asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress has been made in his consideration of developing an industrial site at the situation known as Number One, Consett.

I am glad to say we are proceeding at once to acquire some 90 acres at Consett Number One. Site development work will start as soon as we have possession of the land. The Government have already announced their intention to build two advance factories at Consett, and these will be built at Number One.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in that area, where unemployment is consistently double the national average and there are ominous signs for die future, this development is very much to be welcomed? Will he give an assurance that all possible steps will be taken to eliminate any possible inconvenience to people living adjacent to the site?

Yes, we are fully aware of and understand the fears of local residents that their amenity will suffer. Due care and extensive landscaping will be undertaken by the English Industrial Estates Corporation. I assure my hon. Friend that everything will be done to render the development as inoffensive as possible to neighbouring residents. In special development areas, advance factories are now available for up to five years free of rent as an inducement to provide the employment that my hon. Friend is talking about.

Will my hon. Friend say what steps his Department is taking to implement the NEB Report on investment prospects in the Northern Region?

There is a Question on that subject later on the Order Paper, and I suggest that my hon. Friend waits until then.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the recent announcement of board changes at the National Enterprise Board; and whether he expects such changes to produce any split in operational policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last met the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

I last met the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board on 6th July. I have nothing more to add, as far as board changes at the NEB are concerned, to the reply my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on 7th July. Operational policies are primarily a matter for the Board.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the NEB has been completely swamped by its involvement in British Leyland and the excessive political interference which has bedevilled the NEB's activities since it started? Does he feel that the rest of the work that the NEB is doing is worth while? How many new projects is it likely to take on in the next six months and what is its central strategy, apart from trying to rescue the Government and British Leyland at the same time?

I do not agree that the NEB's work or involvement with British Leyland has swamped its other activities. In 18 months it has made a very good start. As for political interference, the NEB has full operational freedom in accordance with the guidelines which have been fully debated in the House.

In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's undertaking last Friday to contain wage settlements in the public sector, what influence will the NEB have in this field, and has the Secretary of State issued directions on how this might be exercised?

I have not issued directions to the NEB as regards wages policy, but the NEB and other public corporations will understand the Government's views on this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the report on the NEB's first 18 months of operation contained many success stories, including that of Ferranti, in my constituency? Is he aware that the activity of the NEB saved a great many jobs?

That is certainly true. I do not think that it has gone unnoticed by those who work for Ferranti or many of the other companies where the NEB has been involved, such as ICL, Twin-lock, Sinclair Radionics and others.

Has the Secretary of State studied the evidence of the Treasury to the Wilson Committee suggesting that there is no shortage of finance for British industry but that the trouble is the hostile attitude in this country towards British industry? Does not that remove one of the main arguments for the NEB? Should not Mr. Murphy therefore be given a rather more limited task of making no more invest- ments and simply to see whether he can sell off at a profit investments that it already has?

I do not agree. I have not yet studied the evidence of the Treasury to the NEB. It is the Government's view that the NEB will have not only a continuing but an expanding rôle.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are his official engagements for 18th July.

Apart from my responsibilities to this House, I shall be meeting a delegation of trade unionists and chairing a number of meetings with my officials.

When my right hon. Friend meets the trade unionists and officials, will he discuss the great problem that still exists in the staple traditional industries of the Midlands, including the footwear industry, which is suffering greatly in the recession? Can he offer any help to this industry?

I shall not be taking the opportunity of discussing the footwear industry with the particular delegation of trade unionists who will be coming here today. However, I can tell my hon. and learned Friend that the very valuable report of the Footwear Industry Study Steering Group, whose findings are now before us, is being urgently considered within the Department. If at all possible, I shall make a statement about that industry before the recess.

Order. I may as well tell the House that on these shot-in-thedark Questions I propose to call only one hon. Member from each side for a supplementary question.

Will any of the trade unionists that the Secretary of State will be meeting come from British Aerospace? If so, will he say whether he has any plans to put before them as regards ways of either the French Government or the British Government buying the remaining unsold Concordes with a view to leasing them out—or, indeed, will he tell us of any other initiatives that he has to ensure that these aircraft are sold, thereby reducing the likely number of redundancies at Weybridge and Filton?

The trade unionists coming today will not be discussing Concorde or specifically the aircraft industry. There is a Question later on the Order Paper about that industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement about the future of the power plant manufacturing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement of Government policy with regard to recent mergers in the power generating industry, in the light of the CPRS Report.

As the House knows, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Central Policy Review Staff, supported by the National Enterprise Board, that it would be in the long-term interests of the country and of those employed in the industry if restructuring took place. It has not at this stage proved possible to find an acceptable basis for restructuring, but we shall continue to discuss with the companies the possibility of bringing it about.

