asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has received the corporate plan for 1983 of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement about the future of the steel industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to receive a revised corporate plan from the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the steel industry.

I am currently discussing with BSC the basis on which its corporate plan for 1983 to 1986 should be drawn up. I hope to make a statement before the Christmas Recess.

rose——

Order. I propose to call first the five hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the discussions relate to the steel industry as a whole, not just to the BSC? Will he ensure that the interests of the private steel industry, in particular, are considered and that a basis of competition is established which means that those interests will not be put out of business by subsidies from the taxpayer to the BSC?

I have absolute sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The immediate purpose of our discussions is to agree the assumptions on which the British Steel Corporation's plans should be based. In looking at the market and the future disposition of Government funding, we are paying the closest possible attention to the needs of the private sector.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the total opposition in Scotland to the closure of Ravenscraig, which would destroy at least 13,500 jobs and devastate the whole Scottish economy? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that any shabby compromise involving partial closure is also not acceptable?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions have been taken about the future of Ravenscraig or any other of the four major integrated plants, despite some press speculation to the contrary. Of course, we are having to look in the medium term at the appropriate configuration of the British Steel Corporation's steelmaking capacity. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect any less. I assure him that we are taking full account of all the factors that bear upon what, by any standards, is an important complex of decisions that need to be taken.

Was not the contraction that has taken place in the British steel industry inevitable given the complete lack of competitiveness of the British Steel Corporation from the start?

Part of the difficulty over the past two or three years within the British Steel Corporation arose from the long delay that occurred under the Labour Government when contraction plans, which should have been put forward in the mid-1970s, were repeatedly delayed. When the Conservative Government took over, they faced a corporation that had substantial overcapacity. It was substantially overmanned, totally bankrupt and in need of huge sums of public money to save it. It is great credit to the management of the British Steel Corporation that so much progress has been made.

Does my right hon. Friend not feel entitled to resist further steel closures in Britain until other EEC countries show some sign of matching these with cuts of their own? Is it not outrageous that since 1979 more steel jobs have been lost in Britain than in the rest of the Common Market put together?

My hon. Friend is right. I have made this point not only to the Commission but to my colleagues on the Industry Council. There is no question but that there has been a very uneven response to the Commission's plans for linking State aids with the reduction of capacity. We have done a great deal. We now look to our partners to play their part.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the assumptions that he is discussing with the British Steel Corporation include its competitiveness, output and productivity and the output of steel-consuming industries for the next 10 or 20 years? If not, how can the right hon. Gentleman reach a decision on the major capacity that exists?

The talks cover all the items to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It would be beyond the wit of mankind to look 20 years ahead. It is as much as one can do to look five or six years ahead to see what the market will be like in the light of productivity trends, the trends of user industries and the world-wide trend of simply using less steel as other materials supplant steel in the manufacture of a wide range of artefacts. We are struggling to do our best. There has been delay because we want to ensure that we get the assumptions right.

After all the sacrifices and courage shown by the Government over the past two or three years in trying to make the British Steel Corporation efficient, would it not be a travesty if all that were to come to nothing because the British Steel Corporation was not given a chance to implement the full corporate plan involving the 14·4 million tonnes that was envisaged two and a half years ago by the chairman?

The market prospects for steel have changed markedly in the past two and a half years, and even more recently than that. In 1981 the British Steel Corporation produced 13·6 million tonnes of liquid steel with a plant capacity of 21·3 million tonnes a year. Recently, output has fallen to 10 million tonnes a year. There are comparable figures for the private sector. There is a wide margin for flexibility. We have to consider what the market for steel is likely to be three, four or five years ahead. It is sensible to plan upon that basis.

Is it not wrong to keep our vital steel industry perpetually on tenterhooks? Does that not have a grave effect on morale in the industry? The industry now deserves a substantial vote of confidence. Could not the Secretary of State best do that by restricting imports? I should like him to look at the 67 per cent. of imports coming in from the Common Market. The Government could do a great deal to stimulate growth in the economy.

I understand the problem for those who work in the steel industry. We are trying to reach decisions as soon as possible. I need no lectures about imports from the hon. Gentleman. We have imposed anti-dumping duties on imports from Spain and Brazil. We have imposed quotas on imports from Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.

What about the EC?

