asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many planning agreements have been concluded with major industrial companies.

My Department has exploratory discussions in hand with a number of leading companies in manufacturing industry, following discussions with representatives of both sides of industry. I hope to make a further statement shortly.

Is the correct answer to that Question "None, Sir"? Will the Secretary of State accept that some of us on the Opposition side of the House rejoice in that true answer? Will he refrain from concluding planning agreements of this kind in a hurry?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should rejoice. In most of the discussions I have had with leading companies about planning agreements, they have recognised the value in getting their work force more involved in planning discussions. Part of our problem in Britain is performance and getting the best out of our investment, and even where this is comparable with some of our international competitors, discussions at plant level about planning agreements are worth while.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say which companies are involved? If not, why not?

I cannot do so yet. We have in mind sectors of British industry which are at the heart of our export performance. Discussions are at an advanced stage. I hope to be in a position in the very near future to let my hon. Friend and the House know which companies these are.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that part of the planning agreement system is that companies receive the value of Government information forecasts? If that is so, will he confirm that part of the Government input to these discussions will be the recent public expenditure White Paper? If it is, what credence should companies attach to it?

Anyone can make points like that. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that a good deal of information is already given and that there is an interchange of information between companies and the Government. It is essential that the work forces join in that information and discussion. The hon. Gentleman is not right to disparage planning agreements. Certainly his pessimism is not shared by leading British companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has any plans to meet the Chairman of BSC.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next proposes to meet Sir Charles Villiers, Chairman-designate of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the new Chairman of British Steel, both before and after his appointment to that office.

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

I met the Chairman and the Chairman-designate on 15th and 12th March respectively. No dates have so far been arranged for further meetings, but as and when needed I meet the Chairman on a wide range of matters affecting the Corporation.

When the Secretary of State met the Chairman, did he tell him the real reasons behind his decision not to reappoint him, namely, that he was running the BSC very well, and well for Britain as a whole, but just happened not to be fitting in with Socialist ideology at present?

I do not know whether even Sir Monty Finniston would agree with that. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is trying to help in the situation. Sir Monty will have completed nearly 10 years as either Chief Executive of BSC or Deputy Chairman of the Organising Committee when his term comes to an end in September. I should like to place on record my admiration of the work, energy and devotion that he has put into the Corporation over those years, and I know that he is fully committed to making the nationalised industry a success.

When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman-designate, will he encourage him to stand firm on the agreement made by Sir Monty with the unions in February to reduce overmanning in the industry?

I have had one preliminary discussion with Sir Charles Villiers about the prospects of the Corporation. It is the most important manufacturing industry in the country. It will take some time before everything comes right within that industry, but Sir Charles is very keen on improving industrial relations and he is well aware of some of the problems of the Corporation.

Why was it found necessary to appoint Sir Charles Villiers to this post? Are there no Socialists capable of carrying out these important jobs as chairmen of nationalised industries? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these are the most likely representatives to do the job correctly on our behalf?

I want to see those who head the nationalised industries committed to making those industries a success. There is no reason to doubt that Sir Charles Villiers is competent and able to deal with the problems of the industry. My hon. Friend will know that Sir Charles did magnificent work as the Chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation between 1968 and 1971.

When he met Sir Charles Villiers, did the Secretary of State discuss the need for terms of reference under which the Chairman-designate can see the British Steel Corporation operating in a vigorous and profitable manner? When legislation comes forward to increase the BSC's borrowing requirement, may we have a total rethink about the way in which the Government are crippling the activities of senior management of the BSC?

I am not prepared to take lessons from Conservative Party spokesmen on the relationship between the Government and nationalised industries, The hon. Gentleman will recall the unwarranted interference that took place between 1970 and 1972 in the activities of the Joint Steering Group. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall never meddle in the way that the Conservative Party meddled at that time.

Further to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), does he agree that acceptance of Socialist doctrine by the chairman of any major public sector operation is an essential key to the success of that operation?

