asked the Secretary of State for industry through which Government-aided schemes or bodies factory space for starter businesses is available in the principal conurbations.

The English Industrial Estates Corporation, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies and the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce can all provide nursery units from public funds in the principal conurbations of the assisted areas.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that catalogue. Does he accept that Newcastle-upon-Tyne depends enormously on the further encouragment of small businesses in that city Will he consider all possible further means of encouraging small businesses, possibly through the EEC regional fund?

I am well aware of what my hon. Friend said. Last Tuesday, I was in the Northern region at a business opportunities programme conference, which was well attended by representatives of small businesses. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to study all ways of helping small businesses.

Is there not among those bodies British Steel Corporation (Industry) Ltd. and the enterprise trusts which it is fostering? In what way can the Minister help Sir Charles Villiers, who this moring suggested that additional funds should come from the European Community to help foster the development of enterprise trusts in areas of high unemployment?

There is a distinction between British Steel Corporation (Industry) Ltd.—I am well aware of its excellent work, and I have visited it on a number of occasions—and the enterprise trusts, which involve large firms, local authorities and others, including local chambers of commerce, combining to help small firms. Much aid, in the form of funds of one sort or another, comes from European sources, and the hon. Gentleman will know of the encouragement that the Government are giving through exchange risk guarantee schemes and other such measures. I shall consider Sir Charles Villiers' suggestion, but we are doing all that we positively can to encourage such initiatives.

Why is my hon. Friend so sure that these public funds are best spent in this way? Would it not be better to privatise the English Industrial Estates Corporation and other organisations to which the Government give sizeable funds, because many private sector development companies would be happy to build factories in inner city areas.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's recent publication "New Life for Old Cities", which I have read, and we are now studying a number of its suggestions. There is a substantial role here for the English Industrial Estates Corporation. Under this Government, the EIEC has concentrated on building smaller factories. At the end of October, it had built 592 units of less than 2,500 sq ft, another 537 were under construction, and 841 were at the design stage. In many cases, it is building in areas where so far the private sector has not been involved. As my hon. Friend will know, it is also building with private sector funds, and it can sell off its estates at the end. There is a role here for the EIEC in conjunction with the private sector.

Does the Minister agree that, regardless of the amount of space being made available for new starter businesses, the rate of new small business formation today is no higher than it was in the 1970s and the rate of small business deaths is about four times as high? Compared with such facts, which are caused by the Government's squeeze, which is reducing more small businesses to bankruptcy, the availability of space is surely a somewhat secondary matter.

We have no precise figures for start up and close down of small businesses in earlier years. We are working on the figures for last year, and they show a high rate of small business formation. It is interesting that more smaller premises of this kind are being built now than for many years past and that the take-up is very high.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, on 9 November, Official Report,c. 26, if he is satisfied that his Department has full information as to the number of iron foundries closed in the United Kingdom.

I am satisfied that the information available to my Department is substantially complete.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that every foundry in the country is now working at less than 60 per cent. capacity and that manning has declined by 12·5 per cent? I make two suggestions. First, will he consider giving special assistance towards energy charges? Secondly, will he give special consideration to better loan guarantees for such companies, or is he prepared to let them wither away?

The deterioration in market demand by manufacturing industry, including the vehicle industry—which accounts for one-third of demand—is the main, overwhelming reason for the industry's difficulties. In certain circumstances, selective assistance, under the Industry Act 1972, may be available to foundries. Obviously, the Department is anxious to consider any such circumstances. Energy prices are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but we are considering the position of major energy consumers.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth of 9 November, Official Report, c. 23, whether he has now completed his study of the Conservative parliamentary industry committee report on the terms and conditions of bank lending in Great Britain and its relationship to industry in general.

Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have discussed this report with representatives of the committee and study group. The report is an interesting contribution to the important question of financing industrial investment, and we are still considering its conclusions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while last week's welcome reduction in the bank rate will ultimately have a beneficial effect and that a further and larger reduction would, hopefully, have an even greater and more immediate effect, nevertheless many of the report's recommendations will have an immediate and beneficial effect, particularly on the cash flow of companies in a recession and that, if its recommendations are taken up, companies will be encouraged to invest more and so create more wealth and, particularly, more jobs?

Any fall in interest rates will help industry, particularly industries that have projects to invest in. We can take some comfort from the fact that, despite the depth of the recession, manufacturing investment has held up remarkably well in very difficult circumstances.

Rubbish.

It is not rubbish. The ratio of investment to output has broadly been maintained. In such circumstances, one would have expected investment to fall much further than it has. That is a cause for some satisfaction. I agree that if it were possible to find a way to reduce the perceived rate of interest and to help companies' cash flows, investment would probably be encouraged still further. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are discussing precisely those points.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the banks are now showing a welcome nervousness about their poor reputation in this sphere? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that one problem is the short-term nature of loans to manufacturing industry for capital investment? Will he discuss that point with the banking authorities?

The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. I do not think that there is strong evidence now to support the view that the banks are reluctant to lend for medium or long-term projects. They have devoloped their lending facilities to meet the increasing demand from industry in recent years. On the industrial side, the problems have involved inflation, high wage settlements, low productivity and declining profitability. Those matters are of great concern to industry when considering investment. There is not much evidence of a shortage of funds.

When my right hon. Friend and his colleages consider this matter further, will they bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) about cash flow advantages and the term lending aspect of the report's proposals? As a result, many projects might come forward that otherwise would not if there were no such initiative.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the part that he played in producing the report. It has aroused a good deal of interest, not least among my colleagues and I. One of the attractions of my hon. Friend's scheme is the cash flow advantage to companies, which would be able to get tax relief at the time of paying the interest by deduction of tax instead of havint to wait until they can claim the deduction of loan interest from their corporation tax profits. We are considering that point.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement does not match the facts? In the past two years there has been a reduction of more than 20 per cent. in investment and output. What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say about that?

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the recession has hit manufacturing industry hard and that there has been a reduction of about 17 per cent. In the circumstances, the reduction in investment might have been expected to fall much further. However, the figure for 1977 is £3·5 billion; for 1978, £3·8 billion; for 1979, £4 billion; for 1980, £3·6 billion; and for the first half of 1981, £1·5 billion. Although that is a fall, it is nothing like as great as might have been expected, given previous recessions. That is a cause for some comfort.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will regard high levels of unemployment as evidence of long-term structural decline in making decisions on assisted area designation; and if he will make a statement.

The state of unemployment is certainly one of the statutory criteria which my right hon. Friend is required to take into account in designating assisted areas.

Given that there is a desperate need for new jobs, what study has the Minister made of the Euroroute? It is claimed that a road and rail bridge across the Channel would create 100,000 jobs annually and that it would provide a stimulus to quarrying, steel, engineering and other industries. What news does the Minister have for the hard-pressed regions about the Nissan car factory project?

The Euroroute is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Discussions are continuing on that matter. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the difficulties facing his area which has been extremely hard hit by closures. However, more that £35 million in Government assistance has been given to the two travel-to-work areas in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—£14 million to Shotton and £21 million to Wrexham. Therefore, the Government cannot be said to have been ungenerous in their assistance to those areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is support on both sides of the House for the concept of the Euroroute? Is he further aware that a great stimulus has been given to jobs in Wales by the very large, low-interest loans from the EEC, which have been announced today? About £30 million of low-interest loans will he made to North and South Wales.

I am aware of those loans, which all receive cover from the exchange risk guarantee scheme, operated by the Department. I annouced the extension of that scheme last week. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that the United Kingdom is taking up well over 50 per cent. of the ECSC loans provided under article 56.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he will announce the results of his review of the July 1979 decision to make certain intermediate assisted areas non-assisted.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any plans to review his assisted area policy.

