asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest forecast of the trends in manufacturing production through 1981.

The most recent Industry Act forecast suggests that, within the large margins of error inherent in forecasting exercises, manufacturing production may fall, though at a significantly lower rate than in 1980.

If it be in order, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend on his translation from the "Third Bench" to the Front Bench. Is it his view that, in the language of one of his right hon. Friends, the economy has now "bottomed out" and that through 1981 we can hope to see a gradual increase in the general level of output of British manufacturing industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words; and I thank him for them. I am very concerned, as I am sure that everybody in the House is, about the drop in manufacturing output last year. The most powerful contractionary force operating in the manufacturing sector in 1980 was the reduction in inventories and stocks. The level and rate of the reduction was unprecedented in the recent economic history of any country. In the first three quarters, manufacturers cut their stocks by some £675 million. Any recovery in output essentially depends upon whether the de-stocking exercises come to an end. We shall not really know that until we have the figures for the last quarter of 1980.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no real sign of bottoming out and that in fact there will be no major change in the trend until the Government decide to stimulate demand, rather than curbing it as they are trying to do at present?

As I have said, the figures on manufacturing output will depend very much upon the figures for de-stocking in the last quarter and the pre-Christmas trade. If the hon. Gentleman is calling for some change of course, I would only remind him that the Government's overriding target is to bring down the rate of inflation. If we lose sight of that or abandon that, we shall never pull out of this recession. Surely that is the lesson that successive Governments have learnt.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) in appreciating the fact that my hon. Friend has now been translated from poacher on the Back Benches to gamekeeper on the Front Bench. However, will he bear in mind that there are still some poachers behind him and that the name of the game must be to ensure that on the ground there is sufficient gain for British industry so that the re-stocking process begins as soon as possible?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, which I think were meant to be friendly. I assure him that I have every sympathy with the poaching approach.

Is the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on his elevation, aware that the decline in manufacturing output and production is related almost entirely to Government action? Is he aware that only last week Yorkshire Imperial Plastics in my constituency sacked 150 men because the pipes which the men manufacture are no longer needed by water authorities whose capital allocations have been cut?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I must refute his allegation. The drop in manufacturing output is due to a wide range of very complicated factors, one of which is the lack of competitiveness of our economy, and part of the element must be the unrealistically high levels of wage settlements during most of last year— [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]. Hon. Members ask "When?". Up to October, average gross earnings for the whole of the economy were 20 per cent. up. Now settlements are at about half that level.

the Secretary of State for Industry what further proposals he has for bringing industry to the Northern region.

New investment will be attracted or repelled by the experience of companies which have invested in the area in the past. It will be induced by the initiative, enterprise and productivity of management and workers rather than by Government measures alone, but the more selective regional policies my right hon. Friend announced in July 1979 will concentrate the regional assistance which we can give on the areas of greatest need, including the North.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's puny efforts to bring industry to the North are causing deep and widespread anger in the region? Is he further aware that it was direct Government action which stopped Civil Service jobs from going to the North, that the Government have given no encouragement whatever to Inmos to locate a microchip manufacturing unit there and that they propose to move the headquarters of the region from Newcastle to Leeds, which is not even in the region? As the Secretary of State has now been considering for several months the establishment of a Northern development agency, which would make a bigger contribution than any other factor, when will there be some kind of Government action in regard to the Northern region?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken on a number of points. First, he cannot describe as "puny" aid which under section 7 of the Industry Act was valued at £34·3 million between May 1979 and November 1980 and another £1·7 million under section 8. Those are not small sums. They must be found from elsewhere. He asked that Inmos should establish its factory in the Northern region. However, he must be aware that a case has been put forward to locate it in Wales, and as he knows, that case has gone a long way. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion with regard to an agency for the North. I shall look at what he said, but the most important thing—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will stop waving his arms and shouting. The most important thing that can be done is for firms whicn are at present in the North to be made more prosperous by the efforts of their employees. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will lend his support to that.

When my hon. Friend considers the question of a Northern development agency, will he bear in mind that some areas of the Northern region—namely, the northern part of the Morecambe and Lonsdale constituency—were traditionally in the North-West and that if he creates such an agency, he will create an opportunity for calls for other development agencies in different parts of the country? Surely that would be self-defeating in respect of the suggestion that has been made.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We would then be in the position of everyone having a development agency and no one being any the better off.

