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

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

I have frequent contact with the chairman.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman, will he give a firm assurance that the Government will not be denationalising the Rotherham works or any other profitable establishment of the BSC? Is he aware that there is anxiety among steel workers in my constituency about that possibility in view of the well-known Conservative doctrine that anything that makes a profit should be privately owned?

We certainly do not intend any attempt at wholesale denationalisation in the steel industry.

When the Secretary of State next meets Sir Charles Villiers, will he confess that it was unwise of him to put the chairman under duress by hustling and dictating behind closed doors on steel matters, particularly on the Shotton issue? Will the right hon. Gentleman please urge a rethink on the fate of steel making at Shotton, bearing in mind the bludgeoning that the social fabric of the area will receive if the 7,000 redundancies take place? Will he understand that in my area the comunity has no confidence in his handling of steel matters and believes that he has as little capability in that direction as Count Dracula would have in running a blood transfusion service?

The previous Government said that the steel corporation must become viable and that capacity must move into line with demand. We are saying the same thing. We debated the position at Shotton the other day.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he call to his attention the extreme importance of new coke ovens to the viability of iron making at Distington, in the Workington area?

Management is for the board of the steel corporation. I shall see that my hon. Friend's question is passed to the board.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the target of a financial break-even by March next year is totally ridiculous? Will he revise that target and give an assurance that the BSC will have sufficient financial assistance to maintain its important industry over the next few years?

The target is difficult, but not impossible.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding any plans he may have for the denationalisation or withdrawal of public financial support for any of the following National Enterprise Board assisted companies: Computer Analysts and Programmers Ltd., Computer and Systems Engineering Ltd., Data Recording Instrument Co. Ltd., Ferranti, International Computers Ltd., Inmos Ltd., Insac Data Systems Ltd., Systems Designers Ltd., Systems Programming Holdings Ltd. and Systime Ltd.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is yet in a position to announce his proposals regarding the future activities of the National Enterprise Board.

I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement of 19 July.

It is precisely because of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that I am anxious about the situation. Is it the case that the Prime Minister has intervened in order to prevent the right hon. Gentleman's support of the microelectronics industry? Is it also the case that the future of the National Semi-conductors factory proposed for Greenock has been thrown into jeopardy? If the Prime Minister has intervened, has she not out-Heroded Herod in relation to the right hon. Gentleman?

The position was made clear by my right hon. Friend's statement. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a specific question in regard to the companies to which he has referred.

The hon. Gentleman has done so.

The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that if the private sector is unable to provide a solution to a company's difficulties receivership will be the order of the day. The previous Tory Government saved Rolls-Royce, and a Labour Government saved British Leyland, from going into receivership. If such a situation were to arise again, would it be the Government's policy to allow Rolls-Royce or British Leyland to go into receivership? Does not the Minister realise that such a decision would involve not only the workers in those firms but thousands of small firms supplying component parts?

My right hon. Friend made the position clear. He said that receivership would be the normal practice. In exceptional cases—and I take it that the examples given by the hon. Gentleman would fall into that category—other circumstances would arise.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many who believe that the Inmos and Nexos projects are technically and commercially rather dubious? My right hon. Friend has said that there is a contract with Inmos, but will he think again? As only £6 million has so far been spent on that contract, would it not be better to break it and meet the penalty clause rather than to throw good money after bad, which is what many people believe will happen?

I know that my hon. Friend is expressing the concern of many people about the commercial viability of Inmos, but on the other hand my right hon. Friend made it clear that there is a contractual commitment towards Inmos of £25 million, and the intention is that the NEB should review that project at the appropriate time.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), the hon. Gentleman spoke about other factors to be taken into consideration. Why were those other factors not taken into consideration with regard to British Tanners? Why are nearly 1,000 of my constituents threatened with unemployment because of the Government's failure to support what had become a viable concern? Why will not the Government give the necessary money to ensure that the jobs of my constituents in an area of very heavy unemployment with grievous regional problems can be maintained rather than letting these people go on the dole or the scrap heap?

The hon. Gentleman rightly expresses the anxiety which I know exists in his constituency and other areas where there are factories of this company. Negotiations about the future of the company had broken down and there was no alternative but for the management to seek receivership. At the moment, various negotiations are taking place, and there is a hope that at least part of the company will be saved and will go on to a prosperous future, which is what is really needed.

