asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes in respect of employers faced with the alternative either of breaching the Government's incomes policy or breaking employment protection legislation.

The Government will not allow this situation to arise.

One hopes that the Secretary of State is successful in ensuring that it does not arise. Will he give a categorical assurance today that if it does he will immediately introduce amending legislation should any court rule that there is indeed a breach such as could occur under Clause 89 or Schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Bill?

It would not be right for me to answer all those hypothetical questions at the present time. The best course is to go on what I said, with the assistance of the hon. Gentleman's good wishes.

How will the Secretary of State stop it arising?

These matters may arise when we are discussing other legislation that is before the House. That is the proper time to discuss these possibilities.

Does this imply that an even larger discretionary area will be left to the Secretary of State in the reserve Bill than there is in the present Bill?

Not at all. It makes no implication about the reserve Bill, because it is highly probable that the reserve Bill will never be presented to the House and advantageous that it should not.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a directive to the Manpower Services Commission to institute a programme of work creation.

No, Sir. The Government are considering detailed proposals prepared by the Manpower Services Commission for a work creation scheme but are not committed to adopting such a scheme.

Why the delay? Last October the Manpower Services Commission sent to the Department of Employment proposals for work creation. Why have we had to wait so long? Surely we did not have to wait for unemployment to reach 1 million.

Last October the Manpower Services Commission submitted to the Department outline proposals. Those proposals were submitted in detail at the beginning of July. The proposal for a work creation scheme is only one of several options, and it is for the Government to decide which is the best of the options to go for in trying to mitigate unemployment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many employers will wish to take part in any scheme that is available to keep in employment or to employ more young people and to give them a skill? What consultations has the Minister held and what consultations will he hold with employers' organisations to see what additional schemes they can run for this year to enable young people who otherwise would be unemployed to have a job? I think he will find that many employers will wish to co-operate fully to help young people particularly in this difficult situation.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about co-operation from employers. The appropriate forum for consultation is the Manpower Services Commission because that is heavily representative of both the TUC and the CBI. I do not preclude further consultations, which we are certainly willing to undertake. I repeat that this work creation proposal is only one of several options that have been put to the Government. We have, of course, announced the temporary employment subsidy, and my right hon. Friend will be making a further statement about that. We have embarked on a substantial expansion of training opportunities with the introduction of training award schemes, and we are dramatically expanding the Community Industry scheme.

Will my hon. Friend give active attention to the possibility of creating community work organised by local authorities and enabling local authorities to employ school leavers and to pay them for work within the community?

That is largely the essence of the existing Community Industry scheme, for which the Government have provided additional funds for substantial expansion.

Is the Minister aware that both sides of the House share his concern about the unemployment which faces school leavers? Is not much more enlightened action needed from the Government to create job opportunities not only within local authorities but within voluntary organisations? Is he prepared to advise local authorities to draw up a register in every locality highlighting the social needs in each area which could be tackled by young people, and could not those young people be paid unemployment benefit for the community work they do? Alternatively, is the Minister prepared to consider allowing young people to plan their own projects for the benefit of the community in which they live and to be paid unemployment benefit for that work?

The hon. Gentleman has made one or two interesting suggestions, but they all centre around what is essentially the Community Industry concept, for which I repeat that the Government have provided substantial additional funds. We think that one of the best ways of helping young people, particularly those who might seek an apprenticeship which would otherwise be denied them, is through an expansion of training facilities. The Government, in the Chancellor's Budget, provided an additional£50 million for the current period and this month announced a further£8½ million, which will provide an additional 36,500 training places.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage increase in unemployment nationally in the six months from October 1974 to March 1975.

It was 19, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers and adult students.

That is a tragically high figure. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider parts of the country, such as certain areas of the East Midlands, where the rate of unemployment increased nearly three times that amount in the six-month period? Will he consider the idea of establishing some form of community project to assist school leavers which is organised by local authorities and which has Government prompting?

It is certainly true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that it is a tragically high figure. The rise has been very bad in the East Midlands. I hope that the measures to which my hon. Friend has already referred, and the measures that we shall be announcing, will assist in some degree in dealing with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Is not something far more ambitious required—namely, a national recovery programme? Are not Germany and France rightly considering expanding their economies whereas we are being pressed to contract our economy through substantial cuts in public expenditure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in terms of a national recovery programme it would cost little more to keep a man at work than to pay him unemployment benefit, given the loss of income tax revenue?

I hope my hon. Friend will agree that our transitional employment subsidy proposals, even though I appreciate that they go only a small way along the road he is suggesting, will be a good start. However, I believe that other measures are required. As regards the general situation, although the unemment figure increased during the period mentioned in the Question and is extremely severe at 19 per cent., during the same period most other countries saw an increase of approximately 40 per cent.—for example, the United States, France and Denmark. I accept that they have somewhat different situations, but certainly we welcome many of the measures that they propose to take.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the extent to which inflation is the cause of the present unemployment.

It is not practicable to apportion the present unacceptably high total of unemployed between the various factors which have depressed economic activity here and in other countries.

In so far as unemployment may be due to the high rate of inflation, may we take it from the Minister's answer that the level of unemployment may be expected to fall as the rate of inflation falls, as fall it will?

The present excessive rate of inflation threatens our creditworthiness as a nation and our ability to compete for our due share of world trade. To that extent it must pose a threat to employment in this country. To the extent that we can overcome it, we should as a nation be able to expand our international trade so as to improve the employment situation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much glib and inaccurate talk about inflation being the cause of unemployment? Does he accept that unemployment more frequently follows deflation? If we look at the countries of the world with the lowest rates of inflation, it is to be noted that they have the highest rates of unemployment. Would it not be better to invest more money in this country to create employment, and to correct the balance of payments problem by selective import controls and the abolition of the export of capital abroad?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that in my original answer I did not accept the proposition that inflation was the only cause of unemployment in this country. I agree that many other factors are involved. However, to the extent that we are a trading nation and are dependent on a level of world trade to invest and to carry out those public activities which have a heavy bearing upon employment in this country, we cannot ignore inflation as one of the factors.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his practice to issue quarterly reports on the operation of the Government's policy on the restriction of wage and salary increases to£6 per week.

The Government are discussing with the TUC and CBI arrangements for the collection of information about pay settlements to enable the progress of the policy to be jointly reviewed. We have no plans to publish the results of the review quarterly, though I shall of course keep this House informed about the state of progress.

Is it not vital not only that the Government's anti-inflation policy succeeds but that it should be seen to succeed?

It cannot succeed.

Does not the Minister agree that it is vital to obtain the support of public opinion and, on a quarterly basis, for the Government to announce who are the rogue elephants, be they unions or employers? Does he not agree that such announcements would considerably help the public in supporting the Government in their policy?

I agree very much that it is of the utmost importance to have public support for the Government's policy. I do not accept that it is only a matter of identifying culprits, although that is necessary for the purpose of obtaining public support. The public will readily recognise whether there is success for the policy, in so far as it is intended to counter inflation, by the way in which prices move in the shops. They will also be able to identify a number of other factors. However, that is not to say that the House or the public should not be kept informed of the results of surveys that we shall make on a voluntary basis with the CBI and the TUC.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the only detective work that will be considered and brought into practice by any Government operating an incomes policy will be against those who are easily identifiable as members of organised collective groups—namely, trade unions? Does he appreciate that millions of people are outside such groups and cannot be monitored effectively because they are not organised, because they operate on their own? Does my hon. Friend accept that the result will be that only the trade union sector will be monitored, and it will be only that sector that will be blamed for any problems which arise? The net result will be the chaos that we have experienced on the previous four or five occasions.

