asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the index of industrial production at present; and how this compares with the comparable figure for the same months in 1974.

In the three months to November 1980 the index of industrial production was 100·6, some 3½ per cent, lower than in the same period in 1974.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures tell the story of six wasted years? What steps do the Government intend to take to increase demand for industry's products so that we can once again achieve the increased industrial production that we had in the 30 years after the war?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. As the House knows, the major reason for the drop in manufacturing and industrial production last year was the reduction of stocks, which was on a scale unprecedented in our recent economic history. There is an indication that that trend is coming to an end.

Do these appalling figures suggest to the Minister that the Government are on target? If so, which target are they aiming at?

If the hon. Gentleman is calling for some change of direction or variation in target, I should remind him that the Government's overriding target is to contain the rate of inflation. If we are deflected from that target we shall never get out of the cycle of inflation and unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the motor manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

The future of the motor manufacturing industry depends upon its ability to offer competitive products to the satisfaction of the consumer. There are encouraging signs that progress is being made in this respect.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that my constituents in the West Midlands, particularly those who work at Longbridge, are most satisfied with the Government's past and recently announced policy, which has allowed the development of the Metro car? Hon. Members on both sides of the House can hardly avoid recognising that it is a stunning success. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is the way that British-built cars with British-built components can eat into the market share of imported foreign-built cars?

I agree that the success of the Metro—both in terms of market penetration and of the productivity of those employed at the plant—is most encouraging. I wish the company well. I hope that its next models will be as successful.

Are the Government prepared to support the approaches that have been made by the car constructors' association in Europe to do something on an EEC basis against the penetration of Japanese products?

The most constructive thing that the British Government have done is to give a general welcome to Nissan so that it can build cars in Britain with British labour to the benefit of the British economy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we sympathise with him over the difficult decisions that he has to make about Government aid to the motor car industry? If we can afford to support British Leyland, can we afford to support Talbot as well, given that Peugeot has the main responsibility?

It is not a matter of supporting any of these companies other than in the respect that we are—I trust—seeing British Leyland through to a condition in which it can return to the private sector. The Talbot company is not in the British public sector and the two cases are different.

Does not the Minister realise that the State has given massive financial aid to the car industry in England? In those circumstences, what steps will the Government take to retain motor car manufacturing at Linwood, given that thousands of jobs are at stake in Scotland, in an area of high unemployment?

On a previous occasion I said that companies are influenced as to where to invest in the United Kingdom not only by Government policies towards development grants and things of that nature, but by the past record of success, or otherwise, of investments in particular areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry why the English Industrial Estates Corporation's advance factory building programme for West Yorkshire is withdrawing funds from areas losing assisted area status approximately 18 months before the Government's decision is due to take effect.

To conform with the Government's policy of concentrating regional assistance in the areas where it is most needed.

Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry not only promised delegations from West Yorkshire that West Yorkshire's intermediate status would be reviewed but assured them that the application of this Act would not take place until July 1982? Is not this activity by the English Industrial Estates Corporation reneging on a promise by the Minister?

I know that my right hon. Friend is to meet a deputation shortly. I ought to make it clear that we are spending more Government money and that there is a lot of private money coming in, so that the English Industrial Estates Corporation now has the largest programme of industrial investment that it has ever carried through. Nevertheless, there is still not enough money to build factories in every part of the assisted areas. In the past, many places in assisted areas have not received advance factories from the corporation. In the coming programme, only 34 of the 60 assisted areas which will keep that status after 1982 are being included.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what consultations there have been with the British Steel Corporation on the British Steel Corporation corporate plan.

There have been frequent consultations between the Department and the BSC about the corporate plan, and I have had two discussions with the chairman.

When does the Secretary of State intend to approve the corporate plan? Prior to that approval, will he examine the document which I delivered to his Department last Friday and to the office of the Under-Secretary of State entitled "The Ingot Mould Foundry Rationalisation Review" of 4 February this year which challenges the commercial assumptions of the corporation which have led to the recommendation that the Distington foundry be closed? In the light of the publication of that document, will the right hon. Gentleman put it to the British Steel Corporation that it should re-evaluate Distington and suspend its decision pending that re-evaluation?

