asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will pay an official visit to factories in the city of Leicester.

I shall be pleased to visit factories in the city of Leicester whenever my existing commitments make it possible for me to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he will be made very welcome by the city of Leicester, which is very anxious to attract new industry to it? It has marvellous facilities, including cheap office accommodation, which are near to the motorway and it is coping very well with its unemployment problems. Will my hon. Friend bear that in mind when he is asked where industry might go when it is to be moved or situated?

We shall always bear in mind my hon. and learned Friend's representations, which are many and varied. He is right in saying that Leicester's unemployment position is better than the national average. In October its percentage unemployment was 5·2 per cent. as opposed to a national average of 5·9 per cent., and we are pleased about that. We accept that the level of unemployment nationally is too high, but there are bright spots and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for drawing attention to one of them.

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

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly.

May I offer my sympathy to the Minister of State for continuing his unerring knack of backing loss-making industries with large sums of tax-payer's money? Will he assure the House that he and the Secretary of State are now taking a realistic view of the shipbuilding industry against a background of reported Japanese plans to cut production by 35 per cent. and Norway's plans to cut it by 48 per cent.? What cut-backs will be needed in British shipbuilding output and manpower if losses of British Steel dimensions are to be avoided in future years?

I know the hon. Gentleman's determination to damage the British shipbuilding industry. The Government will do everything possible to save as many jobs as possible in the British shipbuilding industry, recognising that contraction is a worldwide problem.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the general direction in which British Shipbuilders is going, but, in view of the decision of the Labour Party conference that Western Ship repairers Ltd. should be taken over as part of a nationalised industry, will he say what steps he and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry are taking to save jobs at Western Ship repairers Ltd. by absorbing it into British Shipbuilders or, if that is not possible, to take it over and create a nationalised ship repairing industry?

Immediately upon the passage of the conference resolution by the Labour Party I contacted British Shipbuilders, drawing its attention to the terms of the resolution and asking it—[Interruption.]Conservative Members may laugh about the loss of jobs on Merseyside. There would be many more losses if they had their way. As I was saying, I contacted British Shipbuilders, asking it to consider the matter constructively, and it is doing so. In addition, last week I met a delegation of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, together with workers' representatives from Western Ship repairers Ltd., who handed me a plan for diversification at Western. I met the chief executive of British Shipbuilders last week, handed him that plan and asked him to consider it constructively.

Can we be assured that the full details of the corporate plan, including the manpower cuts, will be laid before Parliament, par- ticularly since the press seems to have been given details of it? Can we be assured that the Minister of State will not simply pursue his policy of "vote now, get the sack later"?

The Government's record in saving jobs in the British shipbuilding industry is unrivalled by any other shipbuilding industry in the world, and we are proud of it. We shall consider the corporate plan when we receive it. We shall have to see what commercially confidential matter it contains in relation to what is a serious world competitive situation.

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

I meet the chairman of BL frequently. I have no immediate plans to do so at the moment.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent statement by the chairman of British Leyland about BL's industrial record? If so, will he no longer prop up this industry with more State aid, particularly if it is to prop up jobs lost by industrial action?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that the chairman of BL had done a good job since his appointment. In fact, he has. He has not only brought about some stability within the company, but he has organised the divisions much more sensibly and profitability has improved over the past 12 months.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, so far as the Government are concerned, an essential part of the Edwardes' plan is that the company should generate a substantial sum—up to £850 million—towards its own investment plans? Will he also confirm that if bad industrial relations destroy the company's capacity to achieve that target there will be no question of unlimited public funds being provided to make good the shortfall?

British Leyland's success will depend upon whether it can produce cars regularly, consistently get them into the showrooms and get people to buy them. That is understood by Mr. Edwardes, this House and the majority of those who work in British Leyland. Mr. Edwardes has had some success over the past 12 months. We have got away from the period of drip-feed of resources for British Leyland and moved to a better equity loan basis. If we get to the situation where the corporate plan justifies more Government finance, we shall make it available.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will undertake an official visit to the Doon Valley in South Ayrshire to meet local representatives about the discharge of his policy to support industrial development.

Unfortunately, my existing commitments do not enable me to plan such a visit in the immediate future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the purpose of the invitation was to draw his attention to a serious defect in one aspect of regional policy, whereby administrative boundaries can harshly discriminate against an area with up to 35 per cent. male unemployment? Will he undertake a review of the procedures to ensure that such injustice does not happen again?

