asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many complaints his Department has received from private companies in regard to British Steel Corporation pricing.

Many general complaints about BSC's pricing policy have been received in recent months. I have referred 18 separate and specific complaints on behalf of private firms to Mr. MacGregor under the procedure outlined in my right hon. Friend's statement of 24 February.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the Government must continue their rigorous scrutiny of all such complaints in order to ensure that the massive subsidies that the Government are giving to the British Steel Corporation are not used unfairly to undercut the private sector steel companies

The Government would never pretend that this mechanism can resolve all these difficult problems. With overcapacity in the steel industry throughout the whole of Europe, problems will continue. But I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister is forever wittering about industry becoming competitive, and that, as soon as the British Steel Corporation becomes competitive, we hear only moans and groans from the private sector? Is he aware that the real problems of the private sector are high interest charges, high fuel charges and the overvalued pound, which are a direct result of the Government's policy?

The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, because these factors apply to the whole of the steel industry in the United Kingdom. The basic problem is one of overcapacity throughout the whole of the Community, and it is important to try to tackle that problem at source.

What assurances will the Under-Secretary give the House that BSC will not be required to raise its prices, as a result of these complaints, to such a level that it will lose its own traditional markets?

There is no evidence to support that allegation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects an increase in industrial activity.

I expect a recovery in industrial output to commence some time this year. It may already have begun. The latest available index of industrial production, for February, was 1 per cent. higher than in January, but one month's figures are not, of course, sufficient to establish a trend. A sustained increase in industrial activity can be achieved only through improved competitiveness, wage moderation, good management and co-operative working practices.

If money could be saved by cuts in headquarters staff and senior civil servants within the Ministry of Defence, thereby reducing interest rates and the taxes imposed upon industry, could industrial activity increase at an even faster rate?

Conditions which favour lower interest rates are obviously favourable to industry.

Has the Secretary of State seen the report of the Charterhouse banking group, referred to in The Times today which says that output is expected to decline by 3 per cent. this year, and that an upturn will not come at least until next year, and that that depends on a change in Government policies? When will the Government institute a change in those policies and prevent unemployment from going well over 3 million, let alone over 2 million?

The hon. Gentleman can take his choice among the various forecasts, but unemployment flows far more from trade unions pricing their members and others out of jobs than from anything that is within the Government's power.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that could act as a major impediment to any upturn in industrial activity is high industrial energy costs? Will he accept that there is ample evidence that the hoped-for benefits from the Budget are not getting through to many major energy users in industry? Will he look at the question again?

I am symphathetic to one aspect of my hon. Friend's question but I cannot agree that nothing else could be more prejudicial to industrial output. If the cure for high energy costs were to add to inflation or interest rates, that would be equally damaging to industry, if not more so.

Will the Secretary of State give us examples of high wages creating unemployment? Does he agree that Government policy is not working and that there is no possibility of a reduction in unemployment at the moment? What action do the Secretary of State and the Government propose to take?

Unemployment, which has risen so fast in this country, largely reflects the uncompetitiveness accumulated over recent years, particularly due to wage pressure unaccompanied by the higher productivity which our competitors have established.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will increase the resources available to the Northern Region National Enterprise Board.

I have no intention to do so since I am satisfied that the National Enterprise Board has sufficient funds to fulfil its regional role.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition welcome the continuing existence of the Northern NEB, but that we are suspicious that its lack of resources is yet another example of the slow strangulation by the Government of the Northern region? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Northern board is making only a minor contribution towards solving the North's problems? Therefore, will he not only greatly increase the resources, but introduce new, flexible guidelines so that the pressing and increasing needs of the region can be met?

No, Sir. I think that the guidelines are flexible enough to take care of any viable projects. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any viable, profitable projects which are held up for lack of funds, I should be grateful if he would let me know.

In view of the proposed merger of the NRDC and the NEB and the effect that that will have on the Northern region, when may we have a statement on the matter?

My right hon. Friend answered a question on this matter recently, so there is no requirement for a further statement in that respect. The two organisations are coming close together under the common chairmanship of Sir Freddie Wood, and we have recently appointed Mr. Lawrence Tindale to both boards.

