asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will take action concerning further closures and redundancies in the Black Country district of the West Midlands.

The Government's policies are designed to encourage industrial expansion and employment throughout the country.

In view of the widespread anxiety over recent closures and redundancies in the Black Country, will the Minister give a firm undertaking today that his Department will consult the authorities in the area to ascertain what can be done to bring jobs to the region?

We are always prepared to consult those concerned on the ground whenever that sort of problem arises.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Black Country and its independent people do not wish for any special help? They are against handouts, especially those that have to be paid for by us all, including those living in the Black Country.

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. The number of factory closures and redundancies will depend upon the success or otherwise of management and men producing the goods that the customer requires at the price that he is prepared to pay. The customer is king, and the Government do not control the customer.

Is the Minister aware that in Wolverhampton and West Mould in the Black Country 200 factories have been closed during the past decade? The Black Country desperately needs special help. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better to allow capital investments into the Black Country than to permit flight capital to be invested in Switzerland in trustee and bank accounts?

The change in the regional development grant system has been much called for in that part of the country. It will help to prevent industries that might be attracted to the area from being dragged away to others.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress is being made by the British Steel Corporation towards the financial target of break even by March 1980, and if he will make a statement.

That is a matter for the Corporation, which will be making a statement at the end of November, when results for the second quarter are published.

That is hardly an answer to my question. Is the Minister aware that the present state of demand within the United Kingdom, the EEC and the world generally makes the target totally impossible, and that it will lead only to the break-up of BSC?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the target—indeed, a slightly tougher one—was set by the previous Labour Administration 18 months ago. It was picked up and renewed by my right hon. Friend. It was a tough target, but we believe that it is still attainable. Disputes such as the one at Hunterston have not helped in the attainment of the target. If there are any further industrial disruptions in the industry, clearly the target will become even more difficult to achieve. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his influence to dissuade people from taking any action of that sort.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the report yesterday that the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation was recommending the possible sale to private enterprise of Shotton and Corby?

I noted that report with considerable interest. I hope that it is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. With regard to Shotton and Corby, the Government have made it clear that if a worthwhile private proposal is put forward that will not use public funds, they will not stand in its way. One of the problems in the industry is over-capacity, and that would have to be taken into account.

Does the Minister agree that if BSC is unable to meet the target of breaking even by March next year that will bring into question all its credibility? If that proves to be the outcome, does he agree that there will be a strong need to investigate the management, especially to inquire into its competence, and a need to provide sustenance for the communities that will be destroyed?

The hon. Gentleman must await the six-monthly results, which will be available shortly. Ministers have confidence in the management of BSC.

Does my hon. Friend's reply mean that he denies the extraordinary press report over the weekend that the Government would try to oppose any sale back to private enterprise of plants likely to be closed?

I hope that I made a clear statement of the Government's attitude, to which I shall not add.

The hon. Gentleman's statement that the Labour Government had laid down a condition of viability by 1980 is totally incorrect. Will he tell us clearly and without evasion what his Government will do if BSC is unable to achieve viability by March 1980?

The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is a denial of the facts. The words of the then Secretary of State for Industry were reported clearly in Hansard in May 1978. That statement was repeated in the expenditure White Paper of January 1979. That cannot be in dispute. The target remains for the Corporation to be operating profitably in the next financial year.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on his policy towards the Cooperative Development Agency.

Like all other nongovernmental public bodies, the Cooperative Development Agency is currently under review.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that small-scale worker co-operatives have an important part to play in reviving the economies of inner cities, both in providing new small firms and in providing desperately needed jobs in those areas? Bearing in mind the initial success of the CDA during the first few months of its life, will he consider making funds available to it so that it may supply to new worker co-operatives risk capital as well as advice?

We welcome the prospect of a flourishing producer co-operative sector. Making additional funds available is a different matter, and demands a question of which I require notice.

Does the hon. Gentlemen agree that the CDA has done a good job and has great potential in a climate of increasing unemployment? In two wards of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the Secretary of State for Industry, there are unemployment levels of 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would be interested in supporting the CDA.

