asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the figures for redundancies in the textile industry in the North-West in 1974 and to the most recent date for which figures are available.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that redundancies involving some 2,050 people were notified as due to occur in 1974 in the textile industry in the North-West. The figure for the first four months of 1975 is 1,400.

In view of the figures given by my hon. Friend and the fact that yesterday the Secretary of State for Industry also estimated that 13,000 jobs had been lost in the textile industry due to entry into the Common Market, will my hon. Friend urge upon his colleagues that action is urgently needed in the cutting of low-cost imports into this country if we are to have a textile industry in the future?

The Government recognise the seriousness of the position, and my hon. Friend will recognise that there are difficulties about compensation and retaliation. However, I assure him that the Government take the matter most seriously.

When will these figures get better, when will the trend be reversed and when shall we get a statement of Government policy?

The present trend in sales of textiles comes from a fall in demand. The position in the United Kingdom is no different from that in other textile-producing countries. We hope that an upswing of world trade will take the textile trade with it.

Does not my hon. Friend recognise that that is a rather complacent answer? We had a debate in this House—and there has been one in another place—on textiles which was almost unanimous in calling for across-the-board restrictions on imports. We have been told repeatedly that the Government are still considering the matter. Cannot we have an answer, at least before the recess, so that something can be saved of the textile industry in Great Britain?

I am aware of the contents of those debates. Whether there is a cut in imports is a matter not for me but for other Departments. I again assure my hon. Friend that there are problems, but the Government have the matter under urgent and serious consideration.

Will the Minister recognise that what is a matter for him is that in a recession of this kind many people will leave the industry and will not return to it when trade recovers, and that the trade will be at the mercy of foreign producers? Will he recognise that if we do not remain in the Common Market it will be much more difficult to maintain employment in the textile industry?

The hon. Gentleman may well be jumping to conclusions which are not justified by the exchanges.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the introduction of the Temporary Employment Scheme.

At this stage I am not able to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 15th April 1975 about the Temporary Employment Subsidy Scheme.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that this is an imaginative scheme to deal with the problem of unemployment? Will he also accept that his hon. Friend, the Minister stated in the debate on the Employment Protection Bill that conversations were to take place between the TUC and the CBI? Have there been any such conversations? Is it the Government's intention that the scheme should apply only to development areas? Could it not be applied across the country to all areas where unemployment is above the national average?

I appreciate the interest of my hon. Friend in the scheme, and I believe that it can be a very important scheme when it is developed. There have already been discussions with the Manpower Services Commission on the matter and, of course, the employers and trades unions are represented on the commission.

I accept that the scheme is imaginative in the sense that it shows imagination, but will the Secretary of State explain what steps he is taking to ensure that the scheme is not just another excuse for continuing overmanning? Is that not a real danger? What steps is he taking to guard against it?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's brilliant definition of the word "imagination". We shall have to take it to heart. These factors were taken into account when we proposed the scheme, which will be subject to debate in the House. But we do not think that we should be deterred, by the kind of consideration the hon. Gentleman has suggested, from seeing how the scheme could help in our present situation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that while it may be more expensive to apply the scheme to the whole country, there will be bitter disappointment in areas, such as the West Midlands, which are thought to be prosperous but which are not so prosperous and where unemployment is, in pockets, way above the national average? There will be bitter disappointment if the scheme does not cover the whole country.

I fully appreciate the view which my hon. Friend is putting. The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement was of a more limited scheme, and it is on that basis that we are making the preparations. But I have no doubt that representations will be made to us by my hon. Friend and others.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the amendments are likely to be tabled?

Progress in the Employment Protection Bill proceedings depends not only on the Government but on the wisdom of others. I understand that we are making good progress in the Committee, and I hope that that will continue. The sooner we can reach that part of the Bill, the better we shall be pleased.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest trend in employment opportunities; and if he will make a statement.

The reduction in output has undoubtedly led to a contraction in employment opportunities. The situation should improve in 1976 and the Government are taking steps to sustain and expand the level of training so as to use the recession to prepare for the upswing.

