asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether, in view of recent defence cuts, he will take steps to assist the electronic engineering industries in the city of Leicester.

The Government will consider any request from electronic engineering industries in Leicester for assistance towards particular projects within the rules of existing schemes for industrial support. The Department is considering the provision of products and process development scheme support to electronics companies in Leicester.

Is the Minister aware of the desperation experienced in the deeply troubled city of Leicester over the potential loss of jobs—due to defence cuts—in the two Marconi factories in my constituency? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Defence to see what can be done to help that company in its difficult position?

I regret that the difficult decisions that are made to meet essential defence requirements within the limits of prudent public expenditure have inevitable consequences for employment in particular places. I appreciate the hon and learned Gentleman's concern. The choice of radar in these contracts is for the Secretary of State for Defence to make. However, in this and all other public purchasing decisions full weight will be given to the long-term consequences for British industry as a whole. I undertake to bring the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments to the notice of the Secretary of State for Defence.

On that point, do the Government have an essential "Buy British" policy for Government-purchased public equipment? If so, would not the Marconi affair be a particularly good case in which to show that they have one?

The Government are developing a whole series of public purchasing initiatives. This subject has been discussed several times from the Dispatch Box. I prefer to describe the policy as a "Think British, buy British" policy. However, important considerations are involved in the placing of contracts.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the British Independent Steelmakers Association and British Steel Corporation about the volume and value of stainless, special, and tool steels imported and stocked in the United Kingdom, and the reasons why overseas competitors of the British steel industry are able to do this.

The Department keeps in close touch with both the British Independent Steel Producers Association and the British Steel Corporation about all steel imports. The Department has not discussed imports of special steels specifically with either BISPA or BSC recently, but I know that BISPA keeps in close touch with its opposite numbers on the Continent and with the European Commission about the level of imports.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that he received first-hand information on this subject from the deputation that came to see him last week? Is he aware that the steel workers of Sheffield will not welcome the fact that there are no statistics—due to the Civil Service strike—to back up his case? Will he make representations to his colleagues in the Department when they next meet? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Sheffield steel is concerned about unfair competition in relation to energy? Will he ensure that Ministers in the Department of Energy consider that when they next meet?

I note and heed all that my hon. Friend has said. I shall keep in touch with BISPA about the changing situation.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the plight of the special steels industry in Sheffield has nothing to do with any Civil Service strike? Will he accept that the import of special steels from the Continent and elsewhere is literally killing Sheffield's special steels industry? What will the Minister do to help the public and private sectors of the special steels industry—I make a plea for both of them—in perhaps the greatest area in the world for special steel production—Sheffield?

A whole range of agreements seeks to modulate the amount of special steels imports into this country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the moment an inquiry initiated by the Bank of England and the industry is being carried out into the future of the industry. We await the publication of that report.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the House will be somewhat surprised to learn that that important industrial issue has not, apparently, been discussed by his Department? I think that that is what he said. Is he aware that that is a major area of high value products on which not only Sheffield and Rotherham but major areas of British engineering are dependent? Were not the existing agreements within the EEC meant to act especially on exports? If the quota system is not working, what hope have we for the current discussions about future agreements within the EEC?

The hon. Gentleman could not have heard the full answer that I gave, that we keep in close touch with BISPA and the British Steel Corporation about all aspects of the industry, including special steels. There have not been specific discussions with BISPA recently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) told the House, I have recently received a deputation from the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the level of Government support for research and development in key industrial sectors.

Yes. We are satisfied with the level of Government support for research and development in the main industrial sectors. The Government recognise the importance of industrial research and development and they have increased the funds available. However, most of the money for civil industrial research and development comes from the profits of companies. The profitability of the industrial sector must therefore be improved to ensure adequate expenditure on research and development.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that over 50 per cent. of the Government's research and development expenditure is devoted to defence and that less than 10 per cent. goes on industrial research? Does he agree that in view of the urgency to raise productivity and to keep our technological lead—in those areas where we still have a technological lead—there is a strong case for correcting the apparent imbalance in our research spending?

