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 have a meeting with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to have a meeting with 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 keep in frequent contact with the chairman, whom I last met on 5th April. There is no firm date for the next meeting.

Is it not its poor productivity performance, which is particular to us and is not due to the world recession, which puts the British steel industry at an extra disadvantage as compared with those countries which have an excellent record of reducing manning levels? Will the right hon. Gentleman give support to the proposed incentive scheme offering more pay for more output?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to give the impression that the problems of the British Steel Corporation are unique to the Corporation. There are major world factors. Along with my colleagues, I am giving support to the productivity changes in the Corporation and to the incentive proposals.

rose—

I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.

When the right hon. Gentleman next speaks to the chairman of the BSC, will he impress on him the necessity to invest in winners and profit earners, such as the plant at Workington, and ensure that the investment in the new coking ovens there should be carried out as soon as possible? Will he recognise that, while there are surpluses in coke at the moment, with other plant closing down it is essential that these plants at Workington start up immediately? Will he therefore tell us whether the investment is to go in and, if so, when?

I have not attended to this matter personally, but I have asked for these factors to be drawn to the hon. Gentleman's attention. For example, I understand that the existing coke ovens will remain in operation. The Corporation has told its work force that the scheme to rebuild the coke ovens at Workington is to be deferred at the moment but will be reviewed in mid-1979.

Following the thoughtful and welcome White Paper last week on the nationalised industries and the change in his relationship with the chairman of the board of the Corporation, does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Government—and, if so, when—to bring forward an announcement of a financial target for British Steel? Does not he agree that it is sadly wrong that the Corporation should not have a financial target, bearing in mind that nearly all the other nationalised industries have such targets statutorily applying to them?

The relationship between the Corporation and the Government is a good one. I have paid tribute to the work that Sir Charles Villiers and the management have done over the last few weeks. There is a particular problem over a financial target for British Steel. I made it plain in my statement to Parliament on the publication of the White Paper that we would be looking at the possibilities of capital reconstruction when the market situation became more certain, and in any event I shall be laying legislative proposals before Parliament very shortly.

When will the right hon. Gentleman and Sir Charles Villiers agree the text of the Government's reply to the various reports on steel by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, after his perhaps rather ill-tempered start, that there are many recommendations that he himself has described as useful and which require urgent decision and debate, particularly such matters as manning agreements?

I never lose my temper. On the basis of the Select Committee's report, we are working on our reply over the next few weeks. I expect that that reply will be published in the usual form, that is, as a White Paper. It will be published and laid before Parliament in time for debate on the legislation I have just referred to.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are fully committed to saving the British steel industry whereas the Conservative Party, with its persistent sniping, seems quite happy for it to go to the wall? Will he note the response of the work-people to the Government's lead—for example, at Llanwern, which is breaking all records at present? Will he consider visiting that plant in the near future in order to show his appreciation to the workpeople involved?

I join with my hon. Friend in saying that the measures announced by the Government have saved the British steel industry. If we had not taken the action we took, the position would be much more serious. We have to get ahead with the modernisation of British Steel and make sure that we have a substantial steel industry capable of meeting the needs of British manufacturing industry.

Will my right hon. Friend remind Conservative Members who take an excessively critical view of many sectors of British industry, particularly the public sector, that the British steel industry today is affected by world developments? Will he confirm that the British steel industry is operating nearer to capacity than the steel industries in Europe, and perhaps even the steel industry in Japan?

I think that that is broadly correct. In fact, most steel industries throughout the world of comparable size to British Steel, whether privately owned or publicly owned, are in some difficulty. We shall ensure that the British steel industry remains substantial, and we want to get it back to viability and profitability as quickly as possible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the chairman of the British Steel Corporation has written to me saying that he is prepared to consider the sale of complete steel plants in closure areas? Will he, when he next meets the chairman, ask him to enlarge upon this scheme? Will he give his Government's full backing to this policy and make sure that no restrictions are placed in the way of these plants if they are sold to private enterprise?

I do not know of any proposals and I do not know of the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. Any requirement to dispose of assets would have to come through the Government, and we should want to look at it extremely carefully.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of BSC the impact on the steel plant making industry of the cut in the investment programme, especially as it may affect Sheffield?

I have not discussed the investment programme with the steel plant manufacturers, but my hon. Friend will be aware that substantial investment will take place over the next two years—in the region of £1,000 million. I know that that will be broadly welcomed by the steel plant makers, but if they want to make representation to the Government we shall be pleased to receive it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the slimmed-down investment programme in this halfway stage to a sensible policy? But is it not the case, as the Select Committee pointed out, that if action had been taken earlier we should have been able to afford more modernisation and more investment, and that there would have been a greater degree of job security?

