asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he can now say when the training centre planned for Deptford will be built.

The Manpower Services Commission informs me that discussions are still taking place with the local planning authorities concerned. There is nothing I can add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 11th December 1974.—[Vol. 883, c. 167–8.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an entirely unsatisfactory situation? Does he appreciate that there is no skillcentre in any of the four South-East London boroughs? Does he realise that it is an area of high demand for skilled labour because it is an old traditional engineering and industrial area? What will he do to speed things up to ensure that this vital need on the part of industry in South-East London is satisfied quickly?

I share the anxiety of my hon. Friend. There is a need to make more rapid progress with the development of the site. I know that the Training Services Agency shares our anxiety. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that it is a difficult site to develop because of the number of planning authorities involved and because of the intersection of waterways. There are training centres and skillcentres which provide a service covering the area to which my hon. Friend has referred. I refer particularly to those in Enfield and Waddon and to the annexe at Sydenham. I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that we should make progress, and I will draw the attention of the planning authorities to his remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he can now say what provision is to be made for training in oil drilling technology.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that a drilling technology training centre is being established in Scotland with the aid of funds from the Manpower Services Commission. The centre will provide courses in drilling technology for graduate engineers and senior rig crew. The initial phase will be located at Livingston and should become operational this summer.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he now say what sort of numbers he expects to be able to train and who will be meeting the cost?

When the centre becomes fully operational we expect that it will have an annual throughput of about 600 trainees a year. The capital cost is estimated at £255,000 for the initial stage. That is being met by a grant from the Manpower Services Commission and by a loan which the Training Services Agency has been authorised to make. My hon. Friend asked about operating costs. Our eventual aim is to make the centre self-supporting. The Manpower Services Commission has authorised the Training Services Agency to offer a grant to meet any shortfall until the build-up has reached full occupancy.

Will the Minister confirm that the site at Livingston will not necessarily be the permanent long-term centre for oil drilling technology training and that the Government's mind is still open about where the major development should be sited? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people regard it as crazy that the centre of oil drilling technology training should be relatively far removed from the centre of oil activity and where oil personnel are situated—namely, Aberdeen and the North-East?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I said in my original answer, that this is the initial phase. The permanent site is primarily a matter for the Petroleum Industry Training Board. The board is considering a number of sites for the permanent centre.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now revise the terms of the social contract.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for amending the social contract.

The social contract concerns the whole range of common objectives which the Government seek to pursue in concert with the TUC, but perhaps hon. Members in their Questions are more specifically concerned with the guidelines on wage settlements. Since these are the TUC's guidelines, any amendment of them would clearly be a matter for the TUC. What the Government wish to see is not changes in the guidelines but the maximum possible compliance with them.

Is it not clear that the ever-elastic social contract is producing a rate of wage inflation way beyond what the economy or public or private industry can afford? As the social contract is now actively stoking up unemployment, will the right hon. Gentleman measure up to his national responsibilities and reduce the rate of wage inflation? If he is unwilling to do that, will he, in the national interest, resign?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count and especially, if I may say so, on the last. It is not the case that compliance with the social contract is causing the difficulties that he describes. It is our desire, as I said in my orginal answer, to secure the maximum possible compliance. The increases that have taken place and the inflation that has taken place have been due not to the social contract but to other factors altogether.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his comments on the social contract should take account of the fact that there have been Government measures to remove anomalies, particularly in regard to the teachers? Will he note that there still remains a grave anomaly, as set out in Early-Day Motion No. 254, signed by over 50 Members? Will he draw that motion to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to the removal of that anomaly?

I have had Early-Day Motion No. 254 drawn to my attention, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who never ceases to put these matters to me with his customary force and skill. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of that motion and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will take proper note of it.

Is it not sheer humbug to pretend that the miners' settlement is within the social contract? If the Secretary of State is genuinely concerned to secure greater compliance with the terms of that contract, would it not help if he were to echo the warning of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that non-adherence by the unions to the social contract will inevitably lead to mass unemployment?

Perhaps I could recommend the hon. Gentleman, before making these judgments, to read the speech which I made at the weekend.

