asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

I shall be meeting Sir Charles Villiers later this week.

rose—

Order. I shall follow my usual custom of calling first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered with Question No. 1.

I realise that I am opening something of a Pandora's box with this Question, but may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly do not—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has the first supplementary question. Will he set a good example and ask a question?

Without sharing the synthetic indignation of the Conservatives over the difficulties which the Secretary of State is experiencing over BSC—my party has a certain amount of sympathy with him over the Conservatives' hypocrisy in this matter—may I ask him to give a categorical assurance that a start will be made by 1980 on the fully integrated steelworks at Hunterston, and will he also give reassurance to the 1,300 men facing the stark prospect of redundancy at Glengarnock, in central Ayrshire?

As I have told the House on previous occasions, the problems of the British Steel Corporation are being examined urgently within the Department, in consultation with the BSC and the work force. Uppermost in our minds are the consequences in social considerations in Scotland and elsewhere. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the impact of any closures in Scotland will be taken fully into consideration, especially as they affect Glengarnock.

Does the right hon, Gentleman recall that he was in the Chamber during the opening speech by the Minister of State in our debate on 22nd July on increasing the British Steel Corporation's borrowing powers? Why did he not intervene when the Minister of State said that

"The hope is that the upturn that is taking place will assist the Corporation."—[Official Report, 22nd July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 2136.]

since, as we now know, the chairman of the Corporation had told him four days before that there was no upturn?

I think that we shall be discussing at some stage the Select Committee's report. The Government are giving it urgent consideration and will report in the usual way and follow the practice of all Governments.

The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the report that the British Steel Corporation submitted to the Select Committee from the independent auditors, Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand, in which the senior partner Mr. R. L. Emmitt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If hon. Members will be quiet, I shall try to deal with the question.

Mr. Emmitt said:

"In my view, having regard to the status of this finance paper, it would have been misleading at that stage to have based any published announcement on the figures in that paper. … It is easy, with hindsight, to argue that more might have been said, but I do not think it realistic in all the circumstances to have expected that you could have said more than you did at the time, pending completion of the detailed assessment of prospects which was then in hand."

I can tell the House that on every occasion we have been utterly forthright with the House and with the Select Committee.

Is it not clear that the financial forecasting of the British Steel Corporation and of the Department of Industry has been grievously erroneous to the point of negligence? Is it not also true that the failure of the Government to take action about the BSC has been governed by political and not by industrial considerations?

Conservatives fail to understand that whole communities in Scotland, Wales and England are affected by steel and steel closures. If I had done as the hon. Gentleman suggests and, three and a half months into this financial year, arbitrarily wielded the axe of closure to eliminate the deficit, it would have resulted in massive redundancies, and I do not think that even some Conservatives would have been happy with that.

In that case, why did the right hon. Gentleman not come to the House and say that the extra £1,000 million was for social reasons and had nothing to do with industrial reasons? If that were the case, would it not have been more honest and straightforward to say so? Otherwise, we are left with the impression that either it was wishful thinking by the Government that the British Steel Corporation was doing well or the right hon. Gentleman tried to deceive the House. Is there no level at which any Minister of this Government would resign if he thought he had done a bad job?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position, and he has come late to this argument. Today, the Financial Times, which I do not usually quote in the House, states that "these procedures"—the internal reporting procedures—

"appear to have signalled danger as quickly as could reasonably be expected in a fast moving situation which caught steel makers everywhere off their guard."

The hon. Gentleman should know that political commitments were entered into by the Labour Party before it came into office. I have never sought to hide that. On Glengarnock, for example, there was the Beswick review. We said that that closure date should be altered and that there should be an extra one to two years of life. At Shotton we said there should be an extra two to three years' life. Subsequently that was withdrawn to give it an indefinite period. In the case of East Moors, there is to be an extra four years. They were political commitments which I have not sought to disguise from the House. If those, political commitments are to be set aside, it will be only as a result of discussions with the trade unions concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of us have for a very long time been saying that the administration of the BSC left much to be desired and that a more constructive scheme of worker participation plus greater accountability to the House was needed? Does he further agree that the difficulties facing the steel industry are common to all Western industrialised countries at the present time and that we should guard against those who are using the situation to undermine the whole principle of public ownership?

I agree that we have to develop a system of industrial democracy within the British Steel Corporation. We shall do that as quickly as we can. This situation is not peculiar to the British steel industry. Every steel industry of a comparable size with product performance throughout the world is losing money. We cannot insulate our steel industry from the world-wide situation. We are dealing with the problem as sensibly and humanely as we can.

My right hon. Friend lays great store by worker participation and consultation. Will he therefore discuss with the Chairman of the BSC the position reported to us by Bill Sirs of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation about changes in work practice and other procedures at Glengarnock?

I have not seen the statement that has been put out today by the general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, but I saw the statement that he put out as chairman of the TUC Steel Committee on Friday in which he said that there was trade union support for the line that the Government had taken so far. I think that that goes for the Scottish TUC as well.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton): why, on 22nd July, did the Minister of State say that the upturn that was taking place would help the Corporation when four days previously Sir Charles Villiers had told him that he was bound to say that he saw no sign of an upturn?

The evidence that was given to the Select Committee showed that the British Steel Corporation told us on 18th July that there could be a loss of between £250 million and £350 million. Sir Charles Villiers said that he could not see an upturn, but he believed that he could hold the figure below that. At that time, 18th July, three and a half months into the financial year, with the Germans and the Japanese trying to get a price increase—and a 10 per cent. price increase on British steel products is equivalent to £300 million—if the Government or the BSC had arbitrarily said "Let us get rid of that deficit", it would have meant arbitrary closures of eight old plants and perhaps one modern plant, with about 46,000 redundancies. That would no doubt have pleased the Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us, having carefully read the Select Committee's report, have come to one conclusion: that my right hon. Friend is accused of the crime of carrying out the Labour Government's policy of trying to save redundancies in the steel industry and of concerning himself with the policy laid down in the Labour Party's manifesto? Is it not clear that Conservative Members—unfortunately, by a slight aberration, I fear, to some extent assisted by some of my colleagues—are taking their usual hypocritical position, on the one hand, of saying that the Government should agree to massive redundancies and unemployment and, on the other hand, of accusing the Government of creating unemployment? The lot of them are hypocrites.