The right hon. Gentleman has not touched on the announcement to be made at 3.30 p.m. on Drax B. What is his personal position on this matter? Does he accept that there is some sympathy for him on this side of the House in that once again he has argued the logic of his industrial strategy against his right hon. and hon. Friends' wish to spend public money merely in response to political lobbies and he has lost again? Does he not think that his view on the power plant manufacturing industry and that of the CPRS, the NEB and the CEGB has been rejected in favour of the advice of the NUM and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and that the best thing that he could do would be to resign and argue his case properly?

I do not want lectures from the hon. Gentleman about whether or not I should resign. I think that he misunderstands the position. The objective was always to bring about voluntary restructuring. We have no powers to bring about restructuring. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well. It is true that the objective was supported by the CPRS, the NEB and the CEGB and, incidentally, by all those who have been engaged in these discussions. Unfortunately, at this stage it has not proved to be possible. However, I hope that at some stage in the future we can get back to discussions.

Is it not the case, however, that the proposed merger between Reyrolle Parsons and Clarke Chapman, if it goes ahead, will drive a coach and horses through the recommendations in the CPRS Report? Is it not the case that this is already increasing the hostility between the two separated parts of the boilermaking industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that one of them is actually advising its foreign associates to come in and take work in Britain from the other half? Is this not to the detriment of British industry when we should be sharing out the work among British firms?

I think that the companies put out a statement which said that the merger between Reyrolle Parsons and Clarke Chapman was quite independent of the restructuring of the power plant industry. My understanding is that the talks about a merger in the boiler-making side of the industry are still in progress and that the NEB is taking part in them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least ensure, as a matter of good competitive industrial policy, that he uses his influence to ensure that, if GEC makes a bid or produces a tender, the terms of that tender will be published?

I am afraid that questions about particular power stations and power station orders must be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I understand that he will be making a statement at 3.30 p.m. today.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that a merger on the lines of the boilermakers merger as proposed was never available on the turbo-generating side? That is tragic and is regretted by the Parsons work force and management. Has my right hon. Friend any news of proposals to develop a joint research company and a turnkey project company with NEB assistance? Is he aware that the position taken by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on this issue has been specifically disowned by the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter)?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot give him any information about the possibility of turnkey projects and the other assistance that was recommended in the CPRS Report. I very much regret that it has not been possible to get restructuring at this stage. What we are talking about is not a single power station order. We are talking about getting an industry that is capable of being internationally competitive, having to find about two-thirds of its work from abroad.

Has not the Secretary of State, however, by his own arguments, which he is explicitly repeating now, accepted that it is bad for the people of this country and bad for industrial strategy that an order should go to the company that makes most noise rather than to the company that produces the best price for the job?

The right hon. Gentleman is one of the last persons to give me instructions about placing power station orders. Although it is not a specific matter for me, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of raising it with my right hon. Friend, he will know that in November 1971 the Government of the day, of which he was a member, authorised the advance of Ince B power station by single tender to Reyrolle Parsons, because at that time—

By agreement with GEC.

Order.

I was only referring, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was a member of that Government. Perhaps he will keep quiet for a minute or two. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is involved, but the right hon. Gentleman's Government decided at the time that they would place an order with Reyrolle Parsons for Ince B. If that is the decision that will be taken today, it is entirely in line with the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman was a party.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the CPRS Report was not included in the Labour Party manifesto? Will he also acknowledge that the Opposition are constantly wanting to get rid of jobs? The Opposition have a fixation about that matter, especially when it is with regard to steelworkers, British Leyland workers, Chrysler workers and, indeed, engineering workers, and obviously miners, which would be the case if Drax B were not announced very quickly. In view of that, does not my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition are being hypocritical, because when they were in power they saved Rolls-Royce, using the same criteria?

Order. The Minister is not responsible for the Opposition.

I happen to think that the CPRS Report was a good report. The analysis that it made was very firm and sensible. What it is talking about in the report is trying to achieve an internationally competitive industry. As to supporting the mining industry, I think that the Government's desire to see a second coal-fired power station at Drax in Yorkshire was first announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in 1969.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the management and work force of C. A. Parsons have not been opposed to a restructuring of the industry? Will he further accept that the comments made by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) during this long period in which there has been grave indecision, which has affected very heavily the lives of many families in Newcastle upon Tyne, have been criticism of the slowness in the decision being taken?

That rather conflicts with what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, and it rather confirms the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas). There has been no undue delay in reaching a decision. In fact, Sir James Woodeson said when he came to see me on 31st March this year that irrespective of a single power station order there would be some redundancies at C. A. Parsons in Newcastle. However, I am not concerned particularly about the workers in one section of this industry. I am concerned about all workers in the industry just as much as I am about the 9,500 workers who work for GEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry at what proportion of capacity the steel industry is currently operating; and if he expects the position to improve by the end of 1977.

The United Kingdom steel industry operated at about 69 per cent. of capacity in June. It now seems unlikely that there will be any significant improvement in demand before the end of this year.