On the first part of the question, I hope to make a statement giving the response to the BSCs plan in the next few days. On the second part of the question, I understand that a document arrived this morning. From the little that I so far know of it, I judge that it is a matter for the management of BSC. I am sure that it will be studied by the BSC management.

When my right hon. Friend makes his announcement later in the week, will he give the Government's view on the viability of the corporate plan? Is he aware that, though I represent a steel constituency, I do not believe that the security of the steel industry is necessarily dependent on the amount of money that the Government can put into the industry? Finally, what assurances has my right hon. Friend sought from the British Steel Corporation to the effect that its corporate plan will be commercially viable?

The management and work force of BSC have to cope with the market as it evolves. We all hope that they will do their very best, but the market may continue to be hostile. No one can guarantee the outcome for any part of BSC or for BSC as a whole. It is up to the management and work force to do their very best in the current economic circumstances.

As industrial recovery will have to occur some time, whether the present Administration desire it or not, are we not justified in questioning the adequacy of the envisaged capacity for steel production in the United Kingdom, especially in regard to special steels and, therefore, South Yorkshire, where world records have frequently been broken in the past and where they were again broken, in my constituency, a few days ago?

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on one of the many difficult judgments that the management has to make. The Government also have to consider the cost to the taxpayer of keeping spare capacity. The house will know that the management proposes to keep some spare capacity unmanned for a future upturn.

When my right hon. Friend considers the corporate plan, will he bear in mind that it is important that the private sector steel companies are not damaged by subsidised competition, particularly in common areas such as bars and steel billets and engineering steel?

My hon. Friend has also identified a crucially important subject about which the Government are deeply concerned. The Government have blessed the efforts by BSC and some parts of the private sector to see whether viable joint commercial partnerships can be evolved.

I should think that the private steel manufacturers must be quaking if they have been blessed by the Secretary of State, given his effect on other industries in our economy. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, when he makes his statement about the MacGregor corporate plan, he will make clear exactly to what discussions between the British Steel Corporation and the private sector he has given his blessing, since clearly the Opposition also recognise the importance of many of the private sector steel makers?

There is no mystery here. The details are commercial and are for the companies concerned and for BSC. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) identified in his supplementary questions, those concerns in the private sector whose trade overlaps with that of BSC have been and are in discussion with BSC about possible partnerships.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now establish a Northern Development Agency.

I am not persuaded that the best interests of the North would be served by the creation of such an agency.

That is an extremely disappointing answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is nine months since my hon. Friends and I met him to discuss this matter? Does he realise how much the position in the Northern region has deteriorated since that time and that the need for an agency is greater than ever? Bearing in mind the desperate need to have the Datsun car factory placed in the Northern region and the help that a development agency could give towards it, would it not be more appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to lead the delegation that is to go to Japan later this month?

It was because of the respect that I have for the sincerity of the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman and many hon. Friends of his and of mine about the North that my colleagues and I took so long to come to a final decision about the idea of a development agency. I know about the deterioration of the position in the North, but it still remains true that future prospects for the North depend on the enterprise of the business community both in the North and in the country as a whole and the co-operation of the work force within the framework that the Government provide.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the imbalance created by the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency whem trying to attract jobs to the North? Will he correct that imbalance by setting up a development agency, bearing in mind the high unemployment there, and in doing so get away from the myth that the Government have turned their back on the North?

The hon. Gentleman expresses a fairly widely held view, but all the powers held by the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies respectively are held, though by different agencies, in the North. To add an agency on the lines of the Scottish or Welsh Development Agency for the North would not provide a single extra power but would provide an extra unit of bureaucracy which would confuse rather than increase the prospects for the North.

In his deliberations about the creation of a Northern development agency, will my right hon. Friend consider the point that if he acceded to such a request it would lead to a call for a North-Western development agency, since that area would suffer the same problems in relation to Scotland as a result of the creation of a Northern Development Agency?

I do not want to put ideas into the minds of other hon. Members. I do not think that the North-West would be the only other part of the country concerned.

If the Secretary of State has rejected the concept of a development agency for the Northern region, what steps will he take to improve a deteriorating situation?

