asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Inmos.

Inmos began to trade profitability in the last quarter of 1983 and this trend has strengthened in 1984. A group of investors had proposed to make a placement of £30 million in new shares in the company, but in the light of Inmos's current performance and its improved prospects the Government have withheld the signature of the British Technology Group to this proposal. The BTG is actively exploring other options for the transfer of the company to the private sector, bearing in mind the taxpayer's past investment and the future development of Inmos technology.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is extremely good news that Inmos should have achieved such excellent results and performed so well in such a relatively short time. However, will he give an assurance that if Inmos is transferred from the BTG to the private sector the taxpayer's investment will be protected, together, with the long-term future of the Inmos plant at Newport?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I appreciate that the plant is in his constituency. Indeed, the plant at Newport is a major factor, as is the design team at Bristol, in considering the future development of Inmos. More than 800 people work at Newport and about 70 at Bristol. There has obviously been a substantial transfer of technology to Newport and we shall want such transfers to continue.

Does the Minister appreciate that there will be considerable concern about any proposal to privatise the company, particularly as it is involved in new technology that is vital to this country? The Government should keep a grip on it, particularly in view of all the public money that has been poured into the organisation.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. High technology does not have to be developed solely and exclusively in the public sector. Indeed, most high technology is developed in Britain in the private sector.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say whether any of the options involved in privatization—which many of us would welcome—have been ruled out?

As I said in my original reply, at present we have ruled out only a placement of £30 million of shares, as the terms were not attractive enough. However, the boards of the BTG and Inmos are looking at other proposals. Several companies in the United Kingdom and overseas are interested in investing in Inmos, and at present no option is excluded.

Does not the success of Inmos demonstrate that the Government can play a most useful role in ensuring that very important high technology industries have a presence in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore give an assurance that the company will not be allowed to fall into foreign hands?

I accept that the success of Inmos demonstrates that catalytically Government investment can produce an activity. Indeed, I have often said that from this Dispatch Box. We shall look carefully at all the proposals from both overseas and British companies as well as American Telephone and Telegraph, bearing in mind not only the price that is offered but three important criteria: continuing access to the technology by British industry, the need for a continuing transfer of technology to Britain, and a commitment to the development and expansion of activity in the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Inmos should not be in the public sector it should remain under British control and ownership? As integrated circuits are now a vital raw material, is it not important that this large indigenous supplier should not, if possible, be dependent on decisions taken elsewhere?

I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. If he will study the criteria that I have announced, I think he will be satisfied that any proposal for the development of Inmos will fully take account of his point.

Does the Minister accept that this remarkably successful and highly innovative enterprise would not have existed if it had not been pioneered as a public enterprise? Therefore, is it not ludicrous to be contemplating the privatisation of one of the most successful public enterprise firms in the country?

As I made clear earlier, we believe that private sector investment should now take on the continuing and very substantial requirements of capital investment in the company. I am glad to recognise that the company has reached a stage where it has become profitable.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings he has had with the chairman of British Shipbuilders to discuss the corporate plan.

The corporate plan has just been received by my Department and I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss it with the chairman.

Is it not true that British Shipbuilders submitted the corporate plan in May last year, and also submitted an interim strategy policy document in October? Have not the Government told British Shipbuilders that it must dispose of the warship yards within two years and that there must be a further cut in the mercant shipbuilding industry? Has not British Shipbuilders told the Minister that a further reduction in merchant shipbuilding capacity is unacceptable? Is it not time that the Minister came to the aid of the shipbuilding industry—as have the French Government to their industry—to give some future to the thousands of men who work in it?

The hon. Gentleman has a rather high threshold for some aid to the industry. That industry has had more than £1 billion of taxpayers' money during the past five years. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is petty cash or a substantial amount of taxpayers' money.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to decide whether the warship division will be sold as a whole or in parts?

Not yet, because we have not yet begun seeking purchasers for the warship building industry. We are waiting to see what proposals will come forward.

Is the Secretary of State aware that last year alone the French Government gave £300 million to their industry? Therefore, is not this Government's record pretty pathetic compared with that of the French and many other European nations?