Of course, it is essential that the industries become well managed and efficiently run. There is nothing in the appointment of Sir Charles Villiers that contradicts that view.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has received from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South the petition from the employees of the British Aircraft Corporation, Military Aircraft Division, Warton, who are opposed to the nationalisation of the aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already written to the hon. Member acknowledging the petition. It does not represent the majority opinion of workers throughout the industry, who, expressing their views through their unions, have made clear their support for public ownership.

As the Secretary of State said in reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that he was in favour of consulting the workers, will the Minister of State take note of the petition, which contains 2,400 names, representing 65 per cent, of those who were canvassed and over half of the work force? Has he any evidence that the opinion of workers at other aircraft plants is any different from that? Do not those figures show that nationalisation is being pushed through purely for reasons of dogma?

First, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statistical analysis. Secondly, in the last six weeks I have visited 12 aircraft factories in different parts of Great Britain, and in every one the trade union representatives have expressed to me their passionate support for public ownership. As it happens, I have in my possession a resolution passed on 29th March by the Aircraft Industry Joint Unions Lay Executive Committee, in which representatives of workers in BAC, Hawker Siddeley Aviation, Hawker Siddeley Dynamics and Scottish Aviation express their full support for the Bill and

"deplore the filibustering tactics being employed by the Opposition Members in Standing Committee D which are to the detriment of the industry and the workers employed in it."

Is the Minister aware that his answer merely confirms that his consultations are an absolute charade and comprise only a repetition of views put to him by a few politically motivated shop stewards whose opinions do not in any way represent the overwhelming views of the people who work in the industry, as opposed to those who make jobs for themselves by purporting to represent the views of the workers?

I have undertaken wider consultations in relation to the Bill than have ever been undertaken before. I have visited 12 aircraft factories, four shipyards and one ship repair yard in the space of less than six weeks. The support of the workers' representatives for nationalisation is unanimous. On the other hand, they expressed their anger and contempt for the action of the Opposition in blocking this legislation.

As the principal blockers of the legislation are the Government, who introduced the Bill last year and then withdrew it, perhaps the Minister of State will withdraw his remark in which he blamed the delay on the Opposition. As the other justification for the Bill was that it had the overwhelming support of the people in the industry, and it was said that they would be consulted, is the Minister prepared to allow all the people in the industry to say, in future, whether or not it should be nationalised?

By my proposals for industrial democracy I am offering the workers a greater say in the industry's future than has ever been offered before. When I wrote to the Conservative Party and asked whether it would like to consult the Government and the Chairman of the Organising Committee about industrial democracy, the Conservative Party did not even answer my letter.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his estimate of the employment prospects in the aerospace industry over the next live years; and whether he will make a statement.

Employment prospects depend ultimately on the industry's ability to sell its products in world markets, where present conditions are uncertain. However, the Government intend that the British industry should maintain a significant and profitable share of the substantial new business expected by the 1980s.

I think that most of us in the House will be happy to hear that the Minister is so confident that this industry has a real future because, contrary to general belief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Minister aware that, contrary to general belief, many people are affected, in widely scattered areas of the country, and that this matter is of interest to the majority of hon. Members in this House?

Too long.

Order. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has not been half as long as the hon. Member who shouted an interruption.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that proper steps are being taken to make certain that there is an easy transition from military to civil application of the aerospace industry?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, namely, that the success of the British aircraft industry is of great importance to hundreds of thousands of workers in this country. I have visited many of these factories and discussed the problems with management and workers' representatives at all levels. It is essential that we do our best to obtain new civil projects, and I attempted to do that when I had discussions with M. Cavaille in Paris last week. The aircraft industry depends as well on military projects, and when I went to Preston recently I found a wide welcome for the decision to order the 385 Tornado—MRCA—planes.

Following the discussions in Paris, would my hon. Friend care to confirm Press reports that three collaborative projects with the French were discussed? Will he also confirm that two of the three involve French airframes, and will he say whether, if we are going ahead, we shall discuss the supply of British engines for those airframes?

