asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will, taking into account the shortage of jobs in the Mexborough travel-to-work area, now designate it a special development area.

No, Sir. The specific difficulties of Mexborough were fully recognised in the Government's review in 1979, when we decided that it should become a development area.

Does the Minister realise that almost nothing has been done by the Government, despite the fact that it is a special development area? Is he aware that people in the Mexborough area are feeling helpless, hopeless and full of despair and are disillusioned with the Government? When will the Government do something to help unemployed people in the Mexborough travel-to-work area, especially young people, who are beginning to lack in hope and think that Britain does not want them to work?

The hon. Gentleman knows that under the various schemes available to Mexborough as a development area there has been some take-up—not as much as he or I would like—amounting to £2 million in the past two years. There is a whole battery of weapons available to the Mexborough area. The hon. Gentleman referred to youth unemployment. All the greatly expanded schemes now available through the Manpower Services Commission are also available to Mexborough.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will convene a conference, to include invitations to the Northern Confederation of British Industry and the Northern Trades Union Congress, to discuss the attraction of industry to the Northern region.

The attraction of industry to the Northern region is already promoted in a substantial number of ways.

The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the Northern TUC is completely opposed to the Government's strategy, but is he aware that the Northern CBI has considerable doubts about certain aspects of the Government's regional policies? In view of the continuing rise in unemployment in the Northern region—still the highest in England—is it not clear that completely new thinking is necessary to deal with the region's problems—for example, the ridiculous position of the P & O cruise liner order being placed abroad? That ship could easily have been built in the Northern region?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the full battery of aid is available to about 90 per cent. of the Northern region. The North received the greatest amount per head of all regions in 1979–80 and was overtaken by Wales only in 1980–81, because, among other things, of the effect of the steel remedial measures. Substantial amounts of aid have gone into the Northern region.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Datsun car company felt that Britain was likely to leave the EEC it would in no way be persuaded to bring several thousand jobs to the North-East? Does my hon. Friend also agree that it will be very sad if the future flagship of the British Merchant Navy is not built in Britain? It is small comfort that the reason given by British Shipbuilders is that there was so much work at Swan Hunter that it could not do it.

My hon. Friend is right about the Common Market and the Datsun company. There is much evidence that our withdrawal from the EEC would dry up the flow of inward investment to Britain.

Is the Minister aware that it was not the EEC that closed the Consett steelworks or those in Workington who ran down regional support to a level below what it was in the early 1960s that allowed the largest cruise liner order ever placed by a British shipping; company to go to Finland? Does he accept that they are the deliberate responsibility and consequence of Government policies?

I have already referred to the liner.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether the remaining issues referred to in his answer of 22 February, Official Report, c. 586, on the Nissan-Datsun project have yet been agreed; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend said on 22 February, further discussions between my Department and the company took place in London last month. Some progress was made, but there remain some issues 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.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the imbalance of trade between Japan and the EEC is a matter of considerable moment, and that it is urgent for the Japanese to make a substantial investment in this country to offset it? Are my hon. Friend and the Government doing everything possible to impress on the company those considerations and the fact that a further long delay in the decision might well prejudice the conditions so far established?

Overseas investment is one way in which the trade imbalance between this country and Japan can be rectified. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety that the negotiations with Nissan should not be further prolonged, but it is an extremely important project for the company and it naturally wishes to research it thoroughly. I hope that it will not be too long before a final decision is taken.

Will the Minister confirm that the disagreement with Nissan is about the British content of the component input? What level has his Department set?

I do not believe that I should disclose to the House our negotiations with the Japanese company. It has been said before that local content is one matter that we are discussing. We attach great importance to having a high level of local content.

Is the Minister aware that considerable time, money and effort have been expended by places, such as Teesside, in putting forward cases for having the plant in their areas and that the uncertainty caused by the delay is doing great damage? Will he urge the company to take a speedy decision and to end the delay, which has gone on for much longer than I believe any of us expected?