The hon. Gentleman has caused considerable concern to workers and management at Austin and Pickersgill as well as to a number of his trade unionist friends by claiming that the company is about to be closed down. That is the surest way of making certain that customers do not come forward with orders. He should try to act in the interests of his constituents instead of taking a class attitude and acting in a narrow, biased, bigoted and partisan way. What is more, had he spent a little more time thinking and a little less talking he would have discovered that last year the taxpayer put £350 million of extra support into British shipbuilding, which is what he praises the French Government for doing.

Does the Department have any plans to publish the Touche Ross report on marine engineering plants and capability in Britain? Does he agree that that report is now out of date, particularly in relation to John G. Kincaid of Greenock?

If the report is out of date, it would not be particularly useful to publish it.

As British Shipbuilders say that it submitted its corporate plan in May 1983 and the Secretary of State says that he has just received it, where on earth has it been for the last 13 months? Before the right hon. Gentleman reaches any decision on the future of British shipbuilders—bearing in mind his record of failing to discuss such important issues with the people who work in the industry — will he now give an unqualified guarantee that he will discuss the corporate plan with the trade unions representing the employees in the industry?

What I say is absolutely correct; the corporate plan has just been received by my Department. There have been occasions when there have been discussions about what should be happening to the corporation in the interim, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to Graham Day and asks for confirmation of what I have said today, he will get it. The corporate plan will be discussed in the traditional manner in which such plans have been discussed in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on his Department's programme for microcomputers in schools.

The existing micros in schools schemes come to an end in December, by which time every school in the country should have received a microcomputer. We have yet to decide whether further schemes of support from my Department are necessary.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the scheme. May I urge him to renew it after December and ensure that schools have updated equipment in this fast-changing sphere?

The scheme has undoubtedly been a success and we can rightly boast that we are, in terms of education, the most advanced in the use of computers. More than 30 countries have sent teams to the United Kingdom to see what we are doing, and the companies that are involved in the scheme are selling their computers in substantial quantities to other countries. That is particularly true of India, where the Acorn computer could become the basic computer for the Indian education system. I am satisfied that our schools have had a good start in this area, though the principal expenditure for equipment in schools must, of course, lie with the Department of Education and Science.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the pulp, paper and board industry.

I do not differ from the industry's opinion that 1984 should be a reasonably good year for papermakers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent energy survey in the pulp, paper and board industry, which shows that in 1983 the industry used 8 per cent. less energy per tonne of paper produced? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the United Kingdom industry on this achievement in industrial efficiency?

Yes. The industry's energy costs are very high. I congratulate it on taking steps to save about 8 per cent. of its energy costs through a scheme operated by the Department of Energy. I pay tribute to the industry's success and to the work of the Federation of the Paper Trade in promoting the scheme more widely.

Does the Minister agree that the recent dramatic escalation in the price of wood pulp will lead to further redundancies and closures? Does he agree that the Government's policy towards the industry will mean a very dim future with no chance of recovery?

The hon. Gentleman is far too gloomy. Changes in international prices have effects right across the world. The remarkable factor about the industry in the past two years has been the substantial investment from overseas sources in the Liverpool area and in north Wales. When those pulp mills are operating, the United Kingdom will be the second largest newsprint producer in the EEC.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great importance of the paper industry to my constituency in Bury? Is he further aware that the industry faces very stiff foreign competition which is often subsidised by Government money and cheap energy? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that if that continues the Government will take positive action to ensure that the industry can compete on fair terms?

The answer to all of my hon. Friend's questions is yes.

We join hon. Gentlemen in congratulating the paper industry on its 8 per cent. gain in energy efficiency, but does the Minister realise that despite that gain in efficiency the industry's competitiveness is being undermined by high energy costs, especially when compared with the costs in France, Italy and Germany?

The right hon. Gentleman says that energy costs are high. Why are electricity and other energy costs so high in the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman put them up.

On the contrary, in the past two years the price of electricity to industry has been maintained. The reason why electricity costs are so high in this country is that the cost of coal is so high.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many factories in the United Kingdom are now manufacturing microprocessors; and how this compares with 1982 and 1980, respectively.