Producer co-operatives are a form of free enterprise, and as such we are anxious to encourage them.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that an increasing number of local authorities feel that the co-operative form of enterprise has a great deal to recommend it and that it can make a successful contribution to solving unemployment problems, especially in the inner cities? Will he bear in mind that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) reflect a genuine feeling, and one that is growing? Will he be more encouraging than hitherto?

I think that I have already been considerably encouraging. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on future finance for British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on his future policy on British Leyland.

No proposals are yet before me.

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about State intervention, will he confirm that he recognises and accepts the difference between a taxpayers' subsidy to keep open a plant that otherwise cannot be kept going and a desire by private enterprise to put money into a manufacturing facility, such as MG at Abingdon, where the nationalised corporation cannot or will not make the place work? Is he aware—

Order. Was the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber at the beginning of Question Time when I asked for one supplementary question if possible?

rose—

I ask the hon. Gentleman to do his best.

Will my right hon. Friend give positive encouragement to those who want to maintain the manufacturing capacity at Abingdon?

British Leyland has made clear that it is willing to examine any proposals that make commercial sense to it. I understand that the executives of Aston Martin Lagonda and British Leyland have been meeting today in London.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he has said little of a positive character about British Leyland? Will he bear in mind that though the ballot has taken place its result proves nothing? Indeed, British Leyland has said that the ballot proves nothing. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the only condition for British Leyland's long-term survival is a long-term investment plan for a new modern strategy, with financial support coming from his Department?

The successful conclusion of the negotiations on the British Leyland cars, wages and conditions of work package will be more important than the result of the ballot in assessing the case for any more taxpayers' money.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects to bring before it for consideration the request from the NEB and BL for the payment of the final instalment of the £225 million out of the £1,000 million originally voted?

I do not control the timing of any such consideration. The British Leyland board has to make its proposals, and then the National Enterprise Board has to put the proposals that it thinks fit to the Government. It is only then that the Government have something to consider.

Has the right hon. Gentleman decided whether to allow British Leyland to become directly responsible to his Department and to escape from what has been described as the umbrella of the NEB? If not, when will he make that decision?

No such decision is asked of me at this moment.

Before my right hon. Friend makes any further funds available to British Leyland, will he ensure that the management of British Leyland has considered breaking up the managerial monolith of the company?

I have confidence in the British Leyland management to consider all the options. However, I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's thoughts if a proposal comes before the Government.

Is it not a fact that if we are to maintain a viable British car industry it is necessary for British Leyland to spend a huge amount of capital on the development of new models? Will he ensure that the company is able to obtain that capital?

The hon. Gentleman is asking the question to which I have already given some replies. There is no plan at present before the Government.

As two of the most successful products of British Leyland are the Range Rover and the Land Rover, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something radically wrong when men are sleeping on the job, bearing in mind the potential export market for that type of motor vehicle?

Bearing in mind the proposals that the British Leyland management has put to its work force, the management is well aware of a scope for improved performance.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals he has for the long-term future of the National Enterprise Board and the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies.

So far as the National Enterprise Board is concerned, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement of 19 July, and to the Industry Bill presently before the House. Responsibility for the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies rests with my right hon. Friends.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the relationship between Rolls-Royce, British Leyland and the National Enterprise Board? Is it true that resignations of NEB members are on the table? Will he assure the House that there will be a long-term future for the work of the NEB?

I have always been chary of predicting the long-term future of anything, including the NEB and the Opposition. When the Government have anything to announce about relations between Rolls-Royce and the NEB, a statement will be made.

Does my right hon. Friend know that there is great support for the firm line that he is taking with the NEB over the return of control of Rolls-Royce to his Department, where it would probably do very much better than in the bureaucratic mess of the NEB? If NEB members threaten to resign en masse, will my right hon. Friend accept their resignations and let them step off this State bureaucratic gravy train, thus saving the taxpayer £2 million a year?

Without commenting on the answer that the Government will give on the present issue, I confirm that there is a substantial job for the NEB, as spelt out in the Industry Bill now before the House.

