asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in London.

On 9th June the rate of unemployment for Greater London was 2·2 per cent.

Does the Minister accept that this figure merely reflects the record June total of unemployed nationally? How does he explain it, considering the promise on which he was elected? Is it policy, accident, design, incompetence or what that has thrown out of work so many men and women in this country?

I do not think the hon. Member could have been listening to the answer. The rate of unemployment in Greater London is among the lowest in the country. A good many job opportunities and vacancies are available. I think that the hon. Member's remarks, as so often, bear very little relevance to the Question.

That is utterly complacent and ignorant.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the percentage of unemployment in London conceals some serious pockets of very bad unemployment? Is he aware that South-East London in particular is suffering in the worst possible way? Will he bear this in mind in any action the Government are taking?

Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I represent such a constituency myself.

It is a different story now.

Where there are high pockets of unemployment, these are being studied by Government Departments. There are real problems of high unemployment and other forms of deprivation and these are being looked at.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to improve the education of workshop representatives.

The content of courses for improving the education of workshop representatives is largely for the parties concerned. We have, however, taken action in the Employment Protection Bill to facilitate such training by providing for time off for workers to undergo training in aspects of industrial relations relevant to the carrying out of their trade union duties.

Is the Minister aware that the very rapid growth in industrial democracy which we are expecting from this Government will require the development of trade union education? Is he further aware that, while we respect the fact that trade unions will want to control their education themselves, institutions must be provided in which that education can take place?

Certainly. It is my wish that courses of that kind should be sustained and expanded. My hon. Friend is right to identify the need for growth in this area in future. He will recognise that there are difficulties in determining whether such courses are educational or vocational and consequently which Department is responsible for their provision. Equally, I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the TUC feels that training in industrial relations matters for trade union members and officials is primarily a job for it, but I shall look carefully at the point he has put to me.

How can the hon. Gentleman talk about industrial democracy when certain of the top unions in this country refuse point blank to have anything to do with voting by post?

I do not think that arises on this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the numbers of firms which now meet their quotas for the employment of disabled people, broken down on a regional basis.

As the reply contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report a regional analysis of compliance with the statutory quota scheme for the employment of disabled people.

Does the Minister accept that the available figures demonstrate the deficiencies in existing legislation which has clearly failed in its objective? What does he propose to do about it?

My hon. Friend will know that the statutory quota scheme has been under review since the last Conservative Government issued a consultative document at the end of 1973. I hope I shall be able to present our conclusions on that review to the House very shortly.

Would it not be an encouragement to firms if, for example, the Queen's Award to Industry was made only to firms which employed their quota of disabled people?

This is an interesting point that has been put to me before. Anything which encourages the employment of more disabled people has to be considered very carefully, but I doubt whether the hon. Member's suggestion matches the needs of what he and I agree is a very unhappy situation.

Has my hon. Friend received any information from the special investigations he set up in selected areas? Will he bear in mind that, in a period of rising unemployment nationally, unemployment among the disabled rises out of proportion to the rest of the community?

On my hon. Friend's latter point, there is some small comfort in the fact that the trend has been contrary to what he suggested. Unemployment in the country has risen fairly sharply over the last 12 months, but the number of unemployed among the regis- tered disabled has risen from 10·4 per cent. in June 1974 to 12·1 per cent. in June 1975.

Is the Minister aware that there would not be enough disabled persons to go around if every firm were to fulfil its statutory quota? In view of what the Minister said when he was in opposition, does he not accept that the Act is now grossly out of date and in urgent need of revision? Does he accept that there must be some new impetus to provide good employment prospects for the disabled?

The hon. Member does not recall accurately the point I used to make when I was in opposition. My point was concerned with more rigorous enforcement of the statutory quota scheme. In the light of the experience gained from the exercise to which I have just referred, I think we are compelled to look again at whether that is the right approach. I think that the hon. Member is correct in his assertion of the need to look again at whether statutory provisions are appropriate and adequate for the needs of the present situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions he has had with the TUC regarding the implementation of the social contract; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have been in close consultation with the TUC in their review of the social contract and we shall be having further urgent discussions with it. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement to be made later this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the guidelines of the social contract must be drastically tightened?