I note my hon. Friend's comments. If he brings together the various items under research and development, he will find that that goes rather wider than his 10 per cent. suggests. As an example, expenditure on space has wide-ranging implications for research and development and is a factor to be added to the figures that he has quoted.

Is the Minister aware that today the heads of Ferranti, GEC Marconi Electronics and others are meeting to oppose the cuts on Salford university? If the Government believe in more research and development, why are they cutting Salford, Aston and the other universities—Salford by 44 per cent—which means the loss of 700 engineering students and 500 others? Will they reconsider that?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that much of what he is urging on us rests on decisions to be made by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. Taken overall, however, the number of science and engineering graduates for 1983 is expected to be at an all-time high.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a special need to encourage the development of telecommunications-oriented products to ensure that British manufacturers can take the fullest part in the liberalisation of the telecommunications regime?

My hon. Friend is correct. That is the purpose of the British Telecommunications Bill that I hope will be enacted shortly.

Does the Minister agree that there could hardly be a more important sector for Government research and development support than ICL? When will the Government make an announcement about their future level of support for research and development in ICL? Until that happens the company is not sure of its future?

I recognise the importance of ICL. The Government are considering its circumstances. There is nothing I can say about that today.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress has been made on the business opportunities programme.

The programme was launched on 5 May by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since then, publications on taxation, employment legislation and premises have been widely distributed, and Ministers have begun a programme of meetings throughout the country with local business men and their advisers. In the autumn and winter months there will be a series of major regional conferences, as well as many further smaller meetings.

I am sure that the whole House will join me in applauding what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the Minister responsible, is doing to promote the business opportunities programme. Does he agree that with the passage of the Finance Bill, which will add the greatly improved business start-up scheme to the loan guarantee scheme that is already in operation, the Government will have created one of the most encouraging climates for investment in the smaller business sector ever in the United Kingdom? Therefore, will he ensure that during the recess other Ministers will join him in promoting the business opportunities programme so that the rest of the country will appreciate that that is the Conservative answer to the need for real job creation and a major element in the Government's plans for bringing work back to the rundown inner cities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He was correct in what he said about the schemes. In the business opportunities programme meetings that I have attended, I have found a warm welcome for the business start-up scheme and the changes, which have more than met all the criticisms made at the outset of the scheme. As always, it is important that such measures should reach down to the people expected to benefit from them. That is the purpose of the programme. I assure him that I shall be joined by colleagues in the autumn and winter months in ensuring that.

Does the Minister agree that there can be many schemes, but if the cost of borrowing is outside the reach especially of smaller businesses, all the confidence in the world will not put the icing on that cake?

Obviously the Government are anxious that the cost of borrowing should come down as circumstances permit. That is the purpose of our policies, and that would not be helped by the policies being urged on us by the Labour Party. However, if the hon. Gentleman considers the loan guarantee scheme he will find that the existence of the scheme and the capacity to borrow matters more to many small, growing businesses than 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. on interest rates. Small businesses have shown that by their response to the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what changes have taken place in the productivity and output of British industry since May 1979; what steps he is taking to increase productivity and output; and if he will make a statement.

In the first quarter of 1981 manufacturing output was 20 per cent. lower than it was in the second quarter of 1979. Output per person employed was 8 per cent. below its level in the second quarter of 1979, but it rose by 1·9 per cent. between the last quarter of 1980 and the first quarter of 1981. Output per head cannot fully reveal movements in productivity because it takes no account at all of changes in hours worked. By January of this year, for example, provisional estimates suggest that output per operative hour stood at a record level.

Will the Secretary of State now admit that, in spite of the incredible optimism in the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), the figures reveal clearly that the Government's industrial policies are not working and that the only effect of the so-called slimming down process—apart from the human hardship it creates—is to destroy our industrial base?