The right hon. Gentleman is yet again supporting the myth that prosperity comes from Government. That is not true. The Government can create as encouraging a framework as is practicable, and that is what we are in the process of doing. Prosperity comes from enterprise and co-operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied that sufficient accommodation is available for new small businesses.

As a result of actions taken by the Government, I am pleased to say that the availability of premises for new small businesses is improving to meet the continuing high level of demand.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he expand on a reply that he gave earlier to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and tell the House more about the role being played by the English Industrial Estates Corporation? Will he tell the House what impact, if any, the changes in the Finance Act 1980 to the industrial buildings allowance have made to the availability of small units?

The Coopers and Lybrand study, which my Department commissioned, found that dominance of the public sector in this part of the market had led to little provision in recent years and had made it unattractive to private investors. The corporation has now involved the private sector. In addition to the extra £5 million that the Government have made available for small firm units, agreements to a total value of £30 million, including the £5 million, have been concluded with the private sector. These will provide upwards of 1,500 small units in the assisted areas.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his reply was a load of eyewash? Whether accommodation is available or whether it is not, the fact is that small businesses are going bankrupt at a record rate due to high interest rates and lack of demand, which is the fault of the Government of whom he is a member.

The large building programme for small units is being filled by many demands from small firms and there are many small firms being created at the same time as others are in difficulties. One of the principal reasons for high interest rates is the high level of Government spending that the hon. Gentleman wants to see further increased. That would further increase interest rates and thus more adversely effect small firms rather than reverse the trend.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the success of the taxation allowances and press him to give further allowances on larger buildings in the forthcoming Budget?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has noted the success of the scheme for small firms. Obviously I cannot pre-empt what my right hon. and learned Friend might wish to do in his Budget.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was a time when we used to seek the active intervention of the English Industrial Estates Corporation to build advance factories? Is he further aware that in the Northern region we have more than sufficient industrial space lying empty, as a result of the Government's policies, to take up all the unemployment in the region?

Our experience with small units and experimental workshops has been extremely encouraging. As the world recession lifts and as the economy picks up it will be possible for many more estates to take advantage of the facilities that are being provided.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he plans any measures in the medium and long term aimed at assisting the strength and viability of the United Kingdom computer industry.

The United Kingdom computer industry must develop and market internationally competitive products if it is to remain strong and viable. The Govenment currently operate a number of measures aimed at encouraging the development of such products which will continue to make a substantial contribution to the medium and long-term future of the industry.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer? Bearing in mind that the survival of the British computer industry is literally at stake in international terms and that the Government are bound to be involved in providing some form of public funds for high technology products and new electronics, will the Government now consider providing more as a proportion of the total research and development expenditure for British computer companies and more in comparison with their ferocious competitors in other countries?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I must emphasise the amount of support that is already available under three schemes that my Department operates. First, there is the MAP scheme—namely, the microelectronics applications programme, which involves £55 million over four years. Secondly, there is the microelectronics industry support scheme and, thirdly, the product and process development scheme, which involves many projects that are directed to microelectronics. My Deprtment provides research and development facilities and money for those projects. I am conscious of the value of that support.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only a few months ago the Minister of State was gloating about the privatisation of ICL? I do not know whether he has read the financial reports, but ICL is now running into a deficit of possibly £50 million. What is he prepared to do about this? Is he prepared to emulate the previous Labour Government and save the British computer industry and thousands of jobs or is he merely prepared idly to stand by?

It is clear that ICL is experiencing the same problems as many companies in the recession. Orders are short and costs are high. The chairman said at the annual general meeting last week that the company is implementing a series of measures to conserve its cash flow, such as plant closure, no general wage increase and the disposal of surplus premises. These measures are prudent and necessary and will strengthen the company.

May we take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he at least is not making the mistake of confusing the totality of the British computer industry with the individual interests of one company?

No, Sir. The British computer industry is composed of many companies that operate in hardware, software, the mainframe area, mini-computers and microcomputers. There is a great deal of vitality and strength in the industry.

Will the Minister make it clear that he intends to guarantee the future of ICL?

