asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has plans to give any financial assistance to encourage industry for the town of Biddulph, Staffordshire.

Financial assistance is already available under national schemes to projects in the town of Biddulph which are able to meet the necessary criteria for aid.

As unemployment in Biddulph has risen from 126 in January 1974 to 940 now, does my hon. Friend accept that there is a strong case for special help being given to Biddulph to encourage the creation of more jobs?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the situation in Biddulph, but he knows that special help in the form of assisted area status, which I imagine is what he has in mind, has traditionally and for a long time been directed by several Governments at travel-to-work areas. I understand that many Biddulph residents work outside the town, elsewhere in the Stoke travel-to-work area. I do not believe that the present situation in the Stoke travel-to-work area makes it appropriate for a change in assisted area status. We will, of course, continue to monitor the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will examine ways in which his Department can work more closely with the National Economic Development Council on policies to promote industrial expansion.

My Department already works closely with the National Economic Development Council, of which my right hon. Friend is, of course, a member, in examining ways in which policies both at national and sectoral level can best promote industrial expansion. Officials from my Department sit on some 40 of the NEDC's economic development committees and sector working parties which are seeking to promote action at company level or to improve our performance

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As there appears to be an atmosphere of some crisis in the NEDC, can he reaffirm that, through his Department, the Government intend to work constructively with the NEDC both on the central formation of policy for an industrial strategy and on the sector working parties?

The short answer to that is "Yes". To give a good example of the progress made, I refer to Sir Henry Chilver, who presented a paper to the council on behalf of the electronics EDC setting out a policy for the electronics industry. This month my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology responded to the council by setting out the Government's strategy for this vital sector of British industry.

Why could British Shipbuilders not carry out the liner contract for the P and O group, bearing, in mind the rationalisation of the industry? If the problem was a shortage of berths, would it not have been a simple matter to switch some of the tankers to Harland and Wolff, in Belfast, or to Swan Hunter's on the river Tyne where there are plenty of joiners, electricians, plumbers and so on who could have been employed on that job?

This matter does not arise out of the question. It is for the private sector under successive Governments.

Is the close co-operation with sector working parties likely to result in the Government adopting a sectoral approach to industrial development rather than the present regional policy?

The fact that the Government are working closely with the sector working parties does not mean that there is any change in Government policy. Of course, the Government will consider seriously any recommendations of the sector working parties.

Is the Under-Secretary aware of the ACARD report on biotechnology and its contribution to what a good industrial strategy should be? What does he think about the Biogen company, one of the three largest biotechnology companies in existence, deciding because of the situation in Britain, not to embark on industrial expansion here? Is that not an indictment of the Government's policies?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I certainly read the reports over the weekend. I know of the report referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I want to study it in more detail before coming to any firm conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a further statement on the opening of information technology centres.

I announced to the House on 21 December the location of the first 30 centres under this joint Department of Industry-Manpower Services Commission initiative. Most of these centres will be opening over the next two or three months.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he confirm that if Hull gets in its application and complies with planning requirements and so on by the end of next month it will get one of these centres?

I understand that there have been fruitful discussions between Kingston upon Hull and the local MSC office. I believe that the application is now due from Kingston upon Hull. My notes in summary say that Kingston has made the right overtures to the right people and is on the right track. But we need an application.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Fife region has one of the largest concentrations of electronics industries in the Western world, but that, despite that, the Levenmouth area is an unemployment black spot? Would it not be an appropriate area for a further centre?

I appreciate the importance of technology and technological companies to the county of Fife. I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to place more of these centres in Scotland. In the next grouping, I am looking for a figure in excess of 10 for Scotland.

When these centres are established, will the Minister make sure that adequate provision is made for the training and employment of severely handicapped people?

We are even considering one of the centres being associated with one of the major training centres for the disabled.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the decline in manufacturing production since May 1979; and when he now expects to see a revival of manufacturing production.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the prospects for United Kingdom manufacturing output during 1982.

In the fourth quarter of 1981 manufacturing output was 16 per cent. below the level of the second quarter of 1979, but 2 per cent. higher than in the second quarter of 1981.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dramatic decline in manufacturing production since the Government took office, and that the December figure was the lowest since monthly figures were first calculated? Do not those factors show only too well the tragic decline that has occurred under this Government's economic policies? Do not the figures illustrate once again how justified have been the pessimistic speeches of a number of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues and show that recovery is not round the corner but very far away?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the whole Western world has been going through the deepest recession since the war.