Does the Minister of State regard the Northern NEB as a necessary instrument of regional policy, or will it be allowed to wither away, as has practically all industry in the region, under the Government's policies?

There is a role for the NEB in the Northern region, but the principal need is for profitable projects. It cannot be used as a means of subsidising unprofitable ventures. There is not enough money in creation for that and not enough wealth is being created elsewhere in the community to afford that kind of thing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite Opposition Members talking of industry withering away in the Northern region, in the past 12 months three times as many factories have opened on our trading estates as have closed? Although we still have a long way to go and many of the factories are small, employment is in balance. We have gained as many places on our trading estates as we have lost. Indeed, there are many inquiries for small factories on our trading estates through the English Industrial Estates Corporation.

My hon. Friend is correct. If hon. Members wish further details, they should read the Official Report of our last debate on the Northern region when I made plain the excellent work that notably the English Industrial Estates Corporation was doing in this respect and how well many small firms were responding.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress made by BL in increasing market share of various models.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he plans to have any discussions with the chairman of BL to discuss the progress of the BL model range.

BL's market performance this year has been encouraging. Over the first four months of the year BL's domestic market share exceeded 20 per cent.—a notable improvement over the same period last year. Metro sales have exceeded expectation, taking about 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom market this year up to end-April. The development and launch of further new models to build on this improved performance is progressing well. Progress with these and other models, as well as BL's general performance, is covered in the discussions I hold from time to time with Sir Michael Edwardes.

I welcome the Minister's reply on how BL is helping itself. However, does he agree that the problems of the British motor car industry—which are the same as in Europe—are so intense that if we allow the Japanese and the East Europeans to go on penetrating the market as they are now, within 10 years we may have precious little motor car industry left? Will he follow the American example and get for Britain what the Americans have got for the American car industry?

I hope that we shall not get for the British market what the Americans have got for theirs, because they have about 25 per cent. penetration by Japanese motor cars. By agreement between ourselves and the Japanese industry, we are restricting their penetration to 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. So long as that agreement holds—I hope that it will—it is up to the British industry to reorganise itself to meet and eliminate that competition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as long as the unhappy events of last week are allowed to continue, BL is likely to become a one-car company? Does he further agree that BL should do all that it can between now and 1984 to expand its range so that it can compete fairly and equally with competition from abroad and that, in so doing, it should incorporate as many common components as possible and so breathe some fresh air into the components industry on which the West Midlands depend?

I think that I largely agree with my hon. Friend. Because we believe that BL has a chance to develop its new models, we have not only authorised the LC10 series to go ahead, but have recently authorised BL to go ahead with the new Jaguar XJ40 series, which I hope will be on the market in about 1984.

Does the Minister of State accept that there is great fear throughout the West Midlands that the Mini Metro will soon be the only substantial model that BL will be making? Does he further accept that what is affecting BL at the larger end of its range—particularly Rover and Jaguar—is the Government's policy, particularly the strength of the pound, and the recent increase of 20p a gallon on petrol?

The loss of output due to the strike a week ago has done far more damage to BL than 20p a gallon on petrol.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, in relation to the enormous sums of public money which have been devoted to BL, these figures are not at all impressive? Were normal accounting procedures to be applied to the corporation, would not the Mini Metro have to sell for about £6,000 to give the taxpayer a reasonable return? Does he further accept that there is a limit to the extent to which many Conservative Members can tolerate the continuing subsidy of a giant and incompetently managed job creation scheme while jobs in the defence industries—notably in shipbuilding and weapons procurement—are threatened by insatiable demands?

I am sure that all workers in British Shipbuilders will be glad to hear the words uttered by my hon. Friend in his stalwart defence of that company's competitiveness but my hon. Friend should recollect that Sir Michael Edwardes has given undertakings on the action that he would take if it became clear that the plan could not be carried through to success. Indeed, his actions last week underlined his determination to ensure that the plan does succeed, even if it requires tough decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress has been made in the steel negotiations in the European Economic Community.

