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

I have frequent contact with the chairman on a wide range of matters affecting the Corporation.

Will the Minister seek an early meeting with Sir Charles Villiers to discuss the report in the Sunday Express yesterday that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) wrote a letter to himself and claimed that it came from Sir Charles? If Sir Charles was in any way involved, will the Minister sack him immediately?

I did not see the report. However, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said I shall read it to see whether it requires further investigation.

Will my right hon. Friend be having discussions with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on more important matters; for example, the future closure programme? Does he agree that the Government would be wise to curtail severely the import of steel? Will he say what discussions, if any, he has had with private companies about their levels of imports? The Ford Motor Company Ltd. at Dagenham seems to be attempting to put the BSC out of of business.

We are trying to encourage, as far as practicable, all British companies to use British steel. I have heard reports about the steel being used by Ford. That is being investigated. The market for steel is still being badly affected by the world depression. About 5 million tons of new steel capacity will come on stream in the next few months at Ravenscraig and Redcar. That will seriously affect older plants in the country.

Will the Minister make it plain that no closures have been agreed upon by the Government which have yet to be announced?

The policy of the Government on closures was set out in the White Paper "British Steel Corporation: The Road to Viability", which was discussed in the House some time ago and in which we said that any closures must be discussed with the TUC steel committee and the local work force. That policy is being carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board about the future viability of Inmos.

My right hon. Friend has had several discussions with the chairman about the Inmos project.

Will the Minister confirm—or deny—that Inmos has yet to decide the precise product range in which it will be involved? Since three out of five members of the original design team left, has not there been some confusion surrounding what Inmos would do?

I cannot agree with some of the rumours to which the hon. Gentleman has given voice. My information is that Inmos is putting together a successful and acknowledged team throughout the world and that its programme and schedule are very much on target.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Government supporters are concerned about the location of Inmos? Does he agree that it would be outrageous if this important development were not sited in an assisted area?

I think that my right hon. Friend speaks for many Government supporters. Indeed, many members of the Opposition have made similar representations. My right hon. Friends have already made it clear that we believe that the production units of Inmos should be sited in an assisted area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Enterprise Board should be congratulated on keeping us in this area of new technology? Without the initiative of public enterprise our balance of payments would have suffered by becoming many hundreds of millions of pounds in deficit. That is not the only advantage. There is now an opportunity to provide jobs in this new area. That is very important.

My hon. Friend speaks for all Government supporters. What he says makes a constructive and positive contribution, in complete contradiction to the carping criticism that we normally get from the Opposition.

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

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

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Post Office frequently.

What are the latest prospects for clearing the substantial backlog of delayed mail and restoring the postal services to normal deliveries?

There are problems about this because of the unofficial action that has been taking place. However, an offer has now been made and a ballot will take place. In view of that we hope that the industrial action will be discontinued. That certainly is our wish.

Will the Minister impress upon the chairman of the Post Office the necessity of getting from the postal trade unions a guarantee that throughout the currency of the general election they will guarantee the best levels of performance in the Post Office?

I fully accept that that is the wish of the House. In expressing that wish we should congratulate the Post Office on the way in which it serves the nation.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Post Office will he impress upon him that in my constituency there is under construction the biggest bridge in the world? I refer to the Humber bridge. We have asked him to commemorate that by the issue of a stamp, but he seems slow to take up the point. As it looks as though the bridge will be further delayed for a year, may we have the stamp next year?

I shall draw the attention of the chairman of the Post Office to the wish expressed by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of the Post Office the failure of the Government to market the view data Prestel system? Will he look at the reasons why this system has not been promoted, bearing in mind that his right hon. Friend said it would be?

That is a stupid, carping remark which so ill-becomes our exchanges in the House. Prestel leads the world. It is a major technological development, and the Post Office is doing a superb job in putting it across. The hon. Gentleman should put whatever mental faculties he has to dealing with other matters.

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), will the Minister give the House the latest information about the volume of mail that has been held up by this serious unofficial action in London? Is it not deplorable that the Post Office should be reduced to asking customers to post only essential letters?