In view of the devastating effect on employment in Deeside, and, indeed, further afield in the county of Clwyd and Gwynedd because of the closure of Shotton, can the Secretary of State give any indication of the additional resources that will be made available to the NEB and the Welsh Development Agency to overcome the problem of unemployment in those areas?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is beside me on the Front Bench, and I understand that he will make a statement on that matter tomorrow.

Will the Secretary of State discuss the issue with his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will tell him that the Scottish Development Agency is accepted by industry, commerce and the banks in Scotland as doing a first-class job? Will he take the SDA as a model for regional development agencies in England, rather than dismantle the work of the NEB?

I do not think that the Industry Bill which is before the House could be thought to be dismantling the work of the NEB, but rather focusing and concentrating it, as well as returning to the taxpayer some of the investment which, in the view of many, was unnecessary in the first place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even those of us who deplore excessive Government intervention recognise that in the kind of situation that has arisen at Shotton immediate pump priming aid, as opposed to sustained intervention, will be necessary by bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Even people such as I who think that the Government have intervened too much since the war, believe that Government have a function in cushioning change.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the competitiveness of British industry.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 50 per cent. of the work force in my constituency are employed either in textiles or in the footwear industry, both of which are subjected to grossly unfair import competition? In spite of that, neither my right hon. Friend nor his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade seem prepared to do very much about it.

Representing the constituency that he does, I can see that my hon. Friend is bound to feel that at the margin there is always something more to be done. I must emphasise that, in the careful balance that we must keep, the protection that is now provided, through the multi-fibre arrangement on the one hand and the arrangements for the footwear trade on the other, goes a long way towards reconciling the interests of producers and consumers.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he intends to meet EEC Commissioner Davignon.

My right hon. Friend met Commissioner Davignon on 21 June this year, and is ready to meet him again when there are matters of mutual interest to discuss.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a matter of mutual interest to discuss when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the Commissioner with regard to the continuing problem of the coking coal subsidy for Germany's steel industry which results not only in imports of steel—some of us say unfairly—but also of finished products, such as motor cars?

This is a matter which it may be suitable to discuss, but my hon. Friend will recognise that we are speaking here about subsidies to the coal industry, not to the steel industry. He may wish to follow his interest in the matter, which I know he mentioned to the House earlier last month, by putting a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Will my hon. Friend be able to convince Commissioner Davignon that there is no unfair competition from the British Steel Corporation, especially from its refractories division, in order to alleviate the dumping of special steel in the private sector, which affects Sheffield?

Again, these are matters which it is appropriate to discuss with Commissioner Davignon. However, I think that they have to be looked at in the wider context of steel aids. I believe that on 23 October the House gave helpful support to the Government's approach.

Does the Minister agree that it would be a far more practicable proposition, following the question put by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), to give subsidies to the industry, to prevent the import of coking coal?

The Government's view is that this is a matter for BSC. We do not think that we should intervene where the Corporation feels that it is in its best interests to import coal. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, negotiations are proceeding between BSC and the National Coal Board, and I would not wish to say anything that would make those negotiations more difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what assessment of the future of the wool textile industry he has made in the light of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council report "Economic Trends" of September 1979, a copy of which has been sent to him, showing an acceleration of job loss in the industry; and if he will make a statement.

This report illustrates the concern felt in the area about the future of the wool textile industry which has been raised by representatives of the industry.

As the wool textile industry has lost 130,000 jobs during the last 20 years, over 60,000 jobs in the last 10 years and this report forecasts that a further 26,000 jobs will be lost in the three years up to 1980, is the Minister aware that employers, unions and local authorities are united in demanding an urgent and thorough review by the Government and the EEC of industrial, regional and trade policies towards the wool textile industry and those communities that are suffering so badly as a result of this decline?

Some of the jobs lost are accounted for by rationalisation of the industry, which has proceeded with assistance from the Government under section 8 of the Industry Act. I believe that the wider question raised by the hon. Gentleman is to be debated in the House tomorrow.

Is the Minister aware that following rationalisation under the Labour Government there was a slight increase in the number of people employed in the industry? Does he accept that the present increase in the number of unemployed in the industry is due to the inertia of the Government over the application of the MFA and the determination of the EEC to do absolutely nothing and thus defeat the aims and objects of the MFA?

