asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the operation of his regional policy.

Yes, Sir. Regional policy has proved itself to be an effective instrument for tackling the problems of structural unemployment in the assisted areas.

Does my hon. Friend realise that he caused great resentment by his attempt to dissuade Staffordshire from seeking investment abroad? North Staffordshire has special problems of economic development for which Government assistance is required. If that assistance is not forthcoming, it must feel free to look to other quarters for investment.

I am surprised that it causes resentment because, as I pointed out, in cost benefit terms it seems bettter to concentrate expenditure—especially at a time of public expenditure constraint—on promotional work within this country rather than abroad. The Department's experience is that areas get better results from such expenditure in this country, and that was the advice that was given. The regions were not instructed.

Will the Minister publish the letter which was sent to him by the Chairman of the North Staffordshire Development Association saying what success it had had, and will he apologise to the association for one of the stupidest comments ever made by any Minister in this Parliament?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take such a peculiar line and get so heated about it. All I said was that, when hon. Members on both sides of the House are asking for good value for public expenditure, it is better to spend money in this country than abroad, and that is what our experience shows. But the decision is left to the regions. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman is so irritable—I must put it down to the temperature.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our regional policy needs to be more selective and that in giving assistance account should be taken of factors other than unemployment, including the migration of population and the decline of traditional industries such as the textile industry? Does my hon. Friend also agree that the National Enterprise Board should have a more positive role in regional policy, particularly in the creation of new areas of economic activity within the regions?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there is no single objective for regional policy. Unemployment is the most obvious criterion by which need is judged, but it is not the sole criterion used by the Government. At different times other objectives could be even more important than the employment objective. Hon. Members will recognise that, in the present context of recessional unemployment superimposed on structural unemployment, the Government's policy has to be to eliminate the unemployment problem.

In considering a more selective approach to regional assistance, the Public Expenditure White Paper stated that the regional employment premium was under review. Is the purpose of the review to consider a more selective application of the regional employment premium?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that supplementary question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I shall draw it to his attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry under what legislative powers Concorde is funded; whether these powers have altered since 1962; and to what extent the Government's powers to effect intervention in the aircraft industry have increased during the same period.

From 1962 to 1968 Concorde was funded under the Civil Aviation Act 1949. Since 1968 Concorde has also been funded under the Industrial Expansion Act 1968, later amended by the Concorde Aircraft Act 1973. Apart from these Acts, no Government have needed to take additional powers during this period specifically to intervene in the aircraft industry.

Is it not clear from that answer that the Government have ample powers to fund the research and development and production of new aircraft? Is it not, therefore, a gross deception on the part of the Minister to pretend that he needs to nationalise the aircraft industry to create new jobs? Will he stop going round the country telling people that they cannot have jobs in the aircraft industry unless he nationalises it?

Of course, the Government have ample power to pour money into private enterprise. We have all the power we need to make donations to private enterprise, which abuses us for giving it money. I realise why the hon. Gentleman is so upset. He was at the British Aircraft Corporation factory at Hurn when the chairman of the joint shop stewards read out a statement denouncing the Opposition for their disgraceful tactics on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.

Does the Minister recall that I sent him a petition signed by more than 50 per cent. of the total personnel of BAC Warton opposing nationalisation? Does not that suggest that the workers in the industry are less than enthusiastic for the Government's policy?

The interesting thing about the petition which the hon. Gentleman sent to me is that the proportion of the support he claimed did not tally with the actual employees of BAC, so it was a little difficult to understand the basis of the petition. When I went to BAC factories at Warton, Samlesbury, Hum, Filton and other places, all the workers' representatives were unanimous in support of nationalisation.

Does the Minister of State agree that the Government are deliberately starving Scottish Aviation of orders? Why not order aircraft from that company to meet the needs of the Ministry of Defence in patrolling our fishing limits?