I appreciate the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in not wishing to make any statement that will be damaging to the future of Inmos. Does not my hon. Friend think that the investment of the NEB and therefore the British investment in Inmos is a question of too little too late, and that it would therefore be better to invest in the application of microprocessors rather than in their manufacture?

There is considerable investment in all sectors in microprocessors. On the question of Inmos, I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend has said and to what I have just said.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the doubt cast over the future of the National Semi-conductors works in Scotland as a result of recent announcements by the Government about their regional policy makes it all the more necessary to go ahead with the Inmos project, and as quickly as possible? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that there are already bottlenecks in supply to some key integrated circuits in this country and that it is imperative that we have our own capacity?

The problem I find is that there is a great number of advisers on this subject all holding different views. We have made our position clear on our general policy towards this matter.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) could hardly have been more specific in his question 2, may I ask how many questions in exactly the same form does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive before he will properly answer? Does not he realise that a very large number of people and a very important sector of the economy are in a state of total uncertainty because of the Secretary of State's drift?

I am still unable to find the company mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in his supplementary question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the reply to a highly specific question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he proposes to take with regard to the various recommendations to assist small businesses made in the interim report of the Wilson committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to encourage start-ups of small businesses.

We are consulting about the interim report of the Wilson committee, and meanwhile have begun to make risk-taking more worthwhile and to remove obstacles to growth.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to encourage small businesses, it is really unnecessary to create any more new institutions for the purpose, but that it is necessary to encourage private investors—managers, employees, partners, members of the family—to provide risk capital for small new businesses? If my right hon. Friend agrees, how does he propose to cause this to happen?

The answer is "Yes" to both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Budget was the first step towards achievement of that objective.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that very successful loan guarantee schemes are operated in the United States and Canada? Will the Department study them with a view perhaps to introducing a similar scheme in this country?

My Department keeps in touch with processes and activities such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend and we can consider any one of them that seems suitable.

Is not the increase in the minimum lending rate and the high interest rates most damaging to small businesses? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sudden and dramatic ending of the small firms employment subsidy has also caused cash flow problems for many small firms? Does he not also agree that, if he is considering a small firms loan guarantee system, he should perhaps intervene in the market?

I said that we could consider any method that we discovered abroad. I did not say that the Government had decided to initiate any such process. The rise in the MLR is damaging to all businesses, but it is one of the results of the inheritance we received from the Labour Government.

Does not the Secretary of State recognise that increasing the burden of value added tax, increasing the limits on borrowing and reducing the assistance to small firms under his regional assistance statement last week will all make it more and not less difficult for small firms to develop and prosper? How does that situation square with the much-vaunted commitment in the Tory manifesto actively to improve conditions for small businesses? The Wilson committee made some recommendations which were widely welcomed in the City. Are they not worthy of greater consideration than the right hon. Gentleman has apparently given them?

The Labour Government left excessive public spending, excessive borrowing and excessive direct taxation. The cure of all three problems is essential to the vitality of the economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the North-East of England.

The listening, discussing and visiting were helpful to me. I found much agreement that enterprise and competitiveness are important.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North-East his visit was regarded as a cosmetic farce and that the lack of serious discussion has caused great annoyance, not least among the trade unions? In the light of the damage that his regional policy statement has done—to say nothing of the damage that will be done by his statement on shipbuilding this afternoon—will he now consider the establishment of a Northern development agency, which has been agreed by the CBI and the TUC in the North—perhaps the only thing they have ever agreed upon?

I think that the people of the North-East should take some credit for persuading me that the grants under the regional development scheme should remain the same in the special development areas.

How much extra unemployment will be created in the Northern region by the measures announced by the right hon. Gentleman last week?

The intellectually honest answer I can give is "None", and I shall explain why in tomorrow's debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the present structure of the Post Office.

I am aware of the need to remove uncertainties. We intend to resolve them before long.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that from the economic point of view, and also from the business sense point of view, it would be as well to separate the telecommunications side of the Post Office from the postal side? Does he not further agree that if the State could have some sort of partnership with private enterprise it would lead to efficiency and further would give an opportunity for the workers in that nationalised industry to participate, because there is an anomaly in that someone working for the private sector has the opportunity to engage in share option schemes whereas that is not available to people working in nationalised industries?

