asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the total subsidy paid to British Leyland, British Shipbuilders and the British Steel Corporation in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for one and two years before.

Assistance to BL, British Shipbuilders and the British Steel Corporation was nearly £1·75 billion in 1980–81, £1·5 billion in 1981–82 and is forecast to have been about £1–25 billion in 1982–83. My forecast for 1983–84 is a further reduction to under £0·75 billion.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information and I welcome the trend. Will he confirm that there has been a dramatic improvement in efficiency, especially in output per man, in those three industries? Will he further confirm that assistance to those industries represents a smaller proportion than hitherto of total Government funds available to industry?

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. Support for those casualties of the past will be less than 40 per cent. of my total budget for 1983–84 for the first time in several years. There have been notable improvements in efficiency. However, those industries must become fully competitive if they are to survive in today's world.

What is the Secretary of State's view of the proposal of BSC' s chairman to spend £100 million on buying an American steelworks and closing the strip mills at Ravenscraig? Is he aware that Ravenscraig is producing more than 35,000 tonnes of steel a week, that it is achieving a level of productivity that is better than 4·1 man hours per tonne and that it is expected to break even this month, contrary to the views of the chairman of BSC and of the Industry and Trade Committee?

The Government have received no formal proposal from the BSC about a deal with an American steel company. Negotiations of that type would initially be a matter for the corporation. The Government would expect the BSC to consult them about such an arrangement before any final decisions were taken.

Did not the Minister of State show extraordinary ideological fanaticism last week when, in a speech about the steel industry, he suggested that its trials and tribulations were paving the way for privatisation? Will that not undermine further the moral of the industry and create additional uncertainty?

My hon. Friend made an excellent speech, which was well reported. The Social Democratic party believes that ownership, finance, the appointment of managers and accountability to the public are irrelevant to the problems of these industries. I profoundly disagree. The decisions that I and my colleagues have taken in recent years about those industries have convinced me that they ought to be in the private sector.

Could not those gigantic sums have been used to provide more jobs, possibly in the tourist industry? Failing that, would not those sums have been better employed in providing the country with decent social services?

I gave a full explanation of that decision in the House on 20 December 1982. Certain comments have been made by the Select Committee, to which the Government will be replying in due course. The Government took the right decision to maintain steel making at Ravenscraig.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that if the proposed agreement goes ahead, it could lead to the loss of 2,000 jobs at Ravenscraig, the closing of a strip mill and the investment of £100 million outside the United Kingdom? Does that not contravene what the Government agreed in December, which was to keep the five major plants open and fully employed?

As I understand the proposal that Mr. MacGregor has been discussing with the trade unions in Scotland, it would involve—as I think he put to them—a five-year guarantee for the off-take of steel made at the heavy end at Ravenscraig. As I said to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray), if the proposals involved the closure of the hot strip mill, the Government would need to be consulted.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will report on progress in setting up Teletext.

Teletex is British Telecom's text communication service which enables word processors and computer terminals to communicate over the telephone network. BT hopes to begin a service later this year.

I should point out a misprint on the Order Paper? Teletex is spelt with an "x". There should not be a "t" at the end.

My hon. Friend is right to say that Teletex should not be confused with Teletext. Teletex is a means of communicating text rapidly between terminals over the BT network. The scheme is one of enlightened purchasing, which is designed to pull through technology on a user requirement basis. It will leave the United Kingdom Limited very well placed in international markets.

I may agree with the Minister, but is it not also true that we are falling behind many of our competitors in information technology and technology in general and that we need even more money and an even greater drive?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, under this Administration, there has been a huge shift of resources towards the new technologies, particularly information technology, under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. This is a most dynamic area of the market, and we are anxious to ensure that British companies begin to redress the imbalance in payments in high technology.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much Government expenditure there has been on the United Kingdom space programme in each of the last four years; and whether he intends to increase the budget for the financial year 1983–84.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much has been committed over the last four years to the United Kingdom space programme; and whether he intends to increase the space budget.