It is the case that it is much easier to identify the claim of a group of organised workers than it is to identify single private arrangements. That is one of the reasons for its being of the utmost importance that we do not go ahead with a Government espionage system but seek broad agreement with the TUC and the CBI so that we can make a proper measurement of the effect of these policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what machinery he proposes to set up to examine wage settlements in excess of£6 a week.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how he proposes to monitor pay settlements to ensure they do not exceed the limits set out in the White Paper; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he has made for monitoring pay settlements after 1st August; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement as to the machinery to be used for monitoring pay settlements to ensure that they do not exceed the limit specified in the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation".

Paragraph 28 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 6151, sets out the need for accurate information on pay settlements and intended settlements. We are having discussions with the TUC and CBI about the arrangements for collecting such information. In addition, the consultative document on amendments to the Price Code issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection proposed that applications to the Price Commission for price increases should include information on pay settlements relevant to the application. This information will be passed to me to determine whether there has been any payment of remuneration in excess of the limits.

Since manifestly nobody is in charge of checking the failure or success of pay policy, let alone of enforcing it, how can it carry any public credibility?

If such a policy is to succeed at all, it is very much better that it should command massive voluntary support. That is the basis on which we are seeking to carry through the policy. I am not prepared to agree to the ultra-pessimism of the hon. Member, who does not think that anything will work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present moment might be psychologically the time at which to develop and improve the social contract? Would it not be appropriate now to seek to give it precision, to seek to achieve tripartite agreement and to give the contract some power of sanction to be applied jointly by the three parties?

The document produced by the TUC at the end of our discussions was entitled by the TUC "The Development of the Social Contract". That document embraced not only wage settlements but a whole series of other measures. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should also proceed with the other measure referred to in that document, I am in general agreement with him.

Why is the Secretary of State limiting consultations on this matter to the TUC and CBI if the settlements most likely to fall outside the guidelines are those made by organisations and employers who are not members of those two organisations?

The purport of these questions apparently is to the effect that we should set up a much more precise, large-scale, bureaucratic organisation to conduct a vastly bigger examination of the whole question. We do not think that that is the best way to go about the matter. We believe that we can achieve the objective by eliciting general voluntary support for the scheme. That is the basis on which we have reached agreement with the TUC.

Does the Secretary of State believe that the scheme will cause a great number of anomalies? For example, will it not exclude those who work on "the lump" in the building industry while leaving controlled those who work under national wages agreements? Does he also agree that the scheme will not apply to other industries—for example, to engineering—and is it not clear that lawyers and many other people will not be affected? Is it not evident that the situation will be clear for those who work under productivity agreements, for example the miners, whereas workers who do not operate under such agreements will not be faced with such a clear situation? Will not this cause a great deal of discontent? Is it not clear that as the scheme continues there will be a great number of problems in industry which will rebound upon the Government?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that a great many anomalies are bound to occur, and there will be a great number of difficulties which we shall have to overcome. On the question of productivity agreements, the House will be aware from our discussions last week of the understanding which we reached with the TUC on that question. I am not saying that the system will work 100 per cent. perfect, but we are trying to devise a scheme whereby fresh arrangements about productivity agreements will not upset the whole scheme. My hon. Friend may say that the operation of the scheme will give rise to certain anomalies. That is true, but the failure to deal with the general problem of inflation would give rise to many other problems too.

As the Government have said that the£6 limit must not be exceeded—and, indeed, have indicated that many people must take less than£6 per week—should we not have an incomes information unit to explain to the public that, in view of the inflationary situation, some industries will not be able to pay anything like the£6 per week?

I do not want to go in detail over the matters which we discussed so fully last week. We felt that this was the best way to go about the matter. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more information about what is proposed and the way in which it will operate must be made public. Some of these points will emerge from the debates which we are having in the House of Commons. The proper time for the Government to engage in any explanation of those decisions more widely in the country will be in the days after the. House of Parliament has passed the legislation.

Of course the policy can work, but is it not as well to bear in mind that only 60 per cent. of wage claims can be recorded and that that is insufficient? Will my right hon. Friend accept that we shall not get the information right unless we obtain it from every company engaged in wage claims?

I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. I believe that if we were to seek to operate the scheme with 100 per cent. coverage we should have to go in for compulsory notification. That would involve further penalties and elaborate devices to carry it through. Therefore, we have sought—we feel rightly—to avoid a system of compulsory notification which would make the whole operation far more difficult.

As the Secretary of State month after month has repeatedly said that it would be impossible to monitor the old, undeveloped social contract, how does he think that it will now prove possible to monitor the new, fully-developed, fully-fashioned social contract?

I do not think that the two cases are on the same basis. One of the reasons why we welcome discussions between the TUC and CBI in respect of the monitoring of settlements is that we want to improve the situation. We believe that it will be possible for us to survey the settlements made so that we shall be able to judge the response by the public to the policy in general terms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's voluntary aproach in trying to cope with the grave inflationary crisis has the support of the overwhelming majority of the working people? Therefore, will he continue his valiant efforts and not be put off by his erstwhile Friends or by the irresponsible elements who constitute a minority of the Opposition? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that I, too, am a building trade worker.

I should not like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to be described as an erstwhile Friend, because he is still a very good friend of mine. I shall not accept that implication from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). My hon. Friend the Member for Walton, has strong doubts about the policy which he can express to the House in the ways in which we conduct our debates. I repeat that I am a good friend of his, and because we conduct arguments over these matters I am no less a friend of his than I ever was. My view is that, this policy having been agreed with the TUC, it would be a tragedy for the nation if the House of Commons were to turn its back on that agreement. I believe that the best course we can take is to carry through this policy. I know that there will be difficulties and troubles for people in the course of it, but if we can carry it through we can make a serious contribution to ending the inflationary threat that faces us.

Do not these questions and answers show that the Government's policy is riddled with holes and anomalies and that the Secretary of State is not prepared to do anything to stop them?

What these exchanges illustrate is that the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have not yet been able to make up their minds.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment which Scottish local authorities operate Community Industry schemes for young school leavers.

Four Community Industry teams have been set up in Scotland—one in Glasgow; one in Dundee; one in the Motherwell, Hamilton and Monklands districts; and one in Inverclyde. But it is not the normal practice of Community Industry to recruit young people straight from school.

Will my hon. Friend give an estimate of the proportionate share of the cost between central and local government in regard to Community Industry schemes? In view of the staggering total of unemployed youngsters in Scotland, including over 400 in my constituency, will he take emergency action to urge Scottish local authorities to initiate and extend such schemes? It is a national disgrace and a waste of time, talent and money to have youngsters on the dole hanging around street corners when there are useful jobs requiring to be done which would give a decent wage to those young people and provide them with job satisfaction and which would also provide valuable service to the community.

First, as to cost, the proportion of cost falling on the central Government is£2.8 million. Local authorities pay for materials, transport and premises, and it is not possible to estimate what element that is of the total cost. Secondly, the Government are urgently considering an expansion of Community Industry. Thirdly, I hope that local authorities will be fully aware that they can initiate a Community Industry scheme, and I hope that apart from reading my remarks they will, if necessary, be prompted by their local Members of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons were unemployed in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available; and how many jobs were vacant on the same date.

On 14th July, 129,836 people were unemployed in Scotland. There were 16,134 unfilled vacancies notified to employment offices and 3,079 to careers offices.

Will the Secretary of State accept that a major part of the responsibility for this tragic and worsening situation, when there are more than eight unemployed Scots chasing every vacant job, falls on the Government for delaying the anti-inflation programme for so long and on the panic measures, designed to create even more unemployment, now being introduced?

With regard to the steel industry, is the Minister aware, and will he inform his colleagues, that the threat hanging over 4,000 Scottish steel jobs will be wholly unacceptable unless the British Steel Corporation and the Government put forward new investment plans to create better job opportunities for steel workers in Scotland?