Anti-dumping investigations have been started recently against Canada, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil. That is why I have been pressing the Commission, with some success, to take a much tougher line in enforcing article 58 quotas and adhering to the Community's steel price regime. That is the way to prevent the disruption of the steel market in this country.

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to stimulate demand for steel? How has he responded to Ian MacGregor's proposals for the Channel bridge and tunnel project?

The amount of steel that would be involved in the Euro-route project that Mr. MacGregor is championing would make only a small dent in the problem that we face. It may have merits in its own right, but that is not for discussion today.

When my right hon. Friend listens to special pleading for various parts of the steel industry, will he bear in mind that any money made available can come only from profitable industries? If he takes more money from those industries, it will not be available for investment in the real world.

That is a factor about which my Treasury colleagues remind me regularly.

Is the Secretary of State aware that although the Labour Administration were reluctant to have massive unemployment from steel closures—we make no apology for that—other European Governments have shown even more reluctance to go along the path that he recommends? As the Secretary of State has said that there is to be a review of both the public and private steel industries, will he reiterate his commitment not to take decisions on any short-term considerations about the steel market? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no further closures while that review is going on, such as those at Roundoake and Craigneuk? Will he also ensure that the evidence being collected by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation about cheating on quotas and prices will be fully examined?

Of course we are not taking decisions on purely short-term considerations. I have made that point many times.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress has been made in clearing moneys payable to industry by the ending of the four-month deferment in the payment of regional development grants.

I am pleased to be able to report that all the deferred RDG payments have now been posted to applicants. That represents nearly 10,000 payments and £150 million paid within three weeks. That is 10 days earlier than the Department's target date of one month from the announcement; that is, by 9 December.

Will my hon. Friend accept warm congratulations from all those interested for the efficient repayment of moneys which are a welcome injection for hard-pressed British industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that industry shares his appreciation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the average cost per square foot of constructing small advance factory units.

I regret that I have information only for the English Industrial Estates Corporation, which builds factories and workshops for the Government in assisted areas of England. Its average cost per square foot for factories under 2,500 sq ft is £18·20, including cost of land and site preparation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that commercial rents are charged for such premises to give a reasonable return and that that has had the beneficial effect of encouraging a great deal of private sector investment in that sphere?

I confirm that there is now considerable private sector investment in small factories in assisted areas. The new commercial guidelines have resulted in a substantial success for EIEC. It is more in tune with the market needs of tenants, because premises are being taken up, and of investors, as shown by my hon. Friend's question.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the position whereby assistance is available for new factories but not for companies wanting to move to existing premises?

I believe that my hon. Friend is thinking about tax allowances, which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many new businesses have been created since May 1979; and how many new jobs have followed.

We have estimated from information in VAT records that approximately 240,000 new businesses were created in the United Kingdom in 1980 and 1981. Similar statistics are not available for earlier years. We do not have figures for the resultant new jobs, because this information is not collected.

Interesting though those figures are, does my hon. Friend agree that in an age of continuous change it is to new rather than to old ventures that we should look for pace setting in the economy and thus for job creation?

Certainly in many cases new industries, often created by new businesses will be very important for the future of the economy and for achieving structural change, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there are many older firms taking advantage of new technologies and new products which make just as big a contribution to job creation and economic activity.

Is not the probable reason why the Minister has no figures for the jobs created that, in the period in question, 1·5 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector alone, which represents a reduction of 22 per cent.? Will he confirm that those figures are higher than those of any of our major competitors and are a complete condemnation of the Government's policies?

The reason why I do not have the figures is that the best way of assessing the number of new businesses created and, incidentally, of deaths of firms that we have been able to find is through the VAT system. Under the VAT system, information on jobs is not collected.

Is my hon. Friend aware that three weeks ago the Commission of the European Communities put forward proposals to help those areas very badly hit by the decline in the textile trade, including proposals for the conversion of mills into new units? Would not these proposals provide precisely the sorts of new jobs to which my hon. Friend refers? Will he give them his utmost support?

I shall have to look at these proposals. However, my hon. Friend will know that conversions of mills are undertaken, not least by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, and that very often they create good new businesses because they provide just the kind of small staff facilities that new businesses need, but one always has to consider whether there is an economic case for the conversion of some older mills which are not suitable for this purpose.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that official statistics for the period in question show that the birth rate of small businesses is roughly in balance with the death rate and that businesses tend to employ more at their death than at their birth?