Companies manufacturing integrated circuits, including microprocessors, in the United Kingdom rose from nine in 1980 and 1982 to 10 in 1984. We are aware of investment proposals in that sector which total about £700 million. There is a prospect of three more companies going into manufacture in the near future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome that encouraging news, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on an imaginative initiative? This concerns the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), so if he keeps quiet it might help him. My hon. Friend has taken an imaginative initiative in providing computers to an organisation called DIAL, whose headquarters happen to be in Bolsover. That organisation, particularly in Harlow and Bolsover, will be able to help disabled people claim their benefits, and the officers of the DIAL branch in Harlow have asked me to thank my right hon. Friend.

I doubt whether any initiative that I can take will help the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). In this case, we supported a group giving advice to handicapped people. I am glad that we were able to make that contribution, because communicating technologies can significantly improve the lot of all handicapped people.

Is Plessey involved in any microcircuit jobs? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Plessey is closing a factory in my constituency, with 600 redundancies, yet only a few hours ago it announced that a new factory would be opened in Plymouth, creating 600 new jobs? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that not a penny of regional grant goes to Plessey, in view of its deceitful and underhand manner in my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been dealing with that matter in his constituency. I would not associate myself with the language that he used about Plessey. It is a major developer of microintegrated circuits. Recently it announced an investment of about £50 million. However, even in the advanced industries there are adjustments in the range of microelectronics. I would not knock Plessey in the way that the hon. Gentleman did. It is a progressive company, of which Britain should be proud.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that microprocessors help most with job creation when they are incorporated in products rather than production processes? Does he feel that British manufacturers should give more attention to the way in which their products could be enhanced by the use of microprocessors?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is no good just having companies making silicon chips and integrated circuits; they have to be applied. I believe that they must be applied by the traditional, older industries in Britain, because if they do not use the new technologies they will not be in business over the next five years.

Is the Minister aware that although the Tory Government, over the past few years, have closed nine pits in my constituency——

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's question about microprocessors?

Yes, I am coming to that. During that period, despite all the assurances given about alternative industry, the Tory Government have not managed to get one single microprocessor plant into the whole constituency.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should try to sell the advantages of his constituency in a more positive way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Public Accounts Committee report on the Nexos company, which was set up by the Labour Government to develop the British office equipment industry, proves convincingly that the NEB and the BTG ran that company with an abandon that verged on the fraudulent? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that report proves something which the NEB has denied for over two years—that 800 Japanese facsimile machines costing more than £1 million were sold back to the middle man importers for no more than £1? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a just cause for a ministerial investigation?

The PAC has reported on that case, and we are examining it. The lesson which the Government can learn from that investment is that they should not dabble in things in which they are not expert.

Do the Minister's figures in his original reply take into account the reported closure last week of three microcomputer firms — Dragon Data, Tycom, about which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware and concerned as it serves the Conservative party, its headquarters and offices, and, thirdly, Camputers? What is the outlook for the microcomputer industry in Britain this year? Is there any evidence that the big boys, including IBM, are using unfair pricing as a means of securing a market share?

The answer to the latter question is, not as far as we know, but we are making a survey of it. With regard to the question of microcomputer activity—the question was about microprocessors and silicon chips—I accept that they must be put into equipment. During the past few years there has been a tremendous boom in the manufacturing of electronic equipment. In 1983, for example, we in Britain consumed 29 per cent. of all microcircuits in Europe, which was the largest rate of any European country. Therefore, we have the fastest growing electronics industry in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure co-operation between the small firms service and other sources of advice for small firms.

The small firms service works closely with local enterprise agencies and other organisations to provide a full service to small firms.

Given my hon. Friend's special interest in local enterprise agencies, how does he see their relationship with the small firms service?

I see the local enterprise agencies as being at the sharp end and actively involved in the local community, and the small firms service as providing backup. To use a medical analogy, the directors of the local enterprise agencies are the general practitioners, and the small firms the counsellors, the specialists or consultants. That is the relationship enjoyed in my hon. Friend's constituency. There is an excellent local enterprise agency called the Bolton Business Venture, which has the support of the small firms centre in Manchester.