I undertand the situation which has given rise to my hon. Friend's concern. Studies carried out indicate that the travel-to-work relationship in the area is with Ayr. Therefore, the Ayr travel-to-work area is the administrative boundary that we must use. I assure my hon. Friend that considerable financial help has been provided for the Ayr and Cumnock area—£6 million in selective assistance—which has given rise to substantially more investment projects and to 2,600 new jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has received a draft corporate plan for British Shipbuilders.

No, Sir.

In view of the Minister's lack of response earlier today may I ask whether he is aware of the real fears of those working in the shipbuilding industry which have been caused by rumours, several of which have been reported this morning? Will he arrange for a detailed statement to be made explaining the extent of the cut-backs which will be necessary? Does he now understand why so many people are drawing the inference that nationalisation has been an unmitigated disaster for the shipbuilding industry?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not spoken to any shipyard workers lately. The British merchant shipbuilding industry today would not exist if it had not been for nationalisation. Thousands of workers in the North-East, on Clydeside and in other shipbuilding areas, who have reason for nothing but scorn for the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party for what they did about shipbuilding, are grateful for what the Government have done to save their jobs.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any plan for British shipbuilding also includes a continuing role for the dry dock on the lower reaches of the Clyde? Has he heard the point of view expressed by many workers that a joint management and workers' committee should be established to investigate past costing and the future use of the dry dock for both new shipping and repairing, thereby avoiding redundancies?

I discussed with workers' representatives of Scott Lithgow last week the Scott Lithgow dry dock. I explained the view of British Shipbuilders that the dry dock could be helpful in shipbuilding work. I have pursued with the chief executive of British Shipbuilders, whom I met last week, the possibility of a continuing role for ship repair in that dry dock.

Will the Minister confirm that the corporate plan is due to be laid before his Department by 31st December? Will he take the opportunity of saying whether the profit from British Shipbuilders is still continuing to decline from previous estimates of £40 million? Will he think very carefully and confirm that the House will have a hance to see that corporate plan?

I cannot confirm that the House will see the corporate plan, because it contains details about the commercial prospects of a large number of companies which are extremely competitive in a worldwide shipbuilding disaster. We shall, however, see what information we can make available to the House. The accounts will be laid before the House shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers at Western Shiprepairers welcome the positive steps that he has so far taken to safeguard their jobs but that neither they nor anyone else on Merseyside will be satisfied until those jobs have been secured? Will he use whatever influence he has with British Shipbuilders to insist that Western Shiprepairers is taken into the nationalised industry? Will he also indicate when he is likely to receive a decision from British Shipbuilders?

We do not have the statutory powers to insist that British Shipbuilders take over Western Shiprepairers. However, I have always made clear to British Shipbuilders that I should like helpful steps to be taken. Western Shiprepairers applied to British Shipbuilders to be taken over when it was losing a great deal of money. It is important for British Shipbuilders not to be hampered by large loss-makers in the present serious situation.

Has the Minister of State seen the comments by the managing director of Austin & Pickersgill Ltd. to the effect that since nationalisation productivity has fallen sharply? How does that square with the Minister's claim when the legislation was introduced that he was creating a modern, competitive industry?

I have seen what that gentleman said about the situation at Austin & Pickersgill Ltd. I have also had a letter from my right hon Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) giving the workers' views about that situation. Their views vary seriously from those of Mr. Kimber.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the British Leyland car plan and any further public funding that may be required to fulfil the plan.

I expect to receive BL's updated corporate plan from the National Enterprise Board before the end of the year. The question of further public funding for BL will be considered in the light of the Government's review of the plan and the recommendations of the NEB.

Will the Secretary of State confirm his earlier undertaking to the House that he will be making a statement when he gets that plan? Will he also take this opportunity to confirm that, contrary to impressions in some quarters of the House, the chairman has withheld the investment fund until the resolution of some of the difficulties confronting the company?

I confirm that I shall make available as much information as possible about the corporate plan after the Government have had a chance to review the National Enterprise Board's recommendations, and we shall do that early in the new year.

Will the corporate plan result in any disengagement of British Leyland's interests in South Africa?