We discussed these matters in the debate on Friday. We have been working through a period of world-wide economic recession. An interesting indication of the amount of activity and buoyancy in the small business sector is that in 1980 births and deaths were roughly in balance, but last year there were 15,000 more new businesses than deaths. That is one reason why we are putting such emphasis on helping and encouraging small businesses, including start-ups.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to improve the industrial position in the West Midlands; and what increase in industrial activity he expects thereby.

Recent announcements of cuts in the national insurance surcharge, freezes on gas and electricity prices and increased local authority capital spending will provide further help to industry. In addition, as a consequence of our economic policies, lower inflation and interest rates are providing a better climate for industry. Between 1982 and 1983, total output in the economy is expected to increase by 1½ per cent.

Facing the real situation, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the reassuring noises made by Ministers, the industrial position in the West Midlands is as bleak as ever, with numerous plants closing? When is it likely that industrial activity in the West Midlands will be the same as it was when the Government took office?

The Government's expectation is that GDP and output will grow this year. That is a view shared by outside forecasts. The consensus of outside forecasts is that GDP will grow by 2 per cent. in 1983 compared with 1982, and the national insurance surcharge reduction will give £1·5 billion aid to industry. Of course industry has had a difficult time. What the hon. Member has to tell the House is whether the Labour Party's plan for a 30 per cent. devaluation, higher public spending, higher inflation and higher interest rates will do other than add to unemployment. It is little wonder, therefore, that the Shadow Foreign Secretary disowned the Labour Party's plan.

Is my hon. Friend aware that industry in the West Midlands does not want handouts from the taxpayer, but expects parity of treatment with other regions, which it has not had in the past, and looks forward to further reductions in taxation and, we hope, in rates and all the other imposts which bear so heavily on the private manufacturing sector?

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many business men in the West Midlands, and that is why they support our changes in regional policy which have reduced the area of the country covered by regional policy from 44 to 27 per cent. That has lessened the comparative disadvantage that the West Midlands suffered.

Will the Minister reconsider his arm's length relationship with the further shrinkage of the machine tool industry in Coventry? I notice that the hon. Gentleman is frowning. He duck-shoved it when I wrote to him about it. In view of all the wonderful achievements of the Government, about which the Minister has told us, how does he explain the loss of 4,000 jobs in Coventry in the past month?

As regards the machine tool industry, we shall consider any applications for help made under section 8 of the Industry Act. A number of firms in Coventry have been helped in this way. I repeat that firms in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will benefit from the cuts in national insurance and in the interest rate. That is what industry wants. It wants help on costs.

In March 1979 the chairman of the West Midlands economic planning council pointed out all the consequences that would flow unless the region adapted to new and innovative industries. In view of that, will my hon. Friend not weary of making propaganda for all the assistance available from the Government for innovation and new technology? Will he also explain why the region has made only 10 per cent. of the applications from the whole country for assistance under the microprocessor application scheme, for example?

My hon. Friend has made a good point. Although applications from his area for the microprocessor application scheme have been disappointing, on other schemes, such as the small firms engineering scheme, a great deal of the aid has gone to the West Midlands. I am sure that that will be the case with other schemes put forward by the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the overall percentage reduction in British manufacturing output since mid-1979; and what are the comparable figures for each of the other European Economic Community countries, the United States of America and Japan.

In the third quarter of this year the index of production for manufacturing was 15 per cent. below its average level in 1979. A table containing comparable figures for other countries will be published in the Official Report.

Does not that answer in effect represent an utter condemnation of Government policy? Will the Minister confirm that the country is heading fast for its first peacetime trade deficit in manufactured goods for more than a century? Are not Ministers ashamed to be presiding over that state of affairs?

The condemnation should go back more than the last three years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, for example, that in 1976 his erstwhile colleagues in the Labour Party published a confidential report which extracted the trends for the 12 years up to that period and said that there could be 2·5 million people unemployed in 1980. The hon. Gentleman will know why that projection was made. We have developed a mismatched economy over the past 20 years, producing goods for which there is low demand and not producing enough goods for which there is high demand. It will take a very long time to solve that problem, but I believe that, with a second term of office, this Administration will do it.

If the reduction in our manufacturing output is worse than in the other countries mentioned in the original question, is not a significant reason for that the fact that our output per man is much more inefficient? How has output per man increased in, say, the last three years? If it has increased appreciably, does that not augur well for British industry when the recession ends?