It would be very much better that the hon. Member should await the statement which the Chancellor is to make.

This is the first intimation we have had that any statement is being made by the Chancellor. Why was this important statement not shown on the notice board in the ordinary way so that hon. Members could be kept fully informed of what was happening?

It is a secret statement.

Can we take it that the pathetic faith in the social contract, which the Secretary of State has always shown and which has brought this country to the edge of disaster, will not now be followed by a further pathetic attempt by the Government to patch up something we have known could never possibly exist?

The right hon. Gentleman might save his feeble fire for the Chancellor. If there has been any mistake concerning notification of the statement by the Chancellor, of course that will be looked at, but I understood that the announcement had already been made clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the social contract as the main feature of the Government's policy to maintain full employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the social contract in maintaining employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the social contract in maintaining full employment; and if he will make a statement.

As I have emphasised in reply to previous Questions today, I am certainly not satisfied in any sense whatever with the current level of employment, but a reversal of the present deplorable trend can be achieved only by intelligent policies agreed between the Government and the trade unions to combat inflation.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman noticed that his Government's reliance on the social contract means that we have rising inflation, rising unemployment, a falling pound and falling confidence nationally and internationally? Is not the social contract merely an excuse by which the Government avoid taking difficult decisions? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop expecting people like Jack Jones to play Prime Minister and ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues to start trying to run the country properly?

As I explained to the House —I thought that most right hon. and hon. Members accepted it or understood it—the social contract covers a whole range of policies which were agreed between the Government and the trade union movement, including arrangements about how pay settlements should be made. We intend that the whole of the social contract shall be carried into operation. The idea that it is concerned solely with wages is a complete misapprehension. I believe that the understanding of the social contract still points to the way in which we can overcome our problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered male employees there were in Wales in June 1955, June 1965 and June 1975.

At June 1974, the latest date for which information is available, the estimated number of male employees in employment in Wales was 621,000. Precisely comparable figures are not available for the earlier dates due to discontinuities in the series, but approximate figures on the current basis would be about 700,000 in June 1955 and in June 1965.

Is the Minister aware that the disastrous fall in the number of men employed in Wales over the period of which he speaks is certainly due not to current difficulties but rather to a deep and chronic malaise in the Welsh economy due to misgovernment over a long period of years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the Government in London have been unable to provide work for Welshman in Wales, it is time they yielded government of Wales to the people of Wales?

I do not agree with the hon. Member's premises. Total employment in Wales between 1955 and 1974 increased by 20,000. The diminution in traditional industries is in line with the movement of a similar kind through- out the rest of the United Kingdom and other industrial countries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that investment is the key to future employment prospects in Wales and that in this respect the Industry Bill and the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill can play a fundamental rôle? Does he agree that private industry has been letting the nation down by failing to invest?

My hon. Friend is quite right. There is under-investment, and both these Bills should bring a great deal of benefit to Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the number of employees in employment in Wales; and how this compares with the mid-year figure for 1972, 1973 and 1974.

The latest available employment estimates relate to June 1974, when there were 992,000 employees in employment in Wales compared with 1 million in June 1973 and 973,000 in June 1972.

Is the Minister aware that the drop between 1973 and 1974 is a direct reflection of the number of people who have had to leave Wales to look for work? That is a reflection of the increase in unemployment for men, the figure of which in respect of my constituency stood at 14·7 per cent. this spring. Is he aware that that situation is totally unsatisfactory? Will he give an assurance that the Government, in any economic package which they are now considering, will bring in no measures to worsen the unemployment situation in places such as Wales?

I have already replied that the Government have as an objective of their policy the bringing of employment to Wales. Between 1972 and 1974 there was a growth in the number of jobs in Wales. The Welsh Development Agency, the doubling of the regional employment premium and the making of the whole of Wales an assisted area have helped employment there. That policy will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the current level of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

I am naturally dissatisfied with the current level of unemployment. The figure is already much too high and the danger is that it will rise higher still for several months to come. Partly the trouble arises from the recession which has hit many countries besides our own. Our capacity to overcome the menace will depend on a combination of policies, not least and immediately upon our success in curbing inflation.

Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the days of the Labour Party conference in 1966 when the country was suffering from relatively minor unemployment? Does he recall that he made a glorious speech attacking the possible increased unemployment that might arise from the economic package that was about to be launched at that time? Will he give a guarantee that he will not tolerate, in any economic package that is presented this afternoon or at any other time, provisions which set out deliberately to make the dole queues even longer?

My hon. Friend will recall that my original reply is in exact conformity with what I said at that conference. I have just told him that the present level of unemployment is much too high, and I do not qualify that in any way. One of the purposes of any measures the Government put forward for dealing with the position is to try to curb increasing unemployment and then to bring down the unemployment figures themselves.

Is it not a fact that, whatever the Chancellor says this afternoon or at any other time, unemployment is almost certain to rise in the coming months? Is it not a fact that unless the Chancellor takes firm action there will be the most dreadful rise this country has ever seen? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether there is to be a statement this afternoon?

There is to be a statement this afternoon. I referred in my original reply to the future danger of increasing unemployment. I am not complacent about that matter. The present level of unemployment is much too high. There is a danger of its going higher still, and we have to take a whole series of measures to try to deal with that situation, including measures to deal with inflation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that unemployment on Merseyside is already intolerably high, particularly among school leavers? What kind of selective action do the Government propose to take to alleviate unemployment in the area and to ensure that school leavers, who at present are leaving school with a prospect no better than the dole queue, do not become the future forgotten generation?

I fully appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has raised this question, coming as he does from Merseyside, where the unemployment situation is even worse than in most other parts of the country. Having been in Merseyside myself this weekend I am now even more aware of the strong feelings of my hon. Friends and others in the area about the situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that few Opposition Members will disagree with his original answer to the Question? The Opposition castigate the Government and the Minister for their failure to take earlier action to control inflation and their failure to deal at an earlier stage with the problems of school leavers, which will be especially marked in the next few months ahead. Two months ago the House debated that matter. It does not appear to have been followed by Government action.

When that matter was debated the Government gave a good answer to that point when the Opposition raised it. We are also seeing what further measures we can take to assist in the situation. As to the hon. Gentleman castigating the Government for what we did in the past, some of the measures taken by the Government last year, which are still having their effect, resulted in keeping our unemployment level below the levels of most other countries in Western Europe. The Opposition bitterly criticised some of those measures when they were taken. But I agree that no one can be complacent about the situation in any part of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present rate of unemployment as compared with a year ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his latest estimates for the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

On 9th June 1975 the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 3·7 per cent. compared with 2·3 per cent. on 10th June 1974.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one man's excessive wage rise is another man's lost job? Will he in future consult the vast majority of trade unionists who would prefer a reasonable wage settlement and secure employment?

I agree that excessive wage settlements, as they have sometimes been described, can contribute to the level of unemployment. However, taking the figures over the past year, it would be wrong to say that wage settlements are mainly responsible for unemployment. The main cause of the unemployment throughout the whole of this period has been the recession which has hit the whole Western world.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the measures which the Government will inevitably introduce will raise the levels of unemployment to much higher figures than those he has stated? Has he considered his personal responsibility for this situation? Does he recognise that unemployment will now be much higher as a result of the delay in bringing forward the tough measures which the economic situation necessitates? How far has he been responsible for those delays?

I do not accept any part of what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course I accept the responsibility. As long as I am in this job I must answer for figures, which are of a serious character, such as those I read out in answer to the Question. We should discuss the causes for those figures and deal with them. The hon. Gentleman has spoken as if the sole cause was a particular form of the wages policy. I do not agree with him about that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the phenomenon created in the Greater London area when the Conservative Party was in power, when factory undertakings were allowed to be sold and warehouses were allowed take their place, and when no endeavour was made by the Conservative Government to arrest that trend? That has contributed to unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment means of stopping the cancer started by the Conservative Government, which has increased unemployment in the Greater London area?