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Like his right hon. Friend, by the answer which he has given he tries to lead people to believe that Government policy has nothing to do with this country's industrial decline, which is the worst since the 1930s. We refute that. On the specific problem of aid to the Northern region, it is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that he will consider the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). That is what his right hon. Friend has been telling us for more than 12 months. In the meantime, unemployment is mounting inexorably. When he talks—

Too long.

Order. I was just about to rise. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. It is not debating time now.

When the Minister talks about value for the taxpayers' money, does he really believe that the attitudes and policies adopted by companies such as Courtaulds, which has been given considerable assistance from the taxpayer, are in this country's interests?

I have been in the Department for less than a week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—and I shall take a view of what can be done to improve the manner in which the North is marketed, for example, towards overseas investment. I shall certainly do that. But the hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. Government aid is not the principal factor in attracting investment to a region. What will attract investors is the experience of others who have invested in that region. The hon. Gentleman would do best to get back to the North—and the sooner he goes back the better—and urge upon those there the need to make their industries more competitive.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the consequences of the review of steel-making capacity.

I expect to continue discussions with Mr. MacGregor later this month.

When the right hon. Gentleman does so, will he consider directing the chairman of the Corporation to permit no more steel redundancies until he has collaborated with the right hon. Gentleman's Department in order to deliver new jobs that will replace those which must go? Is the Secretary of State aware of the consternation in my constituency, which last year suffered 7,000 steel job losses and this year is programmed to lose another 900? Will he dissociate himself from the outrageous speech of the Secretary of State for Energy, who said that new jobs would bypass once prosperous areas?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The BSC board does not need the Government's authority to seek to improve the competitiveness of British Steel plants. The answer to the last part of his question is "No".

Is it not clear that a terrible weight of responsibility rests on Labour Members to advise all those concerned with the steel industry to try to make a success of the Corporation's new plan and, therefore, to ignore the usually bad advice given by the ISTC that its members should vote against the proposals?

Although I sympathise very much with the general theme of my hon. Friend's implications, I do not think that it is for the Government to intervene in something which is a matter for the BSC board. I am sure that British Steel workers are well aware of the options before the BSC board.

When will the Secretary of State report to the House on the Government's decision in respect of the corporate plan? The House is anxious to have an early decision and, obviously, a debate. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame the present plight of the steel industry on wage claims, in particular what has been offered at present by the BSC. Can he say anything further about energy costs and the effect that they are having on steel manufacturing in this country?

The Government hope to reach a decision on the BSC plan by about the end of this month and, of course, will be reporting to Parliament. The causes of the lack of British Steel competitiveness go back into the past and affect both management and work force. As for energy, last week's NEDO meeting approved the setting up of a task force which will be reporting by the end of March on the facts of energy so that the necessary decisions can be made by the energy authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any new proposals to assist British manufacturing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he proposes to take any new initiatives to halt the decline of British industry.

The Government's present policies are providing a sound basis for future industrial strength. Inflation is coming down and measures already taken to reduce obstacles will produce good results when the upturn comes. The real need is for improved average competitiveness, and this depends on the enterprise and competence of management and the co-operation with management of the work force to improve productivity, unit labour costs and profit.

Is the Secretary of State sure that he has read the right answer to my question? Will he confirm that most opinion in the country is that Government policies over the past 18 months have proved disastrous for British manufacturing industry and that, unless there is a radical change, there is great danger that if the world economy picks up there will be very little British manufacturing industry left to take advantage of it?

The hon. Gentleman is either indulging in humbug or is misunderstanding the position. British manufacturing industry is witnessing the consequences of years of decline in competitiveness, largely due to unrealistic practices on the shop floor, excessive wage claims and a refusal to achieve the higher productivity which alone will secure more employment and higher living standards. That is the truth, and I am sure that most people understand it.

In view of today's reports about the Talbot car company, will the Government give all the necessary financial assistance to enable the production of a new car to go ahead at Linwood, otherwise there could be the loss of up to 9,000 jobs in car manufacturing and also in the steel and component industries? Is the Secretary of State aware that such assistance would be welcomed widely as a sign that he is now adopting a more interventionist industrial strategy, instead of just standing by with his hands in his monetarist pockets while British industry collapses all round him?

The hon. Gentleman does not phrase his question in a way that makes it very tempting for me to give him a positive answer. It is, of course, a quite different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Having studied the responsibilities and the brilliant experience of the dynamic Ministers in my right hon. Friend's new team, may ask him whether he is aware that there are smaller businesses in both the older sectors and the newer sectors? Will he see to it that the responsibilities for smaller businesses are co-ordinated and looked at carefully in the whole range of his Department?

