asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the size of the next tranche of public funds to be allocated to British Leyland.

I refer the hon. Member to my statement on 21st July when I announced the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the National Enterprise Board that British Leyland should be provided with the first tranche of £100 million of loan capital.

As the NEB report calls for £500 million by 1978 and the new Mini, on the managing director's figures, costs £200 million, does it make sense to deal with the matter in this way? Can the right hon. Gentleman identify the item of capital expenditure to which the £100 million refers?

We have already set out a great deal of information about the NEB and its report to the Government, but I shall consider any representations about additional information. We are to debate this matter tomorrow night after 10 o'clock and it may be that I shall have something more to say then.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on the Government Benches are gratified at the constructive response of the workers and management of British Leyland to the intervention of Parliament to save this valuable British asset? Is he also aware that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) has been a consistent critic and attacker of the British Leyland enterprise, and that if his views were carried out thousands of workers would be made redundant?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. We are beginning early today. Question Time is not an occasion for attacking individuals.

My hon. Friend is right. There have been a few attacks—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I may call him for a second supplementary question.

There have been a few attacks from the Opposition, though we need not go into them now because there is to be a debate tomorrow night. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been considerable progress and achievement in British Leyland, and I know from my own discussions with the management and workers that they intend to ensure that that progress is maintained.

Why has the Secretary of State not answered the Question on the Order Paper about the size of the next tranche to be allocated? He allocated £100 million last week. Is he now committed, by that action, to the next £100 million? Last week's allocation is already water under the bridge, or money down the drain.

It depends on the monitoring that may be undertaken by the NEB and the report that it makes to the Government. It is for the board to monitor the activities of British Leyland. I hope the hon. Gentleman shares my commitment to the long-term success of British Leyland. This depends, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said in April last year, on improvements in productivity and labour relations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that outside as well as inside the House there is wide support for his decision, not only because it removes great uncertainty among the men and management of British Leyland but because it could be the start of a major investment incentive, with the creation of new jobs in the Midlands? Is he aware that he should not pay too much attention to the wild and inaccurate allegations of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), which we are looking forward to debating tomorrow?

My hon. Friend is right. The decision has been welcomed in the West Midlands and in other areas of the United Kingdom where there is British Leyland activity. I always pay due regard to comments from the Opposition.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that by failing to answer any of the questions put to him today he is doing British Leyland's case more harm than good? Will he explain why it is necessary for the £30 million order to be given as a result of a direction under the Industry Act 1975 tomorrow night rather than as a direct investment by the NEB?

There is a case for allocating a sum to the board and letting it take over the whole responsibility. It may be that we shall have to consider that in future. The hon. Gentleman has written me a long and detailed letter and I have had a meeting with him and his hon. Friend on this matter. I am looking at it very carefully. If I can provide additional information I shall do so, and I shall try to provide it in time for tomorrow's debate.

While pausing to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) that I voted for the British Leyland support operation, may I ask the Secretary of State whether it is not true that the £100 million in fact commits the next part of the capital programme? Therefore, should he not be asking the House for the full amount of a programme—either a model or the re-equipment of a factory—so that it can be judged on a sensible basis?

I am not so sure that is the best way of proceeding. The NEB has been given the task of monitoring the performance of British Leyland, and at the end of the day we have to rely to a great extent on the board's advice. The hon. Gentleman should know—I know that the House takes it into account— that the board of the NEB contains very experienced men, not only those whom we have been successful in obtaining from the British trade union movement but also senior industrialists—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) scoffing at that, because by doing so he is scoffing at some very experienced men in British industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the effect of public expenditure cuts on the NEB's programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what additional funds are to be made available to the National Enterprise Board in the course of the next two financial years.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared the Government's intention to increase significantly the resources available for selective assistance to industry through the NEB and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that most of the country will be appalled if, at a time when private consumption is cut and private investment is hamstrung by a new payroll tax, the Government continue on their profligate way, wasting money through the NEB? Surely the NEB is one of those unique birds that should be hatched out with its wings already clipped.