That is one section of the report of the Select Committee with which I do not agree. It is implied in some quarters that the Government, on internal financial forecasts for the British Steel Corporation, could have taken action within one or two months of the last financial year. To have eliminated the forecast at that time would have resulted in action which would have been unacceptable, I think, to the majority of those who work in the steel industry and, I suspect, to the majority of hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he now intends to meet his opposite number in the EEC Council of Industry Ministers.

There are no current proposals for the Ministers of Industry of the member States to assemble in Council. When industrial matters arise which require collective ministerial consideration, they can be treated by the Council of Ministers (Foreign Affairs) with the participation of other interested Ministers.

Now that the Summit Meeting has launched the beginnings of a concerted economic plan for the whole of the EEC, would it not be right for all the Industry Ministers in all the member States to get together to see what they can do with their own national industries, and what can be done by British industry to contribute to a faster growth in Europe, as the only means eventually by which to try to get unemployment down?

That can be considered as and when the need arises, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that most industrial policy matters are currently carried out by Commission working groups. We are involved in a large number of those. The need certainly has not arisen yet.

Does not the Minister think that the time has now come to have a Council of Industry Ministers to consider, among other matters, the competition taking place between member Governments to give subsidies to textiles, shipbuilding, assisted areas and so on? Does he not agree that member Governments, including the British, are tending to give subsidies to industry in a way which might simply put workers out of jobs in other member countries? Would it not be better to develop a Community approach in order to sort out troubled market areas?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that our schemes of assistance have to be considered by the Commission. Our schemes of assistance are certainly not the only ones in member States, because many other States carry them out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that on 19th-20th December the Council of Ministers agreed a package on steel. A draft directive on shipbuilding assistance has already been agreed, and we are already involved in many other discussions.

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

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

I expect to meet the chairman very shortly. We are in frequent touch.

Anticipating the Minister's next meeting with the chairman of the NEB, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the NEB's current investment policy, since it does not appear to have one? How many of the 22 companies in which the NEB invested last year are now making the adequate return on capital to which the NEB is statutorily committed?

All these matters are open for debate later in the day. When I meet the chairman of the NEB I shall be able to discuss with him the NEB investment in a company in which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has a constituency interest, Thwaites and Reed, which looks after Big Ben. I am glad that the NEB is helping to keep the hon. Gentleman on time.

Will my hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of the NEB when he next meets him about the recent appointment of Mr. John Williams of Lucas Industries to the NEB to oversee British Leyland, although this man is on public record as being opposed to public enterprise? Will he also draw the attention of the chairman to the fact that, contary to paragraph 11.11 in the NEB's report to this House on British Leyland, it is not the Government who authorise money to British Leyland but this House?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right about that. I hope that all hon. Members will realise the importance of voting the extra £300 million to British industry when we debate this matter later today.

What about the first part of my supplementary question?

Order. This subject will be debated later today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my Question No. 4 the Minister of State made great play of the fact that the National Enterprise Board was giving assistance to a firm called Thwaites and Reed which, he said, was in my constituency and which is, among other things, clockmaker and mender of Big Ben. I have checked with the NEB, but both of its information officers are in the House of Commons. Thwaites and Reed tells me that its only office and factory in Sussex is at St. Leonards-on-Sea, about 25 miles from my constituency. I have come to realise that the Minister relies more—

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make the point of order on which he is asking me to rule.

I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of State to withdraw his comment about the factory being in my constituency, because it is not. I ask him to give me an answer to my question.

The hon. Member knows that, if I tried to tell Ministers to withdraw answers, or, indeed, the Opposition to withdraw questions, I should be in even greater difficulty than I am at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry to what extent he has subsidised private companies with public money since 1974 to date.

Including an estimated expenditure of £397 million for 1977–78, the subsidies, current grants and capital grants paid to undertakings in those parts of the private sector for which my Department is responsible are forecast to total £1,849 million, at 1977 survey prices, for the years 1974–75 to 1977–78 inclusive.

Is not that a huge sum of public money? Will my hon. Friend give further details of this in the Official Report, so that hon. Members can put down Questions in individual cases and discover what is happening to this money and whether any of it is wrongly disappearing into private pockets?