I have.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman read it in the newspapers. The speech was reported and even more widely misreported, in the newspapers. I hope he will read the whole speech, which sets the miners' settlement in proper perspective. I said in that speech that it was undeniable that the settlement went beyond the guidelines in keeping up with the cost-of-living figures. That is true, but there are many other factors to be taken into consideration. All in all, I believe that the miners' settlement was a good one for the miners, the industry and, above all, for the country.

If and when my hon. Friend announces a revised social contract, will he think up a scheme within the contract to provide that on occasions when Conservative Members and Press and television reporters criticise poorer paid people on receiving wage increases, those criticis should declare how much they receive for their articles, which is sometimes as much as £200 or £300, or for a few minutes' contribution on radio or television, namely, a fee of £40 or £50? Will they not remember those large fees when they are condemning the miners for trying to achieve £30 or £40 a week?

I agree that such declarations would take the edge off televsion perorations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of his view on the remarks by Mr. Scargill last night that it is not a social contract but a social "con" trick and that the miners were right to act in defiance of it?

I disagree with what Arthur Scargill said on the subject of the social contract. I happen to agree with the policy of the NUM on the matter—namely, with what the NUM said at its conference and at the Trades Union Congress.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment of registered disabled compared with a year ago.

I regret that I cannot provide more up-to-date information than that which I gave to the hon. Member on 5th November 1974, when I said that 59,882 registered disabled people were unemployed in September 1974 compared with 66,259 in September 1973.

Does the Minister agree that there are still far too many registered disabled who are unemployed? What is the proportion of employers who do not come up to the 3 per cent. standard? Is he satisfied that employers are doing their best?

No, I am not satisfied with the present position. For that reason I recently instituted a scheme of purging what I consider to be the black spots. We have selected six areas for intensive enforcement of the scheme. If at the end of a six-months' period that is seen to be effective, we shall give careful consideration to repeating the exercise elsewhere.

My hon. Friend will agree that the expression of intent is made several times every year but is not followed by any specific action. Does he agree that the best way to encourage employers to take a proper quota of these workers is to examine the performance of all Government Departments, local authorities and public utilities? Does he agree that if the Government, as one of the largest employers in the land, were to set an example, other employers elsewhere might follow suit?

When I referred to a repetition of the present exercise which I have inaugurated, I did not see this as an on-going operation. My hon. Friend will appreciate that a consultative document was issued in 1973 on the future of the quota scheme. Therefore, until the necessary considerations and consultations have been completed we cannot reach final decisions. I agree that some Government Departments have fallen below the quota. I am very much aware of this fact and I have drawn it to the attention of the Departments concerned. I am now asking for information about what the House of Commons is doing in this respect. I hope that the authorities of the House will provide us with that information.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure of the number of people in short-time work.

It is estimated that in the week ended 14th December 1974 71,600 operatives in manufacturing industries in Great Britain were stood off or working short time. Information about short time amongst other workers is not available.

The figures are hopelessly out of date. How much more acceleration in price and pay inflation leading to mass unemployment and short-time working will the Minister preside over before he accepts ministerial responsibility for the non-existence of the social contract? What does he do in his Department while the country inflates into bankruptcy and recession?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment does a great deal more to ensure a high rate of employment than did his predecessors at the Department. On the question of short-time working, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await publication of the figures later this month. There has been a small drop in the December figure compared with November. Short-time working exists mainly in the consumer and the motor car industries and cannot be attributed to wage inflation.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have the full figures of short-time working and unemployment in the normal way later this month?

I cannot say whether the figures on short-time working will be published later this week, but on 20th February the normal figures on vacancies will be published.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give consideration to declaring 1st May a paid public holiday.

The Government have received a number of representations about the declaration of a May Day bank holiday which we are at present considering.

I welcome that reply, particularly since the undertaking to consider the matter was included in Labour's programme in 1973. I am sure the House will agree that such a move will make a great gesture towards the operation of the social contract. May I underline that such a holiday must be paid? We should remember that certain industries with wages councils have to specify holidays or there is no obligation to pay. Many people were not paid for New Year's Day because of this situation and, therefore, I hope that 1st May will be regarded as a paid holiday.