The hon. Gentleman may well be anticipating the debate that will take place later today, when the package announced by the Chancellor will be debated fully. The NEB is a major component of the Government's industrial strategy—we have never made any secret about that—and it must have the resources to operate.

Is not my right hon. Friend appalled by the gross interference of the President of the Confederation of British Industry, who has been advocating an investment strike in the private sector? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the funds available to the National Enterprise Board will be significantly increased, in particular in Scotland? Will he spell that out in much more detail, or is he leaving it to this afternoon's debate?

I cannot anticipate anything that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say this afternoon. We have said that the resources for the NEB and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies should be increased significantly. I cannot give a figure this afternoon, but we attach very high importance to ensuring that the NEB fulfils its major role of helping to regenerate British industry.

Surely the Secretary of State should be able to say how much extra money the board is to be allocated during 1977–78, at least. He cannot get away with merely telling the House that the board is to have more money without being more specific. Will he say precisely what the figure is to be? Will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) about taking money with one hand from industry, in taxation, and, with the other, giving it out to the NEB ad lib? It does not make any sense.

This enables me to answer a point that I did not answer fully when it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I think that the CBI has over-reacted to the package announced by my hon. Friend. I dare say that there will be discussions about it at the National Economic Development Council meeting on Wednesday. The package has to be seen as a whole. There have been relaxations in the Price Code, which will assist investment and assist companies.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we on the Scottish National Party Bench are delighted that the NEB will have an increased budget, as we have pressed for this? Will he indicate whether the new budget will be anywhere near the £300 million per annum that we have asked for, and how many jobs he estimates that these funds will create in Scotland?

I am not at all sure that the Scottish National Party has been all the time wholly enthusiastic about the Scottish Development Agency. I cannot give the hon. Lady the information that she requires about the amount of money to be allocated to the agency. In any case, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, the hon. Lady can be assured that additional resources will be provided.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by the CBI amounts to a kind of sabotage of the Government's economic strategy? In comparing the relative attitudes of the CBI, on the one hand, and the TUC, on the other, will my right hon. Friend answer the question: who are the patriots now?

My hon. Friend is right, in the sense that the TUC and those who lead it have made considerable sacrifices on behalf of the country. I think that that is widely understood and recognised by most fair-minded people. I only hope that, on reflection—I do not want to say much more than that—those who lead the CBI will recognise that their comments have not been of help over the last few days.

Will the Secretary of State explain what point there would have been in Lord Watkinson writing a letter at this time, when all the recipients of the letter would have been busily engaged in trying to calculate what effect the Chancellor's announcement would have on their next year's cash flow, not knowing what funds they had available? What discussions were held with industry in parallel with discussions held with the TUC before these announcements were made?

The question of discussions was not for me. [Interruption.] I believe that discussions took place between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and representatives of both sides of industry and officials of the Department. If the hon. Gentlemen really wanted the industrial strategy to work and industrial investment to increase, he would be better occupied in calling on the CBI to adjust its attitude. That would be by far the better way of going about it. We know that investment will increase, on the basis of indications that we have already seen, and I suspect that when figures are published within the next few days they will show that many companies are going ahead with their investment decisions, in spite of what has been said.

rose—

Order. We shall have to go much quicker on the rest of the supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the Post Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last met the Chairman of the Post Office.

My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the Chairman of the Post Office.

Is the Minister satisfied that the Post Office results are within the terms of the Price Code? When he next meets the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation, will he invite him to give back to the public at least some small part of the profits, in the form of a restoration of Sunday services?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that my right hon. Friend made with regard to the Price Code. As for giving back money as a result of the profit made, when the hon. Gentleman advises private enterprise that whenever it makes a profit it should hand part of it back I shall take him seriously, but his party has been consistently demanding realistic pricing by the Post Office. Now that the Post Office is moving towards realistic pricing, the hon. Gentleman wants to damage it.

On the question of Sunday collections, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that not only families in their personal correspondence have been badly affected but also one-man businesses, which invariably deal with their accounts and correspondence over the weekend?