No, I do not accept either proposition. Industrial countries as a whole have suffered a loss of industrial output during the last couple of years. We have suffered more than most because we were more over-manned and less competitive.

Can my right hon. Friend give any data on the movement of labour unit costs, which are crucial to this question? As the British Steel Corporation has cost the British taxpayer over £6,000 million in the last 10 years, can he say whether output and productivity are improving in that industry?

Yes, productivity is increasing, dramatically in some places, in the British Steel Corporation. We welcome that. In some cases, unit labour costs are falling, but that is after the huge increase in unit labour costs that followed the mad escalation of wage claims in 1980 which, as the House will remember, was unaccompanied by any rise in productivity or production.

Whether one is Labour, Liberal or Tory, for or against private or public enterprise, should not one accept that if we are not producing the cake we cannot argue about how it should be shared? We are not producing the cake. When will the Government do something to get back to the production that we had in 1979?

There is a limit to what the Government can do to secure the higher productivity and the better competitiveness upon which jobs depend. The House should recognise that that surge of high wage claims, unaccompanied by higher productivity, was to a large extent responsible for the dramatic rise in unemployment which immediately followed, as we warned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a substantial increase in productivity per man? Does he agree that that is most encouraging and augurs well for the competitiveness of British industry when the slump eventually is over?

My hon. Friend is right that the gains in productivity, potential or actual, now being manifested will stand us in good stead as output recovers. However, we handicapped ourselves by those excessive wage claims without co-operation in productivity so that we have far further to catch up. Opposition Members totally mislead those whom they seek to lead by telling any different story. The future employment and prosperity of the country depend upon good management and co-operation between work forces and management in securing profitable higher productivity and competitiveness.

Output and investment are down and unemployment is rising. Is the Secretary of State aware that the CBI's figures in its June forecast show that 70 per cent. of firms have a smaller order book? Is he aware of the IMF's international forecast of a depression? What steps are the Government taking to create employment and industry? The right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State for Industry. When will he do something about it?

Nearly all our competitors are suffering a decline in manufacturing output because the growth in world trade has levelled off. We are suffering in particular for the reasons that I have already described—uncompetitiveness, low productivity and low profit. Those factors are closely and intimately linked with lack of co-operation, in many cases, between work forces and management to secure what is needed for more jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what representations he has received during the last month from leaders of West Cumbrian industry about industry in the area.

None, Sir.

Has the Minister received correspondence from the district councils and the county authority about the special development area status that we lost last year? In the light of the unprecedented level of unemployment, will he during the Recess either go himself or send one of his colleagues to West Cumbria to discuss with the local authorities the possible restoration of SDA status, specifically in the light of British Steel's recent redundancies?

I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer to the question that he tabled. He now puts another question to me because he did not like that answer. Indeed, I have received representations from the local authorities. I have pointed out in reply that in my view the present status of the area is correct, and that Government action or subsidies do not create jobs but that they are created by the action of work people and management on the spot. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have learnt his lesson from the fact that it was due to the co-operation of Leyland's work force in his constituency that the Titan bus line was transferred there as opposed to the places where the work forces were less co-operative.

Will the Minister of State think again about the answer that he has just given? Under this Administration, West Cumbria has lost special development area status. It has suffered grievious closures in the steel industry, and in two small district authorities—Copeland and Allerdale—unemployment is unacceptably high, even by the Minister's standards. Is the Minister aware that such places have small resources, and representations would welcome the opportunity to discuss with him his ideas, which we might not accept, to try to find some way out of the unemployment morass?

I do not wish to be unsympathetic. My right hon. Friend Lord Trenchard has met representatives and visited the area. It must be said that there are brighter signs in the local economy in that area. For example, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Thames Board Mills and Leyland National are expanding in the Workington area. There are ample advance factories in the area. It is up to local people to make the effort to be more attractive to would-be employers and investors.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Opposition had their way virtually every town in the country would have special development area status?