Bank holidays apply in law only to banking and certain other financial institutions. Nearly all employers in England and Wales observe them as paid holidays. I am confident that they will observe any new bank holiday that is instituted.

Will the Minister say what celebration we are supposed to be having on 1st May as a public holiday?

It might be more appropriate if we announced that at a time when we are ready to declare May Day as a public holiday. I am surprised to find any hon. Member who is not aware of the tremendous political significance of May Day to the whole of the Labour movement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how much the United Kingdom has been allocated for retraining from the EEC Social Fund since 1st January 1974; and what further applications he is now making.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what grants have been allocated to the United Kingdom for retraining purposes from the EEC Social Fund since 1st January 1973; and what further applications by his Department for such grants are still pending.

For 1973 about £19 million; a further £19 million for 1974; and £6 million so far for 1975. Training applications in respect of 1975 still pending amount to £10·5 million. Further applications will be submitted in respect of Government-operated schemes of training, to run from August 1975 into 1976, and yet other applications, including some of a smaller scale and non-governmental, are expected to be submitted as the year progresses.

Is the Minister aware that those figures are welcome? In view of the importance of retraining, especially when the Secretary of State is pressing for more investment in new machinery, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Industry, he is pressing, and will continue to press, for the maximum possible allocation to Britain from the fund?

I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department seeks the maximum possible allocations from the Social Fund for training and for other purposes.

Can the Minister say what proportion of the Government's training programme is now financed by the EEC? Will he confirm what I think he said in his original answer, that the processing and preparation of applications will go on without any check so that the applications will be submitted before next year?

I cannot, without notice, give the hon. Gentleman the proportion of the total cost of that training programme paid out of the Social Fund. There was no delay in submitting the applications which were made. I am anxious that the Commission should deal with them quickly and pay the money quickly after making the allocation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Manpower Services Commission; and if he will consider expanding its activities.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to enable the Manpower Services Commission to have a fully effective manpower intelligence and planning function.

I am satisfied with the present operations of the Manpower Services Commission. As proposed in the Labour Party manifesto, we are considering how to expand the commission's role. That expansion will certainly include an enlargement of the commission's manpower intelligence and planning function. The commission is about to recruit a Director of Manpower Intelligence and Planning whose first task will be to assess the commission's needs in this field.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Manpower Services Commission is advocating an expansion programme, and will the Government adopt that programme? Will he take note that although there are over half a million school leavers each year only 200,000 are at present receiving training, which compares badly with our European neighbours?

On the question of the expansion of the rôle of the Manpower Services Commission, I have already referred to the Labour Party manifesto on the subject, which we intend to carry out in this particular as in other particulars. We are holding further discussions with the Manpower Services Commission on these and other matters later this month. As regards the problems of school leavers, I hope that the proposals of the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency, which we were discussing, will lead to an improvement. That is what we desire. We think that that is a most important aspect of the problem.

This has been going on for quite a long time. Is there any reason why the advice of the Manpower Services Commission should not be fed back to undergraduates and school leavers straight away and without waiting?

It is not only a question of feeding back information. I did not understand that from my hon. Friend's question. I think it is also a question of providing further training facilities, to which I thought my hon. Friend referred. That is what we are seeking to work out, and we are in constant touch with the Manpower Services Commission about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he is making to review retraining schemes in rural areas.

The Manpower Services Commission informs me that the Training Services Agency is expanding the training opportunities scheme and that the increased facilities will benefit those living in rural areas. In addition, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas has embarked on an expansion programme designed to increase the range and scope of training which it provides in traditional rural crafts and other occupations.

While thanking the Under-Secretary of State for that reply, may I point out that forestry is one of our most important rural industries? May I stress the necessity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clarify his recent welcome capital transfer tax concessions with regard to forestry? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what plans he has specifically to encourage young men to take up forestry?

The latter part of the question is obviously a matter for the Training Services Agency. I should require notice to find out exactly what is happening. As regards the first part of his question, the hon. Gentlement has had his opportunity to make his point to the Chancellor about the excellent capital transfer tax which was proposed by my right hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the best opportunities are available for young people wanting to go into forestry if they enter the Forestry Commission?