I cannot confirm that. One case—the HS 146—which I put forward strongly to M. Cavaille, will be an aircraft of British design, which we hope will provide some work for Toulouse as well. The Airbus is what we considered. We want to provide maximum work both in the airframe and machine industries. That was one of the objects of my talks with M. Cavaille.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Post Office regarding the future of the parcel service.

My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with the Post Office about the future development of all aspects of the postal business, including the parcels service.

Does the Minister agree that the Post Office must be close to the point of diminishing returns in its proposals for yet further increased charges? Would it not be more sensible to await the outcome of the Carter Committee before allowing such huge further increases?

We cannot halt everything that is going on in the Post Office until the Carter Committee has reported. The parcels service causes us all a great deal of concern and we want it to be viable, but I do not think that we should hold everything up until the Carter Committee reports.

In his talks with the Post Office, will the Minister express concern about the wave of closures of sub-post offices, particularly in rural areas? Does he agree that the closure of such offices, which are obviously important community facilities, is not in the best interests of the Post Office or of consumers?

The question of sub-post offices is a vexed one, which has been raised many times in the House, but it is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Post Office. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have power under the Post Office Act to interfere in matters of this kind.

Will the Minister tell the Chairman of the Post Office that he does no service to the cause of consumer representation when he refuses to give the Post Office Users' National Council figures for which it asks to enable it to make a judgment on the latest round of increases?

I am sure that the Chairman of the Post Office will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what measures the Government are considering to improve their relationships with the nationalised industries under his responsibility.

The National Economic Development Office is currently carrying out a detailed study of the rôle of the nationalised industries in the economy and of the ways in which they are to be controlled in the future. The Government will publish their views on the NEDO study at the appropriate time.

Will the Secretary of State tell us whether there are planning agreements with the nationalised industries, and to what extent they have been or will be published?

There will be planning agreements with the nationalised industries, and it is certainly the Government's intention to publish them.

In view of the low morale in the steel industry, have the Government made clear to the new Chairman of the Corporation that he can rely on the total support of the Government for the Corporation's programme to make the industry competitive and profitable?

Of course, the Chairman will get our co-operation. A great deal of work has been done over the last few months. Discussions took place at the turn of the year between the Corporation and unions and an agreement was reached. If that agreement is implemented, there will be improvements.

How many nationalised industries know the targets they are expected to achieve over any of the next three years?

A great deal of work has to be done on this. The nationalised industries' financial targets are in a mess because of the incompetent interference by the previous Administration in the prices structure.

When my right hon. Friend has discussions with the chairmen of the nationalised industries, will he ask them to examine their lines of communications with middle management?

I agree with my hon. Friend that those at the point of production must know the corporations' plans. The policy of developing industrial democracy and strengthening it, in consultation with the nationalised industries, will contribute to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to receive the sectoral industry report concerning the computer industry from NEDC.

The tripartite group carrying out the computer industry sectoral study has been asked to submit its first report to the NEDC by early June.

Can the Minister say whether what he referred to as the tripartite group report will be delayed following the squabble between various unions, especially Mr. Jenkins' union ASTMS, which meant there were no trade union representatives present at the first meeting of this group?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a serious interest in the computer industry. He does that interest no credit with this kind of muck-raking.

Will the Minister give an assurance that when the report is received he will seek to abolish the single tender scheme in the public sector, which favours the English ICL manufacturer against the Scottish computers produced by IBM, NCR and Burroughs? Does he realise that this does immense harm to Scottish jobs in the computer industry?

The hon. Member must be complimented on extending his Scottish nationalism across the Atlantic. I have had consultations with both Burroughs, whose presence I welcome, and Honeywell, which has recently received an extremely good order for a university computer. I am anxious that both companies should provide maximum employment, but I have made clear to them that I am not prepared to undermine the position of the only wholly-British owned computer company.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of that reply——

Order. I was going to call the hon. Member for another supplementary question. If hon. Members ask briefer supplementary questions it may be possible for hon. Members who asked the original Questions sometimes to get a second bite of the cherry. Mr. Gwilym Roberts.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the problem of computers spreads well beyond data processing, and will he ensure that the use of computers in other spheres, including control and automation, is taken into account in this inquiry?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long interest in this matter and I shall certainly take full account of what he says.

