asked the Secretary of State for Industry upon what conditions enterprise agencies will be granted approval for contributions made to them to be eligible for tax relief.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what arrangements he is making for the registration of local enterprise agencies for the purpose of tax relief for which his Department is responsible; and what is the starting date for agencies to apply.

My Department welcomes the fact that contributions to local enterprise agencies will now be eligible for tax relief. The conditions for approval are set out in clause 42 of the Finance Bill 1982. The arrangements for giving approval by my Department will be as simple and straightforward as possible. Whilst approval cannot be granted until the Finance Bill is enacted, any agency trust or other form of organisation is welcome to notify my Department before then, and we shall process the applications speedily thereafter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country, including the Morecambe and Lancaster area, companies are getting together to have discussions to decide whether to form a local enterprise trust? I appreciate that approval of such trusts cannot be given until the Finance Bill becomes law, but can my hon. Friend give some further indication of the means by which those organisations would get the approval for donations given to them to be eligible for tax relief, as that would give a helpful stimulus to the discussions that are now taking place?

I am very much aware of the large number of firms, local authorities, chambers of commerce, and others that are getting together in enterprise agencies. There are now about 100 giving substantial help and advice to small businesses. I know of the agency in my hon. Friend's constituency. The tax relief gives them a further fillip, and I hope that it will encourage many more to join into enterprise agencies. With regard to further details, we have produced a fact sheet on tax relief which is available through the Library, through small firm centres and through the regional offices. Any company interested in getting tax relief should get a copy of that fact sheet.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we in Orpington are also eagerly awaiting the introduction of the scheme? Meanwhile, will he prevail on our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that the Inland Revenue relaxes the stringency of its normal conditions for this type of enterprise?

In this case the Department of Industry will be giving approval to the enterprise agencies, which will then automatically qualify for tax relief. Provided that the aims are met, which are fundamentally to assist enterprises, and especially small businesses, I very much hope that those in that category will qualify.

As the scheme moves to fruition, will the Minister not lose sight of the word "simplicity"? The success of the schemes has been that they have cut through red tape. This scheme will be successful if it is simple for companies to give money to such operations. I urge him please not to lose sight of the need for simplicity.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I assure him that we shall endeavour not to do so. The objectives are simply stated. In the first instance the requirements about the constitution and accounts of the enterprise agencies will be quite simple. Thereafter they will have only to submit annually an audited statement of accounts.

Will my hon. Friend comfirm that if approval is given and subsequently revoked there will be no retrospective: disallowance of the expenditure made by a company to the enterprise?

Revocation will occur only where an approved organisation fails to comply with the conditions of approval. If that happens, the reclaiming of tax relief must be a matter for the Inland Revenue.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the latest figures for the output of British manufacturing industry; and how this compares with three years before.

In the first quarter of 1982 the index of production for manufacturing was 89·8 compared with 103·0 in the first quarter of 1979.

Does the Minister accept that when North Sea oil is no longer available the British ecomomy will depend on the output of British industry? Is the hon. Gentleman as frightened as I am about the appalling figures of output, which is at its lowest level for about 13 or 14 years?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me to look a long way ahead, because North Sea oil is destined to last for about 20 to 25 years. The hon. Gentleman knows that industrial output in almost all countries has fallen during the recession. Over the past year British manufacturing output, when compared with the previous year, has risen faster than that of France, the United States or the OECD average. Is it any wonder that an independent survey in the United States has stated that Britain is one of the first countries to lead the way out of the recession?

Does my hon. Friend agree that all the industries supporting the task force in the South Atlantic are setting a marvellous example for the rest of British industry and are showing that if Britain has sufficient determinination there is nothing that it cannot do?

My hon. Friend is right. There have been some remarkable achievements by British industry, not least in the shipbuilding industry, in getting ships ready very much to time and to cost. One wishes that the achievements in defence supplying industries, which have been so obvious during the past few weeks, could be secured in normal times as well.

Rather than fobbing off the House with meaningless prospectuses for manufacturing industry, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that manufacturing output is now lower than it was during the period of the three-day working week? Will he give a meaningful statistic to the House by telling it precisely when he thinks manufacturing output will rise to the level that the Government inherited?

