asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Post Office regarding the future of the parcel service.

I have recently discussed with the Chairman the Post Office's proposal to increase its parcel tariffs. Following this, and in the light of the advice of the Price Commission and representations from the Post Office Users' National Council and other interested parties, I decided to abate the proposed increase from 25 per cent to 13 per cent.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the parcel service, with high fixed costs, can only ever become viable if it attracts additional business? Next time he meets the Chairman of the Post Office will he suggest that a more aggressive marketing policy on the part of the Post Office in the parcel service would probably lead to a better situation than the Post Office continuing to complain because it did not get all its own way after the Secretary of State's intervention?

I know that the Post Office Corporation, the Chairman and others responsible are looking at ways of getting profitable business in its parcel activities. I am sure that they will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Would it not make sound sense to co-ordinate the parcels division of the Post Office with the two other public undertakings which carry parcels, all of them at a loss?

There is a great deal of merit in what my hon. Friend suggests, although I am not making a commitment that this will be done. I know that he will be aware that in the consultative document on transport policy there was a suggestion that the whole public sector parcels carrying business should be looked at.

In his discussions with the Chairman of the Post Office did the Secretary of State raise the proposal of the Post Office, now implemented, to cease Sunday collections? Is he aware of the widespread public concern about this decision, concern which is shared by the Post Office Users' National Council? Is he prepared to comment on this matter?

I recall that in our debate a few months ago the hon. Gentleman, or certainly some hon. Members opposite, urged the Government to call on the Post Office Corporation to make economies. I know that this matter has caused public concern. As I understand it, the Post Office Corporation will be reviewing the situation in a year's time.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of discussions with Chrysler United Kingdom Limited.

My Department is involved in continuing discussions with Chrysler United Kingdom about the implementation of the agreement, monitoring of the company's performance and the planning agreement which it is intended to conclude. We also maintain discussions with the company which stem from normal sponsorship responsibility.

Do the figures originally given to the House for the Government's commitment still apply, or have they been altered in any direction? Is the company now bound by the original agreement?

I think that there have been a few changes since the matter was debated in the House. In particular, there have been changes in the level of the work force now required for Chrysler United Kingdom. I believe that a meeting took place between Chrysler United Kingdom and the work force last Friday and there was a suggestion that some of the redundancies previously envisaged would not now go ahead.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether in his or his Department's discussions with the Chrysler Corporation there has been any discussion about the import content of Chrysler's share of the domestic market? Will he tell the House what that percenttage is?

No. I need notice of that question. Continuing discussions are taking place between officials of my Department and Chrysler United Kingdom. Coopers and Lybrand, on behalf of the Department, monitored the company's performance. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a specific Question about that, I shall do my best to answer it.

Has there been any revision, upwards or downwards, in the amount of Government funds needed to carry through the Government's strategy?

There have not been any changes in that. It is still envisaged that Chrysler United Kingdom will make a loss this year of approximately £40 million. I cannot be more precise than that at this stage. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) for not answering this point earlier when he put it to me. I answered the other part of his question rather fully. I can tell the House that, so far, under the agreement, £27 million has been advanced to Chrysler to meet losses. It has also received £2 million by way of loan.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress be has recently made towards agreement with the responsible authorities of other countries upon future collaborative civil aerospace projects.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has had any further discussion with European Ministers regarding future new European collaborative aerospace projects.

I shall be having talks on these matters with M. Cavaille, French Secretary of State for Transport, in Toulouse at the end of the month. Extensive discussions are in progress, both at industry and official levels both in Europe and with the United States companies, aimed at defining possible future aircraft projects and the options for collaboration on them.

Is not the Minister aware that I asked him about progress and not about a list of the endless words which are being muttered by him and his cohorts? Is it not a better measure of progress, since the blight of nationalisation, that the two major American contractors are now discussing partnership for the future with French companies rather than with British companies?

The hon. Gentleman always seeks to put the worst possible construction on every situation. He knows very well that this Government are anxious to enter into collaborative projects with our European partners. I have been involved in contacts with our European partners on that. As it happens, I shall also be meeting the President of Boeing this afternoon.

Would my hon. Friend comment on some of the reasons, on which Conservative Members could perhaps elaborate, why the progress of nationalisation has been so slow? A little nearer home, has his Department yet been able to make a response to Hawker Siddeley's proposals on the HS146 and future work?

My hon. Friend has a later Question on this, which it would be wrong to anticipate. On the former part of her question, it sometimes appears to me that Conservative Members are interested in a successful British aerospace industry only provided that it is privately-owned but funded by the State.

Is the Minister aware that while he is having these conversations, which have been going on for some months now, the future projects of the European industry have already been defined and that the aerospace industries of Europe and America are getting to the point of giving up hope that they can ever look to the British aerospace industry—or, more particularly. to the British Government—for any sense of priority and direction? When will he do something about that?

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should talk about matters which have not been defined. One of the problems for me is that this Government inherited no such definitions from the Conservative Party. If only we had had some projects to take over from them, perhaps we could have got on with them.

In this international co-operation and collaboration, is any way of developing quieter aircraft being discussed in order to alleviate many of the problems which afflict people in places like Ealing, where they suffer dramatically from aircraft noise?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on, as always, speaking up on behalf of his constituents. The search for quieter aircraft is one of the things on which we are constantly engaged.

I am sure that we understand and welcome the fact that the Minister is now having meaningful talks with our European allies. But why, when the Labour Party came to power, did it abandon the talks which we had already initiated?

Obviously I do not know what talks the hon. Gentleman initiated, since I am not able to see what he did when he was in office. Sometimes I am grateful for that.

asked the Secretary of State for industry what policy he intends to adopt with regard to the issue of directives to the NEB on the acquisition of profitable manufacturing companies.

It is a statutory function of the NEB to make such acquisitions. I am very satisfied with the progress that the NEB is making and I do not contemplate giving it a direction on this matter.

How does the Minister reconcile this policy with the very firm rebuttal which his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave at the NEC meeting last week to the proposal of the Labour Home Policy Committee to extend public ownership further into profitable sectors of manufacturing industry?

The hon. Member is giving us accounts of what took place at the National Executive which are not in accord with what took place. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is an outstanding exponent of the policies put through by this Government. One of them is the Industry Act 1975, under which the National Enterprise Board can make investments in profitable private enterprise manufacturing industry, and that is what it will go on doing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members should not always believe what they read in the newspapers about the National Executive? Would he turn his mind to the specific point and say that what is being proposed by the NEB—to extend into the profit-making industries—is as laid down clearly in the Act?

My hon. Friend was actually present at the National Executive meeting on which the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) claims to be such an expert. The National Enterprise Board has so far taken substantial shareholdings in International Computers and in Brown Boveri Kent. It has other acquisitions in hand which are still commercially confidential.