Will the Minister refrain from muck-throwing and deal with the substantive point raised in my earlier question?

I am not prepared to become involved in personalities in the way the hon. Members seeks. This is a constructive tripartite group and we are looking forward to its report so that various matters can be studied and reported upon later.

Will the Minister take this question seriously? It appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is trying to find out whether there is a case for ensuring that there is full union representation in these discussions. It also appears that the Minister has not grasped the importance of this matter. Will he now answer the question in the terms in which it was put?

The terms in which it was put were offensive, and I refuse, however much provoked, to respond in an offensive way, because it is not in my nature. We look forward to constructive tripartite discussions and a satisfactory report.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will take steps to assist the refractory industry.

No, Sir. My Department maintains a close interest in this vital industry, but there is no indication that special assistance is required at this time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the shortage of refractory orders, due to the present recession in the steel industry, is causing redundancies and the temporary closure of various brickworks, including one in Allandale, in my constituency? Will he make appropriate representations to the British Steel Corporation and also urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce some reflationary measures as soon as possible to help the employment prospects of workers in the refractory and other industries?

There is a scheme for the acceleration of investment in certain plants, but the refractory industry is a modern industry without bottlenecks. It is not therefore likely to need modernisation or accelerated investment. The Government are continually in contact with industries such as steel, glass and ceramics, to see whether there is any way of accelerating their investment programmes, which would, of course, greatly assist industries like the refractory industry.

Will my hon. Friend encourage the British Steel Corporation to buy British, instead of Japanese, refractors, especially as the British products are available and are of equally good quality?

This is a subject on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is having many discussions with industry. Wherever possible, industry should buy British goods, but there is such a thing as industries maintaining their economic viability, and their pursuit of this objective requires them to buy in the cheapest world market.

Does not any failure to assist the refractory industry appear all the more ridiculous in view of the high levels of unemployment in the construction industry, particularly in the West of Scotland, where there is a great need for environmental improvement?

My Department has very close links with the refractory industry and has received no requests for assistance from it. I am sure that we would have received requests if assistance were necessary. This is not one of the industries with bottlenecks, and as soon as other industries, such as glass and steel, pick up it will immediately be able to supply their needs.

Is not the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) right when she says that because of the high level of unemployment in construction, the refractory industry is badly under-employed? Should not my hon. Friend tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer before tomorrow that more assistance must be given to the construction industries?

This is something of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obviously be well aware. The refractory industry is a rather specialised section of the brickmaking industry. I know the firm to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) referred. It is a high quality firm, with a good export potential. This export potential is one of the reasons why the industry has been cushioned, to some extent, from the immediate home problems of the using industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry to what extent United Kingdom membership of the EEC has attracted industry to the United Kingdom in the last nine months.

Since last July, we have known of decisions by nearly 100 foreign companies to establish or expand in Britain. A further seven foreign companies have been offered assistance under the accelerated projects scheme. Our membership of the EEC will have been a factor weighing with many of these companies.

Can the Minister say what has been the total number of new projects attracted since 1973? Is it greater or less than was expected in 1972?

The number of new projects attracted to the United Kingdom in 1973 totalled 180. In 1974, it was 198 and in 1975, 149. That is creditable, in view of the world recession.

Does my hon. Friend remember that we were told that it would be wonderful for British industry if we went into the EEC? What has happened?

I would have thought that the announcement I have just made would give my hon. Friend some pleasure. Bearing in mind the world-wide recession and the fact that there has been little expansion, I think that we have done very well in the last nine months.

Will the Minister make clear that the Government will go on encouraging foreign firms to come to Britain, recognising that they bring much-needed investment to areas which badly need it and provide more jobs?

I think we have made that clear in the last two years. We are always anxious to encourage inward investment. It is a considerable factor in providing jobs, especially in the assisted areas. In the latter part of last year, an important group of American business men came over to study the situation here and were impressed with what we were able to do for them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that investment is a two-way matter in the EEC? Has he figures showing how much British investment has been made in the other eight countries of the Community in the last nine months?