My hon. Friend is right. In 1973, before we came to office, we said that we would review the then closure dates announced by the Conservative Government. That is what we did on two occasions, and those dates were announced to the House. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who was a Minister, nods in agreement.

It is disastrous.

It is a matter of opinion whether it is disastrous. If we were to change those dates, it could only be on the basis of the negotiations now taking place. Some progress has been made. Once those commitments were made, they became our commitments and we had to honour them. If we want to vary them, we can do so only by discussion.

I am sure that no one pretends that the Secretary of State's job is easy, but he takes pride in being the guardian of the Beswick Report. Is he not also the guardian of the taxpayers' and the country's interests? What is his position if the two commitments conflict? The Secretary of State has had three reports from the Select Committee and an appendix, all of which were unanimous. There are grave charges in the reports. Is he aware that we are with him in wishing that he and his right hon. Friends should take the earliest possible opportunity of meeting those charges? Therefore, is he in favour of urging his right hon. Friends in the Government to devote two days to a debate on the Select Committee's unanimous findings? If so, we shall, of course, support him.

Will he answer my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) by meeting the charge that the Minister of State referred to an upturn that was taking place—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is taking advantage of Question Time. I have allowed longer than usual on this matter because four Questions are being answered together. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will come to a conclusion.

Will the Secretary of State answer the charge that the Minister of State referred to an upturn that was taking place and misled the House when he knew that an upturn was not taking place?

My hon. Friend did not mislead the House on that occasion. What is more, in the debate—the right hon. Gentleman can check it—the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said that his answer on the upturn was an honest answer at that time.

I did not know then what Sir Charles Villiers had said four days before.

As regards a debate, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was in the House last week when the question was put directly to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is customary, and it was customary when the right hon. Gentleman was a senior Minister, for reports to be considered by the Government and for the answers to be given in the normal way in a White Paper. I shall be making a statement before the House goes into recess on the financial and other prospects for the British Steel Corporation. In al probability there will be a debate on the legislative proposals that we shall lay before the House immediately after the recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied that the existing inducements to industrialists will bring more jobs to the South Yorkshire area.

Regional selective assistance to South Yorkshire has already brought 10,447 jobs to the county and safeguarded a further 4,240. I am confident that the incentives available will continue to help attract new jobs to the area, although this will be affected, as is every other area of the country, by the current level of economic recession.

In spite of what my hon. Friend has said, he had better not go to Mexborough and district and make that kind of statement. Unemployment there is still running at 10 per cent. and it has not fallen for many years. The people in Mexborough and district are greatly upset and disturbed. What will the Government do now to reduce unemployment there, and what will they do to assist with the redundancies that are taking place at the Manvers Main chemical plant?

I understand that at the Manvers Main chemical plant 140 redundancies have been agreed. My hon Friend raises a serious matter. He has made strong representations on the issue in the House in the past. We have already constructed several advance factories in the area, which has intermediate area status. We give 100 per cent. tax allowance for investment in plant and machinery, and we give stock appreciation relief. These inducements are designed to encourage private enterprise to invest in the area. If there are any failures in this matter, they are not of the Government but of private enterprise, which has failed to invest.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that it was amply demonstrated long before unemployment became a national problem that the so-called inducements to industrialists had miserably failed to solve the problem in areas such as South Yorkshire where existing industries are reducing their manpower requirements? In spite of the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, which are a mere drop in the ocean, will he do as he promised me and talk to the National Enterprise Board about its getting directly involved in manufacturing industry?

The NEB is already involved in manufacturing enterprises. However, general assistance to the regions has unquestionably stopped unemployment from going much higher, and that applies to South Yorkshire, North Humberside and all other assisted areas where, but for Government intervention, unemployment in a largely private enterprise capitalist society would have been a great deal worse.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many applications he received from Japanese firms in 1977 desiring to set up manufacturing facilities in Great Britain.

In the course of 1977, a number of Japanese companies indicated varying degrees of interest in setting up manufacturing facilities in Great Britain.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but will he use his influence to ensure that quotas are introduced on Japanese goods to protect British industry? Does he not think that a country that is to run up a surplus of £18 billion needs the karate mat to be pulled from under its feet?

I do not doubt that the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend will be noted not only here but perhaps in other countries. Like my hon. Friend, I was disappointed that we did not get firmer assurances about the future level of car sales to this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that opportunities for Japanese investment are not restricted to Great Britain but that there are equal opportunities for it in Northern Ireland? Will he not overlook that?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in drawing attention to the needs of Northern Ireland. When in my regional role I discuss the opportunities for siting factories in this country I never fail to mention the opportunities that exist in Northern Ireland.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government will not be deterred by a lack of agreement in the Common Market for an early imposition of import quotas?

In the context of cars, the ambassador has already explored the situation in Tokyo and is trying to establish precisely what is meant by the partial commitments we had had from Japan. I prefer to say little more at this stage.

Will the Minister say whether any car manufacturer other than British Leyland has requested quotas against Japanese imports? Will he hesitate before unilaterally imposing protective measures against imports, particularly if they are made at the request of companies which are largely responsible for their own misfortunes?

The hon. Member should bear in mind that under the Anglo-Japanese agreement it is possible for either country to impose restrictions if an industry looked as though it could suffer undue damage.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the progress of the sector working parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the progress of the industrial strategy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what study he has made of the recommendations relative to industrial strategy framed by the sector working parties and submitted to the National Economic Development Council; what plans he has for implementing these recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The National Economic Development Council at its meeting on 1st February reaffirmed its commitment to the industrial strategy and endorsed the continuing role of sector working parties. The need now is to translate the sectoral work to positive action in individual companies.

For our part, the Government are now considering the approximately 300 recommendations addressed to Government in sector working parties' latest reports.

Does the Minister accept that a number of the sector working parties have referred to the adverse effect of the compression of differentials on the supply of skilled labour? Will he say whether the end-of-year second stage reports of sector working parties repeat this point, and, if so, what the Government are proposing to do about it?