Can the Minister confirm that the NEB will not be taking over any pharmaceutical companies? Can he give a firm commitment on that point?

Not at all. If the NEB found that it was appropriate under its functions to enter the pharmaceutical range of industries, that would be a very appropriate thing for it to do.

Why is it acceptable to the Conservative Party for the NEB to take over unprofitable failures of private enterprise but not the profitable sectors of manufacturing industry? Would my hon. Friend comment on the statement made today that British Leyland, although a failure under private enterprise, has made £14 million pre-tax profits in the first six months of State ownership?

Just because the Conservatives' only recent act of nationalisation—namely, Rolls-Royce—was an unprofitable company, they seem to have this fixation that public enterprise must always be unprofitable. We intend to disprove that fixation.

Is the new Prime Minister's policy still that of looking for a fixed frontier between the public and the private sectors? If that is so, how can it be achieved if the NEB is allowed to acquire yet more profitable manufacturing companies?

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that this Government's stand on public enterprise is that contained in the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry".

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what salary is paid to the managing director of BLMC; and what expenses he is allowed.

The terms and conditions of employment of the Chief Executive of British Leyland Limited are a matter for the British Leyland Board.

If the right hon. Gentleman will not answer the Question, may I tell him that the answer is £40,000 a year? While I welcome the Labour Party's conversion to paying high rates for a high responsibility job, how does he justify that to the chairmen of the nationalised industries who are on hardly half the gross pay of the Chief Executive of British Leyland?

I do not have to justify it, because it was not a salary decided by the Government. It is decided, as I say, by the board of British Leyland Ltd. That is the position.

What is the Secretary of State's view of the sustained campaign of denigration in the Press of British Leyland workers? Is he aware that those workers are extremely anxious that British Leyland should be efficiently and effectively managed and that, for example, they should be able to fulfil rapidly orders for items like Land Rovers, which are still in very short supply?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a determination among those who work for British Leyland to make a success of that company. The bus and truck division of British Leyland, as my hon. Friend says, is profitable and expanding.

If the Secretary of State is not prepared to answer questions about the salary of the Chief Executive of BLMC, why did he accept this Question on the Order Paper? What is more, is it not true that, whatever the fiction, the fact is that the Secretary of State does fix this salary? It is made with his agreement and he is merely wriggling at the Dispatch Box yet again.

It is not for me to decide what Questions are accepted by the Table. The position is as I have stated. It is not for me to state the salaries of the executives of British Leyland. I hope that the House will agree that it would be very unwise for a Minister to do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further payments he intends to authorise in the NEB for British Leyland during the second half of 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement with regard to the level and frequency of further Government grants and other subventions to British Leyland, in the light of the recent strikes and restrictive practices in the industry which, according to the chairman, undermine its prospects of achieving viability.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what will be the amount and timing of any furher tranches of public money made available to British Leyland; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the progress at British Leyland to meeting the Government's objectives; and whether he will make a statement about further Government finance.

The amount and timing of any further sums of public money to be made available to British Leyland are yet to be decided. The Government will make their intentions known to the House following consideration of the NEB's report on its review of British Leyland's progress and future plans. The conditions which need to be fulfilled if further substantial sums of public money are to be provided to British Leyland are well known.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that is a disappointing answer when the company's planners know approximately what they need, bearing in mind the interim statement published today concerning the arrival of the break-even stage, which means different things to different people? Is it not time that the Government came clean and gave more precise answers to the questions which are regularly asked about British Leyland, bearing in mind the Secretary of State's responsibility? Is the Secretary of State aware that Conservatives are increasingly coming to the view that the leadership in British Leyland is coming not from the Government, the Chief Executive or the board of management but from those workers who want to work on Saturdays and other occasions, even if they do not get paid, and who would prefer to see all shop stewards made redundant?

The hon. Gentleman should know—he probably does—that there is a great deal of co-operation among all levels of the work force in British Leyland. As I have told the House on previous occasions, in the first instance the monitoring of British Leyland's performance is for the National Enterprise Board. The NEB in turn will report to the Government and in due course I shall make known its views on such matters as are commercially proper to be made known to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if good use is to be made of the taxpayers' money which has already been put into British Leyland and which will be put into British Leyland, manpower agreements need to be more flexible so as to implement the recommendations of the Ryder Report? Will my right hon. Friend consider relaxation of the present pay policy and the proposed pay policy for companies which arc controlled by the NEB?

No, Sir. It is not for me, in answer to this question, to comment in detail on the pay policy. One of the conditions of the next phase of the pay policy, which I know my hon. Friend supports, will be to allow for more flexibility. Those negotiating on behalf of the Government and the TUC tried to have in mind a flexible arrangement within a tight structure. Although the policy probably does not go as far as my hon. Friend and some trade union leaders would like, it will, I believe, get wide acceptance throughout the country.

The Secretary of State refers to "well-known conditions", but no one knows the conditions upon which a new tranche of money might be given to British Leyland. No one knows how much it will be, or when it will be given. Will the Secretary of State respond to the demand on both sides of the House for the publication of guidelines so that we may all be part of the monitoring process which at the moment is being carried out by an agency of Government?

I have said in the House on many occasions that in the first instance the NEB will monitor the performance of British Leyland. I shall make available to the House as much information as is prudent within the commercial operations of British Leyland. The hon. Gentleman must get away from this constant carping at the activities of British Leyland and British Leyland workers. It all the votes cast by the Tory Opposition against Government proposals had been successful, British Leyland and the whole British motor car industry would be in a state of disintegration.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what incentive exists for managers and workers in viable companies in Britain to continue to work hard to make a success of their companies when they see so much money being given in Government subsidies to inefficient organisations such as British Leyland?

I suppose that the logic of that would be that the hon. Gentleman could contemplate the closing down of Britain's largest single exporter. That is really what he is suggesting when he makes criticisms of that kind. It is about time the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members put their hearts and minds to making sure that we have a profitable motor car industry with a good long-term future.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what specific proposals exist to increase industrial development in textile areas, particularly in West Yorkshire, which have been subject to mill closures and redundancy in recent years as a result of the operation of the Wool Textile Scheme.

Regional development grants on new buildings, regional selective financial assistance and Government factories are available in West Yorkshire, as well as assistance to industry under the various industry schemes and under the accelerated projects scheme.

Does the Minister realise that that reply will be regarded as unsatisfactory in West Yorkshire? Does he accept that, when public finance is made available to bring about rationalisation, mill closures and redundancy, there is a distinct obligation on the Government to accompany that rationalisation by programmes to boost employment? Will the Minister ensure that if further money is made available under the Wool Textile Scheme there are guarantees from the employers in respect of employment and job creation programmes to combat migration from West Yorkshire to more prosperous areas?