Indeed, and the call for ever higher Government expenditure goes ill with the call made earlier by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) for lower interest rates.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the current stage of consideration of the Nissan project.

Nissan's feasibility study team has not yet completed its analysis of the project. However, since it was agreed earlier that there would be a further meeting in July, the leader of the team is now visiting the United Kingdom to give an interim report about the progress of the study. We do not expect the study to be completed until the autumn.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the acceptability of the Nissan project must depend on the extent to which there is genuine transfer of technology to enable our motor industry to become more competitive? Does he accept that the representations from the industry for a very high British content are designed to secure such a transfer of technology rather than the mere transfer of jobs in assembly and components from the West Midlands that would otherwise ensue?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The acid test will be, as he says, not only in the United Kingdom or European component element but in the transfer of technology. We do not yet know the final proposition. The opportunity presented, for example, in robotics, is of the highest importance in the project.

Does the Minister understand that the desperate interest that we show in the project arises largely from the fact that some of our constituencies face horrendous rates of unemployment? May we assume that the project will be located in the United Kingdom rather than in Europe, either in Wales or on the North-East coast? When will constituencies such as mine be put out of their misery on the issue?

It is clear that Nissan prefers either a special development or development area for the site of the plant. Representatives of the firm have visited a number of areas, including Wales.

Can the Minister be more specific about the date on which information will be released about the decision? Between now and then, will he seek to ensure that at the forefront of the thinking of the people responsible for the Nissan project are the claims of the development areas and especially those of the North-East of England?

I should like to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will appreciate that we expect to meet Nissan representatives in the next few days. It will be for them to decide on the timing of an announcement. I have forecast an announcement in the autumn. I cannot add to that. All the arguments are well understood by Nissan.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if, in view of the current level of unemployment, he will make a statement on development area status for the Bridlington travel-to-work area.

I have written to my hon. Friend explaining that, having regard to all the statutory criteria laid down in the Industry Act 1972, I am satisfied that Bridlington is appropriately graded as an intermediate area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be greeted with disappointment in Bridlington, which is an intermediate area, because as recently as April there were no fewer than 50 special development and 51 development areas with lower unemployment rates than Bridlington? Despite the seasonal improvement, is the Minister aware that Bridlington still has a higher rate of unemployment than adjoining Hull, which is a development area? Does the Minister agree that the percentage of unemployed, rather than the numbers, shows the impact of unemployment on an area? Do not 100 unemployed in a community of 500 have as great an impact as 10,000 unemployed in a community of 50,000?

My hon. Friend slightly overstates his case, since in June the unemployment rate in Bridlington was 13·4 per cent. while in Hull it was 13·3 per cent. The numbers concerned were 1,387 in Bridlington and 24,311 in Hull. One has to take account of the absolute numbers of unemployed, as well as the percentages, before one can come to the right conclusion.

Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that his constituents can greet the refusal to grant development area status for Bridlington with equanimity, because, even if that status were granted, unemployment would continue to increase dramatically unless the Government changed their economic and industrial policies? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if my experience in Merseyside is anything to go by, development area status for Bridlington would merely provide Ministers with the excuse of blaming the people of Bridlington for the Government's disasters?

I should prefer not to take the hon. Gentleman's experience as my guide for anything.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the present progress of the recently introduced initiatives to help small businesses.

The loan guarantee scheme has received an enthusiastic response from small businesses. The Department has already issued 150 guarantees covering loans totalling £5·3 million. The business start-up scheme has generated a great deal of interest from both small businesses and potential investors. The business opportunities programme is now well under way.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging news about the loan guarantees scheme. As there is an obvious need for such finance, will he give the House an assurance that he and his Department will take further steps to expand the facility?

That would be going too far at this stage. We want to see how things go before we make any further decisions. There are resources available to let the first stage develop before we take further decisions.