Discussions on State aids to the steel industry are proceeding under the aegis of the Council of Ministers and the United Kingdom is pressing for a draft decision. At its next meeting on steel the council is expected to consider preliminary proposals by the Commission. Discussions on voluntary restraint after 30 June are continuing among Community steel producers who are being assisted by the European Commission. Progress has been made but many issues have still to be resolved.

Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, is there any possibility of European agreement on steel prices by the end of, say, the second quarter?

I hope so, although it will be difficult to achieve. Things have not been made any easier because, as a result of the French presidential elections, the French have felt unable to take part in the meetings scheduled for 12 May and 25 May. However, I hope that we shall have a meeting on 1 or 2 June at which some decisions will be reached.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the special steel sector will not be further undermined by imports from EEC Countries? Those imports have increased from about 10 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the British market.

That will largely depend on the degree to which workers, managers and proprietors of such companies meet the competition.

Will my hon. Friend agree that production restraints can at best be only a short-term palliative? Does not he further agree that if such restraints are to be effective they must be enforced all round, and include—unfortunately—some British Steel products?

My hon. Friend is right to say that production restraints are an unhappy short-term measure. Long-term measures must include the ending of subsidies to steel making across Europe. Britain has taken a substantial slice of the capacity cutbacks that have been made. I should be reluctant for Britain to cut back further while others in Europe continue to subsidise and extend their production.

Although my hon. Friends and I are reassured by the Minister's last response, will not he agree that, in the context of the restructuring of European steel, it is clearly unacceptable for us to continue with closures without any agreement with our European partners? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear, particularly to some of his hon. Friends, that he is committed to continuing the agreement on quotas that is due to expire on 30 June?

I am committed to seeking an agreement in Europe that will continue, or replace with something better, the present agreement on quotas and prices. It does not matter how that objective is achieved, but we certainly share it. As in the case of other businesses, it is always possible for steel companies to close themselves by raising their prices or losses to a level that their customers or financiers cannot accept.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has yet concluded his consideration of the need of the textile area of West Yorkshire for Government assistance.

I hope to do so shortly.

In coming to that decision, will the Minister bear it in mind that an enormous number of jobs have been lost in the textile areas of West Yorkshire? For example, in the Batley and Dewsbury area, unemployment has risen under this Government by 173 per cent. Is the Minister aware that male unemployment in Batley amounts to 22·5 per cent? When is "shortly"? When does the Minister intend to take policy decisions that will offer hope, instead of gloom, to the employers, workers and communities of the textile areas?

I am aware of the problems in the wool textile industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I recently visited the area for a few days. The factors that he mentioned will be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about a month ago. All these factors will be taken into account.

Although there is much support for his policy of being more selective in the use of regional assistance, is not my hon. Friend aware that there is concern that our policy may disqualify some of those areas from assistance from the EEC? Will he take that into account when he makes any future decisions?

I am aware of that. A total exclusion is not involved, as some funds under the social fund may be available. Many other factors are involved. One of the difficulties is determining the boundaries of regional policy and the relative claims of different areas. It is a difficult problem for any Government to deal with.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that the West Yorkshire textile industry has just been through the worst year in its history, and that the EEC countries of France, Holland and Belgium provide massive aid schemes for their textile industries? Could Britain do the same for its textile industry, given that we provide support for the steel, car and fishing industries?

I am aware of the hon. Lady's interest in this subject. Indeed, I read the report of the Adjournment debate that she recently initiated. None of the schemes mooted by those three Governments has been implemented. We are considering them carefully. Since we have been in power about 403 projects of assistance to the wool textile industry—amounting to about £11·4 million—have been approved by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he will be able to announce the timing of the launch of the proposed loan guarantee scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the application of the loan guarantee scheme to industry and commerce.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what role his Department will play in the operation of the proposed loan guarantee scheme.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the loan guarantee scheme will operate from 1 June. Full details of the scheme's coverage will be given in the supporting literature, which will be available on 1 June. The Department will administer the scheme and will be monitoring its results, but the primary appraisal of loans to be guaranteed will be undertaken by the banks.