I do not know. If the recommendations by BL to the NEB are endorsed by the board and come to the Government, we shall have to consider them. I have no precise information on the lines of my hon. Friend's question.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when—and, indeed, if—he proposes to conclude a planning agreement with the management of British Leyland?

It has been on the stocks for some time now. As I have already indicated, there are encouraging signs from British Leyland about its share of the market. Indeed, there has been an improvement in profitability, but the great disappointment from my point of view is that worker participation in British Leyland has not taken off in any sense. There has been some involvement at some plants, but involvement at other plants has been disregarded. I want to see not only a planning agreement but progress towards industrial democracy inside British Leyland.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has for discussing with the motor industry the implications of Government sanctions against motor manufacturers who conclude pay settlements outside the Government guidelines.

None, Sir.

In view of the likely pay settlements to be concluded at Ford and at Vauxhall, will the public sector procurement of motor cars depend upon the delivery performance of BL and the preparedness of the Government to sanction further imports?

We had better wait and see what arises out of the negotiations which I understand are taking place. The only thing that I need to say to the hon. Gentleman today is that he will have seen paragraph 25 of the White Paper, which was laid before the House in July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which it was said:

" The Government will, if necessary, take account of any failure to observe the guidelines in exercising its discretion in the fields of statutory assistance and other appropriate discretionary power."

Will my right hon. Friend say whether his Department has made any representations to Ford about its pricing policy over recent years. The company has increased its prices over a number of years when it has not been under considerable wage pressure.

I have not made representations to Ford, but my right hon. Friend the Secretray of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has been in touch with the company about this matter. I do not know whether it is possible for Ford to give any precise information, but my hon. Friend will recall that from this Dispatch Box a few days ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited Ford to make known publicly what its prices policy would be.

But are there or are there not to be sanctions?

We had better wait and see how the negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. Oh, yes. The negotiations have not finished. It is our hope that the negotiations will result in a settlement within the guidelines. When the negotiations are complete, the Government will take a view of the situation in the light of paragraph 25 of the White Paper.

Is there a system of sanctions of which industry and trade unions can be made aware in their negotiations?

The White Paper makes the matter absolutely plain, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that we took discretionary action against companies during what was known as phase 3.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further steps he is taking to regenerate industry on Merseyside.

Industrial investment on Merseyside qualifies for regional assistance at the highest level in Great Britain since we made it a special development area in 1974. I shall continue to do everything practical to promote industrial development on Merseyside.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that we welcome the additional funds that have been made available to the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency? Nevertheless, given that the level of unemployment on Merseyside is far higher than that in either of those two countries, will he now say what extra resources will be provided for Merseyside through the National Enterprise Board? Further, will he say what would be the economic impact on Merseyside if the Opposition's policies for withdrawing subsidies and other measures were to be introduced?

First, I give my hon. Friend an assurance that I shall guarantee that Merseyside is not disadvantaged in regard to resources, and nor will any of the other English regions. The Government have provided £60 million of selective support for Merseyside which has generated nearly £400 million worth of investment in the area in firms such as Ford, YKK, Schreiber, the Co-operative Bank and so on. There is, therefore ample evidence of the Government's willingness to support new ventures in that region.

Has my right hon. Friend had discussions with Dunlop Rubber about press statements to the effect that 2,500 jobs at its premises on Merseyside are likely to disappear? Is that a correct statement of the position? If not, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that that does not happen? We cannot afford any further redundancies on Merseyside.

Obviously, such a job loss would be a disaster for the area. My officials are in touch with that company at the moment and are trying to establish the precise position. Needless to say, if there is anything which the Department can do to help the company or, indeed, any other company in need in the area, within the guidelines, that we shall do.

Does the Minister realise that, as he is now obviously interested in studying Conservative policy proposals, he will find that we are prepared to maintain a strong and effective regional policy? Has not the Minister's own experience shown him that a policy based merely on the pouring of public funds into industry when the climate for enterprise is as bad as it is at present is singularly ineffective on Merseyside, in Wales, in Scotland and elsewhere?

Is it not fascinating that the hon. Gentleman does not deny the fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—that the Conservatives are considering dismantling the financial incentives? The report in the Financial Times makes it clear that they are talking of cutting back as much as £300 million from the £400 million that currently goes on regional development grants. If they get back to office they intend to repeat the criminal error which they committed when they came to office in 1970 and destroyed regional policy.