When will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Government's policies are nothing but a sheer failure? The Government may be making a contribution to helping small businesses, but what results have been forthcoming? Is he aware that we could do with some help in the Dearne Valley area, where unemployment in the Mexborough district is 20·6 per cent.? When will the Government do something to provide jobs and to create a greater understanding between themselves, the banks, management and work forces, to make sure that we get out of the rut that we are in?

The hon. Gentleman is very fervent, but I wish that he would understand reality. People, many of them totally innocent, are suffering as the chickens come home to roost after years of Government overspending, patchy management and, in many cases, unco-operative work forces.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to extend the system, particularly to the dockyard areas that may suffer becuse of projected closures over the coming years?

The system, as my hon. friend calls it, applies to the whole country and the dockyard areas are included in it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that two years of small business Government policies have had no effect on the survival or formation of small businesses? The policies were meant to be purely cosmetic and are inisignificant compared with the industrial collapse caused by the Government's other policies.

That is rubbish. There is strong evidence that, despite the climate of international recession and continuing high inflation, small business interest and foundation are increasing. We do not have precise statistics, but on the anecdotal evidence it is clear that all over the country small workshops are being snapped up by willing tenants in manufacturing as soon as they are provided.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the small firms counselling service.

Yes. I have authorised an increase in the number of counsellors because of the substantially rising demand for their services. An independent evaluation has also confirmed recently that counselling is a highly cost-effective and practical way of providing a business managemet advisory service for small firms.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer? In view of the success of the start-up scheme and the improvements to that scheme and the loan guarantee scheme, does he feel that the small firms counselling service should be extended to ensure that the necessary management skills are present for small businesses to take advantage of all the new initiatives?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right in saying that small firms counsellors, as well as small firms' managers, can assist in propagating the advantages of the various schemes to small businesses. However, as I have recently announced an expansion, and have extra facilities available this year to carry it out, we must wait to see whether that expansion of the service is sufficient.

Are we getting a feedback, through the counselling service, from small firms? Many have gone into bankruptcy or closed and those who remain are having extreme difficulty with their order books and getting business. They put the problem down to the Government's industrial policies.

We have been getting a feedback through the counselling service. There are difficulties with order books because of the world recession and the general level of economic activity, but much of the feedback coming through is of enthusiasm in the small business sector. A large number of people are starting out on operations. That is where small firms counsellors can assist in guiding them.

How does my hon. Friend define a small business, as opposed to a large or medium-size business? In considering ways of helping small businesses, has my hon. Friend any evidence that aspects of the Employment Protection Act 1975 are preventing small businesses from employing additional labour even when some face the prospect of expansion?

The question of definition is always difficult and different measures apply to different types of small firms. Broadly speaking, a small firm is one that employs fewer than 200 people. My hon. Friend may like to know that the small firms counsellors tend to counsel firms employing fewer than 25 people, but one aspect of the scheme which, through a pilot project, I am looking at this year is whether we can go further up the range beyond 25 employees. The evidence is that the Employment Protection Act is a good deal less of a bar to small firms that it was previously, because of the changes that the Government have made to the Act. The task is to let small firms know that those changes have taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress there has been in the application of micro-technology in British industry.

About 30 per cent. of manufacturing companies are using, or are planning to use, micro-technology in their products and processes according to a survey by the Policy Studies Institute, to be published shortly. This compares with 5 per cent. in the Department's survey in 1977. While encouraging, this is still not enough, and the Government have several initiatives to encourage United Kingdom companies to keep up with their international competitors in this very important technology.

As the application of micro-technology, correctly applied, can make firms more competitive, do the Government feel that they have a role in promoting or encouraging the further use of micro-technology and would the Minister care to specify what that role might be in practice?

We certainly have a role. As I said, more than 50 per cent. of companies do not use micro-technology. Perhaps their most modern product is an electric typewriter. About £33 million has been committed to the microprocessor application project and a further £50 million to the microelectronic support programme. The funds are available to stimulate research and development and product and process development.