What advice would my hon. Friend give to the small firms advisory service in reply to small businesses which say that the recent changes in the loan guarantee scheme, introduced by the Government two weeks ago, make it the least attractive and most expensive scheme of any developed country?

The local enterprise agencies' directors should draw the attention of their potential clients to the second Robson Rhodes review, which made it clear that there was a lack of appraisal and monitoring procedures in the loan guarantee scheme. Too many companies were going under because they had not been correctly appraised and monitored. The Government's changes have led to a continuation of the scheme, and increases have not been horrific.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that advice is of no help to the 1,200 firms a year which he forecast would be deterred from using the loan guarantee scheme as a result of the changes? Is he aware that there has been not only a 50 per cent. increase in the premium that the Government charge over and above the banks' interest, but, more important, that the reduction in the proportion of the loan now to be covered by guarantee means that the banks will increase the rate of interest they charge? Is he aware that the small firms will face a double increase in interest rates?

The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Department of Trade and Industry is receiving on average 400 applications a month. I predicted that they would fall to 300 a month—that was my guesstimate. The 100 applications a month that fall away may be from the companies which should not have been covered by the loan guarantee scheme in the first place. The Labour party's policy cannot be to support indiscriminate lending to small businesses. If some of those businesses go down, they may drag other small firms down with them. That would not be our policy. My advice to local enterprise agencies' directors, which I gave in reply to the former question, is sensible. We have increased the exposure for banks, which means that they will increase their appraisal procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to the corporate plan prepared by Leyland Vehicles Ltd; and if he will make a statement on future Government support for the company.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received the British Leyland corporate plan: and if he will make a statement.

I announced our decisions on BL's corporate plan to the House on 22 May, and they were further debated on 24 May.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that unemployment in Bathgate is such that workers who lose their jobs have virtually no hope of finding alternative work? Will he recognise that that is why the social costs of closure are utterly unacceptable? That is also why the finacial costs of closure to the Government are greater than keeping the factory open. If the Secretary of State does nothing else this afternoon, will he tell the House whether the Government have estimated the financial costs of closure of the Leyland plant at Bathgate, and if so will he make the estimates available to the House?

Of course we make estimates of such things, but to a large extent they include commercially confidential information. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to examine the costs, I commend to him the evidence taken from Lord Stokes by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Public Expenditure Committee on 16 June 1971. Lord Stokes said that the cost of having the factory in Scotland was equivalent to a 7·5 per cent. tariff. The hon. Gentleman must consider what that cost means in terms of jobs to other workers in other parts of the economy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as BL is coming out of the period when it was known as a music-hall joke, it is depressing, now that its business is improving, to find an increase in disputes such as the present one? Would not this be the time to warn BL workers that the patience of the taxpayers who wish to support the company is not inexhaustable and that the time has come to work, not to strike?

It would not be right for me to comment on any particular dispute, but it is certain—as has been proved time and time again—that strikes do not save jobs, they destroy them. A long strike purporting to save the job of one individual would no doubt cost the jobs of many others.

For heavens sake, why are the social costs of any closure at Bathgate commercially confidential? I wish to ask a question of which I gave notice to the Minister of State's office. Can Charles Nickerson be assured that if. his bid is viable he will receive terms as favourable as are being offered to Nissan? Why should an indigenous motor industry employer receive less favourable terms than those on offer to the Japanese?

First, I said that some of the information was commercially confidential. That includes some of the savings or the costs which would otherwise be caused within BL, according to which option one took up as to which of the factories in the Leyland Vehicles group should be closed. The social costs would be almost infinitely variable according to the assumptions which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen like to make about the future of the Scottish economy and many other things. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about the help given to Nissan, he will be aware that different regimes of assistance are available for those projects which are internationally mobile and those which are not. The scale of help or assistance for domestic United Kingdom projects——

It is not true.

