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

My right hon. Friend last met the chairman on Wednesday 20th April and I met the chairman last on Thursday 21st April.

Does the Minister recognise that the Post Office's proposal to raise the 6½p basic letter rate has been particularly criticised by the Post Office Users National Council and will hit hard the poorest sections of the community? Does he also recognise that the Post Office Users National Council has been particularly harsh in its criticism of the proposed increase in the overseas book rate, which will do immense damage to our publishing industry? Does he agree with those criticisms?

We are studying these matters and my right hon. Friend will announce his views after they have been discussed. I hope that when the Opposition are discussing these matters they will recollect the views put by one of their official spokesman in the House, who said that complete price freedom for the Post Office was a welcome policy, that subsidisation should not be undertaken and that Government meddling in these matters was to be regretted.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread dismay that the Post Office is apparently not going to reintroduce Sunday collections at the end of its experimental period? Does he also recognise that many people are puzzled about how this decision, if it has been arrived at, has been reached, because there has been no indication of widespread public consultation?

There has been consultation on this matter. The Post Office reaches its own decisions. Only a tiny percentage of collections take place on Sunday, and if the Post Office were to reintroduce Sunday collections the cost would be immense and the Post Office would lose a great deal of money on it. It would be for those who wished the Post Office to accept that considerable loss, running into many millions of pounds, to suggest how that money should be regained.

Will the Minister, on the next occasion when he meets the Chairman of the Post Office, discuss the placing of orders for telecommunications equipment with the industry? Is he aware that the violent fluctuations in policy in this area have caused grave difficulty and distress for many parts of the industry? Further, will he discuss the price paid for this equipment, which is well below the equivalent price paid by many foreign Governments to their Post Offices and, therefore, prevents our telecommunications industry from exporting effectively?

Obviously, these are matters of great concern. The impact of telecommunications orders on manufacturing has been discussed again and again between the Government, the trade unions, the manufacturers and the Post Office, because we recognise that this is a serious matter and that there can be serious social consequences. At the same time, I hope that nobody on either side of the House would expect the Post Office to order equipment that it did not need.

But is the Minister really deeply satisfied with the second-rate service that the Post Office is now giving to the British people?

I have just returned from the United States, where I had discussions with the Postmaster-General of the United States, and I had meetings in the last week with the Director-General of Posts in Saudi Arabia.

I am talking about Britain.

Both of them express admiration for the British postal service and say that it is one of the best in the world. It is about time that, instead of attacking the British Post Office, hon. Members expressed pride in having one of the best postal and telecommunications services in the world.

Absolute rubbish.

Did the Minister of State say that no one in this House would expect the Post Office to order equipment that it did not need? If so—I think he did—does his Secretary of State agree that this is also relevant to the Central Electricity Generating Board?

If the right hon. Gentleman has Questions to put on energy, he knows that he should put them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence among his colleagues to prevent the irresponsible outcry from them for a return to subsidisation in the Post Office's accounts.

I do not wish to join in the criticisms that have been voiced today about the Post Office, but will my hon. Friend agree that the Post Office is less accountable to this House than it ever has been? In the old days we were able to ask Questions about the Post Office, which we are not permitted to do now.

That is certainly so, but it is a consequence of the enactment of the Post Office Act of 1969, and questions of that kind should have been dealt with then.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the total sum paid out to date under the Industry Act 1972 and the Industry (Amendment) Act 1976; and, of this, what proportion has gone to areas other than development areas, special development areas and intermediate areas.

Because of the differing nature of assistance measures and the wide geographical spread of undertakings assisted, no precise breakdown between assisted and non-assisted Areas is feasible. Payments under all the measures defined by the Industry Act 1972 total some £1,975 million. The shipbuilding industry, through loans under the home credit scheme, construction grants and other forms of assistance, accounts for more than £600 million, the benefits of which will be available mostly for the assisted areas. Of the remainder some £1,025 million has been paid in regional development grants and £170 million under Sections 7 and 8 towards investment wholly in the assisted areas. For projects wholly outside the assisted areas, the total assistance paid of all kinds has been £60 million. But some £110 million has been paid under Sections 7 and 8 to assist undertakings with activities in both the assisted and non-assisted areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that we are making the most effective use of these vast sums, particularly in relation to the overall benefits to be gained from the now almost exclusive concentration on the assisted areas? What studies has his Department undertaken into the costs and benefits experienced on these matters? If none has been done to date, is not now an appropriate time to start?