The answer is certainly "Yes." My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who has been translated to other responsibilities, made a great name for himself both in the House and in the country for his constructive dedication to the cause of small businesses. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) is equally keen and very able and will have my ardent support in securing my hon. Friend's purposes.

In considering these matters, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that industrial decline is not necessarily the same as economic decline?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not necessary to have either if people generally understand economic reality and that cooperation between work forces and managements is the way to fuller employment and higher living standards.

By the phrase "modern industry", does my right hon. Friend mean, in the context of the question, British manufacturing plants established by overseas investors? Is it the policy of the Government to encourage overseas investment, and does my right hon. Friend see any reason, for instance, to differentiate between an American company which wants to build a factory here and a Japanese company which wants to do the same?

We encourage inward investment where it makes sense in the national interest, just as we hope that our investment abroad is encouraged universally.

Is the Secretary of State aware that British industry will note that today he has given it no hope and no new proposals? Instead of blaming workers in industry, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the lack of investment in previous years in manufacturing industry, the present value of the pound, energy costs and the lack of public investment generally? When will the right hon. Gentleman take action in that direction?

It would be a great help if the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that what this country has lacked is not investment but good use of the investment which has been made. In more and more cases, alas, existing investment has been underused and overmanned. That is why we have become so uncompetitive.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the state of the engineering industry.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to my right hon. Friend's remarks in the Supply day debate on 4 December. I have nothing further to add to these at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of our most efficient engineering companies are on a two-day or a three-day week at the moment and that this state of affairs has arisen largely because of the once and for all steep increase in the value of the pound which has reduced their competitiveness against overseas and particularly European competition? Whereas over a long period the engineering industry could cope with this, over a short period it is very difficult. I wonder what encouragement my hon. Friend can give to the engineering industry.

I am very much aware of the difficulties of the engineering industry. Needless to say, not all is black. There are some good parts of the engineering industry.

Where?

In pumps, valves and mining machinery, companies are doing quite well. It must be some encouragement to us all that the Metro line of British Leyland represented the highest output of the car line since 1975.

Will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the prospects for new investment in the industry, especially in machine tools? Does he agree that we are reaching a situation, if and when we take off again, where British engineering will find itself denuded of adequate British machine tools and will have to import, as it is unhappily having to do at present, from Japan particularly, which is quite unfair in competitive terms at present?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps I could draw to his attention and to that of firms in the engineering industry the existence of the product and process development scheme run by my Department, which makes grants available not only to engineering companies but to other companies for the design, development and launch of new products. Under the scheme, we have committed some £63 million, £46 million of which has been committed in the lifetime of this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to increase industrial expansion in West Yorkshire.

Industry, in West Yorkshire and elsewhere, has been affected by the world-wide recession. As this clears, industry will expand provided that workers and management together improve competitiveness by raising productivity and keeping down costs. The most important contributions which the Government can make are to bring down inflation, which is happening, and to contain the Government's own costs.

Will the Minister consider encouraging his right hon. and hon Friends to cease their war on working men and women in such places as West Yorkshire and my own constituency of Huddersfield and bear in mind that people in textiles face a country such as the United States which imports oil at $35 a barrel and exports it in synthetic fibres at $15 a barrel? Will he also bear in mind that a firm in Bradford was referred to in the Financial Times this morning as having taken a 10 per cent. cut in wages a year ago but it still has 100 people unemployed today? Will he stop this war on working-class men and women, who make every effort in productivity terms?

There is no war, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says. What concerns us all is the industrial decline in Britain over many years, for the reasons which my right hon Friend gave, which bears so heavily on us all. It is to that that all our endeavours are directed to put matters right. I take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely about firms whose workers accept low wages. This is an unhappy state of affairs. But it is because there has been decline elsewhere in the economy so often that they are unable to sell their products. It is in that direction that we are devoting all our efforts. The hon. Gentleman referred finally to textiles. There is a later question on that subject.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, pleased as we are to see him in his new post, he is giving the same complacent replies as his predecessor, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who made a name for himself in West Yorkshire by never giving any help to the area? Will the hon. Gentleman come to Halifax, where I do not suppose he has been, and see for himself the circumstances created by this Government's decision to deprive the area of assistance? The above average unemployment and the severe difficulties facing all industry as a result of the Government's policies should be given urgent attention by him in his new post.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's remarks. I was often struck as I sat silently on this Bench by the ready assumption of the Opposition that indiscriminate further spending of the taxpayers' money was the simple answer to our problems, yet the period of our greatest decline was one in which Government spending to industry was on a vast scale. The hon. Lady will know that one of the widest demands from industry as a whole at present is for a reduction in the Government costs and of the public sector borrowing requirement. I remind the hon. Lady that this Government are spending more than £400 million on regional aid directed, we believe, to areas which most need assistance. Once I get my feet under the table, I shall look at the possibility of visiting Halifax.