We are the worst.

I remind the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that unemployment last year in Germany, Sweden, the United States of America and Canada rose substantially faster than it did in Britain. All the evidence now suggests that we reached the trough of the recession during the middle of last year and that the index of industrial production in the last quarter of 1981 was some 2 per cent, higher than it had been in the second quarter. There is every prospect that this improvement will continue.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that manufacturing output in the United Kingdom will increase only when more customers at home and abroad wish to buy our products?

My hon. Friend has stated an obvious truth with admirable clarity.

does the Secretary of State agree that the December figures for manufacturing output had declined to the lowest level for 15 years and by 2.4 per cent. in December alone? Is that not a disastrous state of affairs and does it not contradict the confidence that the right hon. Gentleman has been expressing in previous months? What action will the Government take? My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) referred earlier to the order for the P and O liner. What action will the right hon. Gentleman take to secure that order for British shipyards?

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the December blizzards were some of the worst winter weather since the late 1800s. If he imagines that in Britain, where we are not accustomed to such severe weather conditions, industrial production can remain unaffected, he is living in a dream world.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a most important achievement of British industry in the past year to 18 months has been a great improvement in productivity, and that, as the world comes out of recession, this should lead to more orders for British firms and therefore greater output?

My hon. Friend is right. The figures show that the increase in exports currently taking place is one of the most encouraging phenomena that we have seen for a long time. We are on the verge of an export-led boom—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should rephrase that. We are on the verge of an export-led recovery for which successive Governments ever since the war have striven. I congratulate British industry on having secured an unparalled number of major industrial orders from foreign customers. That is the best harbinger for the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the productivity improvements at British Leyland over the last year.

Productivity improved last year by 30 per cent. at BL Cars' plants overall and by over 100 per cent. at the Longbridge plant. This is encouraging progress, which reflects credit on all concerned. There is some way to go, however, before the company as a whole becomes internationally competitive.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this news will be very welcome to all of us who wish to see BL prosper and that great credit is due to the workers and management of BL? However, did my right hon. Friend read the speech by Sir Michael Edwardes on Friday in which he said that he expected British Leyland to buy steel from overseas? Bearing in mind that both BL and the BSC are subsidised to the tune of billions of pounds by taxpayers, would it not be the economics of bedlam for British Leyland to buy steel at the cost of other people's jobs and to improve its productivity at other people's expense?

I know that the chairman of BL is in touch with British Steel about steel supplies. Equally, I know that there is no future for any British industry that thinks that it can build on subsidised steel. The advantage of the present system under the Treaty of Paris arrangements is that Europe is now returning its steel industries to profitability on a collaborative basis, which will ensure the long-term supply of steel at economic prices to our engineering industries.

By what figure has the number of people employed by BL fallen in the past two years, and what estimate does the right hon. Gentleman make for next year?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question on that matter, I shall do my best to answer it.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the effects on the welcome improvement in productivity at BL of any proposal by Nissan to establish itself in this country have been studied by his Department, and will he take account of such effects when coming to a decision on the Nissan project?

There is a later question on the Order Paper about Nissan. All I say at this stage is that we have had useful discussions with the representatives of Nissan. Of course, in considering this matter the Government are bound to have regard, and are having regard, to the overall impact that a major new investment of this kind will have upon the economy generally and upon the vehicle sector in particular. We have to be satisfied that such a project coming to this country will be in the overall interests of the country.

Returning to the important question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) about purchases of British steel, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Steel is one of the largest purchasers of BL vehicles? Therefore, should not BL be ordering British steel? Is that not a "Buy British" policy which should be supported by the Government?

The right hon. Gentleman knows, because he has had responsibility for these matters, that purchases are matters for the commercial decisions of the managements of the companies concerned. I took great encouragement from the Opinion Research Centre poll in Bathgate at Leyland. That showed that, overwhelmingly, British Leyland employees do not wish to go on living on Government subsidies. They believe it is right that the company should become competitive and profitable in its own right. That must be right for steel as it is for cars.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will set out his Department's responsibilities for co-ordinating Her Majesty's Government's space policy.