I do not have the figures for that period, but I shall let my hon. Friend have them. On balance, the figures indicate a positive improvement in our position.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to encourage British industry to buy British goods; and if he will make a statement.

The industrial strategy sector working groups are examining the scope for saving imports and my officials are participating actively in this work.

Does my hon. Friend admit that it is appalling when a great many public sector orders, such as that from British Leyland for tooling equipment, are going to Japan and countries all over Europe? Does he accept that we in Britain have a great deal to learn from the attitude of France and Japan to this kind of situation?

The scope for action to reduce imports varies greatly from industry to industry. The improvement of the links between users and suppliers is an important area, in which we hope to achieve results.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is needed is not so much encouragement and exhortation to buy British as a plan for import substitution and temporary protection by import controls?

One of the criteria for a project qualifying for the accelerated projects scheme is that it should benefit the balance of payments. Equipment purchases are taken into account when deciding whether a project qualifies for the accelerated projects scheme. It would be wrong to make aid totally conditional on firms buying British equipment, particularly as Britain depends so much on exports.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fancily-named working group that he has mentioned and the fanciful views of his hon. Friends are useless? Should not the Government be encouraging management and unions together to work hard to produce goods competitively and to deliver them on time?

I should have thought that that was what the Government were doing, and were beginning to do much more successfully than any previous Government. There is still a great deal to be done in terms of improving the links between users and suppliers, getting them together, and perhaps getting suppliers to meet the needs of users better than has been the situation in this country in the past. Users' needs seem to be met much better by the marketing forces of our competitors.

Will the report of this working group, which seems to be one of a vast proliferation of working groups, be published, so that we may have a little chat about it? Will the working group encourage British Leyland and Chrysler to place orders for machine tools in the immediate future, so that the machine tool industry, which has surplus capacity, can get cracking on these machine tools rather than wait for the much vaunted upturn, when we are likely to be sucking in imports?

It is not a working group; it is a number of working groups from various industries working closely with the industries. This is not a matter for a Royal Commission or anything like that. This is a matter for groups within industries, which know the industries and the suppliers and the users, getting together to try to achieve some organisation between them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that investment in British Leyland has come to a standstill because the company is not producing the cars at the necessary rate to hit the targets upon which the money was committed? Until that happens, there is no point in talking about substituting British production. If British Leyland would produce the cars which British people want, it would sell them, but it is not producing them. That is the problem.

The hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun a bit. There is a later Question dealing specifically with British Leyland. I was asked a very narrow question relating to a factory in South Africa and the purchasing of some Japanese secondary equipment for machine tools.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what forecast he has made of the total demand for new cars in the United Kingdom market in 1976 and the percentage of that total that will be met by domestic production.

No official forecast is published. The industry estimates that the home market will be slightly above 1·2 million and that import penetration will not be more than 33 per cent.

Does the Minister of State agree that any shortfall in domestic production is bound to leave more scope for imports? Will he tell the House by how much production and output in the Government-assisted firms of British Leyland and Chrysler is below the forecasts on which the assistance was given?

It is well above what it would have been if the Tory Party had had its way. If the Tories had their way, there would not now be a British Leyland, since they voted to destroy it. Last year British Leyland was our greatest exporter. The Opposition voted against Chrysler, too, and Chrysler is now beginning to pick up very well.

Is my hon. Friend aware that during the past five years the export of motor car components has doubled whilst their import has more than trebled? What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the gap that is emerging between imports and exports of motor car components is closed by those parts of the British car industry which are dependent on public funds?

I am obviously ready to study any figures that my hon. Friend may put before me. The components industry is one of our most successful exporters. Last year the motor industry as a whole, including components, made a net contribution of £923 million to the balance of payments.

Will the Minister of State inform the House of the productivity per man in the British car industry compared with its competitors? Surely that determines the answer to the question.

Not without notice

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has had with chairmen of boards of nationalised industries under his control on questions of remuneration for themselves and other board chairmen, conditions of service and related matters.