When the Government are given real evidence of unfair trading practices they are prepared to raise the matter with the EEC, as we have already done in the case of Prato.

Is not one of the problems of the wool textile industry that wool textiles are being replaced in many areas by other fabrics?

There are commercial problems that affect the industry, and my hon. Friend has put his finger on one of them.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the seriousness of the situation in the areas represented by my hon. Friends? Those areas have seen about 2,000 redundancies declared by 23 firms in the past six months. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer that he gave during the Adjournment debate on 6 November, when he virtually washed his hands of the industry, caused a great deal of concern on both sides of that industry?

The hon. Gentleman has unfairly misinterpreted the answers that I gave during the Adjournment debate. If he is in the House tomorrow he will hear that matter further embroidered in the course of debate.

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 expects to meet the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

I expect to meet the chairman of the National Enterprise Board shortly.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the National Enterprise Board, will he make it clear to him that part of the substantial job that there is for the NEB is control of Rolls-Royce?

I have undertaken to consider the representations of the NEB on that subject and to make an announcement when the decision has been made.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that when he makes his statement on the future of Rolls-Royce he will bear in mind that, from the taxpayer's point of view, there could be a case for what Sir Kenneth Keith described as a "bureaucratic contraceptive", in the light of the record of Rolls-Royce in accumulating orders regardless of any visible prospect of any return in even the distant future?

My hon. Friend, who is very acute in economic matters, must agree that the assumption made by Rolls-Royce about the exchange rate in its hugely successful drive for orders under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Keith was common to many other parts of British industry. However, I fully accept that it is greatly in the interests of the taxpayer that Sir Kenneth Keith, his colleagues and successors should make the very best, in terms of profit and cost, of the huge order book that Rolls-Royce has.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the NEB, will he discuss with him, as a matter of urgency, the siting of the production units of the microchip industry, and will he ensure that the Northern region is favourably considered for the location of one of these units?

I am sure that the chairman of the NEB will read the right hon. Gentleman's question. Such decisions are entirely for the NEB.

Can my right hon. Friend say what benefits he judges to have accrued from the interposition of the NEB between the management of Rolls-Royce and his Department? Can he suggest whether this has in any way improved the financial management of Rolls-Royce?

I do not wish to enter into questions of judgment on such matters, but the decision to put Rolls-Royce under the NEB was taken by the previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give the reasons for his letter to the chairmen of nationalised industries on the subject of wage restraint.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of his recent letter to the chairmen of nationalised industries, in which he gave guidance regarding the conduct of their wage negotiations in the forthcoming wage round.

The letters explain the Government's views on the basis for setting the industries' cash limits for 1980–81. It is not customary to publish correspondence between Ministers and nationalised industry chairmen.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House why he wrote the letter? How can he reconcile wage restraint, whether or not it is called "incomes policy", in the public sector with none in the private sector?

I wrote the letter because the Government, in carrying on the practice of their predecessors, are imposing limits on the external financing of the nationalised industries. It was necessary to warn nationalised industries' chairmen that these limits were being set earlier than usual this year in order to give them the maximum opportunity to keep within them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the phrase, which the letter apparnetly contained, inviting the chairmen of the nationalised industries to make sure that wage increases did not exceed the growth in, the RPI made nonsense of the whole concept that there might be some State industries, such as the British Gas Corporation, which could justify substantial wage increases, and others, such as British Leyland, the British Steel Corporation and British Shipbuilders, which should not grant any wage increases at all? Whoever put that phrase into the letter ought surely to be moved into a rather less sensitive position as soon as possible.

That would be I, since I wrote the letter. However, without going so far as to publish the letter, I can disclose that it emphasised that the actions of the various nationalised industries in connection with pay would possibly be very different one from the other, especially taking into account the different supply and demand positions, the market situation, the scope for higher productivity and all the other factors that I am sure my hon. Friend would agree to be essential. There was no reference to earnings as such being below any particular level. There was, however, a recognition that labour costs are an important factor in total costs and that if the cash limits were to adhere it would be essential for real factor costs, including labour costs, to trend downwards.

Have the Government an incomes policy?