Co-ordination of the Government's space policy is carried out by an interdepartmental group of officials, and by the space consultative committee, which is a forum of Government, industry and the major users. I chair both of these committees.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the co-ordination will result in orders worth many hundreds of millions of pounds and many jobs in regard to the large satellite for the European Space Agency, the defence satellite and so on? Will he also confirm that his Department takes the view that it must continue to press the industrial argument for direct broadcasting by satellite and cable television as being vital in this regard?

There is an undoubted success story, which has been building up for some years. We have a good, effective and profitable space industry. British Aerospace is making about 10 satellites at the moment. We are engaged in the preliminary stages of making what will be the largest and most powerful satellite of the 1980s called L-Sat.

Will my hon. Friend use his good offices to liaise with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that decisions on access to the satellite are made quickly so that we do not lose some big opportunities for satellite manufacture for British programme suppliers on a world-wide basis?

I shall draw the comments of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The opportunities for direct broadcasting by satellite and cable television are enormous in terms of investment and job creation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if, in view of the rise of unemployment in the regions, he will institute a review of regional policy aiming for more investment in United Kingdom industry and a greater prospect of new jobs; and if he will make a statement.

As was made clear at the time of the 1979 review of regional industrial policy. the Government attach a high importance to continuity and stability in regional policy. The Government keep the circumstances of particular areas under review, and are presently reviewing those areas which are due to be double downgraded in August.

Is the Minister aware that five British regions now have unemployment of a terrifying 17 per cent. or more? Does he agree that only an unprecedented amount of public investment can make urgent inroads into mass unemployment in those regions? Is his Department prepared to fight in the Whitehall machine to obtain more money in the next financial year to make inroads into mass unemployment?

My Department already spends over £2.5 billion on supporting industry. Some £600 million of that is spent on regional policy and over £200 million is aid to industry under the Science and Technology Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough".] Labour Members shout "Not enough." They must say whether they expect that money to come from increased borrowing or taxes and whether they agree that the most important thing for British industry is to obtain lower interest rates, and only containing public expenditure will bring that about.

Will the Minister confirm that his Department has no plans to downgrade the status of the Teeside travel-to-work area?

The Department has no plans to downgrade any areas beyond those which have already been publicly announced.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the most important way to help the regions—and many regions which are considered high unemployment areas now were not so considered three or four years ago—is for the Chancellor, in his Budget, to give all the help that he can to British industry?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will note what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that he is right in saying that large sums of money, doled out as regional assistance to companies, have only a limited effect in countering unemployment. All the evidence suggests that when regional policy has been widely spread, as it was in the 1970s, it was much less effective in creating jobs than it was in the 1960s when it was more concentrated.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has any plans for the promotion of teletext and viewdata in 1982.

In co-operation with all sectors of the industry we shall continue the promotion of teletext and viewdata in 1982 as in 1981.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to manufacture as much of this equipment in the United Kingdom as is possible? Are not teletext sets imported?

We have a world lead in teletext. About 90 per cent. of teletexts sold or rented in the United Kingdom have been produced here. Sales are going extremely well. In the second half of 1981, the number of teletext sets doubled over the total for the previous five years, and I expect that in 1982 the total will double again.

In view of the lead that we have in the software element of teletext, viewdata and teledata and other such equipment, will the Minister have discussions with the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure that adequate information on aids and opportunities for the disabled and the frail elderly are made available to them? Would he also consider financing this aspect?

This is an important question, and it is one in which I take an interest. I have been to see some of the research being done at the IBA research establishment near Winchester and at Southampton university.

I declare an indirect interest in teletext. Is my hon. Friend aware that the development of teletext, and all that that means for employment, depends on the treatment that is given to it in the forthcoming Budget? Will my hon. Friend have a word about this with our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I am aware of the views expressed by my hon. Friend, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what spin-off development benefits have been produced from the Concorde project.

There have been many such developments, reflecting the rigorous conditions under which Concorde operates. In the aerospace industry these have included developments on cabin pressurisation, autopilots, glazing, carbon brakes, tyres, fuel systems and furnishing materials. Of these, glazing and furnishing materials have also found non-aerospace applications.

