asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many grants have been given under the microelectronics industry support programme in each year since its inception to firms in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and what were the total amounts of money involved in each year.

No support under the microelectronics industry support programme has been given to companies in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, but companies in the region have benefited from the schemes designed to encourage the development and use of new technologies.

Does the Minister agree that that type of answer demonstrates the Government's attitude to the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Is he aware that there is high unemployment in that area? Does he agree that new technology should be introduced to help young people who remain in Yorkshire and Humberside? Is he aware that although we do riot expect silicone valleys to be formed in Yorkshire, there is high unemployment in the Dearne Valley—about 23·5 per cent. in the Mexborough district area? When will the Government do something for the area?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The programme about which he asked relates specifically to microelectronics industry support. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is little industry in Yorkshire and Humberside that is associated with the manufacture of microelectronic components to which the programme is directed.

rose—

Order. I hope that we shall have briefer questions. There will then be briefer replies.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House why the Government are likely to be more successful in backing winners in microeletronics than the previous Government were in backing winners in the motor industry?

My hon. Friend knows that the Government are strongly emphasising the encouragement of microtechnology in industry. We are likely to be more successful because industry is responding to the many measures that we are introducing.

Is the Minister aware that there are 300,000 unemployed people in Yorkshire and Humberside and that his Department has withdrawn assisted area status from many parts of the region? If the Government will not help in that way, what will they do to replace the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost in textiles and engineering?

A later question relates to assisted area status. We have already debated the matter with regard to Yorkshire. With regard to new industries—especially those making use of microtechnologies—there has been a take-up in Yorkshire and Humberside of schemes that are still available. I hope that many more will be taken up.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has yet made a decision as to a successor to Sir Michael Edwardes as chairman of British Leyland.

British Leyland announced on 31 August that Sir Austin Bide would become non-executive chairman of BL on 8 November. This appointment, which was made by the BL board, was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as provided in the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the company.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an encouraging appointment? Does he have it in mind to give any assistance to the work of Sir Michael's successor in terms of the operations of at least one European non-EEC country that is imposing very high tariffs in respect of its internal car production, which is resulting in unfair competition?

I am sure that Sir Austin will need very little help in his executive capacity, as he already knows his way around the City and Whitehall, and he has been a member of the BL board for some time. My hon. Friend also hinted at a very controversial point. We view with great misgiving the imbalance in trading arrangements between Spain and Britain and we look forward to some sharp action, with the Commission taking into account the views expressed by my hon. Friend on previous public occasions.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the appointment of Sir Austin will not lead to the privatisation of BL? Is he aware that morale has been built up in BL and any move towards privatisation and breaking up the company, which is now based on a heavy input of taxpayers' money, would be disastrous for the company?

BL consciously moved from having one executive chairman to having a part-time chairman and two group chief executives operating major separate business units. We regard that new structure as a means towards the earlier introduction of private capital and, in due course, denationalisation—or rather, the full introduction of majority shareholding from the private sector.

The appointment is most welcome, but can my hon. Friend assure us that Sir Austin will show more tact and diplomacy than the Liberal canvassers who arrived at the BL Longbridge plant in Mercedes cars, and would he care to speculate on the sort of reception that they received?

That is certainly a moot point. I believe that there is a clear duty upon those who advocate a "Buy British" policy and claim to represent British interests to pursue that line of thought in their own buying habits.

In considering this matter, will the Minister take account of the many thousands of unemployed people in the Birmingham, Northfield constituency who have experience in that industry and are desperately seeking work in an area devastated by the Government's economic policies?

Having fought the Northfield constituency myself in 1974—[HON. MEMBERS: "What was the result?"] Unfortunately, Northfield fought back on that occasion—I, too, am aware of, and sympathise with, the feelings of Northfield workers, but if they benefit from Sir Austin's management capabilities as his Glaxo employees did, their job prospects will be enhanced.

rose—

Order. The question of BL will come up again later.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of establishing information technology centres.