There are some measures of that character. I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House, whatever differences of opinion they may have about the different cures for the problem, would agree that the nature of unemployment today is of a different character in many respects from that in years gone by—and especially because of the way in which the huge increase in oil costs has contributed to the unemployment situation in this and in other countries. We have been trying to ward off those difficulties in this country. In some respects we have been more successful than other countries, and in other respects we have not been so successful. But we must use a combination of measures to deal with the situation. The idea that a single panacea can deal with it is mistaken.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to raise the general level of awareness of the need for accident prevention at work.

The Health and Safety Work etc. Act has established the Health and Safety Commission to plan and arrange the implementation of the wide-ranging powers provided for in the Act. A major part of its effort is already being directed, through the Health and Safety Executive, to raising the level of awareness of the need for accident prevention.

Has my hon. Friend seen the recent TUC statement which points out that on every average working day four people are killed and more than 3,000 are seriously injured at work? Will he therefore seek to ensure that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act is applied with the maximum emphasis on prevention? I emphasise prevention.

My hon. Friend is right to express his concern, as he does on so many occasions, about these appalling figures. In its short life so far, the Health and Safety Commission has done a tremendous amount in terms of publicising the provisions of the Act and the new obligations that it imposes. The details are much too lengthy for me to refer to now. If, however, my hon. Friend would like me to write to him setting out what has been done, I shall be pleased to do so.

Will the Minister look at the need to educate people rather than to legislate? There is far too little awareness by the man on the shop floor and on the farm. Legislation is only restrictive. What is needed is education to obey rules.

I am second to none in urging the need for wider education in these matters, wider understanding, the provision of courses and publicity. It is perhaps the over-dependence on those aspects and inadequate and unsuitable statutory arrangements which have contributed to the appalling figures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) referred. It seems odd that we should be strictured by a member of the Conservative Party, which last year deprived agricultural workers of the full protection of the new statutory provisions. We shall put the situation right in a short time with the provisions of the Employment Protection Bill.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways of raising awareness is to encourage the trade union safety committees to act? Will he bring pressure on the Health and Safety Commission, which has been dilatory about this matter, to issue regulations so that trade unions and employers know where they stand? We should encourage these committees to get cracking so that the appalling level of industrial injuries can be reduced.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the workers' safety representatives and the proposed statutory safety committees and the contribution they can make to an increased awareness and a diminution in the toll of industrial accidents. I share his hope that the commission will make speedy progress during the drafting of the regulations and that in doing so it will have full regard to the Government's declared policy and the provisions embodied in the Employment Protection Bill, which by deleting one part of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in this matter should make its task easier. Therefore, I hope that it will respond to the appeal which has been addressed to it from the House, in which I share.

Is the Minister aware that while the accident rate in some industries has improved, in agriculture just the opposite has taken place? Is he aware that the rate of fatal accidents per thousand employed in agriculture today is higher than it has been since the war? Will he do something about this?

I fully appreciate that the total of accidents in agriculture has grown heavier. This makes it all the more incomprehensible that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends last year should have deliberately deprived agricultural workers of the safeguards. I hope that, in the light of what he said, when the Employment Protection Bill reaches its Report stage he will fully support us in extending the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to safeguard the agricultural workers in his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest annual percentage increase in average earnings.

The April index shows an overall increase in average earnings on a year earlier of 30·5 per cent. for the industries covered.

Is the Minister aware that it is figures like this that are causing concern among informed observers abroad, who can see clearly that they are way out of line with productivity at home and with international increases in pay levels, and that it is this most of all that is causing the extremely disturbing lack of confidence in sterling at the present time? Will he therefore state clearly what level of wage increase is compatible with the Government's target—modest enough—of getting inflation down to 10 per cent. by 1976?

The social contract guidelines for wages were based upon an economic judgment made at that time. It has proved in practice that the movement towards obtaining the low paid target, equal pay, meeting obligations under threshold agreements and dealing with a number of very serious problems that arose as a result of the statutory pay policy which preceded it are measures which have led to an increase above what was judged necessary at that time.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, whatever else might happen, there will be no retardation of the progress made towards equal pay between now and the end of the year?