While we all hope that the industry will improve, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that recent statistics show that the Yorkshire and Humberside Region has been more severely affected by the reduction in steel production than any other region, despite the fact that the region contains some of the Corporation's most successful undertakings? Will my hon. Friend advise the Corporation to build upon success rather than to be content with a lesser level of achievement?

I am conscious of what my hon. Friend says about Yorkshire, particularly in view of the representations which he and many of my hon. Friends have made. I can assure him that if he has a look at the investment performance and projections of the British Steel Corporation he will see that the Corporation intends to build on success.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, who said in a recent speech that the level of losses at which the Corporation was currently running was unacceptable? If the Minister agrees with this, may I ask what he is doing to try to remove that part of the loss which stems from ministerial delay, as demonstrated over Port Talbot and currently Redcar?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a specific Question on the Order Paper about this. I hope that he will also recognise, if he has read that speech in full, that what the chairman was saying was that we have to continue to try to be a low-cost, efficient steel producer. That is what the investment programme of the British Steel Corporation aims at.

Will my hon. Friend look at the position whereby in Scunthorpe we can produce massive quantities of steel at competitive prices yet are short of blast capacity to make iron? Should not plans to improve the blast capacity be made now to take advantage of the upturn when it comes? Will my hon. Friend give British Steel a prod to see that such plans come forward to him for his approval?

I am aware of what my hon. Friend has said because he has made sincere and detailed representations concerning Scunthorpe. At present, however, we have received no representations from British Steel concerning Scunthorpe.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last met representatives of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.

I met representatives of the CSEU on 1st July.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I raise with him the problem—which I am sure was raised with him by the CSEU—of the three shipyards on the north of the Tyne and the current work load there. Is he aware that there are 8,000 employees who depend on new shipbuilding orders? Is he able to give some idea of the work that his Department is doing to bring orders to those yards and to use the intervention scheme as well as the other measures which he has brought forward to help the situation?

We are doing everything we can to help the British shipbuilding industry on Tyneside and other areas where the industry exists. The intervention fund is being used to good effect and has already saved thousands of jobs.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that British Shipbuilders will be allowed to go about its business and make its own economic judgments free from the kind of grubby regional lobbying that has disfigured the ordering of the Drax B power station?

The Board of British Shipbuilders has operational freedom, and I hope that it will be able to pursue its overall objectives within the terms of the legislation which has been passed by this House. It has already made a good start. I am afraid that, here again, the industry faces severe problems. It is a question of getting work from overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied that the present Government schemes for industrial and regional development grants enable the United Kingdom to obtain maximum benefits from membership of the European Economic Community.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some companies—I know of at least two in Norfolk—are unable to get EEC grants, for which they would otherwise be eligible, because they are currently excluded from all British Government schemes? Can he say whether any consideration is being given to a national back-up scheme to overcome this problem?

I am aware of the problem. The hon. Member will know that two of the Section 8 schemes—the red meat and the poultry schemes—have made this possible for certain affected sectors of the industry in his area. I am sure that he will also have seen the statement on 15th July by the Minister of Agriculture which forecast such a proposal.

While I welcome the grants and loans which have come from the EEC under these schemes, particularly to the North-East, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that such assistance does not simply result in a cut-back of Government grants which would otherwise be available?

As my hon. Friend is aware, many of the items we have been able to announce in the past three programmes have been financed from the funds we received from the EEC. My hon. Friend will also note that there is to be a debate later today which is of considerable significance because of the possible impact on regional policy.

Why cannot the industrial grants be channelled into North-East Essex, where at present there is an unemployment rate of 10 per cent.? Does the Minister realise that some industry is being tempted away from the area, yet Harwich is one of the most prosperous ports in the country?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is guilty of what his hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) called "grubby regional lobbying". May I say how amusing it is for Labour Members to note that while every Tory is against public expenditure in general they all want more of it in their own constituencies.

Will there he a quick decision one way or the other on the Commission's proposals to give some regional industrial aid outside the national quotas and outside the constraints set by national schemes? In particular, may we have a quick decision on the Commission's proposals to give special aid to shipbuilding and steelmaking areas and to areas dependent on industries affected by Community policy decisions, such as the fishing industry?

The non-quota proposals raise a great many points. I hope to be able to outline them to the House during today's debate. I would like to hear from hon. Members in that context. The House will be aware that these are proposals which have to be discussed and considered by Ministers. The aim is to reach a decision by the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list the financial assistance provided through his Department to the Yorkshire and Humberside Region during each of the past three years; and if he will give comparable figures; per 1,000 of the population of the financial aid given to Scotland, Wales, and the North-West and North-East Regions, respectively.

I regret that the information for regional preferential expenditure is only separately available for the Yorkshire and Humberside intermediate area. I shall arrange for the figures for regional preferential expenditure and for expenditure under Section 8 of the 1972 Industry Act to be published in the Official Report.

