asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take urgent steps to provide more new jobs in the Mexborough and district travel-to-work area of South Yorkshire.

I fully recognise the current difficulties in Mexborough, which are recognised by the development area status accorded to it. The main contribution Government can make to job creation is to get the rate of inflation and interest rates down and to encourage a more competitive environment, which is what we are doing.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's policy does nothing but create further unemployment in the country as a whole, and increase unemployment in the Mexborough district? Is he not aware that the financial inducements that may be offered to anyone bringing work into Mexborough appear to be of no value and have had no effect? What will the hon. Gentleman do about unemployment? Is he not further aware that the Manvers coking plant closed down recently and that Mexborough power station is to be closed down? When are we going to get more jobs?

The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that the problems in Mexborough occurred before 1979. That is why we upgraded it to development area status, which gives it a whole range of financial incentives. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that, as elsewhere, much of the trouble in his part of the country is due to much higher wage increases than were justified by production and to higher inflation than many other countries faced. We are having to pull the economy around from a previous poor economic basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what total amount of public subsidy was received by the British Steel Corporation from April 1971 to April 1981; and what is his latest estimate for the next financial year.

Over the 10 years to the end of March 1981, the Government have provided or guaranteed finance to BSC amounting to about £5,700 million to finance its capital investment programme, working capital requirements, redundancy costs and revenue deficits. The latest estimate for 1981–82 is about £750 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on average over the past 10 years every man, woman and child in this country has subsidised BSC to the tune of over £90 each? Is that not a considerable sum? More money is called for. Although the House should not be concerned with the day-to-day administration of the corporation, have we not a right to ensure that that money is used for sound capital investment? Will my hon. Friend undertake to survey BSC spending continually?

I am painfully aware of the expenditure involved. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, following the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor and the improved practices that he has instituted for managing the corporation, the Department has far better monitoring practices. Although it is not possible to say that money can be used only for capital investment, we believe that we are getting better value than before from the money invested in BSC. My hon. Friend may have noticed an article that appeared in today's edition of the Financial Times on the remarkable increases in productivity that parts of the corporation are achieving.

Of that £5,700 million, was not £10·5 million spent on the Distington foundry, which is supposed to be closing? As the closure decision has been referred to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, which has asked Mr. MacGregor to produce a report to substantiate the need for it, would it not be better if BSC suspended the closure decision pending the publication of the report and any recommendations that may be made?

I would sooner trust Mr. MacGregor to manage the British Steel Corporation than the hon. Gentleman, the Select Committee or even my Department.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of public funding given by this Administration far exceeds any public assistance given by the Labour Administration? Would he also care to speculate on when the British Steel Corporation will move into profit?

We have put a substantial amount of money into the corporation. Much of that was necessary because previous investment was wasted because of political interference and reluctance to adopt more efficient management and working practices. I cannot predict when the corporation will move into profit. That is dependent not least on when the European market in steel is restored to a level where even the most efficient steel manufacturers can cover their costs.

Are the Government taking into consideration the lessons learnt the hard way by previous Governments? For instance, we closed many coal mines because we thought that we could bank on a continuous supply of oil from the Middle East. The same now applies to steel. If we rely on overseas suppliers and close down our works, when the upturn comes they may not be able to guarantee supplies.

The hon. Gentleman must be very optimistic to believe that 14 million tonnes of steel capacity from the British Steel Corporation will leave us short in the near future. There is capacity to increase steel making beyond that again, if necessary.

In the light of the funds that have been made available to the British Steel Corporation to increase its competitiveness and activities, what advice would my hon. Friend give to people in the private sector who are considering whether to invest to renew plant?