When I visited Scottish Aviation at Prestwick recently, I had discussions with the workers' representatives. They expressed their full support for the Government's policy. They have been particularly ready to support the actions that I have taken. I have taken a great deal of time in getting Jetstreams into Scottish Aviation in order to help the company with its programme, and the workers' representatives have expressed their appreciation of that.

Why, in the two years that the Government have been in power, have they not funded any new projects under the Civil Aviation Act 1949 as they are responsible for doing?

The reason is that the enterprising private sector has not brought forward any new projects for our consideration. I could ask the Conservatives why in their period of office the only aircraft that was launched was the SB330, which came from a nationalised company.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further measures he is considering to promote investment in and by manufacturing industry.

I shall take every opportunity to encourage investment by whatever means are appropriate.

Does the Secretary of State agree that while we have made progress in reducing inflation to 18 per cent. in the last 12 months, we have succeeded in increasing industrial investment by only 1 per cent.? Does he not agree that the time has come to restore a higher level of profitability to industry so as to encourage greater investment?

Profitability is certainly important in creating confidence in industry. I cannot anticipate the Price Code which will be published by my right hon. Friend later this week. I should have thought that real progress had been made in breaking the back of inflation. The recently negotiated pay agreement, which was practically unanimously endorsed by the trade unions at their special congress, has helped to improve the climate. Recent surveys have shown that confidence is building up in industry. The Department's own survey anticipates investment increasing by 15 per cent. next year over this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country has been suffering from a lack of investment since 1900? Our ever-worsening position has been hurting the country so much that we have turned to public investment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is why, among other reasons, the National Enterprise Board has been set up to ensure that investment goes into the right areas?

The NEB is certainly playing its part, but we have other legislative instruments to use to help promote investment where appropriate. We have Sections 7 and 8 of the good old Tory Industry Act 1972. We have used that extensively for the last two and a half years, particularly to improve investment in the motor car industry, although the Conservatives, of course, voted against that aspect.

Since the Minister thinks that the NEB is doing so well, the House will be interested to know what response he would make to the severe criticisms of the guidelines of the NEB that were made by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Public Accounts Committee. Will he take this opportunity to refute any suggestion that substantially larger amounts of funding should be available to the board, as the Labour Party's home policy committee has proposed?

I will not refute that because I am interested in ensuring that the board should have adequate funds to invest in what we have described as the profitable sector of British industry. We shall continue to make funds available to the NEB.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there is a retreat on the Price Code, and if that goes too far, there will be a great deal of resentment, particularly in view of the decision of the TUC on wages agreement? Are there any guarantees that the extra profits available will be used for investment and not for other purposes?

I cannot anticipate the consultative document which will be produced later this week, but I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Price Code were to be abandoned now, there would be very serious repercussions. The Government have maintained over the last few months that price control will remain.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the level of industrial manufacturing investment is lower than in any year during the last Conservative Government? What does he think will be the effect on investment programmes of the 2½ per cent. increase in bank lending rates?

The current low level of investment which has been taking place for the last two years reflects, and has reflected, the world economic situation. I have given figures to show that investment intentions are improving, and we shall have to wait and see how these turn out.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent consultations he has had with the board of Chrysler United Kingdom Limited.

My Department is involved in continuing discussions with members of the Board of Chrysler United Kingdom. I shall myself meet the chairman of the company at appropriate intervals to discuss progress.

Have the Government been thrown off course in their long-term strategy with the company by the fact that half the components it uses will not be manufactured in this country for at least another nine months, thereby encouraging a large import bill in connection with the Alpine?

The Alpine is only a part of the operations of Chrysler United Kingdom. The company intends to build up production over a period and to manufacture all components for that car in this country. I shall certainly be encouraging it to do so.

Will the Secretary of State say whether, in his Department's frequent consultations with the company, the company has raised the idea of scrapping the road fund licence and increasing the duty on petrol, and the effect that this would have on sales of British-made cars?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during his Budget speech. The abolition of the vehicle excise duty was considered at that time and rejected.

Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the commercial division of Chrysler, which everyone has always acknowledged to be a viable part of the enterprise, gets essential components, in particular at present the frames and other similar components from Rubery Owen and—this is a longer-term problem—adequate supplies of diesel engines from Perkins?

I do not have detailed information on the points raised by my hon. Friend, but I will see that his comments are passed to the company.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his Department is sufficiently well staffed effectively to monitor the details of the operations of companies like Chrysler into which large sums of public money are invested to ensure that the investment is in British productive resources?

We get monthly and quarterly information about Chrysler within the Department. The monitoring is assisted by Coopers and Lybrand. The information provides data on sales, production, exports, capital expenditure and financial performance necessary to enable the Government to follow Chrysler's progress. If additional information is required, I shall see that we obtain it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) concerning his Department's assessment of the impact on likely investment of the 2½ per cent. increase in borrowing rates? What modifications has the Department made also in its assessments following the change in the exchange rate, and particularly the effect that that will have on the sourcing of components, in connection with Chrysler and the Iranian contract?

I cannot answer those questions without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the Scottish Development Agency.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in close touch with the agency. I shall be glad to meet the chairman if the Secretary of State thinks that it would be useful for me to do so.

In view of the reports that the budget of the NEB is to be considerably increased, will the hon. Gentleman seek approval for the budget of the Scottish Development Agency to be increased to £300 million annually? Does he not agree that oniy a sum of this magnitude can possibly help to regenerate Scottish industry and Scottish shipbuilding in particular? Will he give a copper-bottomed guarantee that there will be no Scottish shipyard closures as a result of shipbuilding nationalisation?

I am afraid that I cannot give such assurances on either of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

If and when my hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the SDA, will he remind him of the problem that we had in getting the Bill setting up that body through the Scottish Committee because of the opposition of SNP Members, and particularly their rejection of the elements that gave it teeth? Furthermore, will he keep in mind the fact that we may well see the same reaction and behaviour from SNP Members in relation to shop stewards as we saw from them on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill?

I am sure that those working and those hoping to remain working in the shipbuilding industry in Scotland will have noted the mischievous and harmful activities of the SNP.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a further statement about the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.

It is the Government's firm intention to obtain Royal Assent this Session.

As shop stewards from Scottish shipyards are reported to be meeting the SNP today to urge its Members to support the Government on the Bill tomorrow night, does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP Members would be well advised to follow that advice in order to make atonement for their previous folly of voting against the Bill? Otherwise, Scottish workers will see through the sham patriotism of the SNP and recognise it for what it is—a party of quislings.

I very much hope that the SNP will realise how serious the situation in the shipbuilding industry is. When the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) asked a supplementary question a moment ago, I thought he knew how serious the situation in that industry is. I hope that SNP Members will take no action at all which will frustrate public ownership.

Will the Minister accept that if he were to nationalise the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) we would accept that as the Government recognising one of Scotland's liabilities? More seriously, will he remember that, using the Scottish steel industry as an example, nationalisation, under London-based management, has meant decimation of industry, and will he remember that the people of Scotland, particularly in the West, have had no assurances given by the Secretary of State that no shipyards would be closed in Scotland?

If the steel industry had not been nationalised, I do not know what would have happened to the steel industry in Scotland. I do not know what would have happened without the public money that has been pumped into that industry.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the whole country wants an end to the confusion and uncertainty created by the hiatus over the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Does he accept that the degree of confusion on the Opposition Benches is so great that I understand that several Opposition Members have booked summer cruises on oil rigs?

I know for certain that managers and workers within the industry —I emphasise "managers", if that will have any impact on the Tory Party—have said that they want an end to the uncertainty that exists, and by no means do the managers in the industry want to see the industry stay in private hands.