I am sorry that Teesside, which has spent money and time on the matter, should find the situation aggravated by the delay. It is an extremely important decision. The Nissan motor company must be allowed to make up its own mind in principle first. I do not believe that decisions on site will be taken until we get further in the more general talks.

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) said, is my hon. Friend certain that the Japanese understand the growing political opposition in Britain to the flood of imports from Japan? Is he aware that, unless they do, there is simply no way in which they will be allowed to import into this country? Does he agree that we must make certain that they have no doubt at all that, unless they invest, imports from Japan will be stopped?

The Japanese are under no illusion about the strength of feeling on the subject. We have taken the opportunity to emphasise it to them. That is one of the main reasons why the Japanese are interested in investing in this country.

I recognise what the Minister has said about the component factor, but is he prepared to say whether a major sticking point is the amount of financial assistance forthcoming from the Government to Nissan?

I cannot go beyond what I have said about the stage that the negotiations have reached. To do so would not be compatible with carrying on our discussions with the Japanese.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the future prospects for the tractor manufacturers in the United Kingdom, in view of recent closures and cutbacks by tractor manufacturers.

The United Kingdom industry is heavily dependent on exports, and prospects for manufacturers in the immediate future will continue to be influenced by the world-wide recession, which has depressed demand for tractors in the major overseas markets.

If International Harvester at Doncaster, Massey-Ferguson at Coventry and perhaps Ford go to Europe, if David Brown cuts down and if the tractor line at Bathgate is cannibalised, where will people who wish to buy British-made tractors find them?

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps a touch gloomy. The Agriculture Engineers Association is expecting a modest growth in the United Kingdom market in 1982.

Answer the question.

The overseas markets are not under our control, and 50 per cent. of the capacity is unused. It is overseas markets that have to improve.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a thriving tractor market depends on a thriving diesel engine market?

Indeed, it does, but the overseas markets for both have to improve.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will introduce new proposals to stimulate the use of robots in industry.

There has been an encouraging response to the Government's robot support programme which I launched last year. The effectiveness of this programme is kept under constant review, and I will introduce additional measures when required.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative. How much money has been made available and what are the main headings under which it is being allocated to develop this essential programme?

There have been many hundreds of general inquiries about the scheme. So far, 71 firm applications are being processed and about £1½ million has been committed. I expect more to be committed from the applications in process.

The need for such development is widely accepted, but does the Minister agree that it has serious social consequences, as robots put men and women out of work? Should not such development be part of a broader plan which includes, for example, a reduction in the length of the working week and measures to create new jobs for people put out of work?

I do not entirely agree that robots put men and women out of work. British companies are automating and thereby staying in business and preserving their position. Many businesses, if they did not use the new technologies, would go out business, and unemployment would rise even more sharply. There is a stark choice for British industry—automate or liquidate.

I warmly welcome the start that the Government have made in supporting robotics and other forms of new technology. None the less, is my hon. Friend not concerned that only a quarter of the Department's budget for the support of industry is going to new technologies and three-quarters is going to regional policy and the old industries?

That is the pattern of spending by the Department of Industry. Our purpose is to shift it so that more money is spent on the sunrise industries and less on dealing with the inherited problems of the past.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy for robotics depends heavily on applied research in university departments, which are being heavily cut by the University Grants Committee? Is this not yet another case—it applies also to information technology—where the efforts of the Department of Industry are being badly affected by the cuts in university spending?

I understand that the numbers studying the sciences and engineering in 1983–84—I think that I have the right year—will be more than in 1980–81. I will check that. We give significant support, totalling several million pounds a year, to the work of the Production Engineering Research Association. That is one of the main bodies, together with Cranfield, working on robotics.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what continuing responsibility he has for the development of Project Mercury; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects the Mercury consortium to start providing services under the licence issued by him in February.

