accepts that the steel industry in Great Britain can go forward only on the basis of an integrated Great Britain policy.

Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the reconstituted board of the British Steel Corporation that it is time to re-examine its whole strategy? Is it not better to base a strategy on prudent, sensible schemes rather than on excessively ambitious ones?

The Conservative Govment aimed hammer blows at the morale of the Steel Corporation through the Eden/Ridley policy and that constitutional monstrosity, the Joint Steering Group, which held up development programmes for so long. There will be no such meddling under this Government.

Does the Minister agree that if there were more local democratic control there would be better relations between management and men in the steel industry? When are the Government going to carry out their commitment to take into public ownership the profitable sections of the steel industry that have been hived off?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the improvement of industrial democracy within all the nationalised industries, including the British Steel Corporation, is very important. We are blazing the trail in our Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, but there will have to be development in other industries as well.

Will the Minister take this opportunity of making clear the Government's attitude to Sir Monty Finniston's future? Is it not disgraceful that there should be continuing uncertainty about the chairmanship after the end of the year? Will the Minister give a firm assurance, in view of the particular importance of the chairman and the agreement of 23rd January?

In reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) I made a statement about the chairmanship of BSC. The hon. Gentleman, who is a student of these matters, might have studied that before he asked his supplementary question.

How does the Minister think he will attract the calibre of management needed in the nationalised industries in view of the sort of treatment the Government are now giving to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation? When will they resolve the question of his future—or is this to be another matter decided by the Prime Minister behind the Secretary of State's back?

The hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Postmaster-General who capriciously sacked the Chairman of the Post Office. I shall not accept that kind of reflection from him.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further plans he has to stimulate investment on Mersey-side and to improve its long-term employment prospects.

We shall continue to call attention to the regional incentives available in the Merseyside Special Development Area.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Merseyside's unemployment problem is not merely a result of the world recession but that it is suffering from a structural, long-term decline? Will he, first, review the long-term investment needs of the region to ensure stability of employment prospects for the future? Secondly, will he locate the headquarters of British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders on Merseyside as an act of faith in the area and as a boost to the confidence of its people? Thirdly, will he set up a Merseyside development agency analogous to the Development Agencies for Wales and Scotland?

One of the first acts of the present Government was to make Merseyside a special development area, with all the advantages that that gives. The siting of the headquarters of British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders is still subject to discussion. The question of a Merseyside development agency is, I understand, to be the subject of a debate. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views then.

I appeal to hon. Members once again to cut the preamble and come to the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied that the document "Criteria for Assistance to Industry" published by his Department in December 1975 is being observed by his Department.

Yes, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the commitment in paragraph 1(5) of his Department's document that it will introduce measures to curb monopolistic practices in industry? What measures he has in mind to check monopolies in the Post Office and in the bus industry?

That does not arise from the hon. Gentleman's Question. However, the criteria have been extensively discussed with both sides of industry within the National Economic Development Council and they have been considered by the Industrial Development Advisory Board. There are risks, which are fairly set out in the document that we have made available to Parliament. I hope that as a result of that document the practices will be better understood.

As the document said that the most important objective was a return on the assets helped by the Government, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the budgeted return on those assets in the current year?

I cannot do that without notice. The hon. Gentleman chides the Government for providing the information. Under the Industry Act 1972, introduced by his Government, no criteria for assistance were published or made available to the House. The Minister in charge rejected an amendment that would have laid on the Government a duty to provide some criteria. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be more understanding about these matters. There are risks. Some firms will achieve viability very quickly after receiving Government assistance on a once-and-for-all basis. Others may take longer. It depends on the nature of the project. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much taxpayers' money has been paid out in the last 12 months to support industrial firms in financial difficulties.

In the 12 months up to 31st January 1976, payments of just over £74 million have been made to firms under Part II of the Industry Act 1972 arising from circumstances in which companies have sought assistance to overcome immediate financial difficulties.

Is the hon. Gentleman happy that none of the money will be wasted? Having fallen at the first fence with the Scottish Daily News, is he certain that he is backing winners?

As my right hon. Friend has just said, there are risks, but the whole point of Part II of the 1972 Act is to restore a company in financial difficulties—to help it to get on its feet and save a number of jobs. The Scottish Daily News is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that after the assistance to Chrysler and the proposed sacking of 8,000 shop floor workers, the management has been strengthened and the board of directors now exceeds 50 in number?