I recall that there was much more widespread action when the Conservatives were in office and found it impossible to do anything to deal with the issue. They did not invoke the law. There has been a good deal of interference with the proper delivery of the mails because of this industrial action. It has taken place in London. There are problems also in Newport and Nottingham. We all wish the proper delivery of the posts to take place. However, this kind of disturbance has taken place before. No Government, of whichever party, have found a way of forcing postmen to deliver letters if they wish to take industrial action.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory and surprisingly offensive answer by right hon. Member, who may not be with us much longer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to answer the debate next month.

Order. I hope to be here myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the index of production in manufacturing industry in the most recent month for which figures are available; and what was the figure for the same month in 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the current level of manufacturing production.

The provisional estimate of the index of production for manufacturing in January 1979 is 94·9, based on 1975=100. The level of production in that month was abnormally low because of the transport disputes and adverse weather. The corresponding figure for January 1974 was 101·8. Much of the production lost in January of this year will be made up in the next few months.

Do not those figures show that the effect of industrial disputes on manufacturing production in January this year under a Labour Government was much greater than their effect under a Conservative Government during the three-day working week in 1974? Is not this especially serious when we consider the increase that there should have been in manufacturing capacity over the past five years?

It shows no such thing, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware of that. He knows that a major factor in the comparative figures has been the world recession. As I indicated when we last had questions on this subject, the January drop in production was about 10 per cent. The important feature of the two disputes is that, as I indicated in my reply, most of the production lost this time will be made up within a few months. We recall the catastrophic nature of the three-day working week. In those days I was shadowing the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. Two years later we were still facing the shortages that arose from the three-day working week.

Will the Minister accept that that is not true, and that the effects of the lorry drivers' strike are still being felt in manufacturing industry? The Government stand indicated for the low rates of productivity, which are due to high taxes, trade union interference and all the things that are a disincentive to industry and manufacturing to create the wealth of this nation.

These misunderstandings will all be clarified in the next few weeks. The low productivity of this country owes much to the fact that investment in manufacturing industry collapsed under the Conservative Administration. We have had to restructure investment and rebuild it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) puts beyond doubt the belief that the Tory Party has an obsession with industrial disputes? The hon. Gentleman referred to the industrial disputes which took place under the Tory Government, and he then referred to the industrial disputes of this winter, for which the Tories were primarily responsible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much better if the Conservative Party took to heart the message of the Prime Minister and concentrated on co-operation with industry, rather than confrontation?

I am afraid that it is alarming to recognise that the Opposition seem to be hell-bent on a policy of continuous confrontation. If the country wishes to see not just a continuation but an acceleration of the type of unrest that we have seen during this winter, it needs only to elect Conservative Members.

The Minister referred to the lorry drivers and the weather in explaining the January figures. Will he confirm that between the autumn of 1973 and the autumn of 1978 there was a fall of 6 per cent. in the level of production by manufacturing industry in this country? Is not that a clear indication of the failure of the Government's so-called industrial strategy and the damage that has been done by creating a climate of the sort so clearly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr Neubert)?

That the hon. Member can ask such a question is an indication that Conservative Members have had their heads firmly buried in the sand for some years. We have the greatest world recession since 1930. The fall in production has been widespread in many countries and not just here.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent communications he has had with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board about United Medical Enterprises Ltd.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 19 February.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be considerable satisfaction that, after the quite disgraceful bribery in which this company indulged under private enterprise, it can, now that it has a new chairman, under the National Enterprise Board, look forward to a solid future? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of the NEB in saving firms such as this—which had been carried on under the unacceptable face of capitalism—and running them properly is a very important one which ought to be sustained?

I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said, and I congratulate him and my other hon. Friends—

And Lord Ryder.

on the way in which they have pursued this matter. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the healthy way in which the NEB intervenes. The matters about which he has been properly concerned are as nothing to the jiggery-pokery that would go on if the Tory Party got its hands on the NEB and brought about the forced sale of NEB holdings in Fairey Engineering, ICL and Ferranti.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when a version of the British Leyland corporate plan will be placed in the Library.