As the research and development cost is in excess of £570 million, which is basically taxpayers' money, will the Minister advise the House what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that some of these benefits come back to the taxpayers rather than go to other countries and competitors in America and Europe?

The Government do their best to encourage the spread of the latest technologies and have various schemes to sponsor the development of particular technologies. The question ought to be answered by the Labour Opposition, because they, in Government, took decisions on Concorde. It is for them to say whether the technological developments are commensurate with the investment.

Will my hon. Friend reflect for a moment on the irony of Labour Members asking one minute for public investment and the next minute criticising it, particularly in a project that has brought great credit to this country and provided employment in highly advanced technology? Did I mishear my hon. Friend, or did he mention the Olympus engine in his reply? Does he agree that there is a great deal of spin-off from that? Finally, when considering the Concorde project, will my hon. Friend see that in future the country takes a rather more robust attitude, as the French do, towards promoting our own technological industry?

I agree that Concorde is an outstanding technological achievement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the Olympus engine, which would not have been developed without Concorde. Decisions on the future of Concorde depend on a number of factors, including the revenues generated by the services of the aircraft already operating under British Airways. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do everything that they can to broadcast loud and clear the technological achievements of Concorde.

Will the Minister confirm that one spin-off has been an in-depth study of the effect of sonic booms caused by supersonic flight? Is not the conclusion that supersonic commercial flight means that areas such as Cornwall will be subjected to booms every time such an aeroplane passes overhead? Is that a satisfactory long-term way to live?

I am not sure that I would classify that as a benefit. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has represented the conclusion entirely accurately. I shall consider what he said.

Would not the spin-offs from Concorde that my hon. Friend listed be enhanced by more jobs and greater profits and a consequent benefit to British industry if the Government helped British Aerospace to take a larger share in the A320 Airbus project?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the A320 project and the anxiety and interest of all hon. Members who represent aerospace constituencies. I assure my hon. Friend that we are pressing on with the matter as quickly as possible. To he applied, the technologies that spin off from the development of, for example, Concorde, require an aerospace market and industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will seek to alter the management structure of British Leyland so as to make the company more accountable to its work force for policy decisions, especially when these relate to closures.

No. It is for the BL board to determine the company's management structure and for the board and management to consult the work force as and when necessary.

Have Ministers learnt anything from the agony of the past four weeks?

The work force has also learnt from the past few weeks. It has learnt that there will be secure jobs only if BL remains competitive, if it has competitive levels of manning and if it has a capacity adjusted to the market. That is the important lesson that should be learnt.

Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner that we have effective works councils in British industry, so that management and work force can talk together, aside from what the unions may do separately, the better it will be?

My hon. Friend has always been interested in this issue. Whether there should be works councils in British Leyland is a matter for the management of the company, as my hon. Friend well knows.

Is the Minister aware that the attitude adopted by Sir Michael Edwardes and some o f his colleagues is bound to lead to aggravation and labour troubles at the plant? When will Sir Michael stop treating his work force like dirt?

It is about time that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches stopped knocking Sir Michael Edwardes and recognised that he has given the company something that it has not had for many years—hope and the prospect of a future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner that we can sell off parts of BL to the private sector, the better for the taxpayer and for the employees?

My right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science stated on 26 January 1981 that the Government support British Leyland's intention of creating viable businesses and attracting private capital into them. I agree with my hon. Friend that private enterprise is much more likely to provide lasting jobs and prosperity for those who work in industry.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what response there has been to his enterprise allowance pilot scheme in East Lancashire, and what is the role of the Small Firms Advice Bureau in this connection.

The Small Firms Service is providing business advice to applicants for the enterprise allowance. By 19 February, 55 out of the total of 124 applicants had received individual counselling from the service in the North-East Lancashire pilot area.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply and for being instrumental in initiating the scheme? Does he accept that many people in North-East Lancashire are still unaware of the excellent scheme? Will he do all that he can to give it wider publicity?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As he will know, responsibility for the scheme lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, although the Small Firms Service, which is playing an active part, is my responsibility. Credit is also due to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the introduction of the scheme. I note what my hon. Friend says about publicity. Anything that the Small Firms Service can do to publicise the scheme, I shall see is done.