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is a huge sum for support to industry under the Industry Act 1972. My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that during the period of office of the Conservative Government the sums were in no way published. It was not until the advent of the Labour Government that the sums payable under the Act were published in Trade and Industry. But I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said and see what information I can publish in the Official Report.

Will the Minister tell us how much tax is being paid by all these private companies to subsidise public expenditure? Will he also publish this figure?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. He will know that there are 100 per cent. tax allowances on investment in plant and machinery, and the Government have generously given stock appreciation relief, so that the tax incentives to investment and to encourage industry cost several billion pounds a year to the Revenue.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the White Paper entitled "The Challenge of North Sea Oil" gave the Government's strategy on investment in industry through the NEB? Will my hon. Friend say how this can be achieved without compulsory planning agreements so that public money is not wasted in the way he has just announced?

Certainly the progress with planning agreements has been extremely disappointing. In view of the very encouraging way in which the Government have treated private industry, it seems reasonable for the Government to expect a degree of co-operation towards planning agreements so that a greater degree of planned investment can take place in this country.

Is it not the case that nearly all wealth in this country is created by the private sector and hardly any at all by the public sector, and that these so-called handouts are simply transfers from companies back to themselves? If the Under-Secretary were really serious about the health of industry, would he not point out that industry, quite apart from PAYE contributions, rates, national insurance contributions and corporation tax, is paying three times what it receives in so-called handouts?

I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman has said. When he and his party next talk about four years of Socialism, perhaps they will bear in mind the remarks that he has just made—that, in fact, the majority contribution which he claims is from the private side of industry. When the hon. Gentleman complains about such matters as a lack of investment or the level of unemployment, perhaps he will bear his remarks in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what measures he is proposing to the seven partnership committees as his Department's contribution to the rejuvenation of the inner cities.

My Department is participating fully in the partnerships' initial task of drawing up programmes for action which will include proposals designed to strengthen the economies of the inner cities. It is too early to say what agreed proposals will be put forward by the different partnerships. The partnership authorities will benefit from the measures announced in the White Paper on inner city policy and from the powers which will be available to them under the Inner Urban Areas Bill.

Is there not a danger of conflict with regard to the increasing number of powers overlaying different geographical areas? Will the Minister consider particularly the conflict between the inner cities and the special development areas?

There is no conflict here. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the regional assistance is in addition to inner city assistance. But these matters will no doubt be debated on the Inner Urban Areas Bill, when the position can be clarified further.

Will my hon. Friend consider seriously amending the Co-operative Development Agency Bill which is now before the House so that his Department can dispose of funds which could be used directly by his Department for use by workers' co-operatives in the inner city areas?

That is a matter of detail for consideration in Committee. No doubt we shall be considering many such amendments because I know that my hon. Friends are very much concerned and welcome the implementation of Labour's promise to establish a Co-operative Development Agency.

Will anything actually come out of these committees, or, like their predecessors, will they just be talking shops?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the partnership committees. The local authority members of the partnership committees, in addition to the Government members, are convinced that the partnership committees are drawing up useful and worthwhile programmes. Of course, the test of the committees will be seen in action. In my experience, all the members of the committees are determined to ensure that the action results in regeneration of the inner cities.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the level of investment in manufacturing industry during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will now take additional steps to increase investment in industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much Government money has been committed from 1974 to the present date under industry schemes and how much investment it has generated.

Total investment by manufacturing industry in 1977 is estimated to have been £1,761 million at 1970 prices. It represents an increase of 8 per cent. over 1976. This is a welcome increase, but we intend to maintain our active support for industrial investment, in particular our wide range of selective assistance. By the beginning of March this year, a total of £247 million of assistance had been offered by my Department since 1st April 1974 through industry schemes operated under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. The total industrial investment associated with this assistance amounts to £1,528 million. Since 1st April 1974 to 31st October 1977, £276 million has been offered under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 to assist 2,894 projects with a total project cost of £2,865 million.

As investment in manufacturing industry is substantially lower in real terms now than it was in 1974 when the Government came to power, what is the Minister doing to restore confidence in manufacturing industry and to increase demand for its products, without which the higher level of investment will not take place?

The level of investment in 1977—at 1970 prices—was £1,761 million compared with £1,730 million in the last full year of the Conservative Government. Therefore, the level of investment has actually increased under this Government compared with the last year of the Conservative Government.

Will my hon. Friend increase investment in the public sector? Will he utterly reject the disastrous industrial policies of the political con men in the Conservative and Scottish National Parties who are trying to fool the people of Garscadden with promises of more jobs, yet they themselves voted to destroy thousands of jobs in the West of Scotland by voting against public ownership and public investment in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries?