The benefit which is going out to private enterprise and public industry is examined and scrutinised constantly. But it is not true, as the hon. Member suggests, that the non-assisted areas are not gaining benefit. Although the assisted areas still have the gravest problems, as I am sure the hon. Member will recognise, in that they have the highest levels of unemployment, the fact is that large amounts of money have been going to both assisted and non-assisted areas. For example, the accelerated project scheme produced a total promised investment of £640 million for grant aid of £84 million, and this, of course, applies to both assisted and non-assisted areas.

We are going rather slower today. We had better try to do better.

What estimates were made of the changes in employment that would result from the Government's decicision to downgrade Aberdeen from development area status?

There was a very careful review by the Government of the alteration to the recent changes in development area status and the downgrading to intermediate area status. The hon. Member can rest assured that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom are taken very carefully into account in making these assessments.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make it a condition for receiving financial assistance from the taxpayers that companies do not discriminate against contractors and suppliers who may employ non-union labour.

No, Sir. Conditions are related to the purposes of the assistance.

Is the Minister aware that Rolls-Royce, British Leyland and Chrysler appear to have allowed the unions to dictate the terms upon which they shall be supplied and upon which contractors may do work for them? There appears to be a connection between State assistance to such firms and the abnegation of the responsibility of management to decide how it shall conduct its business. In view of this weakness of the system operated by the Labour Party, will the Minister take steps to alter the criteria in the way that the Question indicates?

Hear, hear.

The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear", but surely it is up to the management concerned to decide what conditions it wishes to impose. Equally, it is up to the other management to decide whether it wishes to agree to them. The point I would make is that the action which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is asking to have stopped was legal even under the Industrial Relations Act operated by the previous Administration. We therefore have a situation that, while the Leader of the Opposition is purporting to be wooing the industries, the mood on the Opposition Back Benches is even more virulent than it was when the Conservative Party was last in office.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who is interfering with the freedom of management? I am sure management does not require assistance from him.

The hon. Gentleman appears to believe that anyone who is undertaking behaviour with which he does not agree should have sanctions applied against him.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry which Japanese companies have indicated an interest in establishing colour television manufacturing in the United Kingdom; and what reply he has given.

I know of only one Japanese company which is interested at the present time in setting up colour television manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom. All such proposals are looked at by my Department from the point of view of the national interest. I should expect any new plant to provide employment in an assisted area to use United Kingdom-manufactured components to the maximum possible extent, to increase exports and to lead to a reduction of imports. The proposal is at present under consideration.

Would it not be simpler to refuse permission altogether and set at rest the fears of companies such as Rank Radio International in my constituency? Would it not be better to take a more robust line such as the Secretary of State for Trade took when trouncing Japan for discrimination against goods imported there?

The hon. Lady must recognise that it has been the policy of successive Governments in most circumstances to welcome inward investment in this country unless overriding national interests suggest that we should do otherwise. I am not aware that the Opposition have changed their position in relation to that.

While accepting the Minister's reassurance on certain points, may I ask whether he recognises the widespread concern that exists about the development of yet another manufacturing capacity when there is already suplus capacity in this country? If such manufacturing capacity is increased, will he look at the guarantees with regard to the supply of British-made components in the manufacture of television sets?

I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making. That is why I stressed in my initial reply that we would request such guarantees, and the level of component usage which I expect to be attained within three years will mean a higher rate of use of British components by the Japanese company than is normal in British firms opeating in the same area. Indeed, the firm for which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) has expressed concern, like many British firms, uses imported tubes.

Is the Minister aware that it is an industry in which the labour demands are contracting? Employment figures at Rank Radio have dropped from 3,750 to 2,200. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that where a diminishing number of jobs is available it is preferable that they should be devoted to building British goods rather than be subjected to the vagaries of management of component supply which affect overseas firms?