The Government stand by the commitment to review those assisted areas due to become non-assisted from 1 August 1982 having been downgraded by more than one step. As regards the timing of the review, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said on 26 November in answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) my right hon. Friend hopes to announce the results of the review in the spring.

Has the Secretary of State studied the detailed submission made to him and the Prime Minister by the Greater Manchester council and by all 10 metropolitan districts? Will he receive a delegation from the area as soon as possible? Is he aware that several of the areas that will retain assisted area status have lower figures for unemployment than Greater Manchester?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's last point. It is true of some areas, but not of others. I have received the submission from the metropolitan authorities. Of course, we shall be prepared to see them.

Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State said that he is prepared to review assisted area status if there is evidence of long term structural decline? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since assisted area status was withdrawn from Greater Manchester, unemployment there has risen by 133 per cent.—from 98,000 to 171,000 with 68,000 under the age of 25? Is not that evidence of long term structural decline?

I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Unemployment has risen nationally as well. On the post 1982 basis, unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area will remain below the average of all intermediate areas. The right hon. Gentleman has a case, but it is not quite as strong as he said. In the last three years £11 million in selective financial assistance has been given to the Greater Manchester area. That has created more than 4,000 new jobs and safeguarded 5,000 jobs. That is before considering regional development grants and section 8 assistance which amount to £15 million, which must have had a similar affect on jobs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that almost any area can make a strong plea to be included for assistance of one sort or another under regional policy? In the review, will the Minister bear in mind that it does no service to the nation or to the economy to spread the largesse too widely and too thinly?

One of the aims of regional policy is to cncentrate on certain areas. That makes the policy more effective. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At any time when unemployment rises, some areas will experience an above average rise. We cannot give aid to every area with above average rates of unemployment, because there are bound to be variations.

That is all very well, but is the Minister aware that he phased out assisted area status from north-east Lancashire on the basis that unemployment there was low at about 4 per cent.? The rate has now soared to 12 per cent. Is he now trying to fob me off by saying that there are worse regions than that? I know that there probably are worse regions, but the figures are deplorable. North-east Lancashire's case is overwhelming. Will he do something about restoring assisted area status to that region before the situation becomes catastrophic and it is too late to do anything about it?

We are determined to stick to our policy of concentrating aid on certain areas and of reducing the total area of the country that is covered by regional aid. Within that policy we are prepared to examine the long term implications of any individual area.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how far his examination of the case presented by the private steel industry for help with restructuring has progressed; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to provide public money to assist the private sector of the special steels industry; and if he will make a statement.

I am considering the representations made to me by the British Independent Steel Producers Association on which I hope to take a decision shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for looking into the private steel industry's case. Will he bear in mind the resentment that it still feels that EEC aid has not been distributed even-handedly in relation to redundancies? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain is the only country that persists in confining EEC decisions to its steel corporation rather than to the steel industry as a whole?

Such considerations prompted me to accede to the association's request that I should at least look at its case. I say, entirely without commitment, that the factors to which my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House apply in this way only to steel. That makes it right to examine the industry in the way that I am examining it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if his proposals are designed to preserve jobs and capacity in the special steels industry, they will be welcomed? Is he further aware that if he dithers much longer, there will be no special steels industry to preserve?

The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the announcement on special steels by the European Commission on 23 October, which specifically recognised the problems of the United Kingdom industry. The Commission has undertaken to take steps to restabilise the market to achieve higher prices for producers. That is in direct response to the action that we took in conjunction with the British Independent Steel Producers Association as a follow up to the Warner report.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many private steel companies believe that, if they had been treated on a fairer basis, more of them would still be in business today? Is he further aware that if a decision is not soon made on the aid that is to be given, the few firms that are left might follow other private sector firms down the hill and have no business left?

I well understand the urgency of the matter. I hope to make a statement fairly soon.