Is my hon. Friend afraid to get the figures out early? Is he quite sure that Yorkshire is getting fair play from the Government? [Interruption.] I am not talking about Drax now. Is not my hon. Friend aware of the huge majority of people in Yorkshire who think that the Government are being too complacent about the large pockets of unemployment and the low wages in West Yorkshire? When will he do something about this?

I do not want to take up time by reading out the figures, but when my hon. Friend reads them in the Official Report he will see that, for example, regional preferential expenditure between 1973–74 and 1975–76 more than doubled. He will also find that Yorkshire and Humberside has received the largest amount of assistance, at £8·3 million under Section 8 and a total of £40·9 million under the accelerated pro-

Will my hon. Friend, in consultation with his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, ensure that Yorkshire and Humberside receives its fair share of grants from the EEC Regional Fund and that special factors such as migration, industrial dereliction and so on are borne in mind when the grants are awarded rather than concentrating solely on unemployment statistics?

My hon. Friend has a point. The EEC regional grants are applicable wherever Government grant aid is also available. For the Yorkshire and Humberside Region there is no incompatibility here. I shall hear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

Does the Minister agree that, if we get out of the EEC Regional Fund more than we put in, we shall lose on other deals in the EEC and that we are unlikely to be a net gainer from any of these schemes?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and take part in the debate later on, so that this sort of argument can be adduced further.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what will be the total amount of the next tranche of funds which the National Enterprise Board will make available to British Leyland.

My right hon. Friend is considering recommendations put to him by the National Enterprise Board and hopes to be able to make a statement to the House soon.

Does the Minister agree that, following the departure of Lord Ryder, there is now an opportunity to get away from the personal identification of the NEB and British Leyland in all the terms that we have debated in the House? Will he further consider the suggestion I put to him last time that he should place in the Library a copy of the report from British Leyland to the NEB, if necessary taking out vital statistics which are commercially confidential?

The hon. Gentleman's introductory words seemed to bear very little relevance to the Question. My right hon. Friend and I have made quite clear to the House that we shall make available to it all possible information, taking account of the need to maintain and pro- tect the commercial confidentiality of British Leyland.

Has the NEB sought consent to proceed with the development of an assembly hall and foundry at British Leyland Bus and Truck Division at Leyland in Lancashire?

If my hon. Friend will contain himself a little longer, he may hear something to his advantage.

Is the Minister satisfied that the purchases of components and machine tools by British Leyland are on the open market and are at arm's length, or are any other purchases being promoted by the NEB?

British Leyland's purchases of machine tools are conducted on the basis of its commercial judgment. At the same time, I certainly lose no opportunity of making clear to British Leyland the desirability of its buying British whenever possible.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that when the next tranche of funds goes to the NEB the signature is clearly identified?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would provide me with some of his address labels.

Will the Minister tell the House whether any progress has been made with consideration of the way in which British Leyland is to be financed in the future, whether directly by Votes from this House or through NEB financing under its general allocation of Vote?

This matter is being very carefully considered at present. It is recognised that there are arguments on both sides. The hon. Gentleman has advanced an argument which has a good deal of cogency. When we make our statement to the House, that will be one of the matters covered.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further discussions he has had with the directors of Cable and Wireless Limited about the level of their remuneration.

None, Sir.

Bearing in mind the increasing anomalies between the remuneration of the board of directors of Cable and Wireless Ltd. and of the senior executives, does not the Minister think, particularly following the resignation of the managing director, that he ought to give his urgent attention to the extraordinary situation which exists at Cable and Wireless?

As I have already said to the hon. Gentleman on 25th April and 13th June, the Government will prob. ably be giving their attention to these matters after the end of this month.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress the National Enterprise Board has made in Wearside, pursuant to its report on the areas affected by the Plessey closures.

As my right hon. Friend told the House on 27th June, the NEB is making vigorous efforts to pursue the recommendations of its report, not only in Wearside but also in the North-East and North-West generally.

Is ray right hon. Friend aware that the immediate and present problem is that of implementing the Posner Report and that we expect his Department to use its good offices to see that we get a satisfactory reply from the Post Office? If it can help in any way, we would expect the NEB to play its part in producing a formula which will be acceptable to the whole of the telecommunications industry. Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is absolutely urgent and essential in Sunderland, with the highest unemployment in Britain, where we may lose these 350 jobs?

I fully appreciate the concern of my right hon. Friend. He will be aware that in another part of the area I have managed to negotiate another 400 jobs, and it was a great disappointment to me that I could not do the same for his constituency. As to the point for further consideration made in the Posner Report, the Post Office did not feel able, on all advice, to go ahead with it.