As I have said, it is not quite as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that any firm which could set up in this country could set up and present a competitive threat elsewhere in the Common Market. We have to ask ourselves, therefore, whether we deny ourselves the opportunity of a viable firm, with the latest technology in the industry, in order to keep other firms in existence which are already in trouble. I do not see that as the option, and it would be a couple of years before the firm could be fully operational. In that time we anticipate a considerable revival in the demand for sets.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will now make a statement on the outcome of his consultations on the Central Policy Review Staff Report on the electrical power plant industry.

I expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend give me two categorical assurances? First, is the option of placing the Drax B order with Parsons and telling GEC that it will get no orders until it co-operates with the Government's plan for a national company still firmly open? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend underwrite the assurances given by the Reyrolle Parsons management to the workers at C. A. Parsons that it will not engage in discussions with GEC without the workers' agreement? May we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will not put the Reyrolle Parsons management in the position where it has to pursue that course?

I am not in a position to give any kind of specific assurance this afternoon one way or the other. I can only tell my hon. Friend that the negotiations are extremely difficult. He will know as well as I do, having read the CPRS Report, that it is essential that there should be some restructuring of the heavy electrical plant industry. Negotiations so far have been extremely difficult, and I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that his statement during the past few days has not helped the position.

Will the Minister tell the House whether any promise was given to GEC when it agreed to make available to the Meriden Motor Cycle Co-operative both financial and marketing assistance? Was GEC told at that time that it would be given a favourable position in relation to other deals with the Government?

That is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. As I understand it—I did not take part in the detailed negotiations that took place arising out of the Meriden report, but my right hon. Friend did—the two issues were never discussed together.

Will my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that it is intended that there should be a major contribution by the National Enterprise Board in any agreement that is reached? Can he say what effect it will have upon the railroad plant which is also involved?

The National Enterprise Board has been involved in the discussions to which I have already referred and has played a leading part.

Will the Secretary of State give one assurance—that in reaching his final decision he will bear in mind not only the opinions of the National Union of Mineworkers and of those working for Parsons in Newcastle, important though they be, but the interests of the consumers of electricity, who would have to foot the bill if we ordered excess power stations?

I do not have ministerial responsibility for the electricity supply industry. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 84 of the CPRS Report, which says:

"The absolutely essential condition for maintaining a viable power plant industry in the country in the long term is a firm contractual commitment by the CEGB to a steady ordering programme."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the newspaper reports of the last few days are only half true the Government will face a vast industrial and political backlash in the North-East? Will he bring to a speedy end the consideration of the CPRS Report, go ahead with ordering Drax and ensure that Parsons obtains the turbine generator order?

Questions about the CEGB and the Drax Power Station and matters of that kind must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. My hon. Friend knows that. I know of his concern and that of my other hon. Friends about preserving jobs. That is a factor that we have in mind in considering these questions. But wild and inaccurate statements from any source, many of them misconceived and mischievous as well as wildly inaccurate, only add to the Government's difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he proposes to make any changes in the planned future level of financial support from public funds of the motor vehicle industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further discussions he plans to hold with the management of British Leyland on the provision of Government finance.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the future investment plans of British Leyland.

A review of British Leyland's plans will be submitted by the National Enterprise Board next month. I do not propose to make any statement about future levels of financial support from public funds until the Government have had an opportunity to study the NEB's recommendations. In the case of Chrysler, the extent of Government assistance was clearly defined in the agreement signed last year and no changes to these levels are planned.

In the case of the review of the British Leyland car plan, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will not rush into any decision that would involve long-term commitment of massive public funds? Would he not agree that the long-term future of British Leyland now depends on waiting to see what levels of production and productivity can be sustained there and whether there are any prospects of any lasting improvement in industrial relations within the enterprise?

The Government have made it plain on many occasions, going back over two years or more, that we see the continued support of British Leyland as being based on an improvement of performance and industrial relations. There was such an improvement last year, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Indeed, I think that the whole House acknowledged that fact when I laid before it the proposal for the further tranche of public funds amounting to £100 million. I shall not rush to hasty conclusions. There has been a recovery over the past few weeks in British Leyland's performance. I want to see, as I am sure do my hon. Friends and even hon. Members on the other side of the House, a substantial and expanding British motor car industry.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that investment in a company of the importance of British Leyland cannot be turned on and off like a tap in the light of a passing phase of industrial relations? Is it not vital, if this great firm is to be successful in the future, to have a firm long-term commitment to a high level of investment?