I am sorry, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that. Well, he can say it, but it does not happen to be true. The scale of help within the United Kingdom is, of course—[Interruption.] I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would shut up for a moment. Mr. Speaker? It is impossible, when one is trying to treat the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seriously, to be subjected to perpetual barracking from a former Minister who ought to know a damned sight better. I am afraid that I shall have to start again. That will cut out a number of hon. Gentlemens' questions.

If the taxpayer is to subsidise BL, is it not right that it should purchase a substantial proportion of its components in this country? There are increasing signs that it is not doing that as much as it did in the past. Will the Government ask for a review of the matter?

I hope that British Leyland will continue to buy the great majority of components within the United Kingdom. If my hon. Friend's concern is for the taxpayer, he will assuredly want BL to buy in the most competitive market, because if it does not it will not sell its motor cars.

Will the Secretary of State accept that necessary Government support for British Leyland has to extend beyond his Department, and that the loss of 440 jobs at Charles H. Roe at Leeds is a direct result of the reduction in the transport supplementary grant and the phasing out of bus grants? Will he therefore speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see that rate levels and rate-capping do not prevent orders being given for at least 100 buses a year, which are all that are required to save that plant?

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. It is not the level of transport supplementary grant that has caused the decline in orders for buses. The hon. Gentleman must try to examine the matter in a rational light. One thing that has caused the fall-away is that after a burst of ordering in pursuit of introducing one-man buses the demand is now at a lower level. Another cause is that people in some cases prefer to travel by a means of transport other than buses. A third cause is that sometimes bus companies are not run effectively. I am sure the hon. Gentleman takes great heart from the number of bus companies that are now competing successfully with British Rail. No doubt he will give no help at all to those who want subsidies for British Rail as well.

Can one take it from my right hon. Friend's earlier reply about Bathgate, that the Government are pursuing actively the search for alternative owners for that factory? Can he confirm that in the past in Scotland organisations and companies which were in public ownership and were not able to compete effectively were subsequently taken over by the private sector and that the 7·5 per cent. penalty did not seem to deter them from being successful?

My hon. Friend is right. In many cases it depends upon where the market for the product is. Perhaps he had most in mind the remarkable case of Scott Lithgow where, despite the jeers and derision of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, the private sector came in and rescued a company which had been bankrupted by nationalisation.

I am delighted to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) who, like all the Liberals, after taking no interest in this issue, suddenly appears to have an interest in it. In reply to his question the Secretary of State said that there was no relationship between the cut in transport subsidy and the loss of orders for the bus industry. Is the Secretary of State not aware that British Leyland management attributes the loss of jobs in Leeds directly to Government policy and that all those who know the bus and coach industry realise that Government policy in cutting transport subsidies and also in relation to the 3·5 million unemployed put jobs in jeopardy not just in Leeds, but in the coach and bus industry elsewhere? In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State give a commitment to meet his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport—I realise that for both of them this will be a challenging prospect—to discuss the subsidy for the industry and measures to save the jobs in Leeds, which are crucial to our city, and which receive so little interest from the Secretary of State?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not indulge in the Punch and Judy, ding-dong, two-party game that goes on. I am very glad to hear that he believes everything that the BL management says. I hope he will be able to convince some of his right hon. and hon. Friends that they, too, should believe BL management. The level of subsidy is entirely adequate in the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and myself. Therefore, there is no cause for us to discuss the matter.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Track Marshall of Gainsborough is interested in buying the engine plant at Bathgate? Will he look at that application with favour and reject the intemperate remark of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) last week, when he said that the original tractor line was "bloody well stolen"?

The application by Marshall's is not to my Department or to me, but to British Leyland. It is a commercial matter between the two parties. However, requests for regional aid or anything of that kind will be examined by my Department with every sympathy. We should like employment to continue at Bathgate at the highest possible levels.

May I refer to the sale of Jaguar Cars? Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's sincere commitment to the maximum participation by employees in the businesses in which they work—and without disrespect to the chairman of Jaguar Cars—will the Secretary of State consider making financial advice available to the management and employees on the form, extent and terms of the equity participation that they might have in that company?