In many countries manufacturing output is lower now than it was in 1979. There has been a world recession. Over the two halves of last year manufacturing output rose, company profits increased by 25 per cent., business confidence, according to CBI surveys, increased, short-time working fell and the rise in unemployment moderated. By any standard a gradual recovery is under way. The Budget forecast is that manufacturing output this year will rise by about 3 per cent. We believe that a gradual recovery will take place.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that within the somewhat disappointing aggregate figures there are some rays of hope if the figures are considered sector by sector?

My hon. Friend is right. Private house building figures and electrical engineering output are at higher levels now than in 1979. According to CBI and departmental surveys, there are good prospects for the chemical sectors, the food and drink industries, mechanical engineering, pottery, timber, paper and printing. There are sectors where the outlook is less promising, but it is idle to pretend that there are not sectors where recovery is imminent.

Where are the signs of revival that were heralded by the Government at the beginning of the year? We have stagnation and the Government are pursuing a monetarist policy. What action did they advocate at the recent meeting of the seven nations at Versailles? Did they make any positive proposals?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is some evidence of recovery in the fact that manufacturing output is 2 per cent. above the level at which it stood during the spring of last year? Company profits have increased and short-term working has fallen.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much money has so far been committed by the Government to the information technology industries.

The sum was £70 million in 1980–81 and £91 million in 1981–82. This includes support for microelectronics development and application projects, development of IT products and processes and space research and development. Cash allocations for the next three years stand at £134 million for 1982–83, £165 million for 1983–84 and £168 million for 1984–85. In addition to projects already mentioned, the money will go on new schemes for fibre optics, computer-aided design manufacture and test, robotics, flexible manufacturing systems and office automation, as well as micros for general practitioners, the micros in schools scheme, IT centres and the small engineering firms investment scheme. I am arranging for a short table summarising the breakdown to be published in the Official Report.

There is no doubt that those are interesting statistics. Is my right hon. Friend certain that the Department is doing enough to put over the message that the real hopes of expansion for industry, security of jobs and obtaining new contracts lie with the greater use of the facilities that the Department has made available instead of the fears that many have that modern technology works them out of jobs?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. By 1983–84 we shall be spending twice as much on these programmes as had been planned by our predecessors. We are spending substantial sums on various awareness and information programmes to try to persuade people that more jobs are likely to be lost by failing to keep up with new technology than by introducing it. That is a fundamental truth which, increasingly, industry is beginning to understand.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall not properly develop our information technology industries unless we have data protection laws that are acceptable to other countries, especially those in Europe, and make it possible to share information between countries? How is he getting on with his battle with the Home Office to introduce a Bill next year to deal with these issues?

It will be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to decide whether a Bill should be introduced next year. If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in data protection he may be able, with his Friends, to give my right hon. Friend an assurance that they will not keep the House up for all hours of the day and night on freedom of information, which is a completely different subject—

It is exactly the same subject.

With respect, it is not. If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about data protection for the information technology industries, he will give the assurance for which I have asked.

Is the right hon. Gentleman happy about the fact that the level of our investment compares favourably with that of other EEC countries? Will he consider publishing a league table?

We can take some comfort from the schemes that are being promoted by my Department to assist advanced technology, which are having some effect. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent statistic that twice as many robot machine tools are in use in British industry as there were a year ago.

As some of the money will be spent on information technology centres, and as it is clear that good training is needed if we are to make the best use of technologies, when will the next round of information technology centres be announced, and will Lincoln be included? My right hon. Friend will know that nearly all sections of society within Lincoln believe that such a centre would do a great deal of good for high technology in the city.

I am well aware of the immense value of the ITeCs both for the spread of knowledge of technologies and the opportunities that they give to young people who are able to work at them. I cannot give my hon. Friend a date, but we are pressing ahead with the target of 100

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what role his Department is playing in the current negotiations between British Telecom and Mecury Communications Ltd.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he envisages the need to exercise his powers under the British Telecommunications Act 1981 in furthering the development of Project Mercury.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement about the progress of discussions with Mercury Communications Ltd. concerning the provision of new telecommunications facilities.

