asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has held with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on future prospects for the industry.

This Department is regularly in touch with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the future prospects of the industry.

Are Ministers prepared now to set up an official inquiry into the disturbing allegations of corrupt payments in British Leyland?

I understand that the matter is being investigated by the com- pany through the normal company disciplinary procedures. I understand that the AUEW, the union concerned, is anxious that the matter should be cleared up as soon as possible, but it is no part of the Department's duty to conduct an investigation and the matter is best left where it is, in the hands of the company.

Is not a more important factor the fact that foreign importers have now achieved a 42 per cent, penetration of the British market? Does not my hon. Friend agree that we now need something more than exhortation from the Prime Minister to get people to buy British? Do we not rather need curbs on these foreign imports?

In the first eight months of this year, the total balance for car, car components and commercial vehicle components was £727 million as opposed to £595 million for the comparable eight months in 1975. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, and, of course, the Department is very much concerned that that level of imports should not be maintained. We hope that in future the British motor car industry will make a much bigger impact on sales in this country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for low productivity is the lack of incentive for skilled men and managers? Is he further aware that over 50 members of the tool-room of British Leyland at Longbridge have written to me complaining about the erosion of differentials? Surely the labourer is worthy of his hire.

I am surprised at the direction in which some messages are sent these days by members of toolrooms. The Government recognise that the British trade union movement has made an enormous sacrifice this year and last year in contributing to the social contract. One hopes that that sacrifice is recognised by the management side of British industry by improving and increasing the level of investment in industry.

While on a purely personal basis one welcomes the Undersecretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, may I ask the Secretary of State to understand that some of us are surprised that he did not himself choose to answer this critical Question about a critical industry? Will the hon. Gentleman take seriously the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)? The allegations about British Leyland, about both union and management, are very serious. Does not the Secretary of State think that there should be an independent inquiry so that the allegations may be disposed of rapidly one way or another?

We understand the seriousness of the allegations, but it is not for the Department to give credence to these serious allegations. We are satisfied that the company and the unions are co-operating in investigating them to the fullest extent. I should have thought that it would be better, since they are only allegations, for the Department to reserve judgment in this instance until we receive the sort of evidence that the Department of Trade received, for instance, in the case of Lonrho. When we receive that standard of evidence, we shall be in a much better position to make judgments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that no one in the trade union movement would condone any such things as have been suggested, if they are going on? However, is he also aware that over the years, particularly in the construction industry, the docks and the ship repairing industry, many workers had to go to bosses in order to get jobs and trade unionists were excluded because they refused to accept that sort of prac- tice? What then did the Opposition do about that sort of practice?

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I should like to reiterate that we would not wish to comment on the particular allegations, since they are entirely allegations and no evidence has been provided so far—[Interruption.] As far as we understand them, no evidence has been provided to the Department. We are satisfied that the company is conducting investigations in accordance with the correct disciplinary procedures.

Will the Undersecretary think again about his answer, particularly since the Department of Trade set up an inquiry into Lonrho and, therefore, the facts were independently considered? That is precisely what we suggest should happen in the case of British Leyland.

The hon. Gentleman has taken a long time to think of that supplementary question. Whenever further substantial evidence of this sort of allegation is presented to the Department, we shall have to review the position.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to announce the Government's decisions on the future of the heavy electrical engineering industry arising from the report of the Central Policy Review Staff.

I fully appreciate the need for early decisions on how best to deal with the problems affecting the industry. The CPRS report has only just been received and Ministers will need time to consider it. I can assure my hon. Friend that decisions arising from the report will be taken as soon as it is practical to do so.

Is it not clear to my hon. Friend that immediate action is required to avoid further redundancies in areas of very high unemployment? Furthermore, to avoid irreparable damage to this industry, is it not necessary that action should be taken at once and that a firm commitment should be entered into for steady ordering programmes, including the replacement of obsolete power stations, so that the industry will know precisely where it stands? Will my hon. Friend urge these policies on his colleagues?

I fully accept the urgency of the situation for the industry and the affected areas. Equally, my hon. Friend will recognise that general approval was given to the setting up of the CPRS investigation, and it seems reasonable that we should analyse it thoroughly and effectively. The industry is happy with the rate of progress that is being made. My hon. Friend will also bear in mind that we have to balance the questions of the future of the industry and the public expenditure implications.