I shall not anticipate any statement to be made by my right hon. Friends about the steel industry. There may be a statement to the House in the not-too-distant future on that subject.

Of course, I agree that the Government must accept their responsibilities with regard to the unemployment situation in Scotland and the rest of the country although, as I have said before, I believe that the main cause of the unemployment in Scotland, as in the rest of the country, is the general effects of the recession throughout the Western world.

As for the so-called panic measure to which the hon. Member refers, I am not quite sure what he means by that. I hope he is not referring to the proposals about the transitional employment subsidy. When he sees the proposals and studies them, I hope that he, among many others, will accept that they are sensible proposals for trying to assist in this situation.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of considering the suggestion I put to him last Thursday, when he made the shocking announcement of the unemployment figures, that the oil companies should be encouraged to buy at least 90 per cent. of their supplies from Scottish-based companies, companies operating in Scotland? Will he appreciate that this would be very important psychologically in reassuring the workers in Scotland who are not yet unemployed that the Government are doing something in addition to help preserve their jobs?

Of course, the Government are doing everything they can to encourage oil companies to buy from British firms, and I hope that they will be encouraged further in the future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this new downward trend is a devastating comment on the hopes built up over the last year in Scotland? Does he further agree that the basic problem is the lack of investment both in Scotland and in other industrial areas of Britain? Will he ensure that we restore to the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish Development Agency the full powers envisaged in the Labour Party programme on which we fought the last election?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that in England, as well as in Scotland, one of the essential measures to try to overcome these problems is to have much greater investment than we have had for many years in this country. I believe that the NEB can play a leading part in helping to achieve that. I do not believe that my hon. Friend and others should be despondent about using these instruments to the full to secure that result. I readily agree about the absolute necessity for much greater investment in the years to come if we are to overcome the problem.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about a statement on steel and the possibilities of closures, will he give an assurance that that statement will be made to the House before the recess, and not on a Friday or the last day before the recess?

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry hopes to make a statement on the steel situation before the recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unfilled vacancies notified in the Shotton area at the latest available date; and what is the corresponding figure for 12 months ago.

At July 1975 there were 45 unfilled vacancies at employment offices and 41 at careers offices in the Shotton travel-to-work area. The corresponding figures for July 1974 were 87 and 112. The figures relate only to vacancies notified to these offices and are not a measure of total vacancies.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these very disappointing figures could be very much worse if, despite the hopes held out by the Labour Party at two elections last year, the Government allowed the British Steel Corporation to go ahead with phasing out steelmaking at Shotton, in which case the effect on unemployment in the area would be bad enough, but does he realise that the outlook for school leavers in such an event would be well-nigh hopeless?

I appreciate how much employment depends on iron and steelmaking, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give full credit to the fact that closures have been deferred until 1980–81 and that this action has preserved 6,000 jobs. I do not think it is within my scope to make a statement about the steel industry which goes further than that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures will dramatically worsen in the event of any closure of Shotton or the reduction of steel-making there? Is he also aware of the effect on new jobs in the area, and that the closure of Shotton would have a direct effect upon the already intolerable position concerning unemployment in the Merseyside area in particular and the North-West in general?

I appreciate the effect that it would have on unemployment. These are matters to be considered by my right hon. Friend, and because of the need to preserve and create jobs we are setting up other instruments like the Welsh Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board in order to deal with the matter.

Is the Minister aware that, whereas there would be a significant effect on the Merseyside economy, the effect on the old county of Flintshire would be equivalent to as much as 40 per cent. of the economy of the county, and that it would be devastating on the new county of Clwyd, and significant on the new county of Gwynedd in North Wales? In these circumstances, and in the light of the astronomical unemployment figures announced last week for Wales, will the Minister give an assurance that there is no question whatever of a job reduction in the Shotton steelworks?

I am not aware of any reduction. I have told the House that 6,000 jobs have been preserved until 1980–81. I am not wishing to be unresponsive, but I think that further matters of detail are for my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the Birmingham travel-to-work areas.

On 14th July, 37,354 people were unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area and the rate of unemployment was 5.5 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that rate of 5½per cent. is a record in Birmingham and cannot be explained by the simple addition of school leavers and university students to the unemployed register? In view of the worsening industrial situation in Birmingham and the West Midlands in general, may I ask whether the recently-announced employment subsidy will he made available to companies in Birmingham and the West Midlands to prevent further redundancies?

I cannot make any statement about that. I hope that my hon. Friend will await the statement of my right hon. Friend, which I hope will be made very shortly, about the temporary employment subsidy.

Does the Minister realise that these figures have caused general apprehension in the area? Will he confirm that the number of jobs vacancies has also fallen? Will he bear in mind two areas of special importance: first, school leavers, for whom training schemes must be extended to the greatest degree possible, and, secondly, the construction industry, in which both unions and employers believe that a disproportionate share of the brunt of unemployment has fallen upon them?

Concerning the school leavers, the Manpower Services Commission has announced unprecedented steps to increase the number of training places. A total of 36,500 has recently been announced. I hope that this is welcome, including its public expenditure implications.

I am well aware that the construction industry has taken the brunt of unemployment. There are no restrictions at the present time on local authority house-building, and I hope that local authorities and others will respond to the possibility of building houses and creating employment in that manner.

And the number of vacancies?

The number of jobs vacant has dropped fairly dramatically over the past year.

Does not my hon. Friend think that there is something extraordinary about his Department being urged to find more jobs for school leavers and to start work schemes under the Manpower Services Commission when at the same time the Secretary of State for Industry appears to be presiding over the decline of some of the major industries in the West Midlands? Is my hon. Friend aware that Norton Villiers is still awaiting a decision by his right hon. Friend about future jobs prospects in that firm, which employs about 20,000 people? Will he see to it that we get a decision from the Secretary of State as soon as possible?

I understand that these matters are under discussion. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will give credit to what has been done by the Department of Industry. It has, after all, intervened to save the largest motor manufacturer in the country. Due credit must be given to the Department for that step.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that jobs are being lost in my constituency because of the operations of the Price Commission, because of the 25 per cent. rate of VAT and because of the capital transfer tax? What estimate has the hon. Gentleman's Department made of the effect of these policies? Is he arguing for their reversal?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate of the effect on unemployment of the increased rate of VAT. It is part of a large number of measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the total economic situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken to ensure that the number of apprenticeships and other industrial training for school leavers is increased and not diminished during 1975.

The Manpower Services Commission announced on 2nd July 1975 the first part of a package of special measures. These included the provison of 7,000 extra off-the-job training places for young people to train for craft and technician occupations through training award schemes operated by the industrial training boards. It also announced that special grants would be available for the construction industry to encourage employers to increase the recruitment of apprentices.

It was further announced on 22nd July that the Government had made a further£8.5 million available to increase the opportunities for young people to train for skilled employment, and measures are now being discussed with the training boards. These are expected to create a further 6,000 training opportunities for young people including 2,750 training award places.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these moves are very valuable and are very much welcomed? Is he satisfied that we are building a sufficient infrastructure of skilled workers so that British industry will have the skilled labour that it needs as soon as we get an upturn in the economy?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comment because it gives me an opportunity to say that it would be deplorable if manufacturers were tempted by the expansion of Government expenditure on the creation of new training facilities to cut back on what they might otherwise have done. There is evidence that this is taking place, and I am sure that the whole House will regret it and will urge manufacturers to bear in mind that when there is an upturn in the economy the skilled manpower which will be needed will be those who ought to be undergoing training now.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the present unemployment figures for the South-West Region; and how much of this unemployment is in the Bristol area.