The development of Project Mercury is primarily a matter for the Mercury consortium, although my Department will sponsor its interests where they involve the Government. I understand that Mercury plans to begin providing services early next year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and declare my interest. Does he accept that it is necessary for Project Mercury to agree with British Telecom on linkage, both domestic and international, and can he tell us what would happen in the event of a failure to reach agreement? What powers do the Government have on the international networking of telecommunications?

The first point made by my hon. Friend is a problem arising on a more general front. It is how to police competition when a nationalised industry ceases to have a monopoly. That is happening not only in the case of Project Mercury. The consortium and British Telecom have agreed that if they fail to reach an agreement within, I think, the next four months, the Secretary or I shall decide on the terms.

Does the Minister agree that the linkage with BT could hamper the developments that it wants to make, particularly in cabling, which is the major development that needs to take place? We need investment, including Government investment. Will not the Mercury development get in the way of that?

I do not think so. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is unduly apprehensive. I agree that cabling and recabling of the country is the biggest industrial prospect before the country for the next decade. We published today the information technology adviser's report on cable systems to start a process of consultation with all the interests involved. I do not see a conflict between BT and Mercury.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that his enthusiasm to liberalise the BT monopoly for projects such as Mercury is being matched by co-operation from BT? Does he agree that the time has come for the establishment of an independent regulatory authority that would approve attachments and independent networks that touch on the BT network?

One thing that I have learnt in the past few months is that monopolies in the process of having their monopoly taken away are most tenacious bodies. I am considering ways in which there can be more competition, and that will involve BT withdrawing from some of its licensing functions. As from 1 April it will cease to be able to license value added network services. That will be done by my Department, so that competitors do not have to submit their business plans to BT. That would be very unfair.

Does the Minister agree that the terms between BT and the Mercury consortium are of fundamental importance to both parties and to their future development? I am sure that neither he nor the House wants to see one undermine the other. Will he, therefore, give an assurance that the terms of the agreement between the two will be published?

I think that some of the terms will be of a commercial nature and it will be difficult to publish them. However, I shall consider what can be published.

Have not the Government substantially increased investment in British Telecom, and is it not likely to enhance the prospects for rapid development of the telecommunications industry if there is even greater scope for private investment?

I certainly agree with that. It is a historic fact that the trough of BT's investment was in 1976–77. Since then it has risen consistently, and the recently published public expenditure White Paper envisages it rising to the huge amount of £3 billion a year by 1984–85. We are examining ways in which there can be partnership between public and private funds to finance that investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement about the financial prospects of the British Steel Corporation.

The BSC has recently completed its reassessment of the corporate plan for 1982–85. That plan shows that, following the great progress made in the past year, there is a good prospect that BSC will achieve break-even in 1982–83. A full statement will be made when the Government have completed their consideration of the BSC plan.

Will the future financing of the industry, including Mr. Ian MacGregor's transfer fee—the size of which is not yet settled—be linked to the continuing contraction and dismemberment of the BSC?

The corporate plan put to the Government was prepared on the basis that the existing configuration of basic steel production within the BSC will remain unchanged, but there will be a need all the time for further slimming down of manpower in order to continue the improvement in productivity. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the chairman's remuneration is tied to the performance of the BSC over a period. It will not be determined until after he has left.

Bearing in mind that about £6,000 million of public money has been poured into the BSC over the past 10 years, will my hon. Friend assure the House that, however painful the shedding of substantial proportions of labour in the BSC has been over the past two years, it is the main reason why there is a better prospect that the corporation will break even in 1982–83?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there was a great need for BSC to achieve internationally competitive manning levels. The stance taken by the Labour Administration in keeping open the Beswick plants, far from saving jobs, meant that in the long run many more jobs had to go. If only the nettle had been grasped earlier, we would have had a more competitive industry, probably a bigger one and there would be improved security for employees.

How can the hon. Gentleman justify the massive cut in capacity in our steel industry when in Germany the cut has been only about 5 per cent. and Italy and Spain have had substantial increases in capacity?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). The cuts have had to be bigger in this country because the steel industry was not so competitive. If it had been competitive earlier, the need for cutbacks would have been less. From now on, having made great adjustments in capacity, we are looking to other countries, under the arrangements in Europe, to make reductions in capacity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give the latest figures available for United Kingdom manufacturing industry productivity and total output; what are the corresponding figures for three years previously; and if he will make a statement.

