§ 22. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total value of assistance given in Scotland under the terms of the Industry Act 1972.
§ Mr. ChatawayA total of £11.4 million has been paid so far.
§ Mr. HamiltonI am interested in that figure. How does the right hon. Gentleman square it with the detail he gave 21 during the debate on 26th February? Has another £8 million been agreed since he made the statement that £3 million-odd had already been granted? Can he say whether he is satisfied with the expedition with which these applications are processed when, out of the figure he gave of 77 applications, only 14 have been granted to date? Can he give a copper-bottomed assurance that the unemployment figure in Scotland as a result of his new policies—his somersaulting—will go down to under 100,000 this year for the first time in the last two-and-a-half years?
§ Mr. ChatawayThe hon. Gentleman will know that the rapidly rising trend of unemployment in Scotland which had broadly continued from 1968 until 1972 has been reversed. There have been substantial falls over the past year. The figure I gave him dealing with grants in reply to this Question is expenditure both for selective assistance and for applications under Section 7. That would account for the disparity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I will certainly ensure that applications are dealt with as speedily as possible. I believe that that is so at the moment.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneHas my right hon. Friend studied the report of the Expenditure Committee on the public expenditure White Paper showing that subsidisation under the Industry Act is likely to play a very large part in the excessive rate of growth of public expenditure in the months ahead? What will we do about that?
§ Mr. ChatawayI do not accept that regional policy can be used as a counter-cyclical policy. The plain fact is that over a substantial period we have given a measure of advantage to people investing in the regions. That is the aim of our current policy. It is not our intention to diminish the scale of that incentive, which obviously is of long-term importance both to the regions and to the health of British industry.
§ Mr. EadieWould the right hon. Gentleman care to amend his statement about Scottish unemployment figures since 1966? If he looks up the figures he will see that what he said was not true—that since 1966 the rising trend of unemployment in Scotland has been reversed. Will he apologise for giving the House wrong information?
§ Mr. ChatawayThe unemployment figure in Scotland rose from just under 2½ per cent. to 4.2 per cent. between 1966 and 1970—a very steady rate of increase. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite left office, as they know, they left a rapidly rising rate of unemployment as well as roaring inflation.