We are making good progress towards the 100 centres that I announced at the end of last year; 59 centres have been approved and 27 of these are already in operation. I have been delighted with the response from potential sponsors, who see this as one of the most successful schemes that we have introduced for the post-school training of unemployed youngsters. I am pleased to tell the House that, in co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, we have decided to extend the scheme to at least 150 centres.

Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a rapid increase in the number of ITeCs in the Northern region? In particular, what has happened to the representations that I have been making for a long time for the establishment of such a centre at Peterlee in my constituency? Finally, what are the Government doing to link the work of ITeCs with permanent employment?

An application has been received from Peterlee and is proceeding favourably. There will be an ITeC there. With regard to the Northern region generally, I am glad to note that the centres approved so far have been outside the South-East of England as it is very important for ITeCs to make their contribution to the technological base referred to earlier in relation to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. I am also glad to say that for youngsters going through the training centres, most of whom left school without any 0-level or CSE qualification, the placement rate is very high. That is why I am anxious that an industrial company should sponsor each ITeC.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a general impression that the centres have been extremely successful? Can he assure us that there will be monitoring to allow the presentation of more precise information about the success of youngsters going through the centres and the benefits for their employers? Finally, is he satisfied with the extension of the centres in Scotland?

Scotland has a proportionately fair share of the centres and it will have a fair share of the extra 50 that I have announced today. As regards publicity for the centres, I welcome the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House, as this is one of the most effective initiatives in post-school training that we have undertaken.

Is the Minister aware that there are virtually no training materials available for ITeCs and that the Government's ITeC consultancy unit is overwhelmed with work and cannot produce the materials required? Does he agree that this is analogous with the micros in schools project, under which 25,000 primary schools are to have computers, but for which the Department of Education and Science will not make available a syllabus, teaching materials or teachers? What is the point of announcing these grand schemes if no support is provided when they are set up?

The hon. Gentleman exaggerates, and he is wrong. Under the micros in schools scheme we provide the hardware and we shall also provide some money for software support. I assure the House that training material for the ITeCs is in place and available. There are already more than 600 students at the centres and I expect that number to increase dramatically in the next few months.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of the steel industry.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made on Friday.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance on Friday that he will use all his powers to ensure that other EEC nations cut their capacity, as we have, and stop cheating on prices, but will he make it absolutely clear that in the absence of progress on both those matters he will not close his mind to the possibility of controls on imports from the Continent, which now amount to more than three-fifths of all our imports?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I shall indeed press the matters to which he refers with vigour and with the intention that we should produce results. The last part of his question is in a sense hypothetical, but I take careful note of his views.

rose—

Order. The House may as well know at the beginning that I propose to call three hon. Members from each side on this question, as it is the only question about steel today.

Bearing in mind the huge closures and redundancies in past years and the horrible effects on the steel communities, will the Minister pledge that he will implement decisive measures to protect us from cheating imports? Will he also give realistic help on energy costs? Will he make it clear that the sacrifices of the steel communities in Britain, which are now languishing wretchedly with mass unemployment, will not have been in vain, in the light of the emergency now facing the industry?

I am very conscious of the substantial cutbacks that have been made in both the public and the private sector of the steel industry. I must point out, however, that they were not made in any spirit of sacrifice to the dictates of the Community. They were necessary to restore viability to our own industry. It is also important to recognise that the level of steel imports as a proportion of our market is significantly lower than that in France or Germany. The figure for Britain is 28 per cent., while for France it is 43 per cent. and for Germany 35 per cent. We must also bear that in mind as we consider these issues in the months ahead.

Notwithstanding the statistics that my right hon. Friend has given, does he accept that unless we ensure that these imports are stopped, all the sacrifices that have been made in the past two or three years, albeit very necessary ones in certain circumstances, will come to nothing? Does he realise that our steel industry will cease to exist unless, if necessary, we flout the Common Market regulations if the other EEC countries cannot agree to what my right hon. Friend will put to them?

With the greatest respect, I cannot agree that it would be right for the Government to stop imports into this country. There has been a traditional trade in steel, both imports and exports, over many years. We need to ensure that the stabilisation regime to which we have agreed with the rest of the Community is effective and operates fairly. That was the burden of my conversations in Brussels on Thursday with Vice-President Davignon and Commissioner Andriessen. We are not prepared to stand by and see our efforts to rationalise production frustrated because other countries are not prepared to do the same.