My Department has not received any specific and formal request for assistance from ICL. I understand that the company is having talks with its bankers. I saw from the chairman's statement last week that the company is putting in hand measures to strengthen its cash position. My Department is in frequent contact with ICL over its future research and development programme, as with all other major information technology companies. The public sector is a major user of ICL equipment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he now expects to see progress in industrial revival within the West Midlands.

The industrial revival of the West Midlands depends on reducing inflation, on the drive and enterprise of management, and on the understanding and co-operation of work forces.

Will the Minister get away from those platitudes? When will he realise that so much of industry in the West Midlands and in the Black Country districts is being devastated as a result of Government policies? There are redundancies and closures daily and extensive short-time working. If the Government's policies have proved unsuccessful, why not change them? Why not change the dogma and allow our industry to prosper?

The hon. Gentleman ignores a number of factors that he should take into account in the interests of achieving a balance. The reduction of IDCs and the 100 per cent, grants for approved clearance schemes are only two of many measures that have had an effect on the West Midlands. There is also the enterprise zone at Dudley, which is not very far away from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman talks about platitudes, but he must realise that the prime target is the defeat of inflation, which will affect the West Midlands as well as everywhere else.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new but important problem in both the steel and the motor industries, which are important to the West Midlands, is that the Government must either reduce taxpayers' subsidies to these industries or give yet further and larger subsidies to the private sectors of the industries, so that they may compete against the State sector, which is in receipt of vast subsidies?

The question that my hon. Friend poses is in a sense a false one. Much depends on the prospects of the companies that feature in his question. However, he is right to stress, if we are talking about help to the West Midlands, that it was because of the wider implications for the West Midlands and the entire components industry that the BL decision was taken.

While Labour Members welcome the decision on BL, will the Minister confirm that later today his right hon. Friend is due to meet a delegation from Peugeot at the highest level which may have a direct bearing on the situation in the West Midlands for Talbot? Can we have an undertaking from the Minister that he will tackle the approach from Peugeot with a view to using the same strength of Government purchasing power and aid as we did with Datsun to encourage Peugeot to maintain an investment here?

The hon. Member is somewhat adrift. That is a different question but the decisions that stem from the conversations with Peugeot are for the company to make.

In the new deal with the Nissan company, will the Minister not overlook the great pool of highly trained and skilled labour in the motor industry in the West Midlands which could produce a real success for another car manufacturer, which would also bring work to the hard pressed components industry which, similarly has a large pool of highly skilled labour?

I am sure that the Nissan company will take careful note of my hon. Friend's remarks. He has reinforced some of the positive aspects of this successful inward investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when the Government intend to publish their response to the ACARD report on information technology.

I shall be co-ordinating the Government's response to the ACARD's excellent report on informantion technology and that will be published soon.

In addition to the co-ordination that my hon. Friend will be arranging within his Department, will there be further co-ordination with other Departments? Is not my hon. Friend disappointed that, in a period of general recession, opportunities for profitable investment in information technology have sometimes been neglected? In particular, will he look at opportunites for carrying out legal reforms which would prevent any holding back of the development of the industry?

On the last point, I am keen to remove any obstacles that will hinder the growth of the industry. They tend to be in the area of national and international regulations and so on. On the point concerning general investment, I am not aware of general withholding of investment in these industries. There is a good flow of investment going into the industries, which are a growth sector. On the first point, concerning co-ordination between Government Departments, my hon. Friend is right. The policies affecting the range of these industries, which range from satellites through to computer games, mean that several departments are involved.

I recognise my hon. Friend's positive response to the excellent report. Will he undertake that the Government's public sector procurement policy will be to the fore in responding to the report? Will the Government do everything possible to initiate demonstration projects in the public sector?

Public procurement is an important and powerful weapon which can be used constructively in this area. I am arranging for cetain trial operations within my Department using Prestel/Viewdata, in which this country has a world lead. We must ensure that we do not lose it.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on progress in breaking up the corporate structure of BL; and what further discussions he has had with the chairman of BL.