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I asked for a copy of this letter simply because I wanted to know whether the Government were inviting the nationalised industries to peg too much? I wanted to know whether there was an incomes policy, which, although not present in the private sector, is, I believe, necessary in the public sector.

The private sector is constrained by the need of each individual firm to avoid bankruptcy. The nationalised industries are not subject to bankruptcy, and therefore were subjected by my predecessor and the previous Government to what were called "cash limits", which we now call "external finance limits". That is the nearest, although perhaps inadequate, way—but it is the best available—of bringing to bear upon nationalised industries' management something faintly, but only faintly, approaching the constraints that exist in the private sector.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has not the slightest intention of interfering in the management of any industry, nationalised or otherwise, does not a letter which, while discussing cash limits by whatever name, points out that wages should be held down—because that is the effect of the letter—mean total interference in that management?

Perhaps we are wrong in this one particular to follow the practice of the previous Government of setting some restraint upon the external financing requirements of the nationalised industries. However, I do not think that it is wrong. As for an attempt to hold down wages, the right hon. Gentleman totally misinterprets what the Government seek to do. What we are interested in on this subject is unit factor costs, including unit labour costs. Earnings are welcome to rise, provided that the company concerned in the private sector can afford it and that the company in the public sector keeps within its external finance requirements.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has plans to give any financial assistance to encourage industry to the town of Biddulph, Staffordshire.

None specifically to the town of Biddulph.

As unemployment in Biddulph has risen from 130 in February 1974 to 330 last month, and because of the certainty of a further steep rise in unemployment over the next few months, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for giving some special help to Biddulph in order to encourage new jobs, particularly because of the town's proximity to the Cheshire border, where special help is given?

It would not be possible to give special help on the basis of the figures quoted by my hon. Friend without wrecking the whole of the policy, on which we have started, of concentrating aid on the areas of greatest need.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is considering a loan guarantee system, involving the support of the clearing banks, to encourage and aid the creation and expansion of small businesses.

The Government are studying possibilities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that small businesses have a vital role to play in our economic recovery, and that the successful loan guarantee scheme which is operated by both the Government and clearing banks in the United States shows how this can be achieved?

An unsubsidised loan guarantee scheme would be for the banks themselves to organise.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the key ways in which to assist small businesses would be to lower interest rates and restore public expenditure cuts, including those in manufacturing industry? Does he not accept that when the Government cut back on expenditure to organisations such as British Leyland that affects thousands of small firms, which then face bankruptcy?

Of course it would be desirable, for all sorts of reasons, to have lower interest rates and a more flourishing manufacturing sector. However, we cannot achieve that quickly in the light of the momentum towards excess spending left by the previous Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if public expenditure increases the public sector borrowing requirement automatically increases, with the result that interest rates must rise?

That may be entirely so, but the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) does not seem to understand that these matters are interrelated. Public spending, if it gets excessive, as it did under the previous Government, has desperate consequences and destroys as many jobs as it seeks to create.

Will the Secretary of State say how he expects the widespread forecast of an increase in MLR to assist small businesses?

What matters is that the Government should succeed in abating the level of inflation, and that matters more for small businesses than the temporary level of interest rate, even at its present level.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to receive the Finniston report on engineering manpower and when he expects to publish it.

Shortly: and soon.

Does the Secretary of State concede that the sooner that is done the better, because we are anxious to have this report on engineering manpower before the Government destroy our manufacturing engineering base?

Yes. The Government eagerly await the report. Under Sir Monty Finniston the committee must have worked extremely hard to be so near to publishing a report only two years after it was appointed.

Has my right hon. Friend received a copy of the report? Will he bear in mind that learned societies and industrial organisations are planning meetings with the intention of discussing this matter, and that without a more definite date than "soon" this is difficult to arrange?

Yes. I sympathise with their need, but I am sure that Sir Monty Finniston will do his best to tell them of the likely date. I have not had a copy of the final report.

As a senior member of the Cabinet, is the Secretary of State concerned with the parlous situation in many engineering departments in universities, given the rise in overseas students' fees and the consequences that flow from that for the engineering departments?

No. I have formed a high impression of the vitality of those engineering departments in universities that I recently visited.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last met the chairman of British Leyland.