Will the Minister guarantee that another rationalisation in the EEC steel industry will not mean that Britain takes a much bigger knock than any other country?

I do not intend to preside over the closure of the British steel industry, and I hope that the hon. Lady will take that assurance as well intentioned.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to all hon. Members that we cannot have it both ways? It is no good compaining that other EEC countries are cheating if, at the same time, we refuse to accept the rules laid down by the Davignon plan which ensure that there are fair shares. Is it not perfectly plain that whatever the short-term considerations might be—

Whose side is my hon. Friend on?

—the only long-term hope for preserving jobs in the steel industry is effective European measures to ensure that the European steel industry has the maximum bargaining power in dealing with steel from outside?

My hon. Friend will agree that the stabilisation measures which have been put into practice are essential for the health of the European steel industry. At the same time, that does not remove from the British steel industry the obligation to be as efficient as possible to compete as effectively as possible within that regime for a share of the market.

Is it not clear from the figures given to the Government by the British steel industry's private sector that import levels in special steels are commonly greater than 50 per cent. and in some areas are as high as 80 per cent.? Is it not also clear that those special steel manufacturers cannot survive that level of penetration, and that unless the Government relax their cash limits on the corporation the five remaining major plants will not be able to survive? Do not the workers in those plants deserve a guarantee from the Government now that their jobs will be secure?

At the June meeting of the Industry Ministers' Council I called for a report from the Commission on the position of special steels. I hope that we shall have that report in time for the meeting next month of the informal Council in Denmark. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I regard that as a matter of great importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the output of British manufacturing industry during the first three quarters of 1982; and how it compares with the same period in 1980 and 1981, respectively.

Figures for the third quarter of 1982 are not yet available. In the first half of 1982 the index of manufacturing output averaged 89, compared with 99 in the first half of 1980 and 88 in the first half of 1981.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while no one can be happy about those figures, the great issue is how to deal with them? While no Conservative Member wants a general reflation of the economy, we believe that there is a strong case for selective import controls on those who cheat.

I share my hon. Friend's views about the figures that I have announced. They show that the trough in manufacturing was reached in the first quarter of 1981, since when there has been only a modest recovery.

Is the Minister aware that the director of the Manchester chamber of commerce said only this week that there can be no hope of industrial recovery in our region under present Government policy? The chamber specifically asked for a programme of infrastructure investment and a revamping of regional policy. Is there any hope of a positive Government response to those specific requests?

Those matters were taken into account by the Government in the formulation of their policy. The essential precondition for Britain's industrial and economic recovery is the further reduction in the rate of inflation. If that can be reduced below 5 per cent. , which is the main thrust of our economic policy, we may be able to move to a period of proper and sustained growth.

During the Government's lifetime, manufacturing output has declined by 18 per cent. Is it not true to say that national output is now the lowest since 1931?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is not unique to Britain. The drop in American manufacturing between the second quarter of 1981 and the second quarter of 1982 was 10 per cent. compared to 0·5 per cent. in Britain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats to British manufacturing output is the increasing tendency to see in import controls a way out of our problems? Does he further agree that it is useless to support the principle of free trade while opposing each practical example of its application?

We should all be aware that arguments for across-the-board import control are a seductive but wrong answer to Britain's economic problems. A protected economy will become a museum economy. However, we must ensure that free trade is also fair trade.

Do any of our main competitors practice free trade? Does Japan? What progress did the Prime Minister make with the Japanese with regard to their export of machine tools to the United Kingdom? What will the Government do about the number of Japanese cars that are coming into Britain at the moment? As the Secretary of State recently said at the motor show, our market is now saturated to 60 per cent.

The car arrangement with Japan is voluntary and the Japanese have stuck to it for the past two years in agreeing to restrict their import level to about 11 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. This week a group of business men from the Machine Tools Trade Association is in Japan as a result of the initiative that the Prime Minister took when she was there.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many staff in his Department are engaged in monitoring the activities of British Leyland.