On 14th July, 77,880 people were unemployed in the South-West Region of whom 13,944 were in the Bristol travel-to-work area.

I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate the concern about these figures, especially in the Bristol area, which is so reliant on the aircraft industry for jobs. This is why it is so important that there should be a continuation of employment in the aircraft industry around Bristol.

I appreciate how much employment depends on that, especially on Concorde. The makers of the aircraft are going ahead with the authorised programme of 16 aircraft, and the Government will continue to keep a careful watch on the employment implications.

Will the Minister reconsider his attitude to industrial development certificates, not only in development areas but in areas where unemployment is rising steeply, especially for a firm which wants to expand where it is but cannot afford the expenditure on a second factory in a distant place?

The IDC policy is not a matter for me, but I understand that the Department of Industry considers IDC applications sympathetically. I am aware of the problems which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I hope that no one will be deterred from making application because an IDC policy exists.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the economy to business men in London on 14th July.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is attending the third stage of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which is taking place in Helsinki until Friday 1st August, and in his absence I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend did so the same day, Sir.

First, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Prime Minister has not emigrated? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech the Prime Minister spoke some fine words referring to the Government's total will and determination to grapple with the problem of inflation? Will he take note of the fact that, if escalating inflation and rising unemployment are not controlled, there is a danger that political extremists in the country will be greatly encouraged?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope he is not suggesting that the Prime Minister should not be in Helsinki and that this country and Spain should be the only countries not represented by a Head of Government at this important conference. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I agree that inflation is one of the biggest problems in dealing with unemployment.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore those elements of the media and in the Tory Party who think that the only way to save Great Britain is to run away from the task facing us? It is this sort of so-called leadership which can bring about disaster for the nation, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will ignore it totally.

However, will my right hon. Friend convey to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection that there is increasing irritation because of rising prices outside the official statistics which are affecting every ordinary family and that, if the Government's policy is to be successful, in the interests of the nation much more urgent attention has to be paid to these almost weekly increases in the prices of the ordinary items in the household budget?

I agree that we must keep up our vigilance on prices all the time. My hon. Friend will recognise, however, that there are many other large wage increases in the pipeline which have still to come through into prices for some time which will continue to show up in increased prices. This is the penalty that we have to pay for over-large wage increases in past months.

Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the determined speech made by the Prime Minister on 14th July there is a widespread impression that in practice the Government have been very much less determined in putting those ideas into legislative and other forms? May we have an assurance that within the next few weeks the Government will be in a position to announce the economies that they are making in public expenditure and also that there is definitely in being effective draft legislation, as promised to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House a few weeks ago, to deal with wage inflation if the present measures prove insufficient?

On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered this already. We have made this abundantly clear. Indeed, it is stated in the White Paper. On the first part of his question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no weakening in the Government's resolve to deal with this matter. There is no evidence of that.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if the projected price increases in the nationalised industries are allowed there will be a spate of wage demands far in excess of the£6-a-week limit? Will he therefore try to persuade the Secretaries of State responsible for these industries to follow the example of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and try to keep these prices down, even if this means subsidies and increased income tax?

No, Sir. We would be living in a fool's paradise if we did that. The prices policy in the White Paper certainly applies equally to the publicly-owned industries. I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that point.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that I intend to raise a point of order on this Question at the appropriate time.

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

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir.

In view of the Labour Party's quite understandable feeling that the Common Market Commission is bureaucracy which has not been subject to full democratic control, will the Leader of the House assure us that when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister next goes to Brussels he will make an unequivocal declaration of support for arranging direct elections to the European Parliament?

As my right hon. Friend has said, this is a matter which we are studying at present. An official study is being carried out on this matter.

Will the Leader of the House explain why, after the referendum and the decision that has been made about the Common Market, unemployment in this country is rising and investment is stagnant? Will he assure the House that representations are being made to the Common Market countries to reflate and to use this new-found unity to assist this country instead of working against it?

I do not accept the statement in the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Unemployment has risen in this country for two reasons, first because there is a considerable world depression and secondly because of the rate of inflation in this country. Those two factors have caused considerable uncertainty which has resulted in unemployment. The best contribution we can make to reducing unemployment is to tackle inflation. If we can do that and make a success of our policy, the prospects of employment for next year will be very good.

Will the Leader of the House encourage his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to go to Brussels soon, and before he goes to consult the leaders of the farming industry so that they can explain to him the total inadequacy, from the point of view of both the producer and the consumer, of the deal which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made in Brussels last week, which will not stem the decline in food production in this country but will cost us a considerable amount in terms of the balance of payments over the next few months?

No, Sir, The deal announced by my right hon. Friend increases the support to the farmers by 5 per cent., and that is a great deal of money. It increases the support to, for example, milk producers by£50 million.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vast amount of public expenditure involved in the retraining of examiners and redundant steel workers in this country is financed directly from Brussels?

Brussels makes a considerable contribution but it does not finance this entirely.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will attach a summary of Opposition parties' views as an annex to future White Papers on matters of national importance.

I have been asked to reply.

No, Sir.

If the Government genuinely seek national support for their anti-inflation proposals, is it not a pity that the annex attached to the White Paper reflected only the TUC's views? Is it not like the barons both writing Magna Carta and then adding their own codicil to it?

No, Sir, not quite. The annex to the White Paper contains the guidelines which the TUC will operate. It is right and proper that they should be put on record. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has proposed a annex to every White Paper setting out the Opposition's views. If we tried to put that into practice with the anti-inflation White Paper, we should require not one annex but five or six annexes to set out the various views of the Opposition on inflation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it might be worth while annexing the Opposition's views to future White Papers if they do not inflict their views on us at 4 o'clock every morning?

I think that is an excellent idea.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now ask a senior Minister within the Department of Industry to take special responsibility for the welfare of smaller businesses.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend has no plans for changing the present arrangements under which special responsibility for the welfare of small businesses rests with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry.

It is well known that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) has special responsibility for small businesses, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they have been going out of business at the rate of 4,000 a year and are not being replaced? Will he further accept that their fortunes are inextricably linked with those of the self-employed? Is it not unfortunate that the same Minister on 6th March refused the invitation to meet the National Federation of the Self-Employed on the ground that he had no such responsibility for the self-employed? Would it not be valuable now to extend his remit so that he does have responsibility?

The right hon. Gentleman asked a question on the self-employed last week and I pointed out that they are a wide group and are not homogeneous. The small businesses are much more restricted and in that respect the Minister of State, Department of Industry has a direct responsibility. For example, he recently went to the North-East to initiate the voluntary counselling scheme for small businesses. If this is a success in the North-East it can be extended. Moreover, we have consultants examining the small firms information centres, of which I think there are 10 throughout the country dealing with approximately 1,500 inquiries a week. The consultants are looking at the position and we shall see how it can be improved once we have received the report. A good deal is being done to help the small businesses.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many small businesses are related to the sale of motor cars? Is he aware that many small businesses of that nature, being patriotic, would prefer to sell English or British-produced motor cars rather than foreign ones? Is he aware that in 1970 the balance of trade with the EEC was£37,234,000 in surplus but that in 1974 we had an adverse balance of£158 million, which means that many small businesses are selling more foreign motor cars against the interests of this country?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will be glad to have the support of my hon. Friend in his campaign to persuade people to buy British cars. However, we must also sell cars abroad, which we do with great success.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the West Midlands County Council, which is under Socialist control, is bringing forward legislation to this House under which it proposes a great extension of municipal trading, directly at the expense of small businesses? Will the right hon. Gentleman say now whether he rejects that kind of proposal?