Recently, but not very recently.

In view of the chairman's wish to follow up the result of the ballot on the corporate plan and the ballot currently being organised on pay and productivity arrangements for the work force, if the chairman asked at the last meeting how long the Government would take to consider a request for funds, what reply did my right hon. Friend give?

I think that the chairman of British Leyland is realistic. He knows that the Government will need some time to consider any request for funds for BL that is made via the NEB. The NEB may have its own comments to make. The Government will need some time in which to consider so important a question.

Does the Secretary of State accept that British Leyland is under the NEB more by accident than by design? That being so, will he give a commitment that if the workers have backed the plan for British Leyland, the Government will do so as well?

The hon. Gentleman misses the point that was made by a number of hon. Members, including his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield). What the Government will need to consider is the performance, and likely performance, of British Leyland management and workers. The reaction of the work force to the current pay and conditions proposals put to them by British Leyland management will have more significance in the Government's mind than the result of the ballot.

Will my right hon. Friend take the occasion to discuss with the chairman of British Leyland, quite apart from any question of hiving off, whether the large factories are not too big? Is not there a great deal of evidence that modern British managers and workers are not very good when the unit sizes are as large as they are in British Leyland, and that all the evidence points to the small being beautiful in manufacturing?

Yes. I am sure that there is some strength in what my hon. Friend says, but the chairman of British Leyland has to cope with the reality.

Does the Minister agree that British Leyland is under the control of the National Enterprise Board only because private enterprise failed the motor industry, and that it cannot be expected to turn round in 12 months? It could well mean a decade of public investment in this industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot face the prospect of Britain without a viable motor industry, which might mean selective import controls?

The forced mergers that the Labour Government produced in the motor car industry tended, in the event, to fail, while the forced merger in the electrical power industry, over which the same Labour Government presided, tended to succeed.

Will my right hon. Friend please take this opportunity to confirm that it is no part of the philosophy of the Government to allow the management of British Leyland to create a State subsidised monopoly in sports car production if there are private enterprise buyers willing and able to carry on competitive production of other cars in the range that British Leyland seem unfit or unable to carry on producing?

As I have said, British Leyland today met one particular private sector potential manufacturer of sports cars to discuss the possibility of a sale.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the capacity of British industry to produce titanium.

Yes, Sir. There are plans to replace and extend the present capacity with a new plant to be commissioned in the early 1980s.

Can we take it that the Government are firmly committed to a British titanium capacity? What is the time scale involved?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the formation of a company—Cleveland Titanium Limited—which will consist of the National Enter-price Board, Rolls-Royce and Imperial Metal Industries Ltd. The Government hope to see further private sector involvement. I have already given the early 1980s as the time scale.

Will my hon. Friend explain to the House why it is necessary for the National Enterprise Board to get involved in this industry at all?

This was felt to be the most convenient way, so as to move in these matters quickly. I make it plain to my hon. Friend that we seek to bring the National Enterprise Board into this, as into other matters, to get private sector involvement as soon as possible.

As the market forces which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) knows and loves are apparently failing the nation in this respect, will the Minister assure us that the public enterprise involvement through the NEB will be retained and not sold off after the taxpayer has paid for this important national enterprise?

I explained that we want the National Enterprise Board to find private sector involvement to replace its stake as soon as possible. That is part of our continuing philosophy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of certain aspects of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what measures he is now taking to assist the development of new industries in the South Yorkshire area.

The Government's taxation and other policies are designed to encourage industry to expand. South Yorkshire, with the exception of the Sheffield travel-to-work area, is to remain an assisted area, while we have raised the Mexborough and Rotherham travel-to-work areas to development area status.

Does the Minister realise that in South Yorkshire there are still these large pockets of unemployment, which will be aggravated by the Government's policy of making vicious cuts in public expenditure? Will he look again at this problem and take into account the fact that local authorities are doing their best to build factories and plants, and that even the South Yorkshire county council became involved? Will he give further encouragement to them?