I have regular contacts with the chairmen of those nationalised industries for which my Department is responsible, and discuss a wide variety of topics with them.

As the right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly agree that the chairmen of nationalised industries are a thoroughly unhappy lot, what pecking order would he establish for priorities for the future to reduce or eliminate their unhappiness—higher pay, financial reorganisation, more freedom of action, or the resignation of the Secretary of State?

I think that most chairmen of nationalised industries would be happy if they thought that they had a permanent Labour Government, so that they would be dealing with politicians who were sympathetic to their general aims.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how the appointment of captains of industry, such as Sir Richard Dobson and Sir Charles Villiers, at very enhanced salaries, out of keeping with the shop floor level of income, helps industrial democracy? Is not the solution to get committed Socialists, who are not in the executive market, who will not merely seek larger salaries but will be dedicated to the nationalised industries and to the introduction of industrial democracy, so that the ordinary shop floor worker will feel that he can identify with the boss?

I can only repeat that I want the chairmen of nationalised industries to be committed to the success of those industries. I think that in most cases the chairmen are acceptable to those who work in the industries. I know that my hon. Friend will have noted recently that the National Union of was consulted on, and generally endorsed, the reappointment of Sir Derek Ezra.

Is the Secretary of State aware that these unfortunate chairmen are a depressed class? Should they not be paid the rate for the job, with danger money, in view of Government interference?

No. They make many requests from time to time, but they have never made a request for danger money.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what objectives have been set for British Leyland against which further tranches of public money will be made available.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) on 26th January.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was wholly unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that it is fatuous to say that the next tranche of taxpayers' money will be dependent upon certain objectives being met unless those objectives are publicly and precisely disclosed in advance? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the light of the company's lamentable performance to date, notably in the field of industrial disputes, it would be wrong to release the next tranche of public money——

Order. I have been the most patient man this afternoon, but a number of hon. Members are turning supplementary questions into little speeches.

Conservative Members—I do not necessarily say the hon. Gentleman himself—seem to think that there is some precise arithmetical formula that one can use to measure performance within a particular industry and that if that is not met the further tranche of money has to be stopped. We have made it plain again and again—and the Prime Minister made it plain on 24th April last year—that the further release of funds is conditional upon improvement in performance and industrial relations. I want to see British Leyland a success, and I know that that view is shared by those who work there.

In connection with British Leyland's export objectives, following the report that British Leyland is off the Arab boycott there is the possibility of increased trade with Arab countries, but will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that British Leyland sticks to the existing obligations and contracts that it has with Israel?

I have seen Press reports about this. As I understand it, there has been no change in British Leyland's policy towards Israel, and, as I think my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are opposed to any boycott that lacks international support and authority.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm the statement made to this House by the then Prime Minister that the operating prospectuses and programmes of British Leyland, together with the comments of the National Enterprise Board, will be made available to the House before the next tranche of public money is supplied?

I do not know about the "then Prime Minister". The hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun a little. The change of Prime Minister does not take place until later today. I confirm that it is the Government's intention to give as much information as possible about the performance of British Leyland before the next tranche of money goes in.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that mistaken management decisions taken last year on a reduced vehicle build programme, on wasteful and unnecessary voluntary redundancy programmes and, indeed, on wasteful and unnecessary sales promotion programmes have done as much to damage production, sales and profits at British Leyland as all the strikes last year and this year put together?

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. These are issues primarily for the NEB, which has a responsibility for monitoring the performance of British Leyland. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are drawn to the Board's attention.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Ryder strategy was full of precise arithmetical formulae and that by suggesting, as he has done today, that these have been set on one side he will increase the impression that the Government will put more money into British Leyland regardless of any targets that may or may not be achieved? Will he further remember that the CPRS Report recommended that there should be specific targets and that——

Order. The same rule about supplementary questions applies to the Front Bench as to the Back Benches.

I have not given the impression this afternoon that British Ley-land's performance will not be monitored by the NEB. It will be, and as much information as practical will be given to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress so far of the NEB in meeting its objectives.