May I welcome that reply, not only on behalf of hon. Members but on behalf of small and other businesses? What will the rate of interest be under the loan guarantee scheme?

I am grateful for that welcome and am aware of outside interest, particularly among small firms. That is why I have been anxious to get the scheme into operation as soon as possible. The rate of interest will be for the banks to decide, but it will be at their marginal rate of interest, or thereabouts. It must be borne in mind that this is additional lending and probably carries a higher risk than any lending that the banks undertake at present. It is not the intention that existing lending should be siphoned into the scheme.

Will my hon. Friend press ahead with publication of the details of the scheme, because the delays are causing concern in business circles? Will my hon. Friend make it clear what the security is to be for the loans? Furthermore, will he seek to widen the class of business and industry to which the scheme will apply?

I am aware of concern about the delay, but substantial legal documentation has had to be completed between the banks and my Department. In addition, many loan application forms—about 14,000 branches are involved—have had to be published. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible has been done to press ahead with the scheme. It is axiomatic that personal security is unlikely to be required. That is the whole point of the guarantee. As term loans on fixed assets will be involved, business securities will be required under the scheme in many cases. I have made it plain that a wide range of businesses will be involved, including the manufacturing and commercial sectors and a great deal of the service sector. I am anxious that that should be so.

I welcome the scheme's announcement. How will it operate in Scotland?

It will operate in Scotland with the Scottish banks. As my hon. Friend knows, the legal system in Scotland is different from that in England and we still have to complete some of the different legal arrangements. However, I hope that the scheme will operate shortly after 1 June.

Does the Minister agree that general business opinion is that the loan guarantee scheme is too small, is potentially to bureaucratic, and calls for too high a premium for it to be anything but a cosmetic exercise? Is it not true that the interest in a small business scheme has been stoked up by the Government as a smokescreen to distract attention from the universal collapse of big business?

We have made it plain that this is a pilot scheme. It is designed to test the view that there is a gap in the market in this area, particularly where small businesses do not have a track record or are unwilling or unable to give securities. I shall monitor the scheme and if it is felt that it is too small, we shall give that consideration. However, £50 million is a fairly large initial tranche for such a scheme. I reject the charge that the scheme will be too bureaucratic. A handful of people in my Department will handle the scheme. I was extremely anxious to ensure that bureaucracy should be as limited as possible.

Will my hon. Friend open the scheme to the foreign banks, many of which have branches all over the country, to engender more competition and perhaps push the interest rates down? Will he also reconsider the maximum sum of £75,000, which is low for a medium-sized company?

It is a pilot scheme. We are anxious to direct it to small firms in particular. That is why the figure of £75,000 was fixed. I agree about the need for competition. That will, I hope, have its effect on interest rates. A number of banks other than the clearers have already applied. I am considering their applications urgently. Not only the foreign banks, but a number of British banks other than the clearers might be interested in the scheme. I hope that they will apply.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he is taking to extend facilities for borrowing by small firms from such organisations as the European Investment Bank and the European Coal and Steel Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to extend facilities for small organisations to borrow from the European Investment Bank and the European Coal and Steel Community.

On 30 April I signed a £5 million exchange risk agreement with Midland Bank Industrial Equity Holdings Ltd. which will assist it to make European Investment Bank foreign currency loans available to small firms in the assisted areas of England and Wales. This agreement complements the agreement that I signed recently with Finance for Industry Ltd. and the Government's own EIB agency scheme—both of which cover loans to small firms throughout the assisted areas and in Northern Ireland.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What further steps does he envisage taking to encourage United Kingdom banks to extend still further their present help to small businesses?

One bank has so far applied for the EIB loan. The EIB and the European Coal and Steel Community are discussing similar global loans with a number of other organisations, which might include banks. Applications for exchange risk cover will be considered. Already in the last year or so the banks have introduced a much wider range of financial facilities for small firms. The loan guarantee scheme will be another major addition.

I thank my hon. Friend for his initial reply. Will he seriously consider ways of retaining the facility of loans from the European Investment Bank and extending it to assisted areas, such as my constituency, which is an intermediate area, when it loses that status on 1 August 1982?