Public expenditure cuts are necessary to enable us to live within our means. The central point of the hon. Gentleman's question is answered by the fact that our policies are designed on the basis of providing incentives, of removing the burdens that afflict industry, and of encouraging the creation and expansion of jobs and the economy generally.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Sheffield has an industrial infrastructure and supplies nearly half the jobs available in South Yorkshire?

My hon. Friend is correct. I recently met a deputation of Members of Parliament and representatives of local authorities, at which he was present, which brought home the point that he is now raising.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what the effect of the recent engineering industrial dispute will be upon the competitiveness of the engineering industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what the effect of the recent engineering industrial dispute will be upon profitability and job prospects.

The costs of the engineering dispute and the settlement are without doubt serious. The effects will be felt—in both the short and the long term—through the further erosion of already meagre profit margins, through price increases, through the impact on relative costs, and through the loss of confidence overseas in this country's ability to deliver on time. Job prospects in the industry can only be worsened.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a shorter working week, unless accompanied by an increase in productivity, is bound to lead to more rather than less unemployment?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is one of the sad parts of the settlement of this dispute that job prospects have been so clearly affected.

Will my hon. Friend continue to draw the attention of those employed in the engineering industry to the disastrous effects of the strike, typified by firms such as Tube Investments Ltd., which estimates that the loss of profits that it will incur as a result of the engineering strike will be about £20 million, leading to less net revenue for capital investment, research and development, and the job security of the 60,000 employees in the group?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. He will have seen the estimate of the fall in output by the engineering industries in August, which was about 10 per cent.

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that if he and his hon. Friends had not covertly encouraged the Engineering Employers Federation to resist the legitimate claims of these trade unions the matter would have been settled long before it was, and that therefore responsibility for the damage that was done to this industry rests very largely with the Government?

I do not accept the premise on which the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was posed. Therefore, the second part does not arise.

asked the Attorney-General which recommendations of the Royal Commission on legal services he proposes to implement; and if he will make a statement.

There is little that I can add to the statements made by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and myself on 30 October. The report is substantial, and time for consideration, consultation and reflection is required before decisions can be taken. This process has already begun, but it is too soon to say when it will be complete.

While the Attorney-General will appreciate that I set down the question before I knew that he proposed to make a statement, and before last week's Adjournment debate, may I ask him whether he has directed his mind to the implications of the Royal Commission's concern for the future of law centres? While we appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his noble Friend will require time to consider the recommendation for central funding, may I ask whether he appreciates that some law centres will not exist by then unless they receive some help in the meantime? Has he any proposals to give them some help in the meantime?

The Commission's report threw light on a number of important and immediate problems in the legal service field, which included criminal legal aid criteria, remuneration, inflation-proofing of legal aid limits, funding the CABs and law centres and, in general, how to make the best use of the limited amount of money available, and those consultations are going on.

As a matter of urgency, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has just said—namely, that if law centres are to continue a statement of principle as to their central funding, or not as the case may be, is urgently required? Is he aware that I think that the recommendation for central funding is correct?

I am pleased to see my hon. and learned Friend back in the House again. The matter raised by him is high on the Government's list of priorities.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government's attitude to closed shops appears to be nothing short of hypocrisy when one compares it with their attitude to the legal services, which have one of the tightest of closed shops?

No, Sir.

asked the Attorney-General if, in the light of the case of Miss Tibbits, details of which have been supplied to him, he will bring forward legislation to provide for the correction of court records where the record is erroneous or disputed, or for the acceptance of subsequent affidavits in lieu of such correction.

If my hon. Friend is referring to a transcript of proceedings, as I believe, and not to court records properly so-called, the answer is that there is every opportunity to challenge the accuracy of transcripts on appeal from the lower court; and if there is no appeal there is no occasion to challenge them. If the transcript itself accurately records what was said in court, any remedy must lie elsewhere.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that my constituent's nephew was a litigant in a case and that she had attributed to her an intervention that was made by another person in the court? For reasons of other proceedings she wants that intervention corrected. She has been trying for four years and has been unable to have it corrected. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the procedures?

There is really little that can be done so far as the courts are concerned. If the case is concluded and there is no appeal, unless the maker of the disputed statement is willing to acknowledge its inaccuracy and withdraw it, I do not know what else can be done.

asked the Attorney-General which of the recommendations of the Phillimore report, relating to the law of contempt, he intends to implement in forthcoming legislation.