I told the House on 26 January that the intention of the BL board is to draw the operating units into four distinct businesses—BL Cars, Land-Rover, Unipart and the Leyland Group. The new organisation of the Leyland group was announced on 19 January. I have had no discussions with Sir Michael Edwardes since my announcement of funding for BL on 26 January.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all pragmatic Conservatives will doubtless welcome the remarks of the Prime Minister in her speech last week that the Government will not hesitate to intervene from time to time in industry if they consider it to be necessary? In view of the enthusiasm with which my right hon. Friend has sought to intervene in British Aerospace and British Airways, to assist in what one might call privatisation, will my right hon. Friend show the same enthusiasm and undertake the same activities with some of the component parts of BL?

We shall continue to leave judgments about the degree and timing of any sale of parts of BL to the management of BL.

Will the Secretary of State repudiate the damaging letter in The Times on Saturday from some of his hon. Friends about the selling of certain assets of British Leyland? Is he aware that that has already had a damaging effect on management morale in BL? Is it not time that the company was allowed to get on with the job and produce the cars and employment that is so essential?

My hon. Friends are animated by the same desire as everyone else for the prospects of BL and all its parts. I hope that in their enthusiasm they will recognise that having appointed a management, the Government must leave it to the management to make the decisions.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the sale of currently profitable parts of BL would bring in train the possibility of a need for a greater subsidy for the other parts?

Without going into those probabilities, I must repeat that the decisions are for management.

In view of the impact of the Datsun project on BL, and the West Midlands area in particular, will the Secretary of State look seriously at the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) about the possibility—in view of the component base and the obvious advantages to the motor industry—of introducing a project of this sort to the West Midlands area?

I must repeat that the decision on such matters is for Nissan. The company has undertaken a feasibility study. Its final decision is yet to be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when the Government will announce further decisions on the implementation of the Finniston report.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with engineering institutions regarding a Royal Charter for the proposed Engineering Council.

As explained by my hon. Friend in Committee on the Industry Bill on 15 January, we are at present discussing with those concerned the draft Royal Charter which has been placed in the Library. We hope to make rapid progress on the broad basis set out in the charter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a vital objective indentified by Finniston was the need to attract more well-qualified young people into the engineering industry? What discussions are taking place between his Department and the Department of Education and Science, particularly since the conference held to discuss that subject in the autumn, with a view to attracting more young people of the right calibre to undertake engineering education?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that important aspect of Finniston. My Department and the Department of Education and Science are in touch on these matters. We are awaiting the report of the conference and I expect that further consideration must depend on what comes from that report.

Does the Minister realise that it is reported throughout Europe that the United Kingdom educates the smallest number of young people between 16 and 19 years of age? Does he not agree that unless those young people have a good basic education they cannot take advantage of any training programme that the Government might inaugurate? Will he look at that problem to see what the Government can do to help those young people?

I understand and appreciate the problems. One of the prime tasks for the new engineering body when it is created must be to look at those problems. However, the Government also have a role to play and I shall take an interest in the questions the hon. Gentleman posed.

Will the Minister confirm that the presidents of all the major engineering institutions reject the charter? Is he aware that the presidents are afraid that the engineering profession will become nationalised? Will he do everything possible to seek their co-operation in any future measures?

Yes, but my hon Friend will appreciate that when my right hon. Friend made his statement on 7 August there was a general welcome for that statement by the institutions. We have reached a substantial measure of agreement about the voluntary form that is proposed. That is the view of the vast majority of people with whom we have consulted, despite what my hon. Friend implies. We are discussing the fine print of the charter at this stage. It is not unusual to have some difficulty in reaching final agreement on the form of words. I hope and believe that it will be possible to reach agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his response to the plan for the future of the British Steel Corporation submitted to him by Mr. Ian MacGregor.

I expect to make a statement on the BSC corporate plan within the next few days.

As a curtain raiser to that statement will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past 10 years public subsidy to the British Steel Corporation has totalled no less than £5,000 million? In the light of that, will he say that it is not unreasonable for the hard-pressed taxpayer now to demand that any future subsidy should be seen patently to go in to sound capital investment rather than covering what appear to be ever-increasing operational losses?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the magnitude of the amounts that have been poured into the industry by the taxpayer. However, in the transition to a viable industry there are unavoidable costs, including closure and redundancy costs.