I am glad to have my hon. Friend's enthusiastic support for the Government's policy. Unemployment in West Yorkshire is below the regional level and below the national level. Over 6 million square feet of new factory space has been approved since 1st January 1974, offering 6,500 new jobs. Under the Wool Textile Scheme 75 per cent. of the benefits of the scheme have gone to the Yorkshire-Humberside Region. There is a £20 million clothing scheme, much of the benefit of which will go to this region because 16 per cent. of the industry is there. Furthermore, industry is beginning to feel the benefit of the up- turn. In the circumstances, I do not think that I need to apologise for my answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what qualities he looked for in deciding the appointments made to the Organising Committee for British Aerospace.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when will he be making further appointments to the Organising Committee for the nationalised aerospace industry.

The members my right hon. Friend has appointed have among them a wide range of relevant experience in the aircraft industry, the trade unions and other industries. My right hon. Friend is considering further appointments to the committee.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but is he aware that there is a report in one of the Bristol newspapers—one which can be relied on for accuracy—of a statement by the BAC chairman, Mr. Allen Greenwood, who, it is said, is destined to be the deputy chairman of British Aerospace—in which he said in no uncertain terms—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from a newspaper? Quoting from documents is out of order at Question Time.

—that he was categorically still opposed to nationalisation? My hon. Friend the Member for Kings-wood (Mr. Walker) and I have been asking many Questions. Is it a condition for appointment to a nationalised board that a person must be opposed to the principle of public ownership?

I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with Mr. Allen Greenwood, who assures me of his total dedication to the success of British Aerospace under public ownership.

Will the Minister confirm that the people he appoints to the board are there to act as business men in the best commercial interests of the company and are not civil servants or arms of Government? Even though the Government may not welcome everything they say, will the Government preserve their right to say whatever they think? Will the Minister reject the doctrinaire and spiteful view put forward by his home-owning friend, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas)?

My hon. Friend is nothing like as doctrinaire and spiteful as is someone who makes disgraceful personal references and indulges in personal smears. Although my hon. Friend and I do not always necessarily agree upon all aspects of how the British aircraft industry should be publicly owned, we agree upon the basic methods. What is more, my hon. Friend has played a very important part in bringing about public ownership of the aircraft industry.

Will my hon. Friend consider appointing people from the shop floor and the trade unions so that there is a good mix on the board?

In my discussions with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions I have made clear my great concern that shop stewards and lay members shall be associated with the preparation for nationalisation in cooperation with the Organising Committee. What happens after nationalisation will depend on the way in which the industrial democracy proposals which I hope to bring before the House on Report are implemented.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is resentment in the Scottish aviation industry that there is no representative from Scotland on the board? Will he put that right in the next round of appointments?

It would be helpful to us in dealing with the Scottish aspect if the Scottish National Party reversed its attitude of opposition to nationalisation and supported the Government. We should then greatly welcome the SNP's co-operation in bringing the industry into public ownership.

Will the Minister confirm that the dedication to which he referred will be best promoted by much earlier consultation with the rank and file of the trade unions? Therefore, will he carry out consultation prior to Report so that we can ensure that when it becomes law the Bill will reflect rank and file opinion in the aerospace industry?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have taken part in many consultations in the industry with the shop stewards of 12 different factories and companies, including one in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). I have emphasised to everybody concerned the importance of the views of lay representatives of workers being fully associated with bringing the industry into public ownership.

Will the Minister under. stand that in making appointments to the Organising Committee for British Aerospace the Secretary of State for Industry has given considerable hope to a number of people who would like jobs in publicly-owned nationalised industries, but that the tragedy for the industry and the country is that those people are sitting on the Government Back Benches?

I suppose those remarks were meant to be funny, but I cannot understand how at the moment. What interests me is that the Tory Party went on and on saying that we could not get suitable people to serve on the Organising Committee, but we now have an outstanding nucleus of people on that committee so that many shop stewards will be able to play an important part in the industry. However, all the Conservatives can now do is to knock that achievement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much public money has been invested, to date, in Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.

A sum of £230·3 million of which £16 million is equity and £.69·3 million is loan.

Since earlier replies have confirmed our worst fears that we are unlikely to have an airframe industry in this country because the Government will be too late to join a collaborative project with Europe or America, may we at least be given an assurance that there will be an aero-engine industry by funding the urgently-needed intermediate fan project to provide aero-engines for the new generation of world airliners?

The best guarantee for the future of the aerospace industry is the nationalisation as soon as possible of the aircraft industry. Future projects are a matter for discussion in the first stage with the National Enterprise Board, but no definite proposals have been received by the Government as yet.

In fairness to the former Conservative Government, does my hon. Friend agree that they were justified in taking Rolls-Royce into public ownership and that they ignored the nonsensical doctrinal theories of the Tory Party on the subject of public ownership? Why is it that the Tory Party does not mind if British industry is taken over by Tokyo, Texas or Timbuctoo, but objects when the British people seek to own British industry?

Even Conservative Members are capable of learning from the experience of their own Government in office.

Will the Minister tell the House why it has taken six months to decide the price at which Rolls-Royce shares are to be transferred to the National Enterprise Board?

If the hon. Gentleman will table a separate Question on that subject, I shall be only too happy to answer him.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the motor industry.

The policy of the Government towards the motor industry remains as outlined in the White Paper on the industry published in January.

Will the Minister confirm the view he held at the time of the Chrysler rescue operation that it would be better if the rest of the motor manufacturers remained under multinational companies? If that is still his view, will he resist the pleas of the Labour Party for the Government to nationalise Ford, Vauxhall and Chrysler as well—in other words, will he stick to his original statement?

The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that at that time I was not in my present Department. But I agree completely with the policy pursued by my Labour colleagues. I am aware of no proposals at Government level of the kind he suggests and I have nothing more to add.

What is the Minister doing to obtain variations in the Price Code to assist not only the motor industry but industry in general to obtain a better level of profit and investment and to provide more job opportunity?

Discussions are now taking place, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and Paymaster-General has been negotiating with industry and discussing the possibilities of changes in the code. But the overwhelming benefit to industry will come from defeating inflation, which must be the main priority. I remind the House that it was a Labour Government who introduced the allowance for investment under the Price Code.

Will my hon. Friend take a quiet look at the Finance Bill provisions on this matter, which seem to contain certain difficulties for motor car firms such as Rolls-Royce? Although we wholly accept and strongly support any suggestion against unfair "perks", we believe that it would be unfortunate if this foremost export company, 60 per cent. of whose products go overseas, were unwittingly damaged in this way.

My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that there must be no unnecessary damage to the industry. For that reason my right hon. Friend and the Department are having discussions with the industry about the implications of the proposals. Equally, we must be sure that the taxation system is fair.