Certainly not. As long as municipal trading engages in fair com- petition with private enterprise, it is to be welcomed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many small businesses in Wales have been crucified by the increase in water charges? In my constituency there has been one increase from£50 last year to£17,000 next year. When will he ensure that the Secretary Of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment liaise so that there is some co-ordination of policy about this matter?

There is an acute problem in this respect, not only in Wales but throughout the country, resulting from previous Conservative legislation. As the hon. Member knows, the matter is now being looked at.

Is it not clear that there is no contradiction between the extension of municipal ownership and assistance to small businesses? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are real problems for small businesses which need to be looked at again? Small businesses have serious liquidity problems and in large city centres many of them have been destroyed because there are no premises available because old buildings have been destroyed and no new ones have been built to replace them. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again, because there may well be a case for a special Minister to deal with the problem?

My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter, has put his finger on one of the problems of small firms. This is a problem where bigger firms can help by prompt settlement of their bills to their smaller suppliers and by taking no action which will injure their liquidity situation. If such a simple suggestion were heeded by the bigger firms, it would help the smaller firms a great deal.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that municipal trading often cannot be carried on in fair competition with the self-employed because the self-employed have to meet higher rates, higher overheads and higher national insurance contributions, all of which will add to their costs? Will he therefore look at this matter again?

Rates are an allowable tax relief for small firms provided they have taxable profits. We believe, and it is part of our philosophy, that municipal enterprise is to be welcomed provided that it trades fairly in competition with private enterprise. We have no fear about which will gain if that takes place.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the position of British subjects and interests in Nigeria.

We have no reason to believe, on the scanty information so far available, that British subjects in Nigeria are in danger or that British interests have been adversely affected by this morning's events.

The first news of this coup came at 6.30 this morning when Colonel Garba spoke over Lagos radio and declared that it had been decided, in consultation with his colleagues, that General Gowon had ceased to be Head of State and Leader of the Armed Forces.

The following measures were announced and have since been repeated at regular intervals on Lagos radio: a dusk to dawn curfew; the closure of all borders and airports; the suspension of Nigerian Airways services and external telecommunications. It would be a work-free day for all workers except for some public utilities and for oil-tanker drivers. Anyone caught disturbing public order would be "summarily dealt with".

It was announced that the coup was bloodless, and we have no reports of violence or disturbances or, indeed, of resistance of any kind.

We have since heard that Lagos is quiet and that it is quiet in Ibadan, Kaduna, Jos, Kano and Sokoto.

It is too soon for the reaction to the coup to become apparent. Telephone services appear to be cut off. United Kingdom citizens are being advised not to move about unnecessarily, to observe the curfew, and to keep away from airports.

The Minister of State will be aware that we are grateful to him for coming to the House so promptly. It is difficult to think of a country more vital to Great Britain than Nigeria. It is our fourth largest supplier of oil, it is a massive recipient of British investment and, I believe, one of the largest holders of sterling, which makes it particularly vital at the moment. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about these matters, particularly the sterling balances? Will he also tell us about the background of Colonel Garba and his attitude to this country? Finally, will he tell us whether reports circulating today that Mrs. Gowon is in London are true and. if so, whether we have any knowledge of the whereabouts of General Gowon?

General Gowan is, as I think everyone will agree, a distinguished and able Head of State with whom Her Majesty's Government have had very close and friendly relations. I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to share my hope that the situation in Lagos will be resolved with the minimum of dislocation and without bloodshed.

As the hon. Gentleman said, Nigeria is extremely important in terms of Britain's relations, investment and trade, as well as British citizens. There are approximately 15,000 people for whom we have consular responsibility working in Nigeria.

Our investment in Nigeria amounts to£250 million, apart from the value of Shell and BP's residual holdings in the oil industry. I cannot give any details at the moment about the sterling balances.

Colonel Garba commands the Nigerian Brigade of Guards.

General Gowon was informed of the news this morning while attending the OAU summit. Mrs. Gowon and the children are at present in London on a private visit.

In view of the large size of the British community in Nigeria, will the Minister of State assure us that, should there be any civil or military disturbance in that country, he will do everything that he can to see that the staff of the British High Commission is maintained at full strength not only in Lagos but out in the countryside?

Yes, I certainly give that assurance. My right hon. Friend, from his own knowledge of Nigeria, knows that we have a large population there. There are 30 members on the staff of the British High Commission. Their task at the moment, though it is difficult for me to say how they are fulfilling it, is to look after the interests of the British community as well as British property. I give the assurance for which my right hon. Friend asks.

In view of the orderly and peaceful manner in which the coup has been undertaken, and as the Minister has informed us from the information that he has that in Idaban, Kaduna, Jos, Kano and Sokoto there has been no up-rising in those more densely populated areas, will he tell us whether anything is to be done about Her Majesty's proposed visit to Nigeria on 14th October? I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members hope that the visit will be carried out because it could do nothing but good.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is much too early to give an answer to that question. The information did not break, even in Lagos, until 6.30 this morning. We have had only scanty information. I have given the I-louse virtually all the information at my disposal, including the fact that all is quiet in the cities to which I referred. However, we cannot make any supposition as to what may happen. I do not think that at this stage we ought to draw conclusions from a situation which has really developed only during the last few hours.

Without wishing to interfere or intervene in any way with the internal affairs of a sister State of the Commonwealth, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House who have long acquaintance with General Gowon and others in Nigeria have a feeling of deep anxiety about the situation? Will he assure us that he will keep the House fully informed in future about this matter? In view of General Gowon's leadership in OAU and the fact that Nigeria has the biggest army in Africa and supplies 12 per cent. to 14 per cent. of our oil, it is fearfully important not only that we should look after our own people but that the House should be kept informed of what is happening in this very powerful State in Africa.

I suspect that my hon. Friend speaks for the House when he refers to the sense of concern and admiration for the leadership of General Gowon both as a leader of his country in the Commonwealth and in the OAU. I assure him that I will keep the House informed. If it is necessary to come to the House with further information, I shall certainly do so.

With permission, I will make a statement on future civil aviation policy in the light of the policy review which my Department has recently completed.

Present policy largely reflects the recommendation of the Edwards Committee which reported in 1969 when it seemed likely that the United Kingdom airline industry would go on expanding fast throughout the 1970s. Since then, however, the airline industry worldwide has suffered a severe setback from the oil crisis and the consequent economic recession. Traffic carried by United Kingdom airlines fell by about 10 per cent. in 1974 and British Caledonian Airways, the airline chosen by the previous Government to fulfil the "second force" rôle envisaged by Edwards, was obliged to make a substantial cut-back in its operations and, in particular, to withdraw its scheduled services from the North Atlantic. Current forecasts indicate that there will be only a gradual recovery over the next few years in the United Kingdom airlines' main markets.

It is against this background of a much less buoyant outlook for our industry that I have had to consider whether it remains in the national interest to continue with existing policy and especially to seek to have more than one United Kingdom airline serving any international long-haul route. In the present difficult conditions facing all airlines, aviation authorities throughout the world, including the United States, have been seeking to limit the competition faced by their main flag carriers. Thus, for the foreseeable future there will be hardly any routes on which we could hope to introduce a second British airline on terms which might enable us to increase significantly our share of the revenue. Moreover, British Caledonian's experience of the North Atlantic has clearly shown just how difficult it is for a second United Kingdom airline to compete profitably against established national flag-carriers.

I have accordingly decided that in future it should be our general policy not to permit competition between United Kingdom airlines on long-haul scheduled services and therefore not to license more than one United Kingdom airline on any given long-haul route.

I realise that this decision will rule out such possibility as there might have been of British Caledonian returning to the New York and Los Angeles routes at some future date or mounting scheduled services in competition with British Airways on other long-haul routes to North America and Singapore for which it was granted licences in 1973. I am, however, convinced that such competition would bring no advantage to British aviation as a whole and that it would cause damage to British Airways without ensuring a profitable operation for BCAL or other British carriers.