Over the last four years my Department has invested the sums of £37 million. £44 million, £58 million and £64 million, respectively, in the United Kingdom space programme. The published estimate for 1983–84 is £61 million. Expenditure beyond that year has not yet been decided.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the majority of that expenditure represents our contribution to the European Space Agency? Does he agree that, although those contributions are matched by other member states within ESA, they produce a substantial return which has made this country the pre-eminent manufacturer of communications satellites in Europe?

My hon. Friend is correct. ESA is one of the most striking examples of the success of international co-operation in technology. It has ensured that Europe has a space industry, and we are one of the leading countries in the world—second only to America—in making communications satellites.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people still find it difficult to grasp the benefits of the space programme? Does he further agree that the programme is not science fiction or pie in the sky, but will be of real economic benefit both to industry and to employees in this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Few people realise how significant our space industry is. It employs about 3,500 engineers and has a turnover of more than £200 million per year. There are many jobs in it for us. In addition over the next 20 years the market for communications satellites will be worth about £10 billion. Britain cannot afford to fall behind.

Does my hon. Friend agree that after Ariane IV and the space laboratory follow-on programme there are some fundamental decisions to be made for Europe? Would it not be better for this country to put more money into the ESA budget so that we may obtain decisions in favour of a manned space programme, reusable vehicles and so on?

In cash terms we have more than doubled the amount that we shall spend on space during the lifetime of this Government. I agree that there are some large projects in the offing, and I particularly want to support earth remote sensing, in which we have considerable skills.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the rate of progress of completion and take-up of English Industrial Estates Corporation small workshop units.

Since 1 April 1982 EIEC has completed 782 small factories and workshop units. Four hundred and seventy-three have been let or sold to new occupiers. A further 106 units are reserved for new tenants who have not yet taken up occupation, and serious inquiries continue at well above the rate of recent years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the most effective ways of increasing our national income and of providing better employment prospects? How does the figure compare with previous years? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that everything possible is being done, or should more be done?

I agree that this trend and the progress that is being made are important, because, especially in assisted areas, there was a serious shortage of small workshop units for small businesses. Such units can add greatly to economic activity. The rate of lettings was more than double that of last year, which was itself a record. It shows that the corporation and the Government are justified in concentrating on small workshop units, because that is what the market needs. I should like to see that encouraging progress continue and the private sector involved rather more. Another encouraging aspect is that the corporation is finding that it is now getting a good return on the lettings of those small units.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to assist the paper and board industry to become more competitive by help with restructuring and re-equipment.

Companies in the paper and board industry, like other industries, can already benefit from a wide range of industrial support measures to improve their competitiveness.

Does the Minister agree that it makes more sense, is cheaper and more efficient to save rather than to create new jobs in the paper and board industry? If so, will he consider putting between £5 million and £10 million into Thames Board Mills, Warrington, to prevent it from closing, and thus save between 800 and 1,000 jobs?

I have met the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), as well as the chairman of Thames Board Mills, to consider the problems facing that plant. The company has told me that it has examined the possibility of keeping the mill open, but unfortunately it cannot foresee a viable future for it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the increased use of indigenous raw materials, energy resources and new technology, there is no reason why the British paper industry should not continue to flourish and play a major role in the economy? Does my hon. Friend further agree that to achieve that we must ensure a flexible use of the Industry Act for worthwhile projects?

We provide support for various projects in the paper and board industry. There has been a freeze in the average level of electricity prices for 1983–84. Of course, new investment is being made all the time. There is a big investment of £100 million in Workington and about £40 million or £50 million has been invested in Ellesmere Port by Consolidated Bathurst.

Does cheaper energy in Europe damage the interests of British producers?

That is a very wide question. The disadvantage that high energy users have borne in this country has been to some extent reduced, although not entirely eliminated, by the adjustment in the value of sterling.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the development of the electronics industry in the northern region.

The electronics industry is now considered to be one of the growth sectors of the northern region's economy. There are 120 companies in the region involved in electronics employing some 16,000 people. Of special importance is the growing number of smaller companies which have a positive attitude and are eager to expand into new markets, products and technology.

Is consideration being given to the location of the next Inmos factory? Is a decision about the location to be made by the summer? If so, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the northern region will be given full consideration? Could not a direct Government decision have an effect on the high level of unemployment in the north?