Does the Minister accept that most people in North-East Lancashire would regard this as a useful little scheme? How many people have so far taken advantage of the scheme instead of merely seeking advice? While on the subject of North-East Lancashire, may I draw the Minister's attention, in the presence of the—

Order. That is better done by a motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked his question. Let us have the answer.

Will the Minister give full development area status to North-East Lancashire? I cannot be more brief than that.

That question is way beyond the scope of the original question. The scheme has been in existence for only a short time, but already 51 out of a total of 124 applications have gone from the application stage to acceptance. That is an encouraging start.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the enterprise allowance is a major bridge to help people move from unemployment into their own business? Can he say when it will be extended to the rest of the country, as it would be of great benefit also in other parts?

As my hon. Friend knows, there were difficulties in trying to get a nationwide scheme. It involves many Departments and technical and difficult regulations. We have chosen a pilot scheme, first, to see whether there is a real need, as I believe there is, and, secondly, to see whether we can get over the difficulties. At a later stage we can consider whether the scheme can go much further.

Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Employment to see whether the scheme can be extended to areas such as the city of Leicester, which is suffering high and unparalleled levels of unemployment, and which has high levels of technology?

I have explained why it had to be a pilot scheme. My right hon. Friend and I—it was particularly his responsibility—chose areas with high unemployment, where it was thought that the scheme would be of great benefit to people who were redundant and otherwise unemployed and where there was not a battery of other aids available on a significant scale. It was not possible to extend it everywhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many shipbuilding orders have been obtained in the United Kingdom for Hong Kong companies in the last two years; and what is the tonnage involved.

In 1980 and 1981 Hong Kong companies placed orders for 11 ships of around 103, 000 compensated gross registered tons.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a satisfactory situation? Has he noticed that more publicity is given to orders lost than to orders gained? People complain about imports from Hong Kong, but should we not also take account of orders coming from Hong Kong?

Hong Kong shipowners represent a valuable and important market. They own almost as much tonnage as the entire United Kingdom merchant fleet. Their entrepreneurial qualities are well known.

Will the Under-Secretary think again about his right hon. Friend's response to the P and O order? Is it not a great tragedy that the largest shipbuilding order for many years from one of the largest British shipping companies is not being carried out by a British shipyard? Is that not an indictment of the Government's shipping and shipbuilding policies? Will not many thousands of shipyard workers whose jobs are threatened note the Secretary of State's indifference to their plight?

The hon. Gentleman misreads the situation. I regret that British Shipbuilders was not able to secure the order. It was not able to offer the delivery that P and O required because of its order book. That is a matter of credit rather than criticism. The House will know that last Monday Swan Hunter announced a £25 million order for a container ship for a United Kingdom company. In each of the past three years about one-third of United Kingdom fleet orders have gone to British Shipbuilders. The orders have provided between one-third and two-thirds of British Shipbuilders' new business. Its order book is about 600, 000 CGRT, which is much higher than last year, when it fell to around 400, 000 CGRT.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Hong Kong is not only our best market for ships but our best market for power stations? We now export more to Hong Kong than we do even to Japan. Will he point out to our exporters that we have only 5 per cent. of that market and that great opportunities still exist?

Indeed, I will. Not only have Hong Kong companies placed 11 orders for ships, but we estimate that a further eight ships have been ordered for companies that are associated with, or subsidiary to, Hong Kong companies.

If the Minister is right in saying that the P and O order was lost through a lack of capacity, does that not show the folly of cutting down our industrial capacity during a temporary recession?

British Shipbuilders wants to establish a long term viable base for its industry. Its decision has been made in relation to what it sees as its long-term viable base.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what losses occurred at British Steel during 1980–81 and so far in the current financial year.

In 1980–81 as a whole the British Steel Corporation incurred a pre-tax loss of £665 million. The loss for the first half of 1981–82 was £196 million. This reduction in the rate of loss is a welcome measure of the progress made by the corporation in its efforts to return to viability.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether BSC will break even in 1983, as the chairman forecast?