I have always recognised that British Leyland will have to have investment from public funds, and that was envisaged in the Ryder Report. In the cars plan, as I told the House when we debated British Leyland a few weeks ago, it was envisaged that for every £1 of public money British Leyland would generate at least £1·50 from profits. There was a lapse in that process and the target was not achieved, because of a whole series of factors not necessarily associated with the toolmakers' dispute. There has been a recovery since then, as my hon. Friend knows, and as soon as we have the National Enerprise Board's report I shall seek to make a statement to the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will not get British Leyland right as long as the management is as over-centralised as it is, as long as the factories are so large and as long as the diseconomies of scale at the human level far outweigh any of the economies of scale on the technical side?

I was in the House when the hon. Gentleman raised that very point previously. I can tell him that no doubt this is one of the factors that will be taken fully into consideration by the National Enterprise Board and the Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the British Government have rescued British Leyland and Chrysler has saved many hundreds of thousands of jobs not only in those two firms but in many components industries throughout the country? Will he have regard, however, to the future investment plans of British Leyland in order to ensure that the many components industries which supply parts to British Leyland are allowed to continue in the years ahead?

It is true that, had the votes of the Opposition been successful in the House on numerous occasions, the British motor car industry would now be in a state of disintegration. That is a fact that I think the whole House acknowledges. I want to see a substantial British motor industry and the level of import penetration reduced as quickly as is practicable. British Leyland and all the other motor car companies will have a rôle to play in that process. The component supliers not only rely to a great extent on home manufacturing but are also substantial and successful export earners.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will seek a meeting with his United States counterpart to discuss possible collaboration over the development of supersonic civil aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to promote improved marks of the Concorde supersonic airliner; and if these involve extending the current Anglo-French collaboration to include other countries, notably the United States of America.

When I met the French Secretary of State for Transport on 2nd November last, we decided not to proceed with the manufacturers' proposals to develop a derived version of Concorde for production in the 1980s. On an advanced supersonic transport for the 1990s I indicated that the British Government considered that they should consolidate the knowledge and experience gained on Concorde but that our first task must be to establish our priorities in the subsonic field.

Now that the paying passenger has shown, through high load factors on the Washington run, that the customer will pay higher fares for speed, and as the Americans appear to have reopened investigation into their own supersonic programme, does not the Minister of State agree that it would make sense to consider three-way collaboration between Britain, France and the United States not only in the interests of saving money in all three countries, rather than that each should go it alone, but also to ensure a continuing future for the civil aerospace industry in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman is right when he praises the commercial achievement of Concorde on the Washington route. The British Airways route has shown a 93 per cent. load factor, which makes it the most successful single airline operation in the history of civil aviation.

Is the Minister aware that if we are to optimise the large national investment already spent on Concorde we must at some stage move to a Mark II? It must make sense to do this on as wide a co-operative basis as possible. Europe is not enough. We must work with the Americans on this if the project is to make any economic and commercial sense.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman if he is implying that a stretched version of Concorde is an appropriate way of developing supersonic travel. As and when a development for supersonic travel comes, it will have to be a new plane, though based upon the experience gained on Concorde. I agree that any such project would require wide international collaboration, including not only with the Americans but, in my view, probably with the Germans and the Japanese too.

Will the Minister say whether the approach by McDonnell-Douglas has run into the ground or whether he is exploring it further?

I discussed these matters briefly when I was at McDonnell-Douglas a few days ago. But when my French colleague and I met on 2nd November we agreed that, although we should try to consolidate and build upon the experience we had gained, in the interests of both our aircraft industries it was much more necessary now to get ahead with considering subsonic projects.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is yet in a position to announce which British aerospace projects will receive funding support in 1977–78.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has yet decided which new civil aircraft projects should be granted launching aid under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Act during the current financial year.

British Aerospace, which takes control of the vesting companies this Friday, 29th April, is not yet in a position to reach conclusions on the civil aircraft options before it. British Aerospace will normally finance new projects from its corporate resources, including public dividend capital and borrowing from the National Loans Fund, rather than by launching aid for specific projects.

Can the Minister say when the sales requirements of the airlines will be fed into the forward planning of the new Aerospace Corporation? Is he aware, for example, that British Airways are now contemplating purchasing the Boeing 737 aircraft for their air tours in preference to the BAC111 aircraft, which has always been a profitable aircraft for British Airways and which, after all, is one of the few remaining civil projects in British industry?