I will arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report. They show that productivity in manufacturing industry reached a record level in the last quarter of 1981, while output recovered by about 1½ per cent. between the fourth quarter of 1980 and the fourth quarter of 1981.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in reality, any increases in productivity have been minimal and that output in manufacturing industry is the lowest for 14 years? As that is the result of the Government's slimming down policies, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the effect of those policies has been to put 2 million more on the dole and to destroy the whole background of British industry?

No. The gains in productivity are significant. They were about 9 per cent. last year. Specifically, they were about 8½ per cent. by output per person-hour and 10½ per cent. by output per head. Those figures are not trivial. They are significant, real, tangible and measurable.

As the productivity of British industry improves, will it not thereby become much more competitive and attract more customers at home and abroad? Will the Opposition perhaps remember that industry wants customers, customers and more customers?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has made the point with his usual perception.

Welcome though some signs of an increase in productivity are, does the Minister agree that the facts on the other side of the equation are that we have a 15 per cent. drop in manufacturing output, a 20 per cent. drop in manufacturing investment, and that last year we had, in effect, a net disinvestment in manufacturing, without allowing for leasing, which is marginal in the total? When does he expect to get back to the levels that prevailed in May 1979?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the capital investment figures published by my Department last week. Capital expenditure in the last quarter of 1981 was 1½ per cent. up on the third quarter. Manufacturing was plus 1 per cent. and services 1½ per cent. The Opposition must appreciate that when the economy is turning up, and the figures show it, they should welcome it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important way of improving productivity further in British industry would be for more manufacturers to buy the brilliant British inventions in robotics, which would give the robotics manufacturers the opportunity to create more jobs for people?

Yes, and there is growing evidence that that is happening.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the quarterly figures. Will he confirm that they are worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) implied just now? Since this Government came to office there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in output in the manufacturing sector at a time when it is 30 per cent. down on investment. Is this not the lesson that the country has to learn?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the fall in manufacturing output last year was halted. Output in the fourth quarter was 2 per cent. higher than in the spring. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the very bad months of December and January, he should remember that we had the most severe weather that we have had for many decades. In addition, industrial production was disrupted by the rail strike. We can do nothing about the weather, but we can do something about strikes.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) of 22 February, Official Report, column 271, on Project Mercury, what is his policy towards use of the reserve powers as regards the placing of obligations on British Telecom and Cable and Wireless.

We would hope not to have to resort to such powers. So far as interconnect and international access for Mercury are concerned, we believe that they are in the national interest and that it should be possible for BT and Mercury to reach a commercial agreement. In line with our overall policy of telecommunications liberalisation, we will be interested to ensure that the interests of customers come first.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As BT acts as Her Majesty's agent for both national and international agreements, and reinforcing the concern already voiced by my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), does my hon. Friend feel that the Secretary of State has adequate powers to ensure that any limitations on competition set by BT will not frustrate such projects as Mercury, especially in international communications?

My right hon. Friend hopes that an agreement will be reached between the parties that does not require him to intervene. However, he has direction and licensing powers which he could use, if necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very damaging effect that the sluggishness of British Telecom in installing telephones and switchboards has had on business? Is he aware, further, that on Friday a gentleman walked into my constituency surgery and said that he had been struggling for two years to get British Telecom to install a proper switchboard so that his business could go ahead—without any result?

My hon. Friend makes a very good case for Mercury being a competing service with BT. With the introduction of competition for BT the position will improve. I am sure that the chairman of BT will attend to my hon. Friend's complaint.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list the value of the publicly owned assets disposed of by his Department since May 1979.

