asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress is being made with the reconstruction of the British Steel Corporation and its involvement with the private sector of the steel industry.

I welcome the recent announcement by the British Steel Corporation and Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds of an agreement in principle to form a new joint company, Allied Steel and Wire Limited. I hope to receive further agreed proposals for other public sector—private sector joint companies in the other Steel-making sectors where there is overlap.

Is it not outrageous that the trade unions concerned were given one hour's notice of the so-called Phoenix I reshuffle? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that there will be widespread consultations with the engineering, steel, electrical and all the other unions involved before we get mixed up in this ideological Phoenix II reshuffle?

No, I am afraid that I cannot. Delicate commercial negotiations between the nationalised steel industry and private companies were involved. I fear that the jobs of many people might be jeopardised if there were widespread consultation.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House any further information about the negotiations with regard to Phoenix II? Secondly, what consideration are the Government giving to providing funds for the private sector in order to keep jobs and businesses in operation, bearing in mind the immense amount of money being given to the public sector?

My hon. Friend is asking questions that are on the Order Paper and will arise later. I am assured, however, that the preliminaries for negotiations with regard to Phoenix II will be set in hand very soon.

In supporting the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) with regard to consultation, may I ask the Secretary of State what other action he will take to support the private sector? I visited Firth Brown in Sheffield on Friday. That company is in a desperate situation with regard to financing. It is also a large provider of steel to the British Steel Corporation. Can the Secretary of State give some firm assurance of help to the private steel sector at the present time?

My understanding is that 80 per cent. of the private steel sector is not in competition with the British Steel Corporation and is therefore being affected very harshly by the precipitate fall in steel prices in the whole of Western Europe. To the extent that there is overlap, the Phoenix concept, while preserving fierce competition from overseas, is intended to optimise the survival of jobs in steel.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards those nationalised industries for which his Department is responsible.

My aim is to introduce competition where it is lacking, promote joint ventures, invite private sector capital participation wherever appropriate and restore loss-makers to enduring profitability as soon as practicable or reduce the scale of their losses so as to relieve the taxpayer.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the reported discussions taking place between BL and Honda for some form of capital participation, which a Honda spokesman described as comprehensive capital participation in BL? Can my hon. Friend tell us whether that is true, and if so whether he would welcome it? If he has not done so, will he give every encouragement to that development, particularly in the light of the success of the British Aerospace venture, which has succeeded despite opposition from both the official Opposition and the unions?

Both I and my right hon. Friend have made it plain that we welcome participation in British Leyland by other companies and other investors, possibly from overseas. That remains our policy, and Sir Michael Edwardes and his board are working towards that end.

Is it still the Government's policy to make State industries self-financing by 1982? If so, how much more will the public have to bear in terms of price increases to ensure that aim?

There is every reason to ensure that the public pay the price of a nationalised industry product at the time they buy it and not to ask other taxpayers to pay it for them.

Approximately how much in total will support for the nationalised industries cost my hon. Friend's Department this year, and how does that compare with the known investment intentions of private industry?

That is an extremely wide question. I have the figures with me, but they have not been added up. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a separate question. It is a staggeringly large sum.

If that is the Government's policy towards the nationalised industries, is the Minister satisfied with the progress that has been made with that policy over the last two years?

One would always want progress to be more rapid. I remind the hon. Gentleman that over 50 per cent. of British Aerospace share capital has been sold. The prospects of British Leyland are improving rapidly, and other proposals for further privatisation are in the course of preparation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the latest figures of changes in industrial production since May 1979; and what steps he is taking to increase industrial production.

In the fourth quarter of 1980 the index of industrial production was 12½ per cent. below its value in the second quarter of 1979. Industrial production can best be increased through greater competitiveness based on realistic working practices, sensible wage settlements and improved productivity.

Does the Minister agree that the fall in industrial production in Britain is much greater than that in most other Western European countries and is a reflection not only of the general recession but of Government policies? Does the hon. Gentleman agree also that unless there is a rapid and prolonged U-turn his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will preside over the decline and collapse of British industry?

Industrial decline varies from country to country. The real reason why there was such a sharp decline in industrial production last year was that there was quite massive destocking, on a scale that has been unknown in our recent economic history. There has been a quite exceptional fall in stocks.