No doubt my hon. Friend will be aware of what has happened to the French and British economies since President Mitterrand took office. He will know, for example, that unit labour costs in France increased by 13 per cent. in the first year of the President's term of office, and that in the United Kingdom the comparative figure was 5½ per cent. I ask the House to consider the effect of those trends when mirrored under a Wilsonian Administration for a long time and their effect on our economy. My hon. Friend is right when he says that unit labour costs in this country have been a sad story for a long period.

After listening to the Under-Secretary's answer one would think that the Government had only just taken office, not that they had been in office for three and a half years. As investment and orders, particularly export orders, are still going down, will the hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects to see a reversal of that disastrous industrial decline?

The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that things that take place in macroeconomic policy have an immediate effect. I assume that he has never pretended that. The hon. Gentleman should also remember that the development of our mismatched economy has been two decades in the making, and he and his colleagues cannot disclaim all responsibility for those developments.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry which industries have shown the greatest growth in the last five years.

The high technology sectors, notably information technology, computing services, and aerospace, are prominent among the industries to have shown the greatest growth in the last five years.

I welcome the principle of assistance to industry and congratulate my hon. Friend, particularly on what he is doing on telecommunications. Is he satisfied, however, that we devote to modern growth industries a sufficient percentage of the national resources that we allocate to assistance to industry, compared with the huge sums that we have to pour into some of the older industries merely to maintain them in their present position?

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said on several occasions that it would be sensible to shift the balance of support from the older to the newer industries. I am glad to say that under this Government the amount of money that is available for research and development and grants available to companies in the private sector in these new industries has grown from about £50 million a year to about £200 million this year.

What has the Minister to say to people in the Northern region, where we have less than our fair share of the fast-growing industries to which he refers? Has he seen the report in today's Financial Times, in which the Northern region director of the CBI says that that region has the lowest number of small business start-ups in Europe?

I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman is to ensure that all regions, particularly the North, the North-West and the North-East, have more high technology companies. I try to promote our schemes in those areas, because I appreciate that many of the new jobs in our economy will come from the new companies and the new industries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the industries for which he and his Department are responsible have a far higher utilisation of capital in relation to output? Does he not therefore also agree that the old industries, in so far as they wish to and must bring in new technology, should get the same utilisation of capital? What is happening in Fleet Street shows the bad example that is being set by the media.

I do not want to give the impression that this new technology is just for new technology companies. It is essential that traditional and older industries in the Midlands and the North should also use it, or they wall not be in business within the next five years. Many of these newer industries are labour-intensive. The service industries in technology tend to employ infinitely more people in relation to the capital employed than do manufacturing industries.

Is not the real answer to the question the lawyers and liquidators?

No. If that is the SDP's net contribution to industrial policy, that party will have an even worse result at the next election than we expect. It is typical. Too many people are selling this country short in achievement and in the potential of the new technologies. My job and that of my colleagues is to ensure that we capitalise and build on that success.

Does my hon. Friend agree, in mentioning aerospace as a growth industry, that there is an urgent requirement, sooner rather than later, for the Government to support the building of the A320 airbus, to safeguard the jobs and future of this high-technology aeroplane?

I am well aware of the importance of this project, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering it.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry to what extent the competitiveness of British industry has changed since May 1979.

According to IMF figures, United Kingdom manufacturing industry's unit labour costs were 23 per cent. higher relative to our competitors in the second quarter of this year compared with the second quarter of 1979. However, this figure is misleading, because it conceals the important fact that there has been a 15 per cent. improvement in competitiveness in the last two years. This progress must be sustained.

Is it not true that we are more than 30 per cent. less competitive than when the Government were elected? As this issue has been the main thrust of Government policy, does it not show that Government policy has been an abject failure?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that it was the pay explosion in 1978–79 that wrought havoc with industry's competitiveness and that it took time to get that under control. Since 1980, rising productivity and much lower inflation have begun to restore our competitiveness. We must not throw it away by profligate public spending and soaring inflation, which would be the result of his party's policies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many firms in engineering have increased their ability to compete by getting rid of restrictive practices and accepting realistic wage settlements? Is he further aware that that will result in better sales when the world recession is over?

My hon. Friend is quite right. During the past two or three years that industry has shown how much can be done to improve productivity by getting rid of outdated restrictive practices, introducing new methods, getting rid of overmanning and bringing in new products which are better designed and more up-to-date. That is what we should encourage. We have shown that we can do it. Let us not throw it all away now.