That is why the Post Office has promised to review the question of Sunday collections within a year of the decision.

When the Minister next sees Sir William, will he ask him whether he believes that the movement of second-class local post to a distant sorting office and back again makes economic sense, or is it a way of wasting time in order to induce people to use the first-class post?

I shall certainly raise matters of that kind with Sir William when I next see him. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I shall be very glad to refer it to Sir William.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what estimate he has made of the increase in labour productivity in the steel industry in recent years.

An index of output per man year is compiled by the Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau. Between 1967 and 1973 the rate of growth in the index was 3½ per cent. per annum. Between 1973 and 1975, however, the index fell by 13 per cent. per annum, owing to the deep world-wide recession throughout the industry.

What an extraordinary admission, that the Goverment have actually brought steel productivity down. In view of the Government's statement last week that they wished to bring it down further by keeping open uneconomic mills, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the instructions to the BSC are to increase productivity or to increase employment? The hon. Gentleman must know that he cannot do both.

Obviously we want productivity in the steel industry to increase. The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that the whole of the British Steel Corporation's investment programme was held back in 1971 and 1972 while the joint steering committee set up by his party considered it.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what concrete progress has been made towards achieving the specific targets set out in the document put before the House earlier this year, after agree- ment between the steel unions and the British Steel Corporation?

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the British Steel Corporation's agreement with the TUC steel committee about the potential reduction of 20,000 jobs in the steel industry. Obviously this is a continuing matter, and a review into the whole subject is going ahead.

Docs my hon. Friend agree that the steel industry still suffers from generations of neglect in investment by private enterprise before the steel industry was taken over, and that, even allowing for the fact that, with the recession, productivity is bound to fall through inadequate use of existing capacity, nevertheless there is a need for increased investment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The British Steel Corporation does have a large amount of obsolescent plant. The replacement of that obsolescent plant is not helped by the joint steering committee, which the Conservative Party set up. It is not helped by the Conservatives' increased and continuing opposition to the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what representations he has received following his statement in the House on 19th July regarding steel investment in Wales.

My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations. Among them was a letter from the Shotton Steelworkers Action Committee, which expressed its support for the decision that my right hon. Friend announced in his statement and for the way the Government have been conducting the closures review.

Will the Minister of State confirm that among the representations he received was a letter from the President of the Metallurgical Plant-makers Association in which he said that the decision to offer half the money required for Port Talbot was industrial nonsense? Will he further confirm that the MPA made it clear that because of delays and inaction by the Government the threat of unemployment looms in South Yorkshire and in the North-East?

That is a broad paraphrase of the letter. I shall be discussing these matters with the organisation.

"May I also take this opportunity to thank you and the Labour Party for your co-operation and for the honouring of your pre-election promises regarding the 10-year strategy on steel."

Commercials apart, is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has raised very high hopes in the North-East by undertaking to reconsider the whole basis of the comparison of costs between Port Talbot and Shotton? Is he also aware that the figures on which the reexamination will be conducted have not significantly altered during the last two years and that any decision reached could have been reached two years ago?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that we have raised high hopes. He ought to sort himself out with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) who said that our decision was a "thumbs-down" for Shotton.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet representatives of the shipyard workers' unions.

A meeting will be arranged as soon as the working group which I have set up with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders is ready to report.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the shipyard workers, who are keen to see the new Bill on the statute book, that last Thursday, when we were faced by the united opposition of the Tories and their two-faced lackeys in the SNP, we had to bring in several very ill and courageous Labour Members of Parliament to vote in order to make sure that the Bill got a Third Reading, because of the lack of ordinary, decent, human compassion on the part of that hard-hearted woman who pretends to lead the Opposition?

I am sure that those in the shipbuilding industry who are anxious to see us press ahead with the public ownership of the industry will have noted the actions of all the Opposition parties in this House.

Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the promises inherent in New Clause 12 in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and ask the representatives of the shipyard workers in Belfast to attend the meeting?