I am today placing in the Library of the House a report by the National Enterprise Board on BL's corporate plan and performance in 1978. The Government have accepted the NEB's recommendations that we should continue to support BL's plans and that, on the assumption that the Industry Bill becomes law, the NEB should provide £150 million in new equity funds to assist in meeting BL's financial requirements in 1979.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but will he tell the House whether the corporate plan foresaw any collaboration with the Japanese in the production of motor vehicles in this country? Will he give us an assurance that any agreement so reached will be subject to approval by this House, in view of the extent of public funds involved? Will he also give us an assurance that the £150 million is for current projects of BL and is in no way connected with those which might be the subject of any such agreement with the Japanese?

I too have seen the speculative newspaper reports, but the NEB—in reports to this House last year and in the continuing reports—has always said that it takes note of BL's wish to establish co-operative ventures on a mutually convenient basis with other countries and with foreign companies. The Government share that view, as I made plain when we last debated this matter in the House a few months ago. It is for British Leyland to judge, in the first instance, which companies and which projects offer the best opportunity, but I give the House the assurance that, in the last analysis, it will be for the NEB and for the Government to approve any joint venture.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, should there be a change of Government, the funds to which he referred would, as the Financial Times put it today, be at risk, and that therefore future projects such as the further development of the Land-Rover, the Range Rover, the super Mini and the Marina substitute project would be jeopardised, and with them the jobs of many thousands of British Leyland workers?

I am not at all sure about the Opposition's policy on British Leyland or the NEB. It is not very clear. For example, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said on one occasion that he is very much in favour of the NEB and wants to support it. He gave a press interview in Birmingham at which he said he was in favour of British Leyland. I am not quite so sure about the attitude of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I think that it is still official Conservative policy that the NEB should be abolished.—[Interruption.]—There we have confirmation from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) will note that. British Leyland has made progress over the last 12 months. There is no doubt about that. The workers and management of British Leyland have improved their overall performance significantly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember emphasising on many occasions that further cash from the taxpayer for British Leyland would depend upon rising output per man and a rising market share? Have output per man and market share improved?

The House will note that the right hon. Gentleman has not confirmed whether he and his party, if they had the chance, would continue to support British Leyland. That will be noted in such places as Birmingham and Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman knows that BL's performance has improved over the past 12 months. The future prospects of BL depend, of course, on improving performance, on ensuring that there is not an interruption in production and on getting the products into the showroom quickly. I have said that on many occasions and it is widely accepted not only in this House but in British Leyland.

The Secretary of State has asked about the Opposition's policy on the NEB and on BL. What is the Government's policy? What is the Secretary of State's policy about advancing more and more taxpayers' money to BL? Already more than £600 million of taxpayers' money has been advanced to British Leyland, and now the right hon. Gentleman is talking of another £150 million. What is the limit in the mind of the Secretary of State as to how much taxpayers' money he is prepared to invest in British Leyland?

Our policies on British Leyland and on the National Enterprise Board are clear. They have been made clear on every possible occasion in the House. We shall want to see the NEB strengthened, because it has been one of the most helpful industrial organisations to be established since the war. The only doubt is whether, should the Opposition be elected to power, that organisation will continue. I am not sure that, if the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) were to represent British Leyland workers in any part of the country, he would take the attitude that he is adopting today. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), who put down the question, has never taken that view. In fact, I think that he will be taking a contrary view from that of the hon. Member for Canterbury when he faces the electorate.

First, how many jobs would be lost directly if British Leyland were to collapse? Secondly, how many jobs would be lost indirectly, particularly among workers in component and other supplying companies to British Leyland throughout the United Kingdom?

I do not have the precise figures in my head, but about 200,000 people work directly for British Leyland. Probably twice as many work for the supplying companies. British Leyland is still our largest exporter, and that fact should be borne in mind by all hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now make the conclusion of a planning agreement a condition of grant-aid to major private companies.