As the exchange rate plays such a large part in the competitiveness of British industry, will the Government now come clean on their policy for the exchange rate? We have heard contradictory statements from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have created panic in this area. Will they now make a statement?

It is nothing like the panic that would be created if the right hon. Gentleman's policy ever came into being. This is a serious matter. If a small misunderstanding by markets during the past few weeks has led to the fall in the pound that it has, what would happen if Labour policy were ever put into practice? I repeat the Government's position, so as to make it absolutely clear. There is no exchange rate target. It should be beyond doubt in the markets that the Government have no ambition to depreciate sterling, whether by 3 per cent., 7 per cent. or 10 per cent., and certainly not by the Labour Party's 30 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the elements in competitiveness is an adequate supply of skilled manpower? Is he satisfied that when the recession ends this country will have a sufficient supply of skilled manpower to meet competitive targets?

I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not so satisfied. In my opinion there is a real danger of shortages of skilled manpower, particularly in the newer expanding industries. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, with the Manpower Services Commission, has embarked on a major programme to increase people's skills and training. I believe that my Department has a role to play. We must become more of a people-oriented Department, and perhaps spend less on things.

Has the Secretary of State seen the survey of business men in The Times today, in which they seek to get the exchange rate down to $1·50, which would amount to a 15 per cent. devaluation in the dollar rate during this year—exactly what the Labour Party has called for? If the Government do not have an exchange rate target, why have they intervened in the market to force up interest rates and industry's costs, so as to maintain the pound at a higher rate than is necessary?

The hon. Gentleman should read The Times more carefully. The actual results showed that while 17 per cent. wanted sterling to be devalued to $1·50, 63 per cent. agreed with the Government's policy of allowing the pound to find its own level.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will bring forward proposals for further developing the National Girobank.

As the National Girobank is part of the Post Office, the responsibility for its further development rests with the Post Office board. Such development is, of course, also dependent on Girobank's ability to compete effectively in the environment in which it operates. The House will no doubt have noted that the Select Committee on Industry and Trade said in its recent report on the Post Office:

"We are pleased to learn of the continued expansion in the activities of the National Girobank".

Will the Minister use his influence with the Post Office board to ensure that future development in regional policy does not take jobs away from Merseyside? Will he take action to set up Girobank as a truly national bank by amalgamating it with the National Savings Bank? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene with the Post Office board to stop the practice of giving free banking to high balance customers, while making excessive charges to low balance customers?

The hon. Gentleman's last two questions are, of course, matters for the Post Office board. I am informed that the National Girobank has given assurances to employees on Merseyside that there will be no compulsory redundancies arising from its move, as a result of a recent report, towards greater efficiency. The move towards regionalisation has benefited Merseyside, where a regional office has been set up.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no form of subsidy from the Government to the National Girobank? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that when setting the external financing limit for the Post Office, no account will be taken of any possible losses that the National Girobank may make?

I give my hon. Friend an assurance on his first point and an assertion that we shall pursue his second point. The National Girobank, as a bank, must compete with other banks on its merits in providing services to its customers.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what representations he has received following the publication of the Hunt report on cable television.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the development of cable networks in the United Kingdom.

I have received representations from many interested parties since the Hunt report was published, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for broadcasting policy, has also received comments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the mood among potential investors in cable television is one of increasing caution, due to the figures and market research that are being produced concerning costs and consumer response? In order to overcome that caution, will my hon. Friend consider sugaring the investment pill by considering the possibility of extending the franchise beyond the 10 years recommended by Lord Hunt?

Whenever I have spoken about cable television I have always made it clear that I do not regard it as an area for the "quick-buck merchants". Those who are thinking of coming in to make a lot of money from cable television will be ill advised in seeking to do so. Investment in cable television must be for a long period of years.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but will he give an assurance that he will look at the legislation governing the rights of cable users and operators to lay cables? Will he ensure that the rights are there and that those concerned can use the rights of British Telecom and public utilities which already exist, to lay cables expeditiously?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is a very important matter, because it could involve a great deal of digging up of streets and establishing telecommunications cable systems across the country. I assure my hon. Friend that our plans in that area are well advanced.

Does the Minister agree that with four channels already functioning there is enough television and that many people will not want to spend £20 a month for a bit of cable television?