Will the Minister tell us what magic the NEB has that makes it possible for it to run these factories profitably when Plessey cannot?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a rather peculiar idea of the role of the NEB. I know that he has to some extent, almost mischievously, in relation to the tanning industry made interventions which could have reacted very badly for a tannery that is about to be closed in the Millom area. He should look again at his own activity.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we on Merseyside welcome the report as far as it goes, nevertheless we are rather disappointed with it because it does not indicate how to solve the problem of the 1,000 redundancies which are likely to occur? Some of them have already taken place. Will my right hon. Friend have another look at this in order to get the NEB to be more positive in intervening on Merseyside to provide work on a wider scale for people in an area with the worst unemployment in the whole of the British Isles?

My hon. Friend will be aware that I had very detailed discussions with the firm in order to save as many jobs as we possibly could. As a result of the initiative taken by the Prime Minister, the NEB carried out its investigations and made recommendations. In fairness, it should be said that the Government responded immediately by increasing the incentive to special development areas, which would help Merseyside and the Northern Region, for example, and by increasing the expenditure in the construction industry. But, frankly, when there is no demand for the product of a factory it is very difficult to see how one can save the jobs. The need is for alternative industry to come into the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further measures he intends to take to encourage small businesses to expand.

The need for special measures to encourage the expansion of small businesses is kept under constant review. We are actively considering the extension nationwide of the pilot counselling service for small firms in the South-West, and we have announced our intention to introduce a manufacturing advisory service.

If the Minister is aware that the removal of the existing battery of legislative and tax obstacles to small businesses would do much to create wealth and thereby to create employment, what on earth is he waiting for? Does he realise that a whole mass of small business men feel that they are waiting for Godot?

We expect from the Opposition the sort of uninformed and prejudiced comment that came from the hon. Gentleman. He ignores the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently announced that the preferential rate of corporation tax, specifically designed for small firms, has been raised from a level of profits of £30,000 to £40,000—and that marginal relief has been raised to £65,000. Small firms also qualify for the very generous tax allowances for investment in plant and machinery, which have been described by the CBI—an organisation with which I am sure the hon. Member has some sympathy—as the most generous tax relief system in Western Europe. Small firms also qualify for the wide range of regional preferential expenditure, which in 197576 amounted to £669 million. I should have thought that this was positive encouragement to industry to invest.

Does my hon. Friend agree that co-operative and common ownership firms have a particularly important part to play in the small-to-medium size sector? What progress is being made with the setting up, or plans for the setting up, of the Co-operative Development Agency?

The Co-operative Development Agency is currently being considered by a working party which my right hon. Friend chaired in the first instance. We very much hope that a report from the working party will be available for publication this summer. I cannot give an absolute assurance, but that is the time scale at which we are aiming, so that the co-operative and trade union movement can consider the report and engage in debate on it. We hope that this will result in a further development of the sort of activity that my hon. Friend has in mind.

In view of the pressing needs of small businesses, to which the Minister has referred, and his encouragingly larger work load in this specific respect, will he press his colleagues to have a Minister appointed solely to concentrate on the needs and requirements of small businesses?

Because of my self-effacing nature, I hesitate to draw attention yet again to the fact that I have specific responsibility for small firms. Many organisations representing small firms make their representations to me, and we endeavour to ensure, whenever items of legislation arise, that full consultations are entered into. Certainly the Department of Industry—myself in particular—is open to representations from the small firms sector and welcomes them.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the prospects for manufacturing industry in the light of the recent CBI forecast.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether, in view of the Confederation of British Industry's most recent forecasts, he is satisfied with the prospects for United Kingdom manufacturing industry.

I am satisfied that manufacturing industry has good prospects of achieving a sustained and soundly based expansion. In this context, my right hon. Friend has by Written Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) given details today of a new product and process development scheme for which £20 million has been initially allocated. The Government also propose to allocate additional sums of £40 million for the ferrous foundry industry scheme and £10 million for the machine tool industry scheme.

Is it not the case that both employment and investment in manufacturing industry continue to show a long-term decline? How can this situation be rectified until a greater share of GNP goes to profits, not just over one year but over a succeeding number of years?

As I have indicated before, it is strange that Conservative Members profess to be the people who understand investment since they never managed to attain the level of investment that we attained in our last year in office. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the forecasts both from the CBI and from our own surveys are of a very substantial increase in investment in the next 12 months and that possibly for the first time investment will reach the 1970 level yet again during 1978.

Will the Minister pause for a moment and say whether it is really part of Government industrial strategy that private manufacturing investment in this country is likely to increase at a time when profits are still being held down by legislation but wage costs are not? Is that part of the Government's industrial strategy or, like the social contract, is that strategy about to be blown apart by a wage explosion?

Again, I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to his rather short memory. It was we who relaxed the controls on prices to enable investment to be taken into account in the pricing policy of firms. I would further draw his attention to the fact that, although Conservative Members vote against measures under Section 8 of the Industry Act, as a result of the use of those measures we have generated £640 million worth of investment under the accelerated projects scheme, £160 million already under the ferrous foundry scheme and £45 million under the machine tool scheme. We seem to understand a little more about industry than do Conservative Members.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the fastest declining sector of British manufacturing industry is the footwear industry, where many thousands of jobs hang upon his Department's decision about whether or not to give it funds that were proposed under the scheme of assistance?