Has the Secretary of State met representatives of the people who manage and work in the private sector of the special steels industry? If so, have they made it clear—if not, I do so—that although the EEC measures might be welcome, the problem is not so much one of structure, but that other Governments, both within and out of the Community, are more determined to ensure that their special steels industries are successful?

The special steels industry has a future. I make it clear that it is not a question of propping up a dying industry. The special steels industry has a real, long term future in Britain. In the European context, it is important to ensure that the aids given by the EEC or individual Governments are fair and that they do not distort competition.

But they do.

The hon. Gentleman may say that, but our intention is to ensure that they do not. This week I am chairing an informal meeting of Industry Ministers at which we intend to require that the Commission shall apply rigorously and fairly the June decisions of the Council of Ministers on aids to the steel industry.

Are the Government in strict compliance with the European Coal and Steel Community and EEC rules when they restrict disbursement of subsidies for restructuring solely to the public sector?

I am advised that we are complying strictly with the rules. The justification for confining the aid to the British Steel Corporation is not at first blush self-evident. That is why I am examing proposals put to me by BISPA.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome support for private steelmakers in Britain, especially special steels manufacturers? In view of his comments this afternoon, will he explain why it has taken five months for the Government to reach a decision? We debated the issue in July. Did not the Warner report make it clear that, without a substantial help, which can come only from the Government, much of our special steels industry would not survive?

I wish that all Opposition Members shared the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the private sector of the steel industry—[HON Members: "We do."] That is not apparent from what they have said over the years. I saw the BISPA delegation within two weeks of taking my present office.

Too long.

The hon. Gentleman may say that, but we have moved quickly. It is a complicated matter. I understand the urgency involved in announcing a decision one way or the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the level of Government grant to the English Industrial Estates Corporation in each of the last three years.

It was £29·7 million, £32–7 million and £37·4 million in 1978–79, 1979–80 and 1980–81, respectively.

I appreciate the work that the English Industrial Estates Corporation has done over the years, but have not the majority of its developments been in areas which could have been tackled by private enterprise? Would it not have been better to concentrate the substantial sums involved on inner city problem areas?

My hon. Friend is not quite right. The English Industrial Estates Corporation is an arm of regional policy. It has been building factories in areas where the private sector has not been willing to go. My hon. Friend has a point about inner city areas. The corporation has been building smaller units. That is the emphasis under this Government. I hope that meets my hon. Friend's point.

Will my hon. Friend consider the related question, that manufacturing industries might wish to lease an existing building and use resources either in their possession or borrowed for their manufacturing process? Does he recognise that in such cases it is possible to retain many useful factory buildings in towns and cities? Can he give some hope to people, especially in my constituency? He may know the case that I have in mind.

I do not recall the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, what he said is happening a great deal and should be encouraged. I shall find out about the case my hon. Friend has in mind and consider it.

Is the Minister aware that the English Industrial Estates Corporation has made a major contribution to the development and growth of factory premises in the Northern region? Will he therefore ignore plans for turning that corporation over to the private sector in the way that has been suggested this afternoon? Further, will he try to ensure that the English Industrial Estates Corporation does not operate in such a way as to stop many firms taking the premises with which they are provided because of bureaucracy and unwillingness to provide freehold premises in many instances?

I agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The English Industrial Estates Corporation has built many much needed factories under its regionl policy. I do not believe that incentives would work without the factories being made available. We have put the English Industrial Estates Corporation on a commercial basis. It is now required to make a commercial return. Encouraged by us, it has also worked more and more with the private sector, pension funds and institutions. That must be the right basis on which to proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will meet the chairman of British Leyland to discuss his plans for investment and employment.

I meet the chairman of BL whenever the need arises. We discuss a variety of topics.

In view of the points raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), may we have an assurance that the Department of Industry will make available to the Comptroller and Auditor General any documents that he requires during his inquiry into the proposed sale of the British Leyland tractor line at Bathgate to private interests? Is it not also about time that the Secretary of State told Sir Michael Edwardes to stop such senseless public asset stripping, which will destroy the jobs of 900 British Leyland workers?