Of course the uncertainty should be brought to an end, but does not the Secretary of State agree that the quickest and cheapest way of doing so would be to drop the Bill that is before the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman now understand that, if his recent speeches in which he anticipated widespread unemployment as a consequence of nationalisation had been made at the time the Bill was first introduced, that would have done a great deal to diminish the enthusiasm of the left wing of the Labour Party for it?

Most of that was a total distortion of what I have been saying over the last few months. We have made no secret of the fact that shipbuilding is one of the most serious problems facing the Government. We are certain about one thing: if we are to overcome the formidable problems facing the industry, it will be done only on the basis of public ownership. But the Tory Party does not have a policy on shipbuilding at all. The only thing that Tory Members do is make irrelevant and mischievous comments, as typified by the hon. Gentleman's latest intervention. All those who work in the industry are fed to the teeth with Tory Members' silly little procedural games.

rose—

We shall be debating this matter tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the present capacity of the British steel industry for producing underwater pipes; what proportion of the home market it satisfies; and what plans he has to increase this capacity.

British producers supplied some 20 per cent. of the underwater pipes required for the United Kingdom offshore market up to 1974. Submarine pipeline for current North Sea developments has to be laid at considerable depths and United Kingdom steel producers do not have facilities to make pipe to the required specification. The British Steel Corporation is keeping under review the economic case for enhancing its 44-inch pipe mill at Hartlepool to make suitable pipe.

I accept that the present very low capacity is due to decisions taken without enterprise many years ago. Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend assure us that he will not simply leave the matter as a question which is being kept under review by the Steel Board, nor be inhibited too much by questions of day-to-day management, in order to ensure that there is good management in the future and that we shall have the capacity of supplying our own pipes to our own oilfields?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about investment decisions taken in the past. I hope he will take comfort from the fact that the BSC is actively considering enhancement of its capability at Hartlepool. It has also made submissions about future plate mill development.

Is the Minister aware that the lack of capacity is not confined only to the question of pipes and that the same situation applies in steel sheet, of which over 1 million tonnes was imported last year? Is he further aware that this situation stems not from the past but from the delay in reaching a decision on Port Talbot, which is vastly overdue after 18 months?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have the figures a little wrong. If he looks at the whole North Sea market, he will find that the BSC is supplying the whole market for sections, supplying 70 per cent. of the market for plate and supplying the bulk of the pipe for the landlines required. In total, the bulk of the well casing requirements for North Sea oil have been supplied by British Steel, and half of the steel required for production platforms. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the total market in the North Sea, he will see that the BSC has not done half as badly as he has been suggesting.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his estimate of the effect on production and sale of British-made cars of the Chancellor's proposals to tax company cars.

Our consultations are still continuing and we are considering the effects on the industry in the light of the representations received from it.

Will the Minister confirm, however, that company cars account for between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. of British registrations and that about 85 per cent. of those are home-produced cars? Therefore, anything which affects this sector badly is likely to mean an increase in imports, which are at present mostly in the private sector.

The hon. Gentleman is right in assessing the magnitude of company sales concerning the motor industry. It is for this reason that we have been having meaningful and valuable consultations on the effect of any possible distortion that could be the outcome of going ahead with the scheme in precisely its present form. As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, the Treasury has given an assurance that will look at the scales and levels for individual cars and will consider reviewing these if it is necessary to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now bring forward measures to alleviate the problems faced by small businesses.

I would refer the hon. Member to the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement and by my predecessor on 14th April in reply to a Quesion by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson).

When will the Government recognise that there is enough vigour and entrepreneurial enterprise in our small companies to make a much bigger contribution to the economy and to solving the unemployment problem if only the Government would provide the right incentives, or at leeast remove some of the disincentives? When will the Government provide the means to develop this real potential?