Why?

I shall explain why. British industry was caught between two pressures on competitiveness—the pressures on the pound due to rising exchange rates and the pressure due to a rapid increase in wage demands.

Has my hon. Friend studied the assistance that is available to French industry from the French Government in the form of public purchasing policy and in the form of market and product development support? Does he agree that it is unlikely that British industry can compete with French industry in an open market when the French are receiving support on that scale?

Of course I am aware of the various support measures that are available, not only in France, but in other countries. A little later I shall be answering a question on public purchasing, which I think will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend's anxiety on this score. With regard to support for research and development, I re-emphasise that there are several schemes in the Department—for example, the product process development scheme and two microelectronic schemes—where grant money is available for projects and products that are brought forward by British industry.

Does the Minister agree that production has been affected by the Government's policy of high interest rates, high energy costs and the high value of the pound? Has not the closure of thousands of companies during the last two years been a direct consequence of the Government's economic policy?

No. The problem is more sophisticated than that. The equation is not simple, but quadratic. Many factors affect the decline in industrial activity that I have indicated. Some of the ones that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are correct, but he should not overlook the unrealistic level of wage settlements for the most part of last year.

Although output has declined as a result of the recession, does my hon. Friend agree that many firms have used this difficult time to improve their working methods and efficiency, which gives hope for greatly increased output, sales and productivity once the recession is over?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us all that there is some advantage in this, in that in many cases companies have become more efficient and slimmed down and will be able to take advantage of the world recession when it comes to an end.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action the Government are taking to encourage both the public and the private sectors of industry to buy British.

Both sectors can do much to stimulate the competitiveness of their suppliers so that British goods are well designed, competitively priced and reliable. The Government have taken an initiative, which my Department is responsible for co-ordinating, to encourage public sector purchasers to discuss in advance their requirements with suppliers, most of whom are in the private sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of a"Buy British" campaign must not just be to provide a home market, but to underpin our export effort? Surely it would be desirable if major purchasers, both in the public and private sectors, so set their specifications that British goods would be not only competitive in the world market but extremely marketable?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Too often in the past, public purchasing—not just by the Government but by public agencies as well—has been too concerned with producing a specific and particular product that is available for a specific purpose. In fact, there has been too much emphasis on the tailor-made when there should have been rather more emphasis on buying something ready to wear. Part of the effort of my Department is concerned with that.

Does the Minister concede that part of the question refers to the private sector? Will he look at situations—for example, home orders credit for ships—where the Government allow 80 per cent. and where the additional 20 per cent. may be purchased abroad? Will he find ways of persuading organisations which seek to buy the 20 per cent. elsewhere to devote themselves to buying in the United Kingdom because they are getting extensive credit from the Government?

That is a rather wider question which deals with a specific industry. I shall certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Will my hon. Friend explain how this important initiative is compatible with the Government's desire, first, to maintain competitive forces within our home economy and, secondly, to bring down the sterling exchange rate?

We are proposing action in many areas which is not much different from that of our international competitors. With regard to competitiveness and value for money, I emphasise that in the public sector we are trying to establish the sort of relationship that exists in the private sector, where a customer and supplier are close together, work on a particular project and as a result design something that can be sold generally. That is the normal way of doing things in the private sector. That is how the private sector gets value for money. For example, let us consider the purchasing policy of Marks and Spencer. There is a close relationship between the supplier and the customer, and no one can say that Marks and Spencer does not get value for money from its suppliers.

Does the Minister agree that there could hardly be a more important sector of industry than the production of data processing equipment? Will he undertake to place the development contracts with ICL for sophisticated, advanced data processing equipment—for which ICL has asked—before that industry, like so many others, is decimated by competition from Japan and the United States?

That is a broader subject than development contracts for ICL. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. This is an area where Government purchasing can be extremely effective. I take on board the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to promote industrial activity in West Yorkshire.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 February.

In view of the doubling of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside between May 1979 and January 1981, and the fact that in Bradford alone an average of over 100 jobs weekly were lost in 1980, will the Minister again consider the problem of investment incentives for Yorkshire and, indeed, for Britain generally, so that we can create more employment? Is not the present situation tragic, and deteriorating rapidly?