What effect does the hon. Gentleman think there will be on employment prospects either if Britain withdraws from the Community or if we remain a member? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Industry, who said that we had lost 500,000 jobs as a result of our membership, or with the Patronage Secretary, who said that the Secretary of State was telling downright lies?

Perhaps I should refer the hon. Gentleman to a later Question. I will add only that these matters are hotly disputed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that employment opportunities in the hosiery and knitwear industry have suffered substantially as a consequence of the importation of low-cost textiles? Will he urge upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade the need for selective import quotas on hosiery and knitted textile goods?

I do not entirely agree with the premise that imports are solely responsible for the state of the textile industry. There is a general downturn in demand which also has its effects. I shall convey my hon. Friend's suggestions to my right hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now publish the reports from the two trial areas of the proposed reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate.

As I said in my answer of 16th April 1975, this is a matter for the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, who has offered to meet my hon. Friend and discuss with him all the issues involved in a reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate. In the meantime he is sending him a copy of the agreed statement prepared by the joint working party on the reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate and will be happy to discuss the details of this with my hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much disturbing material in the Area South report? Will he prevail on Mr. Bill Simpson to publish the report in the interests of wider public discussion on the proposed closure of 100 local offices and their substitution by only 16 area offices? Does he realise that Mr. Simpson, in spite of my individual request, has failed to provide me with those copies, so that discussions will be singularly fruitless? Does he accept that the Institution of Professional Civil Servants is still opposed to the full implementation of the proposed reorganisation? Does he not accept that we need the co-ordination of the Factory Inspectorate and not its opposition?

I fully agree that we need the co-operation of the Factory Inspectorate in any proposed reorganisation. I must point out that the ballot of inspectors that gave a seven-to-one majority in favour of the proposals was carried out by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. As I told my hon. Friend on 16th April, the reports he is asking for are only two of a number of internal working papers prepared in connection with the assessment of the two trial schemes, and it would be inappropriate to make them available in the way he suggested. However, the working party, which included representatives of each staff association concerned and of the official side, produced a joint report, and I see no objection to my placing a copy in the Library if that would help my hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the powers-that-be to the dual control that operates in the Factory Inspectorate whereby one part of the control is done by his Department and another is done by the fire services within the local authority areas? Does he not think that in the interests of unified direction, control and enforcement it would be much better if one authority were responsible for this important and valuable service to the factories?

I think that the establishment of the commission and its executive has produced a dramatic degree of integration of the various inspectorates of different Departments. What my hon. Friend is asking for goes much beyond that. It is for the enforcement of fire regulations and so on to be brought entirely within the scope of the executive. That would require legislative change, and that is not contemplated. It would go far beyond the integration and unification that we have already achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions have taken place with the appropriate trade unions on the redeployment of the Factory Inspectorate in consequence of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

The Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission informs me that throughout the trial schemes close consultation with the staff was carried out through a joint working party which included representatives of all the Civil Service unions concerned and the official side. Negotiations were undertaken with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants acting for the factory inspectors and a ballot of inspectors resulted in a seven-to-one vote in favour of the new pay and grading structure linked with the proposed reorganisation. Consultations are continuing with the unions concerned on the detailed implementation of reorganisation. As I said earlier, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the agreed statement on the trial schemes prepared by the joint working party.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I very much welcome the assurance that there was full consultation with the professional bodies? Is he also aware that, quite apart from Press reports about unrest and discontent over reorganisation, I have received direct representations from those involved? Does he appreciate that there does not seem to be such happy unanimity in the situation as the ballot result seems to suggest?

I understand that there is concern on the part of some inspectors, but I think that the majority—certainly many—of the inspectors accept the need for reorganisation. I accept that the ballot was linked with pay and grading proposals, and to that extent it possibly influenced the outcome of the ballot. I ask my hon. Friend to study carefully the statement which I have placed in the Library and to bear in mind that these proposals originally stemmed from the Robens Report.

When the Minister next discusses this matter with the unions, will he explain the reason why some of the outdated restrictions on employment of women—matters which do not affect their health and safety—were swept away this morning by a decision in the Standing Committee on the Sex Discrimination Bill against the advice of the Government?