Indeed. I am in the middle of a period of consultation with the relevant unions. I am having the final consultations with them this week on the possible implementation of the footwear study report. I can assure my hon. Friend, and many other hon. Gentleman who have an interest in this industry, that the Government are determined to retain a viable industry.

So that the House may appreciate the reality of the participation by the CBI in the Government's industrial strategy, may I ask the Minister to indicate whether he has had any view whatever from the CBI on the investment represented by the Drax B power station?

I cannot indicate that on this Question. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise that matter on the statement that is to be made later. I would say that at least the CBI takes a slightly more positive view towards Government policy than do Conservative Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action is being taken to secure industrial development in West Yorkshire, especially in those areas where the operation of the wool textile scheme has created redundancies.

In addition to the financial incentives to industrial investment on offer because West Yorkshire is an intermediate area, the construction of 36 advance factories has been approved since November 1974.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council's strategy review for the region calls upon the Government to undertake a coherent strategy for West Yorkshire? Does he believe that the Department's present strategy for West Yorkshire, especially Calderdale and Kirk-lees, constitutes a coherent policy?

Yes, I do. The Department is expressing concern about the position in Yorkshire and Humberside. As I have indicated in previous answers, we have made positive attempts to remedy the serious unemployment that occurs in pockets within the West Yorkshire area.

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

The Government's policy towards public ownership is set out in their White Paper on the regeneration of British industry.

Will the Minister answer the Question "Yes" or "No"?

I have answered the Question. The hon. Gentleman cannot understand the answer.

From the Minister's reply, do I understand that the recent report of the home policy sub-committee of the National Executive of the Labour Party is totally rejected by the present Administration? Does the Minister think that if it comes to a battle with the present members of the National Executive the Government are likely to lose again?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to put a question about the home policy committee of the Labour Party, he should address it to Mr. Ron Hayward, who will be able to give him whatever necessary information that he feels is available. As for the Government's policies, the Department of Industry has put before the House, and received its acceptance of, the legislation which brought the aircraft and shipbuilding industries into public ownership, greatly to the benefit of those industries and not at all to the credit of the Conservative Party.

Perhaps my hon. Friend can advise the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to have a word with me. Does my hon. Friend understand that at the next General Election the Labour Party will fight its policies on the basis of an extension of public ownership according to the policy and programme carried by Labour's conference?

Far be it from me to differ with a member of the Labour Party National Executive on the question of the authority of the Labour Party National Executive. My understanding, however, is that our party will fight and win the next General Election on the basis of the manifesto agreed through the usual procedure—that is, a joint committee of the Cabinet and the National Executive.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether his intended legislation concerning striking in the Post Office will extend to permitting refusal to deliver the mail of individual customers.

The scope of the proposals will be settled in the light of consultations with the Post Office, the unions and the Post Office Users National Council.

Is the Minister aware that it would be scandalous to allow the Post Office workers to continue to discriminate against individual customers' mail? If it is his intention to alter the terms of this in the legislation, will he also include a provision to make it quite clear that the individual customer has the right to go and pick up his own mail if it is caught up in a trade dispute?

I cannot remember whether at the time the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had yet sacked the hon. Gentleman from his Administration, but the hon. Gentleman, if not a member of that Administration, was certainly a Back Bench supporter of the Administration which in the Industrial Relations Act restored the right to strike to workers in the gas, water and electricity industries. We want to do the same for the Post Office workers.

Do the Government have any policy towards the selective withholding of mail from individual customers in pursuit of industrial disputes?

The Government believe that people have the right to have their mail delivered when it is posted. That is something, of course, which did not happen during he 1971 strike when the law was violated and the Conservative Party did nothing about it. It was something that did not happen during the 1973 postal boycott, when the law was again broken and the Conservative Party did nothing about it. We want to make the position clear for everyone to understand.

Will the Minister answer the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and not go on about things that he did not ask? Assuming that the Government give the right to strike to Post Office workers, will the Government allow individuals to pick up their own mail if their mail is held up by a strike?

The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) would do well to await the form of the legislation when it has been considered and discussed with all the relevant parties. I might point out that the other day my right hon. Friend wrote to the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry making clear what I have made clear today, namely, the need to protect the security of the mail.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extremely evasive and unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what estimates he has made of the amount of investment in British industry in the first six months of 1977.

Investment by manufacturing industry in the first quarter of 1977 was £414 million and by all index of production industries £756 million, both expressed at 1970 prices, seasonally adjusted. Provisional figures for the second quarter of manufacturing industry will be available on 25th August and for the other industries in early October.

Does my right hon. Friend remember how, almost a year ago, the Cabinet accepted an NEDC prediction that investment in manufacturing industry would increase by over 20 per cent. in 1977? As there has been a continuing investment strike in the private sector, the result is that we have no hope of reaching that target. As the measures announced on Friday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer amount to only £70 million of additional investment for industry, will the Government take immediate steps to increase the budget and investment powers of the NEB and of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies?

