asked the Secretary of State for Industry what study he has made of the overlap of powers in bodies involved in the provision of assistance for industrial development.

I keep under continuous review all aspects of assistance to industry, including the complementary nature of the power of the Government and of other agencies.

Would it interest the Minister to know that I have counted at least two dozen committees, bodies and departments on the provision of industrial health in the Greater Manchester area alone? Is it not time for the pruning knife?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his arithmetic but not on his conclusions. I am afraid that most of these bodies have specific remits, and, as he will discover, industry normally has no great difficulty in establishing the appropriate source of finance for its requirements. All companies have to do is to approach the Department's regional offices, and we always aim them in the direction of the type of assistance relevant to their operations.

Is the Minister aware that more than half of all the money that goes in financial assistance to industry for use in research and development is devoted to research and development into armaments? Does he agree that this has a debilitating influence on the ability of British industry to continue to compete in civil and commercial markets?

Order. The hon. Gentleman has widened the Question. Question No. 1 relates to the overlap of powers. There are other Questions on which the hon. Gentleman can put his supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what representations he received from trade unions during his consultations before his recent announcement of financial assistance to Lucas Aerospace.

Discussions with the trade unions on the situation at Lucas Aerospace have taken place on a number of occasions recently.

Will the Minister offer congratulations to the workers in Lucas Aerospace on the breakthrough they achieved last week in the discussions with the company on the corporate plan? Will he now seek to honour the commitment he gave to Labour Members to examine any proposal from the confederation now that that body has called for an inquiry into the role of the Department of Industry in the last two years when it has done nothing to help these workers?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm statement since it was partly through my initiative that lay representatives took part in the meeting on 29th June. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider his latter rather uncharacteristically harsh words. Having said that, I wish to emphasise that if the confederation comes forward with plans or asks for a tripartite meeting, its proposals will be considered. Indeed, I have already told the confederation that, if it wants a tripartite meeting, the Government will convene it.

In the representations made by Lucas workers in my area, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the inner city problems that beset Harlesden, and also remember that the kidney machines made by Lucas are also made in my area and that there is the possibility of an extension along those lines for extra work?

My hon. Friend, with his great knowledge of these matters, draws attention to the fact that Lucas already makes kidney machines—something that is being demanded by the combine committee as a development which has not so far taken place. I shall take account of my hon. Friend's remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to prevent the further decline of the British machine tool industry.

Under the machine tool industry scheme, my Department has made some £30 million available to the industry to promote the development of new products and the modernisation and rationalisation of production facilities. Assistance for the development of new products is also available under the product and process development scheme and through the Mechanical Engineering and Machine Tools Requirements Board. In addition, we are working actively with the machine tools EDC to ensure the achievement of its industrial strategy objectives for the sector.

I am grateful for that answer, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the level of import penetration in the British machine tool market has now reached 48 per cent. and is apparently still growing? Is he also aware that, in addition to the recent devastating announcement of 700 redundancies at Herbert's, we are informed that the training school is being closed, which represents a retreat by that crucial organisation from the business of creating the next generation of skilled labour which is so essential to the survival of the British machine tool industry?

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's long-standing concern for the health of this industry. My hon. Friend will know that recently an additional £10 million in funds has been raised in respect of the Alfred Herbert company. Most of those funds are to be devoted to the modernisation, rationalisation and development of new products. One of the difficulties with Edgwick is that it is a plant with a rather low technology compared with the rest of the industry.

Will the Minister look into the fact that the Employment Protection Act is preventing some of the smaller firms expanding in order to achieve delivery? As evidence of this, will he bear in mind that several of the machine tool exhibitors at the industrial exhibition in Korea told me that the Act was having precisely this effect?