The Government provided that any necessary changes in this respect should stem from consultation with and consideration by the Health and Safety Commission. It still remains my view that that would be the right way to proceed.

Is not this reorganisation linked to a pay claim that is still outstanding, and is this not helping to weaken the morale of the inspectorate? Is my hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham we need an intensification of the Factory Inspectorate since in that area there are many small factories with largely inadequate supervision?

I accept the need for a strengthening of the inspectorate. For this reason, when the health and safety at work legislation was before Parliament I stressed that we were making provision for a 50 per cent. increase in the inspectorate. I also referred to the way in which the ballot was carried out and to the fact that many factory inspectors accepted the need for reorganisation. This is a matter for the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. I am sure that the chairman will be delighted to see any hon. Member who wishes to discuss with him the nature and extent of the reorganisation. I hope that hon. Members who wish to do so will take advantage of that offer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the consequences of British withdrawal from the European Community in the areas of his responsibility.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on 15th May 1975.—[Vol. 892, c. 166.]

I accept that this is a complicated matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to comment on the recent ORC poll, which appeared to indicate that well over half the firms interviewed were prepared to state categorically that they expected to employ fewer people if Britain left the European Community?

I am always a bit cautious about polls. I am even cautious about polls taken among business men, and particularly about prophecies by business men who may have made prophecies a few years ago that have not been fulfilled.

Whether we stay in the EEC or leave it, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the constructive agreement reached yesterday between the British Steel Corporation and the Trades Union Congress Steel Co-ordinating Committee, which will reassure many steelworkers in his constituency and mine about their immediate future?

I naturally very much welcome the agreement reached yesterday. We were urging that there should be discussions between the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions, and I am very glad that they have gone so far to reach an agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of wage and price inflation over the last three months.

The seasonally-adjusted index of average earnings increased by 2·2 per cent and the index of retail prices by 6·3 per cent. between December and March.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is now clear that over a period of 12 months the social contract has failed to keep the increase in the nation's pay within the increase in the nation's prices? What personal responsibility do he and his right hon. Friends accept for that? Is the Department now prepared to advocate an incomes policy based on the suggestion by Mr. Jack Jones of flat-rate increases?

I accept that, on the basis of a comparison of the movement of wages and retail prices between March 1974 and March 1975, wages have increased at a greater rate than prices. As to the responsibility for that movement in wages, I think it is true to say that the Government have had a part in it, as have private employers and trade unions. All three have a growing awareness of the economic implications, and I think it will follow from that that all three will be taking their own steps to secure a closer adherence to the TUC pay guidelines in the future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that two of the significant factors that have helped to push up the overall average for the past 12 months have been, first, the movement towards equal pay for women and, secondly, that lower-paid workers have on the whole done better than the average? Does my hon. Friend agree that both those factors have pushed up the overall average, whatever our view might be of whether that overall average is too high?

I agree with my hon. Friend that very large percentage increases were required for low-paid people to move them towards the TUC low-pay target of £30. It is also regrettably the case that a number of women have required considerable increases to bring them towards the equal pay target. Included in that, however, and in addition to it in some cases, have been threshold payments which have contributed in some substantial measure to the rate of wage increases.

How long can these present trends continue before complete disaster overtakes our economy?

I would hesitate to engage in exact predictions as to the nearest week or day, but I would certainly join with the TUC's judgment, contained in its recent Economic Review, that any general attempt to secure increases greater than the rise in the cost of living would be self-defeating and would contribute to the inflationary pressures.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, in view of the latest trends in unemployment, whether he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's plans for more retraining.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the Training Services Agency has already put into operation arrangements for ensuring that apprentices who are made redundant are able to continue their training. Provision is also being made for expanding the facilities available under the Training Opportunities Scheme so that up to 80,000 people can be trained in 1976. If the need arises for further initiatives, the commission will consider carefully what action it can take.

In spite of that, will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to spend less time encouraging strong unions to use their industrial muscle regardless of the consequences and more time building on the foundations laid by the previous Conservative Government for a great expansion of retraining, to which the present Government have not given high enough priority?