The restated net asset value of British Aerospace was £592 million at the time of flotation, of which 51·57 per cent. of the share capital was sold to the public; and the restated net asset value of Cable and Wireless was £307 million, of which 49·47 per cent. of the share capital was sold to the public.

As the country has passed through the worst economic recession since the 1930s and private manufacturing industry has been in almost a state of collapse, is it right—even if the Government believe it right that publicly owned assets should be sold off—to sell them now?

The reason for privatising these two industries is that they are both engaged in highly competitive international businesses, and we feel that they are much more likely to be capable of responding to the challenges presented to them as part of the private sector, not having to look to the Government all the time for funds for expansion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an additional indication of the correctness of this policy occurs in British Aerospace, where 27,000 employees—40 per cent. of the work force—have spent their money acquiring shares in the business in which they work?

I agree with my hon. Friend. British Aerospace is making a great contribution to the many markets in which it operates.

Does the Minister realise that his Government are seeking all the time to take away from any nationalised industry the plums of that industry and that, whenever that occurs, it causes unrest throughout the country? Will he take into account the many countries where management, the Government, trade unions and the banks work together to ensure that greater progress is made in industry? Why do not the Government try to create a better relationship with the trade union movement and the work force, instead of adopting their present approach?

I am tempted to say that our policy of privatisation gives all these elements a chance to work together. In those industries that have not been privatised, however—for instance, British Shipbuilders—the Government's record of support is one of which we are very proud.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should realise that without the sales that have been made of the successful enterprises a lot of the funds would not have been available to put 'into British Steel, BL and other loss-makers that the Government still have?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Are the Government considering disposing of further publicly owned assets in British Telecom, instead of introducing the Buzby bond?

The Government announced the Buzby bond in the Budget, but long-term plans could include privatisation. However, I have no statement to make today.

Will the Minister confirm that, despite privatisation, British Aerospace still faces a major problem about how it might finance the proposed A320? Is it not true that British Aerospace has told the Government that, without substantial Government support, there is no prospect of this major project going ahead?

There is no major airline project in this country or anywhere else in which Governments of the day do not have a major part to play. That does not make the case against privatisation one whit stronger. The efficiency of the running of the industry is an entirely different matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the loan guarantee scheme.

The encouraging response to the loan guarantee scheme has been maintained. By 5 March, the latest date for which figures are available, 2,741 guarantees had been issued in respect of £99·1 million of bank lending. As has been announced, the ceiling for lending in the year to May 1982 is being raised to £150 million, and a further £150 million will be made available for the following year. A preliminary review of the operation of the scheme is now being carried out.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been a remarkable success story? In view of the important link between manufacturing industry and jobs, will my hon. Friend say what percentage of the applications have been in respect of manufacturing industry?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks, and I agree with him. One of the encouraging and optimistic signs about the scheme is that in total value £55·4 million has gone out to manufacturing industry. In other words, more that half has gone to manufacturing industry.

When it comes to reviewing the scheme will my hon. Friend consider carefully raising the limit to £¼ million per loan as opposed to the present level?

That is one of the items that we shall be considering in the review over the next few months. My hon. Friend will know that with the rapid progress of the scheme—and every month it moves faster, with more being taken up—there is a problem about the general ceilings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already doubled the amount of money allocated to the scheme, which is one aspect that must be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry by what percentage the total number of employees of BL has been reduced in the last two years.

At the end of 1981 the number of BL employees world-wide had decreased by 29 per cent. from the level at the end of 1979. In United Kingdom employment alone, the percentage decrease over the same period was 34·5 per cent.

I appreciate the unpopularity of British Leyland management because of those fairly dramatic reductions in its labour force, but will my hon. Friend confirm that even during this period about £1,000 million of taxpayers' money has been poured into British Leyland? Can my hon. Friend give the House any assurance that these figures will not obtain in the future and that the taxpayer will be asked to bear very little subsidy for this company?

The board of British Leyland has said that it does not intend to ask the Government for any more funds. Therefore, I can give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks. I ought also to point out that output of cars per man has increased substantially in British Leyland—by some 30 per cent. in 1981 over 1980. A balanced view of the company is important.