I find compelling the arguments in the Carter report for splitting the Post Office. We are moving towards a conclusion on the issue. We are not contemplating a sale of the Post Office such as my hon. Friend seems to have in mind.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Carter report did not suggest that the telecommunications side should be hived off to private enterprise? It could be argued that there should be two public enterprises. Would he consider the fact that as the postal side is high in labour content and low in profitability, while telecomunications is low in labour content and high in technology and profitability, it would be good, in the interests of business, if they were kept in the same enterprise?

That is the issue. I find the arguments in the Carter report compelling.

As an alternative to my hon. Friend's suggestion, does my right hon. Friend remember how well the Post Office worked in the old days when a Postmaster-General was sitting on the Treasury Bench? If for ideological reasons on the Opposition Benches it is impossible to do what my hon. Friend suggests, would my right hon. Friend at least revert to the old system by which we could deal with, and question, the day-to-day management of this important business?

I would need a lot of convincing that day-to-day questioning of day-to-day management would improve the service to the consumer.

Will the Secretary of State disregard some of the carping from his own Benches? Will he accept from the Opposition side of the House that, by any international yardstick or comparison, the Post Office is efficient and competitive? Will he accept that, while it may be a small crumb of comfort that he is not intending to sell some parts of the Post Office, there is a great fear that on the equipment side he intends to introduce more foreign competition?

I thought that it was widespread common ground that, while the Post Office may or may not be more efficient and competitive than other similar services abroad, it is less than adequate for consumers in this country. There is a difference over what should be done about this situation, but I thought that the common ground was clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry.

I shall be making a statement at the end of Question Time.

rose—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman would prefer to wait, I shall call him after the statement.

indicated assent.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what examination he has made of the effectiveness of previous policies towards regional aid.

I have read many studies by academics, and the recent publication of the Department of Industry.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the regional aid policy from the Community that is based on per capita income and the need to update rundown industry is in line with the present drawing of his United Kingdom regional policy map? In other words, is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that the two regional policy aid maps are now as one?

Certainly the policy is not in conflict. But our policy remains what is called project based rather than employment based.

Does not the Secretary of State accept that depressed areas will be the first to suffer from the recent public expenditure cuts and cuts in regional investment? Does he also accept that they will be the last to benefit from any upsurge in private investment which the Government have prophesied? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman take a fresh look at regional investment to see how he can try to maintain employment in areas already suffering unacceptably high levels of unemployment?

Regional development grants were carefully not cut, as a proportion of expenditure, in the areas most afflicted by poor prospects for the economy and employment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that aid is to be withdrawn from the southern half of my constituency where unemployment is far higher than in the rest of the metropolitan borough, while, in the northern half, where prospects seem brighter, the area has been upgraded in status, although the rise is rather Irish in character?

My hon. Friends and I at the Department of Industry will be glad to listen to evidence suggesting that we have made an error in any particular case. But there is a coherent set of criteria lying behind the re-drawing of the map.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general approval of his proposal to concentrate regional aid more closely than has been done hitherto? Will he give an assurance that in the event of a sudden change of circumstances, as will occur if steel making is closed at Shotton, he will be prepared to upgrade that area without delay?

We have said that we shall be prepared to consider a change of grading in such circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he plans to meet the chairman of British Leyland before Parliament goes into its Summer Adjournment.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Leyland as often as circumstances require.

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Leyland, will he call his attention to the complaints of some West Midlands firms alleging that they are excluded from providing electrical equipment which is being obtained from Italy at a dearer rate? Will he stress to British Leyland that, in view of the large amount of finance put behind this company, it should buy British on every occasion unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise?

I shall take note of that point. I am certain that British Leyland will also take note of my hon. Friend's general point, with which I agree, although the company must buy in the best market available.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Leyland, will he ask him—I do not always believe what I read in the press—whether it is true that a certain prominent politician has been given a brand new car to enable him to drive a British car rather than a Datsun? This is not the sort of action that 600 Members of Parliament should encourage.

I am not aware of this report, but I am sure that this is a case of "If the cap fits, wear it".

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek to repeal section 1 of the Post Office Act 1969.

Yes, Sir.

I wonder whether that reply conveys the information that the hon. Gentleman wished to convey. Does he really mean that he wants to bring back the Postmaster-General?

We have no plans to do so.

Has my hon. Friend seen a recent questionnaire sent by the Post Office to subscribers asking them to say whether they find telephone conversations boring, very boring, slightly boring or not at all boring? Is my hon. Friend aware that subscribers are paid about £2·50 for this information? Will he suggest to the Post Office chairman that the Post Office might find better things to do?