Will my hon. Friend remind the Labour Party that every penny provided in aid for some areas and for nationalised industries can only come out of taxation on successful industries that have coped with the demands of the industrial situation? Will he appreciate that firms in my constituency that are fighting for survival cannot go on providing charity for the nationalised industries on the present scale?

My hon. Friend has a fair point. I know that many hard-pressed firms in my part of the country feel this strongly and believe that, in some cases, it amounts to unfair competition. That is why we have to make sure that Government money is effectively and correctly spent and does not go towards encouraging unfair competition.

Does the Minister realise that unemployment in West Yorkshire has now reached 90,000, exactly double the figure that existed when his Government took over? Will he stop perpetrating the myth that the decline in manufacturing industry is due to problems in export markets? All outside commentators say that our export markets have been growing substantially. Will he not recognise that it was a gross mistake by the Government to destroy our manufacturing industry? Is it not time that they reversed their mad policies on interest rates and the exchange rate and sought to bring jobs back to our manufacturing areas?

On the position of West Yorkshire as a whole, the hon. Gentleman may know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering further representations from the county council about a change in status, although I am bound to point out that in doing so he has to take account of the relative needs of all parts of the country including those with higher rates of unemployment than West Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman refers to interest rates. He will know that one of the main reasons for the present high level of interest rates is the present high level of the Government's borrowing requirement. That is a major reason why we wish to contain Government spending.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent representations he has received about the position of the United Kingdom paper and board industry.

My right hon. Friend has received a considerable number of representations in recent months.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the rumour of support by the French Government to the bankrupt paper company of Chapelle Darblay to the tune of about £90 million and of other examples of Continental support for the private sector paper industry at a time when Continental exports of paper to this country are increasing substantially? Does he accept that as fair competition? If not, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is fair competition between this country and at least the other countries of the European Community?

I was not aware of the example from France that my hon. Friend has quoted. I shall make inquiries into it. I was aware of the two examples in Belgium and Holland and my Department has asked the Commission for its views on both cases. We shall be vigilant in these matters.

Is the Minister aware of the paper by Sir Arthur Knight to the Institute of Fiscal Studies in which he said that our major competitors, America, Japan, Germany and France, intervened in their industrial economies in a more sophisticated and more sustained and widespread way than any Government had done in this country? Will he take that into account in considering the special problems faced by the paper industry in Britain?

I read Sir Arthur Knight's speech when I was a Back Bencher. It goes wider than the paper and board industry. I refute the argument that the Government have stood on the sidelines. In the two major closures last year, at Ellesmere Port and Fort William, it was made clear that substantial Government assistance was available if the companies wanted it. In the event, the companies decided that they did not want it.

Will my hon. Friend consider, among the many representations that he receives, that the greatest problem currently in the board industry is the high cost of fuel? The increasing cost particularly of electricity—yet another nationalised industry—may mean that the price of the product includes not less than 20 per cent. represented by energy costs. This alone is one of the greatest deterrents to any further expansion or, indeed, to the continuation of the industry.

My hon. Friend is right. The cost of energy to this industry is very high at between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. As the House will know and as my hon. Friend has said, Neddy last week set up a task force comprising members of the CBI, the TUC and the Department of Energy to examine urgently the complicated matter, especially of high energy users. It will report back to the March meeting. We welcome the setting up of the task force.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make special assistance available to the textile industries and the areas of the United Kingdom significantly affected by the sharp reduction in employment in those industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he now proposes to take to assist the textile industry.

The textile industry already receives substantial financial aid under the Industry Act and the temporary short time working compensation scheme, and is assisted by the import controls operated under the multi-fibre arrangement. In addition, we have obtained Community agreement to open discussions with the United States Administration about possible solutions to the problems of imports of American textiles. The Department has no plans to introduce any other forms of assistance.

Does the Minister recognise that the textile industry, of all the manufacturing industries, has suffered perhaps the largest decline in this country? In my constituency, the town of Batley has a male unemployment rate of 20 per cent. Will the Minister inform the House which of the textile sector working party recommendations he is examining? Secondly, will he say which of the schemes of other EEC countries to assist the textile industry he is studying with a view to introducing it in this country?