The Government are currently considering the representations proposed in the sector working party reports. Many of them repeated complaints or propositions that were put forward in the interim reports as well as containing many new recommendations. As yet we have fully to assess these recommendations before giving our response.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread appreciation through the bulk of industry of the development of industrial strategy under the Government? Does he realise that some industrialists suspect, perhaps rightly, that the Opposition have no industrial strategy? To go back to my right hon. Friend's first point, now that many of the working parties have made recommendations which have apparently been adopted by the National Economic Dev- elopment Council, and since we have had such documents as the Sir Frederick Warner report, what are the Government intending to do to produce positive action in those areas that need urgent attention?

As with the interim reports, it is our intention to act as rapidly as possible in response to the representations. Some of these reports are already in the Library of the House and hon. Members might be interested to study the recommendations. But inevitably, with more than 300 such recommendations to the Government and many recommendations to industry, there must be consultation and discussion with industry and the trade unions on their implementation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a joint Cabinet-NEC committee has recommended that sanctions under existing legislation should be used to enforce the industrial strategy planning agreements? Does that not justify every criticism made by my party of the arbitrary use of Government sanctions, and will the right hon. Gentleman assure industry that the Government have no intention of using legislation in that way?

We are not answerable to the House for the recommendations of such committees, and therefore I have no comment to make on this matter. It remains Government policy that planning agreements should be voluntary.

How does my right hon. Friend propose to translate the general observations and exhortations of the sector working parties into specific action by specific companies in the interests of national objectives unless it is done with some kind of sanction?

My hon. Friend seems to misunderstand the fact that in most of these cases the recommendations for action are those that are recognised within the industry itself as being to its advantage and benefit. The sector working parties have themselves in some instances started the discussions with individual firms, and in the five priority sectors that were indicated previously Ministers have also started negotiations with individual firms in the hope of implementing the recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much financial assistance has been given to Great Britain's wool industry over the last five years.

In the period 1st January 1973 to 31st December 1977, a total of £21,984 million financial assistance was given to the British wool textile industry as follows:

	£ million
Wool textile scheme (stage 1) (Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972)	13·161
Wool textile scheme (stage 2) (Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972)	0·018
Selective financial assistance (under Section 7 of the Indus try Act 1972)	1·931
Temporary employment subsidy	6·874

Regional development grants totalling more than £45 million were paid to the textile industry as a whole in the period April 1972 to September 1977. Separate statistics for the wool textile industry are not available.

Does the Minister agree that full returns on this most substantial public investment and on private investment in the British wool industry are being stunted because of the effective 50 per cent. tariff barriers operated by the Americans against British wool exporters? Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and others to try to persuade the Americans to reduce this damaging tariff barrier against British wool exporters?

My hon. Friend has pointed to a valuable contribution that the Government have made to setting the wool textile industry in a modern competitive position. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade because, as a Member representing a textile constituency, I know that the United States of America tariff barrier of 50 per cent. is very relevant and important to the industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the severe difficulties being faced by the textile industry in my constituency as a result of the threat posed by the Common Market to the temporary employment subsidy?

The question of the TES, the EEC and developments after the end of the current TES is still under negotiation. The Government have taken a strong line, namely, that TES is an important component in preserving jobs in the textile and clothing industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of TES is that there has been joint consultation between trade unions and employers, and that if any scheme is to continue it must be that of joint consultation between those bodies? Does he agree that we ought to tell the Common Market to get off our ground?

Our relations with the Common Market involve extensive negotiations on this sort of issue. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Employment, who is, I know, pursuing these negotiations with vigour, bearing in mind the textile industry's cause for concern on this issue.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the strictures of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) about United States tariff restrictions, which received a sympathetic reply from the hon. Gentleman, would be somewhat stronger if he and other Labour Members were not constantly demanding increased protection against foreign imports for the British textile industry in this country?

My hon. Friends have been demanding the sort of arrangements which the Government reached through the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, which both sides of industry felt were of enormous benefit to the industry and which have preserved jobs. If the hon. Gentleman were seriously to investigate the industry, he would see that the burden of low cost imports on the British textile industry has been far greater than it has been on the rest of our European partners. Therefore, it seems reasonable that tariffs should be examined with a view to encouraging trade, and at the same time at least preserving to some degree a viable textile industry of our own.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Chairman of British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to have a meeting with the Chairman of British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to have a meeting with the Chairman of British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he intends to meet the Chairman of British Leyland.

I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on 23rd January.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it remains the Government's policy that no more money should be advanced to British Leyland without there being first a definite improvement in both productivity and industrial relations, and that they will not trot out their old friend Mr. Solemn and Binding? If this is to be a credible stand by the Government, should not the Secretary of State make clear now the improvements for which the Government will be looking in both productivity and labour relations?

As I told the House on the last occasion, I think that British Leyland is in the course of working out its corporate plan, which it will submit to the NEB, and the Board will report to me during the course of next month. I am not sure that the old formula that we had, which was announced in April 1975, I think, that everything was conditional upon a certain performance is the best way of going about it. I do not think that it is entirely realistic to suggest that.

The real test of British Leyland—and I think that there has been an improvement over the past few weeks—is whether it can sell its products in the market place in the face of fierce competition, and not on the basis of whether £50 million is coming next week, or the week after, or the week after that, with all the inevitable threats and drama that surround that. We shall look closely at the NEB's report and then decide how to proceed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we support the attempts by Mr. Edwardes to do something with this industry? Will he ensure that the Government give him support when he tackles the question of manning levels and also when he goes for profit areas and not just unprofitable areas? Will the Government give him support?

I have already said, and the Prime Minister has said, that on the question on the management of British Leyland we entirely support the approach of Mr. Michael Edwardes. He has made it plain that he wants to proceed on the basis of consultation with the work force, with proper negotiation and participation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his complacent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) will cause alarm amongst taxpayers and, indeed, among the public in general? The idea that now, after all that has been asked by the Government and the pressure of public opinion, labour relations should assume a lower position in the pecking order of priorities is alarming, to say the least. Will the right hon. Gentleman rescind his previous answer and reaffirm that powerfully successful labour relations in British Leyland are of the highest priority, and will he stop undermining the work of Pat Lowry?