That is a matter for management.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister gave the answer that he intended to give to my question. If he did, in view of its unsatisfactory nature, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what reply he has made to the recent proposals of the Confederation of British Industry concerning the future of regional policy.

I replied that I thought that the policy, when announced, would reveal much common ground.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the CBI, in one breath, said that it was opposed to the policies and in the next said that it agreed with them? Will he say what caused this overnight about-turn in opinion? Will he say whether the CBI agrees with the Secretary of State for Employment, who said this morning that these policies and others would lead to an increase in unemployment? What is the estimate of the increase in unemployment as a direct consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's policies and other policies of Government Ministers over the next 12 months or two years?

Perhaps the first reaction of the CBI was the result of reading an inaccurate newspaper leak and its considered reaction was the result of reading the full statement. I repeat that we do not expect unemployment to rise, except by a very small amount in one area, to be offset by a rise in jobs in the other areas, as I shall try to explain tomorrow.

Is my right hon Friend aware that the changes in regional aid have been widely welcomed in the West Midlands, which has long resented the system by which it has paid its taxes and subsidised the bribes to encourage industry to go to other areas? Is he aware that, if there has been any criticism, it has been on the basis that the cuts in regional expenditure have been too small and too long delayed?

I am so aware.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that unemployment will rise or fall in the North-West as a result of his announcement on regional aid policy?

The change in policy on regional aid will make very little difference to the number of jobs in the assisted areas. In the North-West, so far as it is kept as a special development area, the rate of grant will remain the same.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what evidence he has found during visits to the regions that there is scope for change in current policies for regional assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what evidence he has found during visits to the regions that there is scope for change in current policies for regional assistance.

My visits gave me evidence of the need to focus taxpayers' help more than previously and confirmed my view that redistributing taxpayers' money will not in itself close the gap between the different parts of the country.

Although I welcome that restriction in the geographical spread of the intermediate areas, and hence the abolition of many anomalies, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could explain, first, in what circumstances he would envisage in his special review that an intermediate area to be abolished in 1982 could retain its intermediate area status and, second, what criteria he will use in approving for grant a project in an intermediate area.

I must emphasise that the review is contemplated only in those areas which have been downgraded by more than one step and which cease as a result to be assisted areas. We shall consider special regional selective assistance on more selective criteria than obtain at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to downgrade the Edinburgh travel-to-work area by more than one step has been roundly condemned by both sides of industry and is in sharp contrast to statements by Conservative spokesmen during the last election? Will he at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that this is bound to mean that there will be fewer rather than more jobs in the Edinburgh area in the years ahead?

I do not think that it is possible, intellectually, to make such an assertion. If my hon. Friends and I have made a wrong judgment because we have not grasped all the criteria in any area, we are very ready to listen.

Can my right hon. Friend explain how he expects to save £50 million in the current financial year and, I think, £100 million next year when the upgrading of some areas will antecede the downgrading of others? Also, is section 7 assistance subject to cash limits?

The threshold is being increased at once; that produces an immediate saving. Section 7 assistance will be subject to public expenditure limits.

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

My right hon. Friend will be meeting Sir William Barlow and members of the Post Office board this evening.

In the four weeks since our right hon. Friend answered questions on this subject, has there been any progress at all in overcoming the resistance to the employment of part-time and casual staff in the Post Office? Is it not unacceptable that, when the Post Office attributes many of the serious postal delays to the lack of sufficient staff, there should be this obstacle to an obvious solution?

The Government certainly regret that the Union of Post Office Workers was unable to accept this proposal when it was recommended to it by its executive. We hope that there will yet be further consideration of this matter.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Post Office tonight, will he point out to him the fact that Ministers of the Crown have always replied to letters from hon. Members and that he should not adopt the attitude that because he gets so many letters of complaint from hon. Members he does not have time to answer them? Is it not about time that the chairman realised that Members of Parliament, like the chairman, get their salaries from the workers and the people who subscribe to the Post Office, and that if they complain they want their Members of Parliament to get replies from him and not from the monkey on the organ?

The hon. Member has already written to us on this matter and these views have been passed on to the chairman. However, I must reaffirm our confidence in Sir William Barlow in handling the difficult tasks that face him.

Will my hon. Friend accept that if the chairman of the Post Office Corporation wishes to retain the confidence of the general public my right hon. Friend should remind him this evening that it does not help to suggest that the public should be patient? My hon. Friend will recall that I called upon the general public to show their total impatience with the chairman.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted my hon. Friend's views.