Does the Minister think that his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) would have asked that question when he was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth in a previous Parliament? There is a difference between Chipping Barnet and Birmingham. Will the Minister also have a stab at my previous question? With 1,000 tractor engineers flung on the dole at Bathgate, where will those who want to buy British-made tractors be able to buy them?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman keeps running down the tractor industry. The British tractor industry is one of the most efficient—

Come off it. Just answer the question.

—in the world. Some 70 per cent. of the output of the British tractor industry is exported, and an increase in world demand is required so that the unused capacity in the industry can be utilised.

Will my hon. Friend join me in recording our appreciation of the great increase in productivity achieved by both management and work force at BL, and also join me in looking forward to the new union agreement, leading, we hope, to a more participatory style of management?

I pay tribute to the achievements so far. Considerably more steps need to be taken to take full advantage of the upturn in the economy when it comes.

Will the Minister, instead of regarding this slashing of the labour force as a matter of congratulation, give some thought to the possibility that in its haste to dismantle certain aspects of BL the company got rid of design teams—the very people who could have enabled it to gain a larger share of the market and thereby save this huge number of people from being thrown on the labour market?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, and as he represents Coventry I understand his feelings on the matter. However, the views that he expressed were not those expressed by the BL management. It is the BL management and the BL work force that we are successfully trying to support in attempting to make the motor industry viable again.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to compliment the workers at Chorley and Leyland, who, despite enormous pressure from the shop stewards, finally agreed to return to work and accept the reduction of 1,855 jobs in the Chorley and Leyland area? Surely that augurs well for future co-operation between management and men and for the profitability of BL.

As in many other instances, the work force has shown good sense, realising that viable jobs are the only jobs that matter in the long run.

Does the Minister agree that a successful British Leyland, which we all want, is important not just to the workers in British Leyland but to the tens of thousands of workers in the components industry, who depend for their jobs on the success of a British-owned car firm?

I agree. That is why we have invested a substantial amount of money in British Leyland and why we believe that its long-term viability is one of the Government's most important industrial objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what information he has on partnership ventures recently undertaken in the telecommunications industry.

I welcome partnership initiatives taken in response to the new opportunities afforded by our policy of telecommunications liberalisation, for example, Project Mercury. I particularly welcome partnerships between the public and private sectors, of which a good recent example is United Satellites Limited, which involves British Aerospace, GEC-Marconi and British Telecom.

Does my hon. Friend agree that British Telecom could become an even more commercially minded and effective leader in joint ventures with the private sector if it were open to private investors? In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) it was said that this was a long-term plan. Can my hon. Friend make it a very much quicker one?

We are examining the possible ways of financing BT's substantial investment programme, which is due to rise to about £3 billion per annum in 1984–85, which will be the largest investment programme in the country. We are not ruling out partnership between public and private sector funds.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in examining partnerships in the telecommunications industry it is important to take into account the partnership between British Aerospace and GEC-Marconi on the defence satellite in supplementing this country's space activities? In that regard, are not he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who I see sitting on the Front Bench, playing a blinder?

Yes. The co-operation between our two largest space companies, GEC-Marconi and British Aerospace, for the defence satellite, is very good. I have already said that there is a strong space industry in Britain. British Aerospace is building about nine satellites, including the large satellite L-Sat, which will be launched in 1986. We hope to have a significant part of the world market for satellites by the 1990s.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many United States-based electronics firms have indicated to him their intention of establishing a base for their European operations in the United Kingdom.