I agree that this is an extremely urgent matter. However, does not the Minister agree that the Think Tank is totally unqualified to report on this matter and has shot the whole thing out to a firm of consultants? What are needed are ministerial decisions on a long-term energy programme for the country which has hitherto been unforthcoming. When will those decisions be made?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot be so naive as not to understand the complexity of all the issues involved. He must also appreciate that a great deal of analytical work is required before a proper decision can be arrived at. As the implications for several industries are serious, we must carry out a thorough investigation. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should want quick answers even though they might be wrong answers.

Does not my hon. Friend accept that this industry is of vital importance to employment in several depressed areas, including mine, and that, no matter what situation we face in terms of public expenditure, public expenditure on this industry is necessary if we are to regenerate British industry in future and to achieve the required phasing forward of the power station programme?

My hon. Friend is right in saying how important is the industry. That is why we want to take the necessary steps to ensure its survival. As I said, simply phasing forward might not be the answer. It might solve the initial problem but it would leave a further problem at the end of the phase. Therefore, we want to look thoroughly at the CPRS recommendations and then make our decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any plans for further nationalisation.

Depending on parliamentary progress, the Government's published proposals on nationalisation which fall within my Department's responsibilities will shortly have been implemented in full.

Is it not criminally irresponsible and sheer lunancy, in the week when the Government have so disgraced Britain that the international bailiffs have been called in, for the Government to bulldoze through Parliament a further nationalisation measure which we cannot afford, which will hinder further the prospects of national recovery and which the electors have decisively rejected?

Unless the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is enacted urgently, the bailiffs will be called in to a number of shipyards in England and Scotland and certain aircraft factories. I draw attention to the particular gravity of the situation for Scottish Aviation and the jeopardy in which the future of Hawker Siddeley in North Wales will be placed if the Bill does not go through quickly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the turbo-generator manufacturing industry will become a prime candidate for nationalisation if he does not listen to the representations made to him and his right hon. Friend? Why has he not published the NEDO report which shows that the bringing forward of the Drax B power station would save Government money? Why has not that report been published? Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that nationalising this industry is not the only way left to save it?

Sufficient unto the Parliament is the public ownership thereof. We are concentrating on the public owner-ships of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries at the moment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that uncertainty has been caused in the aerospace and shipbuilding industries by the Government's nationalisation policy? Will he take a sensible look—even at this late stage—at the position to find other ways of proceeding in a less spendthrift manner?

That is not the view of the newly elected President of the Shipbuilders and Repairers Association or of the Sunday Times yesterday, both of whom urge the rapid enactment of the Bill.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that had it not been for the nationalisation of the Rolls-Royce engine division in Derby that great company would have gone to the wall and tens of thosuands of workers would have been thrown out of work?

My hon. Friend is accurate. Instead of the parliamentary process for that nationalisation taking nearly a year—as is the parliamentary process on this Bill—that Bill went through in 17 hours. That is the way the Tories nationalise.

That may be the view expressed in a recent article in the Sunday Times, but it is clearly not the view of the electors of Walsall, North and Workington that further nationalisation is required. The Minister has not answered the Question. He has not given a categorical undertaking that there will be no further nationalisation. Does he not realise—as does the CBI in "The Road to Recovery"—the unique damage that the threat of nationalisation is doing to Britain's industrial recovery?

The hon. Gentleman should know that in the only by-election last Thursday in a shipbuilding area the Tory candidate was hard put to it to hold his deposit.

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

The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has completed Report stage in another place and the debate on Third Reading there is scheduled for tomorrow.

In view of the importance of the Bill to the workers in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, will my hon. Friend make a special plea to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists—especially those who pretend to be Left-wing back in their constituencies—to have the courage of their convictions for once and vote with us this week instead of meekly obeying their party Whips by going into the Lobby with a Right-wing ragbag of Tories, Liberals and Ulster Unionists?

A number of shipyards in Scotland are in jeopardy, and the consequences to Scottish Aviation of the failure of the Bill to pass will be exceptionally grave. It is for Opposition Members who for those reasons did not oppose the original guillotine motion on the Bill to consider whether three months later more delay is acceptable to the workers in those industries.

Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend that if the Government had accepted the amendment put forward by Plaid Cymru to cut out the ship-repairing industry the Bill would have had a greater chance of going through? Will he accept that the vast majority of people who have anything to do with the ship-repairing industry—including the comments in yesterday's Sunday Times—point out the absolute stupidity of nationalisation?