Nobody is undermining the work of Pat Lowry or anybody else. I am expressing the view that the best way that British Leyland can proceed is by achieving higher performance, better productivity, continuity of production and being able to sell its products in the market place against existing competition here and elsewhere. At this stage I have not received the report from the NEB, which will report to me directly about this matter, but I am not sure that these great moments of drama that we have from time to time—"Will she, won't she hand over the money?"—are the best way of proceeding. The best way of proceeding is probably by making sure that British Leyland is successful.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people think that his monitoring of British Leyland's affairs is about as ineffective as his monitoring of British Steel? Will he say whether it is true that British Leyland will ask for a further £400 million of taxpayers' money as capital? If that is to happen, the House will be extremely critical and will want to monitor progress before it is put in.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely critical of any form of public enterprise, as is the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), even though they have been associated with a great deal of it themselves. I am taking a realistic view of British Leyland, and I think that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), instead of indulging in the carping criticism that he has to offer on every occasion, would be better served if he were to give a little support to British Leyland workers and management.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the positive tenor of his remarks will be very much welcomed on this side of the House, particularly with regard to the release of funds? When he meets the Chairman of British Leyland, will he accede to his request to get rid of these preconditions for the release of funds which are psychologically counter-productive and totally impractical?

My hon. Friend has expressed that view on previous occasions. I make plain that the Government have not received the NEB's report. When we do we shall look at it sympathetically, but I stand by all that I have said this afternoon on the question of finance.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he approves of the way in which the Speke plant closure decision was taken? Does he accept that it underlines the need for a proper comprehensive planning agreement with British Leyland? Will he accept that we on this side of the House do not share the vicious and unpatriotic pleasure expressed by Conservative Members when they hear that British workers have been laid off work?

That is true. I am always amazed at the delight that I see on the faces of Conservative Members when redundancies are announced. The decision on Speke was taken by the management. It was a decision for British Leyland to take. Only the management can run the business. I know that further discussions will take place about that plant on Merseyside.

My answer to my hon. Friend's question about planning agreements is that there is no Government block on British Leyland's concluding a planning agreement with the Government or with its work force.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if more money is requested for British Leyland from the taxpayer it is to be given without any conditions?

What I am saying is that British Leyland will require more public finance. There is no doubt about that. The actual form which that public money will take will depend upon British Leyland's corporate plan and its report, to the NEB, and what the Board recommends to me—the NEB consisting of trade unionists and senior management in British industry. It will then be up to the Government to decide what proposals they should make to the House, but it is much too early to say.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much public money has so far been advanced to British Leyland since its shares were acquired by the National Enterprise Board.

Since the National Enterprise Board acquired its holding in British Leyland on 1st March 1976, £150 million of public money has been advanced to the company in the form of long-term loans. In addition, the company has received small amounts of assistance under a variety of schemes which are available to industry generally.

As the industrial strategy of the NEB was to be to invest in winners, does the Minister not think that a disproportionate amount of resources has gone to losers? Is this not misleading the House again about the purpose of the NEB? Will the Minister now state to the House and to the country at large what requirements the Government will put on British Leyland for improvements in productivity, sales and labour relations before any further money is granted from public funds?

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, misinformed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I always had a funny feeling that I did not enjoy the full support of the Tory Party. British Leyland was not a National Enterprise Board investment. It was a rescue by the Labour Government of a failed private enterprise concern which was then handed over to the custodianship of the National Enterprise Board when it was formed.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since the takeover and the use of public money to rescue this private enterprise firm, about £11 million a day has been poured into private enterprise generally in the form of various grants? Would now be the appropriate time, in the interests of open government, noticing the clamour by the Conservative Party over these matters, to publish every penny of the money spent on every individual firm and to note in the Official Report those firms that are contributing funds to the Tory Party?

I am sure that that will be of great interest, but it would be violating the canons of commercial confidentiality laid down by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Any stick will do for the Tory Opposition with which to beat public enterprise and nationalisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is now satisfied with the rate of investment in manufacturing industry.

I am pleased that the trend in manufacturing industry's investment appears to be upwards.

Is it the case that the figure for 1977 was extremely disappointing? There was a rise of 7 per cent. compared with the Government's characteristically over-optimistic forecast of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. How can the situation possibly improve until real rates of return on capital investment show a dramatic increase?

The hon. Gentleman has the figures wrong. The increase was 6 per cent. If one deducts from that figure the iron and steel industry figures and makes comparisons with the past, the increase was 12 per cent. In the private sector alone the increase was 15 per cent., which is very encouraging. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in sheer disappointment. I should point out to him that last year's figures represent an improvement over two of the three full years during which the Opposition were in office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the way in which the decline in industrial investment has affected the steel industry? Will he con firm that the Second Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries specifically did not advocate the sort of precipitate action which the Secretary of State today has quite rightly criticised the Conservative Party for advocating? Is he further aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) alleged on Thursday or Friday of last week that the Select Committee had included inconsistencies, inaccuracies and invention in its report to the House? Will he ask his hon. Friend to place in the Official Report detailed documentation of such inaccuracies, inconsistencies and invention because, as a member of the Select Committee, I must say that while I accept—

Order. This is no time for argument. The hon. Member must ask a question.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions. He may ask a third quickly.

If there is invention, will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of State to make a statement on the whole question?

My hon. Friend and the Government will reply in the normal way to the Select Committee's report. I suggest that instead of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) generating so much heat he should wait until such a reasoned reply is available.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct on the investment position. It is inevitable that a world recession will have a drastic effect on the fortunes of steel in this country, as it has had throughout the Western world.

Has the Minister had the chance to study the work published this morning by the research panel of the Wilson Committee on investment in British industry? It says that lack of investment has nothing to do with lack of finance or the availability of Government grants and that the problem is a low level of profitability, uncertainties about demand, trade union resistance to change, lack of management incentive and shortage of skilled labour. Will the Government, therefore, tackle these matters and abandon the policy of grant and subsidy and set about creating a proper climate for investment?

I have not had time to study fully the report that is in this morning's Press. However, I was struck, as I indicated earlier, by the remarkable fact that, despite the list of miseries paraded by the hon. Gentleman in supplementary questions, he has still not turned his thoughts to the fact that in two of the three full years in which the Conservative Party was in office the level of investment was lower than it was last year when the Labour Party was in office, despite the fact that we are in a world recession.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the Government's agenda for nationalisation.

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on 9th February.

Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no more nationalisation of any kind proposed by the Government or his party?

Or by the Conservatives.

If it is in order, I shall associate myself with the remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—

Order. We are to have a debate on law and order later.

Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no more nationalisation, so that we do not have the sorry sight of the Secretary of State having to behave as he did today—

Order. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had sat down. This means that we shall lose a Question.

Will the Minister of State give an assurance that we will have no more nationalisation, so that we shall not have the sorry sight of the Secretary of State having to come to the House with his petulant evasion as he did today—

Order. We heard that previously, I am sure.

I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance for which he asks because I am not yet aware of the contents of my party's manifesto. Nor am I aware of what would happen in the way of nationalisation if the Conservative Party were to come to power. With the Labour Party nationalisation is a fact, but with the Tory Party it is "any other business".

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the Government's industrial policy.

The aim of the Government's industrial policy is to help British industry establish a firm competitive base.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is almost impossible to believe any such statement from a Minister when the level of industrial production now is lower than it was when the Government took office?

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the recession which happens to be going on in the world.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's industrial policy is to maintain industries such as British Leyland in which over 1 million people are employed? Will he resist the sniping from the Tory Party? Will he tell the Conservative Opposition that they should be supporting British industry and that they should clunk, click and belt up as far as British Leyland is concerned?

There would have been massive increases in unemployment throughout the United Kingdom if the policies and statements by the Conservative Opposition had been implemented.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to think again about his earlier answer on British Steel and its relationship to the industrial strategy? The Select Committee's report contains a number of features which Sir Charles Villiers says are useful. Will he recognise that the criticism of his colleagues on the Select Committee should be aired at the earliest possible moment and that, therefore, the normal procedures for Select Committee reports will not do? Will he use his influence to have an early two-day debate?

I have nothing to add to what I have said—that we will deal with the matter in the normal way.

As part of the Government's industrial policy is to get industry into areas of high unemployment, such as Mersey side, and as we are now faced with the closure of the Speke factory on Merseyside, adding a further 3,000 workers to the 90,000 unemployed already in the area, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State again and suggest that there should be further discussions with the Chairman of British Leyland to see whether, even at this stage, there can be a change in policy in relation to the transfer of the Speke factory to other parts of the country? Will my right hon. Friend make this a matter of great urgency in view of the serious problems which have developed in that area?

I appreciate the deep concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others from Merseyside who came to see my right hon. Friend and myself recently, but I can only reiterate what he and they were told—that the future of Speke is a matter now for internal decision and consultation within British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Shipbuilders Limited.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman frequently, but a meeting is not scheduled at present.

When the Minister meets the chairman, will he pass on to him the bitter resentment felt by many people at the enormous handouts to Swan Hunter shipyard workers who have brought about their own redundancy through continual strike action? Will this benevolent Government give any help to the small shopkeepers in the area around the yard whose businesses will be adversely affected? Or is it the Government's policy to help those who are not prepared to help themselves but to do nothing for those who try hard to help themselves?

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated whatever payouts take place when the scheme comes into operation, which will not be for some little time because the order still has to be formulated. It is not possible at this stage to say what the average payment will be to Swan Hunter workers who will be declared redundant. These workers automatically qualify for redundancy payments under the Redundancy Payments Act, legislation which prevailed when the Conservative Party was last in office.

Will my hon. Friend meet the Chairman of British Shipbuilders and explain that, despite the regrettable events recently at Swan Hunter, that shipyard has an outstanding record for building ships, especially naval vessels, and that therefore the intention should be to resolve the existing problems in the yard and to ensure that there is no further recrimination?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Swan Hunter is a first-rate shipyard. That is one reason why it is so regrettable that the circumstances arose in which its share of the Polish order had to be reallocated. Swan Hunter has benefited in the past and, indeed, it is benefiting now from naval orders. We very much hope that circumstances will make it possible for that policy to continue.

Will the Minister and the chairman make it clear to buyers of British ships exactly what subsidisation will be made by the Government, so that perhaps Commonwealth countries could benefit to a much greater extent than Communist countries when they are placing orders?

Of course, we prefer not to subsidise at all. We subsidise where it is necessary. I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I assume, therefore, that if we decide to subsidise an order from India it will have his full support.

When the Minister meets representatives of British Shipbuilders, will he be discussing the possibility of extending the Intervention Fund which has been provided for preserving jobs in areas such as the West of Scotland? Will he accept that an early announcement on this matter is needed?

I greatly appreciate what the hon. Lady has said. The Intervention Fund has been of exceptional importance in maintaining jobs in both England and Scotland. The hon. Lady will know that today there are workers in pretty well every shipyard in Scotland who are at work on ships which have been provided as a result of the Intervention Fund and who would otherwise have been on the dole. It is our wish that if it can be arranged the fund will continue.

asked the Attorney-General what was the cost to public funds of the recent case brought by Holliday, Hall and Co. Ltd and of his appearance in the case.

£378.

Was not that an extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have a whip-round of his Cabinet colleagues to find the money for this appearance? Will he take steps to ensure that the Department of Employment does not issue any more "unfortunately worded" statements about sanctions and the black list for which he then has to apologise in court at the taxpayers' expense?

My appearance before the Court of Appeal on this occasion was certainly not a waste of public funds. On the contrary, it was a very appropriate response to the action taken by the Court of Appeal and saved a great deal of money in the long run. The other questions put by the hon. Gentleman are not matters for me.

asked the Attorney-General whether he intends to give evidence to the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure regarding the responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I have not yet formed an intention.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend read the conclusions about the Director of Public Prosecutions' office in the Fisher Report on the Confait case? Is the office not meant to be some sort of safeguard to ensure that prosecutions for offences as serious as murder are properly brought? In this case, there are severe criticisms of the DPP's office. When my right hon. and learned Friend gives evidence, would it not be better for him to suggest abolition of the DPP's office and the setting up of a proper national prosecuting system?

I have read that part of the report by Sir Henry Fisher, and I entirely accept the criticism that he makes. But my hon. Friend will be aware that one of the matters to which Sir Henry particularly drew attention was the shortage of staff in the Department, which had a considerable bearing upon the event of the particular case, and the Director, apart from many other things that he is already doing, in consultation with myself following the report, is, in particular, seeking, as far as he can, to ensure that that is put right as quickly as possible.