In 1980 and 1981 five United States electronics companies known to the Invest in Britain Bureau took firm decisions to establish manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom, and 12 more indicated their intention to expand facilities already located in the United Kingdom. The Invest in Britain Bureau is currently in touch with some 30 United States companies about further projects.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these jobs in the sunrise industries, which are of immense importance both to employment and to the modernising of British industry, could be at risk if doubts grew about the intention of this country to remain in the European Community, as the main reason for investing here would be gone?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and there is strong evidence for saying that. A survey published recently in a technical magazine showed that Britain is overwhelmingly the preferred location for the great majority of American electronics companies thinking of setting up a European operation. It is also interesting that the survey shows that for these manufacturers the attraction of the United Kingdom is largely our membership of the Common Market, and over 60 per cent. of the firms responding stated that withdrawal from the EEC would have adverse effects on their decisions.

How many American and other multinational electronics firms have transferred production from this country to Third world countries?

That is a separate question and I should need notice to answer it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table that question. The provisional figures are interesting. They show that 60 per cent. of the total United States output non-oil direct investment was in the EEC. They also show that 30·4 per cent. of that total came to Britain. Clearly, our membership of the Common Market is a magnet.

Does my hon. Friend agree that American investment in the United Kingdom in the electronics industry is determined not so much by the detail of our relationship with the rest of Europe, but by the opportunity to make a decent profit? For that reason, will my hon. Friend say how important it is that we have plenty of small factory units available so that the electronics industry can expand?

It is important for small factory units to be made available. As my hon. Friend will know, as a result of the 100 per cent. buildings allowance, in-the last year we have approximately trebled the number of small factory units available through the private sector. My hon. Friend should not discount the enormous importance that American companies attach to our membership of the Common Market.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what effect he expects the drop in oil prices to have on industrial production.

The recent fall in oil prices should reduce some costs and prices and lead to an increase in industrial activity.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in oil prices, when added to the recent reduction in the national insurance surcharge on business, will increase the amount of money available to industry? Should not some of the extra profits be used for investment so that extra production will be available when the upturn comes? Does my hon. Friend have any views on how the extra investment can be achieved?

My hon. Friend is correct about the impact of the lower oil prices. Each $1 reduction in the price of oil directly reduces manufacturing costs via reduced prices of oil-based fuels and feedstuffs by about £55 million in a full year. That is on top of the considerable improvement in industry's cash flow as a result of the reduction in the national insurance surcharge. A wide range of investment incentives exist in Britain. It is up to companies to take advantage of them.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to extend the availability of legal aid.

Steps to extend legal aid will be taken when resources become available.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in the meantime our courts remain like the Waldorf hotel—open to all; that is, all who can obtain legal aid or who do not need it? Does he agree that that means that the majority of people in Britain do not receive the help that they need and that justice is, therefore, not available to them in our courts?

The results of the increase will be to make entitlement to legal aid the same as it was in 1979, which means that it covers at least 70 per cent. of all households in Britain.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many claims for legal aid are fruitless? Does he agree that too much money is wasted on cases that cannot possibly be justified?

As my hon. Friend knows, in each case a committee of experienced lawyers decides whether there is a reasonable case for granting legal aid.

Does the Attorney-General recollect that when the outgoing Government in 1974 restored legal aid limits to the equivalent of what they were in 1950, both parties agreed that the limit would be uprated annually to stay abreast of increases in supplementary benefit? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted the anxiety expressed in the Law Society's legal aid report for 1981 that that level has not been maintained? Am I correct in thinking that the levels will be restored in due course? Since the whole question of legal services has not been debated since the Royal Commission reported in 1979, will the Attorney-General try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate?

The increase restores the level to where it was in 1979 to cover at least 70 per cent. of all households. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request for a debate.

rose—

Order. The next question is on the same lines.

asked the Attorney-General if he will revise the criteria of eligibility for legal aid under the legal aid fund.

There are no immediate plans to revise the criteria. On 1 April next the financial qualifications governing eligibility for legal aid and advice and assistance will be improved by approximately 9 per cent.

Is it not an outrage that Shell and BP have just been awarded £33,000 from the legal aid fund—that is, from the taxpayer—in costs in the recent case over lead levels in petrol? Is that not the grossest abuse of legal aid, since under that system costs are awarded only if an unassisted party would suffer severe financial hardship without them? Will the Attorney-General take steps to block the payment and to ensure that such abuse does not occur again?