The private sector's future, like that of the public sector, depends more critically upon the level of prices in Europe as a whole than on anything else. Therefore, it must look with the same anxiety as I do to the meetings between European steel manufacturers to see whether an improvement in prices can be achieved by reductions in excess capacity. Equally, it must also look to the meetings of the Council of Ministers, which I have been attending—I shall be attending another tomorrow—which aim to remove public subsidy to the steel industry in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Is the Minister aware that in the Select Committee hearing recently Mr. MacGregor pointed out that no company of any consequence was making any profits in the steel industry worldwide? Does it not come ill from Government Members to criticise investment in our manufacturing industries, particularly when the Government are committed to the modernisation and greater efficiency of industry? Even in the present world climate, have not the Japanese just announced further large tranches of investment in their steel industry? How could we hope to compete without this level of investment in a basic and strategic industry?

I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need investment to make the steel industry profitable and effective. That is what we are giving it. My hon. Friends are criticising not investment in the steel industry, but the subsidisation of steel production in the public sector, because that leaves the private sector, which faces similar problems but without such a long purse of taxpayers' aid, in an extremely difficult position.

rose—

Order. We have taken nearly eight minutes on this question. We shall have to move much quicker on the rest.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what estimate he has made of the decline in output in manufacturing industry in the last 12 months.

Manufacturing production in the 12 months to January 1981 was about 11 per cent. lower than a year earlier.

Is that not frightening and disgraceful? Is it not a condemnation of the policies followed by the Government since they were elected in 1979? Will the Minister now take up the TUC's demand for additional public expenditure and reflation of private demand? Will he also try to ensure that our oil revenues are used for manufacturing investment to protect us when the oil supplies run out? It would be far better—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions and was getting on to his fourth. Perhaps the Minister will answer on what he has been asked so far.

I do not agree with many of those comments. It was not lack of demand that led to the drop in manufacturing last year. Consumer demand was buoyant last year, as the figures show. The central reason for the drop in manufacturing was that destocking in 1980 amounted to £2,000 million. That is the largest recorded drop in our history. All those in the chain—retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers—are holding less stock.

How valuable and accurate are these statistics? A company in my constituency has reduced its work force by 20 per cent. but maintained the same productivity. Does its productivity count as stagnant, or as having increased by 20 per cent.?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. What he describes as happening to a firm in his constituency is common throughout industry. The statistics lag behind events. It is difficult to estimate what is happening to productivity.

Does the Minister agree that 750,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry alone in the past 18 months? That is serious for industry. In view of mounting opposition to the Government's policies, confirmed recently by the Bank of England, which said that no upturn seemed likely in the near future, what do the Government propose to do?

If the right hon. Gentleman is urging us to change course and to abandon our determination to deal with inflation, I do not accept his recommendation. If we abandon that strategic objective, we shall never break out of the cycle of increasing inflation and unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the level of capital investment in the engineering industry; and whether he will make a statement.

I am not satisfied with the level of capital investment in the engineering industry. The Government's aim remains to create a climate in which productive investment can flourish, and in the first place its major task must be to bring down the rate of inflation. We must also strive to achieve a higher utilisation of existing capital investment by better management and improved labour practices.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the past during a recession low levels of investment have meant that the engineering industry has not been able to meet demand after the recession? Does he believe that will happen now? If so, what can the Government do to prevent such an occurrence?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. It is difficult to judge when an upturn will come. The climate of opinion which encourages investment is important, and it might be greatly facilitated if the Opposition took a more balanced view of these matters.

Does the Minister accept that it was a major error to remove assisted area status from an engineering centre such as Stockport which, since that decision was taken, has seen unemployment double? In fact, only five engineering companies in that town are now working a full week.

The Government are willing at any time to look at the criteria governing development area status. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring particular points to our attention, we shall look at them.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the percentage change in the level of production over the latest available 12-month period in the textile and clothing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Production in the textiles and clothing industry, as measured by the seasonally adjusted index of production, was 17 per cent. lower in the 12 months from February 1980 to January 1981 than in the previous 12 months.

Is the Minister aware that the disastrous decline in those industries is reflected in a 116 per cent. increase in unemployment in West Yorkshire and a 170 per cent. increase in unemployment in the heavy woollen district, which includes Batley? In view of the Financial Times survey, to which his hon. Friend the Minister of State referred, which shows that two-thirds of textile firms intend to reduce employment and to reduce investment in the next 12 months, what does the Minister intend to do about the textile and clothing workers in the regions?