This mock indignation comes ill from Conservative Members, who could have done much more if they had wanted to do so during their period of office. I remember that when I used to speak on this very subject from the Opposition Front Bench I used to ask them to do more. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made alterations in corporation tax and capital transfer tax. We have set up a counselling arrangement on a pilot basis, and we are encouraging feasibility studies to see how far co-operative ventures in the provision of joint service can be undertaken. In fact, we have initiated a large number of measures specifically to help this sector, measures that Conservative Members did not consider.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the safeguards required is to deal with asset strippers? These companies move in and take over small companies producing efficiently and providing employment. They move in to get as much out of them as possible at at the expense of the workers in those companies.

That is a different aspect of the problem. My hon. Friend is right. The last thing that we want to see is a return to the predatory mergers and takeovers that we had on previous occasions when firms were taken over and milked dry and then both they and their employees cast aside.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the biggest predators of the small firms is the Government themselves? Is he further aware that one of the biggest problems from which small companies suffer is the burden of form-filling? Last year his Department alone put out more than 500,000 forms on 25 different subjects. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that all this form-filling and information collecting is necessary? Will he initiate a review throughout the whole of the Government to see whether this plethora of paper can be eliminated?

I remember that when we were discussing the Bolton Report and the hon. Gentleman was replying from this Front Bench to the debate I said that all the savings they had made, or were purported to have made, in improving the statistical requirement on small firms were wiped out by the voluntary introduction of VAT by the Conservative Government way in advance of any Common Market commitment.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative Party did not do enough. Does he realise that we did not then have the highest rate of unemployment for a decade and the lowest level of investment for a decade? Will he now answer one question that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused to answer? Will he tell us what impact the additional 2½ per cent. on bank borrowing in the last few weeks to sustain the present level of public expenditure has had on investment in small businesses?

I find it a matter of sadness that the official spokesman for the Conservative Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]. I shall answer it in my own way. I shall not be beaten over the head verbally or in any other way by the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not want an answer, he need not have one.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to meet the management and employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, following their latest representations in favour of remaining in private ownership.

Arrangements are in hand for a ministerial meeting with Bristol Channel Ship Repairers to discuss the company's interest in the Greenwell Ship-repair Yard. This meeting will not, however, deal with the Government's public ownership proposals.

That is precisely the point. Can the right hon. Gentleman now say, slowly and carefully, why he and his predecessor have been so unsure of their opinion that they have refused 18 times to receive this company to discuss specifically the case against public ownership?

I deny that the company has not been seen. In March last year my noble Friend had separate meetings with the management and the work force of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, and all the company's many letters and other communications have been dealt with fully and courteously.

Does my right hon. Friend have an estimate of the amount of money spent by International Youth Services on the promotion of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers? Can he say whether that service is an accredited news agency, or just a front for Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, prepared to spend huge amounts of money on putting its case in various ways? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sort of activity should be registered so that we know precisely from where the lobbying is coming?

I cannot answer in any detail the considerable question raised by my hon. Friend, but somebody ought to do some research into the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he regards Bristol Channel Ship Repairers as one of the commanding heights of the economy, or whether the proposals to nationalise this company are a vindictive reaction to the advertising campaign? Can he confirm that there will be a retention of at least the same number of jobs in Wales when this company is nationalised, or an increase?

There are no plans to close Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, or anything like that. I refute the suggestion that this is some kind of vindictive campaign. Our proposals were made clear during the middle of 1974. There have been consultations with the company. I agree that it is not the largest ship repairing company in the country, but it is not the smallest either.

I should like to underline my right hon. Friend's comment. This company was included in the list of ship repairing companies to be taken over long before it spent one halfpenny. Is it not scandalous that the company should have lobbied hon. Members at considerable cost and spent enormous sums to subvert hon. Members away from the basic political purpose of Bill?

I have heard rumours about the activities and public relations activities of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, but I have no personal knowledge of them. All I can say on behalf of the Government is that the management and the workers of the company were seen by my noble Friend and that every communication addressed by the company to my Department has been answered in detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry in what way the powers conferred on him by the Industry Act 1975 have been used to date to establish new manufacturing industries; and how many new jobs can be attributed to the use of the powers of this Act.