The Government, British Telecom and Mercury have accepted the principle of connection between Mercury and the public switched telephone network and of Mercury's access to separate international circuits. Negotiations between BT and Mercury are now taking place to establish the appropriate terms, and the Government do not wish to prejudge or to influence the outcome of those negotiations, which concern commercial and technical details. The ITeCs by the end of the year. If it appears possible to find the money and to get the backers to go further, we shall want to do so.

Will these schemes have an effect on the £300 million annual deficit in trade in information technology equipment and services? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest threat to our success in information technology is the constant cuts that are made by the Department of Education and Science in university and polytechnic computer science departments?

Very much at the heart of our approach to these matters is the need to correct the balance of payments deficit in information technology goods and services and to stop it rising, as one estimate has it, to £1,000 million by 1990 if we were to do nothing. That is why we are attaching such importance to the schemes. I remind the hon. Gentleman that even after the cuts that have had to be made in the funding of universities there will be 2 per cent. more places in engineering. It is part of the Government's policy progressively to shift the emphasis of university courses to courses that involve science and technology and numeracy. It is those skills upon which industry will have increasingly to depend in the years ahead.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not concerned about the delays that are inherent in this kind of triagular negotiation? Will he consider what might be more applicable in the future for further liberalisation measures? With regard to Mercury, will he confirm that orders for fibreoptics should be placed shortly, and will he give an estimate of when he hopes to see the alternative network in place? Will this not mean jobs, which critics such as the Post Office Engineering Union ought to take into account?

The alternative network will certainly mean jobs in the United Kingdom. I understand that orders will be placed shortly, and that Mercury hopes to provide this service to the public in the second quarter of next year.

I am sorry to press my hon. Friend further on this point, as I am aware of his immense contribution to information technology, but in view of the speed of technological changes will he confirm to the House that British Telecom does not have the right of veto, either in part or in total, on Project Mercury?

I can confirm that. Parliament has agreed that the monopoly of BT should be ended and that competition should be allowed. The issue of the licence to Mercury is the direct result of that parliamentary decision. Clearly, the will of Parliament should not be frustrated.

Is it correct that the limit of Mercury's market share is set at 5 per cent., but that in any case there is no possibility of that being reached before the figure is reviewed? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no threat to BT's position and that there is certainly no reason on that score for creating any delay, which, as my hon. Friend said, would frustrate the will of Parliament?

It will take some time for Mercury to build up a reasonable level of business, because BT has been in business for the better part of 70 years. Some anxiety was expressed over this at the POEU conference last week. Some members of that union feel that the telecommunications network is their property. It is not. It is the property of the nation. I was glad to see that wiser counsels prevailed. Mercury could bring extra business to BT.

Is it not strange for the Minister to be, in effect, bringing pressure on BT to reach a conclusion by the end of July on what is essentially a commercial negotiation, given that the principle is accepted? Should he not make it clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), and others, that the unions in the industry—the Post Office Engineering Union and the Union of Communication Workers—made it clear to him that they object in principle to the ending of monopoly, and, like the Labour Party, want to see that monopoly restored?

I think that wiser counsel prevailed at the POEU conference last week, I am glad to say. As to pressure on BT, the principle was agreed early this year, just after Christmas. We said then that the commercial details should be agreed between the two by the end of July. That is a reasonable time for commercial negotiations. I do not think that undue pressure is being put on either party to conclude.

Despite the determined efforts by my hon. Friend to liberalise BT's monopoly in this way, will he acknowledge that he is coming under increasing pressure to make BT still more accountable to the market place? Will he confirm that he will examine in detail any proposals to achieve that and offer greater freedom of choice, particularly in the supply, installation and maintenance of telephone attachments?

There is a question about freedom of choice later on the Order Paper, to which one of my right hon. or hon. Friends will be replying, although I can confirm that we want it. Already the range of competition to which we have subjected BT has had some beneficial effects for the consumer. British Telecom reduced trunk and international rates by one-third. I do not believe that those reductions would have taken place if the Government had not issued a licence to Mercury.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of the subsidy to be paid out of public funds to the British Steel Corporation in the present financial year.

As announced last Friday, the Government have set BSC' s external financing limit for 1982–83 at £365 million.

Given that steel imports have substantially increased in recent months and that the United States looks set to institute anti-dumping measures against European steel, is it my hon. Friend's opinion that British Steel's 1982–83 corporate plan still does not need modifying, and that British Steel will break even by the end of this financial, if not calendar, year?