I take note of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now take steps to increase the Professional Executive Recruitment Service in Scotland.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that no immediate increases are contemplated, but the needs of the service are being kept under close review.

Will the Minister confirm that local authorities are not obliged to use this service? Does he not think that it would be good if they did so, in view of the reorganisation of local Government?

I have discussed this matter with the PER. I hope that local authorities will make use of the service. I am sure that the PER will do everything possible to encourage notification of vacancies from local authorities.

Clients of PER obtain the services of PER below cost. The PER is subsidised to the tune of about £600,000 a year. Do foreign clients receive a subsidised service? For instance, I have seen PER advertisements in the Sunday Times for jobs in Saudi Arabia and South Africa to the tune of £13,000 a year. Do those foreign clients receive the subsidised service or do they pay the true cost?

The aim of the PER is to be self-financing, apart from payments from the Government for the social cost of the scheme. The PER is now moving towards the self-financing target. The advertising of foreign vacancies will to that small extent be subsidised. I am glad to see that PER is competing with private agencies, and long may it do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish the representations he has received about the consultative document on the proposed Employment Protection Bill.

All the representations we have received about the Employment Protection Bill are being carefully considered but, in accordance with usual practice, I shall not be publishing them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that however attractive some of the proposals in the proposed Bill may be, their implementation will add enormously to the costs of industry, especially to the small businesses which are now suffering badly? Will he give his estimate of the cost of the implementation of those proposals or at least undertake to publish an estimate in the near future?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the proper time for the House to discuss these matters is when the Bill is presented. When that is done, we shall give estimates of what we believe to be the economic consequences of these measures. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that this will impose an enormous burden of industry. Representations have been made to us on that subject. We have taken them into account. However, the Bill also offers great advan- tages for industry, including the carrying out of a further item in the social contract. I know how much the hon. Gentleman wishes to comply with it.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that, rather than wishing for publication of the representations that have been received on the consultative document, most of his right hon. and hon. Friends are waiting for him to publish the Employment Protection Bill, which is of far greater priority than the consultations, although obviously the consultations must be taken into account?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is the best way to go about it. I hope that a Bill will be introduced to the House of Commons in March, before Easter. The sooner we can make progress with it, the better.

Before Christmas, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would be introduced in January. Before that, he said that it would be introduced before Christmas. Is not this an example of how mucked up the Government's legislative programme has become? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he will be able to get a measure of this sort through the House this Session together with the referendum proposals and everything else?

Everybody knows that we will get the referendum through. We certainly intend to get the Bill through too. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not hinting at any conceivable obstruction, because this is one of the central Bills in the carrying out of the social contract, and I know how eager Conservative Members are for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning provisions for homeworkers in the Employment Protection Bill.

A number of points about the operation of the Wages Councils Act in relation to homeworkers have been raised, principally by the TUC, and have been the subject of discussion between officials of my Department and of the TUC.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the TUC deserves congratulation on taking up at long last the plight of the homeworkers? Is he aware that only about half of the many thousands of homeworkers are registered with local authorities as required by law? If he does not include them in the Employment Protection Bill, will he take steps to tighten up that regulation?

I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of homework on this subject and will therefore be aware that the requirement for registration under the Factories Act is limited to a number of scheduled trades and occupations and is primarily for health and safety purposes. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act empowers the Health and Safety Commission to introduce a more comprehensive register. I agree that there is a problem here. I am glad that the TUC has drawn attention to it. We are giving further careful consideration to how best we can tackle the problem of homeworkers and the need for more protection for them.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a major travesty if the Employment Protection Bill does not adequately deal with this vast area of exploited labour? This is a section in which large numbers of people are totally exploited. The Employment Protection Bill will have a hollow ring unless it deals with this problem.

One way in which the Employment Protection Bill will make a contribution—I do not pitch it any higher—is by the inclusion of a provision to amend the definition of "worker" as defined in the Wages Councils Act, so that it will clearly cover homeworkers. This will give wages councils more effective power to safeguard homeworkers' earnings. Many homeworkers are not in wages councils industries. I recognise that there is a problem here and, as I said, we are giving very careful consideration, particularly in the light of two recent CIR reports, to how best to follow up the recommendations made by the CIR. I have in mind particularly CIR Report No. 77.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many com- munications he has received on the subject of editorial freedom in connection with amendments of the law since 11th October 1974.