Will the Minister say what is the Government's policy towards the serious over-capacity in the motor industry, a topic to which reference has been made in evidence to a Select Committee by the Chief Executive of British Leyland and by Ford representatives?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is over-capacity, as has been indicated in the White Paper. What is now happening, again indicated in the White Paper, is that the Government have asked all companies to undertake a plant —by—plant study in consultation with their work force and to recommend to the Government company—by—company steps which may assist the future of the industry.

If the effect of the Finance Bill is that more Rolls-Royces are exported, what is wrong with that?

My hon. Friend is correct to say that we want growth through an export-led boom. We do not want to damage the domestic market for cars, but we have to be fair in our taxation system.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

I am always prepared to meet the council when there is a need to do so.

Is the Minister aware of the excellent work carried out by the Scottish Council in highlighting the inherent dangers in the increasing centralisation in London of decision-making affecting Scottish industry? Does he not agree that the implacable hostility expressed by many Labour Members, and even more by members of the Conservative Party, towards the establishment of a Scottish Assembly will make the Scottish Council's task in this context more difficult, if not impossible, to sustain?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a vested interest in trying to create a national persecution complex. I must remind him in regard to regional assistance that Scotland receives twice as much help per head of population as does England.

When the Secretary of State meets the Scottish Council will he discuss means by which production and productivity can be increased? In that connection will he discuss how those who actually produce can be assisted against those who expand by reason of their being on annual increments, with index-linked pensions, and who appear to be at a great advantage under the prices and incomes policy?

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a development agency which will undertake work in regard to Scottish industry. As for improving the efficiency of the industry generally, we are carrying out normal studies in the NEDC in 39 sectors.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the Scottish Council has rejected the SNP's policy of separation, especially, I suspect, since the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) used to work for the council? Would he ask the council whether it approves of the slogan "Put Scotland First" when spoken by SNP Members from the driving seat of a Japanese Datsun or a Swedish Volvo?

We know that the objective of both nationalist parties is separation. It is an objective that we reject.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his policy for assisting industry to move into the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

We must continue to give priority in the steering of new projects to the assisted areas, which have greater problems. But the raising of the IDC exemption limit from 5,000 sq ft. to 12,500 sq. ft. in the South-East from 1st May should help London.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a case of the grass growing but the horse starving? Does he realise that large tracts of land in Greater London formerly used for industrial purposes and to which industry could have been attracted are now being used for the construction of vast warehouses? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that when the upturn in the economy comes there will not be any space in the Greater London area to which manufacturing industry can return? Will he please bear that in mind?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I know of the expansion of this type of development that has taken place in his constituency. Nevertheless, the unemployment trouble in London is of a recessional rather than a structural nature. The upturn will probably lead to a massive reduction in unemployment in London. I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that unemployment in London is still below that of the South-East generally and below the national figure.

Is the Minister aware that the rise in unemployment in Greater London and the South-East has been of the order of 150 per cent. and, in the past two years, has been the fastest increase of any region in the country? Apart from the need to encourage industry to return, will the hon. Gentleman also recognise that in a place like London commercial development has a part to play? Will he bring pressure to bear on his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to alter their absurdly rigid ODP policy, which is working adversely for the area generally and for Harrow in particular?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that while we can make political claims about the rate of increase of unemployment, it is generally recognised that the international recession is a major factor and that equally, because of the structure of industry in London and the South-East, there is little doubt that in an upturn substantial benefit will accrue to both areas.

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

I met the chairman on 28th April. No date has been arranged for a further meeting but as and when necessary I meet the chairman on a wide range of matters affecting the corporation.

Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a meeting with the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the fears expressed at last week's NEDC meeting about a possible shortage of steel once the economy starts to pick up again? In particular, will my right hon. Friend stress the importance of British Steel being able to produce, for example, the 800 miles of gas pipeline which will run from the fields in the North Sea to the North-East of Scotland? Is he aware that in the past British Steel has had a pretty poor record in winning underwater pipeline contracts of that nature?

I was at the NEDC meeting referred to by my hon. Friend and heard the comments made by some members. It is fair to say that Sir Monty Finniston asked that people should be much more specific about the shortage of steel that they were envisaging. I know that he is prepared to look into this immediately specific proposals are made.

As for North Sea contracts and work on the gas pipeline recently announced by my right hon. Friend, in the first instance it is for British Steel to decide about this project. I shall urge it to look for any profitable work which is available there. I imagine that it depends on the specifications.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets Sir Charles Villiers, Sir Monty Finniston's successor, will he promise him some security of tenure so that he may speak his mind freely? Will he also discuss with him the now widely-held view that the major capital expansion plans of BSC are so delayed and inflated in price that it will be hard for the corporation ever to compete with the larger plants now installed in Japan and the EEC?

The terms of the appointment of Sir Charles Villiers have been announced and I do not think I have anything further to add to them. I know that some concern has been expressed in varying quarters about the delays, particularly in relation to the Port Talbot and Shotton arguments. The Government will announce their view on that in due course. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that major investment projects have been held up within the British Steel Corporation. I gave figures on the last occasion I answered Questions which showed that the year-on-year investment had been maintained and had increased in the British steel industry.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, will he say not that the Port Talbot scheme will be dealt with "in due course" but that the Government are getting on with this matter? Is he aware that this is a vitally important investment scheme which the Government and not BSC are holding up?

I am anxious to give the British Steel Corporation as much support as possible. My hon. Friend will know of the major social implications involved in the Port Talbot development and how they affect Shotton. We need to look into this development much more closely. My hon. Friend knows that when we were in opposition we gave a specific undertaking, which we are now honouring, to look not only at the economic case but at the social case involved in this proposal.

If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government really believe in decentralisation, why do they not issue a general direction to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation telling him to move at least part of the massive bureaucratic and expensive British Steel headquarters from the centre of London to one of the areas where steel is produced? Would not that do more good to the steel industry in Scotland and other steel-producing areas than the Government's daft proposals for devolution, which were so brilliantly condemned by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Saturday?

I am certainly not getting involved in that argument. As to managerial and organisational changes within the corporation, I know that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the corporation announced changes a few weeks ago as a result of which it has established a Scottish division in Glasgow.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has a responsibility to look very much more closely at the question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about the gas pipeline? If the Japanese can find such work an attractive commercial proposition and British Steel can- not, is there not something wrong? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the pipe-making facilities in Hartlepool are not being fully worked and that the investment programme announced last year by the Government is not being pursued by the corporation?

I do not know of the specific point about investment programmes not being pursued in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Government will be urging the corporation to do everything possible to obtain any available profitable work resulting from opportunities in the North Sea.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what projections he has made of the likely level of industrial activity in the South Yorkshire area.

The level of industrial activity in South Yorkshire will depend largely on the success of our policies for reducing inflation and on our international competitiveness.