It is difficult to make an accurate forecast because of the uncertainties of which my hon. Friend is well aware, not least the exceptional weather in January, which had a major effect on the plants in South Wales, and the effect of the American anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. Nevertheless, I expect BSC' s losses in the second half of 1981–82 to be lower than those in the comparable period of 1980–81.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the massive investment of public funds in the modernisation of British Steel over the past 10 years, British Steel companies in Sheffield, for example, are now securing very important orders for North Sea oil equipment and rigs? Will he guarantee that the process of investment will continue and will not be cut off?

The external financing limits of the British Steel Corporation provide substantial cash over and above that generated by depreciation provision by the company for capital investment. This is an important part of the rationalisation process in which the corporation is engaged. As I told the Select Committee when I gave evidence to it, the corporation is satisfied that it could increase production from 20 to 25 per cent. without any increase in capacity.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the multi-million pound contracts awarded to British industry have been won against the fiercest competition in the world? Will he accept that these contracts are now at the drawing board stage, and that details are being prepared which involve steel? Does my hon. Friend agree that this will produce work for the workshops and for the many subcontractors who rely on the industrial giants that have won the contracts?

Yes, indeed, and I would go one stage further than my hon. Friend. Many of these very large contracts will have a substantial effect right down the line and help the medium and small business sector as well. The British Steel Corporation has itself obtained major contracts overseas—particularly the bank headquarters in Hong Kong—to the tune of many tens of millions of pounds, in the teeth of fierce international competition. The corporation is to be congratulated on that.

If it could be proved that decisions taken by Mr. Ian MacGregor as chairman of the British Steel Corporation, who has now been appointed for two years, were based on erroneous information provided to him by his board, would the Minister be willing to go to Mr. MacGregor and ask for an explanation why those decisions were taken?

The hon. Gentleman talks in riddles. If he has any particular problem to put to me, no doubt he will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further developments he expects in the space programme that will benefit United Kingdom industry, consequential upon the successful launch of Marecs-A satellite.

The launch of the Marecs-A satellite, which my hon. Friend attended, was a great success for the United Kingdom space industry. Marecs-B and the first ECS satellite will be launched later this year. British industry is now well placed to compete for orders in the rapidly growing market for communications satellites.

Will my hon. Friend consult British Telecommunications and the British Standards Institution to see whether it is possible to speed up the certification of ground equipment associated with the space programme, so that we can hold the dramatic lead that Britain has now obtained in European satellite operations?

Certainly, and if my hon. Friend has any particular points to raise, I hope that he will get in touch with me.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this European Space Agency project, in which British Aerospace has taken a lead, and in which I declare an interest, is typical of the very important return that is obtained from our contribution to the European Space Agency? Does my hon. Friend further agree that if we were to think about withdrawing from the Community that kind of organisation would itself be under threat?

My hon. Friend is correct. The European Space Agency's programme to develop a large communications satellite, L-Sat, got under way on 22 December. British Aerospace is the prime contractor for that programme, which will cost £230 million, and in which the United Kingdom has a one-third share.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the latest information Her Majesty's Government have received about the intentions of the Nissan Company with regard to its proposed factory in the United Kingdom.

Further discussions between my Department and the company took place in London last week. Some progress was made, but there remain some issues still to be agreed. The final decision of the board of Nissan will also depend upon the identification of a suitable site and a successful outcome to discussions, which it is intended should take place with the relevant trade unions.

I accept the need for a good level of British components, but does the Minister agree that there is a very strong case for siting the factory in the North-East, which has a high level of unemployment?

The choice of site must be primarily one for the company, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the discussions have taken place upon the assumption that the factory will be sited in either a development area or a special development area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important element in the Nissan investment decision—as with the decisions of other international companies—is our membership of the EEC? Does he further agree that there is a fundamental paradox, in that Labour Members, while advocating inward investment by foreign companies, oppose our continued membership of the EEC?

It has been made very clear to me by the representatives of the Nissan company that one of the main attractions that they see in establishing a base in the United Kingdom is that it will offer access to the whole of the European Community.

The Secretary of State said that there were still some issues to be settled in the discussions with Nissan. Is he prepared to say what they are? For example, do they include the amount of financial assistance that the Government are likely to give it?

I think that it would be most unwise of me to be drawn into details of the discussions that I have had with representatives of the Nissan company. These have been on an extremely friendly and frank basis. As I said in reply to an earlier question, useful progress has been made in the discussions that we have had. I do not think that it would be right for me to be drawn into the details.