I must point out that the Chancellor's Budget provided for an extra £20 million for the current year and an extra £30 million for the succeeding year for additional expenditure on training. I am sure that the trade unions are as aware as any hon. Member of the need for the expansion of training. I am glad to say that we are getting their full co-operation and support, particularly as regards the Manpower Services Commission, where both trade unions and employers are significantly represented.

As regards retraining, will my hon. Friend pay special regard to the dire needs of the London area, where thousands of jobs cease to be available from year to year? In that regard London is becoming a distressed area. Will my hon. Friend go into this matter very carefully in the near future as the situation in London is very serious with the lack of employment, the lack of industrial opportunities and the lack of all sorts of other things?

We are sharply aware of the particular difficulties in London, particularly apprenticeship opportunities for young people. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself are engaged in careful studies and discussions on what can be done to give further assistance in London. One of the measures that are contemplated is the provision of a further skillcentre in South-East London, but we are having difficulties, as I think my hon. Friend knows, about planning permission as regards what is a very difficult site.

Will the Minister give details to the House of the kind of grants and loans that his Department has received, or which this country has received, from the European Community for retraining over the past 18 months?

I cannot give that information without notice, but I take this opportunity of refuting the rather foolish and ill-founded assertion in some newspapers that the Department has not fully taken up everything available. The fact is that we have taken up the full amount that is available. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that I cannot give him the figure offhand without prior notice, but if he would like me to write to give him the figure I shall be delighted to do so. Alternatively, if he tables a Question for Written Answer I shall be very pleased to give the answer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest disincentives against women taking up opportunities for retraining is the lack of day care facilities? In its expanded programme of retraining facilities, which all my hon. Friends welcome, will the Department consider the possibility of providing day care at retraining centres so that women can truly take the opportunities that are offered?

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. We are anxious that more women should undertake training. We are anxious that more women should take advantage of the facilities that are available and the training opportunities that are open to them. I regret that the take-up is not as great as either I or my hon. Friend would like. As regards the suggestion that she makes, I shall draw it to the attention of the Manpower Services Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of employment agencies or businesses currently operating in the United Kingdom which charge a fee to persons seeking employment via those agencies or businesses.

No information is available upon which any reliable estimate could be given.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are at least two companies, which are both American-owned, on one of which I have given him information—namely, National Executive Search—which are demanding fees from redundant executives in this country for finding them jobs? The mere fact that they file their information in America to get round the laws and regulations that we want to bring in in this country should not be an excuse. We need to take early action as regards the Employment Agencies Act to close this loophole.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having sent me information about the companies to which he has referred. I shall look very closely to see whether they come within the scope of the regulations that we are proposing under the Employment Agencies Act. Their position is rather uncertain at the moment. However, the company which my hon. Friend has mentioned is operating in the United Kingdom from an office based in Geneva. I understand that the Swiss Government have some stringent regulations concerning the activities of private employment agencies. We have brought this matter to the attention of the Swiss Embassy, which has undertaken to look into the operation of this company in Switzerland and its activities from its Geneva office.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received about the policy of training board levies; and whether he will make a statement.

Since my hon. Friend asked a similar Question on 9th July 1974, two letters have been received on the policy of training board levies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a 1 per cent. training levy is hardly worth trying to gain exemption from and that it will hardly encourage a comprehensive pattern of training? Does he not agree that in the case of the Road Transport Industry Training Board, where garages have indicated something like a 30 per cent. reduction in the recruitment of apprentices, the whole levy policy needs serious reconsideration?

Of course, the 1 per cent. levy ceiling imposed by the Employment and Training Act 1973 was one of the issues criticised by my party when in opposition. We have this criticism very much in mind in looking towards the future development of manpower policy. I should add that even before the 1 per cent. ceiling was imposed only three of the 24 boards had a levy in excess of 1 per cent. I have said before in the House, and I repeat now, that if a board thought that a levy in excess of 1 per cent. was appropriate and necessary I should be ready to consider the matter and bring it before the House for approval. With reference to the Road Transport Industry Training Board, I do not think I have yet received its current levy proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions he has had with the TUC regarding the implementation by the Government and the trade unions of their side of the social contract.