We are sticking to the targets in the corporate plan and the targets that have been announced to the House. Provided that there are no serious disruptions to the steel market, we regard these targets as realistic. Obviously, as my hon. Friend said, the actions taken in the courts in the United States are serious for British Steel's exports. We shall have to wait for developments to see how they work out. With regard to imports more generally, voluntary restraint agreements have now been negotiated between the EEC and the third countries.

Would not the subsidy be reduced if British Shipbuilders were in a position to increase its orders of steel from the British Steel Corporation? Has the Minister seen the reports in the media over the weekend that Cunard is about to buy a replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor" from Japan, thus ensuring that jobs will not exist in British Shipbuilders that should exist in the future? Will the Minister intervene to prevent that contract from being made?

No, Sir, I shall not. Cunard's orders are a matter for the company. With regard to steel orders placed by British Shipbuilders, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If British Shipbuilders could get more orders, it would be able to place more orders for steel. However, that depends on British Shipbuilders reaching a higher standard of competitiveness.

What contingency margin have the Government allowed in the external financing limit of the steel corporation, and on what basis has it been fixed? For instance, have the Government taken into account the difficulties that BSC faced during the winter? Have they taken into account, or will they take into account, the effect of the American decision?

A £79 million contingency is built into the EFL of £365 million. That is considerably less than the corporation asked of us.

As it is clear that even the existing level of employment in the steel industry can now be maintained only by imposing heavy burdens on the rest of industry, is it not also clear that the time has come to switch the emphasis into providing new jobs in steel areas, rather than trying to maintain previous levels?

We must try to do both. It is important to replace jobs that are lost in the steel closure areas. My hon. Friend knows that that is what we are trying to do through the EEC measures for steel closure areas. At the same time, there is a future for bulk steel making in this country. The corporation has made great progress, thanks both to the work force and to Mr. MacGregor, in becoming much more competitive and reducing losses. In the past year, losses were £252 million before interest, compared with £479 million in the year before. That is a considerable achievement.

Faced with the position in the United States and the failure of the EEC to do something about imports, is it not a fact that Mr. MacGregor will need more money, and has he not been saying so, because of the lack of demand? Will that money be forthcoming?

Imports in 1981 were less than in 1980 both in volume and percentage terms. Because of our anxiety about the possibility of increased imports from third countries, my right hon. Friend is writing to the Commission to emphasise that the mandatory quota regime should not be undermined by imports.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to announce a successor to Sir Michael Edwardes as chairman of British Leyland.

Sir Michael Edwardes has made it known that he will relinquish his position as chairman and chief executive of BL when his contract expires at the end of this year. The question of a successor is being considered.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates how difficult it will be to replace Sir Michael, whose contribution to industry, and to his company in particular, has been massive. When considering the terms of appointment for a successor, will my right hon. Friend refrain from closing his mind to the idea of including permission to break down the messy unit of British Leyland? Will he examine other highly successful industrial enterprises such as Racal and learn from Sir Ernest Harrison, the foundation of whose management expertise rests on much smaller units?

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said about Sir Michael Edwardes' contribution to restoring British Leyland to viability. The nation stands in his debt. With regard to the future structure of BL, the succession of management and structure are linked. I assure my hon. Friend that all options are open and being considered. In due course I hope that it will be possible for me to make a statement about the matter.

Will the Minister say whether the successor to Sir Michael Edwardes will have the same terms of reference? Perhaps I may pose more bluntly what is implicit in the question of the hon. Member for Woking (Sir W. van Straubenzee). Will the terms of reference include the sale of other parts of British Leyland as they become profitable?

Yes. It is the Government's policy that BL should be returned to the real public as soon as possible. That has been clear from the beginning and it remains firmly at the forefront of my policy.

The real public?

I am not surprised that Opposition Members do not recognise the phrase. They do not understand it. Companies should be floated off and owned by real people, not by the State. That is our policy. We shall urge that policy on the successor to Sir Michael Edwardes, whoever he may be.

Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the answer to a question that any prospective successor that he may interview is bound to ask: in 'what type of industrial climate can BL expect to operate during the next three years in view of the over-capacity in the motor industry throughout the world, the measures that have been taken within the EEC to increase steel prices there and the trading practices of Spain? All of these are bound to come to any successor's mind.

Any successor will find that he has inherited a company with an increasing number of new models of cars that are demonstrating considerable prospects of success in the market. The effectiveness of BL's new model programme can be demonstrated by the fact that in the first quarter of this year sales were 6 per cent. higher than for the same period last year and exports increased by 23 per cent. as compared with 1981. The quality of the product and the cost of its manufacture will determine BL's success in the market. In that regard, Sir Michael and his team have made their contribution.

I appreciate and welcome the fact that BL's share of the market has increased. Does the Secretary of State agree that breaking up BL, which is one of the smallest motor manufacturers in the world, would be disastrous? That is the basic reason for our opposition to the proposal. Are not taxpayers real people as well?

The structure of the company is under review. I do not wish to go further into that matter now. With regard to private shareholders and the taxpayer—

Real people.

That is right. I doubt whether taxpayers feel that BL has been anything other than a substantial burden to them. I suspect that they would be very pleased if they knew that future capital investment in BL will be financed by the market rather than the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many small firms will benefit from the small engineering firms investment scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the level of the take-up under the small engineering scheme in the West Midlands.

By the time of the scheme's closure on 28 May 1982, some 1,750 firms had applied for assistance, of which 337 are in the West Midlands. All eligible applicants will, I hope, receive an offer in due course. Because o f the overwhelming response, my right hon. Friend increased the allocation to the scheme by 50 per cent. from the original £20 million to £30 million in total, through a real location of funding priorities within the Department.

In view of the considerable success of the scheme, will my hon. Friend consider reopening it as soon as is practicable?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about the success of the scheme. It is not at the moment possible to allocate more than £30 million to the scheme—we have already increased the amount by 50 per cent. We need to analyse in greater depth than has so far been possible, because of the overwhelming response, what the scheme has achieved and whether it has properly met all of its objectives and used taxpayers' money cost-effectively. I am going to Birmingham to visit the West Midlands regional office tomorrow to have a long discussion of matters with those who are handling the scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome the fact that he is going to Birmingham tomorrow as the first stage in the re-evaluation of the future of the scheme? Does he accept that it has helped small engineering companies in the West Midlands considerably? Will he elaborate on the high technology aspects of the scheme? Is it a way in which he anticipates continuing badly needed help for non-robotic equipment for small engineering factories in areas such as the West Midlands, to regenerate industrial activity in such depressed regions?

The fact that the response to the scheme has been faster than ever before means that it has achieved its objective of accelerating investment by small engineering firms in the advanced equipment that my hon. Friend rightly stressed. The initial assessment shows that small firms have gone up-market in obtaining more advanced equipment. That is vital. Moreover, they have brought forward investment. That, too, is vital. In that respect, the scheme is already achieving its objective and the good effects will continue to work throughout the year.

Does the Minister agree that the Department cut off the scheme because the Treasury got wind of how much money was going to companies that would have invested irrespective of the scheme's existence?

That is complete nonsense. The scheme was stopped because we quickly used the money that was allocated to it. We have increased it by 50 per cent. Many people in the engineering industry did not expect the scheme to be so successful so quickly. The scheme closed because the money was used up.

What percentage of investment under the scheme has been spent on British equipment?

I am delighted to say that the analysis so far shows that up to 60 per cent. of the equipment that will be purchased under the scheme is British. That is considerably more than has recently been the case. I was anxious that the scheme should not be a "Buy British" one, as that would conflict with our international obligations. Nevertheless, I was keen to market the scheme to British manufacturers as much as possible to encourage them to take it up. They have done so well.

How many small engineering firms have gone out of existence under this Government, thus contributing substantially to the total of 3 million unemployed? Does the Minister agree that a radical change in the Government's economic and industrial policy is needed if British industry is to be revived? Does he agree also that the scheme does not match the size of the problem?

The difficulty faced by many small engineering firms has been, first, the world recession and secondly, that many of their major customers, such as the motor industry, have become increasingly uncompetitive in recent years. A further difficulty was that a number of them had not invested sufficiently in modern, advanced equipment. I believe that the scheme deals with their real problems and will help them to become more competitive.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the provision of small nursery units for small firms.