The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later in the week to raise ship repairing. No doubt the House will discuss it in detail. It is for him and his hon. Friends to weigh the consequences for 300 ship-repairing workers in South Wales whose jobs are not in jeopardy with the consequences for 4,500 aircraft workers in North Wales, near his constituency, whose jobs will be in considerable danger if the Bill does not go through.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Managing Director of Scottish Aviation has told the workers there that unless the nationalisation proposals are proceeded with the company will be in liquidation in the spring?

I would not like to comment upon what may or may not have been said in Scottish Aviation. What I will say with all due gravity is that if Scottish Aviation does not come within British Aerospace within a measurable period the consequences will be extremely grave for the workers there.

Will the Minister accept that SNP Members are listening extremely carefully to his pronouncements on job opportunities? Will he therefore take this opportunity to confirm or deny rumours currently circulating in Scotland that the Organising Committee has in mind 30 per cent, redundancy throughout the shipbuilding industry and the closure of three yards?

I can deny such rumours categorically. We have not had any report or recommendations from the Organising Committee about the future of shipyards anywhere in Great Britain. Unless the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders is swiftly turned into British Shipbuilders as a corporation, there will undoubtedly be thousands of redundancies in Scottish shipyards.

Will the Minister say how it will be possible to have the debate which he says we can have when we bear in mind that the total number of Lords amendments, if voted on, will take up more than the time he is proposing to allow for such a debate?

If the hon. Gentleman examines the proceedings in another place, he will find that all amendments which have been debated and passed there are on matters which have been discussed during the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee and on Report in this House—for example, the subject of ship repairing, debate on which I ensured against querulousness from the Opposition. These matters have now been debated in this House for a total of 269 hours. It is about time the Bill was enacted.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is to be no time for a debate, or is he agreeing with the suggestion from Plaid Cymru that a debate on ship repairing should take place?

If the timetable motion is passed this evening, we shall employ the arrangements that were made last time in deciding how the debate will be allocated. It was I who last time insisted, with the disagreement of the Opposition, that ship repairing should be debated. I have no doubt that if the timetable motion is passed we shall debate ship repairing and vote on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied fled with the current level of investment in manufacturing industry.

No. I hope to be able to announce new measures in the near future to encourage more investment.

Is not the policy of dear money fatal to industry? Since in 1971–72, under the then Conservative Government, the minimum lending rate went as low as 5 per cent., does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a minimum lending rate of 16 per cent, makes it virtually impossible to borrow money for investment in manufacturing industry?

I agree that that is one of the factors involved. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it plain on more than one occasion that he hopes that the minimum lending rate will come down so that we can stimulate investment. If we had more support from the Opposition on some of the economic measures we are pushing through, I am satisfied that industrial confidence would improve. The Opposition are doing all they can to destroy confidence and undermine our currency, and they never cease to take the opportunity to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that British private industry would be in a far more powerful position than it is now if the Opposition were to persuade their patriotic friends to invest in industry, because there has been a strike in terms of capital in that respect for some years? Will he encourage those people to put that money into investment because, although they always talk about these matters, they regularly ask for public funds to boost faltering private industry?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The Opposition have been completely irresponsible in the last few months and have contributed a great deal to the present situation.

Will the Secretary of State explain how manufacturing industry is to invest more when the Government need to borrow every single penny which is available in the private sector for the whole of next year? Was not this situation reflected in the weekend Press in articles to the effect that the Government's borrowing requirements will grow by another £2,000 million? Does not that make the Government's industrial strategy a complete and utter farce?

That is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier. The Opposition and their friends time and again do not contribute to the rebuilding of British industry but take every opportunity to snipe at our industrial strategy. The House knows about the tripartite arrangements that are being built up through the NEDC. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not to indulge in consistent carping criticism but to help the country to get back on its feet. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and his Friends are doing all they can to undermine the strategy.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that the profitability of industry this year is rapidly increasing? Therefore, does he not agree that it is essential for industry to be encouraged to invest those funds? Does he not think that a prime element in that progress is to bring about an increased number of planning agreements between the Government and industry?