Questions about the procurement policy of British Airways are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in our own consideration with British Aerospace of possible future projects we have to take account of what we calculate will be the sales requirements of airlines. This is one of the most important factors in deciding upon new projects.

With reference to his earlier reply, is my hon. Friend aware that we have the perfect subsonic candidate for funding at Hatfield, the HS146? Is he aware, further, that although what the Government have done so far has been extremely useful in preserving jobs, the time has now come when it is essential for the market for the plane, for the morale of the civil airframe industry in this country and for the future of the Hatfield factory that we should have a full-scale favourable decision to go ahead and fund this project as soon as possible?

I recognise the importance of this potential project to the factory whose workers my hon. Friend represents so effectively. It is very much as a result of representations such as hers that the Government have placed the holding contract and have maintained it, and, as my hon. Friend knows, we renewed it only recently. On Friday, that holding contract will be taken over by the first publicly-owned industry to be vested for 10 years, and that industry will have the right to make a decision on whether the HS146 shall go ahead.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals he has for the regeneration of industry in inner city areas and especially in Greater London.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment outlined a number of proposals on 6th April designed to improve inner city areas. London stands to benefit from these proposals.

I am very grateful to hear that London, too, will benefit from these proposals—and not before time. May I point out to my right hon. Friend, however, that there is a very serious menace to job creation and industrial reorganisation, particularly in the Greater London area? It has been caused by the ease with which applicants for warehouse building can get planning permission on former industrial sites. If this goes on at the present rate, industry will be prevented from returning to London. Will my right hon. Friend look at that problem?

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that in certain areas, particularly the area which he represents, there has been conversion of that sort. The local authorities as well as the central Government are involved in such a situation. I think he will bear in mind that the various easings of the IDC policy have already benefited London and the other conurbations, and I hope that the proposals which will eventually be embodied in a White Paper will give a certain extra flexibility to the GLC to help remedy its problems.

Does not the Minister understand that Government planning restrictions on industry in Greater London are not only extremely damaging to industry but are making it much more unlikely that the plans recently announced by the Department of the Environment for the stress areas will be successful?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman makes a rather sweeping survey of industrial strategy and industrial policy with which I could not associate myself at all. I invite him to wait until the White Paper is published. I think he will find that, within the proposals that the Government will bring forward, there has been a real attempt to meet the problems which analysis has shown to exist in London, without in the long term undermining the basic regional policy, which must still have priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

I meet Lord Ryder frequently, as business requires. The next occasion arranged is on 6th May, but there may be other occasions before then.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the future prospects of British Leyland? Would it not be opportune to proceed as soon as possible with the development of a new British Leyland Mini, bearing in mind that the advantages of a smaller car for energy conservation purposes are belatedly being recognised even by American millionaires and peanut farmers?

As I told the House earlier this afternoon, the proposal for the cars plan is currently under review by the British Leyland Board and the National Enterprise Board, and as soon as we have it we shall study it and take whatever steps are required to inform the House of Commons. I am very much in favour of a motor car industry which is geared to recognise the energy constraints that will be with us for many years to come.

In view of the continuing high structural unemployment on Merseyside, can the Secretary of State say when he expects the North-West Director of the National Enterprise Board to report on the study currently being undertaken into this very serious problem?

I can tell the House that I have received a draft report from the National Enterprise Board studying the situation not only in Merseyside but in the North-East too. I shall consider whether the final report, when we receive it, can be published. I and my colleagues have not yet appraised it fully, but progress has been made in the direction asked for by the hon. Lady.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board, will he bear in mind the very strong fears of Government supporters about a GEC monopoly in the power plant industry? Will he remember the backing that there is—which has been expressed frequently—for an NEB involvement and interest in any new structure that comes about?

I understand that my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends are concerned about the position in the heavy power plant industry. I, too, am very concerned to see that the industry is preserved. If there were no Government involvement, this industry and Parsons in particular would be under severe strain. The negotiations are extremely difficult and sensitive, and when colleagues in the House of Commons make statements which are inaccurate and in some cases pure fabrication our life is made much more difficult.