Public investment in industry is an important element in maintaining the competitive position of this country's manufacturing and service industries. There will be a test later today to see whether hon. Members are prepared to vote money for investment in the public sector of British manufacturing industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his original answer is very disappointing for the Tory Party? What is important is that this is encouraging for the gradually increasing momentum in overcoming inflation and all the economic ills that are afflicting us. While this sort of programme and progress is welcome to Labour Members, it is always bound to be disappointing to the Conservative Party.

I am grateful for the accurate remarks of my hon. Friend. He is quite right in saying that the economy is improving under this Government. Of course, many difficulties remain, but the reduction in the level of inflation and the improvement in the balance of payments situation is important and is reflected in the higher level of investment under this Government.

In order to expand investment in manufacturing industry, will the Minister ensure that there is no prejudice against sources from abroad? Will he underline the wise words of the Minister of State on his return from Japan, that we would do all we could to encourage investment in this country, from whatever source it might come?

The policy of the Government is to encourage inward investment, as the hon. Gentleman says, from whatever source it may come.

South Africa?

Will my hon. Friend accept that when handouts of public money are given to private industry the public has a right to know not only the total amount but the actual firms to which that money is given? Will he also accept that when public money is invested in private industry we ought to take an equity stake in those companies?

As I remarked earlier, under the Industry Act 1972, which was introduced by the Conservative Government, the money was given in secrecy to companies. The Conservatives were the people who held the cloak of secrecy over the publication of figures. In July 1974 this Government determined to move towards a more open position. In fact, the figures over £10,000 and £25,000 in certain categories are now published after payment in the weekly publication Trade and Industry.

Is the Minister able to confirm that the Government accept that, in order to achieve a higher level of investment in manufacturing industry, everything that can reasonably be done to improve the rate of return on capital ought to be encouraged?

As I remarked before—perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my remarks—this Government have made generous tax concessions for investment in plant and machinery. We also give generous concessions in stock appreciation relief, in addition to the actual cash grants which we give under national schemes of regional assistance. This is an encouraging framework for investment in new products and jobs in industry in this country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when the chairman of the National Enterprise Board gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee he pointed out that there was a gap in the private sector of investable funds for smaller firms? Can he ensure that more funds will be made available to the NEB to regenerate that particular aspect of our industry? Can he say whether he himself has any plans to encourage investment in smaller industries?

My hon. Friend will be aware that tonight there is the possibility of a vote, which I am sure my hon. Friends will be keen enthusiastically to support as that will give further financial assistance to the NEB. We are currently having a look at the provision of financial assistance to small firms. As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State for Employment announced on 15th March that the Department will shortly be extending the small firms subsidy for 26 weeks, cash assistance. Therefore, an examination is under way as well as specific action which is being undertaken by the Government.

Will the Minister undertake to study again the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), who showed that in real terms the figures are very disappointing and that they underline the failure of a policy which heavily over-relies on the direct investment of taxpayers' money by the Government? Does he not agree that what is needed to revive investment in British industry is better levels of profitability, better market prospects and confidence? None of those has been provided at any stage by this Government.

I am not all that surprised at the propaganda from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), but if he finds the current figures disappointing he must have been even more disappointed at the record under his own Government, because in 1972 the figures were lower and in 1973 the figures of investment were extremely low. It ill behoves him to make these churlish remarks. Could not the Opposition, for a change, instead of conducting a continual propaganda campaign against the achievements of the Government and the country, try to assess the position of the country objectively and recognise the real achievements of this Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the progress of the Government's industrial strategy.

Yes, Sir. We now wish to see the valuable work which sector working parties are doing translated this year into effective action at company level.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we noted with interest his speech last week in the course of which he said that the central aim of the Government's industrial strategy was to improve productivity? Since our average rate of increase in 1974, 1975 and 1976 was zero and only three countries in the entire OECD world did worse, how can he say that he is satisfied?

I am not satisfied with the level of productivity. Nor am I satisfied yet with the work to reverse the relative decline which has occurred in our manufacturing industry. However, the sector working parties and the industrial strategy have made a good start. They have the continued support of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, and I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) should support them as well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Spillers dealt a blow to the Government's industrial strategy on Friday by announcing 8,000 redundancies? Does he not also agree that it is entirely in character with this company, which has been promoting its financial situation, that over recent years it has found it possible to donate £5,000 a year to British United Industrialists, a rabid anti-Labour organisation? Does he not agree, further, that this company—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—blackmailed the Government into accepting the position by saying that, if they did not do so, it would make 13,000 workers redundant instead of 8,000? Will my right hon. Friend issue a directive to the NEB to require Spillers French to maintain competition and employment in this important sector of industry?