If the hon. Gentleman has information, I should like to see it and I shall naturally draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to any points relevant to his Department. I must emphasise that the fact that a firm is small does not mean that we should expect its workers to accept standards of protection and security of employment which are lower than those elsewhere.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, out of desperate anxiety about the state of their industry, the machine tool workers in Coventry have set up the Coventry machine tool workers committee, with the blessing of the appropriate district committees of their respective unions, with the intention of formulating a plan for their industry? Will he look with favour on such a plan when it is forthcoming?

We welcome any such initiative by a work force demonstrating its concern for the future of its industry. Trade unions are represented on the sector working parties. It is worth bearing in mind that the investment plans of the industry are higher than for any of the last eight years and, in money terms, are more than double the best of the past eight years. In real terms, too, they are considerably above the plans for any of those years.

Can the Minister say whether the Government's denationalisation of Kearney Trecker Marwin is producing the benefits that the Government expected?

That is a specific question and I should prefer notice of it, but from the latest information that I have seen there is nothing to suggest that it has not been beneficial.

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

I am pleased that manufacturing industry increased its investment substantially during last year. This represents encouraging progress towards the levels of investment I would like to see.

When does the Minister expect that investment in manufacturing industry will rise to the level of 1974? Does he agree that if it is to get back to that level there will have to be a substantial increase in the demand for the products of manufacturing industry?

While we would like to see the level of investment increase, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the 1977 level was superior to that of 1972 and 1973, years when the Conservative Government were in power and when, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall, the then Prime Minister called on industry to invest more and pointed out that the Govment had given every inducement to private enterprise to invest but it was still not investing.

When considering the current level of investment in manufacturing, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that North Staffordshire has been very gravely damaged by the crass incompetence of the British Steel Corporation and that the workers have been betrayed by the broken promises of the BSC? When considering inducements to investment, will he bear in mind the situation in North Staffordshire and consider inducements to help new industry go to that part of the country?

My right hon. Friend is seriously considering the representations that my hon. Friend and his accompany- ing delegation made last week. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we recognise the serious position he represented and that his representations will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many planning agreements have been concluded in the private sector at the latest date for which figures are available.

To date, one planning agreement has been concluded in the private sector.

That is an interesting reply. Will the Minister place a specimen planning agreement in the Library so that we can all judge the commitments of both sides? Can he tell us the commitments on the Government's side of the agreement as well as the commitments on the private firm's side? What obligations do the Government enter into?

I suggest that it might be worth while for the hon. Gentleman to look at the documents that are already in the Library. He may find them helpful, and that might save my duplicating what has already been done. Clearly the Government's commitment depends on the sector of industry, the firm and the needs of the firm. Essentially, a planning agreement is an attempt to establish a realistic, continuing relationship between the Government and a firm. It has to relate entirely to the operating circumstances of the firm.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to have a meeting with the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry.

My right hon. Friend and I will both be seeing the president and the director general of the Confederation of British Industry this evening.

When the Minister and his right hon. Friend meet the chairman of the CBI, will they draw his attention to the results of a research survey by Opinion Research Centre published in The Daily Telegraph today which showed that the vast majority of the electorate, including those who have tended to vote Labour, are against any further extension of nationalisation? Will he tell the chairman that, in view of this fact, the Government propose substantially to revise their industrial strategy?

I leave it to the CBI representatives to decide their own reading, but I shall certainly take the opportunity to draw their attention to the disastrous consequences of an abandonment of industrial strategy which is implied in the comments from Conservative Benches, particularly the Front Bench. If I get the opportunity, I shall also ask what the CBI leaders think of the possible abandonment of present regional policy, which seems to be outlined in certain comments on the proposed policies of the Opposition.

When my right hon. Friend meets CBI representatives, will he draw to their attention the article in The Sunday Times yesterday that appeared to show that the largest industries in this country pay virtually no corporation tax? Is this not rather strange, bearing in mind the attitude of the CBI on taxation?

There is probably no need to draw that article to the attention of the CBI because all it says is what I and my colleagues have repeated on various occasions at the Dispatch Box, namely, that a company in this country with a continuing investment programme does not have a tax bill by the time it has received its grants and tax allowances. Unfortunately, that seems to come as a great surprise to Conservative Members.