My hon. Friend and I have received about 100 communications from about 75 sources, suggesting various forms of proposed statutory safeguards.

Has the Secretary of State seen the suggestion by Lord Goodman that the only person who is convinced that he is introducing a new charter of liberty for the British Press is the right hon. Gentleman himself? Is there any chance that the Secretary of State is likely to repent at later stages of the Bill, or does he propose to continue as the self-appointed defender of a freedom of the British Press which is not agreed to by the whole of Fleet Street?

The House came to a healthy conclusion on the matter in the recent debate. On Third Reading the House gave its verdict, which happened to concur with my view on the matter. I am gratified by its conjunction. It is most ill-advised of the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, including Lord Goodman, to cast aspersions on the charter for the freedom of the Press which is being discussed in another place. Progress is being made with that proposal. For anybody in any quarter to cast aspersions on it is most misguided, because I believe that that is the real way to protect the freedom of the Press.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange to investigate the editorial policies of the Daily Express which, in adopting cheque book journalism, is restricting access to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and, in the terms of one of the more recent victims of that newspaper's cheque book attitude, is behaving like the KGB? Will he ensure that when the referendum starts, freedom of the Press will be given to those who want to get out of Europe as well as to those who want to stay in?

I have one or two other matters on my mind at the moment without cleaning up the Augean stables in the Daily Express offices. I am not starting on that, even at the invitation of my hon. Friend, and no one would be more persuasive than he in doing so. I believe that we are making good progress with the Bill. The sooner it is on the statute book, the better for all concerned.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the opinion of many who are well able to judge, it is he who is misguided on the subject of Press freedom? Will he, even at this late stage, help to facilitate an amendment to the legislation in the House of Lords which would be acceptable in all parts of the House? Is he aware that it would be totally wrong to assume that the vote following his emotive and passionate speech the other night is the end of the matter? It certainly is not.

In my opinion, the proper place to decide the whole question is this House of Commons, the elected representative of the people of this country. As I said in the debate, I hope that their Lordships will not poke their noble noses into this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take further action designed to ensure more rapid progress towards the implementation of equal pay.

I am currently considering whether to refer collective agreements which contain discriminatory provisions to the Industrial Arbitration Board for advice, and I am in correspondence with a number of negotiating bodies in this connection. I am also conducting a publicity campaign about the Act. My Department is continuing to monitor the state of progress towards equal pay generally and the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service has agreed to my request to continue to provide information and advice on a wide basis to firms which need it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is not dissimilar from a previous answer he gave me in December? Is he further aware that there are far too many discriminatory collective agreements? Will he now take positive and firm action to refer those discriminatory collective agreements to the Industrial Arbitration Board so that more rapid progress can be made in future than in the past towards equal pay?

I am trying to be positive and firm. I am sure that the letters I have sent to negotiating bodies are having a good effect on progress towards equal pay. If I identify agreements which are not being renegotiated and where I do not think that equal pay will be achieved, I shall seriously consider a reference. I am also considering including in the Anti-Discrimination Bill provisions which will enable the Equal Opportunities Commission to investigate and forward the cause of equal pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he had had regarding the extension of worker participation in the ports industry.

My right hon. Friend has received many representations from both sides of industry about the Government's commitment to ensure that the coverage of the Dockworkers' Employment Scheme is appropriate to modern conditions. He will shortly be issuing detailed proposals about implementation.

I am grateful for that reply. Before the Minister concludes his consultations, will he pay particular attention to the excellent labour relations which have existed and do exist in some privately-owned and operated ports which have been productive without statutory enforcement?

Before publishing our detailed proposals we shall take careful account of representations made to us by many sectors concerned with dock work, including those from the private ports which have included references to industrial relations at those ports.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are currently discussing the earliest possible implementation of public ownership of the ports in the United Kingdom? As we are intent on pursuing a large element of worker participation in those proposals, we look forward to Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), supporting us when the proposals come forward.