Government policy remains as stated in the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry" and during the debate on the Industry Bill 1975 by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some private enterprise multinationals behave like medieval barons, as Thorn did last year in Bradford when it sacked 2,300 people, put them on the dole, imported hundreds of thousands of items from abroad, stamped them with English names and sold them in the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that these vast multinationals, with a fair degree of financial support from the Government, should show greater public accountability and responsibility to the nation as a whole in the preservation and extension of jobs, and that a future Labour Government must ensure that financial aid is tied to planning agreements?

The Government side of the House remains committed to planning agreements, though not necessarily linked to grant provisions. Whether planning agreements are to be made compulsory is a matter for the manifesto. I suggest that we wait until it is published.

So that the House may better understand planning agreements, will the Minister of State explain what happens when a company which has entered into a planning agreement of the kind that his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) wishes get a telegram from an overseas salesman saying that he can get a contract that will enable the company to take on another 1,000 men? Does the company cable back saying "We have a planning agreement. We do not want the contract"? Does he agree that in such circumstances planning agreements make nonsense?

This utter claptrap from the Opposition and the CBI has led to a grave misunderstanding of planning agreements. As I have indicated from this Dispatch Box previously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I am delighted to tell hon. Members. Planning agreements, far from being rigid, could hardly be more flexible than in the case of Chrysler, because they made it possible for the company to be taken over.

Will the Minister confirm that the only item of industrial policy upon which the Government and the Left Wing of the Labour Party are agreed is that they wish to take statutory powers to force companies to enter into planning agreements? Is he aware that the Opposition regard that as the clearest indication that if there were any chance of a Labour Government being returned to power they would return to the Left wing industrial policies of the first two years of the present Government's period in office?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that industry is far more worried about the financial policies projected by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) than about planning agreements.

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

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

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

My right hon. Friend met the chairman on 20 March.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all aspects of the public funding of the RR-535 engine are publicly accountable? Will he also give an estimate of the extent of that public funding up to this moment and of the profitability of the project, given the hostility of the Conservative Party and of the recent Treasury memorandum?

We hope to be in a position before the Dissolution to provide more of the detailed information requested by my hon. Friend. However, it is important for all workers in Rolls-Royce areas to know that their employment would be placed in jeopardy if the Conservative Party were to gain control of the NEB and its investment policies.

When the Minister of State—or one of the junior Ministers—meets the chairman of the National Enterprise Board, will he advise him that no new investment, apart from the immediate needs of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce, should be made until after the outcome of the general election?

I shall tell the chairman of the NEB that if the Conservative Party gets its hands on Fairey Engineering, ICL and Ferranti the employment of thousands of my constituents, who know that their jobs are safeguarded by the NEB, would be placed in jeopardy. I shall be making continual reference to these matters during the next five weeks.

Will my right hon. Friend press the NEB to intensify its activities in West Yorkshire, especially having regard to the forecast of anticipated job losses in the Yorkshire woollen industry over the next few years? Secondly, will he undertake that the nine sites in Yorkshire which have been suggested for the Inmos installation, including one in Elland in my constituency, will be visited and examined urgently by both Inmos and NEB officials?

My hon. Friend has approached the Department about possible involvement in a company in his area which has problems. It will be recognised that the policy of the Conservative Party is not only to abolish the National Enterprise Board but, in the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), to do away with grants and subsidies. Therefore, my hon. Friend's constituents could say goodbye to any possibility of the NEB saving that company.

When the Minister of State next sees the chairman of the NEB, will he try to find out the exact product range of Inmos? The Under-Secretary of State did not seem to know.

Announcements have been made about the product range of Inmos. It will make 64K standard silicon chips. If the Conservative Party has its way, the product range of Inmos will be nil because it will do away with it.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of the NEB to take an interest in the special steels industry in Sheffield, which is getting into a worse mess because of the incompetence of private enterprise?

This is an exceptionally serious problem, and I discussed it with Commissioner Davignon last week. My hon. Friend may be sure that we are looking after the interests of the steel industry. At the ministerial council meeting in Brussels this week we shall be standing up to prevent the Commission getting its hands on Britain's steel aids.

Will the Minister of State congratulate the chairman of the National Enterprise Board on the decision of Rolls-Royce to invest in North America as being a considerable guarantee for that company's future and for all those who work in it?