Will the Minister discuss with the CBI the level of industrial profits in real terms which are catastrophically low if there is to be any hope of more jobs and more investment? Will he also discuss with the CBI whether it would be helpful for the Government to spend less so that they needed to take less out of industry?

There is no difference of view on the fact that it is good for industry to be profitable because profitable industry can invest and sustain employment. We take that for granted. I am encouraged by the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, in the last six months before the recent Budget, the liquidity of the top 20 firms improved by more than £1 billion.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the CBI last week's comments on the radio by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who appeared, on behalf of the Opposition, to abandon all responsibility for wages in the public and private sectors?

What is frightening about the situation outlined by the Opposition is that they intend, apparently, to allow wages to be free in the private sector while operating a discriminating clampdown in the public sector. This is somewhat difficult to reconcile with their crocodile tears over the nurses, forces, teachers, firemen and any other workers in the public sector who make a wage claim.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the leaders of the CBI, will he discuss with them the competitive investment disadvantage of firms in areas such as my own and that of North Fylde, which do not have development area status and have to compete with firms that receive substantial capital grants because their areas have development area status? Will he discuss with them in particular firms in my constituency and fish processors in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg)?

If I take the advice of Opposition Members, it seems that my discussions with the CBI will overflow into the early hours of the following morning. I doubt whether I shall be discussing the issues that have been raised with the CBI representatives. I reiterate that the CBI has always recognised the need for a strong regional policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he proposes next to meet the chairman of British Aerospace.

I shall meet the chairman of British Aerospace later today.

At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend be able to give the chairman news of Government approval for the HS146 project, which is vital not only to my constituency but to the whole of the civil airframe industry?

I shall be discussing with the chairman of British Aerospace collaborative possibilities and the HS146. I ask my hon. Friend to await the views of the Government, which will be set out later this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he speaks in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker).

When the right hon. Gentleman next sees the chairman, will he make it plain who is responsible for the overall market strategy of the corporation? Is it the chairman and his board, or is it the Secretary of State?

We look to British Aerospace to give the Government advice about the commercial benefits of collaboration, of the HS146 and of other such projects. However, at the end of the day British Aerospace has to come to the Government for financial resources. We have a view, and we shall make that view known. At the end of the day we shall look to the board of British Aerospace to give us the best advice available.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the Post Office.

I have no immediate plans to meet the chairman of the Post Office. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met the chairman on 26th June.

Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the chairman on the breach of the Post Office monopoly implied by the recently renewed licence for the Hull telephone department? Will he urge him to continue the good work by relinquishing the Post Office stranglehold on British air waves, which has inhibited the development of direct person-to-person telecommunications compared with developments that have taken place in the United States? Will he point out that unless the monopoly is weakened the record £360 million profit for this year will be seen as the exploitation of a captive market?

That shows that we cannot win. When a public corporation makes a loss, there are screams of anguish from Opposition Members. When the Post Office or any other public corporation makes a profit, it is seen as some sort of exploitation of a monopoly. It was I who renewed the licence for Hull. We have made it a condition of the licence that there will be no private interests involved. We shall be publishing a White Paper in due course in response to the Carter report, which will adequately answer the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

What is happening about the companies whose boards are littered with top Tories who relieved the Post Office of about £9 million by the most dubious means?

At the Government's insistence there was a renegotiation of the contract and the rebate has now been paid. There were those who urged that we should not involve ourselves, but here is a good example of Government intervention which I think is satisfactory to the corporation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early meeting with the chairman to ascertain what is happening about the dispute with the telephone engineers? Will he ascertain, for instance, how many people have been unable to have telephones installed or connected over the whole of this year because of the dispute? Will he make it clear that he condemns industrial action that consists of employees deciding which parts of their work they will do and which parts they will not do?