The hon. Gentleman speaks of a matter about which I have no personal knowledge. If he writes to me I shall look into the matter.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many defendants decide to have their cases heard in the Crown court on the advice of their solicitors? Is he aware that that increases the fee to the solicitor and therefore reduces the amount of legal aid that can be offered to others?

There is always a risk that an accused might not want to go for trial, but, for the wrong reasons, those appearing for him decide to go to the Crown court. It is difficult to pin that down, and I do not think that it happens often.

How can the Attorney-General maintain that the resources are not available for increasing the eligibility for legal aid when he colludes with an agreement which ensures that the public pay the costs of the abortive action by Mrs. Whitehouse in relation to the National Theatre presentation? Is that not an unnecessary infringement on the money available for legal aid?

The only costs being paid out of public funds are not the prosecution costs of Mrs. Whitehouse, but the defence costs. That was a decision for the trial judge.

asked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the opinion of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland regarding the territorial waters in Lough Foyle, he will set out Her Majesty's Government's policies on the sovereignty over these waters.

The Government's position is that Lough Foyle falls within the United Kingdom. The Government of the Republic of Ireland dispute our claim.

Is it not essential to maintain British sovereignty over Lough Foyle? Since it is disputed by another power, will the Government heed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that the port's pilot station be moved from Moville in the Republic to Port Magilligan in the United Kingdom, because its present location creates more doubt and further endangers shipping—two British ships having been sunk?

The moving of the pilot station must be a matter for Departments other than mine, and for the Londonderry Harbour Commission.

Do the Government intend to take any steps to resolve the dispute?

It is maintained by the United Kingdom Government that the present position is in accordance with international law, and so far as I know that remains so.

asked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor will review the retirement age for judges.

No, Sir.

Does the Attorney-General agree that it is in the public interest that justice be administered by those in reasonable touch with the man on the Clapham omnibus? Does he agree that when legal nonsenses occur they can often be traced to lack of such contact, as in not only the London Transport case, but of "The Romans in Britain" case, when he refused his fiat under one law so that the case was admitted to the courts by a peculiarly elderly magistrate and he had to enter his nolle prosequi to sort the matter out? Is that not unsatisfactory?

It would be unfair to criticise the magistrate who heard the committal proceedings, because the ruling of the trial judge upheld that magistrate's decision. One was in an impossible position, following a decision by the private prosecution. Having obtained a ruling from the judge that there was a case to go to the jury, the private prosecution decided not to go to the jury. In spite of the position, I had to enter nolle prosequi. That was entered with the express agreement of the accused. In spite of press comments earlier in the week, he agreed to that course. It was the only way out of the problem.

Is it not the case that those judges and magistrates who are not subject to an official compulsory retiring age are every bit as good as those who are?

I think that there are only three remaining who are not subject to that--one in Scotland and two in England. I have never heard anything but praise for their judicial ability.

asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to improve the arrangements for access to legal aid and representation by persons under 21 years who are defendants at juvenile or magistrates' courts.

I am not aware of any significant defects in the current arrangements, but if the hon. Member knows of any particular aspects of this question which trouble him and will write to me, I will see that he receives a considered reply.

I thank the Attorney-General for his offer to deal with any matter by letter. Is he not dissatisfied with the large number of young people who appear before the courts on criminal charges, without legal representation? Is that not tantamount to denying those people elementary justice?

If it is a serious offence, or an offence in which there might be a custodial sentence, legal aid is almost always granted. It is of interest that in the Legal Aid Bill before another place, the Lord Chancellor has indicated his support for the duty solicitor scheme. Provision is being made in that Bill for it to be extended. That will be a great help in the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of.

How seriously does the Attorney-General view the considerable variation between magistrates' courts in the granting of legal aid?

That matter has exercised my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. The evidence at the moment is pretty scanty and he will undertake a survey which I hope will be reporting in the autumn on that subject.