On the question of investment incentive generally the answer is that tax incentives available for investment are the best in the world, and are heavily taken up. On the question of investment incentives specifically for Yorkshire, I imagine that what the hon. and learned Members has in mind is assisted area status. He will know that the Bradford travel-to-work area will continue to have intermediate area status after 1982. The levels of unemployment are roughly on a par with those in intermediate status areas across the country as a whole. I do not think that there is a case for changing the present preferential status of Bradford.

Will the hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to the representations that were made personally to his right hon. Friend last month by the West Yorkshire county council for selective assisted area status, especially in view of the decline of the textile industry and the plight of manufacturing firms? In that connection will he bear in mind the fact that unemployment in Calderdale has risen by 145 per cent. in the last year?

I know that my right hon. Friend has received the deputation and is giving consideration to all the points that were raised. He will reply in due course.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help those hon. Members who tabled questions this aftermoon on certain aspects of regional policy? On Question 6, relating to West Yorkshire, several Opposition Members wished to ask supplementary questions. I realise that you wish to be fair to both sides of the House, but as no Conservative Members were in their seats to ask supplementary questions you cut off questions from Opposition Members when many of us from West Yorkshire wanted to ask them. May I ask for your guidance on the matter?

I thought that I had done my usual exercise of calling hon. Members from both sides. I am always anxious that hon. Members should speak on constituency questions, but when West Yorkshire is involved at least 12 minutes would necessary forme to call everyone from that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the present balance between regions in the allocation of State assistance to industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the working of the Government's regional industrial policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Government's regional policy.

I am satisfied that regional industrial policy is now more effective for being concentrated on the areas of greatest need.

In considering further appeals for regional aid, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the South many companies, particularly in consumer electronics, are finding that their fiercest competition is. coming from within the United Kingdom, from foreign-owned companies set up in regions other than the South with Government money? Will he bear in mind that there is a risk that Government money will be used to export unemployment from the North to the South?

I take my hon. Friend's point, but that is not the usual circumstance. Regional development grants are available automatically to British or foreign companies that wish to set up in development areas. Selective aid is a different question and there we can bear in mind considerations of the sort that my hon. Friend raises.

In spite of the answer that the Minister gave to the first question, is he aware that the new regional policies that were introduced with a fanfare in 1979 are proving to be a dismal failure in the Northern region? Has he seen the recently published figures from the Business Statistics Office, which show that investment in the North has decreased substantially in the past two years? What will he do about the increasing number of fly-by-night operators, who grab all the regional development grants they can and in a short time close down, leaving behind the problems of employees without jobs, redundancy payments and all the other rights?

On the latter point, I think the hon. Gentleman is mis-stating the position. He knows, because I have written to tell him, that in such circumstances within up to four years there is a clawback of the grants that have been made. Thus, the position is not as he sets it out. He should realise that during 1979–80 alone the expenditure per head on regional preferential assistance to industry in the Northern region was £48. That is £48 per head of taxpayer's money. That is vastly greater than in any other region of Great Britain.

How can my hon. Friend be satisfied with a regional policy under which the town of Biddulph in my constituency receives no special help, even though the level of unemployment has risen from 130 in February 1974 to over 800 now?

I am satisfied with it because the town of Biddulph is not an isolated community on an island. It is part of the Stoke-on-Trent travel-to-work area, and its fortunes are adjudged in that light.

What criteria does the Department use in assessing the success or failure of its regional policy?

The answer is the extent to which the regional imbalances within the United Kingdom can be eased by Government action, but the most important part in easing those imbalances is that the work forces and the managements in the areas concerned should set out to please their customers.

Earlier today the Minister indicated that if a foreign company came into an area to develop it would receive aid through the development grant system? Will he explain, therefore, why any foreign company that comes to my constituency and wants to develop mining is excluded from that enterprise, when clearly mining is an industry natural to my part of the country and, therefore, might be inclined to grow?

Extractive industries have always been excluded. That is not necessarily a long-term good answer, but it must be borne in mind and considered whenever we consider the pattern of regional incentives.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the removal of assisted area status is having a detrimental effect on the EEC aid that certain of those areas could obtain if the status had not been removed from them? In view of the high unemployment that is arising in certain of those areas where assisted area status has been removed, will he consider the facts before the final decision is made in 1982?