I do not believe that that matter arises on this Question, but if my hon. Friend tables a Question I shall be pleased to answer it.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how much was paid in tax by private industry during the period in question? If not, will he write to me giving the figure?

I cannot answer without notice, so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has plans to initiate a campaign for improved productivity in manufacturing industry.

The improvement of productivity is one of the prime objectives of the Government's industrial strategy now being developed in co-operation with both sides of industry.

In view of the OECD figures, showing that, on average, the British industrial worker produces, per shift, less than half the amount produced by his German and American counterparts, and not much more than half the amount produced by his opposite number in Japan, is it not time for the Secretary of State to take more vigorous steps to improve the situation?

That is the whole purpose of seeking to improve productivity, and of the joint discussions between the two sides of industry and the Government.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to use his influence in the Cabinet to ensure that wide-scale import controls are instituted, as one means of improving the position in manufacturing industry?

The question of import controls has been well debated. My hon. Friend will realise that they must be seriously considered, because they are a two-edged weapon, and it is better that this should be done by agreement with foreign Governments to protect particular sections of British industry, than that we should take action across the board.

May I emphasise, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Secretary of State's attitude a little earlier, that this is a question and not an expression of an opinion? Will not the Government's measures to protect jobs by subsidy payments, during a period when industrial output is stagnating, lower productivity?

They will not lower productivity. We are hoping, as a result of many of the schemes organised by the Government, considerably to improve the capital effectiveness of British industry and to increase our productivity, to await the period when the world upswing in trade occurs.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to authorise further grants under the Wool Textile Scheme.

Under the current scheme for the wool textile industry applicants have two more years, until 31st December 1977, to complete projects that have been approved, and grants will continue to be paid as projects progress. As already announced, the sum set aside for the scheme has been increaed from £15 million to £18 million. The Economic Development Committee proposed a further scheme of support under the Industry Act on 4th February 1976, and this is now being considered.

Does the Minister agree that any further extension of this scheme will outlaw the provision under which funds are available for firms that close plants, thereby making thousands of textile workers unemployed and throwing them on the scrap heap, with their smashed machines? When will the Department start to prepare a proper plan for the textile industry, based on providing decent employment and combating unfair competition, so providing the industry with a future?

The recent discussions with the Wool Textiles EDC had this point very much in mind, including the question of imports. Although the demand for wool textiles, particularly in the export markets, shows signs of picking up, the industry needs to improve productivity to be competitive. It is therefore impossible to rule out the possibility of further redundancies.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry which companies have been approached by his Department with a view to setting up planning agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions are currently taking place between his Department and industry with a view to concluding planning agreements.

My Department is continuing its exploratory discussions with a number of leading companies in manufacturing industry, following discussions with representatives of both sides of industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Is the Minister aware that one reason why many companies are unwilling to enter into planning agreements lies in the fact that they feel that by handing over commercial information to the Government they may be committing suicide? Will he comment on the alarming contents of the guidelines to the National Enterprise Board, under paragraph 26 of which companies are to supply confidential information to the Government—information which, in turn, may be fed to the NEB to enable the Board to take the initiative?

The hon. Gentleman should know that a vast amount of confidential commercial information is passed to Governments all the time, with or without planning agreements. Massive amounts of commercial information were passed to the Conservative Government under the Industry Act 1972. In this case it will be a voluntary passing on of information, to enable sensible planning agreements to take place with the present Government.

Will the Minister confirm or deny Press reports that the planning agreement system no longer requires companies proposing to enter into planning agreements to submit detailed corporate plans, but that the situation has now been changed to one in which there is little more than general discussion of a company's future?

I categorically deny those statements. There will have to be corporate plans under planning agreements, and the most detailed discussion will be followed by actual agreements lodged with the Department.

Is the Minister aware that the reason why he has not so far been able to announce any success for planning agreements, except in regard to companies that have no choice, is that the companies themselves are aware of the policy work being undertaken by the Labour Party policy committee, which is already planning the use of compulsory powers within the planning machinery? Will he give a categorical assurance that at the time of the next election there will be no revision of planning agreement arrangements which could convert existing discussions into much more compulsory ones?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting that after the next election we shall be in a position to carry out all our plans. The hon. Gentleman has taken off into orbit again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question, if I am allowed to complete the sentence. The policy of the present Government on planning agreements is enshrined in the Industry Act 1975. Planning agreements are voluntary, and planning agreements made this year will be voluntary.

asked the Attorney-General whether the Government have now completed their consideration of the Phillimore Report on Contempt of Court; and when they propose to introduce legislation.