Is not the Minister part of a Government who withdrew the regional employment premium, against all their declaration and intentions? Is it not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) says, that a climate for enterprise will do far more for jobs than the incessant pouring out of taxpayers' money?

The right hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Does not the Minister agree that taxes in this country are far too high? Do the Government have any ambition to reduce taxation?

I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the removal of the regional employment premium withdrew £2 per head from firms in the assisted areas and made available £20 per head to the firms that were really in need. Conservative Members say that they want selection. That is selective assistance. I shall not be lectured by the right hon. Gentleman on withdrawing grants. He was a member of the Government who cancelled investment grants in 1970 and had to bring them back again in their Industry Act 1972 because they realised that they had destroyed the policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the criticisms levelled at the work of his Department's Warren Spring laboratory concerning measures to combat oil pollution, as made in the Select Committee report on the "Eleni V" affair; and what steps he is taking to ensure that less reliance is placed by the laboratory on the use of detergents.

The Government will reply to the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology—"Eleni V"—in the normal way. I should prefer at this stage not to anticipate that. The laboratory is concentrating on oil recovery systems which, if successful, will reduce reliance on detergents.

Was it not ironic that, at the same time as consternation was being expressed about the seal cull off the Orkneys, off the Welsh coast seal pups were dying because their mother's milk was poisoned by the effect of the detergent used in the "Christos Bitas" incident? On the latter point, is the Minister aware that two and a half years ago I brought one of my constituents to see his former Department of Industry colleague, Lord Melchett, to discuss the development of technology being pioneered by a company in my constituency, the end product of which was that, one year ago, one of the senior civil servants at the Department left the Department and has now set up in opposition, with an American company, to my constituent's technology?

Warren Spring has received widespread praise for its conduct in connection with the "Christos Bitas" affair, including from the Welsh Office.

I have already asked for a meeting.

so that we can arrange a meeting to have the discussion in the way it should be conducted.

Whilst declaring no interest in this question because of nomenclature, may I ask the Minister to expand his reply to my hon. Friend's question? He said that Warren Spring laboratory was carrying out research into methods of recovering oil at sea. Is he aware, however, that in evidence to the Select Committee it was stated that no such research projects were planned in the years 1978 to 1980 in the plans approved by the requirements board of his Department?

I should prefer not to anticipate the Government's reply to that Select Committee report. The experience which Warren Spring has gained and is already applying has been widely praised, and much of the work which it is doing in various areas has been internationally acknowledged as being in the forefront.

Does the Minister realise that the House will not accept that guidance should not be given to Warren Spring. now rather than waiting for the report to ensure that in the total budget for Warren Spring a greater proportion is spent on matters concerned with oil recovery and the problems of pollution at sea, which are of major concern to so many people around the coasts of this country?

If the hon. Gentleman has any specific proposals, I shall, of course, be pleased to hear from him. But I think that he may be misunderstanding the role of Warren Spring. It does not have a direct operational role. It has an advisory and research role. I stress that much of the work that it has already done is widely acknowledged internationally as being right in the forefront.

Nevertheless, will the Minister continue to rely on the use of detergents, which have been shown to have some effect, until such time as there is something really effective to replace them?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful in this matter, but it all depends on what kind of oil it is. If it is light oil, detergents or other methods are available for dealing with it, and other methods are being studied. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that if it is heavier oil there are many more problems.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adojumment at the earliest possible opportunity.

May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I apologise for seeking to do so. During Question Time the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in trying to answer a Supplementary Question of mine, said that I should seek a meeting with him or his colleagues if I wished to pursue the point. He was either unaware of, or was not mentioning, the fact that I have sought such a meeting with the Minister of State, Department of Industry. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the point I am now making be recorded in the Official Report at the appropriate place, after the exchange of questions?

The hon. Gentleman's point of order will appear in the Official Report, because he has just spoken, but, on an afternoon when we are sensitive about time, I cannot guarantee that I shall put the clock back.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will indicate the substance of his reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Salford, East regarding the requirement of deposits on intending telephone subscribers in certain areas in addition to installation charges before a new telephone is installed.

My hon. Friend will be aware from my right hon. Friend's reply to his letter that the Post Office is seeking ways of bringing this practice to an end.