Order. This is not fair to other hon. Members. There is a Private Notice Question on the subject later.

I do not have departmental responsibility for the baking industry. I understand that a Private Notice Question is to be answered later today. But I can tell my hon. Friend—and I think that I reflect the views of my right hon. Friend who has responsibility for this company—that we were most disappointed at the way in which Spillers went about its activities, and I know that further consideration is being given to the matter.

Since the industrial strategy has resulted in more unemployment and lower living standards, why is the Secretary of State so cocksure that he has it right and that every other country has got it wrong?

I am not at all cocksure that this Government have it right, or anything of the kind. I am saying that the industrial strategy is designed to reverse the relative decline in British industry—a decline which went on at a greater pace under the Conservative Government than it has under this Government. To single out the intolerable unemployment figures here and to suggest that they are unique is again a misrepresentation.

What does my right hon. Friend think of the industrial strategy of a company like Thorn Electrical Industries, which engages in the closest possible consultation with its work force and with Members of Parliament with constituency interests when a threat from Japan materialises but which announces in the most abrupt way, without any consultation, the closure of a major factory and a threat to a large number of other jobs?

I think that all companies which are in difficulty should consult the Government about how they propose to deal with those problems. That goes for Spillers, for Thorn and for any other company. My right hon. Friends and I deplore any arbitrary action which results in the sort of dislocation and hardship which have been created in this case.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to have a meeting with the chairman of British Shipbuilders Ltd.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman from time to time, but there are no plans for a meeting at present.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he take up with him the case of Western Ship Repairers on Merseyside, which is faced with closure? Will he suggest to the chairman of British Shipbuilders that Western Ship Repairers should be taken into public ownership, as was intended in the original Bill?

This is a matter which really should be taken up with the Tory Party and the House of Lords. If Western Ship Repairers had been nationalised with the shipbuilding companies a year ago when the Bill went through, British Shipbuilders would have been in a position to rescue that company from its problems. The trouble now is that the rot has set in so deep that it is very difficult to find a way out.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Shipbuilders, will he ask him why British Shipbuilders is now seeking to move into the manufacture of medium-speed diesel engines?

This is a matter which has been discussed very closely. British Shipbuilders intends at present to undertake work on medium-speed diesel engines in connection with the Polish order. It is work which would not have come to this country without the Polish order and which does not take work away from a single British worker. As for diversification, we fought this through during the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, and Parliament decided that this publicly owned industry should have the power to diversify.

Will my hon. Friend recognise the important improvements in labour relations which are now being shown on Tyneside and see that there is as much publicity given to those improvements as there was before when we suffered severe setbacks?

My hon. Friend is quite right, and we hope that these very favourable indications will be noted. It is extremely important that we should do whatever we can to maintain employment in the shipyards on Tyneside.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a further statement on the Government's proposal for support for the British shipbuilding industry.

Proposals for an extension of the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund are currently under consideration, and my right hon. Friend expects to make a statement as soon as the necessary consultations have been completed.

Is it not the case that most major world shipbuilders are now engaged in a competitive subsidy race which, if allowed to continue, can only result in the prolongation of over-capacity in world shipping? How can the Government justify the use of taxpayers' money to subsidise overseas ship owners to compete with the British merchant fleet?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that if British Shipbuilders did not build the ships some other country would, and they would still compete against our own ship owners. But I am glad that the hon. Member has recognised that Belgium has a home credits scheme, that Denmark has a temporary interest subsidy, that France has a construction subsidy, that Germany subsidises ship owners, that Ireland helps construction losses and that many other Governments do much the same. The most significant feature is that this country did not contribute to the over-capacity.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister of State to reconsider his answer about Western Ship Repairers in view of the fact that this will lead to a further increase in unemployment on Merseyside, which is already a very serious problem? Will he ask my hon. Friend, before he meets me and a delegation on Thursday morning, to consider further the idea of again pressing British Shipbuilders to take over this company, since it was promised at an earlier stage that this would be done if it could be done?