I have read the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is not in the Chamber at the moment. He was very free with allegations of impropriety, when he variously referred to British Leyland's action as a "rip-off", "commercial treachery" and spoke of management having their snouts in the trough. I strongly deprecate such language about what is a straight commercial decision by British Leyland. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if the Comptroller and Auditor General or any other House authority wishes to investigate the matter on a normal basis, I and my Department shall co-operate fully.

Is not the main task of British Leyland today to make as many good cars as it can without any interruption of production by strikes or any other means? When that has been accomplished, surely the time will be right for further investment, as it will have the confidence of both customers and dealers.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are pleased that the company and its employees have found a solution to the dispute at Longbridge and that the production of cars started again this morning.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one reason for the cuts in the truck and bus division of British Leyland, leading to widespread redundancies in Scotland, Preston and Wolverhampton, is the cuts in public expenditure, not least to local authorities? Is he further aware that the Government's policy has a lot to answer for in that regard?

The right hon. Gentleman really could not be more wrong. He cannot have heard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Wednesday. Expenditure by local authorities has consistently exceeded the targets set by the Government. In his announcement about next year, about £1·3 billion of the £5 billion extra expenditure is accounted for by local authorities. The reason for the British Leyland cutback is that the market for trucks weighing over 3½ tonnes has halved from 80,000 to 40,000. The demand for buses and coaches has fallen by 35 per cent. In those circumstances the company has decided—as a commercial matter—that it must check its manufacturing base so that that part of the business can remain viable and become profitable. That is a decision for the company management, and I do not intend to intervene.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to ascertain which sectors of British industry have the most promising prospects for growth in the 1980s.

There will be growth in many sectors of British industry. We have chosen some sectors and technologies for special attention and support, including information technology, microelectronics, fibre optics and the application of advanced manufacturing techniques.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I know of his contribution in the area. Does he believe that, at a time when Britain is in the middle of a technological revolution, we need some new concepts in the area of industrial incentives? What does my hon. Friend think about the recent Neddy report, which showed the degree to which industrial incentives exist among our competitors, incentives which continue whichever Government are in power and which have given great stimulus to new, high technology companies?

The report to which my hon. Friend refers was taken at the previous Neddy meeting and will be taken again at the February meeting because we consider it of such crucial importance. It is a report on the whole of the electronics industry.

Does the Minister accept that what he has announced to the House has a narrow technological base? Is he aware that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have undermined large sections of British manufacturing industry, and that the statement last week by the Chancellor will do nothing to enhance industry's growth prospects generally because it will have no effect on gross domestic capital formation?

I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to feel that the measures that I have announced and will be announcing are restricted to a narrow technological base. That is not the case. Many industries, whether manufacturing furniture, biscuit tins, carpets or clothing, must use the new technologies or they will not be in business in the next five or 10 years. It is depressing that, despite all the efforts of the Government and the previous Government, 50 per cent. of British companies still do not use microtechnology. Perhaps the most modern piece of equipment that they have is an electric typewriter.

What does the Minister believe are the growth prospects of timber-based industries in the 1980s, especially pulp? What steps are the Government taking to strengthen their technological base?

The industries to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are also eligible for the various programmes that I have announced, especially the product and process development scheme. His question on the Government's timber policy is more fairly directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the measures to support industries with a future in the new technology are widely welcomed by Conservative Members? Can he be sure that there is enough going on under the heading of "Government procurement", especially with regard to the Civil Service Department and its lamentably slow procedure on the matter?

My hon. Friend is right. It is an important area in which the Government can influence the development of companies and industries. I have already announced a scheme for offices of the future for parts of the public sector, which has direct support from the Government. The "micros in schools" scheme is an interesting and effective use of public expenditure to get microcomputers into every secondary school by the end of next year. We are considering other ideas and schemes where public purchasing could be used more effectively. After all, trade rather than aid is a good philosophy.