As my right hon. Friend has made plain, we are always prepared to consider assisted area status in the light of long-term changes. My hon. Friend should not assume that aid that comes to us from the European Community is of itself free. The money has to be raised by taxpayers across Europe. We contribute a not insignificant share of that money.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether regional policy is effective depends largely on companies believing that it will be stable and that it will not continually be altered? Were not the first blunders of the Government to reduce regional incentives and resources for the regional role of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh development Agencies? Have the Government not already admitted those errors by introducing recent changes in the Industry Bill to reverse the situation?

What about the regional employment premium?

If the Minister believes what he says about the effectiveness of the Government's regional policy, why, in regions such as the North, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said, is unemployment inexorably mounting?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the history of the twists and weaves of such absurd taxes as the selective employment tax. He seems to have forgotten the regional employment premium. He counsels me not to keep making changes. As far as I can I shall take that counsel from him, but, equally, I have to consider the particular circumstances of some areas on their merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to be able to announce details of the loan guarantee scheme for small businesses.

The Government hope to announce a decision on a loan guarantee scheme shortly.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, and without wishing to peer more closely into his immediate political crystal ball, may I ask if he agrees that the broad, resilient, but patient shoulders of small businesses have for too long borne the major brunt of the recession and the belt and braces attitude of the banks? Is he aware that the time cannot come too quickly for the announcement to be made? Does he further agree that when it is implemented the loan guarantee scheme should go to manufacturing and productive industry that is capable of creating jobs, and not to those who specialise in share and property speculation, as may have happened 10 years or so ago?

I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Does my right hon. Friend think that a loan guarantee scheme can be as important as lower interest rates and greater bank finance in general?

I am sure that lower interest rates, provided that they reflect the market, would be a great help to industry, large and small.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action the Government are taking to encourage overseas telecommunications companies to establish plants in the United Kingdom.

In general we welcome investment from overseas which contributes to our industrial performance, increases employment and brings in new technology. I am confident that the new regime for the attachment of equipment to the telecommunications network, which will be introduced once the British Telecommunications Bill becomes law, will lead to increased investment in the telecommunications industry.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the decision by Mitel to construct a new factory in South Wales?

I welcome it most warmly. This investment is likely to produce between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs relatively quickly. It is a good example of what I think will happen when we have a liberalised regime for the supply of equipment to the British Post Office.

Why does not the Minister considerably increase British Telecommunication's borrowing limit, since that would enable it to take place investment which on all criteria is commercial and which would greatly assist employment in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency?

An announcement was made on Friday about the EFL for this year. That was directly determined by investment considerations. The future level of the limit is a matter that I examine regularly and bear very much in mind. In the British Telecommunications Bill I accepted an amendment that would allow British Telecom to go to the market rather than to the Govenment for money. That is permissive, of course. It depends upon Treasury approval.

Will the Minister have discussions with British Telecom to discover why it is importing telephones for its special range from Southern Ireland? Is not that the kind of manufacturing that could usefully be undertaken in the United Kingdom?

I shall certainly look into that. I was not aware of that particular example.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement about the prospects of the vehicle construction industry.

The future of the motor manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom 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.

Will the Minister support the efforts of the Scottish TUC in pointing out to the French presidential candidates that the closure of Linwood would be a disaster not just for Scotland, but for the French motor industry—a view that is shared by French trade unionists? Will the Minister therefore consider the possibility of a new joint approach to Peugeot-Citroen by the British and French Governments to try to save the 5,000 jobs at Linwood and the thousands of other jobs that are at stake in related industries.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but the question that he puts about the presidential candidates is not for me. The rest of his questions are matters for the PSA, but the Government are continuing discussions with it on the implications of the Linwood closure.

Do not BL's prospects depend upon making vehicles at a profit which the public at home and abroad want to buy and which are backed by a first-rare after-sales service?

My hon. Friend has as usual said a considerable amount.

To what extent will the Government influence the location of the Nissan car plant project? Will the steel rundown areas, with their high unemployment rates, be considered? What locational qualities does the Minister believe Nissan will look for?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this will be a decision for Nissan, but the representations that he, some of his hon. Friends and some of my hon. Friends have made will be taken fully into account by the company. However, Nissan must look for a location that makes the best sense to it industrially and commercially, and the history and background of the industry will be important in that regard.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of the likely trends in manufacturing output through 1981.