Some eight officials in my Department, including accountants on secondment to the Department, are regularly involved for some of their time in monitoring the activities of BL.

What lessons has the Department of Industry learnt from the sale and subsequent cannibalisation of the tractor line at Bathgate, on which the Public Accounts Committee has reported?

One of the major lessons that we have learnt concerns the vigour with which the hon. Gentleman pursues his constituents' interests. I thank him for having had the courtesy to see the permanent secretary at the Department and my hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. In due course we intend to respond to the Public Accounts Committee on several of the issues, including some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised. However, I am sure that he will understand that it would be a discourtesy to the PAC if I were to trail or anticipate that response.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to appoint an outstanding leader for the whole of British Leyland, in the way that General Montgomery was appointed to the Eighth Army 40 years ago, than to have officials in the Department spending many hours monitoring its activities?

I know that my hon. Friend is an advocate of leading from the front. I have already assured the House that I believe that we have the right man and men for that job.

Does the Minister deny press reports that parts of British Leyland, such as Jaguar and Unipart, are to be sold?

We have yet to see BL's corporate plan, but at the current state of the art there are no formal proposals to sell parts of BL.

Commercial judgments must be paramount, but will my hon. Friend do everything possible to encourage the new management to buy British car components?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. We all recall the days when British Leyland asked for large sums of taxpayers' money, partly on the basis that BL had an important role to play in succouring British component manufacturers. We do not say that BL should buy British merely for the sake of it, but, when making decisions on sourcing, it should remember much of its previous argument, which strengthened the Government's resolve to give it financial support.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has had any recent discussions within the European Economic Community about policies for shipbuilding; and if he will make a statement.

No. There are no Commission proposals before the Council regarding Community policy on shipbuilding aids. Intra-Community discussions on the successor to the fifth directive are currently taking place at official level.

I thank the Minister for that illuminating answer. I am sure that the shipyard workers will be duly impressed. However, is it not abundantly clear that no policies will be forthcoming from the EEC to save the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry as we know it from virtual destruction? Is it not time that the Government took action and increased not only demand but the intervention fund amount? Is it not also time that they increased the levels at which the intervention fund can be used? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the terrible situation facing the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear? Does he intend to wait until the industry is destroyed before taking any action?

The hon. Gentleman's constituents may be more impressed by the fact that the Government have put more than £600 million into British Shipbuilders. Putting more money—via the Common Market—into an industry with gross over-capacity is not the right answer.

What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the repair in British yards of Royal Fleet auxiliaries damaged in the Falklands campaign?

I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend. For some time the policy has been for a considerable proportion of ship repair to be done in such yards, but I know that my hon. Friends are anxious that the private sector should also receive its share of such work.

Is it true that British Shipbuilders on Wearside are being denied the opportunity offered by two overseas orders simply because the credit terms and financial arrangements are not forthcoming and the ECGD will not give support to British Shipbuilders for those orders? Should not the Government at least get such things right? The corporation has won the opportunity to build the ships but the Government will not allow British Shipbuilders the financial arrangements to enable it to get on with the job.

It is all very well to say that, but the Government have made available a combination of favourable credit terms and production subsidies. The two together compare very favourably with the aid given to shipbuilding in many other countries.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of British Shipbuilders has provided both me and the Department with information that shows that we subsidise our shipbuilders and owners to a lesser extent than any other EEC country? Why do we play according to the EEC rules when every other EEC country plays according to its own rules?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend or with his conclusions. One must consider the credit and production aids together. Taken together, they show that we compare well with other countries. Indeed, that is before the £600 million of unremunerated public dividend capital that has been gut into British Shipbuilders is taken into account. Our aid compares well with that given by other countries. What we lack is productivity.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's special measures for small businesses.

We have introduced now nearly 100 measures in order to improve the working environment for small businesses, covering, among other things, taxation, finance, planning, premises, employment legislation, reduction in administrative burdens and advisory services. There continues to be a substantial take-up of many schemes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the many measures that the Government have introduced to help small businesses, but is he aware of the importance of small businesses to the Reading and Thames Valley area? Is he further aware of the importance of the help that should be forthcoming—although it is not always—from the major banks? Does he agree that local government should keep rates low in order to help small businesses?