I very much regret the difficulty that has been caused by the industrial action of the Post Office engineers. I have made that view known to the engineers direct. That is why I asked Lord McCarthy to inquire into the dispute. About three weeks ago we thought that some third party assistance would be necessary to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. I understand that we are likely to receive the report later this week. In the circumstances, I think that it would be unwise of me to make any further comment.

I revert to the issue concerning Pirelli Cables and others and the Post Office. Would it not be wise for my right hon. Friend to urge the Post Office to reveal the true amount lost over many years as a result of the cartel and the price fixing that was taking place? Does not he agree that it is rather ironic that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who seems to be anxious to use his Committee on many occasions to try to embarrass nationalised industries, has not stepped in to examine the details of the arrangement?

I thought that a good deal of information had been made available by the Post Office. If the House requires further information, I shall ascertain whether it may be made available. It is not for me to ask a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances of nationalised industries or anything of that sort. If the Public Accounts Committee or the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries wishes to do that, no doubt it will address itself to the question.

I revert to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many businesses are deeply concerned at the Government's lack of action on the Post Office engineering dispute? Does he agree that delays in modernising the network are serious both for users and for the electronics industry? Should not the Government have appointed a mediator earlier? What are they proposing to do about it now? The dispute is long standing.

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in suggesting that over the years of modernisation in telecommunications Post Office engineers have not co-operated to the full. They have a good record of assisting. In no way can they be regarded as Luddites. They feel strongly about the reduction in their working week. It is a long-standing claim. I regret very much the inconvenience that has been caused. I hope that Lord McCarthy's report, which I hope will be received later this week, will be the basis for calling off industrial action and settling the dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much financial assistance to industry has been given to the Yorkshire and Humberside region over each of the past three years; and what are the amounts granted for the South Yorkshire area.

With permission, I will publish the detailed information in the Official Report, but the total financial assistance made available to industry in the Yorkshire and Humberside region over the past three years amounts to £129,840,000. It is expected that offers of assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 included in this total will give rise to 19,000 jobs and safeguard 3,700 jobs in the region.

Does my hon. Friend realise that that figure means that the Yorkshire and Humberside region has been dealt with unfairly and unjustly compared with the treatment of other regions? Is he aware that there are large pockets of low wages and unemployment in the region? Is he aware that in the Dearne Valley the Manvers Main coking plant has already declared redundancies? We are informed that there is a great danger of its being closed down. It seems that the Government will not carry out the promise that they made a few years ago to build a chemical plant to replace it.

The Government fully realise the difficulties occurring in many parts of the country. Yorkshire and Humberside has received more than its fair share of section 8 assistance. Those in the region have been extremely forthright, as one would expect from Yorkshire people, in taking advantage of the many generous schemes that the Government have introduced. The Government offer generous schemes of assistance to the regions and nationally through section 8 schemes. They offer to private industry the most generous tax incentives throughout the whole of western Europe in the form of 100 per cent. grants on investment in plant and machinery. There are difficulties, but some of them must be ascribed to the failure of private industry to take advantage of the schemes that have been offered.

Will the hon. Gentleman examine the wool textile industry's claim on effluent charges? Is he aware that a report has been made by the Yorkshire Water Authority and the wool textile industry and submitted to his right hon. Friend? Will he agree to consider the matter to ascertain whether the issue may be resolved?

I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to recognise the fact that the Department of Industry met representatives from the industry some months ago and that, as a result, we jointly agreed to set up the working party that he described. We have received a report and are examining the matter with considerable urgency, because we are concerned that the wool textile industry should maintain its competitive position in world trade.

Why should not central assistance also include the conferring of adequate capacity to secure the vigorous development of attractive industrial

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

Page asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to have a meeting with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman very frequently.

Since the National Enterprise Board is now investing £1,000 million of taxpayers' money, does not the Minister think that he should obtain from the chairman a rather more coherent and precise definition of the NEB's strategy at the present time? In particular, is he aware that there is considerable

My hon. Friend has raised a detailed point. If he wants to expand on it, I hope that he will write to me. Certainly, from the point of view of the provision of industrial sites, the Department of Industry, through the English Industrial Estates Corporation, makes every possible endeavour to provide not only large and medium advance factories but small advance factories to encourage small firms to act as inducements to private enterprise to go to these areas and to provide jobs.