The immediate problem for Inmos—although I hope that it will not be a problem for much longer—is the ramping up of production on its current site. There are no decisions on the locations of future plants. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be proud—at least hope he is—of the record of electronics companies in the northern region and the northeast, which have made a magnificent response to some of the Government's schemes, because they are moving into new markets in areas where there is a positive and growing balance of payments.

I do not detract from the point made about the northern region, which I fully accept, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a very good case for persevering with the electronics industry in the midlands, which should form one of the main springs of future growth in the second industrial revolution?

The midlands region—in particular, the west midlands—is conscious of the fact that there is an imbalance in the representation of industries in the region. The Department of Industry's regional office is conscious that more can be done in that respect, and we are anxious to help in any way we can. However, it must be remembered that these are demand-led schemes, and the response from the regions depends on the number of applications received from the companies within the regions.

Is the Minister proud of the fact, that, throughout the Government's term of office, our deficit in balance of trade in electronics equipment, has worsened?

The major reason for the deficit is the imbalance predominantly in VRCs. There are examples now of companies wishing to come here and manufacture video recorders, but in regard to the main thrust of our policy, particularly in the areas where we can pall through new companies and technologies, such as the minis and the main-frame computers, the Government's record is nothing to be ashamed of. We have introduce some new growth in those areas.

Is not the proof of the pudding in the eating? Would it not have been more beneficial to the northern region if the Government, through the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, had placed orders for antennae for RAF Oakhanger at Baldock ratfte than with the United States?

There is always a difficult balance to maintain in public purchasing orders. We have to balance the needs of users and the specifications they lay down in public purchasing policies with the capabilities of the United Kingdom industry. Wherever British companies, on merit, can win contracts, we are in favour of it, and will do everything to encourage it within the GATT and EC obligations placed upon us.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his most recent estimate of the level of investment in manufacturing industry in 1982.

It is £7·14 billion at today's prices, including leased assets.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a sustained high level of investment is essential for competitiveness? Is not the Government's record disastrous in the four years in which they have held office?

The fall in investment is reflected by the severe effects of the recession in the United Kingdom. I am convinced that by far the best way to encourage investment is for industry to feel a recovery in its profit levels, for without profits it cannot hope to invest.

Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the firm commitment that he gave to manufacturing industry on Thursday when he met representatives of the paper and board industry?

In response to my hon. Friend's request—[Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members should laugh. This is a very important issue. I calculated recently—imagining a purely hypothetical situation—that if we did not have any manufacturing industry whatever we would have to earn about £70 billion a year from services, which is a ludicrous figure. Manufacturing industry is absolutely essential, and pert of the Government' policy is to encourage and promote the health of manufacturing industry.

Does the Secretary of State agree that manufacturing industry has suffered a mortal blow under this Government? Does he further agree that the Government's policy has led to manufacturing industry being made leaner, but not fitter? Does he accept that investment in manufacturing industry has fallen by 33 per cent.? What does he propose to do about it?

Industrialists wanted more than anything a fall in inflation, in interest rates, and in the increase in unit labour costs. All those things are happening under this Government. They are the essential preconditions for our industry becoming more competitive.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the average length of time it takes to process development area grants

On average, regional development grants are now paid eight or nine weeks after receipt of the grant application.

I know that the Minister is aware that the question relates to a firm called Fusidex, in my constituency, which has experienced considerable delays in getting Government grants. I received a letter this morning from the Minister about the matter. Will he do all he can to help the company, which is hoping to employ a considerable number of my constituents and has export orders, but none of which will come to anything if Government grants are not made available quickly?

We shall, of course, do everything we can to help the company. My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman about the matter. No application for regional development grant has yet been received from the company, although my officials visited the company and there have been discussions about selective financial assistance. The company made an application for urban development grant, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but we shall do all we can to help.

I sympathise with the concern of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). Does my hon. Friend feel that the time has come to review the value of development area status to the country as a whole, bearing in mind that it is a considerable burden on industry, reduces its competitiveness, and is not available to substantial areas which would like to have the same opportunities?

As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a fundamental review—the Quinlan review—of regional policy. We have completed the first stage and are now considering what further work needs to be done. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that very serious issues are involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with the chairman of British Leyland on capital investment for new product development.