Projects for which industrial development certificates have been granted since January 1974 were expected to provide some 5,200 jobs over a period of three years from the time of the approval of the certificates. In addition, further jobs will arise from smaller investments which do not require IDCs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of what he says, the number of jobs available in South Yorkshire, especially in my constituency of Dearne Valley, over the past few years has declined? Is he further aware that industrialists have applied to his Department for help but that it has not been forthcoming? Will he make sure that a special report is called for from his officials in Yorkshire about the lack of jobs in South Yorkshire, with special reference to the Dearne Valley constituency?

My hon. Friend will bear in mind that altogether about 8,000 jobs have been created under the Industry Act. He will also bear in mind that we have been going through a recession, and loss of job opportunity has faced large areas of the country and is a feature that we want to reverse. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular industry to which he would like to call my attention, I shall be happy to examine them.

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the level of industrial activity in South Yorkshire will certainly be improved if his right hon. Friend will get on and make a decision about Port Talbot? Is he aware that such a decision would provide additional employment for the plant makers, many of whom are in South Yorkshire? What is the reason for this delay, now amounting to 18 months? It is disgraceful. What are the Government doing about it?

It is important that we get the decision right.

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the general recession has much to do with the position in South Yorkshire. Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the urgent need to change Government policy and to see to it that in South Yorkshire more jobs are provided in industries like the construction industry by a policy of controlled reflation? Does he realise that there can be no easy-going way to improve the position in South Yorkshire or anywhere else if the Government stick to their limited negative policy?

I am afraid that there is no easy-going way to improve the prospects for the country as a whole. The upturn has to be export-led and we must take advantage of it when it comes. I cannot offer easy-going instant solutions to the problem.

asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the workings of the legal aid system.

My noble and learned Friend is satisfied that the legal aid system has made an immense contribution to enabling people of limited means to obtain justice in the courts. He is fully aware of its limitations and it is his policy, as and when resources permit, to improve the system.

Does not the right hon and learned Gentleman think that the definition of those who qualify for civil legal aid and those who do not is too tightly drawn and that there is a very firm cut-off point for maximum disposable income? Will he adjust this?

The financial limits of eligibility are now being examined by the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee. A working party has been set up to review the whole of the financial conditions relating to the legal aid scheme, and we should await its report.

When can we expect to get that report? A number of people ought to be receiving aid or more than they are receiving, and they are thereby handicapped from taking action in the courts.

As I have said, I am aware that there are many limitations that one would want to remove, of which the financial limit is only one. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is giving urgent consideration to the whole question of legal aid. I cannot say when the report will be ready.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any views on the rights of people who may wish to purchase or sell houses without using solicitors but wish to do so through the organisation of which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is president?

That is an entirely different question.

While my right hon. and learned Friend is encouraging the Lord Chancellor to hurry on with the report, will he also have a gentle word with the legal profession about the time it takes on legal aid cases? There is another form of difficulty here, because anyone on legal aid has to wait longer for services than someone who is paying his advisers, and people on legal aid therefore think that they are being badly treated in this way.

I assure my hon. Friend that our noble and learned Friend needs no reminder from me about the urgency of improving the legal aid system. Indeed, he speaks again and again, quite rightly, on the subject and is fully aware of the need. I am surprised to hear what my hon. Friend says about the time taken on legal aid cases, except to the extent that time is always taken in satisfying the legal aid authorities that an application is justified and that the needs of the applicant are within the limits. If, however, my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I hope that she will let me have the facts and I will look into it.

asked the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions has yet completed his investigations into the activities of Southern Placement Services Ltd. in relation to breaches of sanctions regulations on evidence supplied by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.

Yes. The Director of Public Prosecutions has concluded that there is no evidence presently available to support a prosecution under the sanctions Order against any person within the jurisdiction.

That is a disappointing answer. Has the Director of Public Prosecutions taken into consideration the legal responsibility of the newspaper proprietors who take such advertisements for commercial gain? Am I right in suggesting that my right hon. and learned Friend's answer means that there is no jurisdiction here in the sense that those who place the advertisements are abroad? Is there not a responsibility on the newspaper proprietors in this country?

Of course there is a responsibility, and any possibility of a prosecution has been fully taken into account by the Director of Public Prosecutions in consultation with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The position of the newspapers has been very carefully considered, but, having read the advertisements, I must agree with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solictor-General that no prosecution could be entertained.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it cannot be treasonable or in any way criminal for a British subject to volunteer to defend British territory?

That is a totally different question from the one put to me, and I am not prepared to answer it now.

asked the Attorney-General what advice he has given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with proceedings in connection with actions for criminal libel.

asked the Attorney-General what advice he has given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with proceedings relating to actions for criminal libel.

asked the Attorney-General what advice he has given the Director of Public Prosecutions over criminal libel actions against newspapers and magazines.

I have given no advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with proceedings for criminal libel. We have discussed the proceedings which have been commenced against Private Eye, and in particular the suggestion that the Director should take them over. We are agreed that the public interest does not require him to do so.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what public purpose this serves by bringing into the public domain the private squabbles between fringe bankers and satirical magazines?

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a case under way, it is sub judice.

I am referring to private squabbles generically and not individually, Mr. Speaker. What do the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Government intend to do about the criminal libel law, which is an affront to the Bill of Rights and a totally unnecessary invasion of the liberties of the individual and the freedom of Press?

I must have regard to your ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but if my hon. Friend is asking me about amendment of the law I must point out that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me.

Did not the recent report of the Royal Commission on Defamation dispel the widely-held belief that a prosecution required action by the Director of Public Prosecutions? Can it not be brought in the normal way, like any other criminal prosecution, by the local police? Is it not untrue to say that such a prosecution needs the Attorney-General's fiat or action by the DPP, and is it not like any other ordinary criminal offence?

I was not aware that there was any such widely-held belief. If there was, it was wrong.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the use of criminal libel proceedings can be embraced by godfather-like figures in the City and big business to silence the Press? Would he not further agree that Press freedom could be defended and enhanced if our archaic libel laws, civil and criminal, were urgently reformed?

The Faulks Committee, which has reported on this issue, does not propose that the law should be changed. On the general question raised by my hon. Friend, it is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to put forward proposals for amendment of the criminal law, and not for me.

Without reference to any proceedings which may be pending, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he does not think that the time has come when proceedings for criminal libel should be undertaken only by the Director of Public Prosecutions or, if not, abolished altogether?

I can only repeat that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Attorney-General what criteria or guidelines are used by the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to determine whether or not to proceed to prosecute a policeman against whom a criminal offence has been alleged.

The Director of Public Prosecutions makes no distinction between a police officer and any other person in deciding whether or not a prosecution should be brought. In every case, the broad criteria are whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a prosecution and whether proceedings are required in the public interest.