When it was decided to introduce independent television, the same argument was adduced—that there was one channel already and that it was adequate. I remind the hon. Gentleman that much more than entertainment will be offered on broad band cable systems. It will be an electronic grid capable of taking a wide variety of services—educational services, remote education, services involving the local community, and services for the ethnic minorities——

Come off it.

It will be a great opportunity for the people of Britain, and I am surprised that the Labour Party—if the hon. Member for Salford. East (Mr. Allaun) speaks for it—is so negative and so unappreciative of the opportunities.

Is it not unfortunate that comparatively little attention has so far been devoted to the interactive services and to that side of the technology? Will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department gives all necessary support to the technologies of the future, such as fibre optics and lasers, which are relevant here?

I assure my hon. Friend that in our proposals for cable television we shall give every opportunity to the new technologies. I shall have something to say about it when I reply to the debate on Thursday.

Will the Minister tell us now what he intends to say on Thursday? Is it not important that the House should be informed, before the debate takes place, of the Government's intentions for the long-term cabling of Britain?

I think that that would be a discourtesy to the House. It is important that on Thursday the House should be given an opportunity to express its views on some of the technological matters. I hope then to give a clear indication. I do not think that there is much dispute between us. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to express their views on the broader issues of bias and the absence of political bias in broadcasting, and on the issues of pornography, public broadcasting and so on.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many schools were visited by his Department's industry education unit during the last 12 months.

About 15. School visits are not the most effective way of using the time of this small but very important unit in my Department.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has been somewhat backward in business and industrial education? Does he agree also that it would not be unrealistic to imagine that if the gap were filled—his remarks seem to imply that the Government are doing that—youngsters might be persuaded to set up in business on their own rather than wait for someone to employ them?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will applaud what the small unit in my Department is doing. It is supporting the Schools Council's industry project, which is precisely designed the help schools to set up their own companies. It supports the "Young Engineer of Britain" project. Youngsters are producing some staggering inventions. Recently we have made and are now circulating the film made by Anthony Jay, one of the authors of "Yes Minister", to demonstrate the value of youngsters setting up in business on their own. Already 2,000 secondary schools have requested and received copies of the film, which stars John Cleese. That is very good progress.

I welcome the very good work of the unit and the fact that the Department is putting useful equipment into schools, but will the Secretary of State co-ordinate a little more with the local education authorities and the Department of Education and Science? There is a danger of putting equipment into schools when the schools are not able to meet the costs involved in making proper use of it.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is already close co-ordination on these matters with the Department of Education and Science. Obviously, there is no point in providing schools with equipment if the teachers are not trained in how to use it and teach with it. The Department is running its own programmes of in-service training so that those who are involved, particularly with the micros in schools programme, have the means with which to teach the subject properly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most school courses concerned with this subject start in the fourth year and continue in the years above this? Would my right hon. Friend like to see technical courses of this kind starting much earlier, say in the first year of secondary education, and continuing into the second, third and fourth years?

With regard to micros, there is everything to be said for primary school children having such courses. There is a remarkable picture in The Times this morning of children of six and seven. Recently at a secondary school I said to the head boy "You know all about this", and he said "Oh no, I am far too old".

How can Labour Members help the Minister in his continuing struggle with the Department of Education and Science—a matter that is becoming increasingly public? Everybody knows that the micros in schools programme is being undermined by that Department's refusal to provide extra funds to enable schools to buy software. We all know that the strategy for information technology in Britain is being undermined by massive cuts in universities and in higher and further education. How can we help the Minister defeat the Department of Education and Science in this crucial battle?

The hon. Gentleman is being wildly unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My right hon. Friend is showing the maximum co-operation with the programme, which he launched when he was Secretary of State for Industry. It is absurd to imagine that a distinguished Cabinet Minister would, in his new Department, work against what he started in his old Department.

asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received from the Law Officers of the Government of South Africa about David Somes, a British national and a former South African police officer wanted in connection with the murder of four black South Africans.

Somes was arrested on Saturday and charged with the murder of a black South African national. He was brought before a magistrate at Bow Street on Saturday and remanded in custody. The case is now sub-judice.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that answer will give general satisfaction, in the knowledge that justice will now be done?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Attorney-General how many cases of shoplifting over the last six months have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Director compiles his records on an annual basis and therefore the figures for the last six months are not available. However, since 1 January 1982, the nearest identifiable date, 26 allegations of shoplifting have been referred to him.