The Minister has announced a limited programme of getting a computer into every secondary school, but do we not need to aim at having a computer in every school and. before too long, in every home to make the necessary progress in the new technologies?

That is an entirely laudable ambition, but our first target is to get a microcomputer into every secondary school by the end of 1982, and we are only a few hundred schools short of that at present. From January I am extending the scheme to all secondary schools and considering whether in the course of next year it can be extended to primary schools. Considerable impetus for computers in homes will be given through the BBC's computer literacy project next January, which will comprise a series of programmes associated with the British microcomputer. If people tune into the programme they will see that there is no great magic about such systems, and they are easy to learn.

Further to the point about trade and not aid, does my hon. Friend agree that the business of government is still under-computerised and that the greater use of computers in Government Departments might help to provide the figures requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), for example?

I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. The business of Government is not only under-computerised but under-word processed and so on. The House is hardly a glittering example of the use of modern techology.

Does the Minister agree that advanced technology can thrive only against the backgrround of a thriving manufacturing sector? Has he read the statement made yesterday by a prominent industrialist, Raymond Shephard, managing director of International Harvester that the Government's economic policies

"are ensuring that manufacturing industry faces a slow death"?

In the three months from May to September manufacturing output rose by 1½ per cent. In the first nine months of the year manufacturing productivity has risen by 9 per cent. I was waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the official Opposition's attitude to the new technological industries, but again there is absolute silence. If the Labour Party believes that the growth of manufacturing and technology should be dominated by nationalisation, massive intervention and bureaucratic controls, the sunrise industries may become the sunset industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what financial support the Government give to the United Kingdom space industry.

The total amount spent this year will be some £72 million, of which £55 million will be spent by my Department and £17 million by the Science and Engineering Research Council.

What is my hon. Friend doing to draw the attention of British industry to the possible immense commercial benefits from and opportunities in space, in particular in investing in the world-wide demand for satellite systems?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the benefits and opportunities. We have now reached the stage where there are possibilities for substantial private investment in the space industry, and I am having discussions with various companies so that British industry can benefit. The growth in the space industry in Britain over the past seven or eight years is one of our great unsung successes.

Has not the space industry in the United States proved to be one of the most important motors for economic growth? Will my hon. Friend confirm his full support for the European Space Agency and for the collaborative programmes with the United States, such as Spacelab? In particular, will he impress on the Americans the importance of the solar-polar mission?

I shall certainly do so. Had it not been for ESA, I do not believe that we should have had much of a space industry in Europe. The maritime satellite, made principally by British Aerospace, will be launched before Christmas. It is the first example of an international satellite, and another will follow next year. Space is an exciting and growing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take further steps to assist industry in the Northern region.

The Government have to consider the needs of all parts of the country, and there must be a limit to the assistance that can be given to a particular region. The Northern region, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, is already eligible for the whole range of regional financial and other assistance and is a substantial beneficiary of the policy.

Although I appreciate the Minister's answer, has he seen the recent Central Statistical Office figures which show that the Northern region now has the slowest industrial growth when it once had the fastest? Therefore, is there not a need for radical change and a more positive approach to regional policy?

I should like to study the Central Statistical Office's figures in more detail before commenting or giving an analysis. As I said, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that a battery of Government assistance is concentrated on the Northern region and in particular on his constituency, where we have undertaken a large-scale programme of various aids. I visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency again in October and was encouraged by the progress made there. I pay tribute to all who are dealing with matters there. The local industrial committee is dealing with over 38 active industrial inquiries, many of which are reaching maturity, which is a good record in a short time. One must always be hesitant about predicting job potential, but possibly about 2,600 jobs are attached to the progress that is being made.

As the Northern region has the biggest problem, does it not need the boost that extra demand in the economy can give by bringing jobs back? How did the mini-Budget last week help the growth of jobs?