The Government are still considering the Phillimore Report and further consultation is required before any firm conclusions can be reached. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 26th November last, we also have to take account of the Law Commission's work on offences against the administration of justice.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that in 1973 the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that this subject was in urgent need of attention? Does he further recollect that the Phillimore Committee reported in May 1974 and that since then this urgent matter has been received with a deafening silence? When will something happen?

As I told the hon. and learned Gentleman, this is a difficult subject. It is bound up with the Law Commission's work, which has been given a great deal of consideration, and there has been a great deal of consultation. I agree that this matter requires urgency, but it also requires thoroughness. In my view, thoroughness in this context must be a priority over urgency.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction at the way in which his Department appears to be in a state of fossilised inactivity, not just about the Phillimore Report on contempt but about the Faulks Report on defamation, the Younger Report on privacy and the Franks Report on official secrets? When will he do anything about anything?

The answer to the first question is "No, I am not aware of that". Each of the other matters to which the hon. Member referred is within the province not of my Department but of another Department. Of course, on matters such as those which are the concern of the Lord Chancellor, I answer for him.

We quite understand, of course, the importance of the decisions that the Government will take on this Report, and therefore can see that it is right and proper that it should receive careful consideration, but the Committee reported in May 1974. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how much longer the consideration will continue?

No, Sir, I cannot. I have already said that the Law Commission's Report has to be taken into account, and that there have to be and have been consultations, and there will be more. I can only hope that the Government will be able to announce conclusions before too long.

asked the Attorney-General how many times in the past year he has given approval for charges to be reinstituted after they had been thrown out by a magistrates' court; and how many times he has allowed a prosecution on the same charges to be commenced after the defendant had been acquitted at jury trial of the same offences.

My responsibility for individual cases is limited to those in which the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned. The Director is not required to seek my approval for the reinstatement of charges on which a magistrates' court has refused to commit for trial. It is open to him to consult me about any individual case, but the number of cases in which he has done so could not be ascertained without disproportionate expense.

What is the Attorney-General trying to hide? Is he not aware of the dictum of Lord Shawcross, when he was Attorney-General, that any Attorney-General of the day is responsible for the activities of the DPP? Is the House not entitled to know how many cases are reinstituted after they have been thrown out in the lower courts? Is this not a frightful waste of time of the courts? Will he now consider giving a reply and providing some justification for this obscene treatment of the courts of law?

Reinstatement of charges that are suitable in relation to the evidence that has been taken on the committal proceedings are expressly authorised by Act of Parliament in conditions that appear in the Act. When that takes place, it is of course open to a defendant to take his own proceedings, to ask the court to remove that part of the indictment.

asked the Attorney-General when he expects the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession to start work.

As soon as may be after the appointment of the chairman and other members has been settled.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that now that the Prime Minister has announced the setting up of the Royal Commission it is important that the chairman and members should be appointed and work should begin as soon as possible?

Certainly it is important that the matter should proceed quickly. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an important Commission and that it is important that we get it right.

Would my hon. and learned Friend be prepared to make two recommendations to the Prime Minister—first, that the report on legal services should not be delayed by the Royal Commission and, second, that lawyers should not dominate its membership?

On the second question, I shall of course pass on what my hon. Friend says to the Prime Minister. The first matter is to some extent within the powers of the Royal Commission itself, but I take the point.

Will the Government be putting forward proposals to the Royal Commission to implement the Solicitor-General's suggestion that judges should meet housewives, trade union officials and young radicals? If so, what will those proposals be?

The Government will probably not be making any suggestions. This question falls outside the initial Question, but since I have been asked I would say that I was simply endeavouring to acknowledge what I thought was a problem that was widely recognised—that people from differing backgrounds would often find it helpful to meet one another a little informally.

I agree with the Solicitor-General that it is important to get the membership of the Royal Commission right. To that end, the Prime Minister said that there would be wide consultation before the appointment of either chairman or members. Have the Government decided what the width of that consultation will be? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any information on that now?

Consultations are proceeding. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it is not normal to give details of who has suggested what to whom. However, if he has a specific question about the consultations, it should be directed to the Prime Minister.