I think that some of the union representatives whom I have seen have members who work in Harland and Wolff. I think they are adequately represented.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take action further to assist small firms to take advantage of the assistance provided under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as recommended by the recent reports of the special working parties set up to examine problems facing the major sectors of British industry.

Small firms established in assisted areas are already eligible for regional selective assistance. Section 8 of the Industry Act, however, requires that enterprises assisted should be of significance in a national context. The reports of the sectoral working parties are being considered.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's 2 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions by employers will take over £200 million out of the small business sector? Does he recognise that small businesses will be able to get on much better with their job of producing if they are left alone, and if they have less taxation to pay and less interference from the Government?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be overlooking the fact that if the alternative course, which is apparently favoured by the Opposition, were followed and a further £1,000 mil- lion were taken back in cuts, plus the sum currently being cut from defence, many small firms might be wiped out as a result.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there have been three attempts to sell the shares of private companies this year, all of which have failed due to lack of money among investors? Does he appreciate that it is not reasonable for him to blame the CBI for this, and that blame should be attributed to policies that have reduced almost to nil the possibilities of new investment in small and growing firms?

The right hon. Gentleman still has to face the fact that the alternative was to allow further slippage in sterling, which would damage firms large and small, or to undertake further cuts, with the consequence to which I referred in reply to a previous question.

The Government constantly tell us of the great interest they have in small businesses. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what consultations he had with small businesses about the introduction of this employment tax?

Of course, there were no specific consultations with small firms, but they are spoken for. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the CBI has its own unit, which speaks for small firms, and I have recently had consultations with representatives of this unit.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what effect upon the support of new civil aircraft and engine projects he expects from the Government's review of public expenditure.

As in the past, proposals for new civil aircraft and engine projects will be considered on their merits and in the light of other claims on public expenditure.

Does the Minister of State seriously think that that is an answer to the Question? If so, I must advise him to read it again. When the Secretary of State agreed with the Government's expenditure cuts for the nationalised industries, did he take into account how much money would be required for the nationalised industries? How much is it to be, and by how much has it been cut? Someone must know.

What we do know, or would have known if the Opposition had not howled me down with their jungle noises last Thursday night, is that the Government have just made £6½ million available for underwriting the BAC111 and extending the holding contract on the HS146. The Tories were ranting about other things and would not allow that to be announced.

If the Minister of State is right that there will be no cuts, will he bring to the House this afternoon an announcement about the future of the Rolls-Royce 10-ton engine, which has been before him for two months? Further, will he give an assurance that, if there are no cuts, that will in no way affect his proposal to the French and the West Germans to buy work that they have already completed by investing in the Airbus?

I have nothing to announce at this stage on the hon. Gentleman's first question. As for his second, it is only since the Organising Committee began conducting conversations with Aerospatiale and others that we have begun to make any progress. As for participating in the Airbus project, Lord Beswick and I will continue the discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the latest conclusions in the manpower implications of any extension of the wool textile scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The applications by the Wool Textile EDC for a further scheme of assistance is still under consideration by my Department. The effect on manpower of a new scheme, if it is approved, will depend on the number and kind of projects put forward by firms. The EDC's proposals, which are fully supported by unions and employers in the industry, do not include assistance to firms closing down, as was the case in the original scheme. However, the possibility of redundancies arising in any new scheme cannot be ruled out.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is growing concern within the industry about the possible shortage of capacity and the shortage of skilled workers when the upturn in world trade brings about increases in demand for the wool textile industry? Will these matters be taken into close consideration in any further consideration that is being given to an extension of the scheme?

I am aware that some people have expressed such concern. However, we are satisfied that there is sufficient capacity and that there are adequate supplies of skilled manpower available. I emphasise that the proposals have been supported by both sides of the industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the great efforts of the industry during the past three years, assisted by the Government's wool textile scheme, have put it in a splendid condition for taking advantage of the expected upturn in world trade? Will he do his best to hasten on a further scheme so that the wool textile industry can join the ranks of the well-paid communities?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in praising the efforts of the industry, involving both employers and employees. It has had a remarkable record over recent years. The latest proposal was discussed at the EDC on 6th July, and on 20th July the EDC submitted a supplementary paper to the Department, which we are now considering. We hope to be able to announce a decision very soon.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the announcement of the wool textile scheme is awaited with a great degree of interest and, in some cases, urgency? Does he agree that the industry should be looked at in the round? If capacity is to be retained that will make the textile scheme worth while, something must be done about cheap imports. In 1975 15,000 jobs were lost in the textile and clothing industries. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must examine imports in order to stop that sort of loss?