It is wrong to talk of an investment strike in this context. The recession worldwide has been slower in turning than most authorities thought. As I have indicated previously, by the fourth quarter of last year investment was up 5 per cent. on the first quarter. This year, on our own Department's assessment, the increase in investment will be between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent., and there will be an additional 20 per cent. next year. According to the CBI, whose assessments run from the middle of this year to the middle of next year, the increase will be of the order of between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. We are, therefore, seeing a reflection domestically by industry of the rather slow recovery internationally in the world economy.

Will the Minister accept, even if his hon. Friend does not, that the 20 per cent. increase in investment was no doubt predicated on the assumption that the Government would keep inflation down to 10 per cent. this year? It is understandable in those circumstances that the investment has not taken place. Will the Minister turn his attention to cases of lack of investment which affect even such established bodies as the British Rail Pension Fund, which now finds it necessary to put money into Louis XIV commodes and French impressionist paintings? What sort of hope is that for the NEB's investment policy?

The level of investment throughout Western Europe has been lower, and it will respond with confidence only when there is confidence in the future pattern of world demand. Opposition hon. Members have shown no enthusiasm for any success in negotiating a further stage of the pay agreement, and they have given no support to the Government's efforts for reducing inflation.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and ensure that, now that the proceeds are flowing from offshore oil, he will look at the possibility of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies making more investment in manufacturing industry?

The National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies already have powers to encourage such investment. Certainly at present the NEB has assured the Department that funds are no constraint upon its activities.

Will the Minister bear in mind that I warned the Government at the time of the publication of the Treasury's scenario 2, accepted by the NEDO Council, that this was putting hope beyond expectation? In an Adjournment debate before Christmas I raised the matter and the Treasury Minister agreed with my revised figures. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the scenario 2 target has not been reached because it was wrong from the beginning.

I am sorry that I missed the hon. Member's momentous analysis of the economic situation. There are one or two factors involved which go slightly wider than those that he has suggested.

asked the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Soon.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions whether he should be given powers to prosecute the Grunwick director who, on 21st June, drove his bus into the factory in such a reckless manner as to endanger the lives of pickets, policemen and Members of Parliament, in addition to powers to prosecute Grunwick for failing to submit financial returns under the Companies Act?

As I informed my hon. Friend in a Written Answer to an earlier Question, the matter is one for the police. It would be wrong for me or the Director to intervene. The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question concerns a matter which is one for the Department of Trade. Again, it would be wrong for either of us to intervene.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss with the DPP the position of people who skip bail and seek so-called asylum in East European Communist countries? Perhaps the Director could reach an arrangement whereby, if such people promise not to come back, he will drop all charges against them.

I have quite enough to discuss with the Director without going into those matters.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a great deal of public ignorance about the role of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will he confirm that this office will be a subject matter of the Royal Commission's inquiry? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also say whether he thinks that it would be useful if he could define his own relationship with the Director, especially on matters of prosecution?

The powers of the Director and no doubt those of the Law Officers in these matters will be an aspect to which the new Royal Commission will be giving its attention. Another aspect will be the procedures operated by prosecuting solicitors, chief constables and the Director in relation to prosecutions.

asked the Attorney-General how many judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal have been removed from their offices since 1945 under Section 12 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925.

None, Sir.

Before this section of the Act is allowed to become obsolete, would not now be a good opportunity to exercise it in the case of Sir Philip Wien for his disgraceful summing-up in the Court of Appeal recently—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, to criticise a judge, it must be when we are discussing the substantive motion which, I understand, is placed on the Order Paper.

There is already a motion on the Order Paper to which—

Yes, but we are not discussing it at the moment.

My hon. Friend is trying to.

I am not attempting to discuss the motion—

I thought that my hon. Friend was.

All I am asking the Attorney-General is that he should bring this section of the Act into life again before it becomes completely obsolete in the case of Sir Philip Wien, for reasons which are well known to this House but which you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow me to elaborate.

I have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker, to what you have already said.

Does not the Attorney-General agree that a lot of emotional nonsense has been talked about this case? Does not he accept that, whatever the decision, the intention of judges in the High Court to show a degree of leniency to a man of 18 and of previous good character is one which in principle many of his own Back Benchers have regularly asked of the Court of Appeal?

I am not sure about the extent to which the rules should not apply on both sides. For my own part, I rarely criticise a judge on the ground of his leniency.

asked the Attorney-General whether his noble Friend will convene a sentencing conference to discuss the question of sentences in cases of violent sexual assaults.