Nevertheless, I want BCAL to continue as a schedule carrier on major routes. I accept that BCAL has made a valuable contribution to the total United Kingdom aviation effort in the past few years, that it is valued by many consumers for providing a choice of British airlines on a number of domestic and European routes and that it is the main operator from Gatwick where traffic must be expanded progressively as part of our national airports strategy. I am anxious to retain BCAL as a second centre of airline expertise in the United Kingdom and to do what I can to help make more secure the jobs of the substantial number of workers who depend on BCAL for their livelihood.

I have therefore decided that British Caledonian should have a sphere of influence for its long-haul scheduled activities. This will be based upon its West African and South American services and I envisage a limited exchange of routes with British Airways which would consolidate the two airlines' respective spheres of in- terest and be of benefit to both. I shall arrange further discussions with the airlines, with the aim of securing early agreement on an exchange that would be operationally sensible and reasonably balanced. Within its sphere, British Caledonian will continue to be the preferred airline. I believe that on this new basis British Caledonian's services will be complementary to those of British Airways rather than competitive with them and that this will open the way for closer co-operation to the advantage of both airlines.

British Caledonian will retain its present network of European and domestic services. It will also remain free to operate non-scheduled services throughout the world and on these services it will retain a measure of preference over all other British airlines except British Airways.

I said earlier that I had decided that it was no longer generally desirable to seek to designate more than one United Kingdom airline to serve any individual long-haul route. I have, in this context, looked carefully at the Skytrain service proposed by Laker Airways. I am satisfied that if it were allowed to go ahead in the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market for a considerable time ahead, it would divert traffic away from the existing services and in particular damage British Airways. I have accordingly told Laker Airways that in these circumstances the Skytrain service cannot be allowed to start.

The United Kingdom airline industry, like that of other countries, has faced and will continue to face a period of considerable difficulty. So far we have withstood pressures better than most and I believe that we can surmount them in the future. I do not think that frequent or major changes in policy affecting the industry are desirable. So my aim has been to make only such changes in policy as are necessary if the industry is to deploy its resources to the best effect in the very competitive international markets in which it has to operate.

These policy changes will need to be incorporated in new policy guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority, for which I shall be seeking the approval of Parliament in due course. I am also considering whether an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1971 will be required. I shall set out my proposals in greater detail in a White Paper to be published in the autumn. Meanwhile, I am placing in the Vote Office a note about the factual background to the review.

While thanking the Secretary of State for his statement and welcoming his declaration of confidence in British Caledonian and therefore, one must assume, his confidence in the future of British Airways, may I ask whether he is aware that I am extremely worried that he appears to have failed to understand that these airlines operate in an international atmosphere and I regret that it seems that he has thrown away British Caledonian's routes to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Bahrain and Singapore without seeing how they could be used in negotions with foreign Governments or by allowing the CAA to use his decision in its own negotiations with carriers throughout the world? Throwing away these routes is throwing away an asset which has been hard won.

In regard to the Civil Aviation Authority and its ability to give licences to operate, the right hon. Gentleman has downgraded its position and shown that fact by saying that in the rationalisation that he wishes to pursue the discussions between British Airways and British Caledonian will be led by the Department of Trade and the CAA will only be brought in as an adviser. What will be the value of the authority's licences in the future?

Laker Airways has spent£300,000 in legal fees to win seven hearings on both sides of the Atlantic to try to carry passengers from this country and America more cheaply than any other airline in the world. A total of$71 million has been invested with the approval of the Bank of England in the purchase of aircraft, and the Secretary of State approved the purchase of a third aircraft in May last year. It is a pretty poor show by any standards that the Secretary of State should tell us that he will no longer encourage the enterprise of Laker Airways.

Air transport is an international industry, and I had hoped the Secretary of State would encourage it to expand, but his statement does not do that. He does not show that he understands that the industry must be seen in a European context. He has missed a major opportunity of taking a leading position in the development of European air transportation.

I am not sure there is any possibility of us assuming anything like a leadership position in European air transport. This is an area where the EEC countries concerned have only just begun an exchange of views. It is not an area in which there was anything even approaching a common policy. I can put that point on one side.

The hon. Gentleman is unfair when he complains that we have not taken into account the international circumstances in which the industry operates. That has been the most important consideration before us throughout. It is precisely the falling away of international traffic as a result of the great upheaval in oil prices, with all the implications that that has directly on airlines and more indirectly on the general growth of prosperity and travelling, that we have had to take into account in trying to find a new way forward for the British civil aviation industry.

I do not accept that the announcement impairs our rights in the United States vis-á-vis those services that have been designated and agreed between the two countries. These rights are not being abandoned.

I found the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Civil Aviation Authority had been downgraded rather difficult to follow. The authority is undoubtedly performing a very useful rôle, and it is not my intention to downgrade it. I shall be having discussions with the CAA about how further discussions between British Airways and British Caledonian can best be conducted in future.

I understand very well the feeling many hon. Members have about the decision on Laker Airways. They should not assume that we do not have the same feelings on this side for the enterprise of this gentleman and his airline. However, we had to consider a specific point—whether it makes sense today. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the CAA itself concluded only two or three months ago that it would not be right to allow Laker Airways to go ahead for at least a year, given the background of events and the falling away of traffic on the North Atlantic routes.

Since the statement amounts to firmer control over the operations of BCAL, have the Government considered the possibility of taking a minority State shareholding in that company? Since the Secretary of State has acknowledged that it is important to expand BCAL's domestic and European services through Gatwick, what undertaking has he given that these services will be profitable in view of the growing competition of the shuttle service which is presently running from Glasgow, and which in future will operate from Edinburgh as well? My hon. Friends and I are also concerned about the decision on the Skytrain. If Laker Airways is not to be given the go-ahead on that project, what undertaking has British Airways given that it will look into the possibility, which could be of great benefit to the consumer?

It does not lie within my power or that of anyone else to assure the profitability on BCAL's short-haul European routes. I accept that there is a general lack of profitability on the domestic routes, and it is my wish that that situation should be rectified as soon as possible.

The hon. Member asked about a State holding in BCAL. We considered that possibility very carefully, but it seemed to me that this was not an area in which it was necessary or right for the State to take a holding. This is an industry in which we already have a dominant major public corporation, the principal flag-carrier of the country—British Airways.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be major relief in Scotland that BCAL, which has a Scottish ambience and an ability to promote Scotland abroad, has some measure of reprieve? However, we fear that instead of being given a quick bullet, the airline has been condemned to a slow lingering death. The Secretary of State said that only one United Kingdom airline would he licensed on any long-haul route. If the situation improves, can this decision be reconsidered at a later date? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the routes already granted by the licensing authority and not activated by the Government are to be dropped?

I do not look upon the decision about BCAL as being a slow, lingering death. In some ways there will be greater certainty than before in the airline's affairs. The proposed talks between British Airways and BCAL, in which I hope, to their mutual advantage, that they can make adjustments in their routes, will lead to a strengthening of the position of both airlines.

I should be reluctant to say anything at the moment about whether my decision on the routes can be reconsidered. We have to consider carefully, as I am sure the House will want to do in the debate which I hope we shall have, not only the existing situation hut dual designation and the long-term trends. We must face the fact that the possibilities of dual designation in the kind of pre-determined air service agreement of today are enormously curtailed.

Were these proposals discussed with British Airways? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is on the record that routes previously developed by British Airways have been conceded to BCAL and that this could not possibly have done the economics of British Airways any good?