I am grateful to hear that. Is it not grossly unfair that these blanket deposits of up to £50 per head on every would-be subscriber in whole districts is being imposed, even though they have never owed a penny? Will the Minister tell Sir William Barlow, head of postal and telecommunications services, that it is even worse to refuse to name the districts which are being blacklisted in this way?

I know that my hon. Friend has, quite rightly, pursued this matter over a period of time. On 25th August Mr. Peter Benton, the managing director of post office telecommunications, said that in the area which my hon. Friend represents less than 3 per cent. of new applicants—the majority of whom were short-term customers—were being subjected to the kind of procedure which my hon. Friend has reported this afternoon. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that the Post Office now intends to go ahead with a series of schemes using credit reference agencies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this further example of inflexible and arbitrary conduct by the Post Office raises the need for a code of practice by which consumers can know precisely where they stand on a whole range of issues? Will he pursue the Post Office on this matter, since it is now 18 months since we were told by the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection that the production of such a code of practice was in hand?

I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but he will realise that these are matters which have to be gone into very carefully. They have been the subject of extensive consultations with the Post Office Users National Council and, indeed, with the Post Office unions. Having said that, I can tell my hon. Friend again that it is my understanding that in the near future the Post Office intends to embark on a series of schemes using credit reference agencies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these arrangements for credit reference schemes have begun in certain parts of the country, including the area which I represent? On the other hand, is it not disgraceful that in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) about 3 per cent. of new subscribers are still discriminated against because of the area in which they happen to live, rather than because of any failure on their part to meet their debts? When will this stop?

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that I said "less than 3 per cent.". I stress that last year there was about £15 million worth of unpaid telephone bills to which the Post Office ought to have regard as well. Nevertheless, I hope my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that in its policy towards the introduction of new schemes involving credit reference agencies the Post Office recognises that there has been a problem and is trying to do something about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he proposes to take to ensure that the policy of regional grants ceases to discriminate against the West Midlands.

The West Midlands contnues to benefit from national schemes of selective assistance and through the National Enterprise Board. For example, under the ferrous foundry industry scheme more than £20 million—more than 25 per cent. of aid under this scheme—has been offered to firms in the West Midlands, although the region's proportion of the working population is below 10 per cent. In addition, the region has derived considerable benefit from public funds committed to British Leyland, Alfred Herbert, Chrysler UK and Meriden. Though the worldwide recession has affected all parts of the country, including the West Midlands, the regions of greatest need ought to have special financial help.

Is the Minister aware that through the pursuit of discriminatory regional grant policies and industrial development certificate policies about which his colleague was eulogising earlier, the West Midlands has been economically strangled?

I totally reject the claims which the hon. Gentleman and others in the West Midlands make. But for the actions of the Government, the West Midlands would be an industrial desert. In fact, the West Midlands has received substantial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. In Coventry almost one in five of the workers owe their jobs to the National Enterprise Board and its injections of public money—money which is coming very much under a question mark as a result of some Conservative Members.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that marked and adverse discrimination against the West Midlands is carried out by the institutions of the Common Market, which nevertheless publicise and propagandise each piddling little sum of money unwillingly forked out in return for the colossal sums of money forked out by the British taxpayer to them?

My hon. Friend has raised the point that there is a net deficit on our payments with the Common Market. It is true that the Common Market advertises all the money which it gives for regional assistance. My hon. Friend has made the point that what we as a Government ought to do is to emphasise more and more—if we had even a half-way sympathetic media we would get some of this publicity—that money spent by the Government is saving and generating thousands of jobs and that if ever the Tories got anywhere near power thousands of jobs would be jeopardised.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's actions are discriminating against the establishment of new industry in the West Midlands? If everything is as rosy as he suggests, why was it necessary for the West Midlands county council to submit a report entitled "Time for Action"?

Remember what it said about the Common Market, too.

I do not want to give an impression of complacency. What I want to do is to refute the extremely unfair criticisms which have been made by Conservative Members. Of course we are not complacent about a level of unemployment of 6·1 per cent. However, people on Merseyside, with a level of unemployment of over 12 per cent., are presumably also very much concerned about what happens. Since January 1976, about 722 IDCs have been issued and none refused. Therefore, the question of a deterrent for new industry does not measure up to anything like the sort of claims made by Conservative Members.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of square footage granted by the Government to the West Midlands by way of industrial development certificates has been enormous compared with the amount granted during the time of the previous Conservative Government? Is not the case put forward by Opposition Members refuted by the fact that my hon. Friend has just confirmed that not one request for an IDC in the West Midlands has been refused since 1974?