I am aware of the importance of small businesses in my hon. Friend's area and in most local economies. However, substantial improvements have been made in recent years in the way in which the banks respond. The loan guarantee scheme has also helped small businesses. It is important that the range of advisory services for small businesses should be expanded so that business men can get the right advice. The small firms information service has expanded greatly recently and my hon. Friend may be interested to know that I am considering the opening of a small firms information service office in his area.

Is the Minster aware that two firms in St. Helens have recently closed, adding many men and women to the already high number of unemployed? Will he examine the situation in St. Helens and Merseyside carefully and see what he can do about granting special development area status to St. Helens?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have considered the grant of assisted area status, but there need to be exceptional reasons for changing the decisions announced in July. I am conscious of the role that small firms can play in the St. Helens area, in view of the reduction in the number of those employed in the larger firms. The St. Helens' Enterprise Trust's achievement in finding new jobs is one of the big success stories, and I shall visit it shortly to see for myself.

Will my hon. Friend discuss with his colleagues the possibility of greater discrimination in favour of small firms in the procurement policies of nationalised industries and of central and local goverment? I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that that would greatly help them.

I am aware of the importance of that area of the economy to small firms, but it is a difficult area in which to proceed. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. I have recently been to the United States of America to see what the Americans are doing. I shall continue to take a close interest in the matter. Indeed, the Department is reviewing it.

Does the Minister agree that the current unprecedented wave of collapse of small businesses shows that the Government's cosmetic measures cannot make up for the basic lack of demand caused by the Government's economic policies? That is the crucial factor about small businesses. All these little measures to aid the setting up of small businesses are as nothing when compared with the lack of demand on which small businesses depend.

The hon. Gentleman forgets that we are living in an acute world-wide recession, as I discovered when I went to the United States. He will know that there is a tremendous amount of constructive buoyancy in small firms at present. Last year, 15,000 more firms started up in business than went out of existence. That is an indication of that buoyancy. If the hon. Gentleman examines the article today in the Financial Times, he will see a further very good example of how it is happening.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the availability of small industrial units.

A recent study carried out by my Department indicated that the annual rate of supply of small workshops has probably tripled since the introduction of the 100 per cent. industrial building allowance for small industrial premises in 1980. There remains a shortage generally of the very small units, under 1,250 sq. ft. and this allowance has been extended for another two years for those units. In assisted areas of England where this tax allowance has failed to stimulate the supply of small premises by private developers, the English Industrial Estates Coporation has been very active with a substantial building programme of small units.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the large amount of work that he has done to ensure that we produce some small industrial units. Is he convinced that there is enough incentive for large companies which have large premises which they no longer wish to use to convert those premises to small units? Furthermore, is he satisfied that local authorities are giving enough priority to ensuring that small units are created when they are producing their development plans for planning purposes?

First, it is open to large firms to sell redundant premises and for developers to take advantage of the industrial building allowance to make the conversions. That is happening in a number of cases. Secondly, many local authorities are doing a considerable amount in this area, but they can help small firms by being constructive in the way in which they approach applications for planning permission.

Will the Minister take account of the fact that, for example, in South-West Durham, which does not attract special development status or even development area status now, the English Industrial Estates Corporation is not doing very much by way of providing small workshop space? Will he examine a scheme, which the local authorities may put to him, for granting them money to adapt existing redundant premises to create small workshop space?

The English Industrial Estates Corporation is doing a good deal. There is a heavy emphasis now on small units in its programme. It has built a substantial number and has a substantial number planned for the future. It is interesting to note that a great deal of that is now being provided through private sector finance.

Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the cost of small advance factory units? For example, is he aware that such units provided under the auspices of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas in my constituency could be built for substantially less if they were built to lower but equally acceptable specifications than are currently demanded by his Department?

COSIRA operates within another Department, but I am in constant touch with the chairman of COSIRA and the Development Commission. If my hon. Friend will let me have details, I should be prepared to look into them with the chairman.