The industry already receives substantial financial aid, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is covered by more protection than any other manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, with more than 400 quotas already established and other restraints on textile imports from more than 40 low-cost sources. We have stated our intention to negotiate a tough successor to the MFA, which is a major factor in the textile industry. The Government are doing a great deal to try to help the industry in difficult times.

Is this not another example of statistics being rather behind events? Is it not true that the Financial Times survey, 'which we are all quoting, suggests that there is a chance—indeed, a substantial chance—that the domestic industry is picking up, has more orders and has already turned the corner?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We must all hope that that will continue.

Is the Minister aware that 380 Courtaulds jobs in my constituency will disappear by July? Is he aware that in Flint town male unemployment stands at 32 per cent? Where will the new jobs come from?

I am aware of the problems faced by many industries that have been declining for years. The whole range of Government regional aid, which is concentrated much more than in the past on new jobs, will have its increasing effect as the upturn comes. Although I do not suggest that that will make a significant difference, in the Flint area all the measures to encourage small firms will gradually greatly aid many areas.

My hon. Friend said that the industry receives financial aid. What financial aid is received by those firms in industry which are not in assisted areas—for example" those in Tiverton?

They receive aid through other Government measures, as distinct from financial aid. Selective financial assistance in major schemes is available to industries in areas other than assisted areas.

Does the Minister agree that the collapse of the clothing and textile industries is due as much as anything else to the uniquely deep recession engineered by the Government and their economic policies? What is he saying to the managers and workers of the textile and clothing industries about when it will end? He and his colleagues have said that sooner or later things will look up, but is he aware that these industries deserve a better answer than that?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been suffering from declining industrial competitiveness for years. Dealing with that problem at a time of world recession has caused the present difficulties. The industries to which he has referred have already received financial and other assistance. They will benefit, too, from the steady course being pursued by the Government to get inflation and interest rates down, both of which have been major factors in our difficulties in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, what correspondence he has had with the directors of the General Electric Co. Ltd., concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Finniston committee on the engineering profession.

Unless letters were published by the sender, we regard all the correspondence we have received on the Finniston report as confidential.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been widely stated in the technical and educational press that Lord Weinstock and the General Electric company have greatly influenced the decision of the Government not to bring in legislation to implement the Finniston report?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as legal action has been initiated in that case, I cannot comment on the circumstances of the GEC correspondence, as I have explained. I hope that he will recognise that, as we hope to be pulling together our final conclusions on the negotiations, I do not wish to prejudice that either.

I must declare an interest in the question, as I am a member of the council of the Society of Engineers. Although that correspondence is confidential, can my hon. Friend tell me whether there is a reference to the timing of setting up the general council proposed under the Finniston report?

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I do not think that it is right to give details of that correspondence. He will be aware that we are pursuing the setting up of the council as a matter of urgency. We appreciate the constructive views that we have had from my hon. Friend among others.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his estimate for the year 1981–82 of the cost of his Department's committed and contingencies support for public and private industry, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will calculate the amount of grant by his Department to private industry as a percentage of the public money agreed by his Department for public industries, including ICL, over the last 12 months.

Estimated expenditure in support of British Shipbuilders, British Steel, BL and Rolls-Royce is about £1,970 million for 1980–81 and a similar amount for 1981–82 at out-turn prices. The equivalent estimates for other industries are £870 million an 1980–81 and £915 million in 1981–82.

I thank my hon. Friend for those significant figures. Are there firm prospects of a shift in emphasis from support for traditional industries in decline to creating conditions conducive to prime investment in those high technology and high added-value industries on which our long-term future must depend?

That is our hope and intention, but I do not want the House to forget that companies are relieved of about £5 billion a year in taxation of income used for capital investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take further steps to encourage British industry to buy British when purchasing manufactured components, capital equipment and raw materials whenever possible; and if he will make a statement.