Will my right hon. Friend at least say that the Nissan company deserves to be treated no less well than any other major international motor manufacturer with regard to establishment in Britain, but equally that it would be expected to have the same regard as other international manufacturers to the sourcing of components in Britain?

As I know my hon. Friend is aware—he follows these matters closely—the local sourcing of components is one of the matters that have figured in the discussions from the very beginning.

What consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Secretary of State for Wales on this important matter and what representations has he received from the county of Clwyd? Does he know that in that county male unemployment in the town of Flint has reached about 40 per cent.?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for the Government to determine the location of the factory. It is for the company to choose the location that it thinks will best suit its purposes. It is conducting discussions on the footing of siting the factory in an assisted area.

Will the Secretary of State press the company to make an early decision about the site? Is he aware that considerable time and resources are being devoted to preparing the case for individual areas and developments are being held up while areas await the decision?

It is for the company to make the decision. It must look at all the factors and, if it is uncertain about some matters, come back for further discussions with the Government. I am as aware as anyone of the desirability of reaching a conclusion, one way or another, in the near future.

asked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will lay down guidelines indicating the qualities sought and the criteria recommended in the selection of individuals to accompany court bailiffs in the execution of court orders to repossess factories during the course of industrial disputes.

County court bailiffs are not accompanied when executing warrants of possession, otherwise than by a representative of the plaintiff and, where a breach of the peace is feared, by one or more police constables.

Is the Attorney-General aware that when a sledgehammer-wielding team of bailiffs repossessed the Laurence Scott factory in my constituency in August last year they were accompanied by a team of 34, which included a doctor, a farmer and an estate agent? Why are professional men moonlighting in that way and what sort of doctor uses a scalpel during the day and a sledgehammer at night in a team of bailiffs repossessing a factory that is the subject of an industrial dispute?

In spite of the fact that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has written to the right hon. Gentleman and sent him the report of the high sheriff and has, in the course of that correspondence, made it clear that what happened on that occasion was that sheriff's officers, for whom I have no ministerial responsibility, were involved, the right hon. Gentleman's initial question related to court bailiffs and not sheriff's officers.

Is the Attorney-General aware that in the case referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) the union finally received a bill for £4, 000 in respect of that one episode? Is that not very disturbing?

I repeat that the case involved an enforcement of a High court writ for possession carried out by the under-sheriff with sheriff's officers. It is a matter for which neither my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor nor I have any ministerial responsibility.

Given the ghastly prospect of 141 mothers and grandmothers of my Plessey, Bathgate constituents being dragged through the High court on Friday, does the senior Law Officer of the Crown share the unease of the judiciary in having these delicate issues of industrial relations settled in the High court?

I am not aware of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We are discussing circumstances in which a writ for possession has been obtained and those to whom it is addressed have failed to obey. That has nothing to do with court bailiffs. It is a question of enforcement of the writ by sheriff's officers.

asked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor last discussed sentencing policy with magistrates; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Chancellor meets the magistrates as a body on the occasion of their general meeting in October and on each occasion discusses sentencing policy. In addition, at branch and area level he meets magistrates on a number of occasions each year, the last being in September 1981, and sentencing policy is similarly discussed. The general principles of sentencing form part of the curricula set out in general directions for the training of magistrates.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that magistrates whom I meet still express to me their concern and unease about having to deal with shoplifting cases, which they seem to find much more difficult than most other cases? I think that my hon. and learned Friend is aware of that from discussions that we have had in the past. Would it be possible to broaden future discussions on sentencing policy so that the cause—the trading methods of stores—may be taken into account? Perhaps helpful suggestions may emanate from the magistrates and, if appropriate, my hon. and learned Friend could discuss them with other Government Departments.

One of the difficulties facing magistrates' courts in shoplifting and other cases—but, perhaps, particularly shoplifting—is that the range of cases that comes before them is so enormous. I recall that in their pamphlet "Take it or leave it", my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues pointed out that shoplifting cases varied from the persistent and deliberate offender to the absentminded and confused. Many considerations have to be borne in mind and I am sure that those to which my hon. Friend has referred will be borne in mind.