The public ownership of ports and port reorganisation are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In so far as these matters affect industrial democracy in that area, the Department of Employment has a continuing interest and will welcome any developments which port reorganisation may bring about.

Are not industrial relations in the private ports much better than in the other ports?

Our investigations into the whole industrial relations situation does not lead us to that conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the degree of compliance with wage guidelines; and whether he will make a statement.

As I have said before, the guidelines have had a considerable measure of success and constitute the best basis for the future, but I would emphasise the importance of the maximum possible compliance with them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members will agree that last week's settlement on behalf of the miners was registered in respect of a unique work force in our economy and that any disposition by other claimants to use it as a gateway will aggravate inflation and undermine the living standards of pensioners and others without power to negotiate?

As I said in reply to a previous question, my comments last week put that settlement into its general perspective.

Since compliance with the guidelines is so important, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to publish the details of the guidelines as a State paper?

We have been into that before, and I shall be happy to have a discussion on it in the future. It is a much better subject for debate than for question and answer. I do not believe it would be a sensible way of proceeding if we commented on every settlement and the detail of every settlement, partly because I do not think it would help to deal with inflation.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the activities of the people who invested in a rising stock market and subsequently sold out, having cleaned up a substantial profit? Does he not think that these people similarly should be subject to some guidance so far as income is concerned?

That is another question. It is like the invitation of one of my hon. Friends who asked me to clean up the Augean stables. I have a few other things to do, and even Hercules could not do these things in his spare time.

Following the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), may I ask why the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that when it comes to journalists only the House of Commons can decide but that in the matter of the social contract he can decide, without any recourse and information to the House of Commons at all?

That is not my view at all. I am strongly in favour of the House of Commons having questions about the social contract, as we have had today, and debates. We had a full debate, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), a few weeks ago on the social contract, but very few Conservative Members turned up, including the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am not complaining, but I think the best way to deal with this is by debating all these questions in the House of Commons.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

I shall do my best to answer any Questions that the right hon. Gentleman puts down. As I have said before—and I believe that the argument we had showed the real reasons for it—we had an exchange of correspondence published in Hansard for the benefit of hon. Members, but I think it would be a mistaken course in the interests of dealing with inflation if we had a detailed publication about each individual wage settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on his future intentions on private employment agencies, following the representations he has received from the TUC.

As I informed the House on 23rd January, my right hon. Friend intends to implement the Employment Agencies Act 1973 but proposes to strengthen it by transferring responsibility for licensing and enforcement to himself. We have it in mind to discuss with the Manpower Services Commission the possibility of its undertaking a study in this field. In the light of the results of such a study and of the experience of the Department in operating the Act, we would be able to review the whole situation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House feel that merely tightening up and issuing a few more regulations for the control of private employment agencies does not go half far enough? Is he aware that many of us will be happy only when services of this kind are provided only by the Employment Services Agency? Will he reaffirm that it is still his Department's ultimate intention to ensure that this comes about?

Certainly we recognise the desirability and the need to strengthen the Employment Services Agency so that it provides a more effective service. I should tell my hon. Friend, however, that this is a much more complex subject than often appears on the surface. I hoped that my reference to a review would have made quite clear that we have by no means ruled out consideration of the eventual abolition of fee-charging placement agencies.

asked the Prime Minister how many civil servants now report to him directly on the future of the motor industry.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 11th February.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister and his hat on their safe return together? May I ask him, whatever advice he receives, to accept that for a year more and more people in the Cowley Works have accepted the need for radical change and that it would be a fatal mistake to ask the taxpayer to subsidise an existing set-up, including a complicated and confusing trade union structure? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that special legislation would be required to implement whatever Sir Don Ryder advises?

I recognise the concern of the hon. Member about the position particularly at Cowley. He will know that some months ago British Leyland approached the Government about its problems and the need for investment and said that the company could be viable by cutting out some of the loss-making big sectors, which would probably mean, one might have thought, Cowley and Longridge. We said that we did not believe it right to have a mini car industry and that it should be a full-size industry. We offered to discuss the investment programme, and in the course of our discussion the liquidity problems became clear. Sir Don Ryder is going into this with great vigour and speed. I hope that we shall have a viable British motor car industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1974, as far as new registration of financial out-turn is concerned, the two multinational corporations, Chrysler and General Motors, which are represented in this country, did considerably worse than British Leyland, as a result of which my constituents in Coventry who work for Chrysler are working only two days a week at the moment? Is there not now a case for extending the terms of the Ryder committee of inquiry to include at least Chrysler as well?