I took part in the meetings of the TUC-Labour Party Liaison Committee on 21st April and 19th May when the operation of various aspects of the social contract was discussed. I am glad to say that there is continued agreement between us about the central rôle of the social contract and the need to secure firmer adherence to the pay guidelines in order to reduce the rate of inflation and combat unemployment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the Government have gone a long way to fulfil their side of the social contract, particularly as regards the social wage and the need to restrain the future rate of demand for pay increases, will the Secretary of State give serious consideration to the positive proposals put forward by Jack Jones?

Yes, I agree with the preamble of my hon. Friend's remarks and we shall certainly give careful and urgent consideration—as I am sure will the TUC General Council and others—to those ideas.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to deny the rumour which was circulating yesterday—I am sure it is only a rumour—that Mr. Jones was persuaded by the Government to float the idea of pay rises on those lines so that there could be a warm and positive response by Ministers? I am sure that that is a travesty of what took place. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, however, that Mr. Jones is not naïve enough to succumb to this strategy and, indeed, that the Government are not clever enough to suggest it?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his rumours, but that one is so absurd he must have manufactured it himself.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there could not possibly be any truth in that statement, because it is a well-known fact that Mr. Jack Jones derived his idea from suggestions put forward by my hon. Friends and myself at a time when the Conservatives were engaged in their profligate and spendthrift stage 3? Is he also aware that this is the second occasion on which Mr. Jack Jones has accepted Liberal policy, the first being the statutory minimum income? Will his Department come round to that idea too?

As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about where Mr. Jack Jones gets his ideas, as the Duke of Wellington said on a more famous occasion, if the hon. Member believes that he will believe anything. Mr. Jack Jones's ideas are serious and will be seriously considered. That is further proof that they did not come from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). As for the statement that the suggestion related to a proposal for a statutory minimum income, that is not the case and the hon. Member should not confuse the issue by making any such suggestion.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many trade unions have already settled well within social contract guidelines, notably the textile workers, who yesterday reached a settlement which in every respect was within the social contract? Will he, therefore, press upon the Cabinet that the Government can best ensure that the social contract is observed in future by protecting the jobs of those who have acted so responsibly?

My hon. Friend has put his case very well and ingeniously. I agree with the first part of his remarks. Settlements of that nature do not receive enough publicity, so it is a good thing that he has mentioned that matter today. In regard to his comments about the textile industry, I am sure that the Government will pay full regard to the representations which have been made.

At a time when unemployment is rising, would not more jobs now be available if the Secretary of State had done more to reduce the number of inflationary wage settlements and had made his side of the social contract work?

The present system is not one under which the Government are able to lay down the law on what is or is not a proper wage settlement. One of the difficulties with which we have had to deal all through these months is to try to clear up the mess left by the Conservative Government, who tried to lay down such rules. [Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members trying to shake their heads on this matter, or even succeeding in shaking their heads, because many settlements outside the guidelines in recent months have been due to the fact that those settlements went back two or three years into the period of statutory control.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he continues to be satisfied with the working of the social contract.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the working of the social contract; and if he will make a statement.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) on 24th April—[Vol. 830, c. 1216–19]—both the Government and the trade unions have sought to fulfil the social contract, which covers a whole range of policies. But firmer adherence to the spirit of the TUC guidelines is certainly required if we are to avoid higher unemployment and curb inflation.

In view of the assurances given by the Secretary of State earlier this afternoon, will he say exactly how he intends to tighten up and enforce the social contract?

I did not suggest that we should tighten up the guidelines in that sense. The Government suggest—and I am sure that the trade unions are seeking to help us—that we should ensure that there is a more faithful observance of those guidelines. That is not the same as a tightening of the guidelines. I believe that that is the best way in which we should proceed. It is on that basis that we are holding discussions with the TUC, taking into account the further proposals made by Mr. Jack Jones and others.

Now that Mr. Jack Jones has joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition in recognising, however regretfully, that the social contract has failed, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few of his right hon. and hon. Friends are the only ones left who believe in the myth that we are supposed to be able to control inflation? Now that inflation is running at 30 per cent., what must it reach before he recognises the problem-40 per cent. or 50 per cent.? When will the Secretary of State recognise that the Government's present proposals are stoking the fires of inflation?