The Government hope that both the public and private sectors will seek to improve the competitiveness of their United Kingdom suppliers. But purchasers should not "buy British" regardless. Suppliers must produce what is required at the right time, at the right price and to the right standard.

Does the Minister accept that our public sector purchasing policies are a shambles compared with those of most of our industrial competitors? In view of the evidence with which I supplied him recently about the way that British Leyland knocked Lucas about over headlamp purchases, will he now consider the purchasing policy of British Leyland?

I am aware of the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman has had with my Department. I have been told that BL buys 95 per cent. of its components from British sources. That is a high percentage for any company. I completely refute his allegation that public purchasing by public corporations and Government Departments is a shambles. We have initiated a new drive in Government Departments and nationalised industries to get suppliers and customers to work more closely together. That is the most effective way to improve the Government's purchasing policies.

Will my hon. Friend consider that both in the private and the public sectors there is no point in buying British unless what is bought is of proper quality? Should we not encourage all buyers in all industries to "TBBB"—"think British before buying"? Is not that the best approach to getting the best buy?

My hon. Friend is correct. Last week the Debenhams group announced that it is following that policy and is advertising it. That is the best way to achieve the results we all want.

Will the Minister appeal to hon. Members and to everyone in the Palace of Westminster to buy British rather than foreign cars to help the taxpayers? Is he aware that the joint leader of the so-called Social Democratic Party, the doctor who is not present and who claims to be a great Common Market supporter—the only part of his policy that anyone knows anything about—has bought a Volvo, which is the only car in Europe not made in the Common Market?

Each hon. Member must decide for himself what he buys. My wife has bought a Metro, so we have put the rather slender resources of the Baker family where the Government's mouth is.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the resources of his Department are brought to bear on the purchasing policy of other Departments? Many Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, as I know from constituency experience, often buy abroad when eqivalent and appropriate materials are available in this country. They do us a disservice and we should stamp on them.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouragement. In the next three or four months I shall be seeing Ministers in the main purchasing Departments to deal with that problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if, to encourage awareness of industrial needs in schools, he will ensure that schools are eligible for industrial research assistance sponsored by his Department.

The Department, working closely with the education departments, supports a variety of projects aimed at improving the attitudes of young people to manufacturing industry and their awareness of new technology. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced today the Department's scheme to assist local education authorities to provide a microcomputer in every secondary school in the country by the end of 1982. This important scheme, which is specifically designed for the education sector, is a more appropriate form of support for schools than the Department's industrial research and development schemes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his part in that welcome initiative. Can he enlarge on the practical effects that it will have for schools?

The Department of Industry is making money available for hardware for secondary schools. Our object is to have at least one microcomputer in every secondary school by the end of 1982. They will be British. The British companies concerned are Acorn and Research Machines, one in Oxford and one in Cambridge. There is no doubt that the younger generation wants to work microcomputers, particularly those attached to television screens. Evidence shows that there is a considerable improvement in basic learning curves when that happens. It is a step for the future and should be welcomed by all.

As the Department and the Prime Minister have seen fit to recognise this new information tool, will the hon. Gentleman give equal recognition to production by ensuring that every secondary school has a sufficient supply of basic machine tools used in production?

I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, I was particularly concerned to make a start in this direction with microcomputers, which can be used for production processes. We saw a demonstration this morning of some schoolchildren using a microcomputer to drive a small engine.

I welcome the initiative announced today concerning the provision of computers in schools, but may I remind my hon. Friend that the pressure on these computers will be enormous and they will probably be available only for children in fifth and sixth years? Will he bear in mind that the more widely computers can be made available to children in lower years, the more likely we are to get our children turned into the boffins that we need for the future?

I hope that the computers will be available not only lower down, but across the curriculum, rather than only in maths and science labs, so that every child who leaves school at 15 or 16 will be aware of how microcomputers work, what can be put into them and what can be got out of them. That is the objective of the scheme.