IDCs which have been granted since 1976 should give rise to more than 34,000 jobs when the industries involved move there. Industrial development certificates do not of themselves produce jobs. It is the manufacturing activity which follows which does that. There has been a generous attitude on the part of the Government who, contrary to the actions of previous Governments, have raised the exemption limit for IDCs.

Does the Minister accept that although no IDCs are being rejected a number of applications are withdrawn after heavy advice from the Department? Are not many would-be investors deterred by the need to seek IDC permission before making investments? As the Minister appears to have noticed that the West Midlands is in a depressed state industrially, does he not think that the time has come for a further raising of the threshold for IDC control?

The hon. Gentleman's views are entirely speculative. If he has any evidence whatever that representatives of the Department of Industry have been rejecting applications for IDCs or intimidating people so that they do not apply for the certificates I should be grateful if he would let us know, rather than make such highly speculative remarks. We shall look at whatever evidence he gives to us.

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

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman very frequently.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he ask him to institute an inquiry within the NEB into why the board bailed out Sir Richard Marsh's company, Allied Investments, earlier this year on what now appears to be untruths told by Sir Richard Marsh concerning the number of orders which he claimed the company had on the books? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the amount of money which that company has been paying in bribes in Arab countries far outweighs anything in which British Leyland was ever involved? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, and press this point upon the chairman of the NEB, that public money ought not to be used to bail out such seedy capitalists as Sir Richard Marsh?

I have seen the press article to which my hon. Friend draws attention. I have read it with great concern and have taken up the matter with the NEB. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment further on the matter at this stage.

In view of the series of disastrous investments which the NEB has made on its own acount, may I ask the Minister to consider replacing the present chairman by the new Lord Mayor of London, Sir Kenneth Cork, the liquidator?

The latest returns by the National Enterprise Board show that it made a profit on its investments.

Returning to Allied Investments, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that I wrote to him nearly two years ago about the state of this company, which has now been shown to have put forward a completely false prospectus? As the company spends its time making money in the Gulf States to undermine the National Health Service by building private nursing homes in this country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to have a good look at the NEB's policy in this area?

My hon. Friend has written to me about this matter and I have replied to him. I do not know whether he has received my reply yet, but it fully acknowledges his concern. There are certain elements in what he has said which, if he re-examines them, he will find are not justified. Nevertheless, I fully recognise his concern on this matter, which is shared by the Government.

Is it true that NEB funds at British Leyland are being used to provide for Leyland agents sales terms which are not available anywhere in the commercial market to any of its competitors, such as Ford? Is this a fair use of taxpayers' money?

If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence about what he regards as malpractice in Leyland, I shall be grateful if he will send it to me, when it will be looked into.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many planning agreements have now been completed between his Department and individual companies.

One.

As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry have made a great deal about the importance of planning agreements in promoting our economy and expanding industrial investment, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so far only one such agreement has been entertained?

I think that this is because there has been a genuine misunderstanding in industrial quarters about the intentions of planning agreements. A planning agreement process is intended to be a continuation of the dialogue which already exists between Government and industry. It is intended to try to establish that the decision-making processes of industry take account of the objectives set and aspired to by the sector working parties. There is nothing mandatory about such agreements. They can be highly flexible, contrary to the view of the CBI. I know that Tory Members have been somewhat derisory about the Chrysler agreement. If anything, that shows that planning agreement processes are flexible.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why he has not yet signed or initiated a planning agreement with the footwear distribution industry when such an agreement was proposed by the footwear study group on which manufacturers, trade unions and Labour and Conservative Members of Parliament were represented? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all those people came to the unanimous conclusion that a planning agreement should be drawn up?

I have no objection whatever to the drawing up of a planning agreement where there is a meaningful intention on both sides to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what information as to the investment intentions of Peugeot-Citreon in relation to the Chrysler commercial vehicle plants at Dunstable and Luton he has received in pursuance of the planning agreement;and if he will make a statement.