The problem is that the EIB loan finance is for the development of the less-developed regions and assisted areas. The ECSC finance is for coal and steel closure areas. The change in area status in my hon. Friend's constituency will take place in August 1982. The loans are for seven to eight years. Therefore, my hon. Friend's constituents have a year in which to take advantage of the scheme. The loan will last for seven or eight years thereafter.

Is not the threshold on EIB loans about £100,000? Is not the reason why some companies have not been able to take advantage of the loans the fact that they do not want that level of facility?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he enables me to clear up a misunderstanding. The schemes that I have announced are specifically for small firms. We have arranged them so that there will be the minimum paperwork and so that firms can take advantage of them quickly. The minimum threshold is £15,000, which is the EIB's own minimum. It therefore applies to a wide range of small firms.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he satisfied with the co-ordination, especially across different Departments, of the whole Government package to help small businesses?

The Government have undertaken a wide range of measures across the Departments specifically to assist small firms. That shows our determination to help the small business sector, and it shows also that co-ordination is good.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will seek to meet leaders of West Cumbrian industry to discuss the industrial economy of the county.

I have no doubt that if leaders of West Cumbrian industry see merit in discussing the industrial economy of the county with me they will ask to do so. My noble Friend the then Minister of State did of course meet representatives of industry in Cumbria when he visited the county late last year.

Does the Minister accept that the announcement by the British Steel Corporation last week that it is to make 907 of my constituents redundant is catastrophic for Workington? Is he aware that it will lead to an unemployment level of 18, 19 or 20 per cent. later this year? Will he review the assisted area status decision that he took one and a half years ago, when he reduced the area from being a special develoment area to a development area? We want our status back.

Of course I deeply regret that the British Steel Corporation has found it necessary to announce further redundancies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is no pleasure in that for any of us. Despite that, in view of the present position in his constituency and the local travel-to-work area relative to those around it, I am not yet convinced that it would be right to reverse the decision taken last year.

When considering what response to make to representations on the level of industrial activity in Cumbria, will my hon. Friend have discussions with Ministers in the Department of Defence, since defence-related industries play an important part in sustaining employment and industrial activity in Cumbria, as in many other industrial regions?

Yes, we keep such considerations in mind. I am sure that my hon. Friend equally bears in mind the fact that the greatest part of the output of defence-related industries is paid for by the taxpayer and does not have a market that is voluntarily supported by the customers.

Does the Minister agree that the recent redundancies in that small industrial community will have a devastating effect on areas such as Maryport and Distington, where male unemployment is reaching 20 per cent.? Will the Minister take special action to deal with that?

It is always possible to define particular small areas with enormously high peaks of unemployment. I have to look at the whole of the travel-to-work area relative to others and relative to unemployment in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is essential that there is a clear incentive for industry to go to the worst areas. Unless help is concentrated it becomes totally ineffectual.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to ensure that money provided by Her Majesty's Government to British Steel is earmarked only for purposes which have been announced to Parliament.

The Government already make clear to Parliament the general purposes for which funds are being provided to the corporation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have in my possession a copy of a document produced by the British Steel Corporation in 1979 which effects to show that the corporation was prepared to clear the extra bank loan of Corby Town football club merely to avoid the directors of that club having to face embarrassing charges? Is he further aware that one of the directors is the new Labour leader of Northamptonshire county council? Will he take steps to ensure that no such event can happen again?

I do not believe that in recent times the British Steel Corporation has given any such assistance. Certainly that is not its policy today. Like Stewarts and Lloyds, the town's main employer before the steelworks closed, the BSC has felt some social responsibility in the past to support the club. Some limited financial support was given then. None has been given for two years, and none is in prospect. I am sure that it would be wrong if it were.

Does my hon. Friend agree that British Steel Corporation money—that is, taxpayers' money—is going into the so-called Phoenix companies? Why should the taxpayers—the shareholders of the BSC—not know what cash resources will be available to the new companies?