My hon. Friend is right to press his case, and I understand that he is seeing my hon. Friend the Minister of State very shortly. But I hope also that he and his hon. Friends will press their case inside the House and outside it, because I would hope that if we had in the Act the nationalisation of ship repairers we would not have been in this position.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he intends to have further discussions with the European Commission on the future of the European Regional Development Fund.

Discussions are still continuing at official level in order to resolve outstanding questions concerning the allocation and administration of the fund for the period 1978 to 1980.

Does not the Minister agree that this fund would have been developed very much further to the great advantage of the British regions if the British Government had adopted a Community approach to this problem and, for example, ceased to insist that all payments should be made to the Government and not to the industries concerned? Will he say what steps are being taken to speed up the present discussions and whether the Government intend to support the proposal that some of the funds should be outside the national quota system, with direct payments by the Commission to industrialists who want to make the investments?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. Before we allow a non-quota section to be set up, which would be outside the control of individual Governments, it is extremely important that we should ensure precisely for what purpose the money will be used and by what criteria it will be allocated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not much use having regional funds if our industry is undermined by foreign imports? What talks did he have in Japan with Japanese industrialists? Did he have talks about the GEC-Hitachi talks and the Rank-Toshiba merger talks, in view of the crisis in the electrical consumer industry?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not the practice of the Department to reveal details of discussions with individual firms. I am sure that he will understand the circumstances. However, I took every opportunity to emphasise to the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, to business men and to the Japanese equivalent of the CBI the importance that we place on the Japanese recognising that trade has to be a two-way system and that if they want continued access to our markets they have to ensure that we get extra access to theirs.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his rather negative answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? Should not the fund be much larger to enable it to make a significant impact in co-ordinated European terms to the less developed areas of all the countries, including Britain, and should not companies and local authorities be allowed to apply direct?

I do not wish to be offensive, but the hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand. The fund's total size has already been decided, and within the fund will be incorporated the non-quota section. Even if we had agreed to a non-quota system at this stage, the sum would not be any larger. As I have said, the total sum has been agreed. There is still the critical question of sovereignty in regional policy, and regional policy has for far too many years dominated the thinking of British Governments. I shall not surrender power over regional policy, and I want to be sure that the House controls the regional development fund.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further plans he has to increase industrial investment on Merseyside.

Industrial investment on Merseyside qualifies for assistance at the highest level in Great Britain since it was made a special development area in 1974.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Merseyside's already extremely narrow industrial base is being further eroded by announcements of closures and redundancies and that urgent action is desperately needed? Does he also accept that he should take into consideration the establishment of a Merseyside development agency, review regional policy and take on a major promotional campaign to point out the important features that Merseyside has to offer to industrialists, both in Britain and abroad seeking a location?

I understand entirely the strength of genuine feeling of my hon. Friend and his colleagues on this issue. It is important to bear in mind that the problem of Merseyside is not that we have been incapable of getting new jobs there. The difficulty has been our inability to save the jobs already on Merseyside. It may come as a surprise to many when I say that last year 30 new firms established themselves on Merseyside. In the past two years we have let 37 factories. Vauxhall has been expanded by 2,000 jobs. At present YKK is expanding, and the Co-operative Bank is going into the area with 600 jobs. If only we were not losing industries in the area, the record would be satisfactory. The loss is substantially due to the world recession.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite all the tremendous and excellent efforts made by the Government to create employment on Merseyside, there is deep anger among workers on Merseyside, as expressed at the conference yesterday that was held by the trades council, during which it was decided to take a number of steps to bring the position to the Government's attention? Is it not clear that the private enterprise set-up has failed the nation and that we need to extend the publicly owned industries into Merseyside through the National Enterprise Board to set up the development and creation of new jobs?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have only recently given extra powers to the NEB. It is entirely up to the board to decide how it wishes to allocate its resources. As hon. Members are aware, the board, under its guidelines, must take into account the unemployment needs and problems of regions. I am sure that the points that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have been making will be noted by the board.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the total of Government assistance that has been paid to the commercial vehicle manufacturing division of British Leyland.

The public funding of British Leyland has not been allocated by the Government or the NEB to particular operating groups in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It is intended to meet a proportion of the company's overall funding requirements. My right hon. Friend is, of course, required to approve particular investment project costs over £25 million and has already approved two relating to commercial vehicle manufacture: the new assembly hall and the new engineering centre, both at Leyland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the trading position as regards commercial vehicles is relatively prosperous? However, how long will that situation remain if Japanese cars assembled in Ireland are to be dumped in this country? What action will my hon. Friend take, together with his colleagues in the Department of Trade, to prevent that from happening? Will he take a leaf out of the Japanese book of trading tricks so that we may defend ourselves?