I do not think that is necessary at this stage. I discussed these matters and our common interest in this question of employment, investment and trade with the President of the United States. I have made one or two inquiries. Chrysler, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been corresponding, was mentioned. My clear understanding is that on the company's part there is an undeniable intention to continue its operations in the United Kingdom and a readiness to discuss with the British Government how the continuing efficiency of those operations can be secured.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second half of my hon. Friend's question and say whether the Government are considering legislation which is not currently before the House to deal with the problem of British Leyland?

The answer is "No, Sir". But, of course, we have not got the report of Sir Don Ryder and his team. They are, as I said, working very vigorously on this problem. I hope that whatever solution they come up with will be capable of being dealt with under existing legislation, including possibly legislation passed by the previous Government. But if legislation were needed to save a major indigenous industry we would not hesitate to bring it before the House.

asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on 11th February.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether yesterday he had a chance to read the Cambridge Economic Review which set out its case for rejecting totally deflationary policies? Did he also notice in that report that the case was made for the imposition of import controls, which is in line with the policy now being developed by the TUC, has been stated by every trade union which has as yet issued an economic report and is, indeed, supported by no fewer than 100 Members on the Labour back benches?

I did not read that until today. From the time the Government came into office we have made it clear that we reject deflationary policies as a means of solving problems caused to a considerable extent by the oil price situation. To embark on deflationary policies and bring about a diminution of world trade would be bad for us as a major trading nation. The same is true of the use of import controls.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the social contract is fair when those who settle within its guidelines have to pay for the excessive wages of those who settle outside them through increased costs of coal and electricity?

These matters were fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in the statement he made recently. I entirely agree with what he said. If the hon. Member is referring to the mineworkers' settlement, to which my right hon. Friend referred, I hope he and other hon. Members will recognise that no one in this country, perhaps not even the Tory Party, wants to go back to the confrontation of a year ago. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) does, but no one else does. The hon. Member may not have noticed what my right hon. Friend said, namely that this was a major restructuring agreement. Conservative Members will be aware of the need for more coal-face workers. They will also know that we cannot go on—it would be wrong to go on—with the situation in which, through inadequate recruitment to the mines, we have to use that odious practice of underground mining contractors—the lump. What has been agreed is calculated to enable us to solve these structural problems.

The Prime Minister has been having meetings with the TUC and the CBI on these matters. Will he also have similar meetings with the new national consumer authority so that the voice of the consumer can be heard?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The previous Government scrapped any semblance of consumer representation in this country. We have restored it, at a high level. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has made it clear that she will have the closest connection with the new authority. So will I.

Will the Prime Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison): whether he considers it is fair that those who make settlements outside the guidelines of the social contract should have those settlements paid for by others who must meet increased prices? Will he further say whether he thinks that a settlement such as that which has been reached by the miners falls within the social contract?

That question was answered by my right hon. Friend I agree with him. On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman I would refer him to the statement—I will send him a copy of it if he has not seen it—made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to the effect that the Government were right not to interfere in the negotiations between the NUM and the Coal Board and that the miners had always been a special case. I have the full text here if the right hon. Gentleman would like to read what he said on that occasion. I am interested to hear the language he is now talking, because he was not talking it a year ago.

Answer the question.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to pay an official visit to Brussels.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the recent successful negotiations in Brussels and elsewhere with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries fully meet the Government's requirements concerning the Third World? Will he confirm that the Third World and New Zealand are anxious that Britain should remain within the Community?

The ACP negotiations, on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development reported to the House, were a great achievement. We all take great satisfaction from them. I have publicly stated that I believe that it makes a big contribution to meeting the particular requirement set out in our manifesto. I have had full discussions with the New Zealand Prime Minister, who says that this is entirely a matter for Britain and the referendum. He told me that New Zealand is anxious about the effect on New Zealand trade with Britain of the terms so meekly accepted by the last Conservative Government, which we criticised at the time. This is because those terms limit what New Zealand can sell us. I am happy to tell the House that we do not accept those terms of 1971 and we are negotiating for a continuance of New Zealand trade with this country, which the Tory Party was prepared to throw away.