In view of the Minister's desire to improve the liaison between schools and industry with sophisticated equipment, would it not be a good idea for him to try to persuade the Department of Trade to give a firm decision on imperial measurements, as against metrication, because the present situation is causing great confusion?

That is a much wider question which should be directed to another Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the Government's industrial strategy.

I hope to meet the CBI in the near future to discuss industrial policy matters arising from its paper "The Will to Win".

When the Secretary of State meets the CBI, will he discuss the phenomenon of the disagreement over whether or when the recession has bottomed out and particularly give a view on why other nations at the bottom of the recession, such as Japan, are making substantial investment in their industry, while we are not making any real investment?

There can be honourable disagreement between observers and participants on the exact point at which the recession bottoms out, but there seems to be strong evidence that we are in the bottoming-out phase, or very closely approaching it. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I must emphasise that Japan's share of national revenue taken by public spending is very much less than the share here. In addition, the rate of profit in Japan is far higher in proportion to national revenue.

When my right hon. Friend responds to the CBI report "The Will to Win", will he be able to give any encouragement to British industry? Is he aware that the report, in the section dealing with public purchasing, points out that, for example, lift specifications that are set centrally by the DHSS are not followed in the regions, and that the same applies to the PSA?

An immense effort is being made throughout Government to raise awareness of the value of enlightened public purchasing by all public agencies. I certainly take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a deep and growing suspicion throughout the country of Government policy and private industrial policy? Is he aware that I learnt on Saturday night that BICC at Prescot in Lancashire has just completed its own telecommunications department, giving it private facilities to speak to sister firms all over the world, and that it completed that department by buying all its cable from Taiwan, while cable workers in St. Helens and elsewhere are being put on the dole?

The hon. Gentleman's indignation cannot remove the reality that we live in a competitive world. People will have to survive by being competitive. The hon. Gentleman's constituents choose to buy the best value in the high streets of the towns in which they live. We have to become competitive in order to survive.

Will my right hon. Friend take every available opportunity to reassure the CBI and anyone else who needs reassuring that the Government have an industrial policy?

I am tempted to inflict on my hon. Friend the 33-page speech that I made on that subject last Thursday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish, before he meets the CBI, a considered reply to its document "The Will to Win", which contradicts basic Government policy? We are entitled to know where the Government disagree with the CBI and the TUC. May we not have the Government's attitude in writing before the right hon. Gentleman meets Sir Terence Beckett and his friends?

Is there really the disagreement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers? We await with interest the CBI's identification of the savings in public spending that it believes the Government should be able to make. Its purpose is the same as the Government's—to enable a fall in interest rates and a fall in inflation, because those are the prime conditions for industrial prosperity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied that the effects of Government policies are to make the private engineering industry more competitive.

I am satisfied that the policy of reversing inflation and seeking to free resources for productive investment will contribute positively in the creation of a more competitive industry. To a large extent competitiveness depends on management's skill and drive and co-operation by the work force, including reasonable pay settlements and reductions in restrictive practices.

Could my hon. Friend find time to say a kindly word of encouragement to the workers and management of Perkins Engines, Baker Perkins and Peter Brotherhood in my constituency which have greatly increased their competitiveness over the past 18 months in difficult circumstances? Does he agree that, if they are to continue that desirable trend, they must have as much help as possible from a favourable exchange rate and favourable interest rate levels?

I certainly pay tribute to the firms to which my hon. Friend referred. He will know that among the difficulties facing them have been the worldwide recession and the problems in overseas markets. It has been demonstrated in other countries, as well as here, that large-scale intervention on exchange rates has only short-term effects. Often it would undermine our efforts to control inflation. There are serious difficulties in intervening on exchange rates. My hon. Friend will know the course on which we are embarked in relation to interest rates, and MLR has come down five percentage points in the past few months.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his policies have been so successful in making private engineering competitive that a 2,000-signature petition on unemployment was completed in one week in Newton Aycliffe, which was formerly an oasis of prosperity in South-West Durham? In view of the great fears about unemployment in that town and the rest of South-West Durham, will he consider regrading Newton Aycliffe and the rest of South-West Durham as special development areas?