I am afraid that I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until tomorrow, when the latest forecast of manufacturing output will appear in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Until then I have nothing to add to the answer given to him on 12 January.

In anticipation of tomorrow's statement, does my hon. Friend agree that the only people who can safely secure a reflation in the Western World economies are the fat cats in the Middle East? Within that context, does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come for the Government to concentrate a little more on the public sector capital investment programme and that this would be of substantial help to manufacturing industry, without being inflationary? Will my hon. Friend bring forward some major programmes along those lines?

If by his first remark my hon. Friend means that the doubling of oil prices over the past 18 months has been a material factor in the present world recession, I agree with him. I have noted his comments on the second point, but he will understand why it is not possible for me to say anything today.

Is the Minister aware that tomorrow's statement is hardly necessary, because every independent body has forecast a catastrophic decline in output and industrial production next year? Will the hon. Gentleman convince his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that new initiatives are necessary, before it is too late to save British Industry?

I think it would be right to say that quite a lot of what has been happening over the past 18 months has been beneficial for the future competitiveness of British industry. British industry wants most of all to see a reduction in interest rates, which will depend on the ability to contain public expenditure, an action for which it also calls. That is the direction in which the Government are aiming.

Bearing in mind that we shall have known long before tomorrow how savagely the North-West has been hit by the decline of manufacturing output in the textile and footwear industries, does my hon. Friend agree that the North-West should receive a higher proportion of United Kingdom and EEC regional aid?

My hon. Friend knows that the purpose of regional policy is to assist areas that have particularly high levels of unemployment. As was made clear in earlier answers to questions, the Government look at the overall position in relation to regional aid and assisted area status, but there must be significant evidence of long-term change in any particular area before that status is changed.

Will the Minister acknowledge that much of the responsibility for what has happened during the past 18 months lies at the door of his Department? It is no good his putting that off until tomorrow's Budget Statement. We have seen the reports by the TUC and the CBI, which make a gloomy forecast for industry in 1981. What action will the Minister and the Secretary of State take?

I have already indicated that what can eventually be done on interest rates at some point will be of considerable assistance. Some of the reports that have been made in the past few weeks in relation to the Budget Statement have urged much higher Government expenditure and a much larger public sector borrowing requirement, but that would not be in the interests of manufacturing industry because it would add significantly to levels of inflation, when inflation is falling in accordance with one of the major desires of British industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress his Department is making in ensuring that the specifications for all public-sector contracts are based on existing and commonly used British Standards.

The Department stresses the importance of writing contract specifications by reference to British Standards in the course of its dealings with public sector bodies. I believe that progress in this direction is being made, although such practices can change only gradually, and there will be many purchases for which British Standards are not available.

I understand that there was a meeting recently with the Department of the Environment to ensure that public sector contracts in local government and the development corporations were to be within the confines of British Standards. Rather than believing and hoping, what monitoring will the Department do to ensure that where British Standards are available they will be the basis of future contracts?

The Department has recently consulted the NEDO sector working party in order to assess the progress made since it first reported to the Warner committee on this subject. A more systematic assessment—probably by NEDO—will be needed before we have enough information to plan positive remedial action, but my hon. Friend may be assured that monitoring is taking place.

Will the Minister look into the possibility that the present activities and standards of the British Standards Institution are inadequate for modern needs? Does not that need looking into?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the responsibility for the British Standards Institution belongs to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are passed on to him.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of the trouble arises when British Standards specifications are written in consultation, or largely in consultation, with monopoly purchasers such as the CEGB and the area boards? That is an example that I urge my hon. Friend to look into. For example, the transformers which accord with British Standards cannot be sold overseas because they are so specialised to the British monopoly buyer.

I shall certainly look into the point.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action Her Majesty's Government is taking to encourage the use of robots in industry.

My Department provides support for awareness, research, use and manufacture of robots. In addition, the Science Research Council looks ahead to the next generation of robots with its recently launched academic-industrial partnerships programme. Altogether, current Government support is running at approximately £1.3 million per annum.