I have discussed with British Airways not only the thinking that went into the review but also the outcome. It would be wrong for me to say that British Airways had no interest in the return of these routes, but I think I am correct in saying that British Airways recognises that in the general conclusion which I have reached there is advantage to it as well as to BCAL and that this therefore offered the possibility of a solution which is acceptable all round.

I first welcome what the Minister says about looking forward to a debate on this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that what he is proposing will do all that he can do to ensure the profitability of British Airways? Does he realise that in allocating these routes himself he implies that he has made a judgment that if BCAL is competently managed it should be profitable on the basis of the routes which he is allocating to it? Does he think that Freddie Laker, with three DC10s and his handful of employees, is such a menace to British Airways with its scores of aircraft and its 60,000 employees that he must be put down in this ruthless manner in order to protect British Airways? Does he feel that he has now changed the relationship between himself and the CAA to such an extent that there should be legislation to emphasise the fact that the CAA is now nothing more than an office boy and that the Secretary of State has taken over personal management of the policy which the CAA was given to administer?

I am sure that none of us thinks anything of the kind about the CAA and would not dream of describing in those terms the relationships which exist, relationships which are well known to the House and which were laid down in the statute. My relationship with the CAA is one which I certainly hope will develop as usefully in the future as I have found it to be in the past.

I think we have looked after, and that we must look after, the major British carrier. I think we have helped to do that and I believe that that would be the judgment of all. We have also helped BCAL as far as we can, and I have considerable confidence in the very competent and energetic management which BCAL has the good fortune to have running its affairs.

I regret the necessity of doing what I have done with regard to Laker Airways, but I do not think that we have acted ruthlessly. We had already had to rule out the possibility of Skytrain operating for at least a year and I think it is only fair for me not to play Mr. Laker along. That is why I have said openly that, for as far ahead as I can see, I do not see how we can let him proceed without damaging others and still bring benefit to the nation as a whole.

Although my right hon. Friend's decision may earn him rebukes from the Conservatives, many of us feel that he is right about Skytrain. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend about the minority routes and BCAL. How does he see the development of the South American route, and has he anything to add to what he said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) on the vexed question of the minority rights?

I have nothing to add about minority holdings in BCAL which I do not believe are necessary or desirable. I believe that the routes that BCAL already has hold good prospects for expansion. The South American route has developed fast because it is in an area of great economic advance, particularly in Brazil and elsewhere. In West Africa, subject to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a short time ago, there is a substantial and growing market of which I have no doubt BCAL will be able to make the best possible use.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement will cause a good deal of anxiety around Gatwick, which is in my constituency, both for the future of the private enterprise airlines based there and for the future of employment. My constituents will watch carefully how his statement works out in practice and whether giving extra security by protecting certain routes is balanced by the cutting down of the freedom to explore new routes and operate worldwide, which he is now taking from British Caledonian and which is one of the main prospects of earning money both from this country and from America that Freddie Laker and his enterprise had ahead of them. My constituents will look at his performance in this area carefully. I shall be fully briefed by the time we debate the matter.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is, as I am sure he would have been anyway, in close touch with his constituents. It is difficult in present conditions to avoid anxiety in many British industries. However, the conclusions that I have reached today are designed to be as helpful as possible to the main interests concerned. I cannot say beyond that what the future will bring, but I have considerable confidence in the strength of the British aviation industry.

I should like to return to the subject of Laker Airways. Is not the nub of what the Secretary of State is saying that the private carrier is so efficient and so good for the consumer that the nationalised industry cannot compete?

I honestly do not think that that kind of over-simple free enterprise rhetoric is the right way to approach the future of the civil aviation industry. All who have had to deal with the civil aviation industry know that to begin with we are dealing with a highly regulated industry in which there is massive international competition. Further, anyone who knows anything at all about it knows that the great problem in relation to the whole of the North Atlantic is massive over-capacity.

Several hon. Members rose —

Order. We are operating under a guillotine today. This cannot continue very much longer. I shall allow one hon. Member from each side to ask a question.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the decision not to go ahead with Skytrain for at least 12 months will be widely welcomed by Labour Members, because many of us believe that the long-term effect of such a move would have been disastrous? Will he accept that many of us will view with surprise his decision not to absorb British Caledonian into British Airways? Surely, as a result of Clause 4 it should be our policy to do just that in this situation? Finally, what arrangements will be made for the use of Concorde, the biggest financial disaster we are likely to have for some time in the future? Will Mr. Freddie Laker be able to buy Concorde and take the losses as well?

I have not considered Mr. Laker as a possible operator of Concorde, but the question of Concorde's operation is a separate one. The absorption of BCAL by British Airways was one of the possibilities that I considered. One of the things, among others, that worked against any such solution was, I fear, the fact that had BCAL been absorbed into British Airways—incidentally, British Airways was not anxious to do this—it would have led to a considerable rationalisation and reduction in the number of people employed at Gatwick Airport and the surrounding area.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Scotland is proud of British Caledonian and will be concerned at the statement that he has made? Has he had discussions with British Caledonian about the profitability of the routes to Africa and South America? Does British Caledonian agree that those routes will be profitable, because the long-term future of this fine airline depends on this result?

It is for BCAL to say what it thinks about its future. The hon. Gentleman will find that it is reasonably confident about its prospects in the period ahead. As I said earlier, it has good management, and I believe that it will be successful.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Report stage of the Employment Protection Bill is due to be taken in this House tomorrow. Many amendments were tabled last evening, and up until five minutes ago they had not appeared in the Vote Office. It is not only intolerable but quite impossible to conduct proceedings in this House when we do not have the papers in front of us other than a few hours before we are due to have the debate.

I ask—through you, Mr. Speaker—the Leader of the House whether he can give any indication when these papers will be available. We have had so much trouble with the production of papers this Session that it is becoming intolerable for Front Bench Members of Parliament and backbench Members in all parts of the House to conduct business properly and in a way that is right for our constituents and for Parliament. What will the Government do on future occasions to ensure that we are not put in this difficulty again?

As the Minister with responsibilities for Her Majesty's Stationery Office, I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about these amendments. I apologise to the House and regret that copies of the amendments to the Employment Protection Bill are not available to hon. Members in the usual form. This is due to production difficulties. Amendments tabled on and up to Friday 25th July 1975 are available in the Vote Office. Copies of the amendments referred to by the right hon. Gentleman are now being produced in an alternative form, and they will be available to hon. Members shortly.

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that I have asked the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office to initiate a full inquiry into the production difficulties to which my statement refers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous explanation of the difficulties of production, as he politely calls them. This is a point for the Leader of the House. Again and again the business of Parliament has been obstructed by lack of papers which everyone, both Government as well as Opposition, know to be necessary. I do not ask the Leader of the House for an immediate answer, but I ask him to consider an alteration to Standing Orders which would require papers to be available a certain minimum period before they are needed for business. Otherwise the Government will have to face the suspension of the programme.

I do not believe that an amendment to Standing Orders is required. Different printing arrangements may well be required. The time has come when we must inquire into it. It happened under the previous Conservative Government and it is happening under this Government. We are constantly being let down in this way.

I know that the printers deal with enormous loads of work occasionally, but for no reason at all this kind of thing is sprung on us at the last minute. I knew nothing about it until about an hour ago. The time has come to look into the arrangements for printing our papers. I apologise to the House, and I share the view of the House about this matter.

The House is glad to accept the apology of the right hon. Gentleman. Once again he has been forced into the humiliating position of saying to the House that he knew about it only an hour before the event. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he clears up the channels of communication between him and those responsible so that he knows well in advance of the disgraceful position in which the House is being put.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be grateful that the Leader of the House is now prepared perhaps to enlist the services of private enterprise in getting the papers of the House printed. What use, if any, is being made of the expensive machinery being installed in the basement of the House in overcoming these problems?