That is a separate question. The hon. Gentleman will know that stability in grading is an important part of the special development area policy. It is important that industrialists know where they stand. Where there are clear indications of a long-term change in the structure of an area and its levels of unemployment—I stress "long-term"—we are prepared to consider them.

Will the Minister study the long list of private engineering firms that have closed down since the Government took office? How can such firms be competitive when they are ceasing to exist?

Apart from the recession, one of the factors that hit many engineering firms was the effect of pay settlements of earlier years. One of the important elements now is the mood of greater economic realism in approaching pay settlements.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress is being made in his discussions in the Community on the problems of the steel industry.

As I said in my written answer on 30 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), I attended a special meeting of the council on 26 March to discuss steel. A resolution on steel recovery policy was agreed calling for restructuring with capacity reductions as the only lasting solution, strict market discipline between producers, and the phasing out of State aids under Commission control. Steel is among the subjects to be discussed at the informal meeting of Industry Ministers which I shall attend tomorrow.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the remarks that he made in the written answer gave considerable encouragement to those involved in the steel industry? Will he say a word or two more about the private sector, especially the "Phoenix" companies? What assurances is he able to give the "Phoenix" companies that their competitive position will not be undermined before State aids are withdrawn?

The first of the "Phoenix" companies, Allied Steel and Wire, has been formed. We hope that the company will be trading under that name and in that context before too long. Other companies are being discussed by the possible participants. Until there is an agreement on sensible prices, capacity reductions and the phasing out of State aid, the sectors of the steel industry that are unsubsidised, whether in Britain or in other countries, will be at great risk. That is why I am so anxious to get this business done with as soon as possible.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the robust stand that he has been taking in the Commission in recent days? However, I must press him on the extent to which he feels that he will be able to obtain an agreement from France in particular in ensuring that there are genuine capacity reductions in other Community countries.

In this respect, France is not the main problem in Europe. Progress has been slow because no one wants to reduce capacity, least of all Britain. We have already reduced our capacity greatly.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the role of his Department in following through the recommendations of National Economic Development Council reports.

I believe my hon. Friend must be referring to the periodic reports made to the NEDC by the economic development committees and sector working parties. The Department looks closely at all recommendations addressed to it in these reports and the normal procedure is for the departmental representative on the committee to give the Government's response to the appropriate recommendations.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the report on comparative energy costs and the implications for British industry. Is he particularly aware of the 30 per cent. disparity in foundry coking coal costs? What representations have been made to the Department of Energy on behalf of our foundries?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement the Government's response to the report to which my hon. Friend has referred. There is still considerable pressure from industry, which considers that the Government should further consider the matter. No doubt the debate will continue.

When will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the debate on energy costs? He said that he would consider the NEDC report. There was a reference to energy costs in the Budget but the Government have taken no action. Is he aware that this is having a disastrous effect upon the steel industry, both private and public?

The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the substantial step that has been taken in conditions of considerable constraint because of the level of public spending that has been set by my right hon. and learned Friend in his Budget. Industry is still making its voice heard, not only on electricity and gas but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) has reminded us, on foundry coke. The debate continues.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the Industry Ministers meet tomorrow to discuss industrial problems there will be a need to ensure that the task force's report is correct and that competitors of Sheffield steel do not have an energy advantage in electricity and gas?

My hon. Friend asks what on the face of it is an extremely reasonable supplementary question. However, relationships between energy costs in various countries are complicated by exchange rate movements that are transitory.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will introduce new means for monitoring the performance of the nationalised industries for which he has responsibility.

We continually seek to improve performance monitoring. For instance, we have just set in hand new monitoring arrangements to assess the British Steel Corporation's progress towards the targets set in the corporate plan.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the concept of four-year corporate plans? Most of industry appears to believe that two years is as far into the future as anyone can reasonably look, and even then with a six-month update. Why should nationalised industries suppose that they can look four years into the future with any accuracy?