Appreciating that there is a legal action outstanding about the NEB's intervention in the tanning industry, may I ask the Secretary of State this general question? If the NEB is to support loss-making companies before profitable ones in industry that have already contracted, will that not simply transfer unemployment? Will he discuss this matter with the NEB?

Of course I shall discuss this matter with the NEB. We have always made plain, since the National Enterprise Board was set up and the Industry Bill was before the House in 1975, that it was no part of Government policy that the NEB should be the repository of lame ducks, or whatever the current phrase is at the time. However, the NEB has made an encouraging start. Apart from the eight Government shareholdings transferred to it, it has made 15 investments on its own account, and I think that it has been extremely successful. One cannot be absolutely sure that every NEB involvement will be successful, but so far it has operated on a very prudent basis, I think to the benefit of the nation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In referring to me, my right hon. Friend clearly implied that I had made both inaccurate and fabricated statements. I should like to seek your protection.

If the hon. Member will be kind enough to raise the matter at the end of Question Time, I shall do my best to protect him.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The main substance of my contention this afternoon is that my right hon. Friend is now prepared to see GEC make a straight takeover of C. A. Parsons, a firm, in my constituency

Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that all he may raise with me is his point of order?

My point of order is to ask whether I am not entitled to the Chair's protection when my right hon. Friend's course is clearly to deny or confirm the statement and not to abuse me and accuse me of making misleading, inaccurate and fabricated statements.

When the Minister made the reference to fabricated statements, I believe that he did not refer to any particular hon. Member. I know that he had addressed the hon. Gentleman earlier, but there was no occasion for me to intervene in the exchange that took place.

I apologise if I am being tedious about this, Mr. Speaker, but can I be clear that my right hon. Friend is not accusing me of making fabricated statements?

I detect no movement anywhere on the Government Front Bench.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further discussions he has had with the Chairman and the directors of Cable and Wireless Limited about their salaries; and if he will make a statement.

This has to be considered as part of the general question of the salaries of nationalised industries board members which the Government still have under examination.

Will the Minister pay tribute to the directors and staff of Cable and Wireless Ltd.? Its profit for the year ended 31st March 1977 exceeded even the profit of £11 million made in the previous year. However, as the salaries of many of the senior officials of the company now substantially exceed the salaries of the directors, and as that fact makes it increasingly difficult to recruit new directors, will the Minister urgently reconsider the position of the directors of the company?

Of course I pay tribute to the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I only wish that he had paid them a similar tribute when he introduced his Bill to denationalise the company. All I can say on the question of salaries is that I have made clear the Government's position on the matter, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman now realises that that is a question that cannot be divorced from phase 3 of the pay policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will now grant development area status to the whole of North-East Wales.

On 14th April I announced a number of changes in the assisted areas, including the designation of the Shotton travel-to-work area as a development area.

Why has the Secretary of State, at this thirteenth hour, given development area status to Deeside and withheld it from the North Wales coastal belt where unemployment is at an even higher level? Taken in conjunction with what the right hon. Gentleman did for Grimsby, does that not indicate that in this matter he is concerned solely with party advantage? Is not this proof that the Labour Party has given up all hope of ever winning either Flint, West or Denbigh and is now worried about losing Flint, East?

It is very difficult to please the hon. Gentleman when it comes to the part of the country that he represents. He was part of a delegation a few months ago which asked that we should give urgent consideration to designating Shotton as a development area. We have done that. On many occasions he has made representations to the Government and the British Steel Corporation about maintaining steel-making at Shotton. When we do that, however, he carps and complains. I have to have regard to a number of factors when designating areas as assisted areas, including the actual potential for industrial development. That was one of the factors that I took into account in deciding that I could not upgrade Rhyl.

Will the Secretary of State accept that whereas we welcome, as far as it goes, the decision in relation to Shotton, it creates certain problems further west, where the differential in trying to attract industry has been eroded? In addition to that, there are increased travelling costs—petrol charges and so on—that are causing great difficulties. Will he, therefore, consider the possibility of a scheme to aid industry with regard to travelling costs?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cost of petrol, that is not a matter for me. I do not have direct ministerial responsibility for it. But I have found over the relatively few years that I have been in the House that when changes are made in assisted area boundaries some difficulties are always created, and one must strike a balance. I am sure that this is the case with the eight areas that I upgraded on 14th April, but by and large I think that the package has been well received by the country as a whole.