I think I can say, on behalf of all Ministers in my Department, that we have persistently taken the view that, whatever policies are followed, equal pay must have the utmost priority.

But how long must it be before the Government realise that it is the social contract and its so-called guidelines which have led us into our present disastrous situation? Is not it a fact that the wage settlements to which the Secretary of State referred, when he said that other people were calling them excessive, are the very ones the Secretary of State has described as being within the social contract?

The factors which have put the social contract guidelines to the test were created by the policy that preceded it. It cannot be deduced from these circumstances that the guidelines created the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs which will be lost in the United Kingdom during the current year as a result of the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC.

My Department has made no such estimate.

Why not?

Because I do not think that anything useful would be served by it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in Scotland.

On 9th June the rate of unemployment in Scotland was 4·7 per cent.

Will the Minister note that the people of Scotland are not very interested in the fact that the unemployment gap between Scotland and one of the most bankrupt economies in Western Europe—England—is narrowing? Will he also note that Scotland's economy is jeopardised by its association with the crisis-ridden English economy and that the only way in which security of employment can be obtained in Scotland is by means of Scottish self-government?

No, I do not agree with the premise. I think it is encouraging that whereas some time ago the unemployment level was two-thirds higher in Scotland than in Great Britain as a whole, it is now only about one-quarter higher. I think that the link with the rest of the United Kingdom brings considerable benefit.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we are all concerned in Scotland at an unemployment figure of 180,000 and that we are nearly entirely dependent on American and English companies to supply the Scottish people with jobs? Is he also aware of the sheer apathy of the Scottish industrialists in believing and investing in industry in Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Servile."] It is the truth. Will my hon. Friend take those facts into cognisance and look at the figures over the years, and try to inject some British pride into the Scottish industrialists on behalf of the Scottish people?

A good deal of investment in Scotland has come from abroad. The Government recognise the need for further investment to provide jobs. This is why we are putting through Parliament an Industry Bill and a Scottish Development Agency Bill to bring that kind of investment to that part of the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that the man who is unemployed in Scotland fails to see why Scottish oil should be removed from Scottish oilfields and brought here to London without any benefit to the people in Scotland?

I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that the investment required to bring oil ashore has come not just from the United Kingdom but from other parts of the world as well, and that there is benefit in co-operation between us.

Will my hon. Friend remind SNP Members and their friends in the CBI and Aims of Industry that the current level of unemployment in Scotland, or anywhere else in Britain, would not be nearly so bad if employers in the private sector could be encouraged to invest a bit more in providing jobs particularly for young school leavers, instead of spending millions of pounds on silly, irresponsible advertisements like the special supplement in the Scotsman today advertising the ridiculous farce called Free Enterprise Day which they are celebrating today?

I endorse the view that investment is one of the prime needs, and I have also emphasised the steps being taken by the Government to bring investment to Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the decision to be made on the locality of the Manpower Services Commission.

We expect to be able to make an announcement about the location of the Manpower Services Commission shortly.

Is the Minister aware that the Hardman Report has nothing in it for Yorkshire, that no part of the country is more in need of the kind of employment that the Hardman Report was concerned to disperse than South Yorkshire and that his hon. Friends in that area are confident that he and his right hon. Friend will continue to put the strong claims of Sheffield and district before those who will take this decision?

The whole House will recognise the persistence with which we have pursued this matter on behalf of my hon. Friend's constituency, and I hope that when the decision is made those responsible will take full heed of the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister consider whether this large Manpower Services Commission is now justified in view of present economic conditions? Will he also say what is its total cost? Does he agree that the people concerned would be better employed in manufacturing industry?

It was the decision of the Conservative Government, endorsed by Parliament, that created the Manpower Services Commission and also set up the Hardman Committee which recommended its dispersal.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current pattern of wage and salary settlements; and what representations he has received advocating their statutory control.

We have made it clear that the general level of settlements is too high and must be substantially reduced. I have received no representations advocating statutory control from any representative body.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's long-standing and honourable record of inveterate opposition to the statutory control of salaries and incomes, may we assume that he would regard any measure of statutory control of incomes as a resigning issue?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having followed my career so carefully for so long a period. I hope that he will be able to follow it in the future with the same acclaim and approval.