I shall be answering a series of Questions on planning agreements presently. We have done a great deal as a Government to help to stimulate investment—for example, in terms of the Accelerated Projects Scheme and some of the other industrial schemes which we have developed. Such schemes are generally of value to British industry. Unlike the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), others recognise those arrangements as extremely valuable. It is a pity that the Opposition do not do more to help in this regard.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is the policy of the present Government that is in ruins and that the Opposition have consistently been telling the Government what they should do? They should cut public expenditure, drop nationalisation and deal with the £11,000 million deficit on borrowing. Until the Government take that action, we shall not see the recovery of investment.

The hon. Gentleman, in common with all his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, is always in favour of cutting public expenditure in general but never in particular. Time and again they come forward asking the Government to increase public expenditure. We have heard such pleas this afternoon during Question Time. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that progress has been made following the disastrous 1973 period when we saw Lord Barber and his right hon. Friends then in Government spurring on the inflationary spiral. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties experienced since that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will publish each month a list of the recent successes and achievements of both private and public sectors of British industry.

My Department's weekly magazine Trade and Industry regularly publishes details of industrial successes of British firms both at home and overseas. There are sections devoted to new products and technology developed by both private and public sectors of British industry, and I understand that the editor is always pleased to hear of new developments. Copies of Trade and Industry are available in the Library.

In view of the obsession with damaging despondency cultivated by the Opposition and displayed by many sections of the national, if not the local, media, is it not time in the national interest for firmer emphasis to be placed on the frequent and continuing achievements of British industry than is currently to be found in the details given in the Department's literature? Is it not desirable to see some spoon-feeding so that there can be recognition of success?

I note my hon. Friend's useful suggestion, and I agree with him that many of the contents of the Department's documents make a far more worthwhile contribution to the image of our country abroad than do certain sections of the British Press and certain speeches made by the Opposition. I assure him that Ministers in my Department and in other Departments will continue to do their best to stress the achievements of British industry. I hope that in laying stress on those achievements we shall be emulated by a similar effort on the part of the Opposition.

If the Under-Secretary will not confirm the success of the public and private sectors of industry, will he comment on some of the worst aspects of the failures in the public sector, particularly on the findings of the special report by the British Steel Corporation last week on absenteeism which discovered that absenteeism figures had reached 28 days per annum among manual workers and at one plant in Scotland 42 days per annum? What action will the hon. Gentleman take in conjunction with the Corporation to try to reduce days lost in this way?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not inviting the House to look a little more carefully at the record of absenteeism on his Benches. As I have said—[HON. MEMBERS: " Did you vote last time?"]—

Order. I did not vote—which answers the question interjected. We are going very slowly. Let us try to move more quickly.

As I have said, the continued denigration, running down and knocking of the achievements of British industrial performance pursued by the Opposition does not help this country abroad at all.

What will be the likely impact on British manufacturing industry of the handing over of information to the Germans and Americans about a new British tank development, which looks as though it will result in a number of orders going to overseas companies, as was revealed yesterday in the Sunday Times?

That is an interesting question, but it is not one for my Department. I can only suggest that my hon. Friend puts down a Question to the appropriate Minister.

The Under-Secretary talks about praising the successes of British industry. Has he noted the contrast between the warm and vigorous way in which he himself plays a part in that endeavour and the rather more enthusiastic approach which might be helpful towards that very important topic? Since the Secretary of State has agreed that there is an investment strike in British industry, as he tacitly did in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), has the Under-Secretary of State noted that Lucas has just announced a £100 million investment programme and ICI has announced a £400 million programme—an act of real courage in the present economic situation and against the current borrowing requirement? A little more enthusiasm from the Government for the achievements of the private sector would not come amiss, would it?

I hope that the hon. gentleman will not exclude from the catalogue some of the very large public sector investments which also are planned. If he studies the plans of the British Steel Corporation and of other public sector enterprises, especially the National Enterprise Board which he want to wind up, he will see that in very many areas it is the public sector which takes the lead and sets the pace

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has yet decided which British civil aerospace projects merit launching aid.

With the Government's encouragement, the Organising Committee for British Aerospace and the industry are considering all the available options in consultation with possible collaborative partners. At present, the discussions are not sufficiently advanced and the market situation is not sufficiently clear for them to be able to put any proposals to the Government.

That is the sort of answer we have had for two and a half years. Is the Minister aware that cheapjack appeals to the patriotism of his Tribunite friends will do damn-all good if he cannot make up his mind about any single major industrial development, which he has the power to do right now under the Civil Aviation Act?