My hon. Friend may realise that constituents in the West Midlands and elsewhere will be reassured by what he has said. Does he accept however, that the introduction of robotics, not only in the car manufacturing industry, but in the components industries, is so vital a matter that he should consider making direct grants for the purchase of such robots, especially in the West Midlands?

I assure my hon. Friend that such support is available from my Department. Grants are available for the trial purchase of robots and robotic equipment, especially in the engineering industries, which are common in my hon. Friend's constituency. Unless Britain adapts and uses this sort of equipment, we shall lose in the competitiveness race.

Does the Minister agree that it would hardly make sense if Nissan-Datsun, assuming that it is located in an assisted area, were to receive 40 per cent. grants towards the cost of automation, while such assistance is denied to companies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and in mine which will be competing with Nissan-Datsun? That sort of approach does not add up.

That is a question of regional policy rather than of robots and robotics. It was answered effectively, I thought, by my hon. Friend earlier.

In view of what is happening today in the public sector, will my hon. Friend tell me when it is proposed to introduce robotics or robots into the Civil Service at Government level? Does he agree that if that were to happen it might result in the giving of better advice than has been proferred in the last year or so.

I assure my hon. Friend that there are certain human activities that are not applicable to robotics.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of the pioneering work in the development of robotics was carried out in this country, yet we lag behind similar countries in their application? Does he agree also that it is often the case that British inventions are not developed in Britain beyond the innovative stage? Does he further agree that his reply, which suggests that £1·3 million is being devoted by the Government to this activity, is trifling compared with what the Japanese and the French are doing?

I agree broadly with the hon. Gentleman. I am anxious to increase this programme. What one lacks more than anything are ideas. Japan has as many robots or robotic machines in use today as has the rest of the world put together. We cannot afford to be complacent about this situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the cost per head of the population since 3 May 1979 of the nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

I estimate that the cost per head of the population of British Shipbuilders and the British Steel Corporation during the two financial years 1979–80 and 1980–81 will be approximately £45.

If my mathematics are right, I think that that represents about £180 per family of four in the country. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure doting paterfamilias up and down the country that this investment being made on their behalf will show a good return and an even better return than if the money had been put into private industry?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that this figure, taken per head of the population, is, in one sense, slightly misleading. Bringing it back to the wage earner, as he does, puts the matter more into perspective. As to his hopes and our hopes for the future, time alone will tell, but my hon. Friend is aware of the arguments that are put in these matters.

Instead of indulging in snide criticisms of and carping about public sector industry, would not a better approach, in the taxpayers' interest, be for the Government to give these industries some support? Is it not silly for the Government to put in taxpayers' money at the level that is now taking place and then continually carp about the industries and their managements, which, in the main, have been appointed by this Administration? Would it not make more sense if, instead of accepting criticisms of British Shipbuilders, the Government went out to get more orders for British Shipbuilders—for example, the Occidental order for a £50 million platform which, it is learnt, is another order that will go to a foreign yard?

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he comes here with his prepared lines. I have heard no criticism or carping. There has been substantial support for industry, which has been discussed in the House many times. The hon. Gentleman has not included in his thinking the intervention fund in British Shipbuilders. Substantial support is being given to the nationalised sector. The sooner that we can get to a more competitive situation the better.

In view of this drastic figure, does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner the Government denationalise many of these industries the better? Is my hon. Friend happy with the rate at which this is happening with British Leyland?

The Government share my hon. Friend's view that we wish to move down the privatisation route. In regard to BL, that is very much in our minds. Even in the case of British Steel, one positive development from the present arrangements is Phoenix I. We hope that there will be further progress along the same route.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement regarding the progress of negotiations on Phoenix II on joint ventures in the steel industry.

Discussions between interested parties are at an early stage, but I am hopeful that an agreed proposal for a joint public-private sector company will emerge.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if these birds are to rise successfully from the ashes it is essential that they carry with them the reputation to their customers of the private sector and not the reputation to their customers of the British Steel Corporation? If that is to be achieved, is it not essential that, in the interval, Mr. MacGregor is reminded that the way to fulfil the contract that was written with Lazard Freres is not necessarily to go round Europe trying to find the cheapest price, however ludicrous, and offering to undercut it?