Is it not the case that the Director of Public Prosecutions requires much more rigorous and comprehensive evidence of an offence before he is prepared to undertake any kind of prosecution against a policeman against whom a crime has been alleged? Is he not falling into disesteem? Does not some investigation need to be carried out?

With regard to the first question, I am certainly not aware of the point my hon. Friend has made. It is not in accordance with my own experience of the matters which come to me either from the Director or from any other source with which the Director of Public Prosecutions is involved. As to the second question, I do not share my hon. Friend's view.

May I assure the Attorney-General, in regard to the last part of his answer, that this is also our experience on this side of the House? We have no reason to believe that the office of the DPP is falling in esteem at all. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh—[Interruption.] —

Order. Hon. Members will have to laugh after Question Time, because we are running out of time.

The Attorney-General can be assured that we welcome his statement that all cases are judged by the same standards, whoever is involved in in them. This policy is obviously doubly important in the light of what we have seen this afternoon, when hon. Gentlemen have tried to pursue individual cases because of the particular persons involved.

I can only agree with the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement amout the terrorist murders of 13 people, including four members of the RUC, during the last weekend.

The past three days have seen a series of particularly brutal incidents in Northern Ireland. Since Saturday morning, five policemen and eight civilians have been killed. In addition, over 50 people, including three policemen and a five-year old girl, were injured, some very seriously.

The first incident occurred in the early morning of 15th May. Three policemen were killed and a fourth was seriously injured by an explosive device in the follow-up to an earlier shooting incident near the police station at Belcoo in County Fermanagh. Later on Saturday there were a number of bombing attacks against public houses in Belfast and Counties Armagh and Tyrone. Which resulted in the deaths of five civilians and 48 injured. The most serious attacks occurred in the Avenue Bar in Belfast, when two people were killed and 22 injured, and Clancy's Bar in the village of Charlemont in County Armagh, where three people were killed and 14 injured.

On Saturday evening, a policeman was killed and two others injured when their patrol car was ambushed near Warren-point in County Down. On Sunday evening an off-duty full-time member of the RUC Reserve was shot dead at his home at Benburb in County Tyrone. This morning two men were shot dead at their business premises in Moy in County Tyrone.

The House will join me in expressing sympathy to the relatives of those who have been murdered in this latest spate of senseless killing, and in paying tribute to the five members of the RUC who have so gallantly laid down their lives in the service of the whole community. Their sacrifices will not be in vain.

Let me assure the House that the cold-blooded murders of policemen and the crimes of sectarian gangsters will not deflect the Government or the security forces from our course in Northern Ireland. We are determined that the rule of law will prevail and that those who commit these brutal acts will be brought to justice. Despite these cowardly attacks the morale and determination of the RUC is high. They deserve the unstinted support of the whole community and of this House.

The Secretary of State had a meeting this morning with the General Officer Commanding, Lieutenant-General Sir David House, and the Chief Constable, Mr. Kenneth Newman. The Secretary of State agreed that the increasing effectiveness of the police represents a continuing process towards a long-term objective and cannot be achieved hastily. The core of the policy is to secure the conviction of terrorists through the use of the criminal law in the courts. The process cannot be based on some arithmetical equation involving an automatic and simultaneous reduction in the number of soldiers as the strength of the RUC increases.

The rôles of the Army and the RUC complement one another. Both are needed. The RUC is not intended to be, and will not be, a para-military force. The details of the changes are still the subject of study by a Government working party, but the essential objective is clear: to make the RUC still more effective in its proper role of law enforcement.

Whatever they may claim, the real reason why the leaders of the Provisional IRA have ordered attacks on members of the RUC is that they have no policy other than violence. They fear the success which the RUC is already having in bringing members of the Provisional IRA to justice. The events of the weekend have demonstrated once again how the Provisional IRA's actions bring down retaliation in the minority community whom they claim, but are powerless, to protect. Retaliation itself is equally abhorrent. We condemn it, as we have always condemned violence from whatever source it comes.

In offering our sympathy to the families of the victims of what some people still call a ceasefire, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that after this last shocking weekend, tough and really quick decisions are needed, including a decision to have no more contacts between the Government and terrorist organisations?

We agree with the Minister of State that the RUC should not be deterred by this setback, but will he say why no decision has been announced about providing the RUC with better equipment if it is to replace the Army in certain areas in Northern Ireland?

Will the Minister of State also explain the delay in announcing co-ordination between the Army, the UDR and the police, so that selected men can be specially trained in anti-terrorist measures? Is it not horrifying that the Government's anti-security policy has not, after several years, been able to protect innocent people in the way that he suggests?

Concerning the equipment for the RUC, it is for the RUC to make out its case to the police authority. There is no reason at all why it should not be able to do so. We have provided it with all the equipment for which it has asked. The question of equipment for the RUC is an ongoing matter and subject to continual review.

This is the case also with regard to coordination between the RUC, the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment. In that there are different situations and that the nature of violence has changed, this is a matter for continual review by the security forces. The operational deployment of the forces and their co-ordination is a matter for the forces concerned, and we have always provided them with the necessary facilities in order to achieve whatever co-ordination they desire. The level of co-ordination they have at the moment is that which the security forces have desired for themselves.

Is my hon. Friend aware that everybody in the House shares in his expression of sympathy to the relatives of people who were killed and maimed in the recent tragedies? Will he confirm, however, that in many ways these attacks are a tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend and his predecessors in establishing the RUC as an independent force, separate from political interference and seeking only to ensure that we have the rule of law impartially throughout the community, and that, therefore, in order to try to defeat this object, the terrorists are turning their attention to the RUC?

Will my hon. Friend also comment on the degree of co-operation there has been with the Southern Irish Government with regard to the problem of Belcoo?

I agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the real reason for the Provisional IRA turning its attention to the RUC is to some extent that the RUC has been so successful in bringing people to justice through the courts. The rate of success has been improving with each month that passes. Over 450 people have been charged with terrorist offences in the Province this year, and 47 have been charged with murder. In a sense my hon. Friend is right to say that this is a tribute to the increasing officiency of the RUC. Indeed, the efficiency of the RUC has been increasing over a number of years.

I was asked about co-operation with the South. Co-operation this last weekend with the security forces in the South has been particularly good. It has been very close in regard to searches for explosives. In addition, the security forces in the South are willing to cooperate to the maximum in ensuring that the people who perpetrated the Belcoo attack are brought to justice.

Will the Minister not agree that if the present conflict is not to degenerate into further acts of retaliation, the frustration of the law-abiding community must be channelled into positive law-abiding anti-terrorist activity? Will the Minister reconsider some of the points made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)? Will the Minister agree that it does not matter whether he, this House or anybody else believes that the RUC should be a civilianised police force but that if it is to be a murder target of the IRA it must be armed to protect itself?