My hon. Friend repeats a question that he put to me during the debate on Thursday evening. I gave him the reply then that these matters will become clearly known as the companies publish their accounts. No doubt my hon. Friend will seek to put the question to me again this evening, because he is a persistent man.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on recent productivity trends and capital investment in the British Steel Corporation.

I understand that productivity in the corporation has been improving in recent months as a result of the continuing programme of manpower reduction coupled with a recovery in steel output from the low levels in the last quarter of 1980. As regards capital investment, the corporation has announced that this will be limited to the completion of schemes in progress and essential new items, at a cost of about £200 million in 1981–82.

I welcome the increase in output per man in this country in recent months. How does steelmaking output in the United Kingdom compare with that in other European countries? On capital investment, does my hon. Friend agree that the higher the output the more public subsidy will be available for installing modern plant, which will lead to more output, higher wages and the need for less public subsidy to cover increased operational losses?

The statistics of individual steelworks show that the best of our works now match some of the best of Europe. I know that it is the ambition of many steel workers in the corporation, and also in the private sector, to match even what is achieved by Japan. I welcome the determination and the new attitude that have sprung up since the disastrous steel strike last year. I hope that before long new capital investment can be accomplished out of the profits of the industry and without any public subsidy. There is no point in requiring taxpayers indefinitely to subsidise loss-making activities.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. Will he accept that the attitude of determination to achieve success in British Steel was established long before the steel strike, as he will ascertain if he examines the Rotherham position? Will he accept also that the position of British Steel and of the private sector would be a great deal better if the European Community did not expect a larger contraction in the United Kingdom than in any other steel-producing member State? Is he not aware that article 58 is unhelpful to the success of British Steel?

I must differ from the hon. Gentleman in almost every aspect of what he says. If the British Steel Corporation had been as competitive and as eager to succeed in the past as I believe most of its members now are we would not be in the process of passing legislation to write off £3·5 billion of debt.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity, following his recent visit to my constituency, to congratulate both the unions and management on the strides that they have made in achieving some of the best productivity figures in the world at the Scunthorpe plant? Will he note the concern of many steel workers and managers at Scunthorpe that, in spite of all the investment made at the plant, there is some doubt, at a time of need for continuous casting, about the extent of capital funds that will be available for the project?

When I visited my hon. Friend's constituency and the steelworks there I was profoundly impressed with the attitude of all those employed at the works. I make no disinction between managers, who are workers, or chaps on the shop floor, who are workers. New capital investment must depend upon the financial results of the corporation and the prospects for getting a better market in steel in the European Community.

Will the Minister of State reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy)? Have not many of our best plants, in both the public and private sectors, in towns like Rotherham and cities like Sheffield, been undermined, regardless of their productivity or their record, because of the flood into the British market of subsidised steel products, particularly from the Federal Republic of Germany? Is there not a need for safeguards for even the best and most efficient of our steelworks? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a commitment should be given to make sure that the present regime is continued until the market is sorted out?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make it difficult for me to agree with him. If he had referred to subsidised imports flooding in from other European countries I should have found it easy to agree. The hon. Gentleman must understand that British taxpayers would be happy if they subsidised our steel industry only to the extent that German taxpayers subsidise theirs. The hon. Gentleman has picked on the wrong victim. The cause of the great flood into this country was not even the subsidy given by the Italians or the Belgians. It was the strike last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what initiatives he is now taking to stimulate the growth of industry in the Northern region.

Industrial growth in the Northern region, as in any other region, can only really be achieved by tackling the underlying causes of its deep-seated problems. The measures that we are taking nationally will help create the climate in which this can be achieved, but much will also depend on the attitudes of local management and work force. The hardest-hit areas of the North will continue to benefit from regional aid to help encourage the necessary process of change, and the hon. Member will be aware of the special efforts that we are making in this regard in specific areas like Consett.