My right hon. Friend has used his powers to provide substantial funds for the National Enterprise Board. These will create and sustain a large number of jobs in new and existing industry.

Does the Minister appreciate that there will be great regret that he is unable to give any specific number for the jobs so far created by these steps? Will he accept that if there is to be order in the industrial world it will require economic planning? Are his Government still committed to economic planning?

The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to vote for it tomorrow night.

As my hon. Friend says, tomorrow night the hon. Gentleman will have a first-class opportunity for bringing more planning into at least one section of our industry. He ought to be aware that the NEB has within its holdings about 750,000 jobs and is responsible for firms with a turnover of about £3,000 million. I should not have thought that that was a bad way to start and, further, I should have thought that the board was making a significant contribution to saving jobs.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that as well as the National Enterprise Board we have the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency, and that what we want for economic planning is to maintain the economic and political unity of Britain rather than to talk about splitting it into separate parts?

My hon. Friend is right. The Welsh Development Agency has primary responsibility for industrial developments in Wales, and having been in Wales on Friday night I know the great concern that there is about some of the issues that my hon. Friend has been stressing.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the best way to secure the regeneration of British industry that he wants to see is to allow the free market to operate in British industry?

Shut up. The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the free market is a far better guide to profitable industry than arbitrary decisions of the NEB?

I did not think that it would be long before Selsdon man appeared on the Tory Benches. The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that it has been the crushing failure of British private industry to invest in significant redevelopment that has made it essential for the Government to put money into British industry to get some regeneration and restructuring.

Before the myth that the Government provide money that is manufactured in a building on the other side of Whitehall is carried too far, will the Minister say what proportion of the money reinvested by the board is derived from the general body of taxation, which in turn is derived from British private industry? What effect has this had on general employment levels in the rest of private industry?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has such touching faith in the ability of the private sector to produce the industrial regeneration that this country vitally needs. I only wish that it had been matched by the performance of the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied that the investment activities of the National Enterprise Board are meeting the objectives provided in the Industry Act 1975.

The Act speaks not of objectives but of the board's purposes, functions, powers and duties, all of which bear on its investment activities, and all of which it is exercising to my satisfaction.

Is it not, broadly speaking, true that all that this great board has so far done is to give £5 million to Lonrho, which after all was the unacceptable face of capitalism, to buy up Brentford Nylons?

The hon. Gentleman has maintained his unparalleled record for every word he delivers being totally inaccurate. The board has nothing to do with that matter. It has not donated—to use a word liked by the hon. Gentleman's party—any money to Lonrho in this situation. The board is using the money which the Government have allocated to it for excellent purposes of extending public enterprise into profitable manufacturing industry.

My hon. Friend is clearly aware that a major objective of the board was to extend public ownership into profitable manufacturing industry rather than to rescue the lame ducks. When is the expansion of public ownership into profitable manufacturing industry likely to take place?

Not this week.

Gradually. It has already begun. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend will allow me to digress before I answer his question with my customary amplitude, may I say that the Conservative Party must make up its mind whether the board is doing too much or not enough. We are receiving complaints of both kinds from the Conservatives.

Is the Minister claiming that Brown Boverie Kent is a successful investment? It cost the Government £6 million when they acquired it and it has been transferred to the NEB at just over £1 million. Is that a successful investment? If not, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House which is the most successful and profitable investment so far made by the NEB?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a company in which private enterprise was totally unsuccessful and for which a rescue operation had to be conducted. The board has now expanded its holding in order to make that enterprise profitable, as it will. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Herfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who is a little more vocal than usual for a Whip, talks about investing in success. When we say that the board will invest in profitable manufacturing industry, the Conservatives tell us that we are nationalising through the back door.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Bill setting up the board included a provision that regular statements—I think that they were to be annual—would be laid before the House on the work of the board, what it was doing, where it was investing and so on? When will such a statement be made available? In supporting the board, many of us are most keen to see exactly how far its activities are extended.