Does the Minister acknowledge that Coventry, with its crumbling industrial situation, is worried, not about the availability, but about the cost of premises? The Minister is responsible for the small business area. When businesses are to be relocated and they are offered new units, generally speaking such premises are beyond the prices that small businesses can afford. The Minister should pay some attention to this matter. When small businesses are to be relocated, they should be given some assistance to go into the properties that are available.

That is certainly not the case with the many developments that I have seen. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking in particular about people who are starting up in business—often uncertain about their future and how business will go—licences are an appropriate way of providing help at that stage. I have seen developments in the West Midlands along those lines.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he proposes to meet the leaders of the Post Office Engineers Union to discuss the privatisation of British Telecom.

I met the general secretary and other Post Office Engineering Union officials last Monday 18 October, and I offered further meetings as progress with the Telecommunications Bill develops.

I fully understand the concern of union leaders about redundancies, but has my right hon. Friend made the point to them that, after privatisation, there are likely to be more engineering jobs in the telecommunications industry? Is not the whole business of telecommunications, with its association with cable television, set on a path of expansion which will lead to more, not fewer, skilled jobs in competitive companies?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is borne out by the experience of the private sector companies in America. The other point, which I made as forcefully as I could to the union leaders, is that they are seeking partnerships in the development of cable with the cable operating companies, but it does not generate confidence in BT and its work force when they engage in political strikes, such as the one we saw on Wednesday.

Does the Secretary of State agree that trade union members within the industry are attempting to defend their industry not only for their jobs but for the community as a whole? Has the right hon. Gentleman met the other trade unions involved—there are six major unions involved, three of which are not affiliated to the TUC—which are as strongly opposed to this proposed denationalisation as is the POEU? Does he agree that breaking up this company is not in the interests of the British taxpayer or the workers in the company?

I have always thought that the opposition to the Government's proposals is based on a misunderstanding. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has clearly misunderstood what we are going to do. There is no question of breaking up BT. It is proposed that BT, as an integral organisation, should offer shares to the public, so that the public can finance more of the investment in BT, rather than that such financing should fall on telephone subscribers as it does at the moment. That is not breaking up 3T. It is a single integral network, and it will be retained as such.

In any further discussions that my right hon. Friend may have with the trade unions, will he give them an assurance that there will be a built-in safeguard regarding the services in rural areas, such as my own, in any privatisation of British Telecom?

My hon. Friend will know that I have already given a categoric undertaking to the House, and I repeated it to the unions, that the licence that we shall issue to BT when the Bill becomes law will place upon that organisation an obligation to maintain telecommunications in rural areas. Anyone who is entitled to a telephone now will not be refused access to the telephone network in future. If my hon. Friend would use his very considerable influence in his area to persuade the public that the unions' scares are lies, he will do great service to the Government.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to guarantee that all uneconomic kiosks that are now provided will remain after privatisation? Is he further prepared to guarantee that increases in charges in rural areas and small tow ns will be no greater after privatisation than those for business consumers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a row going on in the United States Congress at present because of the fear of excessive increases in telephone charges for residential subscribers?

Like his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand what the Government plan to do. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters. He knows that in the United States, as a result of the consent decree, the Bell Telephone Corporation was forced to hive of F its local networks into separate companies. As a result, the separate companies, which were subsidised by the main network, will have to increase their charges. I am not proposing any comparable hiving off here.—[Interruption.] The new office of telecommunications will have to ensure that pricing is fair between different categories of users.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? Is it in order for a right hon. or hon. Gentleman to categorise people as liars, even if they are not Members of the House and cannot answer back? Is that a correct procedure?

Order. Only when such people are not Members of the House is it in order.

Let me make it clear that I am not—

Order. We are not going into the argument; we are discussing a point of order. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be pursuing an argument. If he has a point of order on which I can rule, I shall.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not rise to the taunt of "liar" because I thought it to be false. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that such a taunt was not out of order if it did not apply to a Member of the House. I am included in the category described because I am assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union. If such a description should not be applied to a Member of the House, I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

Order. When a general category is named, no hon. Member in particular is supposed to be in the mind of the right hon. or hon. Member who makes the remark.

asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions he has authorised under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act since May 1979.