I am sure that the management and work force are capable of taking their own advice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the long list of companies which have moved to Livingston in recent years, and which are likely to deliver more than 4,000 jobs, there is great anxiety about unemployment in central Scotland? Is he aware that that is combined with a nagging anxiety that British Leyland's top management, located as it is south of the border, may not have given fair dos to the Bathgate plant when comparing facilities? Can he reassure the Scottish people that rational decisions have been taken and that parochial prejudice is not involved?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of the border is utterly and completely irrelevant to the matters discussed. Indeed, I have to remind some Opposition Members that the plant is within the United Kingdom, as are other BL plants.

The Secretary of State did not answer the relevant questions about the future of Bathgate posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), nor did he answer the interjections by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) from the Opposition Front Bench. For the record, may we have answers to some specific questions? Is there, or is there not, a differential between companies from overseas investing in British development areas and British companies investing in the same areas? If there is such a difference in incentive, what is it and what is the justification for treating Japanese and other foreign companies more favourably than British firms?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow his xenophobia to get in the way of the national interest. Of course there is a justification for offering particularly attractive terms to bring to the country internationally mobile projects which otherwise might go to another part of the European Community and have free access to our markets, but would not provide any jobs in this kingdom.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from question No. 7 asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). A slip of the tongue was made by the Secretary of State, but I make no complaint about that. For the sake of clarity, it is important to make this point in a delicate situation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Charles Marshall. In fact, it is Mr. Charles Nickerson of Track Marshall who has made the serious bid for an interest in the Bathgate factory.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has corrected the record. He must now raise his point of order with me.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry put forward a new doctrine in relation to the differential between British companies and "internationally mobile" companies. As it is such a new doctrine, may I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, for a statement clarifying the new doctrine for grants to Japanese and other foreign firms?

I am sure that the Leader of the House heard that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received the British Steel Corporation's corporate plan; and if he will make a statement.

I expect BSC to complete its corporate plan shortly and to submit it to the Government for approval.

When my right hon. Friend receives the corporate plan, will he bear in mind that the United Kingdom has reduced its steel-making capacity very much more than have our partners in the European Community? Will he make the most vigorous representations to his counterparts in the Community in order to ensure greater equality of sacrifice? Will he bear in mind that my constituents in the west of Scotland warmly endorse the conclusion of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which suggested that in view of the market position there was no valid case for the closure of Ravenscraig steelworks?

When we consider BSC's corporate plan we shall, of course, look at the position of the market and the various parts of the BSC, and how all the plants may be fitted into the plan. On the question of the amount by which capacity has been cut, Commissioner Andriessen said recently that he expected about 30 million tonnes of capacity to be taken out between 1980 and 1985. Our contribution will be about 4·5 million tonnes, of which we have already taken out four million. The other countries will catch up on what we had to do in cutting capacity, which should, in many cases, have been closed down many years before—and would have been but for the disgraceful delays caused by the Beswick review.

Has the Secretary of State read the Select Committee report to which his hon. Friend referred? Is he aware that the Select Committee strongly urged that there should be no further closures in strip mill capacity, strongly criticised the Government's privatisation policy and drew attention to the amazingly high current level of productivity in this publicly owned industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House to ensure that we have a full debate on this matter in Government time before any irrevocable decision is made on further closures?

I shall make sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the hon. Gentleman's views about the need for a debate.

In as much as BSC's corporate plan is designed to set BSC on course for profitability and thereby secure future job security for our steel workers, may I ask how much has that aim been undermined by the activities of Mr. Scargill—activities which are supported by every Member of the Labour party? Has not the future of the five integrated steel plants been thrown into question far more by the actions of Mr. Scargill than by any other cause? If Mr. Scargill was successful at Orgreave, and if the blast furnaces and coke ovens at Scunthorpe were damaged, what would be the future for the 5,000 or 6,000 steel workers in my constituency? Would it not be nil?

Assuredly, the future of jobs in BSC can be secured only by rendering that corporation profitable. My hon. Friend refers to the damage done by the current miners' dispute. I understand that some three quarters of the miners are not currently working, although about a quarter, happily, are still producing coal, which is being transported to the steelworks by many other responsible trade unionists. There is little doubt that the objective at times of some extremists has been to damage the British steel industry. A few years ago some extremists in the steelworks had the same objective, but they learnt their lesson.