The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions and several sub-questions. The proposals put to my right hon. Friend covered every possible alternative. My right hon. Friend has replied. We are examining various proposals made by certain Governments of Common Market countries regarding their textile industries. I can assure the House that we shall be vigilant on this point. On the general level of support for the textile industry, I remind the hon. Gentleman that up to March 1980 support amounted to £35 million in grants of one sort or another. In addition, expenditure in relation to the wool textile industry, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, was £21 million up to 30 November 1980.

Is the Minister aware that the retiring chairman of the Wool Industry Research Association, Mr. Roy Stroud, a leading Yorkshire textile industrialist and a Conservative, says that no Government have done more damage to the textile industry than the present Government and that their policies are incomprehensible? In those circumstances, and in view of the enormous upsurge in unemployment in West Yorkshire and in the textile industry, will the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend to reconsider a review of measures to help the textile industry in the present economic climate?

I believe that the announcement made by the Minister for Trade before Christmas is of considerable significance. The negotiations with the United States and the Commission on the American system of under-costing its chemical feedstock have considerable significance for the British textile industry. I refute the argument that the Government are to blame for the decline of the textile industry. The decline is due to many complicated factors. We operate a measure of support through import controls for this industry. There are about 400 quotas operating over 40 countries. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that this is an industry of which we have washed our hands and that we are standing idly by watching it decline.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that the objective of the textile industry, unlike many other industries, is not grants and subsidies so much as fair trading? Will he not agree that the threat does not come from the Third world. As he says, that has been taken care of by the Government very successfully. The threat comes from the United States. Will my hon. Friend give an underaking that the moment the new Administration in the United States are in the saddle, he and his colleagues will pursue the matter of this unfair competition with the utmost vigour?

Yes, indeed. I am very willing to give that undertaking. We expect to have a report by February.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that all future forms of assistance to the textile industry should be protected, especially as regards the public purse in so far as the public purse makes the contribution? In the light of the revelation that Messrs. Courtaulds have exported to the United States, to Messrs. Milliken and Co.of South Carolina, 428 Sulzer weaving machines, does not the Minister believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to intervene and put a moratorium on exports of all second-hand textile machinery where those exports stem from a loss of jobs in the United Kingdom particularly in the assisted areas?

I saw the article in the business section of The Sunday Times yesterday with which the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are clearly associated. I should like to spell out the position on grants. Regional development grants are paid subject to conditions which require that grant-aided assets are used on qualifying premises for a minimum of four years from the date they are provided. If an asset is disposed of, or ceases to be used within this period, the Department can reclaim all the grant. In practice, it would normally recover only a proportion, allowing credit for the period of eligible use. My Department is in contact with the company over this question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in order to help the textile industry we imposed import controls against Indonesian textiles and that as a consequence the Indonesian Government retaliated? Is he aware that as a result an engineering firm in my constituency has lost orders worth millions of pounds? Does my hon. Friend accept that engineering firms in my constituency cannot afford to be penalised in order to help the textile industry?

I accept that there are import controls on a wide range of textiles, particularly from Third world countries. That is well known. We have made clear that when the MFA runs out at the end of this year we shall negotiate a strong successor. Deep in my bones I do not believe that the future for Britain lies in a closed economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will introduce legislation to abolish the National Enterprise Board.

I have no plans to do so.

Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a disappointing reply in view of the NEB's shocking record? Does he agree that massive sums are being spent by the board on non-productive and non-profitable enterprises? Does he agree that the money would be better spent on indigenous industries which require money for further investment in new machinery in order to create more employment?

My hon. Friend's remarks would have been truer a while ago. The National Enterprise Board is still the mechanism through which funding for British Leyland is channelled. Apart from that, its duty is now to dispose of the assets which it inherited as best it can, to the best benefit of the British taxpayer. It is well on the way with that. Its job is also to encourage certain high technology investments in partnership with private sector investment.

Does the Minister agree that the National Enterprise Board has been shown to be highly successful in promoting investment in high technology industries such as ICL and Ferranti? Does he agree that that role is still essential? Will he state that the Government intend to support the National Enterprise Board in high technology areas where clearly private enterprise has no interest?

The hon. Gentleman would have done better had he not chosen to make a sneering attack on private enterprise, which is responsible for the mass of investment in high and low technology in Britain. The hon. Gentleman should not do his best to write down British industry in that way. I have nothing to add to what the Secretary of State said recently when he made the remit of the National Enterprise Board plain and said that it had a role in investing in high technology in partnership with private sector industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the latest figures available for the level of productivity in British industry; how this productivity has changed since May 1979; and what steps he is taking to increase productivity.