What co-operation does the Minister's Department have with the Department of Employment in ensuring that in retraining programmes and work opportunity programmes initiated by the Department of Employment young people have an opportunity to train not in out-dated techniques and technologies, but in microprocessing, word processing and other technologies?

I have frequent discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Employment on this matter, and we have taken various initiatives. The Manpower Services Commission has an excellent range of courses in computer studies and services, and we have launched the "Micros in Schools" scheme which has been an outstanding success. We have had 1,000 applications since June.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, in proposing changes to the telecommunications monopolies, what assessment he made of the likely effect on standards of service received by the customer.

My assessment is that the introduction of competition will lead to a significant improvement in standards of services.

What effect does the Minister expect that liberalisation of the monopoly will have and for instance, on telephone waiting lists, does he know what the waiting lists are?

One of the first fruits of the liberalisation programme is that BT's marketing edge has already been considerably sharpened. I am glad to say that the waiting lists have come down significantly. If my hon. Friend is interested, I shall let him have the figures, but I can tell him that waiting lists have come down significantly in the two years during which we have been in office.

Will the Minister of State comment on the statement made by the chairman of British Telecommunications that an early acceptance of the Beesley report would cost residential telephone sub-scribers an additional extra £300 million a year? How can that possibly assist telephone subscribers?

Exaggerated claims have been made about the effect of liberalisation on the revenues of BT. In the Beesley report, it was estimated that by 1983–84 the cost, in all, might be about £100 million. Even lower estimates have been made. At the recent conference organised by my Department on the subject of Beesley, BT was taken to task for making such exaggerated claims by the champion of the consumer, Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the full benefits of liberalisation of the telecommunications regime will come about only if British companies accept the opportunities that are presented to develop new products and services that will be of benefit to the customers?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is evidence that the three major British manufacturers already engage in substantial cost reduction exercises on their products and are introducing new products. That is what happens when people are given choice.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman accept that while the proposals, as we understand them, may purport to offer a wider range of services to communication facilities between big city centres, whether or not he accepts the precise figure provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), they will inevitably lead to an increase in telephone bills for the vast majority of consumers? Does he further accept that these proposals could potentially pose the biggest threat to those living in rural areas, because of his right hon. Friend's threat to close many sub-post offices?

These are complicated matters and it will therefore be simpler for me now to refute what the hon. Gentleman said. On another occasion I shall be happy to refute what he says in considerable detail. He should rest content for the moment with the fact that he is wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied that the current capacity of the steel industry, public and private, is sufficient to meet home and export demand over the next five years.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that steel is being imported which, given the capacity, the British Steel Corporation could easily make? Is he aware that the capacity in West Germany is 68 million tonnes, and that the capacity in Spain and Italy is greater than that of the United Kingdom and is expanding? In such circumstances, what is the rationale of cutting back the United Kingdom's capacity to make steel?

The rationale is that the United Kingdom production of between 16 million tonnes and 18 million tonnes of liquid steel is, in the judgment of those involved in the industry, more nearly related to the market situation. In Europe, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there is 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. excess capacity. It is now up to other countries to move in the same direction as this country has moved.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the division of our present capacity between the public and the private sectors? If so, how will he maintain it, in the light of the considerable subsidies that are still being afforded to British Steel?

No, I am not satisfied with the division. I look to the increasing opportunities of moving down the Phoenix route to bring more capacity to the mixed public/private Phoenix pattern.

Will the Minister say something about the negotiations in the EEC and the proposed quotas? From what we hear they will not be very advantageous to the British steel industry.

This is a complex matter. We shall have an opportunity to debate it soon, when I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to pursue the matter. My hon. Friend, who has been deeply involved in these matters, will look forward to giving a full account of the situation. We have steered a course aimed at getting the best possible deal in difficult negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether, in order to maintain manufacturing capability in industrial areas, he will introduce a system of industrial improvement grants for the refurbishing of buildings and equipment.