There have been a number of discussions with BL about its capital programmes. Details of these are commercially confidential.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that British Leyland is now firmly on course to achieve profitability within the next year or two years?

British Leyland, as it has revealed in the summary of its corporate plan placed before the House, is on target to break even before interest this year, and is on target to break even after interest next year. It has been immensely encouraging that the new models, the Maestro and the Metro, have been so well received. I am sure that the House would want to congratulate British Leyland on the success of the Metro, which in February was the best selling car with 10·3 per cent. of the market.

Will the Minister accept our congratulations—I have seen the Maestro being made—on the new product? Will he assure the House that British Leyland will continue to have the support of the Government in developing new models for the future? Will he also ensure that British taxpayers' money will not be used by British Leyland to buy gear boxes and other parts from foreign lands?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the purchase of components is a matter for the commercial judgment of British Leyland, but over 90 per cent. of the content of the Maestro has been purchased in Britain. I know that British Leyland intends that the overwhelming majority of its purchases shall be in Britain.

When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to allow private sector investment to go back into major parts of British Leyland?

British Leyland, in its corporate plan, has said that it expects to introduce private capital into its mainstream activities within the next two years. We hope that that will pave the way for the eventual return of the business to the private sector.

Has the Minister discussed with the chairman of BL the use of flexible machine systems and, if so, will he be buying British?

Yes, we have discussed that matter with British Leyland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at Longbridge and at Cowley there is a high degree of automation and that those factories are planning to introduce flexible manufacturing systems. The vast majority of British Leyland's purchases are made in Britain. Where they are not, it is because what is wanted cannot be obtained at the right price.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent representations he has received from manufacturing industry concerning free ports; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received one representation about free ports.

Despite that rather small harvest of support, will my hon. Friend nevertheless lend his Department's weight to backing the recommendations of the recent Treasury working party, which proposes early legislation to introduce free ports into Britain? Is my hon. Friend aware that free ports are likely to be good news to British industry because, in the view of many British industrialists, notably Mr. Clive Sinclair, they are likely to produce new marketing opportunities and many new jobs?

I should make it clear that the primary responsibility for this issue does not rest with my right hon. Friend, which explains why there have been only a few representations to him. The Government are considering the report and will in due course announce their recommendations. As my hon. Friend will know, the working party recommended that free ports should be set up. I have no doubt that in so doing, it took into account some of the comments that he has made.

Does the Minister agree that it would be an interesting concept to have one of the proposed new free ports linked with an existing enterprise zone? The Minister will be aware of the pressure of Swansea city council to this effect.

If the Government did decide to accept the recommendations in the report, widespread consultations would still be necessary before a decision on sites could be taken, because the working party did not consider individual locations. The working party did recommend that experimental locations should be chosen on the basis of demonstrated demand and economic viability.

Following the question of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is an enterprise zone in my constituency and a port just a few miles down the road, called Immingham? Will he be making representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in the event that he has something interesting to say on the matter in his Budget speech?

I note from the exchanges in the House the considerable interest in the free port concept, but it is not for me to make individual choices or make recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. If the Government did decide to go ahead, I am sure that full consultation would be undertaken over a wide area before individual sites were chosen.

Will the Minister say something about the claims of the port of Bristol in these matters, which is at present a heavy burden on Bristol ratepayers?

It is already clear that many hon. Members would wish to put forward recommendations for individual sites, but as I have already said, it would be a matter for widespread consultation, if we went ahead, before these were chosen.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he is likely to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss future investment in the industry.

In less than an hour's time.

Will the Secretary of State advise the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to use his commercial judgment and to press for an early authorisation for the Concast plant at the Llanwern steelworks, particularly as the works is breaking all records at present? That plant is vitally necessary to improve the finish of the product.

There is no proposal in the BSC corporate plan, which I am currently considering, for such a plant at Llanwern, but I shall certainly mention the hon. Gentleman's concern when I meet the chairman.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Steel, will he take the opportunity to remind him of the advantages of privatisation in attracting capital and, indeed, in providing employee shareholding? Does he not agree that the BP pattern, which has been followed for Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace and the National Freight Corporation, goes a long way to depoliticise many of these great industries?