The index of output per person employed in manufacturing industry in the third quarter of 1980 was 105.2–6½ per cent. below the figure for the second quarter of 1979. However, if approximate allowance is made for the sharp fall in the average number of hours worked by operatives in manufacturing the decline in productivity is a good deal smaller. The key to productivity improvement lies not with the Government, but with management and work forces.

Does the Minister agree that the productivity figures reflect the complete failure of the Government's policies? In general, does he agree that there is a high negative correlation between the growth of productivity and the level of unemployment? Does he agree that in times of low unemployment there are high increases in productivity, and vice versa? Does he agree, therefore, that the Government's main task should be to stimulate growth in general and, in particular, in high technology areas?

The economic relationship stated by the hon. Gentleman is by no means proven. It varies from country to country and from recession to recession. I emphasise that the figures which I gave exaggerate the drop in productivity. The figures for the third quarter of 1980 compared with the average for 1979 show a smaller drop—albeit a drop which I deplore—of 4 per cent. The Government attach a great deal of importance to the whole area of high technology and information technology. That is why the Prime Minister has charged me with the responsibility for information technology in the Government. It is a clear growth area. Britain must not fail to take advantage of the enormous opportunities which it offers.

I congratulate my hon. and personal Friend on his promotion. When encouraging the growth of productivity will the Minister study the levels of research and development by Japanese and British industry? Will he stress that in high technology and robotic areas British industry should consider licensing some of the technology from Japan when it is not as far forward as Japanese technology.

That is a possibility for many firms in the high technology industry and many do it already. I agree that the level of research and development in technology is key to the successful development of the industries dependent upon it. That is something which will concern me.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he has taken to encourage industry to innovate and expand into new areas of operation.

The Government are seeking to encourage innovation and expansion by creating an environment in the United Kingdom where industry can take long-term risks with confidence and invest substantially more in research and development and the adoption of new technologies.

Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) ask for a more sophisticated level of Government intervention? Does he agree that we should be subsidising, in so far as we are subsidising at all, companies that have a future rather than a past? When approaching companies such as ICL do the Government, in their purchasing policy, examine only the return on capital employed or do they also bear in mind the wide range of companies in the United Kingdom which require British computer manufacturing capacity?

I accept much of what my hon. Friend says in relation to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham). His selectivity on these matters is well known to the House. In relation to ICL, recent Government decisions have shown full recognition of many of the factors of which my hon. Friend spoke.

Does the Minister realise that management throughout the country is of the opinion that this Government cannot do anything about innovation? Does he agree that our economic standards compared with the rest of the Western world have deteriorated since the Government came to power? How much longer must it be before there is an upsurge in the economy?

The hon. Gentleman is an old friend and I am disappointed when I see vehemence overtaking logic in his submissions to the House. The hon. Gentleman leaves out an important factor. The Government understand the importance of the pump-priming activity in relation to research and development. The hon. Gentleman will recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on 24 November which included in the £52 million package substantial additional funding for research and development. That is relevant to our thinking.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the British Leyland corporate plan.

No, Sir. The Government are currently considering BL's plan and the asociated funding requirement. A statement will be made in due course.

May we have an asurance that the BL plan will be considered not only in the light of potential demand for motor vehicles but in the light of the likely contraction in motor vehicle construction amongst European manufacturers?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall take all the relevant factors known to us into account.

Is the Secretary of State aware that an early reply to the British Leyland corporate plan is essential so that the company can plan ahead for the next two or three years based on the excellent production that is taking place at present? May we have an assurance that we shall have a reply later this month?

I think that I can safely assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there will be a reply one way or the other later this month.

In view of the Government's specific commitment to the support of one advanced sports car —the De Lorean—in Ulster, will my right hon. Friend consider with the greatest care and scepticism the request being made by British Leyland for about £70 million for the support of yet another sports car—namely, the Jaguar? Must the Government be in competition with themselves?

That, too, we shall take into account in considering the proposals.

The Secretary of State has referred to shop-floor practices that have led to a lack of competitiveness on the shop floor. Now that he has had time to think about it, will he give one precise example of where a lack of competitiveness has occurred?

Yes. The fact is that in 1954—

When?