My hon. Friend is right. The truck and bus group has made a substantial contribution to making British Leyland Britain's largest net exporter. As regards Japanese cars and light vehicles, I can assure my hon. Friend that the understanding we have with the Japanese is that for cars and light vans their exports to us will stay the same as those for last year, and that no direct commercial vehicle imports will come into Britain. We are watching the situation closely.

Should not the truck and bus group be treated separately? If it is successful, does it need further public investment? Could it not secure investment from the private sector?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we should hive off or sell off one of the more successful parts of British Leyland. I am wondering whether that is now the policy of the whole of his party. I remind him that the truck and bus division will be successful, because we have just approved an assembly hall costing £32 million, an engineering centre costing £34 million, a parts division costing £17 million and investment in Bathgate and Albion costing £50 million. These are all investments with public money.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of the prospective loss of the British Steel Corporation for the current financial year.

On 16th January my right hon. Friend exceptionally announced an estimated loss for 1977–78 of £520 million, including a £50 million allowance for contingencies, which has fortunately proved not to be required. Present indications are that the outturn for the year will be a loss of around £440 million, but I would prefer to await the audited results before giving the House a firm figure.

Could not the new prospective loss of £440 million be reduced if the steel mills that are unprofitable and the steel mills that are grievously over-manned—some of which are in Labour marginal seats—received the sort of surgery that true efficiency requires?

If we chucked workers out of work overnight, as the hon. Gentleman wants in so many sectors of industry, we could reduce a great deal of losses. We could also destroy industrial relations stability in the British Steel Corporation. We could wreck the Corporation. However, that is a consequence of everything that the hon. Gentleman proposes in the House.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tend to rely very much on historical figures when talking about losses? Is it not the case that action could have been taken earlier last summer if his Department's reporting systems were more effective, instead of which his right hon. Friend constantly says that he could not take action earlier in the year and that, in effect, he has to wait for the year ending?

One day we will get it into the hon. Gentleman's head that if we had taken hasty and arbitrary action to chuck workers out of work because of a prospective loss forecast four weeks into a financial year he and his hon. Friends would have been the first to criticise us—or maybe they would not, as they love unemployment so much.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to announce his proposals for improving the productivity, competitiveness and profitability of the British Steel Corporation.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement of 22nd March.

As the Minister has failed to answer questions on and refuses to claim any responsibility for the shameful bankruptcy and rundown of the steel industry, will he now at least admit that the industry's problems are due to its inability to compete in world markets against private enterprise industries abroad? Will he also admit that nationalisation in 1967 has done nothing to solve the problems but a great deal to aggravate them?

Changing the odd date and figure, the hon. Gentleman's remarks could apply exactly to Rolls-Royce, for whose nationalisation he voted.

That is no answer.

asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of the law relating to the disclosure of source funds provided for the conduct of civil lawsuits where the person or persons providing such funds have no recognisable interest in the lawsuits concerned, in the light of the comments recently made by the Honourable Mr. Justice Pain; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The Law Commission recommended in 1966 that criminal and tortious sanctions against the giving of financial or other assistance by persons who have no interest in the subject matter of proceedings should be abolished. That recommendation was implemented in the Criminal Law Act 1967, and my right hon. Friends have no proposals for further changes in the law.

My hon, and learned Friend will realise that this Question alludes to the activities of Messrs. Lewis and McCormick in Newham, North-East. Does he agree that the learned judge's remarks in one of those cases, which were couched in forceful terms, pointed to a very unsatisfactory state of affairs whereby all kinds of people, for questionable motives, shell out money to promote or maintain actions and that the persons concerned have their identities still undisclosed? The learned judge was most anxious that the identities of the persons concerned should be disclosed. Ought not we to do something about them?

I am well aware of Mr. Justice Pain's remarks, and I do not think that I can add anything to them. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is no law which prevents those who have provided the funds from disclosing their identities. Equally, there is no obvious reason why they should not do so or wish to do so. If they do not wish or choose to do so, one is at least entitled to speculate what their motives are for so refusing.

Did the hon, and learned Gentleman hear the Prime Minister the other day deprecating the expulsion from trade unions of people for their political views? Is he aware that people who are expelled from trade unions face the possibility of action against one of the most powerful and wealthy organisations in this country and that, for instance, the ASTMS is trying to expel me for my political views? What are people in my position supposed to do when they cannot cope with the cost of such actions?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I never regard him as one of the world's greatest authorities on trade unions. In any event, I cannot see what possible connection his supplementary question has with Mr. Justice Pain's remarks.