As I have raised this matter several times, particularly in connection with the papers for Standing Committee D on the Petroleum and submarine Pipe-lines Bill, may I also draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the ordinary daily Hansard was available early this morning only in small numbers and no more copies were available until late on in the morning? Yesterday the selection of amendments for the Report stage of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill was not available, even to the Government, until an hour or two before the sitting was due to start. Is not the answer to relieve the House of Commons of some of the business? We are hopelessly overloaded. Either the right hon. Gentleman must prolong the Session still further or he must get rid of some business. Otherwise the whole system is in danger of breaking down.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you will look, at your leisure—if you ever get any—at the procedure in regard to Question No. 01, which I cite as an illustration of something that is happening quite frequently now? Question No. 01 to the Prime Minister asks for a copy of a speech made by the Prime Minister to be placed in the Library. It refers to a speech made in London on 14th July. In his reply, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said "Yes, Sir, that was done on that day". That question could not have been tabled until 15th July.

I have always understood that as a rule Members cannot ask Questions of Ministers on matters in relation to which the information required is freely and readily available. It only needed the hon. Member concerned or any hon. Member to go to the Library and request a copy of the statement the Prime Minister had made on the previous day. The officials in the Library would have said "Yes, here it is". If the hon. Member did not go to do that, that, with great respect, is his fault. I do not mean this offensively in respect of the hon. Member concerned, because this happens on both sides of the House. However, it is becoming an abuse of the House to ask Ministers to do what they have already done, when the Member could check on that. I could now ask the Prime Minister whether he was going to Helsinki on 1st August. I know that he is going to do that. By doing that, I would, therefore, prevent some Questions tabled by other Members from being reached, when those Members are genuinely seeking information.

Will you please look at this matter. Mr. Speaker, and perhaps discuss it through the usual channels to try to get this practice dealt with and to prevent this sort of thing happening?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) for raising this matter and for the way in which he has raised it. My personal view is that the present system of Prime Minister's Questions is un- satisfactory. However, the only trouble is that when last a Select Committee looked at the matter, it could not find a better way of doing things. I still think that this system of having pegs on which supplementary questions can be hung is not really satisfactory. But constructive suggestions as to ways of solving the problem are rather deficient in their appearance. However, I shall consider the matter.

In order to save the time of the House, I propose, unless there is any objection, to put together the Questions relating to the three statutory instruments.

Ordered , That the Hill Sheep Subsidy Payment (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1140) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. That the Hill Sheep Subsidy Payment (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1141) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. That the Value Added Tax (Betting, Gaming and Lotteries) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1185) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[ Mr. John Ellis .]

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the common ownership of the Royal Palace of Westminster for the duration of the time it remains the seat of the United Kingdom Parliament; to make provision to bring the Palace and those who work therein within the scope of all past, present, and future protective labour legislation; and for purposes connected therewith. The Bill is not as bad as it sounds from the Title. One or two hon. Members spoke to me a few weeks ago saying "For God's sake do not try to change the licensing laws". That is not my intention.

The first of the two purposes of the Bill is the improvement of accommodation for Members and staff of this place. I know that this has improved in recent years, and I should be the first to admit that it has improved since I have been a Member. However, the statement made on 16th July makes it clear that there is an urgent need for more space in this building.

Coupled with that fact, I personally believe it to be a bad principle that a Government Department should be situated in a parliamentary building in any country, let alone this country. In this situation, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that some of your own accommodation is to be given up, and we may well reach the point in the near future when the Serjeant at Arms has to leave his mansion and join the waiting list for a flat or a house from Westminster Borough Council. That is a proposition that would be quite contentious. Nevertheless, there is a vast amount of space in this building taken by what I like to call the Lord Chancellor's Department, which still has 56 rooms which could be put to better use.

While it may be said that it is longer from the south end of this building to this Chamber than it is from Norman Shaw, the problem is not overcome. When I came from Norman Shaw yesterday during a Division, I met two of my hon. Friends chatting on the pavement. They were completely oblivious of the fact that there was a Division in the House. That situation could not occur if we had mores space for Members in this building, even though it is a little further to walk.

This would also overcome a quite massive problem which will arise later this year due to the loss of public space. It is not down in the dungeons that these printing machines have been placed. It is in public space for Members and their constituents on the Interview Floor that these machines are in operation. There will be a lot of trouble when delegations come to see Members. There will be no room for them and Members and others may be turfed out. The objective is to bring this House into public ownership simply as a means of getting our hands on the space available, not least that of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

The second purpose of the Bill is concerned with the fact that many hon. Members are quite aggrieved about the situation which is becoming more apparent as we push more legislation through. That is that none of this legislation applies to the employees of this place. One can list a whole series of Acts under which the legislation we pass to provide benefit for the working population of 20 million does not apply to the couple of thousand people who work as employees in this House. I name merely the Public Health Acts, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, and the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Employment Protection Bill.

The Employment Protection Bill is particularly important. On Second Reading of that Bill some months ago a question was raised about its applicability to the House and those who work here. We were told that there were consultations with the authorities of the House—which turned out to be the retired military establishment which seems to run the place, from what I have gathered since I have been a Member. We shall reach the Report stage of that Bill tomorrow and there is still no Government amendment to enable the Bill to cover those who work here. This is an absolute travesty and one of the problems with which the Bill seeks to deal. I understand that the maternity provisions would not be applicable to those who work here. I also understand that in the other place there is sex discrimination which no-one will be able to use the Sex Discrimination Act to overcome.

The day before yesterday, staff in the Strangers' Cafeteria were working in a temperature of 100°F. I speak as someone who almost lost half a factory because the temperature was 2°over the limit and the workers walked out. This failure was highlighted in a Written Answer given last week by the Leader of the House to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). My hon. and learned Friend had raised the matter of the Black Hole of Westminster, which we know as the Police Mess in St. Stephen's. The reply from the Leader of the House was to the effect that the authorities—the same retired military establishment to which I have referred—would invite an inspector from the Health and Safety Executive to come and look at the area.

I do not know what industrial experience the Leader of the House has had, but one sure-fire way to bring factory inspectors or any such people into disrepute with the work force is to have the management continually inviting them in by appointment. But that is the only way in which it can be done here. These inspectors have no right of access whatsoever to come and look at the conditions here, but it is a right of access which, as legislators, we expect them to use without appointment in the rest of industry. I myself have been very much aggrieved by factory inspecors making appointments when they should be visiting on a speculative basis and deliberately trying to catch people out to see whether they are upholding the laws.

We must clear up these aspects of the matter, but I am not sure whether we can do it, having read some of the background. This problem arises because of the privileges of the House of Commons.

The right of this place to settle its own code of conduct should not extend to a right to abrogate our responsibility to those who serve us. The right should extend only to hon. Members who initiate the laws, the motions and so on. It should not be used to cover every nook and cranny in the building, and therefore the people who work there.

The matter has been raised in the courts in the past. The classic case was when the authorities of the House took Mr. Hansard to court. The Lord Chief Justice of that day, Lord Denman, said: The Commons of England are not invested with more of power and dignity by their legislative character than by that which they bear as the grand inquest of the nation. All the privileges that can be required for the energetic discharge of the duties inherent in that high trust are conceded without a murmur or a doubt. Many hon. Members may well agree with all those words even today.

We have allowed others to abuse the privileges which we have set aside for ourselves. This has had the disastrous effect for our employees that many of them are not sure of their legal position. They see in the Press and other media the legislation that we are pushing through here for the rest of the working population.

The matter should be cleared up once and for all. On the basis, I hope, that the will of the House still has some meaning, I hope that I shall be given leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to .

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Smith, Mr. John Ovenden, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. Greville Janner.