I shall certainly do that. It is yet another of the merits of public enterprise in the NEB, which the public will come to realise even more during the next few weeks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Birmingham city council has put in a bid for one of the Inmos sites? Will he assure the House that NEB and Inmos officials will at least visit the two sites in Birmingham which were put forward, with all-party support, by the Tory-controlled Birmingham city council?

I shall certainly ask the NEB if it will do that. If the Conservative Party were to come to power, Birmingham would qualify because its problems would be such that it would have to be made an assisted area.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry to what extent the number of employees in the British Steel Corporation fell during the 12 months ended 31 March 1979; and to what extent he expects the number to fall during the year ending 31 March 1980.

I understand that the latest available figures show that during the 11 months to the end of February 1979 the number of people employed by the British Steel Corporation fell by some 10,800. Future levels of employment are a matter for the Corporation and the unions concerned.

To what extent does the Secretary of State consider that there is overmanning in BSC, and to what extent does he have in mind that it will be reduced during the coming 12 months?

I have already indicated once to the House this afternoon that the Government's policy was set out in the White Paper "British Steel Corporation: the Road to Viability", where we hoped that the Corporation could reach a break-even position by 1980–81. We must take into account the new capacity coming on stream at Ravenscraig and Redcar. There will inevitably be some closures, but only on the basis of paragraph 15 of the White Paper, in discussion with the TUC steel committee and the local trade unions concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the increase in steel output at Ravenscraig there will be no significant increase in employment, that no industry in Britain is giving more attention to manning questions than the steel industry, that there has been an enormous advance in the industry's joint consultative procedures in securing the success that has so far been secured and that it is continuing?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not disagree with anything that he said. With all the difficulties that we have had with BSC over the past few years, the most significant factor is that we have been able to maintain a very high level of investment—about £2,000 million since 1974, with another £500 million or so this year, and perhaps the same amount next year.

The Secretary of State referred to breakeven in 1980–81. Can he confirm that demanning is proceeding on an agreed basis which will lead to breakeven by March 1980, the latest official target that we have been told about?

The hon. Gentleman, who follows the Corporation's affairs extremely closely, knows that we want to take this matter on a step-by-step basis. I have always set my face against rigid figures and targetry. That was absolutely wise. If I had said that by such-and-such a date so many people must leave the Corporation we might have had the same situation in this country as there was in France a few weeks ago, with steel workers marching and getting their heads broken. Fortunately, we have been able to avoid that.

Will my right hon. Friend remind those Conservative hon. Members who seem to know nothing about the industry that BSC has made strenuous efforts to achieve the success which it will experience within a relatively short time? Will he remind them that companies such as Italsider and Sacilar in Europe have piled up much greater losses per tonne than BSC, that the problem is due to inadequate world demand for steel, that that is perceived in the rest of Europe, and that that suggests that the rest of Europe and perhaps those of us on the Labour Benches are rather more intelligent than some Conservative Members?

There are some great success stories in BSC, as any objective analysis of its programme can verify. For example, at Thryborough and Temple-borough, very close to my hon. Friend's constituency, there is a great success, particularly the bar mill there. Even with all the difficulties over the past few years, the country is still a net exporter of steel.

Will the Secretary of State confirm—or deny—press reports that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy are seeking to interfere with BSC's choice of coking coal for Redcar? Does he agree that, given the precarious state of BSC's finances, it should be given complete commercial freedom to place its orders where it wants?

I can confirm that my right hon. Friend and I are looking very closely at the Corporation's coking coal provision. That does not mean that the National Coal Board, my right hon. Friend or I want to place in jeopardy the proper commissioning of the Redcar blast furnace, but there are wider issues involved which we as a Government must take into account, and are expected to. These are impact on our balance of payments of importing coal, the social impact on some of the areas concerned and the impact on the finances of not only BSC but the NCB. Therefore, we shall be looking at the matter very closely, and we hope very soon to make an announcement about importing coal.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the present arrangements for consultation between the National Economic Development Office and the National Enterprise Board.