I hope that when the new companies are formed they will carry with them the best of the reputations of both the British Steel Corporation and the private sector parts of the company. On my hon. Friend's second point, I regret to say that the state of the market in Europe in steel is still appalling, that widespread subsidies are being offered abroad, and that the price for steel is excessively low. To do something about that situation is the object of the discussions that I have had, and will continue to have, with other Ministers in Brussels.

Does the Minister agree that, in the case of Phoenix II, the reputation for the quality of the product and output of firms in the public sector is among the highest in the world? Is he not aware of the fear that the private sector lacks the same output, capital investment and quality of British Steel in this group?

I am not sure that the chances of these companies being successful are enhanced by those who want to criticise one or the other of the prospective partners as not being up to the mark.

Will my hon. Friend answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said would be answered later? What thoughts are the Government giving to providing money for that part of the British Independent Steel Producers—BISPA—which is in competition with British Steel to enable these producers to stay in business and to compete with British Steel, considering the amount of money being given to the public sector?

Provided that a sensible market in steel can be restored in Europe as a whole and that subsidising can cease, I am sure that the future of private sector companies will be assured.

Does the Minister agree that no matter how ill-informed or how enmeshed in dogma are Conservative Members, the fact is that the British steel industry, public, private, or hybrid, cannot succeed unless Government policies are dramatically changed? Will he ask his right hon. Friend whether he received information that might have convinced him of that fact when he visited Rotherham on Friday?

That is a fairly good example of dogma, prejudice, and ill-information springing to me from the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman must know that the problems of the steel industry spring primarily from Government subsidy of steel making—all Governments have done that over many years—and a resolute refusal on the part of many industries to respond in time to the need to change. We now face the need to make in a year or two changes that should have been carried out over a period of 10 years.

asked the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Magistrates' Association to discuss sentencing policy for shoplifting offences.

As was indicated in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 9 June last, it is not the practice to arrange meetings with the Magistrates' Association for the discussion of sentencing policy limited to a single type of offence.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many magistrates believe that shoplifting cases are the hardest on which they are called upon to adjudicate, and that in many cases the circumstances are wholly different from those of most other alleged crimes, because, for example, magistrates are often, as one put it to me, called upon to play God in adjudicating on whether there was an intent to steal? In view of the concern expressed in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and others, will my hon. and learned Friend do his best to recognise that shoplifting is different from other criminal offences and needs to be looked at separately and specially?

I agree with my hon. Friend that many cases of shoplifting present considerable difficulty, both in reaching a finding on whether the person is guilty, and on the question of sentencing. I am dealing only with the second point today. Of course, many would say that in every criminal offence the question of deciding what sentence to give is much more difficult than any other part of the trial. For that reason it is immensely important that Ministers should not be seen to interfere with the discretion of the courts in this matter and that the courts should have the widest possible discretion in sentencing, so that they are able to deal with the multiplicity of situations and difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred.

As shoplifting is now a national disease affecting people from all walks of life—indeed, it is almost a national pastime—will the Solicitor-General suggest to the Home Secretary that a new working party be set up to finalise proposals about bag parks and to consider, among other things, ways in which retailers should protect their goods on display?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for me, but I am sure that Home Office Ministers and others who are concerned will note what he has said.

Will my hon. and learned Friend never cease to bear in mind that each and every case before magistrates, like each and every other case in any other court in the country, has to be determined on its merits and that it would be wrong to bring pressure on the justices or in any other quarter to deal with cases in a way that met with the approval of some people, but which did not meet the merits of the case?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is enormously important, and this is the heart of the question, that the discretion of any court on the punishment to be meted out in such cases should be as wide as possible.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that precisely because of the great difficulty, to which he has referred, in sentencing people who are prosecuted for shoplifting and the fact that so many who are prosecuted would be better treated in hospital, if he is not prepared to intervene in the sentencing process he should intervene to prevent people from being prosecuted for shoplifting when they are obviously old and ill?

The proposition put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his question and in his early-day motion is attractive, but it overlooks the practicalities. For example, in one case that attracted a lot of publicity recently, the person concerned was neither old nor young, nor, apparently, ill.

Old and ill.