Substantial investment is continuing at the commercial vehicle plants at Luton and Dunstable in accordance with the plans which were agreed between the Government and Chrysler UK. There has been no change in these plans on which our assistance is based. Peugeot-Citreon's declaration of intent contains clear assurances about the future use of all Chrysler UK facilities, including the commercial vehicle plants. I have arranged for copies of this and the heads of agreement to be placed in the Library.

May I ask whether, during the intensive discussions with Peugeot-Citroen over the last three months since the takeover was announced, the Government went to the trouble of pointing out that an element of modernisation was needed fairly quickly at the Dunstable and Luton plants? Did Peugeot-Citroen say that it would definitely meet that need for modernisation by providing an investment programme for those plants?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that and all other aspects of the future of those plants were discussed. We were encouraged that Peugeot took the view that it was happy to be returning to the commercial vehicle sector which it left when it merged with Citroen. Peugeot-Citroen has given clear undertakings about the marketing of commercial vehicles, the sharing of investment plans and new product plans within the whole corporate structure.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the publicly appointed directors of Chrysler are excluded from all deliberations on the future plans of Chrysler-Peugeot-Citroen?

That is certainly not my understanding of the situation—

Then how is it that they were left in the dark?

Ah! That is a different matter altogether. If my hon. Friend had asked a straight question, I should have known what it was he wanted answered. He has touched on an important factor here. What happened was that Chrysler deliberately kept its discussions at an international level and did not bring them to the national level. In that sense, it was less than straightforward with the British Government.

Under the original agreement with Chrysler, a target was set for the use of British components. Can the Minister confirm that that target is reproduced in any agreement with Peugeot-Citroen?

During the Motor Show I went to the National Exhibition Centre and had a meeting with representatives of Peugeot-Citroen and the components industry to discuss this matter. All of us, including the industrialists present, were impressed with the attitude being taken by the Peugeot-Citroen representatives. They were eager that Chrysler UK should sustain its relationships with suppliers, and they were equally willing that British suppliers should have access to the whole Peugeot-Citroen-Chrysler network and range of models. It is up to us to ensure that our components meet requirements.

I am pleased to hear that there have been some useful discussions. Is it not about time that we got some hard information about the company's intentions? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we do not get information we get rumours? Is he further aware that the latest rumour is that the new Peugeot-Citroen car is to be called the "hatchback of Notre Dame"? Is it not time that we had information in respect of the supplying industry and the future model programme?

My hon. Friend will realise that the company, in its new role, has set up a series of task forces to look at all aspects and every range of the operations of the new company. They are due to make their reports towards the end of the year. It is understandable that they want time to assess all the opportunities and options available to them, and it would be premature to press for firmer commitments at this stage. I invite my hon. Friend to read the declaration of intent, a copy of which is in the Library. I think that he will find it encouraging.

asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the time it takes criminal cases to reach court.

No. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is deeply concerned about the delays in the Crown court caused by the continuing increase in the number of criminal cases coming before the court. He has already taken a number of steps to contain the situation and will be continuing to treat the matter as one of urgency.

I am grateful for that reply. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the length of delays is rising in the provinces and rising dramatically in London? How advanced are the plans to extend the number of courts, particularly in London, and has consideration been given to the possibility of extending the number of hours that courts sit each day?

There has been a substantial increase in waiting time, taking the country as a whole. The average waiting time in 1972 was 11·2 weeks, and at the end of June 1978 it was 13·7 weeks. My hon. Friend is right when he says that the situation is rather more serious in London, where the average waiting time is 25·2 weeks, than in the rest of the country.

While the circumstances in Northern Ireland differ in some respects from those in other areas also within the responsibility of the Law Officers, will they keep up the pressure to reduce in that Province the excessive period referred to in the Question?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Courts Bill will shortly be coming into operation, and we shall be able to see its effect in the Province. The matter is being watched carefully.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the criteria on which custodial remands are granted are clear and satisfactory, in the light of recent cases of people who had been imprisoned on remand on charges of a quasi-political character suddenly and without explanation being released after long periods of imprisonment?

I have no reason to believe that courts are dealing with cases of a quasi-political character differently from any other case. If my hon. Friend has any specific case in mind, perhaps he will bring it to my attention.

Has the Criminal Law Act yet made a substantial contribution to this problem?

It is difficult to say specifically whether that factor has made a contribution. Even within magistrates' courts—and I imagine that this is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind—there is a problem of delays. It may be that, having attempted to solve the problem at the Crown court level, we have exacerbated the problem in magistrates' courts.