My hon. Friends, whether members of the Tribune Group or not, have far more patriotism than the hon. Gentleman will ever have if he goes on asking that ignorant, malicious and snide sort of question. The fact is that under private enterprise we have had not one proposal for a new aircraft project. The only new aircraft project launched in the past few years has been from the nationalised Short Bros and Harland. Only when we get this industry into public ownership shall we have the new projects, and if we do not get it into public ownership there will be no new civil projects.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an area in which public expenditure is necessary and desirable, especially as the aerospace industry is finding it difficult to cope with the longstanding consequences of the recession? Will he agree that in aerospace engines as well as in airframes we need to move forward quickly, especially with projects such as the JT10B?

The Opposition wish to leave the future of the civil aviation industry to the free play of market forces. I do not know whether that implies Government money too, but I can only say that if the Tories had left Rolls-Royce to the free play of market forces there would be no future for Rolls-Royce, and my hon. Friend's constituents who are looking forward to that engine would now be waiting to find other opportunities.

Will the Minister give an assurance that not a penny more of taxpayers' money will be wasted on a stupid project such as Concorde or Concorde II?

Without accepting that this superb technological achievement is a stupid project, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have made perfectly clear both to our French partners and to the workers of the British Aircraft Corporation that no more Concordes will be built unless firm orders can be obtained without loss to the taxpayer. M. Cavaillé and I agreed at our metting last week that we would not go ahead with the £500 million that BAC has asked us to spend—without a penny of its own money, of course—on a stretched Concorde.

To return to civil aviation projects, can the Minister explain why, with the full authority of the 1949 Act, he has not taken the initiative, which he has power to do under that Act, to help civil aviation? Why must it wait for nationalisation?

For two and a half years now, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been telling us not to bail out lame ducks and not to spend public money on them. We have made our position clear. On 29th June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that there would be an assured future for Scottish Aviation within British Aerospace, and that statement is available for the hon. Gentleman to see. I wish that I could say that if the Bill fell the same assured future would exist. It would not.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the interim accounts of the National Enterprise Board for the period 20th November 1975 to 30th June 1976.

No, Sir.

Is the Under-Secretary satisfied with a meagre profit of £29 million on sales of £1,100 million by the National Enterprise Board? If a private sector company did so badly, it would never be able to raise money in the market. How can the NEB go on spending and spending? Is the reason that it is using taxpayers' money?

That is a rather peculiar remark to come from the hon. Gentleman, especially since he and his hon. Friends are constantly running down British industry. He should appreciate that if the regeneration of British industry is to be achieved, and if we are to secure a shift of the nation's resources into manufacturing industry, the National Enterprise Board must play a very prominent part.

Is not the NEB concerned with rescuing vital parts of British industry which have been abandoned by private enterprise—or the lack of it—and are not the initial losses bound to reflect that, although the ultimate gain to British employment and prosperity will be well worth the cost?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without this Government, the country would not have a car industry. Without this Government, it would not have an aero-engine industry or a machine tool industry. The Conservatives voted against each of those decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will report progress on drawing up planning agreements with leading companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether any planning agreements under the Industry Act 1975 have yet been concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many planning agreements have so far been reached; and with what companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is now the extent of progress towards the achievement of planning agreements; and with which sectors of industry negotiations are taking place.

As the House knows, detailed discussions are in progress with eight companies in the process plant, turbo-generator and motor vehicle sectors of industry. Planning agreements are also being introduced with three nationalised industries. Announcements will be made as further companies agree to enter into operative discussions, and statements on the conclusion of planning agreements will be laid at the appropriate time.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that any strategy for the development of British industry must be based on plans drawn up between the Government and leading companies? Does he accept that some of us at least think that the efforts so far have been wholly inadequate and that we cannot settle down to the orderly planning of industry without a far greater number of planning agreements?

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. I am not satisfied with the progress either. These are voluntary agreements, as was set out in December 1974, but British industry and industrialists continually come to me and complain that, even where investment and technology are comparable with investment and technology overseas, they are not getting enough out of them. The best way to get a better performance by industry is to enter into planning discussions, and I hope that more companies will do so.

What is the Government's input into these agreements, particularly with the motor industry? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is real lack of confidence among all those working in that industry in the Government's plans for it, whether through fuel tax, interest rates, the size of the market or licensing policy? Is there any firm Government purpose and policy towards that industry?

There would not have been much confidence in that industry if—

Tell us the Government's policy.