If the Government announce on Wednesday, as they probably will, further financial help to BSC—and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I approve of that—will the right hon. Gentleman also give the same financial help to other steelworks, such as Duport Steel in my constituency, to enable them to survive and provide more employment?

I certainly share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about subsidised competition with the private sector. We shall do our best to protect the private sector from that. The Government certainly want to reduce assistance to the BSC rather than provide assistance for the private sector.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that when he makes his announcement he will have to give the BSC a large sum which will be much more than he wanted to give and much more than he said that he would have to give? Will he make sure that the money is not used—and there should be monitoring to ensure that this does not happen—to subsidise BSC's activities against the private sector?

That is precisely the point which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) emphasised and with which, in principle, I entirely agree. Where the private and public sectors overlap we are encouraging the evolution of joint partnerships.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although he has not yet acquiesced to the corporate plan, job losses are already taking place in Scotland, including some in my constituency, and the engineering section under the auspices of the BSC is closing in June? As the right hon. Gentleman has not yet acquiesced to the plan, why are closures taking place?

Under the legislation enacted by a Labour Government, who set up the BSC, the corporation needs no authority from me to close works or to dismiss staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what measures he is now taking to stimulate industrial redevelopment in the Consett area.

Consett has been made a special development area. The Government have instituted a special programme of remedial measures involving factory building, derelict land clearance grants, special manpower measures, support for local road improvements and compensation to the local authorities for the loss of rate income.

Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's misconceived answer to an earlier question about the establishment of a Northern development agency, will the hon. Gentleman consider acting positively on the suggestion that I made during his recent visit to Consett to the affect that he should come to the area twice a year to chair meetings of the locally based strategy committee, which is doing so much to further industrial redevelopment in the area but which cannot do more without outside help, because of the sheer magnitude of the problem?

I accept the magnitude of the problem and I was impressed by the constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman, local authorities and the community are taking to deal with the switch from decling industries to the new jobs of thefuture. I hope that it is clear that the Government have introduced a wide range of measures to try to help. As the hon. Gentleman knows, 58 factory units will be available shortly. As for my taking the chair at meetings of the strategy committee, the hon. Gentlena will appreciate that I have many responsibilities in other parts of the country and I cannot give an absolute commitment to come to his area twice a year. However, I shall do all that I can to keep a close interest in what is happening there.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his recent visit to the region was most welcome? Is he further aware that there is a general appreciation in the North-East that the Government have introduced a wide measure of assistance to the region and that they are conscious of our problems? Does he agree that there is great encouragement in the interest being shown by smaller developers in factories of 1,000 sq. ft. and less on our trading estates? Will he do all that he can to encourage smaller developers?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. He will know that it was because of my interest in the problems of the Northern area that I made it one of the first places that I visited after my appointment. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about small developers. I am sure that they will make a useful and significant contribution.

Does not the Minister's problem in dealing with the debacle at Consett and throughout the Northern region arise from the fact that there is a collapse in investment in British manufacturing industry? Is that not exemplified by the recent statement of the managing director of one of the largest chemical industries in this country that, because of the overvaluation of sterling and our high interest rates, his company will be concentrating its investment outside the United Kingdom?

The problem of investment has existed in this country for years and has been coupled with the insufficiently effective use of the investment that we have had. The hon. Gentleman will know that among the major factors that affect business confidence are the rate of inflation and expectations about inflation. The fact that inflation is coming down is helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Telecom to discuss investment in telecommunications.

My right hon. Friend and I discuss telecommunications investment with the chairman of British Telecom as the need arises.

It may be a small point, but is my hon. Friend aware that British Telecom is investing a certain amount of money in yellow paint at the moment, with a view to painting telephone kiosks yellow? The reason given is that it is thinking of changing its livery. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could tell the chairman of British Telecom that the colour of telephone kiosks is part of our national heritage and is not only a matter concerning the livery of British Telecom.

Livery matters are not for me. They are clearly for the Post Office and British Telecom. It must be for them to decide what colour they wish to paint their kiosks and vans.