Is the Minister aware that the number of new jobs in prospect in my constituency can be numbered in dozens, when the number needed is 10,000? This is happening in an area where, as the Minister says, there is the greatest concentration of Government initiatives in the whole region. What hope exists for the Government's policy and philosophy in Consett, Stanley or the whole of the Northern region?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that it takes time to bring about industrial restructuring. It is especially difficult at a time of world recession when a large number of companies, including international companies, are not looking to move elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that the local industrial committee is dealing with over 90 active industrial inquiries, many of which are now reaching maturity. We must hope that these will provide a substantial number of jobs.

How can the hon. Gentleman say that the hardest hit areas are protected by regional aids when areas such as Alnwick and Amble, with high levels of unemployment, have been denied that aid? This has implications for European grants as well as for British Government aid.

We have made it clear that it must be right to concentrate the Government's assisted area policy in areas of highest need. The North benefits a great deal. Following all the changes, nearly 90 per cent. of the working population of the Northern region will remain in assisted areas. In the North alone, over £250 million in regional aid has been spent to help with restructuring and new investment since the Government came to power.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many new businesses are coming to the Northern region and providing a great number of new jobs? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] An equal number of jobs to those lost on the trading estates in the past 12 months have been provided. I wish that Opposition Members would examine the facts. Does my hon. Friend agree that the enterprise programme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5 May, indicating to small business men and entrepreneurs a wide range of incentives available to those wishing to start their own businesses, is of the highest importance to the region? Will he ensure that the publicity associated with this programme is given the widest distribution?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Small firms and new firms can play an important part, not only in providing jobs, but in changing the psychology and climate in the Northern region. My hon. Friend will know that under the Government's measures the North, has two enterprise zones and receives much assistance through the inner city areas programme, in which small firms often play a prominent part. I shall do everything that I can to help with publicity. I hope to chair a conference in the Northern region later in the year.

Does the Minister realise that the Opposition want action and not whistling in the dark? Since the Government came to power, 80,000 jobs have been lost in the Northern region. It will end up, before long, as the most devastated industrial area of Western Europe. When will some positive action be taken?

If only some of the decisions to achieve industrial restructuring and produce competitiveness had been taken earlier, we would not be faced with the position that now exists. The hon. Gentleman calls for action. The hon. Gentleman must accept that £250 million of aid, a greater concentration of assisted area status and a range of other measures are real and positive signs of action. However, such support cannot be carried to the point where Government spending increases to too high a level, puts further pressure on the PSBR and so affects interest rates and hits existing firms in the region.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to stimulate the growth of the British robot industry and the use of automated techniques and systems generally; and if he will make a statement.

I am well aware of the importance of the rapid introduction into industry of automated systems and other forms of modern production technology. The primary responsibility for ensuring that robots are introduced rests with those who sell them and those who use them. The Department encourages awareness of the potential of robots and provides financial support for their manufacture and use, as well as for relevant research and development within existing schemes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some of the new production lines of British Leyland, and in other similar installations, many of the robots and even the automation processes involved have been imported? Is he aware that robots are imported because they are not available from British manufacturers? The automation industry is generally doing well, but will the hon. Gentleman do something to stimulate British robot production?

I accept that other countries are more advanced than we are in the development of robots and robotics. The number of robots being used in Japan is equivalent to the total in use in the rest of the world. However, we have a programme of support. We sent out a leaflet six weeks ago and we have already had about 200 responses, 80 of which are from British manufacturing industry. Labour Members should not scoff, because we spend several millions of pounds a year in this area, and British technology, bringing together microelectronics and production engineering, does not need to be ashamed of its work. The Government are helping and supporting users where they can.

asked the Attorney-General whether he has yet decided to bring further prosecutions of members or former members of the Metropolitan Police as a result of Operation Countryman.

:The Countryman investigation is still in progress and decisions to bring further prosecutions of members or former members of the Metropolitan Police will be made as and when further reports are submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. In the past week my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has consented to two further prosecutions arising out of this investigation.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, and we understand why the Attorney-General is not here. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that the single failure in a recent prosecution will not affect the operation of the "51 per cent. chance of prosecution" rule that the Attorney-General operates? Does he agree that if there are cases of police officers having been convicted or disciplined, or having resigned as a result of Operation Countryman, the convictions based on the evidence of those officers should be reviewed and, if necessary, sent back to the Court of Appeal?