Is the Secretary of State aware that all of us who represent North Wales constituencies are anxious that the whole of the North-West should have development area status, because there is high unemployment all along that coast? Is the right hon. Gentleman fully convinced that the Welsh Development Agency is doing all it can to improve employment prospects?

The hon. Gentleman is asking for an increase in public expenditure. No doubt he will reflect on that. Questions concerning the Welsh Development Agency must be directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. As far as I am concerned, that organisation is doing a fine job.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to lay before Parliament proposals to increase the borrowing limits laid down in the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Act 1976.

My right hon. Friend expects to do so before the Summer Recess.

Will the Minister accept that his answer shows that the British Steel Corporation's borrowing is now being accelerated at a rate far beyond that expected when we debated the order last year? Will he accept that the increase in borrowing powers from £300 million in 1972 to a figure of £4,000 million, which he now says will soon be exceeded, shows an alarming increase in indebtedness? Will the Minister also confirm that that increasing indebtedness follows from the two-year delay over the Port Talbot and Shotton decision, which has in itself taken place within a £3,000 million to £6,000 million total expenditure increase for BSC? Finally, what does the Minister intend to do to reduce this indebtedness and remove ministerial delay, which no other steel company in the world has to face?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman knew more about the steel industry than that. He ought to know that all steel industries throughout the Community are going through a period of depression and reduction in orders. He ought also to know that last year the British Steel Corporation more than halved the loss of the previous year, increased its production, increased its product-tons delivered and made a substantial contribution towards recovery. The Corporation's performance is not helped by the sort of misrepresentation just perpetrated by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will exercise his powers under the Post Office Act 1969 to direct the Chairman of the Post Office to break down the accounts published so as to reveal the cost of various services including the saving resulting from the cessation of postal collections on Sundays.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware of what his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) said—that there is now no direct responsibility for the Post Office in the House? Does he also agree that the inconvenience caused to the public who wish to post a letter after the last collection on a Saturday is unreasonable, since they cannot now get that letter delivered until Tuesday? Does the Minister further agree that the cost of this service ought to be made known to the public, because the public are concerned about the service? I should have thought that under the powers in the Act he is entitled to call for a proper costing, which the Minister of State did not give when replying to supplementary questions put to him on Question No. 1.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note what the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation said about Sunday collections, namely, that the final and absolute decision has not been taken. I am extremely surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the Post Office, bearing in mind that it was a Conservative Government's policies that were directly responsible for one of the biggest Post Office losses ever recorded.

While many of us on the Government side are strongly opposed to the dropping of Sunday collections, before my hon. Friend looks into the Post Office Act powers and starts thinking about interfering in the management of the Post Office will he look at "The Right Approach", the Conservative Party document, in which there is a statement that the Government should not interfere in such public enterprises?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has pointed out what many of us realise—that one does not know nowadays who represents Her Majesty's Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he is taking to reduce the imports of waste paper.

No action is being taken to restrain imports, which, net of exports, amount to about 2½ per cent. only of the paper and board industry's current usage of waste paper. The Waste Management Advisory Council and the paper and board sector working party are considering what more can be done to increase waste paper recycling in the United Kingdom.

Is it not a fact that, during a period when our imports of waste paper more than quadrupled, mills were refusing collections of waste paper which had been organised by various voluntary organisations because it was said that they had no capacity for it? Is it not a further fact that we ought to be self-sufficient in waste paper, particularly in view of the flood which emanates constantly from Whitehall.

As I said originally, the Waste Management Advisory Council is looking at the whole question of waste paper collection and utilisation, and, of course, it is eminently desirable that we increase the utilisation of waste resources. We have in hand the development of a national scheme to do this, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that last year we gave £23 million in a sectoral scheme to assist the paper industry, and hopefully that scheme, through Government intervention, which I am sure he endorses, will give greater stability to the industry. I am interested in learning whether the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are as ready to repudiate this sort of Government intervention as they say in their various speeches.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he is taking in Devon and Cornwall to introduce new industries to help to overcome the unacceptable level of unemployment in the sub-region of the South-West.