I must ask the hon. Member to wait for that information until the Bill is published.

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that short and rather imprecise reply. Bearing in mind that it is now a long time indeed since the Phillimore report was published, and that it is even a long time since the previous Government, as their excuse for taking no action whatever, published a discussion paper, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm what was set out in the Gracious Speech at the beginning of the parliamentary Session, namely, that there will be legislation to clarify this difficult branch of the law by removing many of the anomalies in it? Will he kindly confirm that there will definitely be legislation this Session to implement the principal recommendations of the report? Does he, like his predecessors—

Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not present earlier, when I said that it was the will of the House that we should have one supplementary question rather than three.

The shortness of my reply reflected that, Mr. Speaker, but it also reflected the precision in which it was termed. I give the undertaking to the hon. Gentleman. The Bill will be introduced, but not before the new year.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the present state of the law amounts to a real containment of the right to free expression? Is he aware that television companies and newspapers are muzzled and intimidated by the vagaries of the law of contempt, the chief evil of which is its uncertainty? Finally, does he agree that the spirit of the European Court's judgment in The Sunday Times case calls for root and branch reform?

One cannot, of course, say that every recommendation in the Phillimore report will be accepted by the Government, but many will be. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is the uncertainty that has been the difficulty up to now. I hope that the Bill will resolve the uncertainties.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that where no jury is involved but simply a judge, and as all our judges are completely incorruptible and unaffected by any public comment, it is right that reasonable comment should be able to be made in those circumstances and that that situation should also apply to the sub judice rule in this House?

It is difficult to be sure about where one draws the line. I think that it is clear now—it has been accepted, perhaps, ever since The Tunes "butterfly on the wheel" leader after the Rolling Stones case—that it is not accepted that judges in, for example, the Court of Appeal will be influenced by anything that they read in a newspaper. But so many of these cases end up before a jury. That is where the problem lies. A decision will have to be taken on the point at which contempt will start. That will be set out clearly in the Bill.

asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received over jury vetting.

I have received some correspondence from the National Council for Civil Liberties and a few letters from constituents passed on to me by right hon. and hon. Members.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the manner in which jury vetting has taken place in a number of cases has caused considerable concern? Will he also accept that if the type of jury vetting that we have seen recently continues it will undermine the very basis of the jury system itself, which would be, to say the least, extremely unfortunate?

Jury vetting would not undermine the whole system of jury service. I think perhaps that the anxieties that have arisen followed the disclosure in The Guardian of some of the inquiries or results that were thrown up at local police station level. Anyway, the whole matter is under consideration between myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and we have already started discussions on it.

asked the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to alter the existing guidelines on jury vetting.

In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department I am considering these guidelines.

Can the Attorney-General tell the House the results of the consultations that the Leader of the House initiated two weeks ago, when several of us pressed him for a debate? We do not really have to wait for the Government to come to their decision following the discussions referred to in the previous question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) before the House can have a debate on this matter.

So far as I am concerned, the position is that I have started discussions with the Home Secretary. They will obviously take time. A certain amount of consultation will be necessary. As soon as those consultations are completed either my right hon. Friend or I will make a statement to the House.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is unfortunate that the whole business of jury vetting and the secret guidelines drawn up by former Ministers came to public notice only as a result of a court case? Should not the guidelines about which he is talking be clear and open to ensure that there is no possible basis for the public to feel that something funny is going on behind closed doors?

The decision not to publish and subsequently to pub- lish the guidelines was nothing to do with me or with this Administration. I undertake that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I reach our conclusions either he or I will make a statement and that what we have decided will be published for all to see and to act upon.

Does the Attorney-General accept that there is grave disquiet, which I share, about jury vetting and the position we have now reached, and that for 30 years defence lawyers did not know what was going on? Therefore, will he consider this matter urgently and ensure that there is an early debate in the House so that we can consider a grave matter of the utmost constitutional importance affecting the rights and liberties of the subject?

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman spent part of yesterday reading what my predecessor said in a well argued article in The Observer.

By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.