It transpired afterwards—

No. We knew before.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew before he might have considered taking some action That case is merely an example of how the person concerned might not wish any such interference until he or she had first had the opportunity to establish his or her innocence.

asked the Attorney-General what correspondence has been received by the Lord Chancellor's Department in response to the consultative paper on the proposed increase in the jurisdiction of the county court issued in July 1980.

There has been a good response and the writers include most of those with a close interest, including the judiciary, the legal profession and the TUC, as well as a number of other organisations and individuals.

Whatever the arguments for hearing liquidated claims in the county court, has the Attorney-General now appreciated that the costs entailed in preparing personal injury claims are often as great in the county court as in the High Court, but that a much smaller proportion of the costs is recovered? Is he aware that that is one reason why plaintiffs find the High Court more attractive. If the purpose of the proposal is to save the time of High Court judges, why not extend the existing practice of assigning circuit and deputy judges to hear personal injury claims in the High Court?

If the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is recompense for the lawyers concerned, I can assure him that the Lord Chancellor's Department has put forward proposals to simplify the county court costs scales and to increase the figures in those scales. That is under consideration and discussions are taking place. The Lord Chancellor has said that he would not wish to bring the proposed jurisdictional changes into effect until agreement on costs has been reached.

I accept the need to extend jurisdiction, but will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the difference between the methods of recovering judgments in the county court and in the High Court? Is he aware that one of the objections to the extension—a mistaken objection, in my view—is that it is so much harder to recover a judgment in the county court than it is through the mechanism of the High Court?

The Lord Chancellor has discussed the matter with under-sheriffs and their proposal to enforce the larger county court judgments is under consideration by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Can the Attorney-General give some indication of when the discussions based on the Green Paper are likely to be concluded and what sort of time scale he has in mind for legislation?

It is hoped that the Lord Chancellor will be in a position to announce his decisions shortly. It is certainly planned that the necessary steps should be taken as soon as possible after that.

asked the Attorney-General to what extent the further reductions of waiting time in prison before trial or hearing mentioned in his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General's Answer on 5 February, Official Report, c, 185, are being realised.

The average waiting time in England and Wales between committal for trial and the start of the hearing for defendants in custody dealt with in the fourth quarter of 1979 was 11·8 weeks. The corresponding figure for 1980 was 10 weeks—a reduction of 15 per cent. In the South-East, the corresponding figures were 16·8 and 13·8 weeks, which amounted to a reduction of 18 per cent.

I welcome the reductions, However, is it not true that there are still a considerable number of people who have been in prison awaiting trial for more than a year? When can we expect that situation to end, or at least to be an extremely rare exception?

The problem is that, to take 1980 as an example, the number of cases committed for trial was up by 12 per cent. on the previous year, though the number of cases outstanding at the end of the year was 1,100 fewer. A number of new courts have been built and are planned to be built and will be staffed, but that cannot be done overnight.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the waiting time in Northern Ireland prisons is being reduced?

We are pleased with the consequences in Northern Ireland, because the waiting times have been reduced more markedly there than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Since the Government are rightly anxious to lower the prison population, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult and advise his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the effect of the case of the Queen v. Nottingham Justices, which has seriously undermined the scope of the Bail Act and significantly curtailed the ability of an accused person to have his remand in custody reviewed at frequent intervals? Does he agree that unless something is done, it will inevitably lead to an increase in the prison population?

As I understand it, this is a case in which an identical bail application was made on a number of occasions, and after the third application the justices refused to consider the case because there had been no change of circumstances. Apparently, that refusal was approved by the Divisional Court. It may go further, but in the meantime, I shall keep a close eye on the matter.

:" On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice earlier, but I should like to know whether it is compatible with the dignity and independence of Parliament that entry to the Palace of Westminster should be picketed?

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that hon. Members were picketed on their way in? I can only express a personal opinion, as the guardian of the House. If anyone tries to stop hon. Members—[Interruption.] Order. If the question is that hon. Members were asked not to come in—[HON. MEMBERS:"NO."]—it would be undermining our democratic system. If that were not the question, and the pickets were just standing there, I am afraid that it is an old custom that has gone on since the time of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster.

You asked me a question, Mr. Speaker. Before entering, I was asked whether I would read a piece of paper. I do not wish to be asked to read a piece of paper before coming here.

Order. That is different. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that that is different from an attempt to stop an hon. Member from coming to this free Parliament.