Is it not true that there are many reported cases of persons being charged but not convicted of shoplifting who, under stress, commit suicide? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman review the national policy for prosecutions, particularly in the light of demands that psychiatrists be allowed to intervene before prosecution decisions are taken?

Every time a person commits suicide under stress of prosecution of any kind it is a serious and unhappy event. The hon. Gentleman is not right to say that there is a high number of suicides in cases of pending prosecutions for shoplifting. Nor is it right for him to suggest to the House that psychiatric evidence is denied to anybody. In many cases a person does not want the factors to which the hon. Gentleman is referring to come out until the trial or after it.

My hon. and learned Friend must know that there has been an increase in such tragic suicides. Does he not accept, as the Home Office does, that the trading methods of self-service stores are largely responsible for the massive increase in shoplifting in the past few years?

Do not be silly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) says "Do not be silly", but I am afraid that what I said is true. When will British law recognise that shoplifting in the modern world is a separate and different crime from ordinary theft?

I know of my hon. Friend's great interest and concern in this matter, and he knows of mine. It is idle for anybody to suggest that there is a simple substitute for the present system that will solve all the problems. Shoplifting is just another form of theft. It is essential in any prosecution for shoplifting that all the ingredients of theft are established. The most useful course that we can take is to ensure that that is understood in all cases. That will prevent many people pleading guilty when they are not, as is said to happen.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that shoplifting is not the same as any other case of theft, because so many innocent people are charged with it? Does he not recognise the vast danger, particularly at Christmas, of honest but careless people being charged with shoplifting, and of ill and elderly people being so charged when their right place is in hospital, not in the dock?

The hon. and learned Gentleman must surely realise after this time that I understand all those factors. I said that the ingredients are the same. One of the complaints that is made is that many people who are not guilty plead guilty, thinking that shoplifting is different from theft and that being found in possession of the goods is enough. I cannot make it sufficiently clear that that is not so.

Is it not time that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General introduced a better balance in the law to impose greater responsibility on shops and stores, because the merchandising methods of many of them positively invite shoplifting and contribute to their heavy losses, which are then passed on in higher prices to the honest shopper?

My hon. Friend will recall that I have previously referred to a study group that was set up by the Ministers responsible for these matters. Yes, those matters need looking into by those who are responsible. We should implement any practical suggestions that might avoid the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred.

Does not public disquiet partly arise from the fact that the decision to prosecute rests with a multiplicity of bodies who may rely on differing criteria? Does the Solicitor-General think that guidelines should be issued to ensure uniformity of prosecution? When will the Home Office working party report, and will that report be made public?

There have been questions about guidelines before, and my answer must remain the same. I do not think that any set of guidelines would solve the problems. Nobody has yet put forward a convincing answer to those problems. I cannot give a date when the working party will report, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentlemen's question is referred to those responsible.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of those replies, both to Labour and Conservative Members, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress so far made by the study group set up by the Lord Chancellor, as announced on 8 December 1980, to investigate, inter alia, the possibility of making microfilms of 100-year-old records of births, marriages and deaths, at present held by the General Register Office, available for general research by members of the public.

The study group proposed to transfer all Public Records Office facilities to Kew, including those records. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his interest in these matters, on 30 April I informed the House that while the full scheme is in abeyance separate consideration would be given to the future of the General Register Office records. The Public Records Office is exploring ways of providing the additional microfilm readers and storage space needed to meet the expected demand.

Has the microfilming of the 100-year-old records been completed? If it has, surely it is a waste that these should not be made available to researchers at the earliest possible moment. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any idea of the time scale before researchers can have access to those most valuable records? Will they be at Kew or in London?

If the filming is not complete, it is nearly complete. The main difficulty is the provision of accommodation. It is thought that it would he for the convenience of those concerned if the documents or films were made available either in central London or at Kew. Accommodation that would meet the requirements has not yet been found in central London, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not available at Kew. Therefore, the answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that the records will be made available as soon as solutions have been found to those practical problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those concerned are not dragging their feet in trying to find an answer.

Will my hon. and learned Friend try to give us a slightly more precise idea of the time scale involved?

No, I cannot, as it would be misleading to do so. However, I have not tried to fob off the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). I know of the concern shared by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend. However, there are practical difficulties. We must find somewhere that is convenient to those who want to use the new service, that is within the right price range, and so on. That place simply has not yet been found.