The report of the study carried out by the Department of Industry and published on 27 May indicates that the annual rate of supply of small workshops has probably tripled since the 100 per cent. industrial building allowance for small industrial premises was introduced in 1980. There remains a shortage generally of the very small units—broadly, units of under 1,250 sq. ft.

In view of the potential growth of jobs in this area, I warmly welcome the tripling of the rate of supply announced by my right hon. Friend. Does he feel that local authorities are doing enough in rate relief and other assistance that they could give?

The interesting aspect is that the scheme shows that when incentives are given the private sector responds. The study showed that the vast majority of new premises were coming from private investment by local investors. That is an interesting indication of the way in which incentives can achieve the required result.

Is this not an ideal area for the use of advanced technology and information technology in equipment to allow disabled people to acquire education and to find employment at home? Will the Minister discuss this with his hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology? Is he aware that the development of information technology can bring great joy and pleasure to the disabled who cannot work and to the elderly—

Order. Questions and answers are unreasonably long today.

I am aware of the importance of accommodation for the disabled in many instances and my hon. Friend is examining this.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the index of industrial production at present; and how this compares with the comparable figure for the same month in 1974.

In the first quarter of 1982 the index of industrial production is provisionally estimated to have been 100·0, taking 1975 as 100, compared with 102·1 in the first quarter of 1974.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures tell a story of eight wasted years in industrial production, which applies as much to the Labour Government as to the Conservatives? What steps do the Government intend to take to increase demand for the products of British industry so that we may return to the increases in production achieved in the 30 years after the war?

The secret of increasing industrial production must be that industry becomes competitive and thus recaptures more of the home market and makes greater inroads into export markets. The Government's policy to reduce inflation, which is now having signal success, is the most important single step to increase companies' productivity. My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the signs. We are now through the worst of the recession. As industries become more competitive, we expect that they will increase their market share and that this will result in lower unemployment.

Does the Minister agree that the reduction in industrial output has been greater since 1979, and that it has been greater in this country than anywhere else in the Western world? Does he further agree that this has had a devastating affect on the real public of the North of England? Does he realise that more jobs have been lost since 1979 than were created in 15 years of regional policy before that?

I should be more inclined to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he showed some contrition for the part played by the Labour Party in the steady debilitation and decline of the competitiveness of British industry. As a result of three years of our policy, British industry has begun to regain competitiveness, we are getting on top of inflation and British industry will win a greater share in world markets. That is how to get the people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned back to work.

If that is so, why are there more than 3 million unemployed and why are firms still closing? Where are the signs of recovery? The CBI and other organisations say that there is no recovery and no indication of any, so will the Minister please give us some indication?

Recovering jobs will be a matter of recovering competitiveness, which the right hon. Gentleman's question does not acknowledge. My hon. Friend the Minister of State cited a whole range of indicators showing that we are through the worst of the recession and that the signs are now for an increase in output, albeit a modest one, and an increase in investment—a little this year and a faster increase next year. That is how we shall achieve recovery in the growth of GDP and the reduction of unemployment. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if the policies that he has repeatedly stated from the Opposition Dispatch Box ever came into effect they would put paid to any prospect of industrial recovery in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has had any indications as to plans for the Nissan project.

I recently met representatives of the company in Tokyo, but I am afraid that on the substance of our discussions I cannot add to my previous answer to my hon. Friend on 22 March.

Has there been any evolution in the Government's thinking since the project was first announced in February last year, in the light of studies of possible effects on our components industry and the nature of the technological gain, if any, that Nissan is likely to bring to this country?

No, the Government's attitude has not changed. We have had discussions with Nissan and we have indicated to the company the terms on which it would be acceptable to the Government for it to come to this country. In the views that we conveyed to Nissan, we naturally took account of the effects on the components industry. As my hon. Friend knows, we attach considerable importance to a high local content.

More than a year ago we were promised a decision on the feasibility study. Does the Minister realise that the delay is causing widespread uncertainty in the market place? What is his best assessment of the likelihood of the project going ahead? If it does not go ahead—and there seems to be real doubt about this—will he enter into discussions with the chairman of BL to see that it comes forward with a new project to produce 200,000 extra cars in this country?