Is it sensible to require British Telecom to finance its investment out of profits or would it be sufficient for it to do what any private business would do, namely to finance the cost of investment out of profits?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which the Government are considering. Last week, I accepted an amendment to the British Telecommunications Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) to allow British Telecom to borrow from sources other than the Government. However, I stress that that is a permissive power and it does not mean that we have yet agreed that British Telecom will do that, since there are much wider implications in allowing nationalised industries to borrow generally from the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will carry out a study of the impact of public expenditure cuts on the efficiency and production capability of high technology firms; what plans he has to stimulate further investment in high technology; and if he will make a statement.

The Government will continue to pursue their policy of support for technology through financial assistance under schemes such as product process development scheme, the microelectronics support programme and the microprocessor-applications project programme and by positive public purchasing. However successful, high technology enterprise cannot be created simply by doling out the taxpayers' money.

I am sure that, with his usual honesty, the Minister will admit that the greatest indictment of the Government's industrial policies is that productivity is falling rapidly. Does he accept that many high technology firms depend on public sector contracts and that many of those firms have been seriously damaged by the Government's public expenditure cuts?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments in the first part of his question. I am sure that he meant them to be a general commendation and not a specific one. I agree, generally, with what the hon. Gentleman said about productivity, but productivity in high technology industries is not falling. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind specific high technology projects where investment funds are not forthcoming, will he please let me know?

Is my hon. Friend convinced that planned savings in Government expenditure as a result of the proposed reform in the payment of sickness benefits will not put further pressure on the finances of high technology businesses and business generally?

My hon. Friend is ingenious, but that is a wider question.

Returning to the question of ICL, what will the Minister do to save that British company, which is so important at present?

As I said earlier, I deprecate the use of such language. There has been no specific and formal request from the company for assistance, but we are in touch on the future of its research and development programme. I wish that hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, would remember the considerable strengths of ICL. It has 35 per cent, of the United Kingdom market, its export sales last year were £300 million and it has an installed overseas base of £2 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to expedite the payment of regional assistance grants to industry.

Applications for regional development grants are now being approved markedly quicker than last year. Payment of approved applications remains subject to the four months' deferment announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 June 1979.

Will the Minister say what protests he is getting from industry? Is he aware that the paper industry in my constituency has complained to me specifically about slowness in the payment of grants, to the embarrassment and disadvantage of those firms?

I am aware of some complaints which I have received since my appointment. I point out, however, that there has been considerable progress. Last year, the average time was about 22 weeks. It is now between three and four months. I shall continue to take a personal interest in this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals he has to increase the use of Prestel/Viewdata services in the public sector.

In Prestel/Viewdata we have a world lead, and I wish to ensure that effective uses are found for this in the public sector as soon as possible. I have put in hand in the Department a pilot scheme linking London and the regional offices which should go live this summer. Other trial projects are in hand, and I have an operational set in my own office.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. What steps are the Government taking to encourage exports of these systems?

As I have said, this is a skill in which Britain literally has a world lead. We have a better system than the French or Canadians, and the Americans do not have one. I am considering various proposals for exploiting this advantage overseas. So often in the past British technology has not been exploited and marketed in the way that it should have been.

asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the rights of doctors to refuse to reveal to courts matters related to them in confidence by patients.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the recent case in which a psychiatric nurse was required to reveal in court information of a highly confidential nature given to her by a patient? Has not the time come when doctors, nurses and, indeed, priests should be given the came protection regarding confidential informantion given to them as at present lies within the realm of privilege in respect of informantion given by clients to lawyers?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that one always has to strike a balance between the interests of maintaining a confidential relationship and the interests of justice. This matter was considered in 1977 by the Law Reform Committee, which concluded that no requirement was necessary for it. It is within the terms of reference of the Law Commission's forthcoming report on the law of confidentiality. It may be that something will be set out in the report.

Is not this one more example of the question how far the public interest requires that information disclosed in confidence for one purpose should not be used for a different purpose? Would not Mr. Attorney agree that this is the question that arose in the Harriet Harman case? Is it not a little unfair that questions of the balance of public interest should be left to the courts when they are essentially political questions? Will he suggest at some stage to his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that either a Royal Commission or some other form of inquiry should consider the whole question?