I can stand here all day if necessary and wait for the barracking to stop. The input of taxpayers' money into the motor industry over the last two and a half years has been about £250 million. The discussions with British Leyland and Chrysler are going extremely well. I hope that in due course we shall be able to announce the conclusion of planning agreements, and a statement will be made.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that two of the vital elements needed for the recovery of the economy are the better planning of resources and the development of democracy in industry, in both of which planning agreements have a vital rôle to play? Is it not therefore extremely disappointing that no planning agreements appear yet to have been concluded?

It is disappointing, and I think that British industry is taking an extremely negative view of planning agreements. I know that the companies I have announced are anxious to enter into discussions, but by and large the response has been pretty poor and it is plain that the Government will have to take stock of the position very soon.

How does the right hon. Gentleman expect British industry to have confidence in him or the Government when a sizeable percentage of the Labour Party wishes to see the mixed economy reduced to ruins and equates planning with nationalisation and complete State takeover? How can he expect to preserve credibility?

A year ago we entered into the industrial strategy exercise, if I can call it that, through the framework of the National Economic Development Council, and we have had about 40 sector working reports in which 1,000 people have been involved. But it is plain that, if we are to make progress and improve performance, that work has to be translated to the level of the company and the plant. That is not being done. Planning agreements have a role to play, and I hope that industry recognises it.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the calamity at Courtaulds would not have occurred had a planning agreement been established with that company? Does not he also agree that restriction on wages and salaries in isolation is both unfair and futile if we do not also control and influence investment in industry?

British industry has, over the last few months, had a climate in which it could enter into planning agreements. The voluntary pay policy has helped considerably. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of disputes and strikes. Sometimes I ask myself what more industry requires. If it believes in an industrial strategy, it really should enter into planning agreement discussions.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first requirement for industry to co-operate with the Government is that it should have confidence in the ability of the Government to govern the country? How does he think he will inspire that confidence when, in the year since the dialogue about planning agreements took place, the Government have seen their own borrowing requirement rising by £2,000 million, they have put up the borrowing rate to 15 per cent, minimum, and they have imposed a payroll levy in order to take another £1,000 million out of industry's resources?

At the same time the 100 per cent, capital investment allowances have been maintained, there has been substantial help to British industry on the basis of stock appreciation and the Price Code has been relaxed considerably, sometimes to the disappointment of my hon. Friends. All that has to be set in the balance. At this time, British industry has no reason to complain in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman complains.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the balance of trade surplus-deficit figures from each of the growth sectors included in the industrial strategy planning.

I shall arrange for the figures for the past three years to be published in the Official Report.

Will my hon. Friend give due attention to the concern in one of the growth sectors, the computer industry, where management and specialists are worried about the lack of forward planning being shown by officials of his Department, and—perhaps more important—the fact that there seems to be no relationship between sector reports from one industry to another? If we are to have a total plan, does not this seem an obvious thing to do?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I hope that when he sees the figures in Hansard he will accept that, in general—it is difficult to judge any specific sector in this context—the position in the first half of this year shows a slight growth and a slight improvement in the balance of trade position.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will instruct the National Enterprise Board to reduce its support of the motor car industry in proportion to the strike record of whichever company is in receipt of subsidy.

The National Enterprise Board does not provide subsidies to any industry, nor does it have responsibility for the motor car industry as a whole.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although it is true—and one must be thankful for it—that the strike record in the motor car industry has greatly improved, it does not help if loans are provided by the NEB which are open-ended, since what the industry needs is better delivery dates, better quality and a general effort on the part of everyone concerned to improve the export record? Thankfully, that is happening, and it is therefore desirable that the NEB should not act as a crutch.

I acknowledge the constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. What we need within British Leyland and the other subsidiaries of the NEB is the kind of concerted effort that the hon. Gentleman rightly recommends. The NEB has strict rules about the terms on which it makes loans. The House debated the terms upon which the further tranche of finance was given to British Leyland last summer. There have been commitments by vote of the work force to the new Mini since then, and the hon. Gentleman is right in wishing to encourage British Leyland and the other subsidiaries of the NEB to move forward in this constructive fashion.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that in the first nine months of this year Britain had the lowest number of industrial disputees for the past 23 years? Does he not further agree that the trade union movement has played a major part in bringing about this favourable development? Is it not now time for attention to be focused on the investment strikers who have failed Britain so badly?