I agree that it has taken a considerable time, but it is a very important project for Nissan and it is natural that it should wish to research it throughly, as considerable sums of money are involved. I am sure that BL will take account of developments in this project when making its own investment decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress has been made in the liberalisation of telephone attachments; and if he will seek to encourage a wider range of British-made equipment being made available for sale to the public.

The framework for the independent approval of telecommunication subscribers' apparatus AS now in place, following the incorporation of the British Approvals Board for Telecommunications on 7 May 1982. The British Standards Institution will open a new telecommunications testing laboratory on 6 July. Work on the preparation of standards is well advanced, and I expect the first standards to be published and approved in July.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Buzby bird has been behaving more like a cuckoo and seeking to eject other fledglings from what it chooses to regard as its own exclusive nest? Will he now take up the cudgels on behalf of the consumer, who favours choice, variety and competition?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's fear in this regard. There is some feeling that BT has become rather predatory. I assure the House that we shall take up the cudgels, and have indeed already done so, on behalf of my hon. Friend and all those who complain about this phenomenon. I have already approved a further third tranche of marking orders under the current procedures and we hope for rapid progress through the BABT in the future.

Is it right that British Telecom Enterprises Ltd. should be allowed to buy £½ million worth of fancy telephones from Messrs. Telcer of Milan? Why could not those telephones be made in the United Kingdom?

Within the confines of the GATT and EEC arrangements, we are mindful that liberalisation should produce jobs for British workers in British companies. I am bound to say, however, that liberalisation holds fears for some of us that unless British companies respond positively and quickly we shall run the kind of risk to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the financial performance of British Telecom.

The report and accounts of British Telecom for 1981–82 will be published shortly. Indications are that it has met its financial target.

Given the activities of monopolies in certain spheres, how will we know whether these are good or bad results?

My hon. Friend is right. It is inherent in the nature of State monopolies that it is extremely difficult to ascertain whether they are as efficient as they might be. That is why, as my hon. Friend said, the Government are vigorously pursuing a policy of exposing British Telecom to increasing competition.

asked the Attorney-General whether any prosecutions have yet been brought as a result of the renewed Operation Countryman investigation.

I am not aware of any renewed Countryman investigation.

Can the Attorney-General tell us what usefulness he attaches to "supergrasses" in investigations of this nature? Has the Attorney-General noticed that when "supergrasses" are discovered by the regional crime squad they tend to produce information that is useful to Operation Countryman, but when they are discovered by the Metropolitan Police they tend to be individuals who bring allegations against others, who sometimes become hostile witnesses later? Finally, can the Attorney-General inform the House when we can expect a decision on whether prosecutions will take place in the six to eight investigations mentioned by Sir Peter Matthews in his evidence to the Home Office Select Committee?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the evidence that was reported in the press today was given in March to the Select Committee. There are no further matters before the Director of Public Prosecutions other than the current ones arising from the Countryman investigations. As regards "supergrasses", there is at least one case of which I know where a "supergrass" may be a witness. It is, therefore, better that I do not comment on what he says or on how good or bad "supergrasses" may be.

asked the Attorney-General how many cases against police officers were referred to him in 1981; in how many such cases he decided to prosecute; and in how many of these a guilty verdict was returned.

A total of 8,830 files involving complaints against the police were opened by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1981. It would take considerable time to say how many such cases were prosecuted or in how many of these a guilty verdict was returned. Of the 690 prosecutions undertaken in 1981, some would have been in respect of files opened in previous years. However, the great majority of these would be Road Traffic Act offences, where the conviction rate is usually very high. Of the remaining 84 prosecutions, 66 resulted in convictions. Included in these figures were: 21 prosecutions for assault, resulting in 10 convictions; 41 prosecutions for theft, resulting in 36 convictions; four prosecutions for sexual offences, resulting in four convictions; and 18 prosecutions for miscellaneous offences, resulting in 16 convictions.

Does the Attorney-General agree that where a case has been referred to him following a complaint from a member of the public there is great dissatisfaction with what happens subsequently when a decision is taken not to prosecute because it is most unlikely that the police officer concerned will be subject to any disciplinary action? Will the Attorney-General, at the very least, ensure that where no decision to prosecute is taken, the member of the public who has made the complaint is given a full explanation of why nothing has been done?