Mr. MacGregor must be one of the best private enterprise industrial managers in the world. He does not need convincing of the merits of the private enterprise system, not least after his experience over some years of trying to run a state corporation. He has had a tremendous success, but I am sure that he would recognise the enormous advantages of being answerable to the market and to shareholders rather than being accountable to Secretaries of State.

Is this the last meeting the Secretary of State will be having with the chairman of British Steel? We would all be very interested in the answer to that question. With regard to the corporate plan and to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), when are we likely to see the details of the plan?

As Mr. MacGregor's term does not finish until the end of June, I think that I shall have the pleasure of many more meetings with him before then.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to Mr. MacGregor that the House might not be willing to grant further investment in British Steel until there has been some resolution of the demarcation between the public and the private sectors and until there is a sure basis of competition for the future?

I hope that my hon. Friend noticed the remarks that were made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he spoke to the British Constructional Steel Work Association dinner last week about the proper delineation of the boundary between BSC and the private sector.

When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. MacGregor, will he tell him that a great deal of gloom was cast over my constituency when it was made known this morning that 721 jobs on the tube-producing side will now be lost? Will he also tell Mr. MacGregor that the House will determine the future of Ravenscraig, not Mr. MacGregor?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the redundancies in his constituency. They are the direct result of the end of the boom in the American oil exploration industry, of which I am sure he is well aware. The effect of the decision has meant that the number of workers in the plants in question will be just marginally below what they were before that oil investment boom took place. With regard to Ravenscraig, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply earlier to the question from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray).

Reverting to that earlier question and to the answer the Secretary of State gave, may I ask whether, if he were to consent to a successful negotiation by MacGregor, he would regard that as consistent with what he said in December about the retention of Ravenscraig as an operating integrated plant?

The right hon. Member may know more about the details that Mr. MacGregor has in mind than I do. I have no firm proposal from Mr. MacGregor. The right hon. Gentleman's question is therefore hypothetical.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us on the Conservative Benches are great admirers of the work Mr. MacGregor is doing at British Steel? After reading the recent Select Committee report, does he accept that Mr. MacGregor would be better occupied in continuing the task that he has set upon instead of moving to pastures new?

That is not a question for me. I have greatly admired Mr. MacGregor's work. Not the least of his achievements at the British Steel Corporation is the fact that he will leave in place a management structure with people who are well able to carry on the excellent work of restoring the steel industry to profitability.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now consider giving assistance to the Hunstanton employment area under the assisted areas scheme.

In his statement about assisted area gradings on 28 June last year my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Government do not expect to make further changes during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Does the Minister agree that the Hunstanton employment area, with unemployment at 28·8 per cent., is the only one in England with more than 25 per cent. unemployment that does not receive special area assistance? Since Corby has unemployment currently running at 21·3 per cent., and is an enterprise zone, if he will not consider special area status for Hunstanton, will he at least consider establishing it as an enterprise zone or, if free ports are introduced, as part of a free port.

I agree that Hunstanton has high unemployment, although, of course, it is small in absolute numbers, which is a factor we take into account. The level of unemployment in East Anglia generally is fairly low. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has a problem. It seems to me that the best way to tackle it is through CoSIRA. Hunstanton is a special investment area under CoSIRA. Recently, the Department of the Environment has given permission for the building of some small units and at Hesham there are to be 50–50 workshops developed with the West Norfolk county council. The problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituency are best dealt with through rural policies.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's policies on rural development have had no impact on rural Norfolk? Is not Hunstanton a good case in point? Have not the Government's cuts in public expenditure, backed by the Stone Age Tory attitudes of the Norfolk county council, meant that industrial development has been choked—not only in Hunstanton, but throughout rural Norfolk? The Government have done nothing about that.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Much work has been done by the Development Commission, especially in encouraging small businesses and factory building. The hon. Gentleman knows that, even under the Labour Government, there was no assisted area status for such areas in East Anglia. It is only because he is in opposition that he changes his mind.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this case, as many others, exemplifies the position well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren)? Is it not yet another argument for putting maximum effort into getting the national economy right, rather than seeking to iron out the local variations in employment by costly subsidies?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The most important factor in reducing unemployment in any area is national economic policies, not regional policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last met the chairman of the Design Council to discuss innovation in industrial design.