This is a matter for the Office and the Board. However, Sir Leslie Murphy is a member of the National Economic Development Council and representatives of individual NEB companies sit on a number of sector working parties.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a NEDC working party recently complained about the lack of cooperation from the NEB, particularly in respect of Inmos, and suggested that the NEB should provide the NEDC with at least as much information as a private sector company would? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Yes, Sir. I agree that it should provide as much information as private sector companies do, and it is my understanding that it does. Perhaps in some respects it provides more, because of the very nature of that organisation. The NEB is linking very closely with the sector working parties in its overall strategy, particularly in electronics. I know that there was an initial complaint from the sector working party dealing with electronics about the Inmos project, but I have been told by the chairman of that sector working party, Mr. Eric Hammond, that it is now completely satisfied with the arrangements for consultation.

Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the number of senior managements of firms in the textile industry that have refused to meet NEDC officials and trade union representatives to discuss the industry's future strategy? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend do more to ensure that the NEB is directly involved to provide alternative work to workers from the textile industry who face the loss of jobs over the next few years?

If my hon. Friend will send me details about the companies that have reluctance in co-operating with the NEDC working party, I shall certainly look into that matter. As to the impact of the NEB in textile areas, it is certainly our wish that the NEB's role in the regions should be strengthened. We are hoping to take steps over the next few months to see that that comes about.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of the effect of the road hauliers' dispute on the steel industry?

The British Steel Corporation estimates a loss of £50 million in January and February resulting from rail and road haulage disputes and the bad weather. It is difficult to say how much the road haulage dispute accounts for this.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure he has just given is higher than that given by his right hon. Friend during Question Time in January? Will he explain whether any further slippage is expected? Is he aware that 72,000 tonnes of steel are currently held up in Felixstowe docks, and have been held up there since the end of January? Precisely what is his Department doing following representations by BSC to it on 22 March?

The question of steel in Felixstowe docks may not be a matter for my right hon. Friend, but it the hon. Gentleman cares to let me have more details I shall certainly look into it.

Is it not wrong in principle that one nationalised industry, BSC, does not use another, British Rail, when all things are equal? Does not this dispute offer my hon. Friend a good opportunity to remind BSC of the opportunities and services provided by British Rail?

My hon. Friend makes a very sensible and well-argued point, but I think he will take cognisance of the fact that British Steel uses not only the nationalised services of British Rail but the publicly owned services of the National Freight Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list the number of applications for aid from companies, and the industries in which these companies are engaged, by the National Enterprise Board in 1977 and 1978.

This is a matter for for the National Enterprise Board, whose investments are made on commercial terms. I am, however, glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the NEB informs me that many hundreds of companies have realised the possible advantages of a loan or equity investment by the NEB. It is not possible for the Board to provide a precise number, as inquiries will range from those which are not pursued beyond the first contact to those which culminate in an NEB investment. The NEB has in fact so far spent over £600 million in about 60 companies on some 90 separate occasions.

In the light of that reply, does my hon. Friend agree that if by some mischance the Opposition were returned to power and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) were to rise like Dracula and get his fangs in the jugular vein of the NEB, that would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, particularly in my constituency, affecting companies such as Rolls-Royce, and in the North-West, affecting ICL and Ferranti?

My lion. Friend is absolutely right to express those fears. There are up and down the country about 350,000 workers who work for NEB companies. In Coventry, one person in every five works for an NEB holding. If the Opposition cannot clarify their policies towards what they think about the NEB by 3 May, my constituents and many others can only come to the worst possible conclusion.

Is it not a fact that the applications that my hon. Friend has mentioned also mean that there are many hundreds of thousands of workers who are looking to the NEB to provide the same assistance as it did in my constituency, where it saved hundreds of jobs at Ferranti and turned that firm from an ailing concern into a prosperous one which is now expanding and which will provide 1,000 new jobs within the next two years? Is it not that sort of success that attracts many applications carrying the hopes of very many workers in Britain?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a basic fact that many industries in Britain today would not exist were it not for the NEB. That is why the workers in those industries want to know exactly where they stand.