Can my right hon. Friend give us his view of precisely what is an excessive wage claim or an excessive settlement, as many Government supporters believe that a lot of wage settlements have not been excessive at all? Secondly, in giving us an assurance that there will not be a statutory incomes policy, can my right hon. Friend also indicate that the Government will not fall into the trap of an "either/or" situation—either a statutory incomes policy or excessive unemployment? Cannot he indicate that the time has come for alternative economic policies along the lines indicated by my hon. Friend in a statement last week?

Certainly I want to do everything possible to avoid both an increase in unemployment and the imposition of any statutory system for the control of wages. I believe that one of the best ways of helping to ensure that neither of those perils occurs and that neither of those dangers develops is by ensuring that we carry out the kind of proposals contained in the guidelines under the social contract and the kind of proposals that the TUC has been discussing with the Government for implementation over the coming period.

If the target of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a reduction to 10 per cent. in the rate of inflation is to be reached by the end of next year, what estimate and target figure have the Government set themselves for average increases in wages during the coming year?

The right hon. Gentleman must wait and listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is of age. He can speak for himself, and I am sure that he will reply to the right hon. Gentleman.

But the Secretary of State is Secretary of State for Employment. These are questions which come within his Department, and they are for him to deal with. Why is he so shy about answering? He is not generally shy.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not shy. It seems much more sensible and orderly that, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a statetment on that precise subject, the right hon. Gentleman should restrain himself for just a few minutes more.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Government plans in connection with industrial democracy.

I hope to do so shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend take on board, and get his colleagues to do the same, the fact that there is likely to be a complete block on any worker involvement in advancing manufacturing technology until this policy comes into operation?

I agree with my hon. Friend and the view which he and others have expressed in the discussions which have taken place in the House on this subject. This is one way in which we can make the most important developments over the next few years. I hope that the statement on this subject which is to be made very shortly will advance the situation. We want to advance it speedily. Whether it will be as fast as my hon. Friend would wish is another matter.

I beg to move Amendment No. 128, in page 1, line 6, leave out' a body' and insert 'bodies'.

With this amendment, I understand it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

We are seeking a categorical assurance that there shall be no operations by the National Enterprise Board in Scotland. We are seeking to nail down the intentions of the Government, and also the situation in regard to the operation of the Scottish Development Agency in relation to the NEB. No doubt one of the Members of the Plaid Cymru will wish to say something about the Welsh Development Agency and its relationship to the amendments.

"My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I will be working out the details of that relationship and in due course we shall be issuing guidance to both sides. This will be done once the two bodies are established and are able to make their own suggestions about what the relationship should be. But the guidance will deal, among other things, with arrangements for the NEB's own functions in Scotland. This guidance will make clear that the SDA will normally be responsible for schemes concerning companies wholly or predominantly based in Scotland. Where its actions or the actions of the NEB could have an effect on employment in Scotland, the NEB would be expected to exercise its powers in full consultation with the SDA.

One point worth stressing is that there will be no rigid demarcation between a class of companies or undertakings in Scotland which are the concern of the agency and others which are to be reserved to the actions of the NEB."—[Official Report, 25th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 474.]

"I should not like the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech under a misapprehension. The Scottish Development Agency will be the subject of special legislation and the consultative document has been issued. Following the statement in the White Paper, power finder Clause 7 of the Industry Bill will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland in July of this year when the necessary administrative arrangements have been made. Therefore, he must say what he has to say about the NEB against that back-ground."—[Official Report, 17th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1015.]

I rise to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) and also to speak to an amendment which has been linked with the one that we are at present discussing, namely, amendment No. 164 which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) and Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).

The hon. Member will also be aware that the Scottish National Party was denied membership of the Industry Bill Committee which was discussing this matter.

Yes, I was very much aware of the fact that the SNP had been denied membership of the Committee. Indeed, I should have welcomed their presence to reinforce my case. I have no doubt that hon. Members of the Conservative Party will support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, because I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) put forward a similar amendment in Committee. Therefore, no doubt the Conservative Party will put the weight of its support behind the amendment.