I have frequent contacts with the chairman of the Design Council, its members and its senior officials. I last met the chairman on 9 March, and my right hon. Friend will be seeing him later today when he opens the "Young Creators" exhibition at the Design Centre.

Does my hon. Friend think that the money spent on the "Design for Profit" scheme is well spent? Does the scheme involve the applied art colleges?

The money committed to the "Design for Profit" campaign is well spent. The campaign is designed to persuade finance and managing directors of medium-sized companies that the skills of British designers can be used to better effect to help us to reconquer our domestic markets and to make inroads into international markets, where design is the key factor in the purchasing decisions of consumers.

Is the Minister aware that press reports claim that Britain is becoming old-fashioned, that our industry is short of young designers and that they have to go abroad to obtain posts? Will he take action to ensure that our industries take advantage of the young industrial designers leaving our universities, and employ them, to ensure that we get new projects going in our industries?

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. It is precisely because we wish more British-trained designers to be employed by British companies that we are mounting the campaign. I agree that it is a tragedy that some of the products now being bought in large volume in Britain were designed by British people and manufactured by foreign companies. We wish to redress that position through the campaign.

Why has the Department of Industry allowed the British Technology Group to sell to American companies two computer-aided design companies—one of which is already being run down by its new American owner? Is that not a case of public investment and expenditure on developing new design capabilities being transferred to American ownership? How does that serve the national interest?

The benefits of computer-aided design, regardless of the ownership of the companies, should be better promoted in the United Kingdom. Before the controversy arose many multinational companies kept a disproportionately large number of their software engineers and designers in Britain, simply because Bri tish-trained designers are so good. We should ask what is the benefit overall to the United Kingdom economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will convene a meeting of representatives of industry, local authorities and trade unions to discuss regional policy and other measures to deal with unemployment in the northern region.

I am all in favour of those concerned with industrial development in particular areas coming together to consider local problems, but I de not think that it is necessary for me to convene such meetings.

Is the Minister aware that many people in the organisations in the northern region believe that the mild reflation forecast for this week's Budget, if unaccompanied by direct intervention and Government decisions to direct factories into the English regions, will lead to few jobs being created in the peripheral regions and more jobs being created in the major centres of population in the south? Is that what the Government really want? Is that the sort of divided society that they have set out to create? Why do they not consult those in the regions prior to taking the industrial component decisions in their Budget strategy each year?

We spend a considerable amount of time talking to representatives of the northern region. It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to say that the northern region has not received assistance from the Government. It has had £469 million of regional development grant since 1979, £77 million of selective financial assistance, considerable help—

Answer my question.

The hon. Gentleman called for intervention to help the northern region. It has had that through regional policy, enterprise zones, assistance to the shipbuilding and steel industries and, above all, more than 90 per cent. of the northern area has assisted area status. It receives a great deal of Government attention.

Does the Minister recall making a speech last year in which he urged companies to move their headquarters and research and development units to the regions? How many companies have done so? What is the Minister doing about it? Is he aware that some of us believe that it might have been only a "paper speech" and that he does not have any real interest in the northern region?

The office and service industries scheme is designed to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman asks. There have been a number of examples of service industries and offices moving to the northern region. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he intends to extend the loan guarantee scheme; and whether he will make a statement.

I have now completed my review of the loan guarantee scheme. An announcement of the outcome will be made shortly. By the end of February this year 8,861 guarantees had been issued in respect of £295 million of bank lending.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme has proved most satisfactory and helpful, but that it needs to be expanded? However, does that not depend on the banks having a positive attitude? Is he aware that there is concern that some banks are not being as helpful as they could be? Will he take steps to ensure that they play their part fully in the scheme when it is extended?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his complimentary remarks about the scheme. I have very much involved the banks in the current review that I am completing. They are aware that, despite all the efforts that they and I have made, there is sometimes a need for more knowledge and awareness by some of the bank managers. We have considered a report by outside consultants—Robson Rhodes — who also mentioned that point. Following the announcement of the review, I shall arrange for copies of that report to be placed in the Library.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much of the grant in aid made to the Engineering Council of £150,000 under section 6 of the Industry Act 1981 had been spent up to 31 December 1982; and if, in view of the transfer of 30 staff from the Council of Engineering Institutions to the Engineering Council, he will make additional finance available to the council.