Since the renegotiations are now going along so splendidly, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the House how long it will be before he is able to go to Brussels and assure the British people working there for the Commission that they will not have to pack their bags and come home to join the unemployed?

The negotiations are not in the main taking place in Brussels, except in so far as from time to time the Council of Ministers meets there. The negotiations are now in the hands not of the Brussels organisation so much as of the Foreign Ministers. Progress is being made. There is still a very long way to go, as the House knows. I hope we shall make considerable progress on outstanding issues at the summit meeting in Dublin next month.

Will my right hon. Friend make it a fundamental point of the renegotiations that there shall be no interference by the Common Market with the full implementation of the provisions of the Industry Bill when it is enacted, even if this means renegotiating Articles 92, 94 and 189 of the Treaty of Rome? Does he agree that legislation such as the Industry Bill is vitally necessary if the country is to be put on a sound economic footing once again?

In all the debates we have had, in this country and overseas, I have always been assured by pro-Marketeers that nothing in the rules or practices of the Common Market is intended to interfere with the right of a member country to take further industries or parts of industries into public ownership. This is what we are always told and I believe people to be genuine when they say these things. At the moment I am slightly more worried—and it is an important manifesto point—about certain aspects of regional aid and about the ECSC Treaty as it concerns the steel industry.

asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to visit Wales.

I hope to do so on 15th March, Sir.

When the right hon. Gentleman visits Wales, will he take the opportunity to talk to a number of ordinary people and find out what they think about the proposals for an elected Welsh Assembly? Will he find out their views on how much this expensive nonsense will add to their bills as ratepayers and taxpayers?

I note what the hon. Member says. He will be aware that our consultative document published last summer was the subject of the most detailed consultations with all organisations in Wales—including the people he no doubt has in mind—and that the White Paper we produced and the ideas put forward in the debate by Ministers exactly reflect the consensus expressed in Wales.

When the Prime Minister visits Wales, will he visit the steel workers there? Will he explain to them, particularly those in Ebbw Vale, why the Government's redundancy strategy in the report made by the Minister of State, did not include a basic reassessment of the BSC steel strategy? Will he undertake that an investment of £600,000 will be made ready for Ebbw Vale to reline the blast furnaces before there is any further talk of rundown?

The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) was forthcoming in welcoming the statement made by my right hon. Friend, which affected other areas in Wales and which provides more employment in Shotton, contrary to what the previous Government were proposing some little time ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment could answer the question about Ebbw Vale much better than I. It is an extremely difficult problem, going back into history. We are concerned to ensure employment for those working in Ebbw Vale. We believe in the immense power of the British Steel Corporation and the possibility of joint ventures with other employers. This is a problem that can be solved.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from someone who was born in the Ebbw Vale constituency, who worked in the Ebbw Vale Steelworks for two years and whose father worked there for 27 years until his death, that the interests of the Ebbw Vale steelworkers and the Monmouthshire valleys will not be served by populist, instant answers like those proffered by Plaid Cymru, which seeks to gain a few cheap votes out of the disaster and agony of the men and women of South Wales and Ebbw Vale in particular?

My hon. Friend is right. The people of Ebbw Vale know that since 1929 they have had two superb representatives in this House, and they have had and have full confidence in them.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the great concern in Wales is over the tremendous increase in the cost of local government due to the Local Government Act passed by the Conservative Government? Is he prepared to look again at the proposals for a Welsh Assembly, with a view to doing away with one tier of local government before we have this Assembly in Wales?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The reform, or whatever it was, or the restructuring of local government by the previous Conservative Government was a disaster not only for Wales but for other parts of the country. It is less democratic, particularly in regard to many aspects of Welsh affairs—one thinks of water as an example—and it is highly costly. We are all bearing the cost of it. We shall look at these matters, but I cannot give any assurance now about what changes will be made. We think that it was done incorrectly last time, and we shall be looking for reforms.