Will the Attorney-General be in a position soon to make a statement about the necessary increase in staff in the Director of Public Prosecutions' office in view of the present tremendous overloading of the professional officers?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for supporting the view that I have just expressed—that there is considerable overloading. The Director is taking steps. He will have my support, and, I am sure, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's. We hope that that will produce results.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend be giving evidence to the Royal Commission about the relationship between his office and that of the DPP? Does he agree that there is considerable confusion in the public mind about the role of the two offices? Would it not be beneficial if the situation could be clarified?

I doubt whether there will be confusion in the minds of the Royal Commission, but if I give evidence there is no doubt whatever that it will contain a passage which bears upon the responsibility of the Attorney-General in relation to the DPP.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerned by the fact that 50 per cent. of those who plead not guilty are acquitted, which is a very high rate of acquittal? Has he any proposal for the Royal Commission to make sure that either more of the guilty are convicted or that fewer of the innocent are charged?

The answer to both those questions is "No."

Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether still remaining on the DPP's file are such matters as the question of the Poulson case, especially in relation to the evidence from Kenneth Williams, who went away, and the question of London and Counties in respect of Gerald Kaplan, of whom, apparently, Interpol and Scotland Yard could not find any trace? Is Lonrho being dealt with at that level? Is the Slater Walker case also being continued with?

With regard to the first of my Friend's supplementary questions, I have already answered a Question about that, and I refer him to it. With regard to the third, I have also answered a Question about that, and I refer him to it. I will look into the other two.

I beg to move,

That the salary of the Secretary of State for the Home Department should be reduced by £1,000.

The recent hysterical outburst from the Home Secretary would seem to indicate that he is living in a strange world of his own. The purpose of this critical motion is to bring him down to earth and to remind him that he must discharge his responsibility as Home Secretary for the protection of our citizens not only with words but with actions.

The tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Ilford last Thursday would seem to indicate that he has forgotten that we had three debates on law and order last year, in January, July and November. They were all initiated by the Opposition. We made it clear on each occasion that we would not vote because we hoped that the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers would respond to what we believed were constructive suggestions, to some of which I shall return in detail in order to refute the right hon. Gentleman's accusation that we Conservatives have offered no practical proposals and that our approach has been thoroughly irresponsible and dangerous.

I also intend to answer factually the right hon. Gentleman's accusation, which I deeply resent, that my approach to the problems of crime has been, to quote his words, "unpleasant, untrue and unhelpful". At the same time I intend to substantiate our charges against the right hon. Gentleman. Our first charge is that he has failed to take advantage of the constructive approach that we adopted in the three debates last year. Our second charge is that during his tenure of office his whole approach to the serious crime situation has been astonishingly complacent. Our third charge is that he has totally failed to provide the positive drive and leadership that the real protection of our citizens demands. Lastly I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House the sort of action programme against crime which we would support and which the Conservative Government will carry out.

I turn, first, to the strength and morale of our police service. In July 1977 I raised the question of an inquiry into police pay. Was that really so unpleasant, untrue and unhelpful? If it was so in July, it clearly was not in November, when the right hon. Gentleman announced that Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee would examine police pay as well as police negotiating machinery. I might be excused for feeling that I had been rather helpful in July. If the right hon. Gentleman had responded in July, he would have saved three vital months during which the erosion of police effectiveness through resignations continued at a worrying rate.

In a speech on Saturday, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Fowler), who has made a special study of the police and had a distinguished journalist's career writing on the subject, gave some serious statistics. He pointed out that in 1975 there were 2,701 resignations from police forces in England and Wales. In 1976 the total resignations increased to 3,827 Last year resignations reached a new peak of 5,166. My hon Friend also pointed out that some of the forces that are under most pressure are losing most heavily. Last year, for example, the Metropolitan Police lost almost 1,100 officers through resignation. That is especially serious because of the high rate of crime in London and because of the special duties placed on the police in the metropolis.

It is appropriate now to mention Saturday's events in Ilford. As I am being critical, and intend to continue to be, of the right hon. Gentleman, it is only fair to give him, as the police authority, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, every credit for the success of that operation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that, as a result of speeches made attacking racial minorities, whether in places such as Ilford or elsewhere, expensive operations have to be mounted, costing several thousand pounds, by an over-stretched police force? As the right hon. Gentleman is arguing for law and order, would it not be better for politicians sitting next to him to keep their mouths a little muted on such subjects, which can create the very disorder that he is so much against, according to his speech?

I find that the most extraordinary intervention from the hon. Gentleman. It may be that he has forgotten the period during which there has been violence from various extreme groups at both ends of the spectrum. It may be that he has forgotten some of the violence of the Grunwick picket line. Perhaps he has forgotten that and other things in the past. The hon. Gentleman should not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude about political violence.

I hope that I may make my next point in a calm atmosphere as it is important for the future. Whatever future decisions may be made on political marches—and they involve many conflicting considerations—one lesson is clear, namely, that the law must be upheld without fear or favour. Innocent citizens must have their rights and property protected no matter what extremist or other groups threaten violence. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will accept that and use whatever influence he may have in certain quarters to ensure that that is carried out.

When the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to enforce law and order in a part of the United Kingdom, he engaged in parlying with the representatives of the Provisional IRA and created a special category of political prisoner. Does he not feel rather hypocritical now to be drivelling on about law and order from the Opposition Dispatch Box?

I am talking, first, about the situation in England and Wales. My record in Northern Ireland, especially in removing the no-go areas which I had on my arrival and which through Operation Motorman I subsequently removed, will stand a great deal of examination by anyone. The hon. Gentleman talks about the IRA. Yes, I did see members of the IRA. I never regretted that I had done it. I said that I would never do it again. I have stood by that and I always will.

Why did you conceal it?

I never concealed the fact that I saw them. I came to the House and openly told it why I had done so. Perhaps I may now continue with the situation in England and Wales.

The number of police officers required underlines how worrying it is that the strength of the Metropolitan Police fell slightly in 1977 and that the gap between its already unrealistic establishment and its actual strength is now about 4,500. Many areas of London as a whole must have been short of police protection last Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman, in his position as the police authority for the metropolis, knows perfectly well that the plain statistics disguise a far more worrying situation as regards police effectiveness. I challenge him, therefore, to admit publicly that in London the severe loss of experienced police officers through police resignations is being offset to the extent that it is by the recruitment of young men and women. Of course, the recruits are most welcome, but they cannot be counted as adequate replacements for experienced police officers.