On the last point, the RUC are certainly armed and equipped to protect themselves from all sorts of attacks. As for considering ideas, from whatever quarter they come, we have asked all the political parties in Northern Ireland to make their contributions in terms of ideas to the working party which is considering the future development of law and order policy and of policing policy. These will all be taken into consideration in working out the further steps in Government policy.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the impression gained by a number of Labour Members who visited Northern Ireland over the weekend that the security forces fully support the idea of the primacy of the police but that they are deeply concerned in their terrible role out there with co-operation with the Southern Irish authorities? Can my hon. Friend impress upon those in authority at the other end of Ireland that their co-operation in this respect is much needed if there is to be a successful conclusion of the gun running and the running of other explosives across the border?

My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters and no doubt will have noted the speech by the Taoiseach over the weekend and the comments of Mr. Garret FitzGerald. These have backed up the co-operation which we have had this weekend across the border. Over recent months, co-operation between the security forces in the North and the South has improved immeasurably, and I am sure that it will go on improving. I confess that I do not detect the concern which my hon. Friend sensed among the security forces, except to the extent that better things can always be improved.

As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has gone on record as saying that those guilty of the murder of the policemen at Bencoo came from the South of Ireland, and in view of the strong statements, which have been welcomed in Northern Ireland, by the Prime Minister of the Republic and his Foreign Secretary at the weekend, would not this be an appropriate time to pursue those statements and to renew talks with the Dublin Government about an extradition treaty?

As opposed to extradition, we have joint Acts of Parliament of the Dail and of this Government allowing for trials of criminals in the Republic and in the United Kingdom for acts com- mitted in the opposite territories. I think that that is where we shall take our stand.

There is no need to reopen talks with members of the Government in the South. These are continual and ongoing.

We all understand, of course, that there is no simple solution to this problem. If there were, this House would have found it. The only way in which this carnage and murder will end is when certain people with responsibility in that great Province of ours, both the Catholic hierarchy and people such as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), start talking peace not only in this House but to their own people back in Ireland, pleading with everything that they have, rather than continuing the festering hatred on the basis of religion. Until that is done, there cannot be a solution. The story of this weekend is a repetition of everything that we have heard in this House again and again. When will those responsible, who can bring about peace, take some real action?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend's remarks will have been noted by those to whom they were addressed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who commit these out-rages have not the slightest interest in peaceful co-operation between the different sections of the community in Northern Ireland and that they would endeavour to destroy co-operation by any means in their power?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Was not there a slight inherent contradiction in the Minister's original statement? In referring to the supremacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as the law enforcement body but not as a para-military organisation, he was at pains to emphasise the difficulty of co-ordination of the various types of security operations. Is it not the moment for the Government to consider much more carefully than they have yet done a suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that it is high time that we had a unified command in the Province under which the whole of our anti-terrorist and security could be conducted?

There was no inherent contradiction in anything that I said. In fact I did not draw attention to any difficulties in co-ordinating operations in the Province, which are very well co-ordinated on a sound basis by continual contact between the leadership of the Army and the RUC at all levels. Therefore, I do not think that there is any force in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Will my hon. Friend say what policy he has in terms of those areas of trouble such as Belfast and Derry where a good deal of the terrorism is concentrated and where a great amount of housing is derelict or near-derelict, and whether it might not greatly assist the police in their detection, powers of arrest and in bringing these people to trial if much of that housing were demolished and more open space provided to assist the police in going about their work?

My hon. Friend who is responsible for housing in the Province is sitting next to me. I draw attention to the fact that there is a housing Order coming forward with a new policy for the use of housing in Northern Ireland. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) will study that when it comes before the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware how shocked everyone must be by this appalling catalogue of carnage and vengeance killings which still predominate? Can he give an absolute assurance that there will be no further run-down of the security forces? Can he say whether the Spearhead battalion was withdrawn with the support of the security chiefs? Can he say, finally, what thought has been given to creating special emergency areas in and around the border?

I quite appreciate the sense of horror about what the hon. Gentleman quite rightly described as the carnage over the weekend. Those of us associated with the Province on a day-to-day basis are possibly more affected by incidents of this kind even than those who view them from this House. The level of security forces in the Province will always coincide with the security demands of the operations situation. I can give that assurance.

The Spearhead battalion was withdrawn at the desire of the Army. The hon. Gentleman must remember that the Spearhead battalion is a short-term reinforcement operation. It is in the nature of that fact that at some stage it gets withdrawn for its spearhead rôle.

Can the Minister pinpoint any reason for this increase in the number of murders this weekend? We have had a lot of well-intentioned words from him today. What special action does he intend to take to prevent this sort of thing from going on and worsening, as it is now?

The question of preventing the situation from worsening is one which will engage the security chiefs. The way of limiting casualties in the RUC, the Army and the UDR is a matter for the security chiefs of those forces, and it is for them to deploy their forces as they think best.

Will the hon. Gentleman address his mind again to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan)? Surely the lesson of both Cyprus and Malaya was that a unified command provided the answer? Since these incidents appear to be getting worse, and no one can claim that the security forces for all their efforts are able to stop them, will the hon. Gentleman study this suggestion and give a wider answer than he did before?

I am prepared to study any suggestion that is put forward. However, I might point out that the security chiefs have been in a position to ask for this sort of machinery if they thought it would make a contribution. They have not felt it necessary to do so.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the treatment of British passport holders in Malawi.

There are at present about 6,800 Asian United Kingdom passport holders in Malawi. The Malawian Government have for some time made it clear that, in common with other East African Governments, they wish over a period of years to Africanise the commercial sectors of their economies. Because of the situation affecting British passport holders throughout East Africa, Her Majesty's Government introduced in 1968 a special voucher scheme to arrange for the orderly transfer of these United Kingdom passport holders to Britain. So far as Malawi is concerned, this scheme has worked successfully and until now the treatment of British passport holders in Malawi has, in general, been satisfactory.

Some weeks ago, however, an incident occurred involving Goanese residents in Malawi. Seventy-one of these, with their dependants, have now been declared prohibited immigrants and some have already arrived in this country. The High Commissioner in Malawi has been in close touch with the authorities there and the period over which the families must leave has now been extended to the end of June.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give a categorical assurance that as a result of these events there will be no increase in the overall quota for British passport holders from Africa entering this country? Why are these people being expelled? Is there any discrimination on the basis of nationality or race? Will the Minister contemplate visiting Malawi to thrash out the whole matter with Dr. Banda?