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

Soon.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the DPP of his statement to the House last week that action must be taken against Rhodesia sanctions breakers, without regard to the position or political party of the law breakers, especially in view of the apparent contradictions in the statements of former Cabinet Ministers and the embarrassed silence on the Opposition Front Bench, which has possibly been caused by the fact that one of the directors of Castrol was Mr. Thatcher?

I certainly re-collect the statement that I made to the House. In due course the Government will make known their decision.

Does the Attorney-General accept, in the light of Mr. Justice Mars-Jones' recent comments, that he and the Director of Public Prosecutions made an expensive error of judgment in deciding to use section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, which relates to espionage, to prosecute journalists without the Crown offering any evidence—

Order. The case to which the hon. Gentlemen is referring is still under way. He may feel that the particular issue that he is raising has been dealt with, but we had better avoid that case until it is completed. There will be plenty of time afterwards for hon. Members to raise it.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but the charges to which I was referring have been dropped.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he discuss with him the widespread lack of knowledge about the functions of the DPP and the difficulty that ordinary people have in understanding how he comes to make arbitrary decisions? For example, when the National Front invaded a civil liberties meeting in Manchester about a year ago, the Director would not bring prosecutions and a private prosecution was brought and the people involved were dealt with.

To the best of my knowledge, the case to which my hon. Friend has referred is still sub judice. One of the persons convicted has appealed and I think that the appeal has not yet been heard. On the general question, I am constantly discussing with the Director methods of making as fair and thorough assessments as possible. Fortunately, the Director has been able to increase the number of staff in his department recently and that will make this task easier.

asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the activities of ICL in South Africa, with a view to prosecution for breaches of the Rhodesia sanctions orders.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has received no information which would justify his doing so. Any information received will be given full consideration.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that ICL advertises in the Rhodesian press as being able to make available all ranges of computer services and to supply computers? Since the firm has no manufacturing capacity in South Africa, is it not reasonable to assume that there is some connection between the manufacture of computers in this country and their supply to Rhodesia? Is this not a matter which should be investigated thoroughly, and will my hon. and learned Friend arrange for an investigation if I send him further information?

If my hon. Friend sends me further information I shall examine it, and if it contains something that ought to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions my hon. Friend may be assured that it will be sent to him.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that as far back as 1968 the House refused to allow a company registered in London, but trading mainly in South Africa, to change its registration from this country to South Africa? Has he made any inquiries about the number of firms which, although they may be trading mainly in South Africa, are registered at the Stock Exchange and are busting sanctions even now? If he has not looked at this area, why does he not do so and find these firms and prosecute where necessary?

I am not aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he has evidence that certain firms are sanctions-busting perhaps he will send it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The evidence will be examined, and if it reveals that there has been a criminal offence, it will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for examination with a view to criminal proceedings being instituted.

asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the current position and procedure for the selection of potential jurors in serious criminal trials; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied with the present procedure.

Is the Attorney-General aware that there was great disquiet over the fact that the statement on this subject was made as a result of adverse press criticism and that it came as a great surprise to many people to find that it had not been announced in Parliament? Will he give an undertaking that any revision of the guidelines will be made available to the public at the earliest possible opportunity, preferably through the House?

The hon. Gentleman is in error. The practice has been going on at least since 1948, and probably since a great deal earlier than that. It is only since 1974–75 that it has been subject to control to ensure that it is operated as infrequently as possible and as fairly as possible to the defence as well as to the prosecution.

Without resort to the papers which passed between us on that occasion, I must confess that of the country, including the West Mid-it came as a surprise to me to see the guidelines published in The Times as a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's recent announcement. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I still hold to the view that one cannot have one rule for the defence and one for the prosecution? If the defence has been limited, as it has in recent years, in the kind of investigation that it can make into the background of prospective jurors, surely the same considerations apply to the prosecution, because it is in the interests of the defence also to know what is the background of people who are to try cases which have this kind of quasi-political nature.

I do not accept the point about cases of a "quasi-political nature". If my hon. Friend, who was then at the Home Office, is surprised by the form which the guidelines have taken I can only assume that at the time he did not study the correspondence in his own Department, because that correspondence made them absolutely clear. The major new development in the guidelines was to do everything possible to see that the defence was put on an equality with the prosecution.