The whole situation must be considered. As my hon. Friend is aware, the situation in the wool sector has improved already. I am glad to say that the upturn has already started in that sector. Only last week, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, I attended a meeting with the representatives of the clothing industry to discuss the very points that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I am sure that he will appreciate that decisions in that respect lie with the Department of Trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will review the classifications for intermediate areas and unassisted areas, in view of the fact that there is now higher unemployment in some of the latter than in some of the former.

Regional policies are concerned with long-term structural unemployment and associated problems. Recession has had different effects in different parts of the country, and these effects have obscured the underlying problems in particular areas.

In view of the large fluctuations in unemployment, will the Minister be prepared to consider a more flexible system for dealing with proposals in unassisted areas, where this may have an important but very local employment connotation? Is he aware that other things, apart from regional development assistance, hang on development area status, such as grants for tourism? Will he look more flexibly on these matters as a whole?

It is difficult to answer Opposition Members when they say that they want public expenditure cuts and at the same time say that they want to extend the areas where expenditure will be applied. I realise that there is a real concern in many parts of the country that are experiencing unprecedented levels of unemployment. For that reason we are operating the IDC policy flexibly and using our selective powers as sensibly as possible. In general terms, I do not envisage any major change of boundaries, as intimated in the Question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for "intermediate and unassisted areas" one could say "intermediate and development areas"? That is particularly true in the Humberside area. Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the intermediate areas there is chronic, persistent and structural unemployment that is higher than in the development areas? Is any of the assistance that is going to the development areas, in terms of REP, for example, likely to go to the intermediate areas? When does he hope that his Department's review of regional policy will be completed, so that we can see where we stand?

My hon. Friend is aware that recently I announced measures to help Humberside, where several major projects are going ahead that will provide a massive increase in jobs in the construction industry. It must be borne in mind that Humberside's fundamental difficulty has not been that it is intrinsically unattractive to industry but that it has been remote from the major transport networks. The changes that have taken place, in terms of access to the motorways, as a result of bridge construction, and so on, will substantially improve the position of the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the Government's industrial policy in the light of the work being done in the National Economic Development Office.

I have nothing to add to my statement of 8th July.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the so-called new industrial strategies and all the work of sector working groups are worth little or nothing so long as the Government continue to shatter fragile industrial confidence from time to time with their other policies? Is he further aware that the most recent example is the increase of national insurance contributions for employers? Will he give an assurance that in future both sides of industry will be consulted before damaging measures of this kind are introduced?

Both sides of industry are consulted. As I have already said, I think that the CBI has over-reacted to the package. I dare say that on reflection it will take a different view. I know that Lord Watkinson and the Director-General have said that irrespective of anything that has taken place over the past few days it is their intention to continue to co-operate with the industrial strategy. That is a realistic view.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that no consultation took place with the CBI about the payroll tax? How much of the £1,000 million now being levelled on industry through the payroll tax does he calculate will be met by passing it on in increased prices and how much of it will have to be met from the corporate resources of British industry?

We have not pretended that the increased national insurance contributions will not have a slight and damaging effect on companies. However, the package has to be seen as a whole. There have been changes, not only in the Price Code, and national insurance contributions are an allowable cost. I do not have any precise calculations in front of me. If the hon. Gentleman wants to table a Question, we shall attempt to give him an answer. Instead of talking down the industrial strategy, the hon. Gentleman should be assisting the Government and both sides of industry to ensure that our economy becomes strong again. If he were to do that instead of putting forward his constant carping criticism, he would be respected.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will pay an official visit to the Shotton steelworks.

I have no plans to do so.