Aid for the Northern region is a continuing and continuous process. Since May 1979, £362 million estimated total regional aid has been offered or accepted in the Northern region, which shows what the Government are doing.

Would not hon. Members on the Opposition Benches do well to visit the headquarters of English Industrial Estates Corporation in Team valley, as I did last Friday, where they would learn that the interest being shown in the enterprise zone on Tyneside and in other trading estates, particularly smaller factories, is encouraging?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had a meeting with the English Industrial Estates Corporation board on Wednesday, and what my hon. Friend says is entirely correct.

. Is not the Central Statistical Office's report supported by the unemployment figures in the Northern region, which remain the highest in the country and which have increased every month since the Government came to power? Does the Government's regional policy, introduced more than a year ago with a great fanfare of trumpets, not urgently need to be revised?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Northern region stands to benefit most from our new emphasis on concentration aid in the areas of greatest need. When the policy takes full effect next August, nearly 90 per cent. of the working population in the region will still be in assisted areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with his EEC counterparts on the stimulation of industries in the high technology sector.

On 9 November I presided over a meeting of the European Community Council of Research Ministers, which considered the future direction of EC reseach and development. It reached agreement on a number of programmes, including support for some microelectronics and biotechnology research projects to promote the competitive capacity of Community industries. Ministers have also held bilateral discussions with their colleagues in France, Germany and Italy.

Is there not an imminent risk that Japanese and other Far Eastern competition will eliminate our technology advanced industries, just as surely as it is virtually eliminating our traditional ones? Therefore, should not the type of programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) suggested be considered in conjuction with a European joint effort, such as the SERENA project for a commercial fast-breeder reactor?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the SERENA project is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The fast-breeder reactor policy is currently under review and we are examining all possibilities, including co-operation. Broadly speaking, I agree with my hon. Friend. In many areas we can make the greatest progress through international co-operation, which may be on a Community basis or on a bilaterial or trilateral basis.

rose—

I shall call one more hon. Member and allow one additional minute at the end of Question Time.

What does the Minister say when his EEC counterparts in West Germany and France tell him that they are spending between two and four times as much as his Government on support for high technology?

They have never said that to me. If they did, I would tell them that, overall, the amount spent on research and development in Britain is similar to that spent in both Germany and France. The figures bear that out.

asked the Attorney-General, if Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the operation of the Lord Chancellor's practice direction on the use of tape recorders in court proceedings.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the practice direction which was issued recently by the Lord Chief Justice and the other heads of divisions. It was not issued, as he supposed, by the Lord Chancellor. Since the direction was only issued on 19 November, it is too early to assess its operation.

Does the Solicitor-General remember the all-party deal during the Contempt Bill under which, although the Bill was not changed, he promised to ensure that a practice direction would be issued? Is he aware that I decided to teat the practice direction by applying, as a journalist rather than as a Member of Parliament, to take a tape recorder into the House of Lords appeal court hearing on the GLC case? Is he further aware that not only was I told that the court was not prepared to allow me to do that, but that it was not prepared to allow the parties concerned to do so either? I was told that the direction did not apply to the House of Lords. Has Parliament no control over that element in the legal system? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman hold discussions with the House of Lords appeal court to ensure that its practices conform with those of other courts?

I recall the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I refreshed my memory of it this morning. I am glad that a practice direction has been issued so soon. All that I said was that it was too early to assess its operation.

No.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will discuss prosecution policy with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions, during which different aspects of prosecution policy are discussed.

Will the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General be good enough to discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions whether the time has not now come to follow the Scottish practice of not permitting private prosecutions for shoplifting offences, such as occur in London? Because of the imminent and grave risks run by honest Christmas shoppers of being wrongfully charged for shoplifting, will they make such discussions urgent?

I know of the hon. and learned Gentleman's great interest in this matter. He will recall that such suggestions have been made on a number of previous occasions. It entails doing away with the right to bring a private prosecution in such cases. I can only repeat what I and my predecessor have said previously—that the right to bring a private prosecution is a part of Britain's constitutional rights. I, for one, would not favour its abolition.