I am very satisfied with the progress made by the Board. It has now sole ownership of Rolls-Royce (1971) and Herbert; it has a controlling interest in British Leyland and Ferranti, and three other minority shareholdings. It is arranging to provide finance on commercial terms to several companies for building stocks of machine tools; it has joined with other companies in bidding for overseas construction contracts that should generate substantial British exports; and it has a number of other projects at an advanced stage but which are still commercially confidential.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disappointment at the NEB not living up to the hoped-for expectation, for example, in not directing investment into industry in a positive enough manner and not concluding planning agreements quickly enough? Does my right hon. Friend accept that steps are needed to ensure that the NEB plays the vigorous rôle that was envisaged for it in regenerating British industry?

I ask my hon. Friend to be a little patient. The NEB has been in existence for only five months and, as I have demonstrated, it has made considerable progress so far. For example, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that it has appointed directors for the North-West and for the North. These are senior men, based at Liverpool and Newcastle. The aim of the Board is still that it should extend its interests into profitable manufacturing industries, and I shall be giving it all the encouragement that I can to do that.

How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly say that the NEB is meeting its objectives when no financial objectives have been set for it? As it is now five months since the NEB was set up, why are we still in a position in which we have only draft guidelines and not full guidelines for the operation of the Board? Is not this a most unsatisfactory situation?

I do not think it is an unsatisfactory situation. The transfer of Rolls-Royce, Herbert and British Leyland has only just taken place, and a good deal of information has to be obtained before the financial objectives can be settled. I note that the hon. Gentleman has unintentionally jumped the gun, because the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr Skeet) has a later Question on this precise point.

asked the secretary of State for Industry what financial objectives have been determined for the National Enterprise Board.

I shall be settling appropriate financial objectives for the National Enterprise Board in the early summer, after consultation with the Board and the Treasury. The Government have indicated in the draft NEB guidelines that separate objectives would be set for the Board's major holdings—for instance, those in British Leyland Ltd. and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. These will be determined in the light of the long-term plans of the companies.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the NEB was intended to acquire further profitable industries, is he not also aware that it is many years since the State corporations had any financial objectives? Does the right hon. Gentleman want the rate of return on capital investment on these large sums to be small—as, for example, with IRI, of Italy—or substantial?

It is our intention that the NEB should extend its interest into the profitable sector, with comparable financial objectives. The hon. Gentleman, who is very fair about these matters, knows how the financial objectives of the nationalised industries have been distorted because of the counter-inflation policy and the direct decisions of the last Administration not to allow economic pricing for their products and services. Therefore, I do not think that the position that the hon. Gentleman instances between the NEB and the nationalised industries is comparable.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Government's policy to reduce public expenditure in order to transfer resources into British manufacturing industry, and the very modest sum of £250 million per annum which the NEB will have to spend? Surely, if the transfer of resources is to be made, it should be through the NEB, and my right hon. Friend should meet the TUC's demand for at least £1,000 million a year.

I know that this matter has caused concern not only to my hon. Friend but to other Members of Parliament and organisations. The best thing I can tell my hon. Friend is that at the 19. Mr. Skeet asked the Secretary of present stage the provision of support for the National Enterprise Board is inevitably arbitrary, and it is our intention that it should be kept under review.

Will the NEB be represented on the board of Rolls-Royce?

It will not be directly represented on the Rolls-Royce Board, but I know from past experience that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in seeing that the Government-owned Rolls-Royce should co-operate closely with the NEB. I think that the understanding that has been reached between NEB and Rolls-Royce is satisfactory. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been welcomed by both sides.

If the Secretary of State believes that the nationalised industries were distorted after 1972, will he point to one of the nationalised industries in any year before 1970 which, in his view, was earning an adequate return on its assets?

There are one or two nationalised industries which would meet the objectives set down by the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It is interesting that for the very first time the hon. Gentleman has admitted——

Which nationalised industries?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear the reply. For the very first time he has admitted to the House that the distortion that took place during the period of the last Conservative Government in the prices of the products of nationalised industries has contributed to their present financial difficulties.