There are many other large areas of the country, especially the large cities, where a similar loss of effectiveness is taking place. We must hope that adverse trends in police strengths will be reversed with an improved pay structure after the report of Lord Edmund-Davies's committee.

However, there can be no doubt that pay is not the only cause of frustration in the police service. There are anxieties about their status in society, about the unpleasant duties placed upon them and the disgraceful treatment that they receive from certain sections of our people. There is anxiety about the physical injuries that are inflicted upon them. Nor do they feel that in their duty of upholding the law placed upon them by Parliament they always receive from all parts of this House the wholehearted support which they are entitled to expect.

Against all this background, surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that he only makes himself a laughing stock with chief constables and police authorities in many parts of the country when he proudly proclaims, as he did in his Ilford speech, that all forces are free to recruit up to full strength. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is rather like you, Mr. Speaker, telling hon. Members of the House at the beginning of a very crowded debate that they are all free to make speeches. Indeed, they are. But they are very unlikely to be able to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman's answers to criticisms about police strength always compare present figures with those in March 1974, the Conservative Government having just left office. This comparison is totally irrelevant to the solution of our problems in 1978. Now we have a Government some of whose members constantly undermine respect for the observance of the law. The Lord President of the Council never fails to attack the judges if they produce a judgment which does not accord with his own political views and persuasions. That undermines respect for the law and makes the job of those who uphold the law that much more difficult.

There has been a dramatic rise in unemployment among boys and girls. That is the responsibility of this Government. Let no one have any doubt about the danger that that has created in terms of crime of all sorts, violence and vandalism. If boys and girls do not obtain jobs when they leave school, they feel that society has no need of them. If they feel that, they do not see any reason why they should take part in that society and comply with its rules. That is what is happening and, wherever we sit in this House, that is what we have to recognise.

There are also deteriorating living conditions in urban areas which until recently the Government did nothing about. That is another reason for the increase in crime.

On top of all that—and I agree that it is part of a worldwide trend—there has been a dramatic increase in crime of all sorts, including crimes of violence and vandalism. Surely it is obvious that the police have to deal with a totally different situation from that in 1974.

indicated dissent.

I notice the right hon. Gentleman screwing up his face. Can he really suggest that the crime rate today is not, for all these reasons, very different from what is was in 1974? Certainly the figures show that it is.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the real danger that he faces today of declining police effectiveness at a time of steeply rising crime. He must act decisively to convince the police of their real value to the community and deal promptly with their morale, their pay and their conditions. If he shows real evidence that he intends to take such action, he will not find the Opposition "unpleasant, untrue and unhelpful". Rather, he will receive our enthusiastic and wholehearted support. That is certainly what would happen if the right hon. Gentleman took that action. But I fear that he will not take it.

At least, however, I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for responding positively to another of my apparently unhelpful suggestions. I told him in July how much we regretted his decision to cut back on civilian support for the police and on the recruiting and training of police cadets. But in October those cuts were restored and, in his speech at Ilford, he actually had the audacity to claim credit for this as a completely new and positive initiative.

I move on to the treatment of offenders. If the right hon. Gentleman were to study our three debates last year, he would not find any foundation for his claim that we were suggesting far a moment that there were instant solutions to complicated problems. Certainly he would have to admit that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and the others of my hon. Friends concerned adopted a thoroughly constructive attitude throughout the debates on the Criminal Law Bill of 1977, with its limited improvements. Nor can the right hon. Gentleman complain with any justice in view of my constant support for the principle of non-custodial sentences, for the work of the Probation Service and for the development of community service orders introduced by the last Conservative Government. Those are areas of common ground, and it is only right for us all to recognise the invaluable work being done.

However, we also have to accept that developments on these lines can have only a limited effect, because the harsh reality is that they are not appropriate for some of the types of offenders with whom we have to deal.

When we consider others matters, I simply cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can accuse the Opposition of having no practical proposals, bearing in mind that some of my colleagues, with my full support, produced two reports, one on juvenile crime and the other on the proper use of prisons. Both committees were chaired by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), and both reports provoked considerable interest and discussion.

As a result of those reports, especially the first, on several occasions last year the Opposition proposed, having been supported by a Select Committee of the House and, I think, by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), that the Children and Young Persons Act should be amended to restore to magistrates the power to commit young offenders to secure accommodation.

As was their right, the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State obstinately made it clear that they refused to meet our point. I think that they were wrong. However, let me make a wider suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is widespread dissatisfaction among magistrates, social workers, probation officers and the police with the working of the juvenile courts—sometimes for different and occasionally for opposite reasons.

It has been suggested to me by people with considerable experience that the Scottish system of panels, based on the Report of the Kilbrandon Committee, on the Children and Young Persons Act 1964 and on the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 as amended by the Children Act 1975, works more satisfactorily. I emphasise that it was not my idea. If it were, I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman immediately would brand it as unhelpful. But as it came from people with knowledge and experience which the right hon. Gentleman would respect, I hope that he will at least agree to consider it. If he regarded it as helpful, I should be only too ready to put him and his officials in touch with those who made the proposal.

As for the second report, I believe that all those concerned will accept that its study of the proper use of prisons was a most comprehensive approach to the very serious problems in our Prison Service and that many of its conclusions have been supported strongly in the Press.

Among other proposals, my colleagues suggested that if prisons were to perform their proper role we must make plans to start removing from prisons those who should be treated elsewhere and so relieve the present serious overcrowding. In particular, they proposed the accommodation of the mentally subnormal on a secure basis in mental hospitals and the treatment of alcoholics in detoxification centres. Of course, these proposals could not be implemented at once. However, I want to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he accept these as objectives? If he does, will he at least start making plans on that basis? If he does not accept them as objectives, what else does he intend to do?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's description of the report on prisons, but can he say what would be the likely cost of implementing these proposals?

I chose my words carefully, and I made it clear that it would not be possible to do all this at once. But they are still objectives, and I am asking the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to set them out as objectives for the future. Of course, it could not all be done at once. I accept that.

We have constantly proposed more detention centres, both junior and senior. Now that the Home Secretary has boasted of new junior centres, why does he not institute some senior ones? Many football hooligans are young adults. I was interested to find a new note in the Home Secretary's comments at Ilford on detention centres. He said that these regimes were "drastic and firm". If they are genuinely that, it is only right and proper that when he talks of drastic and firm regimes he should automatically admit the importance of the principle of firm discipline, which I support strongly, and have been advocating constantly.