Will the Secretary of State visit Shotton, on the future of which he has yet to make a final decision? When will that be?

I want a thorough investigation made of the prospects not only for Port Talbot but for Shotton. I shall not make a decision on Shotton on information which at this time is probably inadequate.

Whatever the Secretary of State may be doing in Wales, will he ensure that he does not allow himself to be deflected from his proclaimed industrial strategy on Teesside? Will he accept promptly BSC's proposals for a plate mill at Redcar, where it will form part of a fully-integrated steel complex, able to face world-wide competition?

I am currently considering the British Steel Corporation's proposals for Redcar. In due course we shall make our views known.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of going to Shotton? It would be important if he did so. On the way, will he also go through Merseyside, which is near Shotton, and study the very serious industrial problems that exist on Merseyside—the lack of industry, the high level of unemployment, and the fact that, in relation to the point raised by other hon. Members, a development area like Merseyside requires all the assistance it can get, because of the seriously high level of unemployment and the lack of the industry that the area needs?

What I said was that I had no plans to go to Shotton. I do not rule it out in future, and if I do go to that part of the country I shall certainly consider going to Merseyside. My hon. Friend is right; the prospects and problems of Merseyside are formidable. We took them into account in considering our original policies. Later today, as my hon. Friend is aware, I am to meet the Merseyside group of Labour Members to go into the position in more detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he intends to take to raise the level of industrial production.

Industrial production is already rising, mainly in response to export demand. We have already taken a number of steps to put firms in a better position to take full advantage of the upturn.

In view of the Government's outstandingly successful employment policies, which have given us unemployment at record levels, why does the Minister think that the level of industrial production now appears to be lower than it was during the three-day working week?

The hon. Gentleman seems to overlook the fact that the world has gone through its worst recession since the war, and obviously we could not escape that. Of course, in that context, manufacturing investment has fallen, but at the moment the output is showing signs of increasing. In the second half of this year—and certainly next year—we expect to see an increase in investment.

In order to take advantage of the upturn, what is being done to identify potential bottlenecks?

Bottlenecks have particularly attracted attention in the context of the sectoral studies within the NEDC. The Department is now following up the recommendations of those studies to see what action can be taken to eliminate bottlenecks. In addition, we have also established certain industry schemes which are working towards that objective, as indeed is the Accelerated Projects Scheme.

Will the Minister now explain why the Government have deliberately chosen to follow a policy of confrontation with industry by introducing the employment tax—the payroll tax—last week? Does he recognise that that alone will substantially undermine the opportunity for industry to invest, and seriously debilitate the prospects of those industries employed in the export field not passing on the extra costs that this tax will impose on them?

If this is what the hon. Gentleman calls confrontation, he must call the situation that his Government produced outright war.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we on the Government Benches are sick and tired of the ignorance of Conservative Members, at a time when manufacturing industry is paying no mainstream corporation tax, when its gearing is at an all-time low, and when it is flush with cash and has access to enormous funds which would enable it to get that investment up and industrial production up? Will he therefore take that up as a matter of urgency with the CBI?

I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend has said will be noted with interest by those who speak on behalf of industry. I re-emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, namely, that we believe that, on reflection, looking at the package as a whole, the CBI will realise that it has over-reacted. We hope that Wednesday's NEDC meeting will clear the air.

When he is thinking about the question of ignorance of facts, will the Minister remind the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) that after the last two years of Labour Government the balance of corporate strength is negative in British industry?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that comment, for what it is worth.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied that his Department has adequate ways by which it is able to talent-spot, select and appoint top management to those sections of industry which are in receipt of public money, and to which it has the right of appointment.

Yes, Sir. Government appointments are carefully selected according to the experience and ability required and appropriate selection arrangements exist. Our practices are kept under constant review.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the many reasons for the public ownership of industries is to enable those industries to democratise their methods of managerial selection? Is it not a fact that there is a great deal of talented and imaginative leadership in industry which is yet undiscovered by the Government? Will my hon. Friend therefore set up an inquiry into ways and means of identifying the sort of managers who are now necessary to take over the leadership of British industry?