This country owes an unparelleled debt to the trade union leaders for the voluntary restraint which they have provided and as a result of which we have managed to halve the inflation rate since the pay policy came about after the disastrous spiral upon which it was started by Lord Barber, who was also one of those chiefly responsible for urging the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) into the Conservative Government's disastrous confrontation with the trade union movement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Director-General of the CBI.

We met at the National Economic Development Council meeting last week, and I expect we shall do so again shortly.

Has the Secretary of State read the latest CBI publication "The Road to Recovery" which says that to get industrial recovery it is essential to cut Government spending by £3,000 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with this?

No, I do not agree. I have read the document, and there are certain sections in it with which I do agree. I agree with it on the question of improving industrial performance, productivity and profitability. I think that those sections would find support throughout the whole House. However, there are other sections which are pretty disastrous.

Will the Secretary of State tell the Scottish CBI that one sure way to increase investment in Scotland would be to have a sovereign Scotland with a strong Scots pound? Scotland, unlike England, basically can balance its economy.

I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman comes to conclusions like that. I know that British industry is linked throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the Scottish coal industry could not exist on a competitive basis alongside the English coal industry. I am not at all sure that in some parts of Scotland there are those who agree that it is Scottish oil. There are some suggestions that it is Shetland oil. Then there is the nuclear power programme, which in Scotland is linked with the British programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is able to give the percentage of companies in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry that operate more than one shift per day.

No, Sir. This information is not available.

Can the Minister explain why I can get that information from the House of Commons Library? Will he take advantage of the information in the Library to ascertain that very few firms are now doing shift work? How can he say that British industry is under-capitalised if capital investment is not properly used? Will he look at the Employment Protection Act and see how this is affecting the situation?

The hon. Member can get the overall statistics of the numbers of workers who work shifts; that information has always been available. If, however, he is talking about specific firms and is asking my Department to undertake detailed research into the number of firms, I hope that his hon. Friends will note the increase for which he is calling in public spending.

The Minister's answer is even more remarkable in view of a recent parliamentary answer to me which indicated that there are now 1,200 statisticians in the Department of Industry costing the taxpayer about £7 million a year. Is that large number justified if information such as that for which my hon. Friend has asked is not available? What are all these people doing?

If they had been put to the good use to which they are now put when the Conservatives were in office, we would not be faced with our present industrial difficulties. I only hope that if the hon. Gentleman proposes an increase in research into industrial activities of this kind he will persuade his hon. Friends that there should be an increase in public expenditure.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike Opposition Members, very many workers who have to spend years working night shifts in industry regard it as very harmful to health and to social and family life?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many Conservatives have never had experience of shift work and do not know what it is all about. Shift work is a matter for negotiation in each place of employment between the management and unions concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what political and economic policy guidelines he intends to frame for the proposed British aerospace industry.

The Government will be looking towards the British Aerospace Corporation to develop a strategy based upon profitability coupled with maximum employment opportunities, with emphasis on collaborative ventures with suitable partners in Europe, the United States and elsewhere.

In view of what the Minister said about employment opportunities, and as some trade unions are bullying the managers of the nationalised industries into acceptance of the closed shop as the price they have to pay for industrial peace, can he guarantee that if this Bill appears on the statute book all those at Hawker Siddeley and BAC will have the opportunity to express their views on the closed shop in a ballot before it is imposed upon them?

We have inserted into the Bill unprecedented amendments which provide for progress towards industrial democracy in both British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. That is the kind of course which is best pursued.

Will the Minister say whether the salaries of the directors of the proposed new corporations will be less or more than the salary which our former colleague, Mr. Edward Short, finds so inadequate at Cable and Wireless Ltd. now that he has left us?

The hon. Gentleman has the unique capacity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I repeat, the hon. Gentleman has the unique capacity for taking hold of trivial questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question"]— and trivialising them even further. The salaries paid to the board of British Aerospace will be commensurate with the very great abilities of the people who have agreed to serve. The staffs of BAC, Hawker Siddeley Aviation and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics have a great deal more patriotic approach to the future of this industry than have hon. Members opposite.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the supplementary question relating to the trade unions is to the annoyance of Conservative Members because of the record of British trade unionists in achieving industrial peace? They are robbing the Tory Party of the opportunity to stab Britain in the back, and they are compelling the Leader of the Opposition to go to foreign countries to do her dirty work of running down this nation.

The Britsh trade union movement sets an example in patriotism which the Opposition would do well to follow.