The question refers to confidentiality so far as doctors are concerned. That is what I was answering.

Will the Attorney-General examine the new possibilities that have emerged for general practitioners to use more software and computerised information? Will he make sure that there is no way in which confidentiality is broken, taking into account, for example, the needs of people on supplementary benefit, those receiving allowances and similar benefit? Does he agree that such breaches would be a great disadvantage to the patient of the general practitioner?

As this practice develops, the more it will be necessary to keep an eye on the consequences of it.

asked the Attorney-General what criteria are used when deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings against members of the Armed Forces for alleged offences arising out of the performance of their duties when assisting the civil authorities.

The Director uses the same basic criteria in all cases whether they involve members of the Armed Forces or not.

Although the Armed Forces have an unenviable task when dealing with terrorists, does the Attorney-General agree that it would be a deplorable legal precedent in this country for members of the Armed Forces to be given immunity from prosecution for carrying out summary execution of terrorists, especially after they have given themselves up? Was any such immunity from prosecution, or any order for summary execution, approved by either the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary in the case of the SAS raid on the Iranian embassy.

I must say that I am horrified by that question. There was a certain amount of confusion in the evidence. The matter has been reviewed, in part, in the trial at the Old Bailey, although not all the prosecution evidence was called. It was considered with care at an inquest with a coroner's jury last week. So far as I am concerned the courage and determination shown by those involved, which saved an unknown number of lives of innocent hostages, is a matter of pride for us all. I would especially like to add my admiration for the conduct of police constable Trevor Lock.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this country, compared with any other in the world, shows amazing scrupulosity in the discharge of the function of the State investigating all events pertaining to disaster or tragedy such as that which occurred at the Iranian embassy? This is an attribute of which we might be proud. Surely, it is incredible that a member of the Opposition should try to damage this force—I happen to be a former member of the SAS—and use the House of Commons to attack what were found by the jury to be killings in the interests of the pursuit of the national interest?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The evidence was reviewed both by the Director and myself. There was no evidence upon which proceedings in relation to the deaths of those terrorists could be justified.

No one in the House would want to detract from the congratulations offered on the bravery of all those who were concerned in that incident. I say that as a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence. Do I understand from the Attorney-General's earlier remarks that equality before the law is a paramount consideration and, secondly, that, where an offence has been committed, the question of prosecution is examined on the same basis, whoever is involved?

The answer that I gave to the initial question was that the criteria are the same in all cases. The criteria that would apply here are the same as the test which is applied, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to set an age limit on the tenure of office of those judges who are not at present covered by age limits.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to him on 9 June last, to which I have nothing to add.

Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there are judges over the age of 80 whose judgments are so regularly eccentric and so idiosyncratically out of touch with modern views that they are constantly having to be overturned at a higher level? Does he not agree that geriatric judges with nineteenth-century social ad political prejudice only bring the rule of law into disrepute? It is reasonable that an age limit of 70 should be imposed.

There is only one judge over 80 at the moment.

Name him.

He reached his eighty-second birthday last week and I would like to congratulate him on it. It is not for me to comment on individual decisions, some of which may be subject to appeal. In 1959 Parliament decided that a statutory retirement age for judges should be imposed. At the same time, Parliament did not impose that upon those who were already appointed judges.

Is not Lord Denning probably the best-known judge in the world? Are not these attacks on him highly resented by everyone who has had the privilege of appearing before him?

If, indeed, there is to be criticism of a judge, there is a well known, recognised parliamentary process for dealing with that situation.

Order. I did not have the knowledge of the Attorney-General that there was only one judge aged over 80, or I would have intervened. The Attorney-General is right. If anyone wishes to criticise a judge in this place, he should first table a motion on the Order Paper and seek to have it debated.

Bearing in mind the usual rules about the principle of equality under the law, will the Attorney-General advance any good reason why judges should not be subject to the usual retirement age rules?

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to complain if his contract were altered after he had signed it and had acted under it for a period of time. That is what would happen here. Parliament in 1959 decided not to affect the contracts of those who were already appointed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I get it right? Is it the case that under our rules we can say nice things about judges but cannot say nasty things about them?

That applies to many people.