Does the Secretary of State intend to tell the chairman tonight what the hon. Gentleman could not tell the House today? Does he, in fact, intend to bring back the office of Postmaster-General, as he suggested in replying on question 13—or did the hon. Gentleman simply turn to the wrong page?

The previous legislation referred to in that question has lapsed, so the first question did not arise. Therefore, the answer that I gave to question 13 was correct, and the Government have no proposals to bring back the office of Postmaster-General.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his negotiations with ICI to retain a British titanium capacity.

The maintenance of supplies of titanium is primarily a matter for the users of this material and potential suppliers.

Is it Government policy to have a titanium capacity?

I am sure that it would be valuable to have such capacity, but the best method of achieving it is a matter for discussion and discussions are proceeding.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government have no responsibility for essential raw materials for British industry? Is he aware that this is an essential raw material in high technology industries?

The prime responsibility in this matter rests with Rolls-Royce, which must assure itself of these supplies. There are also other opportunities with other European users, and I believe that there may be scope for collaborative ventures. Certainly a wide range of options is open.

Did not the Secretary of State say in his recent statement about the NEB that this was an important matter? If so, is not the Under-Secretary's answer inadequate? Apart from being industrially important, is not this material strategically important? Is there not a defence importance in particular which should not be so lightly dismissed?

I do not believe that in any respect I have dismissed these matters. They are important issues, but, as I said, there is a wide range of possibilities which should be explored. We believe that a commercial solution is the best approach rather than looking to the NEB.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his caution in this matter and urge him to continue to be cautious and not allow the Government to be rushed into providing assistance here?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His enthusiasm for and interest in these matters is well known to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the present level of productivity in manufacturing industry.

No, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the trade unions pressed their employers to increase productivity as successfully as they press them to increase money wages their members would be much better off in real terms and unemployment would be much lower?

My hon. Friend has highlighted an important factor. The answer is "Yes".

Will my hon. Friend lose no opportunity to point out, particularly during the recess, that unless we can increase production and productivity, no amount of oil will in the end save us from ruin?

I shall certainly do that. The key to productivity lies, not with the Government, but with management and work forces.

What response will the Minister give to foundry owners who, later this week, will be meeting the sector working party to seek Government assistance to reduce productivity by reducing the work force of 25,000 in the next few years?

The hon. Lady has misunderstood the purpose of the meeting. It certainly is not in order to reduce productivity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is aware of the success of many motivation programmes introduced into private industry; and whether he will encourage public sector industries to take a more positive attitude to such programmes.

It is for the managements of the public sector industries to decide whether to propose the introduction of schemes of this kind. I am anxious, nevertheless, that the managers and staff of the corporations should be given every encouragement to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

Will my hon. Friend urge those who are responsible for the public sector industries to study positively the motivation programmes which have achieved great success in private industry and which have every prospect of achieving similar success in the public sector?

A wide range of motivation programmes and ideas are available. Schemes are being tried in many corporations. I can assure my hon. Friend that such schemes are encouraged by Ministers.

Does the Minister accept that the motivation of all the people in the public sector industries is severely damaged by Ministers coming to the House and making announcements about selling off, or threatening to sell off, various sections of public sector industries? Does he agree that the Conservative Government have no mandate to wreck British industry and that these threats will be resisted inside and outside the House? Does the Minister agree that the motivation for the preservation of jobs and national assets is strong among the trade union members of those industries?

I draw the hon. Member's attention to the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election in which we stated clearly that we would offer to sell the nationalised industries back into private ownership and offer shares to employees. In that offer lies considerable motivation for employees.

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

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman frequently.

In view of the report in today's Financial Times that many companies face either severe financial difficulties or collapse in the coming months, will the Minister encourage the National Enterprise Board to take over or to assist such companies? Alternatively, will the Government simply allow them to go to the wall with the consequent loss of jobs?

I am not sure to which report the hon. Lady refers. The present state of British industry is due to the past five years of Labour government.

At the Minister's next meeting with the chairman of the NEB, will he discuss the corporate plan for British Leyland which was lodged in the Library on 2 April? Does he expect that there will be any changes in that plan as a result of Government decisions?

The corporate plan for 1978 has been discussed. We shall in due course be discussing the corporate plan for 1979. Decisions for that period will have to be made then.