In the assisted parts of the South-West, all the normal regional incentives are available to encourage new industrial investment. Throughout the region firms with eligible projects can apply for assistance under the selective investment scheme or appropriate industry schemes.

Does the Minister realise that in areas which are not assisted unemployment is running as high as 11 per cent. in certain pockets? Will he take specific action to encourage light engineering firms thinking of expanding to go to areas in which the needs of these industries could be met as reasonably as in any other part of the country?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he in turn will appreciate that, where the mobile industry available is limited, the Government have to give the top priority to the assisted areas. Therefore, when firms ask our advice we naturally tend to try to persuade them to look to the assisted areas. If it is any reassurance to the hon. Gentleman, we are certainly not refusing industrial development certificates in the area which he represents or the surrounding areas. We would look sympathetically at any applications.

Is the Minister aware that, by the Department of the Environment refusing consent under Section 42 of the Community Land Act, local authorities are prevented from selling sites to firms which wish to bring new employment to the area with which my hon. Fiend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is concerned? Will the Minister look into that situation, because the Department of the Environment is promoting unemployment in this way?

Obviously the hon. Gentleman is referring to specific instances of which he is aware and I am not. This is clearly a matter for the Department of the Environment basically, but in so far as the subject has a regional employment aspect I would welcome further information from him.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the total expenditure on industrial development in the development areas under the Industry Act 1972 for each financial year since its coming into force.

Expenditure on industrial development in the assisted areas under the Industry Act 1972 has been as follows: in 1972–73, £9 million; 1973–74, £133 million; 1974–75, £250 million; and 1975–76, £390 million. Separate figures for the development areas are not readily available. Regional assistance only is included. Assistance provided under sectoral or industry schemes is excluded since separate figures for the assisted areas are not readily available. Regional assistance under other legislation is excluded.

Given the effects of inflation over this period, and the fact that it took from 18 months to two years for the information to work through into actual expenditure, would the Minister accept that there has been a loss of momentum in the policy of moving industry to development areas and that that has been accentuated by the Government's decision to do away with the regional employment premium? Will he now say whether the Government have any new schemes for attracting industry to development areas?

I reject the idea that the momentum of assistance to the regions has slowed down. That is far from being the case. If the hon. Gentleman was present to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget announcement, he will know that some new schemes were announced then.

What estimates have the Government made of the value of grants under the Industry Act as compared with the value of other forms of support for employment?

There is constant examination of the many schemes under the various legislation. It is not only my Department that is responsible. The Department of Employment is responsible for the administration of such schemes as TES. A good deal of liason and consultation goes on. What is very clear is that, if it were not for the massive amounts of assistance which the Government have given, we would have lost jobs at a considerable rate. That has kept the predominant economic system—private enterprise capitalism—afloat.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to create industrial development on Merseyside; what action he has taken; and what are his future plans.

Firms investing in Merseyside already qualify for the full range of regional incentives. In addition, qualifying firms in Merseyside stand to benefit from the various schemes under Section 8 of the Industry Act to encourage investment in specific industries and the new selective investment scheme.

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the report in the LiverpoolEcho regarding the Standard-Triumph company is right? Have the Government recently given support to that company? How many jobs have been secured as a result?

I have not read the issue of the Liverpool Echo to which my hon. Friend refers. I missed it this week. However, I shall take account of his representation, because I know that he is seriously concerned about the position on Merseyside and, together with other Merseyside Labour Members, regularly makes representations about the situation. I shall certainly write to him about it.

Will the Under-Secretary answer the question which the Secretary of State avoided answering earlier, namely, will not the NEB's subsidising of non-profit-making tanning activities endanger the profitable tanning companies on Merseyside?

I think that it is unwise of the hon. Member to comment, but, of course, he is rather fresh on the job and is likely to take such a step. This matter is subject to legal proceedings, and I know that if I attempted to answer, Mr. Speaker, you would intervene.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) would not have wished to pursue any question that you, Mr. Speaker, might rule to be sub judice, but is it for the Under-Secretary to avoid answering a question when what I understand is before the court is a question of ultra vires and when my hon. Friend was asking about the effect of the NEB's purchase of investment in one tanning company on the other tanning companies on Merseyside?

I must confess to the House that I did not know whether the question was sub judice. However, we have now left the matter, and that was the Minister's answer.