I have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend said. He will of course already know that the Bullock Committee is presently inquiring into industrial democracy and that we hope to introduce legislation to implement it during the next parliamentary Session. I certainly bear in mind, as does my right hon. Friend, what my hon. Friend has said.

Do the lists maintained by the hon. Gentleman's Department contain the names of any members of the Tribune Group? Does he intend to appoint any of those to top positions in industry? What previous experience have they had in running manufacturing industry?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not using his own lack of industrial experience as the yardstick. Certainly the industrial and trade union movement experience of my hon. Friends in the Tribune Group, in sum, is considerable.

Since the Prime Minister is present, could he not have answered this Question and perhaps have considered whether it is not high time for a bit more talent-spotting in the Department of Industry when Ministers are appointed? In the presence of the Prime Minister, will the Under-Secretary confirm that it is still the policy of his Department, as enunciated by the Minister of State, that only good Socialists should be appointed to positions of authority in nationalised industries?

I cannot give the hon. Member that assurance. Nor can I help him, because we certainly do not have him in mind at the moment. If he is expressing doubts about his confidence in some of the present chairmen of nationalised industries, he should not forget that many of them were appointed by his own party.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he proposes to take in order to use the National Enterprise Board as an instrument of regional policy, with particular reference to the establishment of industrial undertakings with long-term growth potential in areas of high unemployment.

The draft guidelines for the board require it, wherever possible, to expand and develop its operations in areas of high unemployment. The board is particularly concerned to establish undertakings with long-term growth potential. The additional funds that we shall be making available to it next year will be useful for this.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept from me that that announcement will be very welcome in my constituency. Does he agree that this type of operation, with the NEB directly involving itself as a public enterprise in manufacturing industry, as distinct from merely propping up derelict private enterprise firms, will not only greatly assist in solving the unemployment problem in areas like mine but may also contribute to reducing the balance of payments deficit by producing goods that are now being imported?

I agree with a great deal of that. In the seven months that the National Enterprise Board has been in existence, it has made a very good start. It is seizing all the promising opportunities to get into partnership with new ventures. It is certainly our intention, as the Labour Party document "Labour in Industry" said, that it should not become the repository of "lame ducks".

As the Secretary of State constantly tells us that he does not know what additional funds will be available for the NEB next year, how can he know that these funds will be of help to the regions?

The hon. Gentleman is extremely schizophrenic. First of all he tells us that the NEB should be abolished and should have no further funds, and then he says that it should have funds but complains that we are not being precise about the matter. The NEB will have funds and in due course we shall tell the hon. Gentleman and the House what they will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to conclude his consideration of future development of the Hawker Siddeley 146.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement during Third Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and to the subsequent Press statement issued by my Department on Friday 30th July.

As it is 18 months since this project was put on ice, is it not time that my hon. Friend took it off ice and provided funding for continued development? Would not this project provide alternative work for aircraft workers if arms spending is cut, as I hope it will be?

If my hon. Friend had had the opportunity of hearing my winding-up speech last Thursday night—which was denied to him by Opposition Members—he would have heard that the Government are making available £3½ million extra for the development of the HS146. That will save 400 redundancies in the Hatfield area, retain the momentum of the holding contract and enable the board of British Aerospace when it is set up to make further recommendations about the way in which the project should go ahead.

Is the Minister aware that the sum of money that he announced will have to be multiplied by 80 to get the project off the ground? Will he explain to the workers at BAC Weybridge that there will not be any money left for them to be employed on the project as well?

The hon. Gentleman's figures are entirely inaccurate. As for the workers at BAC Weybridge, had I been allowed to make my statement he would have heard that some 1,500 of them, together with workers at Hurn, will have their jobs saved by the underwriting of five further BAC111s.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind not only that this aircraft will provide jobs for the men on Humberside at the Hawker Siddeley works but that it is a winner in the Third World? Does he not agree that it is an ideal plane for landing in the bush and open spaces all over Africa? [Interruption.] Let us forget Amin for a moment. It is an ideal plane for landing in open spaces all over the world.