I want to go further. I want to set up an experimental project with severer discipline providing short, sharp, shock treatment. My purpose is not to return to the old curative methods to satisfy some sadistic instinct, which I have not got, but to promote public confidence in our whole penal system by saying that we are prepared to try to deal with the small minority of hardened young thugs who thumb their noses at authority and laugh at all the present penal arrangements. I may be criticised, but the critics can offer no alternative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any young people who actually laugh at the severity of discipline in detention centres? In what way would his proposals be more severe?

Certainly I have evidence of young persons who start off on a life of crime and move through the juvenile courts, borstal and detention centres to become young adults in prison, and who laugh at their punishment all along the line. These are the people with whom I wish to try to deal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my hon. Friend's question by telling us what different treatment he is advocating in the centres that he thinks should be established?

I have tried to indicate that what I am proposing is, first of all, that the regimes in detention centres should be as firm and drastic as the Home Secretary suggests. I think it is questionable that they are firm and drastic. I should like an assurance on that point, but, provided that I accept that they are, I want to go further and have one centre with severer discipline, along the lines of the glasshouse systems in the Services. This would provide a short, sharp, shock sentence under very severe conditions. Those who criticise me must answer this question—if we do not try an experiment on these lines, what is the alternative? My critics have no alternative. If we do not try this, these young thugs will continue through the system and we shall sit back and say that frankly there is nothing we can do about it. I cannot think of anything more likely to undermine public confidence in our whole penal system. I do not say that this scheme necessarily will succeed.

It will not.

By what right does the Minister of State say that? He has no more idea than I have whether it will work.

Apart from the rather general and vague phrase "short, sharp, shock treatment" what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "severer discipline"?

I mean much severer discipline in the centres based on the glasshouse systems that were used in the war. That should be clear enough to anybody. If hon. Members opposite laugh at that, they are laughing at a great many people in this country who believe that something of this sort is vital if we are to get support for our penal system.

rose—

I shall give way just once more—to the hon. Lady—and then I shall not give way again.

I have listened with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. Of course this is very important. Will he tell us where these super glasshouses will be set up and how much money he is prepared to spend on them?

I have proposed that there should be a project. I do not suggest that there should be more than one centre to start with. I want to see one established as an experiment and if it works I want to see others set up as well. We should be able to try a new system, as nothing else has worked so far. To summarise—

"Hear, hear."

Order. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) should not be subjected to constant interruptions from hon. Members in a sedentary position. It is very unfair to anyone who is trying to address the House.

To summarise, I shall tell the Home Secretary the programme of action which I believe he should follow and which will be pushed with major political drive and determination by the next Conservative Government. While I am outlining these points I shall not give way at all. It is only fair that as I have been accused of having no proposals, at least the House should listen to these.

First of all, the Government must accept that the law is indivisible. They must show clearly to the country that they will uphold and support the law at all times. The police service must be given unstinting backing and support. It must have pay, conditions and status in society which will improve morale, stop the early resignation of experienced officers and attract the right type of recruits for the future. The strength of the police forces must be built up to authorised establishments, and then establishments must be increased to provide more bobbies on the beat, more anti-vandalism squads and more officers for community relations work.

Those who administer the law—the judges and the magistrates—must be given the widest range of penalties so that the punishment fits the crime and the type of offender. Juvenile courts must be reorganised to give back power to magistrates and to ensure closer cooperation between them, social workers and police in determining sentences. The use of non-custodial sentences, in association with the work of the probation services, must be developed, as must the use of detention centres.

The problem of the hardened young thug who is not affected by any penalty must be faced. Regimes in detention centres must be accompanied by an experimental project of short, sharp, shock treatment and severer discipline. The basic problems of the prison service must be tackled by the encouragement of shorter prison sentences and the eventual removal to other accommodation of those who should not be in prison at all.

Outside the sole responsibility of the Home Office, the Government must uphold standards and values in schools, encourage all voluntary organisations for boys and girls, and deal with the serious problems of youth unemployment for which they are responsible. They must bring back life and activity to the derelict areas in our cities.

I wish that I could believe that the Home Secretary has the determination and will necessary to ensure that the Home Office and the Government will follow such a programme. But, alas, in his period in office so far, the Home Secretary has appeared increasingly frightened of taking decisive action. Does he not realise the serious nature of crime and violence in this country today? Does he not recognise the longing of so many people for a positive lead and for positive action? If he does, why on earth does he not act?

Our vote tonight is a demand for action in place of indecision and weakness. It is a demand increasingly echoed by the people of this country.

I would make it plain to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who quoted parts of my speeches in recent weeks, that nothing that he could do would be unpleasant or unhelpful and that he must not take it to heart if I get at other people in his party: it does not apply to him.

I am sorry to interrupt so early, but if the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement I have to say that I have been the spokesman on home affairs for this party all the time that he has been Home Secretary. If I am not entitled to take what he says personally, I cannot imagine who is, since clearly it must be aimed at the person who speaks for the party on this subject.

What I was referring to was the tendency of the Conservative Party, whenever there is a sign of a General Election or a by-election, to stand up and tell the electorate that only the Conservatives are concerned about law and order. I believe that that is both unhelpful and untrue.

The threat to law and order is not particular to this country. If what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech is so, it might be worth while casting our net wider to see what we should do. What is happening is common to all Western European countries and to North America. Although the information is far from comprehensive, it suggests that crime in this country has increased by about two-thirds, when it has doubled in the United States, Canada and Holland. What those figures show is that we may, under Governments of all parties, be making mistakes in this country, but it may be that some of the social and economic conditions are such that we do not have the problems that arise, for example, on the North American scene.

If that is so, it is extraordinarily silly and foolish to have a shouting match at the time of an election when the cause of the problem is complicated and we should be analysing it. The growth in the crime rate has happened whichever political party has been in power and in my view will continue to rise, judging by world conditions, whichever party is in power after the next General Election.

It is untrue to say, at a by-election or a General Election, that there is some simple solution to this problem—that if only we were to do certain things, it would be solved. It is like the action of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who in his own constituency the other day said that United Kingdom passport holders would be sent home and then got his leader to deny that it had happened. This is—

rose—

Sit down.