The confusion is in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends. There is absolutely no confusion in the minds of the many workers who have benefited from the NEB's investments, including those of my constituents who work for the NEB's subsidiary, Fairey Engineering.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he draw to his attention our concern that, if the big investment in microcircuits and silicon chips is to go ahead, which may have many desirable features, there should be an adequate balance of risk between the national capital provided and that of certain individuals who stand to gain enormously from it?

I take account of the point made by my hon. Friend. I am glad to hear that he believes that this investment is inherently desirable, unlike the utterly extraordinary statement by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in his letter of 19th June to my right hon. Friend, in which he said:

"Many informed people do not consider it prudent to attempt, at this stage, to catch up the Japanese and Americans in the volume production of general purpose computer chips without multinational backing."

As the NEB made only £34 million last year, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that it does not slide down the same path as that already followed by the Italian equivalent of the NEB, which owes £11 billion and needs another £3 billion to £4 billion to keep it going?

The hon. Gentleman voted for the NEB to slide down a path when he voted to deny it money, but I am glad that the House defeated him and his right hon. and hon. Friends and gave the NEB the necessary funds.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the NEB, will he inform him that it was a matter of some regret that in the Northern region, where there is a very high level of unemployment, the NEB contributed to that high level by a recent closure? Will he also inform the chairman that in future we shall be looking to higher and more profitable investment by the NEB?

I am aware of the great regret felt by a number of my hon. Friends and of the strong representations that they made on the matter to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The NEB took that decision. It was not one that we were able to dispute or to intervene in. I certainly take full account of what my hon. Friend has said. That was one of the reasons why we opened a regional office of the NEB in Newcastle, and why the special NEB for the north-east was set up. I hope that initiatives will be taken to increase employment in my hon. Friend's area.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that, as admittedly appears from a leak, the partners in the proposed NEB scheme are to be paid in part abroad is a clear indication that people of enterprise cannot be expected to take risks in the tax climate provided by the present Government?

The fact is that the people of enterprise went away under the Conservative Government's tax climate and that they are coming back under ours.

Mr. Joan Evans.

rose—

Order. I shall call the right hon. Gentleman next. Mr. Joan Evans.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the failure of the private sector to invest in manufacturing industry, the NEB will need to play an increasing role in future? Although this is an academic question, because of the concern expressed by workers whose jobs have been saved by the NEB, may I ask whether we have had any view from the Opposition on what they would do with the NEB in future?

I fully accept my hon. Friend's view that the NEB should have an increasing role. It is in fact praise-worthily expanding its role all the time. Of course, there is great fear that, if the Opposition were to come to office, they would abolish the NEB. When I met the shop stewards of Fairey Engineering, their great fear was that their security of employment—many of them live in Manchester, including Moss Side—would be undermined by the activities of the Tory Opposition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm or deny that the partners from abroad in the microprocessors scheme are proposing to be paid, in part at least, overseas in order to escape United Kingdom taxation?

What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that any matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am endeavouring to do so to the best of my ability, limited though it is. The right hon. Gentleman knows that any matters on taxation are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the Exchequer. But I have also said, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated in reply to that weird letter from the right hon. Gentleman, that any information about these matters which is not commercially confidential and which can properly be made available will be made available by the National Enterprise Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now issue a general direction to the Post Office to cease its policy of requiring deposits from all telephone subscribers in certain areas in addition to the usual installation charges.

No, Sir. But I understand that the Post Office is considering this matter in the light of consultations it has held with the Post Office Users' National Council.

Has not the Post Office Users' National Council protested against this grossly unfair £50 deposit? Is not this blanket discrimination against everyone living in certain working class areas, whether good payers or not, absolutely contrary to our ideas of justice? Will my hon. Friend therefore scrap the scheme, as has already been done in certain areas, such as the Midlands?