All commitments made in regard to the board by Ministers, whether by my hon. Friend when he had charge of these matters or by other Ministers, will be fulfilled. I shall examine my hon. Friend's point and respond to him further.

Is the Minister aware that we admire the Government's recognition that the NEB's powers of management are limited in certain respects? Will he confirm that he will shortly be putting before the House a Bill for the denationalisation of Kearney Trecker and Marwin Ltd.?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with that matter, but the Opposition are so disorderly that they do not realise that. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will answer that Question. It is a pity the hon. Gentleman wasted his supplementary question in that ludicrous way.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals he has put to the EEC Ministers responsible for their national aerospace industries for a civil aircraft production programme within Europe.

M. Cavaille and I recently agreed that our aircraft industries should explore together the possibilities of United Kingdom participation in derivatives of the airbus, European participation on the HS146 should the project be relaunched, and European collaboration on future 150–180-seat medium-range aircraft.

Does the Minister mean that after all the rubbish about the failures of the private sector, and after two and a half years in office, that is all he has to report as the carrying out of the obligations imposed upon him? What is restraining him? Let the hon. Gentleman not say that it is the nationalisation Bill, because he has ample powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1949 to do anything which needs to be done. Why does he not get on with it instead of talking rubbish?

When I met Michel Cavaille on 29th March I raised the question of collaboration with the French on civil aircraft projects. One of the problems that confronted me in having those conversations was that in all the preceding years none of the privately-owned aircraft companies had put forward a single proposal for collaborative projects with Europe.

What about the A300B?

The hon. Gentleman once again demonstrates his farcical ignorance. We are not a partner in the A300B. We are a sub-contracting associate. The great problem in achieving collaboration is that the British Aerospace Organising Committee is having to operate in a vacuum created by the inactivity and lack of initiative of the aircraft industry under private ownership.

Does my hon. Friend agree that collaboration in aero engines as well as aircraft bodies is equally important? Does he agree, therefore, that French and British aero engines should be given preference over American engines in these projects?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that, after the period of lassitude and inactivity under private enterprise, now that we are having discussions on collaboration with the European aircraft industries—with the French in particular—Michel Cavaille mentioned to me the possibility of the use of the Rolls-Royce engine in the airbus. That will be one of the dividends we draw from public ownership of the airframe industry.

Bearing in mind that the Minister told me earlier today that he had received no proposals from the British aircraft industry for new projects, where does he get his ideas and information which enable him to go unilaterally to M. Cavaille and put forward ideas which have not come from that industry?

The airbus proposal came from the French, not from British industry. The HS146 was hawked around by Hawker Siddeley Aviation provided the Government funded it 100 per cent., which is an interesting interpretation of the words "private enterprise".

The Minister of State must know, and will he confirm, that his record of the private sector is a travesty of the truth? The fact is that all the projects he has put before the House originated in the private sector and were being discussed by the Conservative Government when his Government came to power. The last two years have been a culpable dereliction of duty by the Labour Party.

The main partner with which we will he associating if we go into the airbus project will, in fact, be that paragon of private enterprise, Aerospatiale, which bitterly regrets the possibility of having to negotiate with a nationalised aircraft industry. As to what the hon. Gentleman said, with the inaccuracy which once led him to have to apologise to the House about the HS146, the fact is that when my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Energy, had this project brought before him, it was on the basis that it would have to be abandoned unless the Government paid all the costs 100 per cent. If it were not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and the holding contract he placed, that project would now be dead.

asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied that the awards of damages for loss of expectation of life under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 remain adequate in the light of inflation over the past 10 years.

The conventional sum usually awarded by the courts for loss of expectation of life has varied from £200 in 1941 to £500 by 1966 and to £750 by 1973. I am not aware of any more recent variation.

While I accept that it is right that the Royal Commission should look at the principle of the award, may I ask whether, from his experience, the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that lay people in particular find it difficult to understand the ludicrously low award given for loss of expectancy of life? Does he not also agree in principle that the sums awarded should now be very much higher, if only in the light of inflation?