When the Solicitor-General next meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, does he intend to discuss the workings of the Bail Act 1976? Why has the Solicitor-General issued leaflets in his constituency blaming the Liberal Party for the workings of the Act? Does he believe that the Act should be rescinded and, if so, why did he not vote against it in the first place?

Either someone else has been issuing leaflets in my name, or the hon. Gentleman has the wrong person. I am not aware of any reference to the Bail Act under my name in any leaflet. It is not a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. No doubt the Department concerned will pay attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

I revert to the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). Have the Government reached any conclusion on the comments of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure that it is inappropriate to permit or expect private organisations routinely to accept responsibility for decisions to prosecute in shoplifting cases?

Discussions are taking place on the matter referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There are only two prosecuting authorities to which that criticism applies—Northumbria and the Metropolitan Police. There have been few complaints about those two authorities. Nevertheless, the points mentioned are under consideration, but no conclusions have been reached.

asked the Attorney-General how many injunctions have been granted to stop the publication of the names of people alleged to have been involved in traitorous activities since 1945.

I regret that the information is not available.

In the light of the revelations in The Sunday Times about the cases of Messrs. Blunt, Long and Scott—none of whom was prosecuted for his traitorous activities—and in view of the case of Mr. Dolivet who last month obtained an injunction to prevent The Sunday Times from publishing more names, is it any wonder that many people suspect that the legal establishment is involved in a massive cover-up that should be the subject of a full public inquiry?

That suggestion is as monstrous as it is absurd. The injuction process is available to all citizens. It is an entirely independent process. If either the Government or lawyers tried to interfere with it, they would have their fingers severely burnt. I suspect that any right hon. or hon. Member, including the hon. Gentleman, if it were about to be said without foundation that he or she was a Soviet agent, would be glad to have the independent protection of the courts.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to make it clear to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and others that under English criminal law no one can be prosecuted for an offence where the only evidence is a confession that is not voluntary?

I had hoped that that point was already clear. If it is not, I am happy to endorse it. The injunction process, of which Mr. Dolivet availed himself, is an independent process available to all citizens, and we should be glad that that is so.

Why are Opposition Members so obsessed with the past? Is not the main criterion now to ensure that we have no traitors within our midst?

The answer to the first question may be that some feel that they have no future. I have no further comment to make on the second point.

asked the Attorney-General when the study, undertaken at the behest of the Lord Chancellor, on providing space for the deposit of General Register Office records over 100 years old at Kew is likely to be complete; and when he expects to be able to make a statement.

The report is expected before the end of the year. The possible provision of space for the General Register Office records forms part of study. Before the report is received, it is not possible to predict when it will be possible to make a statement about it.

I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. Can he estimate the time that will be needed to pass the necessary legislation to transfer records of births, marriages and deaths to the Public Record Office, and how long it may be before those records eventually become available to the many people who wish to consult them?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and the helpful questions that he has raised in the past. I wish to be as helpful as I can. He will know, however, that the study requested by the Lord Chancellor was a feasibility study. The initial work was completed in the summer, but it was not possible to obtain comments from all those from whom such comments needed to be obtained until the middle of October. The final report is now being revised to take account of those matters. As it is a feasibility study, one hopes that the answers which the hon. Gentleman rightly seeks will emerge from it, but I cannot give them in anticipation of it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the very serious concern that has been created in my constituency by the announcement about the closure of Guy Motors Limited. I raised the matter with the Prime Minister last week, but received no reply from her. I raised the matter again during Friday's debate on the West Midlands, but got nothing out of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. Would it therefore be possible to ask the Secretary of State to reply to question No. 18? I should be very much obliged.

Order. I know that the hon. Lady would be much obliged, but I should be setting a precedent that would present difficulty for me in the future.