Sentencing conferences, at which sentences in cases of violent assaults of all kinds, including violent sexual assaults, may be diccussed, are already convened from time to time for judges, magistrates and others concerned with sentencing policy. In July 1975 a working party to review the scope and content of training of the judiciary and the methods whereby it is provided was set up jointly by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice. The working party issued a consultative paper in June 1976 and it is hoped to have its final report by the end of this year. The desirability of making changes in the present arrangements for sentencing conferences will be considered in the light of the working party's recommendations.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a vast amount of public concern has been expressed about recent cases of violent sexual attacks and the fact that appeal courts have made the most asinine comments, which we cannot discuss because Mr. Speaker will not allow us, and that these have exacerbated the position? Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether these were unanimous decisions of the Court of Appeal or whether any member of the court dissented? Does he not agree that this House and the public have a right to know? Therefore, in view of the grave dissatisfaction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] My question is not too long for the woman whom the accused man attempted to rape. In view of the grave dissatisfaction amongst the public generally, ought not my right hon. and learned Friend to consult the Lord Chancellor to ensure that an emergency conference on this very disgraceful business is set up very swiftly?

My hon. Friend asked a number of questions which, unfortunately, I cannot answer. I am sure he will understand why. On his last point, I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will note what he said.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a lot of disquiet about the matter which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) raised, leaving aside the emotional claptrap which he spoke? As a mater of urgency, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to arrange for an early special sentencing conference?

Anyone who reads newspapers or listens to what is said in this House must be aware that there has been a good deal of disquiet. Whether some special sentencing conference is the answer to it is a different matter. As I have said, I shall bring these matters to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), under the disguise of reproving other people for making a comment which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of order, was permitted to give his own opinion and to use vituperative language against those citizens who take a different view from his own, ought not those of us who take a different view from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman to be given the same opportunity?

The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) could not have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who asked the following Question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you clarify your ruling on an earlier matter which occurred during Question Time? Tomorrow I have a Ten Minute Bill asking for the right of the prosecution to appeal in cases of rape and sexual offences. This afternoon you have told my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) that we cannot criticise judges in this House. That is a fairly well-known rule, yet you appeared to allow the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) to make criticisms about this case. You did not allow my hon. Friends the Members for Lambeth, Central and Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to attack. One hon. Member was allowed to attack and two others were not. I should be grateful if, before tomorrow when I propose to do some attacking of my own, you would clarify the rules of order.

Obviously I am always anxious that the House should not feel that I have been unfair. The position is that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) referred to the judge and used the word "disgraceful". While the House obviously is free to discuss the judgment, comments on judges themselves are not in order, except on a substantive motion. I have tried—I try hard enough, goodness knows—to hold the balance fairly between both sides.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter is already the subject of a motion. All I complain about is the fact that we have had no time given for discussing the motion. I take whatever opportunity I can of reminding the powers-that-be that this motion exists, and until it is discussed I shall continue to take umbrage.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised a point of order earlier but I did not proceed with it because you asked us not to waste the time of the House during Questions. It was quite clear when the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) made his submission that it was a biased and one-sided submission. It was also more than other Members were allowed to make. The hon. and learned Member's submission was made in defence of the judge. There is more than one way of referring to a judge's decision and a particular case in detail. The hon. and learned Member's praising it is just as much a reference as a criticism would be. Hon. Members on this side of the House should be given some rights and an opportunity of showing that there are strong feelings against the judge's decision. The hon. and learned Member has been allowed to whitewash it, but we are not allowed to criticise it.

The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) should bear in mind that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) was referring to the decision. Immediately afterwards the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) referred to it also, in directly opposite terms. What I said is in the memory of the House—I objected to the word "disgraceful" being applied directly to the judge. Any Speaker would have done the same. I do not want to appear to be unhelpful. I hope that the matter can rest there.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that any comments on the judge were out of order. You will remember the debate in 1972 surrounding Mr. Justice Donaldson when the comments which described him as a wonderful judge were in order. The comments criticising him were ruled out of order. There are many precedents of this kind, of which this is the most recent. I ask you to take the point that this presents us with very great difficulty. One can say what wonderful people judges are but one can never say what terrible people they are. If derogatory comments are ruled out of order, all comments, even commendations, should also be ruled out of order.

Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. The present procedure of the House puts you in difficulty. Could you discuss this matter with the Front Benches and consider the possibility of treating any motion relating to a judge in the same way as motions of confidence or no confidence in Governments are treated? If a motion of no confidence in a Government is put down, it is customary for it to be discussed. The problem with motions relating to judges is that they are not discussed. It is fairly clear that this was a case in which the judicial decision showed incompetence in that there was a lack of knowledge of the registrar of the court in the belief that something was correct which turned out to be incorrect. That must be incompetence on somebody's part, though on whose part I do not know. The matter should he discussed in this House because this House, together with the other place, is the only body capable of dismissing a judge.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is an expert on our procedures. He knows that this is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I am sure that all those responsible will have listened to him with care. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) should have reminded me that my rulings were the same as those of my predecessors. Of course, I shall consider the matter further.