There is a danger in generalising. Each industry should be considered separately. I recognise that there may be some variety in the period that different industries can look ahead. In general, I lean towards the idea of trying to get as long a look ahead as possible.

Is not the answer to the long-term problem of nationalised industries to denationalise as many of there as possible as quickly as possible?

This is not the first time that my hon. Friend has put his finger on the answer. We are progressing rapidly down the road that he has described—for example, British Aerospace, the National Freight Co. and the British Transport Docks Board. The list continues and there will be many more before this Session is over.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what estimate he has made of the aid given to industry in the Northern region since May 1979.

In the financial year 1979–80, and the first nine months of the current financial year, aid to industry in the Northern region from central Government sources is estimated to have totalled £255 million. This figure covers regional assistance of all kinds and payments under section 8 of the Industry Act.

Is the Minister aware that in spite of the figures that he has given unemployment in the Northern region still remains the highest in the country? In view of the manifest failure of the regional policies introduced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1979 and his refusal to establish a northern development agency, will he now undertake a complete reappraisal of his policies? Finally, will the Secretary of State accept my personal invitation to meet hundreds of Northern trade unionists who will be lobbying Parliament tomorrow, who are incensed by his policies? Will he explain to them why he thinks his policies are so good?

I am aware that the Northern region is facing great difficulties because of the problems of structural industrial change. I have already visited parts of the area. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can deny the heavy concentration of Government aid on the region. Regional aid per head last year was nearly £48 in the North compared with £36 in Wales, £23 in Scotland and a good deal less per head in all other areas. Those figures demonstrate that a much higher priority is being given to the area despite there not being a northern development agency. If such an agency were introduced, that might lead to other areas demanding similar agencies for themselves and demanding more Government aid to take account of Government aid to the North. That would not necessarily help the Northern region.

Is the Minister aware that comments have been made recently to the effect that investment in the Northern region of funds from the Common Market are being delayed by hold-ups in Whitehall? Will he look into those suggestions and see whether the hold-ups can be overcome?

I am not aware of any hold-ups, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with details I shall have them examined.

Is the Minister aware that Washington new town, started by the Conservative Government in 1964, and the white hope of the Northern region, has lost over 2,000 jobs in the past 14 months? Is it not time the Government revised their whole regional policy?

The point of the change in regional policy was to concentrate the aid much more specifically on a much smaller number of parts of the country which face particularly heavy difficulties. I am sure that that will be to the Northern region's long-term benefit.

asked the Attorney-General when he expects the completion of the feasibility study announced by the Lord Chancellor in another place on 8 December on making microfilms of registers of birth, marriage and death certificates available to the public for research purposes; and when it will be possible to implement any recommendations which he finds acceptable.

The feasibility study is expected to take about six months. I cannot anticipate its outcome.

Does the Attorney-General recognise that the fact that the valuable archives held by the Registrar-General remain closed, in contrast to all other public records, is a serious handicap to research work, and that it is not removed by the fact that individual certificates can be purchased for a considerable fee? How soon does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think this information, which is available, and which should be made available to the public at large, can be made accessible? Does he not think that there is a necessity to get on with the matter for the benefit of many people engaged in research—genealogists, biographers and others?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. These are not public records, and they have never been treated as such. But the whole matter is under review by the Lord Chancellor, and we hope to have some information in the summer.

asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to define the circumstances in which anonymity may be granted to witnesses or potential witnesses before the courts.

No, Sir. The general rule is that a witness must be identified, but statutory provision already exists to protect the identity of witnesses in rape cases and cases concerning children and young persons. A court has the discretion, which is rarely exercised, to allow witnesses to give their evidence without their names being made public in other exceptional circumstances—for example, in blackmail cases. This discretion, which provides both flexibility and sufficient safeguard in the interests of justice, will be made statutory by clause 10 of the Contempt of Court Bill now before the House.