I understand that by 31 December 1982 the Engineering Council had spent £499,000 of the £550,000 grant in aid which had been paid to it up until then. A further £182,000 was paid in January. Subject to Parliament providing the necessary funds, the Government are prepared to continue to help finance the council's initial running costs during its first three years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Engineering Council, which was set up under the recommendations of the Finiston report, has made slow progress during the past two years? Does that not vindicate the view of many of us that there should have been legislation in the first place?

I am not so sure that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that slow progress has been made. The first priority has been to secure the voluntary approval of the members of the engineering profession through the recent ballot. I am delighted that engineers nationally have endorsed the move towards certification. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's comments, and it may be convenient if I write to him later this week.

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

I have nothing at present to add to the statement which I made about the British Steel Corporation on 20 December last year.

Since that date, has my right hon. Friend been aware of any progress in persuading the continental countries of the European Community to make cuts in manpower and production similar to those that Britain has made? Does he agree that it would be outrageous if we were to make further cuts when, on the continent, no similar progress and no similar move has been made by EC countries, which in some instances have been increasing their production and capacity, instead of slashing it as we have done?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have lost no opportunity to impress on the Commission and on my opposite numbers in other Governments that there is a need to match capacity and demand and that this will require them to make substantial cuts in their capacity. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have read the three wise men's report on the German industry. The Commission has received proposals from the French Government for cuts in capacity that are not out of line with those that we have already made. At a recent meeting with the Italian Industry Minister I received an assurance from him that there would be substantial cuts in the private sector in steel in Italy. The problem remains with the public sector in Italy. I shall continue to press this issue on Foreign Ministers in the Italian Government.

asked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will review the decision to withhold the details of the appearance of Sir Oswald Mosley before the Birkett tribunal for a period of 100 years.

There has been no decision to withhold for a period of 100 years the records relating to the interrogation of the late Sir Oswald Mosley before the Birkett tribunal. These papers are retained by the Home Office under the provisions of section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 on the grounds of national security and pursuant to an approval given by Lord Chancellor Gardiner in 1967. At my noble and learned Friend's request, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reviewed that decision a year ago. I understand that my right hon. Friend has no plans to reconsider the matter.

Is it not a fact that the 100-year ban imposed by the Home Office was designed originally to conceal the identity of current members of the Conservative party who, during that time, were known to sympathise with the idea that there should be a negotiated truce with Nazi Germany and a common front against the Soviet Union? Does the review that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to undertake involve the release of papers relating to the British Union of Fascists, or will it involve papers dealing with the arrest and imprisonment of Sir Oswald Mosley?

The hon. Gentleman has talked about the imposition of a 100-year ban, but that is not the fact. Authority was given by Lord Chancellor Gardiner for the Home Office to retain the papers. This open-ended retention has recently been reviewed. I have not read the report of the interrogation and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not seen it. I cannot deny what he says because I do not know what the report contains. I suspect that he is making an assertion on the basis of what he has been told and that it is very unlikely to be true.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there would be much advantage to be gained from releasing these papers after such a long period? They might reveal what happened to an ex-member of the Labour party who created the Fascist organisation in Britain.

The grounds for the refusal to disclose the papers are based upon security and intelligence considerations. Those who have had to take the decision have been satisfied that it is in the public interest that secrecy should be maintained.

That is no excuse.

There has been a welcome change in recent years and various Administrations have released such papers as early as possible. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider releasing these papers now to avoid suspicion that there is some form of cover-up?

For the future there will be a review when approval for retention has been given by the Lord Chancellor. The review will take place within a maximum period of 20 years.

I appreciate what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but will he put it to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration that at the next review the time will surely have to come when we should try to excise the scars that Fascism and Communism have scored across Britain during this century, and that revealing these papers would be in the best interests of democracy?

I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are made aware of that view.

asked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will reconsider the decision to withhold certain public records relating to the British Union of Fascists for a period of 100 years.