Complaints end up on the desk of the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than mine. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman was one of the matters dealt with in the recently published report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The whole of that report is receiving the Government's careful attention.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the application of the double jeopardy rule in such cases, because it is not understood by the general public, even although it may be based, at least theoretically, on a good legal principle?

This matter also arose in the Select Committee and it has given me a certain amount of anxiety. It is certainly a matter that I, with the Director of Public Prosecutions and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, will be carefully considering.

For the avoidance of doubt, can the Attorney-General confirm that the cases referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions arose from complaints by individuals and did not include general offences against public justice, such as in the Operation Countryman type of offence? Has the Attorney-General noted that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has endorsed the recommendation of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure for a system of local Crown prosecutors to investigate such complaints? What are the Government's views on that proposal?

As regards the first point, the figures that I have been given refer to complaints against the police by members of the public. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have read the evidence that I gave to the Royal Commission, when I spoke strongly in favour of regional Crown prosecuting solicitors. As regards the future method of dealing with complaints against the police, the report has only just been published and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect us to have an immediate answer.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the use to date of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act.

Since the commencement of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 consent has been given to the prosecution in Northern Ireland of nine persons under the provisions of the legislation. Five of these persons have been tried, of whom four have been convicted of extra-territorial offences and one has been convicted of an offence which is not an extra-territorial offence. Four persons in respect of whom consent to prosecute has been given have not yet been tried.

Does the Attorney-General agree that that is second best? Is not the refusal of extradition in cases of alleged terrorism now the subject of concern in the Supreme Court of the Republic? However the Act works, will Her Majesty's Government continue to inform the Irish Government that the Irish dimension in which we are interested is the observance of international legal obligations by the Dublin Government?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the Southern Irish legislation—the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, which is a different Act. It gives the Republic the power to prosecute those cases referred to it by the Chief Constable of Ulster. In the past few months nine persons have been referred, six have been convicted and three acquitted. Others are pending. That Act has been a useful additional weapon in dealing with serious crime, but, as my hon. Friend will know, the Government's view has always been that extradition would be more effective.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend made any progress in his talks with the Attorney-General of the Republic?

I had very useful discussions with the previous Attorney-General of the Republic and I am hoping that I shall be able to reach the same degree of happy discussion with his successor.

asked. the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied that the present law and practice covering the registration and review of charities gives adequate protection to the public.

I consider that there is adequate protection to the public under the present arrangements so long as it is remembered that if cases occur in which it appears that a charity—or body claiming to be a charity—is being used for non-charitable or private purposes it is up to the public to draw the circumstances to the attention of the Charity Commissioners, or to my attention.

Does the Attorney-General believe that the whole law of charity is in desperate need of renewal? Is he aware that neither the report of Lord Goodman's committee nor the report of the House of Commons Expenditure Committee has yet been responded to properly by the. Government? It is absurd that Eton college can be a charity whereas the Penlee lifeboat fund cannot. Have the Government any plans for legislation?

Everyone involved was anxious that the Penlee lifeboat fund should not be a charity. Therefore, that is not a particularly fair comparison with a public school. The law on this matter is in a state of perpetual development, and as the needs of society change, so does the character of charity. It is important that the Law should be as flexible as possible, because, whatever their other attractions, statutory definitions are inclined to present great problems if they lack this important measure of flexibility.

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his full reply to my question. Is he aware of the recent disturbing revelations concerning a leader of the Earmark Trust? On the basis of what my right hon. and learned Friend told me, can he assure me that the law on charities is adequate to cover those who may have donated sizeable assets to a charity but later find that they have done so under false pretences?

I repeat what I said in answer to my hon. Friend's question. If it is considered that the funds are being used for non-charitable or private purposes, that should be drawn to the attention of the Charity Commissioners or myself, so that action can be taken.

Why is the Attorney-General answering this question? Has responsibility for the law on charities been transferred from the Home Secretary to the Attorney-General?

For his sins, the Attorney-General has over many years had a responsibility in the public interest to protect both charities and those who might be defrauded by bogus charities.