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

Quite soon.

In spite of the fact that the Royal Commission has been appointed to look into a new system of public prosecution in Britain, is there anything that my right hon, and learned Friend can do in the meantime to tidy up the chaotic system of public prosecution in Britain so that, if the Royal Commission makes some radical recommendations, there is something for it to build on when that time comes?

My hon. Friend will be aware that, for the major part, the prosecution system is not within my control or responsibility. I am responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and a major part of the prosecution system consists of the prosecuting solicitors and the police authorities. I entirely agree with what lies behind my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I think that our system is highly piecemeal. It requires to be rationalised. The Director, together with myself and the Home Office, is doing his best to try to effect improvements before the report of the Royal Commission, and I hope that we shall be able to do so.

When the Attorney-General meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he discuss with him the question whether his office is adequately staffed? Might it not make a substantial contribution to the reduction of crime at the present time, when the serious crime rate is alarmingly growing, if decisions were taken which would enable the Director's Department to initiate prosecutions more speedily than it is able to do at present?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making the first of those two points. Indeed, when I see the Director, which is fairly frequently, the subject that he mentioned is often under discussion. The Director is endeavouring to improve matters. He has already had some success, but he knows that, if he needs my help in achieving further success in staffing, I am willing to help him as much as I can.

Will my right hon, and learned Friend confirm that, in our anxiety to see that law and order matters are dealt with properly, the Poulson matters should be finalised? Has the Director of Public Prosecutions anything further to add upon the investigation with relation to Mr. Williams, who disappeared, and in respect of other matters, such as Lonrho? Can he tell us what stage has been reached there in respect of any prosecution and in any of the other related City scandals which have taken place over the last five years?

I made a statement to the House some considerable time ago on the Poulson matter. I have nothing to add so far as concerns any person who was not embraced by that statement.

Will the Attorney-General discuss with the DPP, who is also the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, with a view to representations in Dublin, the failure to extradite convicted prisoners who escape from gaol in Northern Ireland—a distinct matter from the protection given by Irish courts to wanted criminals asserting political motives?

I do not think that this matter arises out of this Question and it is not really a matter for me. But the hon. Gentleman's point has certainly been noted.

Has my right hon, and learned Friend discussed the case of Liddle Towers with the Director of Public Prosecutions recently? If he is successful in his application for opening the inquest on this case, and if new evidence is brought forward, will it be open to the DPP to consider the decision not to bring prosecutions?

I have not discussed the matter with the Director since the Director made his original decision that there was not sufficient evidence to justify prosecutions. It would be foolish for me to speculate about what would happen if there were a resumed inquest.

asked the Attorney-General when he expects to bring forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Phillimore Committee on Contempt of Court, Command Paper No. 5794.

Not before the Government have had an opportunity to consider public and parliamentary reactions to the Green Paper on contempt of court which was published as a Command Paper on 22nd March.

Bearing in mind that the original report was published as long ago as December 1974 and that three and a half years elapsed before the Government thought fit to publish a discussion paper, is my right hon, and learned Friend aware that the continuing delay in reforming this difficult and technical branch of the law is causing real difficulties to journalists and newspapers?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a difficult branch of the law. Because it is a difficult branch of the law and raises some difficult and sensitive quesetions, the Government considered very carefully before they decided that the right course was to isolate the particularly difficult issues by means of a Green Paper and nut them to the public and Parliament for discussion. It is part of the Government's process of open government. Less than three and a half weeks have elapsed since that Green Paper was published. We are hoping that we shall have the views of the House and of the public.

Can the Attorney-General do a little bit better than that? To call this open government makes words rather meaningless. The report was published in December 1974 and it has taken three years for a discussion paper to come out of it. I err on the side of conservatism because it is more than three years. How long will it be before something else happens? The Attorney-General has said that we must await parliamentary and public reaction. How long shall we have to wait for a chance to see what parliamentary reaction is? I see that the Leader of the House has arrived. Can he tell us through the Attorney-General when Parliament will have a chance to express an opinion about it? Can he offer hope of speedier action than is suggested by his answers so far?

The hon, and learned Gentleman always errs on the side of conservatism. I shall await with great interest his contribution to the debate which has been opened by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in his Green Paper. The Leader of the House has heard what the hon, and learned Member has said and he will no doubt take note of it in relation to the possibility of a debate.