I wrote to the hon. Member on 4 March explaining that at the request of the Lord Chancellor the Home Office is to review the closure period.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Does he not think that it is a disgrace that administrative means should be used to retain papers that relate to the interrogation of Sir Oswald Mosley and are eligible for release, and thereby prevent facts coming to light that could clarify the position of the establishment in the light of assertions by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he agree that it would be unjustifiable to prevent these records being released merely because a section of the establishment and of the Conservative party which was opposed to Sir Winston Churchill, the Labour party and others who took an anti-Nazi stand wished to conceal their support for a separate peace in 1940?

It is necessary to distinguish between the two types of control. There is the type of control that means that documents are retained by the Department which originally held them. That power comes under section 3 of the Public Records Act 1958. The other type of power takes effect when the records have been transferred to the Public Records Office and there is approval by the Lord Chancellor of the day that they should be retained in secrecy—in this instance they relate to the British Union of Fascists—for an extended period such as 100 years. It is interesting that the first order was made in 1959, shortly after the 1958 Act was passed, by Lord Chancellor Kilmuir, and was considered and confirmed for the 100-year period by Lord Chancellor Elwyn Jones in 1976.

As there is no evidence of which we are aware that Sir Oswald Mosley was a traitor, unlike Blunt, Maclean, Philby and Burgess, why do we have this incredibly long period before the truth can come out?

Those who are responsible have to satisfy the Lord Chancellor that retention is justifiable. Over the past 20 years they have satisfied a Conservative Lord Chancellor and a Labour Lord Chancellor.

I accept that successive Lord Chancellors have confirmed the period, but is it not clear from what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that there is a belief that these facts should be revealed as soon as possible? To reveal the truth would clearly be in the public interest and would stop some of the accusations and counter-accusations that are now flying about.

This issue was reviewed by Sir Duncan Wilson's committee. A White Paper was published last year in which all the issues that should be considered were set out in paragraphs 26 and 27. The Government accepted the committee's recommendation. Public interest concerns questions involving the general public and individuals. Sir Duncan Wilson's committee set out three grounds for retention and these were accepted. It recommended that retention should continue if exceptionally sensitive papers were involved, whose disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, whether on security or on other grounds. Secondly, it recommended that retention should be continued if a case involved documents containing information and supplied in confidence which, if disclosed, would or might constitute a breach of good faith. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to recognise the importance of that.

Statutory Instruments—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we did not start this section of Question Time until 3.21 pm, would you exercise your discretion and allow me my question?

Order. The thought was in my mind, but I thought that I might get away with it. I shall call the hon. Member because we did not start until 3.21 pm.

asked the Attorney-General if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to his application to the charity commissioners for the removal of charitable status from the Unification Church.

The chief commissioner having twice declined to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the two trusts, I wrote to him on 7 March calling on him to remove them from the register of charities. On 9 March I provided the chief commissioner with a detailed statement of the grounds for de-registration. It is now up to the charity commissioners to decide whether to take steps to remove the trusts from the register. They will require a little time to consider the statement.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain the complacent and obstructive attitude shown by the chief charity commissioner in this case? If, as Mr. Peach now tells us, he is waiting for evidence to justify the removal of this so-called Church from the register, could his attention be directed to the transcript of the Daily Mail trial and to the anguish suffered by hundreds of parents in this country who have lost children to the Moonies and who look with despair at the charity commissioners' reluctance to take effective action?

Over the past 12 months I have provided the charity commissioners with all the transcripts that I believed would assist them in reaching a conclusion. They will also have had the opportunity of reading the Court of Appeal judgments. We had, of course, to wait until the petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords had been dismissed. Thereafter, I moved quickly. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment upon the charity commissioners or the merits of the case, because they are now acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in reaching a decision upon my request.

Nonetheless, as the Attorney-General has, to his credit, had to lean heavily on the charity commissioners and seems to have been faced with considerable difficulties in removing charitable status from a body that most people would regard as being distinctly uncharitable, when the question of reappointments arises will he consider changing the composition of the charity commissioners so as to appoint people with perhaps a broader view of life than the present charity commissioners seem to have?

The appointment of the charity commissioners is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, on the two occasions on which I asked the charity commissioners to set up an inquiry under section 6, it was a complete surprise to me that they twice refused that request.