I am claiming that over many years our relatively poor productivity performance, coupled with the relatively large pay claims that have been extracted in British manufacturing industry, has reduced our competitiveness and contributed largely to unemployment rising now. This has been true year after year after year.

asked the Attorney-General if he will set out the criteria used to determine whether or not a case of contempt is considered possibly to interfere with the administration of justice.

asked the Attorney-General if he will set out the criteria used to determine whether or not a case of contempt is considered possibly to interfere with the administration of justice.

Contempt of court takes many forms and each case is considered on its facts and merits. It is therefore impossible to give a single list of criteria which will be applicable in every case.

"The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as to their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of that court to decide it according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these three requirements or to undermine the public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court."

Cannot the Attorney-General supervise the Government's prosecution policy rather more closely than he does at present? Is there not a contrast, for example, between the Home Office's action in encouraging the police to hold high-profile press conferences when they arrest a suspect, which inevitably gives rise to press comment which could make a fair trial impossible, and, on the other hand, when its own secrets about special control units are concerned, using contempt proceedings to harass the NCCL and gag The Guardian? Cannot the Attorney-General do something to ensure that there is a logical prosecution process for the Home Office?

I feel that I should not comment upon the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The matter to which he refers is awaiting hearing in the Court of Appeal. As for what has happened in recent days, I have discussed the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning and I am meeting him again later in the week, by which time I hope that both he and I will have the police report in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Until we have got that far I do not think that there is anything else that I can usefully add.

I do not wish to comment on the case that is before the courts. However, will the Attorney-General tell the House whether his approval was sought and his consent gained by the Home Office before the prosecution was brought? If that was not the position, does he think in retrospect that it should have been?

It is a long-standing tradition that the Law Officers do not disclose to the House whether their opinion has been sought and, if it has, what it contains.

It is obviously proper that the police should take pride in their work. However, the time for self-congratulation on apprehending a criminal is when that criminal is convicted by the courts, and not when a suspect is arrested. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us of all shades of opinion found the well-publicised junketing that went on in Yorkshire utterly distasteful? Will he consult the Home Secretary on setting out guidelines for chief constables on what should be done in future similar cases?

The obligation to be discreet in what one says so as not to prejudice any prosecution applies equally to newspapers, police officers and ordinary individuals. When that principle is breached, it is necessary always to consider what action has to be taken, whether by means of a reprimand or by means of proceedings for committal for contempt.

I accept the Attorney-General's words and I do not wish to particularise on any recent issue, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept, as he has heard this afternoon, that there is concern about the varying standards of those concerned in the approach to the fundamental issue of ensuring a fair trial? Is he aware of the recent statement made by Lord Elwyn-Jones that when he was Attorney-General he took proceedings for contempt only once although he received many requests to take such action? Is the Attorney-General's policy the same? Will he consider favourably making it a requirement that the consent of the Attorney-General should be obtained before contempt proceedings are brought?

As for the events of the past few days, I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for issuing the letter that had at once the effect that it was designed to achieve. I agree with everything that was set out in that letter. Consultation is something that I shall bear in mind. I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments.

asked the Attorney-General if he has recently received any representations concerning shoplifting; and what has been the gist of these letters.

The Attorney-General has received only two letters recently, both from Members of this House and both concerning the alleged existence of guidelines issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the police on the handling of allegations of theft from shops made against prominent persons. It appears that some misunderstanding may have arisen from an answer which the Attorney-Generaal gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on 24 March last year, in which he indicated the type of cases involving theft from shops in respect of which the Director had been consulted by police forces. Whilst the Attorney-General merely reported on the type of case in which the Director had actually been consulted, by police forces, this has been interpreted as implying that the consultation in these cases was the consequence of instructions issued by the Director. This was not the case and I can say that there is no question of the Director having issued or intending to issue any general guidelines or instructions to the police concerning such cases.

Leaving aside the misery that may or may not be caused to prominent persons, and bearing in mind that just as much misery is caused to anybody else who finds himself in these circumstances, will my hon. and learned Friend indicate whether he has had any recent discussions with the Department of Trade, with its responsibility for the trading methoods of stores, and the Home Office, with its responsibility for legislation, on the specific issue of shoplifting? If he has not done so, will he consider setting up an inter-departmental working party to consider the issue in view of continuing public concern?