I recognise that my hon. Friend has expressed a genuine and continuing concern about this matter, and I note that he has echoed it today. To set this matter in perspective, I should tell him that last year the Post Office had to write off £15 million in unpaid bills after making all efforts to make creditors pay up. Because of that, I think it is right that the Post Office should consider the matter appropriately, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that if a policy such as that followed by the Hull Post Office were pursued there would be no deposit?

It is easy to make such comparisons as that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pay tribute to municipal enterprise, I hope that he will be joined by others of his hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary' of State for Industry what steps he proposes to take towards the implementation of a planning agreement with Lucas Aerospace on the basis of the corporate plan for saving jobs by useful production; and whether he will discuss these proposals with the shop stewards combine committee and appropriate trade union officials

The Government would welcome a planning agreement with Lucas Aerospace and my right hon. Friend has recently reminded the Lucas group of the advantages. The combine shop stewards committee corporate plan is appropriately the subject of discussion between the unions and company management.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), which implied that the Lucas workers were not even aware that they were making kidney machines, was unworthy and slanderous? May I recommend my right hon. Friend to give more attention to the detail of this plan, from which he would learn that the Lucas Aerospace workers want expansion of kidney machine production and the production of portable machines? May I suggest that a serious effort be made by his Department to understand the valuable work which has been done by these workers if it is to have any chance of formulating a successful planning agreement with the company?

If my hon. Friend had spent as much time as I in discussions with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the Lucas workers on the corporate plan, as distinct from making public sloganeering statements, she would know that I have involved myself for two and a half years in this issue. She would also know that it was the initiative that I undertook in discussions with Ken Gill that helped to lead, for the first time, to representation by the combine committee in discussions with Lucas management. That breakthrough took place following my discussion with Mr. Ken Gill.

I thank the Minister for giving us another glimpse of the authentic voice of the kitchen Cabinet. I do not wish to intervene in the fratricidal argument between the Government Front and Back Benches, but does the Minister recall telling us one, two and three years ago how planning agreements were absolutely central to the Government's economic strategy? However, he told us a few minutes ago that one planning agreement only has been reached in the private sector in the four years of office of this Government. If we are to believe the Government in saying that there has been a staggering economic recovery in the last three years and particularly in the last few months, is that in spite of or because of the lack of planning agreements?

The hon. Member has drawn attention to the importance of planning agreements. Much advice has been given to the Minister of State on matters which he should raise with the CBI when he sees its members tonight. I shall be in his company and I shall advise him to tell the CBI that its hostility to planning agreements is shortsighted and blinkered, and that planning agreements can help individual companies as well as the Government's industrial strategy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) is about worthy of his Department at present? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Will he note that the change that took place last week followed the accession of Mr. Roy Grantham to the position of leading for the confederation? Why did no Minister from his Department take part in the programme for the Open Uuniversity on the Lucas corporate plan?

I realise that taking part in Open University television programmes is a high priority in the Socialist industrial strategy. I also notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) not only votes with the Opposition but wins their cheers. If my hon. Friend, instead of writing letters to newspapers and making speeches, had taken positive action, we might have achieved earlier the type of meeting with the lay representatives of the combine that eventually came about as a result of the patient work of Ministers in the Department of Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much assistance has been given to private industry under the Industry Act 1972 to the latest available date.

Up to 31st May 1978 offers of selective financial assistance totalling £415 million were made to private industry under the Industry Act 1972. In addition, in the same period, payments of regional development grant totalled £1,513 million, the larger part of which went to private industry.

Is not one of the ironies of modern politics that these colossal sums of taxpayers' money are paid to private companies, many of which donate lavish sums to the Conservative Party, whose industrial spokesman regularly condemns all grants and subsidies as doing great harm?