I confirm that the group which is being expelled from Malawi will form part of the overall quota of 5,000 passport holders for the whole of Africa. We have been unable to discover from the Malawi Government, despite several efforts to do so, the reason for this group being expelled and the people concerned have been unwilling to give a reason. We have been unable to discover any evidence of discrimination On the grounds of race. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am talking about this particular incident and not the general policy of Africanisation which has an element of racial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This policy is not unique to Malawi. Very many other countries have introduced similar regulations. We do not consider that there are, at present, grounds to justify a ministerial visit to Malawi, but in order to discuss the question and to give the Malawian Government some idea of the concern felt about this matter I have asked the Malawian High Commissioner to discuss the question and he is coming to the Foreign Office tomorrow.

Prior to these expulsions, what representations did the Government make to the Government of Malawi before the expulsions about the improper imprisonment of people holding British passports under fake charges and frequently no charges at all, which is the common practice under the dictatorship of Dr. Banda?

The Government have made representations on a number of individual cases over a considerable period. If my hon. Friend will give me details of any specific cases that he has in mind, I shall inform him what action has been taken.

Will the Minister confirm that being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has given no legal right to come into this country since the 1968 Act and possibly before? Will he repeat the assurance which he gave to the House on 13th April and confirm that these people are perfectly able to go back to their own country of India? If he can confirm both these points, why are we arranging to bring them here?

The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that arrangements were made, in the first place, by a Conservative Government in the early 1960s to ensure that the Asian people who became citizens of the newly independent African countries were provided with United Kingdom passports and given assurances that they could come to this country. The effect of the 1968 Act was that immigration from Africa to this country was phased over a number of years. We said at that time that it would take about 10 years, and all the indications are that we have kept to that time scale and that within a couple of years most of the Asians in Africa will have come to this country.

Will the Minister of State confirm that the efforts of voluntary agencies to deal with the practical problems caused by this sudden arrival deserve some credit? Will he also tell Dr. Banda that he would do well to forget any personal and petty considerations that have entered his mind and realise that, as recent British experience has shown. African Asians are in a position to contribute a great deal to his economy as those from other African countries have already demonstrated here?

I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question and I pay tribute to all the organisations, particularly the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, for all the very valuable work that they have done in helping to look after the Asians from Africa, who have often arrived with no home and no job to go to and who, in recent weeks, have been subjected to unnecessary and unjustified attacks in the Press. I agree that Asian families have been an important part of the economy of a number of countries in Africa. Some African Governments recognise this fact and value their presence. We should welcome the contribution that they can make to our economy when they arrive.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House would regard Dr. Banda as a racialist of the worst kind? Is he also aware that many people believe that this nation has done all that it should have done, and that its record of receiving British passport holders is one of great honour and integrity, but that they are now saying "Enough is enough"? Is the time not about due when we should have further discussions with Canada, Australia and other members of the Commonwealth, because this burden cannot go on being borne by our own people? If we do not face up to the situation now, we shall have to do so later.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on what my right hon. Friend said about Dr. Banda. The incident involving this group of Goanese people does not appear to be part of the Malawian Government's general policy of Africanisation. It is a specific act concerned with a specific incident, the details of which we have not been able to discover.

I recognise the views of many people in all parts of the House and the country on immigration, but we are now talking about a group whose forebears were taken to Africa from Asia at the will of the British Government. It was on these grounds that it was decided by a Conservative Administration that they should have the right to acquire British passports and the right to come here at the appropriate time. We have already taken action to phase this transition over 10 years. I do not believe that anybody in this House feels that we would be justified in preventing people with United Kingdom passports from coming here or that we should suggest that they go to Canada or any other country. It would not be appropriate to open discussions with the Canadian, Indian or any other Government about this group of people.

Will the Government inform the Malawian Government that the British people will not tolerate the expulsion of Asian holders of United Kingdom passports for the flimsiest of reasons? Is the Minister aware that an influx of Asians on the scale which is possible by June could not be dealt with by local authorities in the areas of our major airports? I refer specifically to my own borough of Hillingdon. Will the Minister consult the Home Secretary with a view to setting up a national resettlement bureau to deal with the whole question of immigration into this country because the burden should not fall on the local authorities alone?

When I see the Malawian High Commissioner tomorrow I shall express the concern which has been expressed in the House and also the concern about the possible implications and dangers of a large-scale expulsion of people from Malawi. I appreciate the hon. Member's point about the special burden which falls on particular local authorities, but I must make it clear that we have no evidence to suggest that there is about to be a large-scale exodus of the kind he has indicated or of the kind which took place in Uganda. If such a situation did arise, we should have to consult all concerned about what arrangements should be made to receive these people.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if he believes that it is some remarkable coincidence that a few hundred people from Malawi, all of the same race, were accidentally put into this category by Dr. Banda and that that is not racial discrimination, there is no point in his going to see anyone? They would see him coming a mile away.

I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—namely, that there are sections problems for areas near the great airports. They are not new problems because of this emergency. Many people who have a right to come here, including Asians who are entitled to do so, happen to want to settle in areas near the great airports. This has created immeasurable problems for the local authorities concerned.

I emphasise the point made that we do not want simply a casual acknowledgement that something will be done. We want a firm acknowledgement that my hon. Friend and Home Office Ministers will contact the local authorities concerned so that a real contribution can be made to try to resolve what could be not merely a grievous problem but a dangerous problem.

It would be wrong to assume, merely because all the members of this group are Goanese, that these people have been expelled by Dr. Banda because they are Goanese. That is not the impression we have at present. I must make that clear.

I have already said that I understand the concern that is felt about the special burden that is placed on certain boroughs. I believe that most of the controversy which arose recently about a family which was placed in a four-star hotel should more properly have been directed at the authority concerned and at the way in which the problem was met, rather than directed as an attack on the family concerned. I shall consider whether I should have consultations with other Departments about the arrangements that should be made.

Is there not another aspect of this distressing situation? Is it not extraordinary and wrong that those who are said to be United Kingdom citizens should be treated in this summary and uncivilised way by a Government who have been major recipients of British taxpayers' money over a long period? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although everyone on both sides of the House who has had anything to do with overseas development assistance considers its use as a political weapon to be wrong, we cannot continue lavishing British taxpayers' money on Governments who behave in this way towards those who are alleged to be United Kingdom citizens? Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when he sees the Malawian High Commissioner tomorrow?

The hon. Gentleman has said that all Governments have accepted that it is wrong to use aid as a political weapon, but I agree that the Malawi Government should bear carefully in mind that they are recipients of substantial aid from this country.

Reference has been made to the publicity that was recently given to the placing of Asians in an hotel. Does my hon. Friend agree that it called into question the adequacy of the provision of housing by certain local authorities, including hostel accommodation? Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent sale by the East and West Sussex County Councils of a property in their ownership at a public auction for £55,000, which was sold a week later for £75,000 to a member of the Lewes District Council, is a matter that calls into question the whole housing policy of the authority?