I know and respect my hon. Friend's concern. As he will know from previous questions and answers, I share a great deal of his concern and views. There have been no recent discussions, but he may rest assured that Ministers in the Departments to which he has referred share his concern and mine that all our efforts should be co-ordinated and that they will note what he has said.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman feel that the concern that he has expressed should be given form through a full inquiry into the thoroughly unsatisfactory state of the law of theft from shops, which all too often leads to innocent people being prosecuted? Meanwhile, should not guidelines be issued so that at least elderly and ill people become the subject of psychiatric and medical reports before they are subjected to going into the dock in circumstances in which no decent and compassionate society would place them?

The hon. and learned Gentleman risks confusing two different matters. It is not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend or the Director of Public Prosecutions to lay down guidelines. However, my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear in an answer in the autumn that if anybody wishes to consult us or the DPP our services are always available.

asked the Attorney-General when it is next proposed to uprate eligibility limits for legal aid and advice and assistance.

No decision has been taken.

Perhaps I could state that we were one minute late in getting on to this subject. That is why I called another question.

I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is that there has been a substantial increase in legal aid expenditure in the current financial year. Until the overall implications for the legal aid programme are clearer, it would be premature to take a decision on uprating. The House may be interested in the following statistics. Criminal legal aid, for example, between 1970 and 1979 increased two and a half times. The original Estimate provision for 1980–81 for legal aid across the board was £85·1 million. There has had to be a winter Supplementary Estimate of £12·6 million to keep abreast of what happened.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have responsibility for enabling Members of Parliament to get to this place, may I ask if you were notified of any obstruction that might have befallen the entire Liberal Bench, as no Liberal Member was here for industry questions?

We will continue.

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the strike called by the National Union of Seamen.

Wage negotiations in the shipping industry are for the employers and the maritime unions. The shipping industry has to operate in a strongly competitive world-wide market. The future size of the United Kingdom merchant fleet and its job opportunities therefore depend primarily on its operating costs, including its labour costs, being internationally competitive. An illustration of this is the loss of 8,000 jobs in the past three years. I hope that it will be possible to reach a settlement that recognises this.

May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on assuming his new duties in what he may have considered a fairly tranquil field? However, his first venture has produced a grossly unsatisfactory and uninformative answer.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind personal remarks.

Order. Although we are dealing with a private notice question and not a statement, I shall call the right hon. Gentleman and the two hon. Gentlemen who have risen.

I do not wish to complicate the matter, but has my hon. Friend consulted, or will he consult, his colleagues responsible for energy, defence and aviation to ensure that if there is a prolonged strike no loss or harm will be caused to North Sea oil and gas interests? Does he accept that it would be quite wrong for the Government to allow that to happen?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are closely in touch with ministerial colleagues. We wish to do everything possible to mitigate potential damage.

May I also congratulate the Minister? Can he assure us that if the strikes continue the Government will bear in mind the difficultes that may be caused, particularly to islanders?

The Government are very conscious of the difficulties that could be caused in the Outer Islands, which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, and the Channel Islands. Such considerations will be closely borne in mind.

Is the Minister aware that I believe that he was right to refer to high overtime payments, as seamen work over 30 hours a week overtime? Does he accept that seamen work under laws passed by this House and can go to goal for refusing to work overtime? Does he further accept that there is therefore a special responsibility on the Government to ask the shipowners to come to arbitration to consider cuts in overtime? They imposed those cuts after the wage increases of 54 per cent., which were therefore in reality only 5 per cent. increases because of the loss of overtime. Finally, is the Minister aware that the union welcomes the loss of overtime, because seamen work far too long at sea, which leads to accidents and collisions?

These are complicated matters. I have already informed the House of the employers' willingness to enter into objective investigations on overtime questions.

rose—

I previously allowed the hon. Gentleman to speak for some time, as though this were a statement.

The Minister has made a complacent statement, which I deeply regret. He was selective in his reliance on certain figures. Why does he not take into account the fact that Danish seafarers are paid US—1,139 monthly, compared with US—575 monthly for British seafarers? Why does he not quote the suggestion of the NUS about arbitration, rather than rely entirely on the employers' case? Why does he not readily say to the House "I shall do my best to get both sides to accept arbitration"? That is the sensible way out of the dispute.

I have already dealt with the facts relating to the comparisons on wages mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I assure the House that the Government realise that it is a serious matter. I am concerned about the possible consequences—not only the loss of seamen's jobs if the strike proceeds, but the damage that could be caused to our industrial areas.

I wish to give a brief ruling. On 18 December 1980 I undertook to answer a query raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) regarding the appropriateness of the Bill relating to nationality being considered a constitutional Bill, and whether that was a matter that lay within definition by me. The brief but complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is ". No, it has nothing to do with me".