What is the Government's intention in relation to United Medical Enterprises, which is owned by the NEB? Is the Minister aware that its previous managing director has gone to work for its principal American competitor? Do the Government intend to sell that company into foreign hands?

The future of that company is a matter for the NEB management, working within the policy which was enunciated recently in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the NEB, will he ask him to agree with the previous Government's policy that Inmos should build four production units for microprocessors in assisted areas of the United Kingdom?

The future of Inmos and the location of plant is a matter for the NEB. We have made it clear that there is a contractual commitment to invest money in that company. Therefore, I imagine that the decisions can go ahead.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what measures he is considering to improve productivity in the Post Office.

Specific measures to improve productivity are for the management of the Post Office. My right hon. Friend has, however, made clear his view that there is scope for considerable improvement in the efficiency of the postal business, and he is keeping in close touch with the chairman on this matter.

Is the Under-Secretary aware of the growing public disquiet over the charges imposed by the Post Office and the service which it provides? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends and I think that competition is the only answer if the Post Office is to provide the service that is needed? Has my hon. Friend given thought to some of the less competitive forms of the postal service in distant parts of the country where the Post Office claims that it operates at a loss?

Since I have to sort out letters from hon. Members from all parts of the country, I am aware of the problems involved. My right hon. Friend will bear all considerations in mind when considering the question of the postal monopoly.

Does the Minister accept that one of the troubles in the Post Office is caused by the 10,000 vacancies for postmen and other workers? When the Minister meets the chairman of the Post Office, will he encourage him to pay higher wages and provide better working conditions in order to fill those vacancies?

The Government are well aware of the problem involved in trying to attract workers to fill those vacancies. Achieving the right balance is difficult and it is a matter for the Post Office management.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who rely on the postal service find it almost impossible to keep in close touch with anybody? Will he ask the chairman of the Post Office to abolish, for the time being, the ridiculous two-tier system since everything now goes second class?

I shall bear that suggestion in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list the advance factories which are now under construction in the South Yorkshire area; and if he will now give instructions for another advance factory to be built in the Dearne Valley constituency.

One factory is under construction at Hellaby, Rotherham. Land is still being sought for a factory at Mexborough.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that it is no good building advance factories unless jobs are created? Is he aware that, in spite of an advance factory being built in Denaby, it took years to persuade business people to go there and take advantage of it? Only one small business went there and it created only 16 jobs. Will the Minister ensure that more factories are built in that area and that more jobs are created? Is he aware that the unemployment rate in the Dearne Valley district has been 10 per cent. for years? Does he agree that Tory Party philosophy has never lowered that rate?

It is not a question of factories alone. There are vacant factories not far away. It is important to create a climate in which people will set up businesses and occupy those factories. The failure in the past was the responsibility of the Labour Party.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to meet Mr. Tom Jackson, general secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet Mr. Tom Jackson, general secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers.

My right hon. Friend met Mr. Jackson on 18 June. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met Mr. Jackson on 11 July. There are no immediate plans for further meetings.

When the Minister next meets Mr. Jackson, will he draw to his attention the disclosures in the Daily Mirror about the Mount Pleasant post office which was described as a skivers' paradise, with fiddles on overtime and drinking and gambling on duty? Will he ask Mr. Jackson to co-operate with the management in overcoming those abuses?

I am sure that those matters will be borne in mind.

When the Minister next meets Tom Jackson, will he explain to him that it is impossible to attract more people to work in the Post Office when workers' wages are being deliberately depressed? Will the hon. Gentleman ignore the total rubbish expounded by his hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend)?

The hon. Member should play his part in urging the union to come to an agreement on the proposals which were recommended by the union's executive.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the greatest virtue of the Post Office, in his lifetime and in mine until recently, has been its reliability? That has now been forfeited. In the circumstances, is not it time for a new start? Would it not be a good idea if the Post Office union got rid of its general secretary and my right hon. Friend fired the chairman of the Post Office?

I think that it is helpful to remind the House that there are virtues here and that the picture varies from one part of the country to another. It is also right to pay tribute to those who have been trying to overcome the backlog, especially those who work in the Birmingham sorting office, where they have had bomb threats and other problems. But all these matters require a balance, and it is at that that we are looking.

When the Minister meets Mr. Tom Jackson, will he compliment him and the union on the extraordinarily good performance by the workers during the recent weekend when they worked to clear the backlog? Will the hon. Gentleman also congratulate Mr. Jackson on working in what is still the cheapest and best service in Europe?