The Secretary of State is considering more corporate plans than Bobby Robson, and is making almost as bad a job of them all. Will he guarantee that he will not accept any proposal that will further reduce the capacity of BSC or lead to the closure of any one of the five integrated steel plants, and that he will not fuel any arguments between the various parts of the industry such as Port Talbot, Ravenscraig and Llanwern?

It would be rather unwise of me to make decisions on the corporate plan before I have had the opportunity to see it. I have to stand very firm on the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, when he said:

"The Government have said that there can be no question of accepting a situation where the taxpayer is required to foot the bill for continual and avoidable loss-making." — [Official Report, 24 March 1975; Vol. 889, c. 226.]

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the submissions he has received in response to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

I am pleased with the constructive and helpful comments contained in most of the submissions received, which totalled 467 by 31 May.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, he will be aware that some of us are sceptical about the beneficial effects, if any, of regional aid. When he comes to make his final decision on the form of regional aid, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that all that aid comes from the already hard-pressed taxpayers?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's cynicism, which I have heard from time to time, both on the Floor of the House and in the debates in Committee on the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill, which received its Third Reading on Monday. The Government accept that regional industrial policy costs a lot of public money and that the balance of economic benefits and costs is not clear-cut. We are increasing the cost-effectiveness of the policy, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Will the Minister reject the sentiments expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), which were also expressed by some other Conservative Members in the debate on Monday evening on the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill debate? Will he ensure that the interests of the regions are taken fully into account in the development of new policy? Is he aware that most of the criticisms that we hear come from those areas of the country that have never suffered from the levels of unemployment endured in Scotland, Wales, the north-west and other parts of the country?

The hon. Gentleman would expect me to reply in the affirmative, and I am anxious to do so. We made it clear in the White Paper that we support an effective regional policy and are determined to ensure that we reduce regional disparities in employment opportuities on a stable, long-term basis.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no net economic gain to the country from any incentive that just asks a firm to locate its business in one part of the country rather than another? Will not the interests of all regions, whether prosperous or depressed, benefit from the promotion of free market forces, in particular Suffolk, which is ready to stand on its own feet in free competition?

I agree with my hon. Friend's latter point, but the White Paper made it clear that we can no longer try to justify regional policy on economic grounds. We try to justify it on social grounds, because of the inequalities between the regions.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's proposals will effectively end any opportunity or chance for west Cumberland to attract any capital-intensive industry until there is a change of Government? Is that a reasonable and fair way to treat my part of the country, particularly when over the past 15 years the only industry that has come to provide jobs in great number is capital-intensive and has come as a result of regional policy?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. He cannot pre-judge the outcome of the review which we shall be conducting shortly as a result of the representations that we have received on the White Paper, or what we shall do with the assisted areas map.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the figure for output in manufacturing industry in the most recent quarter for which figures are available.

For the first quarter of 1984 the provisional figure for the index of production for manufacturing industries is 97, based on 1980 being 100.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that represents a fall of 10 per cent. compared with the first quarter five years ago? When did manufacturing output last fall by that amount over five years?

It is certainly a fall, as my hon. Friend says, but I am sure he is pleased that manufacturing output is now increasing, that manufacturing exports are increasing, that trends are good and that manufacturing output is 3·5 per cent. higher than in the same quarters of 1983.

Despite the complacency with which the Minister has presided over this record fall in manufacturing output — which has been matched by a corresponding decline in investment, employment and the balance of trade—does he recognise that when North sea oil runs out we shall yet again have to rely on the output of our factories to pay our way in the world? If he recognises that, what does he and his Government propose to do about it?

I would take that lecture from the hon. Gentleman rather more easily if manufacturing output had not fallen from 1974 to 1979 when a Labour Government were in power. All the evidence is that the trend is now upwards. Confidence in industry is good, investment intentions are good, inflation is low and productivity is increasing. The economy is doing better and the Opposition can do nothing but whinge and whine as good news comes along.