As I am certain the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, the whole issue to which he refers is the issue between the basis of the present compensation which goes to the executors and compensation for bereavement, which is a totally different thing. One can well understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman said with regard to that. That is entirely a matter for the Royal Commission to investigate, and it is considering that very question.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us something about the timetable which he envisages for the Royal Commission, so that we may know when we shall get some of the answers to the questions raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)?

The Royal Commission expects to complete its work early next year and to publish its report as soon as possible thereafter.

asked the Attorney-General when he next proposes to meet the Law Society.

My noble Friend is in frequent contact with the Law Society. If there is any particular matter which my hon. Friend would like me to raise, I shall be glad to consider it.

What is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to do about the Phillimore Report and the changes in the law of contempt? Is he prepared to discuss this matter with the Law Society and other interested bodies so that there will be an extension of Press freedom and an ending of the gagging of the Press by existing legislation?

I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend said last night during "The Editors" programme. Certainly, this is a matter of great importance and difficulty. I very much hope that my noble Friend will be in a position to say something about it before too long. I am afraid I have to say that he is not yet in a position to do so, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire that a quick answer should be given.

When my right tion of this House which has arisen over its apparent attempt to block law centres hon. and learned Friend meets the Law Society, will he convey to it the irritain both London and other parts of the country on grounds which should not be any of its concern? Will he also convey to it that there is a great need for a law centre in the London borough of Lewisham? When this application comes to the Government, we very much hope that we shall not get the same sort of treatment as Hillingdon got when it tried to get a law centre going in its area.

I hope to meet the Law Society on Thursday evening, provided that somebody will pair with me. If I do so, I shall certainly respond to what my hon. Friend has said. But in doing so I shall wish to congratulate Law Society on having now reached an agreement in principle on the whole question of waivers, and I have little doubt that when the details of this have been published my hon. Friend will be pleased at the result.

When the Attorney-General next meets the Law Society, will he discuss with it some simple appeals procedure, particularly in cases where the Law Society turns down a solicitor's application for a leader, a "silk"?

If I understand what the hon. Gentleman is asking me, it would be within the terms of the Royal Commission on Legal Services. While I take note of what he says, we really must await the setting up and the report of that commission.

asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a view to prosecution for incitement to violence, the recent statements on racial matters by Mr. Kingsley Read.

I referred this matter to the Director on 16th June. Police inquiries have been commenced and a report will be submitted to the Director. I shall then consider the evidence to decide what further action is required.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he accept that, while many in this House feel that free speech is a precious right of every citizen, it cannot abrogate the civil rights of others? The speech referring to

"One down, one million to go"

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend, and I am sure his views are echoed in all parts of the House, that, if anything corresponding to that which was reported by the Press was in fact said, it is quite deplorable. On the question of prosecution, I must await the report on the evidence of what was said and also on how it fits into the law as it now stands.

While I also deplore the statement attributed to Mr. Read, will the Attorney-General take care in what he is doing in view of the fact that the National Front got within a few hundred votes of the Liberals at Rotherham, and would have got seven seats on Leicester City Council if proportional representation had been in operation? We must not create martyrs out of people of that sort by playing into their hands.

Yes, I always take care in what I am doing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent, that it is certainly inadvisable to create martyrs, particularly if, in the process, they are acquitted of the offences with which they are charged. At the same time, if one gets a particularly glaring case it is absolutely right that it should be proceeded with under the law as it stands, and I shall have no hesitation in doing so if the evidence is sufficient.

In view of the damage being done to race relations and the alarm caused to minority communities by the statements and activities of Mr. Read and the National Front, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make even clearer that while prosecutions for incitement should be sparingly brought, vigorous action should be taken wherever those activities and statements clearly go beyond the law?

Certainly, and that was the effect of my previous answer.