Will the Lord Chancellor continue to stress to magistrates the appallingly overcrowded conditions in our prisons and the desirability of not adding to the problem by sending to prison unsuitable people, such as drunks and vagrants and some young offenders who might benefit from an alternative form of punishment?

I am sure that the Lord Chancellor and magistrates will have those considerations much in mind. The difficulty is that the categories that come before magistrates include the persistent and deliberate offender for whom imprisonment may be the only proper punishment and the appropriate safeguard for the public. However, I am sure that great care will be taken to ensure that people for whom imprisonment is not suitable will not be sent to prison.

asked the Attorney-General if he will seek to amend the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to ensure that matter read out in open court may not be a contempt.

If the hon. Member is referring to the issues in Home Office v. Harman, the Lord Chancellor will carry out the promise he gave in the House of Lords during the passage of the Contempt of Court Bill—a promise which I repeated in Committee—to examine the issues after judgment in the then pending litigation. Until that examination has been carried out any proposal for legislation would be premature.

Is the Attorney-General a "Diplockite" or a "Scarmanite" on this issue? In all justice, given the split in the House of Lords, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it would be fair for him to ask the Home Secretary not to press for costs and bankrupt the NCCL until the matter has been settled in Strasbourg, where the Government will surely lose?

I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is interesting that of all the judges who have examined the case—five in the House of Lords, three in the Court of Appeal and the judge at first instance—only two considered that there was a European aspect involved. The case is not really about freedon of the press. It is about the mutual obligation of parties to litigation and their legal advisers as regards documents produced by the other side. When asked whether I belong to one faction or the other in the House of Lords, I must say that I always respect the judgment of the House of Lords and the majority view, if that be the case.

Will the Attorney-General at least agree with the comment of Lord Scarman that, as far as possible, a rule of law should be free from anomaly? Does he recognise that the public find it impossible to understand how anyone who has heard a document read out in court may lawfully discuss its contents, excepting only the solicitor for one of the parties?

It is so easy to choose, particularly when there are two judges finding one way and three the other, a passage that suits the argument that one wishes to advance. I have read all the judgments and I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the leading speech of Lord Diplock, which sets out the matter clearly and understandably.

If the Attorney-General is already beginning to think about changing the law established by the House of Lords—and every judge who considered the case agreed that Miss Harman was acting in good faith when she handed over the documents—is it not ridiculous that we should ask the NCCL to pay £25, 000 costs when the law may be changed within a year or two?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking to reconsider the matter after the decision of the House of Lords was known. He gave no undertaking beyond that. In this case the Home Office did not insist upon its costs at the trial of first instance. When Miss Harman decided to go not only to the Court of Appeal, where she lost by a unanimous decision, but to pursue the matter to the House of Lords, events followed the ordinary routine, which is that the costs fall upon those who lose.

asked the Attorney-General what percentage of jurors summoned in 1981 subsequently served; and what was the cost to public funds in respect of (a) those summoned who served and (b) those who did not.

The number of persons summoned found to be ineligible or disqualified, or who are excused from serving, is not recorded centrally. In most centres, jury summoning is carried out as part of the routine duties of court staff and is not identified as a separate head of expenditure. In 1981 expenditure on allowances paid to jurors was £12, 128, 931.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the number of jurors summoned is no more than is necessary and that expenditure in that connection is kept to a minimum?

Yes, Sir. There have been various investigations, and a departmental study under Sir Derek Rayner was conducted last year. Many problems can occur. If there is a firm determination to plead not guilty, the jurors—there must always be more than 12 to allow for challenges—are told that they will be needed for some weeks. Then, at the eleventh hour, the accused changes his plea to guilty. It cannot be avoided that, in some courts, many jurors must hang around. A system is being tried out now whereby jurors ring in each day at a certain time in order to save their unnecessary attendance.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider ways in which jurors waiting for service may have their lives made slightly less boring than at the moment, when they sit in draughty passages day after day waiting for something to happen? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that I wrote to him suggesting that there might be a canteen or a library provided?

Facilities vary from court to court. In modern courts there are good facilities for jurors. In some older courts the conditions for everyone who must attend are rather gruesome. However, my noble and learned Friend is keeping the matter under review, because it is unfair that someone who is called to perform a public duty—as jury service is—at great inconvenience, must suffer one iota more discomfort than is necessary.