That is, of course, if that Bill goes through.

He wore the old school tie.

disclosed to the court? Is there a rule that ensures that senior civil servants are given preference in this matter?

There is no such rule, and the hon. Gentleman does not have his information right.

Since sending obscene material through the post, even without financial gain, is a statutory offence, are not my right hon. and learned Friend and the Director of Public Prosecutions perilously close to following the precedent set by King James II, who used prerogative action to dispense with laws with which he disagreed rather than asking Parliament to change them?

If my hon. Friend believes that every time there is evidence of a criminal offence the person concerned should be prosecuted, he should look at the records over the past few years. In fact, in this case two others were charged in respect of much more horrifying material, and the court in its wisdom granted them each a conditional discharge.

Does not the Attorney-General agree that the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) does not lie easily within the parameters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated a moment or two ago? Does not he agree that there is widespread disquiet and that the matter of chief public concern is that there appears to be a clear violation of the doctrine of equality before the law? Can he say whether others have been shielded in this way, and, if so, who and in what circumstances?

I regret that the detailed answer that I gave to the first supplementary question does not seem to have been absorbed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no question of Sir Peter Hayman or any of the other eight concerned in the ring with him being given special treatment. What happened was that when it was necessary to consider whether those contact advertisements were having any effect some of those who had advertised were called as witnesses. Sir Peter Hayman had not been an advertiser; he had not used the contact side of the magazine.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions he has sanctioned in each of the last two years for incitement to racial hatred under section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976; and how many such prosecutions were successful.

During the period 5 May 1979 to 4 May 1980 I did not consent to any prosecutions for offences contrary to section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936. During that same period, a total of six persons pleaded guilty or were found guilty of offences contrary to section 5A, or of offences of conspiracy to contravene section 5A.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in recent months there has been an alarming increase in the amount of racist literature in circulation, that some of it is as depraved as anything that was seen in Nazi Germany, and that people cannot understand why more prosecutions are not brought? If the Attorney-General is not satisfied that he has the legal powers to achieve successful prosecutions, why does he not bring to the House suggestions for amending the legislation?

I expressed my feelings about one of the publications in a recent answer. But it is not simply a matter of publication; there are other problems. Quite often the offence is extremely difficult to prove. The existence of a grossly offensive leaflet or magazine does not by itself prove the offence. There must be somebody to prosecute, an identifiable and identified publisher or distributor—in some cases the publisher appears to be in the Republic—who is not simply distributing to members of an association of which he is a member, because that is specifically excluded by the section. For example, if an anonymous door-to-door caller pushes offensive literature through letter boxes, whom can one prosecute unless one can identify the person who has done it? The other difficulty is the language of the section

"having regard to all the circumstances".

I share my right hon. and learned Friend's horror at the material he mentioned. Since for centuries it has been an offence to stir up hatred between different sections of the community, does not he agree that the long-established law is enough and that the section is unnecessary? Will he review the whole of our race relations legislation?

I imagine that my hon. Friend has in mind breach of the peace. The section is important because it is essential to clamp down on such publications. I am anxious to make certain that such matters come before the courts wherever possible.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) confirm that it is necessary to consider amending the section? Does not he agree that one of the problems is to establish that the words are "threatening, abusive or insulting" and that a skilful troublemaker may use words that are not "threatening, abusive or insulting" but which may be more likely to stir up racial hatred than words that are less clearly considered? Will he invite the Home Secretary to consider the point that when words are clearly intended to stir up racial hatred it should not be necessary to prove anything further?

There are two problems. The first is to find someone to prosecute, and the second has been correctly identified by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Often the person who made the complaint is, for example, a responsible leader of the community, and it is no good putting him in the witness box and saying that he is likely to be stirred up by it. I shall certainly look at the matter again. We have been studying the problem. It is a constant worry to me and to my Department that we are not getting the convictions that we need to stamp on trouble of this kind.