I agree. I find it incredible that industry should place any reliance whatsoever upon the so-called policy enunciated by the Opposition Front Bench. I gather that section 8 would be abandoned, and I understand that the Conservatives have no intention of going ahead with the industrial strategy. They are ambivalent but are inclined to talk about abandoning the National Enterprise Board. It would be a disaster for the country if they were elected.

Will the Minister confirm press reports that the Secretary of State for Industry has advised workers at the Chrysler plant at Linwood that no more Government funds will be made available to that company? Will he join me in deploring the irresponsibility of those at Linwood who failed yesterday to turn up for a meeting in such numbers that the costly dispute could not be resolved?

I am sure that the hon. Member has seen the reports of what my right hon. Friend said during his Linwood visit. On Friday I chaired a meeting of workers' representatives and Chrysler management in Coventry. I made it clear that if a pay settlement was reached that was in breach of the Government's guidelines, Government financial support could not be provided.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with industrial progress in the Northern region.

We shall continue to do everything practical to promote industrial investment and employment in the Northern region. The north's share of the United Kingdom's investment in manufacturing has increased during the past eight years and regional policy has made a useful contribution to this increase.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I accept the difficulties of running a regional policy at a time of recession, but does he agree that there is now a case for a new ingredient in regional policy in the Northern region? Does he agree that there is a strong argument for a northern regional development agency matched by regional, democratic control?

That view has been promoted by representatives of the Northern Region. But we are satisfied with our regional policy. It represents an intervention in the economy against the private enterprise doctrines of the Opposition, who would seek to abandon regional policy. We have made the whole of the region either a special development area or a development area. In 1976–77 £237 million was spent in the Northern region. But we are satisfied jobs and retain manufacturing industry there. We are always open to further representations.

Before the Minister castigates private enterprise too much, will he say whether it is his policy to encourage private enterprise small firms in the Northern region?

We are encouraging small firms in the Northern region, as we are in every assisted area, by a variety of means. On 1st July we introduced the small firms employment subsidy to encourage small firms to take on new employees. The point that I was making earlier was in direct contrast to the view of the Conservative Party—that private enterprise should be left totally alone. If that happened, the regions would be totally denuded because private enterprise would almost certainly drift away from the regions towards London and the south-east. Only through Government support measures has industry developed in the regions with traditionally high unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the volume of steel produced and the volume sold by the British Steel Corporation in the last three months and in the same period in 1976 and 1977.

This information is properly a matter for the British Steel Corporation, but I am arranging for a table giving this information to be published in the Official Report.

Given the present low level of world steel demand, is it not clear that the recent story that the British Steel Corporation will be selling off its successful enterprises in South Yorkshire is rather ridiculous? Will the Minister echo Sir Charles Villiers' firm denial of this story, which is clearly a squalid and silly manoeuvre to frighten Labour voters in the Penistone by-election?

That report has been repudiated by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. The Government fully endorse the chairman's statement on that matter.

Will the Minister make it clear to the House that the British Steel Corporation will be unable to increase its sales to British industry unless it modernises its productive process? Will he also remind the trade unions of that?

I shall also remind the Opposition of that since they voted against the borrowing powers to provide the money for modernisation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that sales of steel in this country have been affected, despite an agreement with the EEC, by the amounts of steel being made available in the EEC, allegedly to be shipped outside the EEC but which are coming into this country in contravention of the agreement? Will he consult other Ministers so that representations may be made to other EEC countries?

I am willing to consider any information that is sent to me. I am willing to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for Trade.

Was not production in both periods in question affected by the stockpiling schemes under which hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was provided to finance anti-cyclical production of steel? Is it not the case that, in spite of this money being put into the BSC, there are shortages of certain types of steel, particularly of mild rolling bar? In view of the amount of money that has been spent, how does the Minister explain the severe shortages which exist?

This is in part due to the fact that the corporation is not yet fully equipped to provide all sections of the market. The programme that it has undertaken for modernisation and for quality improvement, which is very important, can assist, but one does not deny that serious problems exist.