I have indicated already that we all recognise that there are some good parts of the story. We are trying to get the balance right in putting forward that story. However, there are problems within the union, and I believe that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should support any efforts to resolve them.

asked the Attorney-General if he will request his noble Friend to convene a conference about sentencing policy on shoplifting.

There have been not less than six sentencing conferences entirely devoted to this subject since January 1978, and such conferences will continue to be held either specifically or in conjunction with other sentencing problems.

I think that I heard what my hon. and learned Friend said. Is not he merely commenting, therefore, on the growing concern about this problem? Is he not aware that the courts are becoming increasingly confronted with people of impeccable character who find themselves on shoplifting charges and that 70 per cent. of women on such charges are facing a court for the first time? In the light of what my hon. and learned Friend said, does not he feel that it is time for a full examination of the effect that the trading methods of self-service stores are having on the increase in the shoplifting statistics?

Yes, of course. There is great concern about the matters about which my hon. Friend speaks. He was good enough recently to send to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General a booklet prepared by him and others on this subject entitled "Take it or leave it". It has been read with great interest. I was specially interested in what my hon. Friend and his colleagues said about the necessity to sort out the persistent and deliberate offender from the absent-minded and confused. Of course, these matters cause great concern, and the Home Office already has made some research into them. It is hoped that its results will be published quite shortly.

On a more practical note, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the recommendations of the National Consumer Protection Council that supermarkets should be required by law to have an area where customers may leave their own shopping bags on arriving at the store and that it should also be mandatory for stores to provide receipts?

Yes, I am aware of those problems. As long ago as 1973, a Home Office working party made specific recommendations on those aspects of the problem. Now the research unit set up by the Home Office has been inquiring into these matters and will be reporting very shortly.

Will my hon. and learned Friend deprecate the practice of certain stores of automatically prosecuting anyone accused of shoplifting within their premises? Will he state that it is really the function of the store manager to satisfy himself that the person concerned intended to take away goods without paying for them before prosecuting?

Before prosecuting, the store has a duty to make such a decision. However, the ultimate decision must be made by the court before which the proceedings are brought. If proceedings are wrongly brought, the court has the power to deal with matters by way of costs.

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

After he and I have returned from our summer vacations.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman condemn the sordid arrangement by which the Daily Telegraph apparently was prepared to pay witnesses, which could be said to induce a tendency towards conviction? Will he clarify the position about the remarks made in the other place by Lord Hartwell, the proprietor of the Daily Telegraph, in which he claimed that the arrangements had the approval of the DPP's office? Will he now condemn Lord Hartwell for misleading the House of Lords and the public at large, or defend or modify his own written answer last week?

I made my decision quite clear in my answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) on 18 July. It is important to remember that there are three people concerned in this matter. There is the member from the Director's office, who made a contemporaneous note which was seen on the same day by the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is the solicitor who communicated with him in the terms which I set out in my written answer last week. The third person at the other end of the line, who was not in any direct contact with the DPP, is Lord Hartwell. Nothing which I intended to say in that written answer suggested that Lord Hartwell was not telling the truth to the House of Lords as he knew it.

In view of the subsequent statement made on behalf of Lord Hartwell, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify the position once and for all? No one wishes to be unfair to any of the parties in this matter. In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's recent declaration that he would prefer the buying of witnesses' stories to be dealt with in the first instance by the Press Council, and in view now of the obvious breach of the declaration of principles of a few years ago, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the position and introduce legislation to deal with the matter?

No, Sir. I do not intend to introduce or to advise the Government to introduce legislation until the Press Council has had a chance to deal with this. The Press Council has now received detailed documentation from the Director of Public Prosecutions and from the lawyers representing the various defendants who are co-operating with the Press Council and providing detailed statements. The Press Council is in the process of getting in touch with the newspapers themselves to obtain their version of the events. There is a considerable mass of papers to be examined, and the Press Council assures me that every step is being taken to expedite an inquiry consistent with the need for a proper regard for natural justice.

Need there have been any confusion at all if Lord Hartwell had been bound by the rulings of the Press Council? Did not he know what was right without having to telephone the Director's office? Does not it indicate that the Press Council is a toothless animal which needs teeth?

I have made my position clear. It was not for Lord Hartwell to telephone the Director's office. He had a solicitor who was acting on behalf of Mr. Bessell and who gave him certain advice which may have been right or may have been wrong.