No. I am satisfied that sufficient incentive for such activity is already provided through the present tax system and in the existing Department schemes.

Does the Minister realise that, while industries in some of the old towns and cities are suffering, many old and out-dated houses in those areas receive grants from other departments for their improvement? The same encouragement is not given to industry. We realise that section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 makes some allowances, but the provision is very vague. Is it not time that clear criteria were made available so that industries need not move out of established factories into special development areas, thus causing further trouble in cities?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Industry Act 1972 is vague. It clearly specifies that repairs in the shipbuilding, marine, aerospace, locomotive and railway stock industries, and the repair of any plant or machinery designed for use in a manufacturing process can be a qualifying activity. In addition to that, regional development grants are available to assist in the refurbishment of factory premises. In general, the repair of factories should be undertaken by companies out of their profits—from their profitable trading activities.

Will the Minister say what has been done to increase building allowances? For example, does my hon. Friend accept that an up-to-date modern factory or warehouse is just as important to a business for the purpose of increasing productivity as the modern up-to-date machinery that it clothes? Whatever level of industrial investment the nation can afford, will my hon. Friend look sympathetically at applications, because I believe that there are special cases in which it could be beneficial to the country in the long term?

I assure my hon. Friend that I always view these matters with as much sympathy as I can. On the other hand, in general, we have an adequate supply of factory space, and it would be better, in those cases where we are giving assistance, to assist with the purchase of up-to-date machinery to put into those factories.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with industrial progress in the Northern region.

No. The international recession has had its effect upon the Northern region, as elsewhere. That is why it is important that the Government continue with their policies to encourage enterprise and to reduce inflation, Government spending and interest rates, and for those in industry at all levels to increase our industrial competitiveness.

In view of the appalling increase in unemployment—over 90,000 in the Northern region since the general election—and in view of the collapse of many of our industries, and the riots that have taken place in our streets during the past fortnight, is it not time that the Government announced the abandonment of their faith in Adam Smith, and gave a great deal more help to the regions? Will the Government send a team of Ministers during the recess to the Northern region to see what is happening?

We must face the fact that, just as Britain's insidious but persistent decline has taken place over many years, so it is bound to take time to bring about a turnaround and deal with the chronic problems of uncompetitiveness, and so on. It should not, therefore, surprise the hon. Gentleman that there has not been a rapid improvement in progress. It will take time. His remedy of further increasing aid to the Northern region which, as he well knows, benefits more than any other region, can only be at the expense of higher Government spending, which inflicts harm on industry and on more profitable firms throughout the country. In answer to the hon. Member's question about sending a team of Ministers, although he may not regard me as a team, I shall be visiting the Northern region during the recess.

While I appreciate the Minister's little lecture, can I ask him to say when we shall see the much forecast upturn in the national economy, which is supposed to do so much for the Northern region in the absence of any coherent Government policy?

As my right hon. Friend has made clear today, and as is clear from international reports that are before the nation today, the problem is world-wide. There is a world-wide recession, and that is bound to have an impact on our own economic recovery.

asked the Attorney-General how many representations he has received regarding private prosecutions for theft from shops in the metropolitan and Northumbria police districts.

The Attorney-General has received no representations regarding private prosecutions for theft from shops in the Northumbria police district.

Is it not correct that the Metropolitan Police and the Northumbria police are the only police authorities that still refuse to prosecute for what they choose to call petty theft or shoplifting? Has not the time come when all prosecutions for these offences should be brought on behalf of the public by the police? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to study the excellent arrangement already in force in Essex, where the police prosecute for these offences, where the person accused is old or ill or is a child, only after proper investigations have been made into the best way of dealing with the case?

It is a fact that the Northumbria and Metropolitan Police districts are the two that leave it almost entirely to private prosecution.

Will not my hon. and learned Friend agree, however, that distressing cases emerge from time to time where there should have been no prosecution? Would not it be appropriate to have some new machinery to deal with allegations of shoplifting when elderly people are involved who have no previous convictions?