Since May 1979 I have authorised proceedings in two cases under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, against one defendant in each case. I have also authorised proceedings in one case, against two defendants, under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1920.

Have any of the prosecutions related to matters currently being debated in the media, particularly in regard to security leaks from the Cheltenham communications centre?

The story to which my hon. Friend refers is based on an article in an American newspaper, which names the person against whom I have authorised proceedings under section 1 of the 1911 Act. That case is sub judice. The House will understand that it would not be right to have further public discussion until the trial is completed.

Having persuaded the High Court that there would be a serious danger to national security if the book "A Matter of Trust" by Mr. Nigel West were published by Weidenfeld's, is it true, as reported in The Sunday Times yesterday, that, nevertheless, it is likely to be published in America? If so, does it mean that controls in Britain are too draconian, or should we conclude that the security secrets of America's allies are insufficiently protected in the United States?

That does not arise out of the question. I know only what I have read in the newspapers about the apparent intentions of the American publisher.

On 20 July the Prime Minister said that if any evidence emerged against other persons relating to the Government's communications headquarters it would be referred to the DPP and that it would be for the Attorney-General to decide whether any charges under section 1 should be pursued. Is there any further evidence, and has the Attorney-General had to consider further charges relating to other persons?

I have had nothing in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman asks. The matter is totally unrelated to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

The Attorney-General has rightly said that one case under section 1 is sub judice in relation to the communications and intelligence centre at Cheltenham. However, arising from the reports, from history and from the assurances by the Prime Minister on 20 July, is the Attorney-General's Department motivated to carry out any investigations at all in connection with the centre beyond that of the sub judice matter?

Any question of investigations into the measures for security in any Government premises is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the last three months he has referred matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions directly as a result of specific information passed to him by hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to those matters that I have brought to the Director's attention into which he was not already making inquiries or of which he was not already aware. In three instances during the last three months have I referred such matters to the Director. I do not propose to make a statement.

Recalling the campaign of denigration against the Metropolitan Police launched by the Liberal Party last July, which is referred to by Sir David McNee in The Guardian today as

"the unsubstantiated allegations of anonymous criminals against police officers Mr. Steel refused to name"

No cases or evidence have been referred to me for some months by any Member of of the Liberal Party in respect of the Countryman investigation. Indeed, the second paragraph of the letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Leader of the Liberal Party, which is in the Library, states:

"You agreed at our meeting that no new information requiring investigation was in your possession."

asked the Attorney-General how many matters, arising from the Operation Countryman investigation, are still before the Director of Public Prosecutions for decision.

None.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is much public disquiet about the failure—I use that word advisedly—of Operation Countryman? Is he aware that that public concern will not be stilled by denials from retired police officers, no matter how eminent? Does he further agree that he and the Home Secretary have a responsibility to carry out a full investigation into the whole sorry business?

The problem was that the original Countryman investigation was carried away on a wave of optimism. Figures as high as 80 potential cases were given at one time, but when the evidence in respect of those cases was looked at with care, many times it was found to be hearsay upon hearsay. Often the evidence was from people with serious convictions who may have had a score to settle against particular police officers or against the police force in general.

In view of the criticisms made by Sir David McNee in his memoirs of the way in which the Operation Countryman team worked and his allegations that the inquiry went much wider than was necessary, will the Attorney-General tell the House how closely the DPP kept in touch with and advised those carrying out the investigations?

The Director of Public Prosecutions did everything that he could to keep closely in touch, but, unfortunately, from time to time Countryman officers did things that could not be justified. Without telling the Director that they had done so they arrested a senior officer on a charge that had nothing to do with Countryman. He did not learn about it for some weeks. There was found to be no evidence when the facts were analysed, and the officer had to be discharged.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that we lost two minutes of Question Time because points of order were raised. While it was entirely appropriate for you to take them if you wished, on many occasions you have reminded the House that we should wait until the end of Question Time. Would it be desirable to stress that again?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. If hon. Members raise points of order during Question Time, I must show the House that it suffers, and therefore bring Questions to an end at exactly 3.30.