This plane has many advocates, and that is one of the reasons why we have decided to extend the holding contract and spend money on it. I am aware that the workers at Brough are enthusiastic about the project since I had an opportunity of meeting them and hearing workers speak in its support. I also agree with the slogan they posted all over the factory stating "Buy Brough—Buy British".

If my figures are wrong, what are the right figures? The hon Gentleman must know them.

When we get the industry into public ownership and figures of this kind are no longer commercially confidential to Hawker Siddeley Aviation, I shall be able to consider the hon. Gentleman's question on its merits.

asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given, in his capacity as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, to the papers on preventive justice submitted to him.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing to my attention a memorandum on preventive justice prepared by a member of the Northern Ireland and English Bars. I have discussed it with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Whilst it is primarily a matter for the police and the courts, the Director and I will have regard to it as occasions may arise.

While I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he does not think that perhaps there should be a greater sense of urgency in view of the appalling events and depressing criminal statistics for Northern Ireland, which reveal very little progress in the restoration of law and order? Is not this instrument, which has been used in Northern Ireland in the past, something which could be very useful?

I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that we do not see this particular instrument as adding much to the law as it stands, but, where there is an opportunity we shall have regard to it.

asked the Attorney-General what was the cost of legal aid in 1973, 1974 and 1975, respectively.

The total net cost of legal aid on my noble Friend's Vote—namely, civil legal aid, legal advice and assistance, and legal aid for criminal cases in magistrates' courts—was £21·2 million in the financial year 1973–74 and £28·9 million in the year 1974–75. The figures for 1975–76 have not yet been audited, but they are estimated to be about £40 million. The total net cost of legal aid in respect of the higher criminal courts, which falls in the Vote of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, was £10·3 million in 1973–74, £14·4 million in 1974–75 and £18·4 million in 1975–76.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is an area of accelerating public expenditure and one which we should examine to find proper sources of savings? Does he not consider that the hiring from public funds of expensive QCs to argue for days and days about who said what to whom in police stations could be eliminated by changing the Judges Rules and by tape recording all interviews in police stations? What progress is being made to save money and turn it over to essential areas of legal aid?

I am not sure that that would necessarily save any money in counsel's fees. This is a matter which has been under consideration, but it is a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that if my hon. Friend put down a Question to the Home Secretary he would be able to give him the latest thinking on that subject.

Has the proportion of legal aid for family matters and matrimonial disputes remained constant in the last three years?

It may have done but I cannot say offhand whether it has. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have noted that the total civil legal aid has gone up by a large amount, and that includes aid for family matters.

asked the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to amend the law relating to the disclosure of official information in the light of the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Attorney-General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd. and Times Newspapers.

I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) on 22nd January 1976.

If the authorities' attitude towards the publication of volumes two and three of Mr. Crossman's memoirs is, as we understand it, chivalrous and generous, does not the fact remain that the Lord Chief Justice's judgment is ambiguous? If these matters arise in the future, what do the Government propose to do about them?

That is precisely what my right hon. Friend said in reply to the Question to which I have already referred. The Radcliffe Committee has reported, and its recommendations have been accepted by the Government and will be carried out.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to have to appear before the courts again over the publication of volume two of the Crossman diaries? Might it not be best to leave volumes two and three to be published so that we can judge the veracity of his comments for ourselves?

I have not been privileged to read as far as volumes two and three, but my hon. Friend will have noted that the Radcliffe Committee recommended that such questions should as far as possible be dealt with without litigation or legislation—that is to say, as a matter of honour. There are certain exceptions that the Radcliffe Committee felt to be essential, and we shall have to see whether they arise in the case to which hon. Members have referred.

Before I call the Minister formally to move his motion, I make this appeal to the House. There are more than 40 right hon. and hon. Members who have indicated their wish to participate in this debate. I know from long experience that it will be impossible to call them all. If hon. Members try to exercise self-discipline and make shorter speeches, I shall be able to call more speakers than would otherwise be the case.