My hon. Friend probably has in mind exactly the case that I have in mind, and it has made quite an impression upon me. It concerned an elderly lady who was so shocked and ashamed that she did not tell anyone, even her daughter. Therein lies the trouble. If she had confided in someone sooner, help undoubtedly would have been available and would have been given. If that is the case that my hon. Friend is thinking about, I am happy to think that once that elderly lady told people of the trouble that she was having, there were those very ready to help her.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that that is one of very many distressing cases connected with so-called shoplifting charges? Will he arrange to meet the Home Secretary at the earliest moment to discuss the report of his advisory committee that has been looking; into cases of shoplifting for many months?

I agree entirely with part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. There are some very distressing cases. Usually they involve people who have not given themselves the opportunity to receive help. There are some cases where, far from seeking help, accused people have tended to shut the door on those who would help them.

asked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor last used his powers to dismiss a coroner.

In March 1944.

Does not that show that the supervision of coroners is somewhat lax? Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the manner in which coroners conducted certain recent highly politically sensitive inquests, such as those into the killing of Blair Peach, the Iranian Embassy affair and, above all, the New Cross-Deptford fire? Is not it right that this small minority of highly politically charged cases, where coroners clearly are out of their depth, should be heard before a High Court judge and that all the relevant evidence, including the police investigators' report, should be made available to both sides and not, as at present, be confined to one side?

The fact that no coroner has been removed since 1944 does not indicate that the system is lax. It indicates that, by and large, coroners do their job very well.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that public confidence in the coroner system is essential and that, although there is generally considerable public confidence in 90 per cent. of coroners' cases, there is a narrow area of recent cases that have shown some public disquiet? Is not it time that more attention was given to the legal qualifications of coroners and that an attempt was made to divorce some of the activities of the police from the organisation of coroners' courts, which exists in cases where police action is in dispute? Generally, is not it time for a closer look at the Brodrick recommendations that were made nearly 10 years ago, very few of which have been implemented?

As my hon. and learned Friend will know, the Broderick report involves considerable manpower and financial problems. I read with interest the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) on Second Reading of the Supreme Court Bill. Like everything else to do with coroners, this is a matter that is always kept under review.

May I press Mr. Attorney a little further? Does he accept that the major purpose of the coroner system is to ensure that matters of public concern are fully ventilated? Does he accept, further, that some cases these days perhaps arouse greater public attention and occasion greater public anxiety than in 1971 when the Broderick inquiry reported? Since some cases are bound to be conducted in a highly emotive atmosphere, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that someone should have power to order that an inquiry in a specific case should be made before a High Court judge and that there should be a wider range of options about the possible findings?

With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the real function of the coroner's jury is not to deal with a matter of public interest. It is the more limited one of inquiring into the cause of death and not to attribute blame. But, as I said to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), any suggestion for improving the system of coroners' courts will always be considered. If there are genuine complaints about it, we must put them right.

asked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will review his guidelines for law centres.

If my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions in mind, my noble Friend will be happy to consider them. In the meantime, however, the guidelines at present in force have received general acceptance with all the interested parties, and any change would have to be renegotiated.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Lord Chancellor's guidelines approve the use of public money to finance the representation of trade unions by law centres? Is he aware that the Association of Clerical, Technical and Supervisory Staffs instructed the Central London community law centre to act on behalf of 45 staff of a London charity at interlocutory hearings and industrial tribunal hearings? Does he believe that it is a proper use of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money that unions should be represented in this way by law centres?

The matter has been, and remains, under consideration by the Lord Chancellor. The inquiries of which I know do not support the view that this was an application by a trade union taken up by the law centre but rather an application by a number of individual members of a trade union.

Will the Attorney-General tell the House when we may expect the report of the inter-departmental working party on law centres, appointed following the Benson recommendations?

I think not for some time, but if I can obtain any further information I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.