I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asked for in the first part of his supplementary question. Each case will be considered on its merits. At the moment eight officers stand charged with criminal offences. Four have been committed for trial, the committal proceedings in the other four cases will go ahead and the investigation is continuing. Further reports will be submitted, and I confirm that they will be considered on their merits.

Come on, try.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) might think that when one is not in a position to give an answer it is better to say so. The hon. Gentleman did not give me a chance to utter the second part of my sentence. I will see that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) receives an answer from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who, as the House knows, is fully engaged elsewhere.

asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to alter the arrangements requiring persons summoned for jury service to attend courts so as to minimise the time spent awaiting empanelment.

Though some waiting time is unavoidable, the Lord Chancellor is anxious to make any changes which would reduce it, provided, of course, that the proper operation of the courts is not impeded. My hon. Friend may know that a departmental study group has recently reviewed the administrative arrangements for the summoning and service of jurors, and a copy of the report of that group will shortly be placed in the Library.

I am aware of the initiatives, but does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that there seems to be an increasing number of complaints from those who are called for jury service, not only about the time that seems to be wasted between arriving at court and being empanelled, but about the uncomfortable conditions in which they unsually have to stand and wait before being summoned and, I regret to say, about the inconsiderate attitude of many court officials during that period? Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is reviewing the general system of jury service, takes those points on board?

I am aware that all too often there is some waste of time and that people are required to wait about in wholly unsuitable conditions, and I do not doubt that sometimes a busy official is less than considerate. It is because we are aware of all those practical difficulties that the Lord Chancellor is anxious to reduce delays.

Will the Solicitor-General consider the question of summoning juries for coroners' courts? Is he aware of the dissatisfaction that was felt, long before recent events, about coroners' courts, the way in which they were conducted, the standard and experience of coroners in controversial cases and, occasionally, the controversial question whether juries should be summoned?

I readily agree that recent events have renewed interest in all those questions. Certainly there are many who are interested in them and anxious to find answers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the departmental responsibility is that of the Home Office, but I do not say that to seek to avoid the issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may rest assured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I share his concern that all those matters should be remedied in the best way possible.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), juries are too often kept in ignorance of their function and their rights and duties? Will he look into that aspect of the matter when considering what better provision can be made for the treatment of juries?

I am aware that practice varies from court to court. In some courts—indeed, in most courts—judges are at pains to explain to jurors who have not been called that there has to be a margin to allow for challenges and so on. Much depends upon how everybody in the court concerned deals with the issues, but certain measures are being suggested from the centre, such as telephoning in. Instead of waiting in the court, jurors could telephone at a specified time to find out when they were next wanted. We must combine all the practical possibilities to improve the lot of jurors.

asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with existing law and procedures governing the empanelment of jurors.

Some changes have recently been made in the administrative arrangements for summoning jurors for service in the Crown courts, and other changes in practice and procedure are under consideration.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that recent experience in Bristol, which is likely to be repeated in London following the Brixton riots, suggests that black jurors, whether out of racial loyalty, fear of intimidation or a combination of both, are highly unlikely to convict accused black persons of offences connected with civil disturbance? As the criminal law allows trials to be moved from areas where local prejudice might interfere with a proper verdict being returned, does he think that it might be appropriate to adopt that procedure in such cases?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that there might be something in what he says in certain circumstances, but overall I do not believe that that is the experience of the courts. For many years people of all colours and races have served on juries. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) will agree that it is not experience, but a general feeling, that my hon. Friend has expressed.

Will the Solicitor-General accept that Labour Members, including myself, warmly endorse his general repudiation of the question asked by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark)? The experience of those who practise in the courts is that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a general inclination of juries to reach different verdicts, depending upon their colour. Perhaps the wrong charge was brought in the case that was mentioned, and that may have been the reason for the verdict that was brought in.

I do not want to get involved in details. I have repudiated the general proposition. Because I have done that, it does not mean that there may not be some circumstances, not necessarily associated with colour, in which there is some difficulty in obtaining an unprejudiced jury.