Since the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question was baseless, the rest of his questions do not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment in the West Midlands; and what steps he is taking to find jobs for those unemployed there.

On 14th April the rate of unemployment was 3·7 per cent. The facilities of the Manpower Services Commission are always available to help workers find fresh employment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that West Midlands Members of Parliament are very concerned about the high level of unemployment in that area'? We are particularly concerned about the recession in the car industry and about the fact that a large slice of the British home market has been taken by imported cars. Will my hon. Friend take urgent steps through the National Enterprise Board to see that the car industry is resuscitated and that alternative sources of employment are provided, particularly for young people who will be leaving school this summer and also for women who are to be retrained and who will therefore need additional opportunities following Labour legislation?

The rate of unemployment in the West Midlands is 3·7 per cent., which is rather less than the national average. Of course the Government recognise the importance of the car industry, as will the National Enterprise Board when it is set up, and I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the proposals set out in the Ryder Report. The diversification of West Midlands industry is a matter which is taken into account in the issue of industrial development certificates.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways in which the Government can help to tackle the problem is to expand their tiny retraining programme?

The hon. Gentleman is speaking out of ignorance. The Government's training programme is greater than it has ever been before and is being further expanded. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's comments are not at all helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now registered as unemployed in Wales.

On 14th April the number was 59,554.

Will the Minister turn his attention to the position of Ebbw Vale? Does not he agree that it has always been the clear policy of the British Steel Corporation in relation to Ebbw Vale that new jobs should be provided in different industries at the same time as the closures took place and jobs were lost? Therefore, is not it regrettable that the Secretary of State should have changed his view so much, apparently, in recent times from when he supported the BSC's sensible policy to a point at which he now appears to be opposing it?

I think that the hon. Gentleman's sudden interest in Wales is a matter more of mischief than of interest. The people of Ebbw Vale will be well pleased with the representations made on their behalf by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ignorance of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is exceeded only by his stupidity, that he has absolutely nothing in common with the people represented by the Secretary of State and myself, and that only his total ignorance of the precise situation in Ebbw Vale could lead him to believe the rubbish which has been written in the newspapers and attributed to my right hon. Friend, and, indeed, to the men and women in Ebbw Vale, from whose agony the hon. Gentleman seeks to profit?

I find it difficult to add to what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the freedom of the Press and the closed shop following the recent discussions at the annual conference of the National Union of Journalists.

I have received 20 letters written since the National Union of Journalists held its annual conference on the subject of Press freedom and the closed shop, four of which have alluded to decisions reached at the conference.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are greatly concerned as a consequence of the resolutions passed by that conference. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, as there apparently is to be a recalled conference of the NUJ, he will delay any legislative action in this matter until that conference has been called and has reconsidered its decision?

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an extremely important question. I trust that the decisions of the House of Commons will count finally on this matter. We should not make those decisions dependent on one conference. I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he has asked. I believe that when the matter is debated the House of Commons will see that the Government's proposal is a reasonable and sensible way of settling the question. I hope that we shall have the full support of my hon. Friend on that account.

Will the Secretary of State say whether the vote at the NUJ's Cardiff conference has made a complete shambles of his policy on the closed shop in journalism? Will he now introduce amendments to the Bill which will preserve and safeguard free access to the Press for everybody, whether people belong to a union or not? Secondly, will he introduce amendments to ensure that editorial independence is also preserved?

All those matters will be dealt with when we come to discuss fully in the House of Commons what we shall do. I regret that the NUJ conference at Cardiff should have turned down the idea of a discussion about a Press charter, just as I regretted it when the editors turned down the same proposition a week or two before. Therefore, I think that we must deal with a situation in which the editors, the proprietors, and the NUJ at its conference have so far shown themselves as not moving towards what we would think of as the best solution of the matter. However, I glad to see that there are moves within the NUJ to make a wiser approach in the matter. I hope that the editors and the proprietors will show the same confidence.