asked the Minister of Labour what information he has as to what steps the nationalised industries are taking, in view of the present shortage of manpower, to re-engage former employees over the age of 65 years and discharged on account of age, who are both fit and anxious to be re-employed.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to bring the Government's policy of encouraging workers to remain in employment until they are 70 years of age to the notice of the boards of all nationalised industries and to the heads of the Civil Service.

My right hon. Friend's predecessor wrote to his colleagues concerned with employment in central and local government service, and in the nationalised industries, asking them to draw the attention of the authorities concerned to the Government's policy of taking all appropriate steps both in regard to the retention and re-engagement of older persons who are fit and willing to work. The nationalised industries are, of course, represented on the National Joint Advisory Council, which is in agreement with the Government's policy on this matter.

Will the Minister say when that letter went, because I had long correspondence with the Chairman of the Transport Commission about a constituent of mine, and the reply has not been very satisfactory.

Not without notice.

Is the Minister aware that, regardless of that letter, skilled craftsmen are still being refused permission to carry on when they want to work after 65, and will he try to find out what effect that letter has had on the nationalised industries?

I think that this question was fully discussed in the House a week or two ago, when particular difficulties were stressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We realise that there are difficulties when men are forced to retire, and we are doing everything in our power to ensure that these difficulties do not arise.

Will my hon. Friend take notice of the fact that there is an idea in these industries that efforts are made to get people over the age of 65 who are on superannuation or on salaries to stay on, but that the other people, the ordinary industrial workers who are paid wages, are not being given the same privilege of remaining in employment?

We should regret very much if any such impression were being entertained in those industries.

In view of the last part of Question 43, could the hon. Gentleman say whether steps have been taken in regard to the Civil Service?

Yes, I think in the debate we had some time ago that I pointed out that the official side have already laid the subject before the trade unions concerned to get the retirement age abolished altogether, and to provide that the basis upon which men and women remain in the Civil Service should be their ability to perform their task.

Will my hon. Friend ask for the report from both the nationalised industries and the Civil Service and what action they have taken as a result of the representations of the Minister?

I think the time is not yet opportune to do that. Negotiations in the nationalised industries and in the Civil Service are now taking place, and I hope they will also take place in private industry, but it is rather early to expect a decision from them.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will now say what response there has been from trade unions to the encouragement given them to arrange for workers to retire at a more advanced age.

Both sides of industry have endorsed the Government's policy through the National Joint Advisory Council and are bringing it to the attention of their constituent bodies.

Does the Minister appreciate that anyone who wishes to retire at 60 or 65 is forced to go on working because of the present cost of living? On the other hand, does he also appreciate that this is continuing to cause unemployment in places like Portsmouth? Can I have an answer?

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the Government's intention to present a White Paper on Resale Price Maintenance, a White Paper will also be laid before the House with the Government's proposals for dealing with trades unions' restrictive practices.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that there are such things as trade union restrictive practices, and does he not agree that it will be to the country's productive benefit if they were modified or abolished? If he agrees with these two things will he do something about it?

The hon. Member should appreciate that we are not going to get the best results by going over old sores again. Our approach is the more constructive one of saying, "Let us see how we can get an increase in production." In the existing conditions, I do not think it would serve any good purpose to open up acrimonious discussions between both sides of industry.

If that is the view of trade unions, would they not welcome ventilation of this subject?

I believe there are two sides to this argument. I think probably the best answer to all this is the remarkable increase in productivity achieved in the last two or three years.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the withdrawal of the manager of the Sandbach Employment Exchange from the Arclid Hospital House Committee; and why it is now the general practice of his Department not to allow his officials to serve on such committees.

Yes, Sir, I understand this took place over a year ago. No general rule has been laid down about officers of the Department serving on a hospital house committee, but it is the general practice of the Department not to allow members of the staff to accept office on bodies whose functions include the engagement of labour.

Is not this gross interference with the liberty of a subject who wants to serve others in his spare time? Why cannot he do it? Could I have an answer?

asked the Minister of Labour which forms of employment he has classified as unproductive; and what steps he is taking, in view of the urgent need of increased production, to reduce the volume of unproductive employment.

The only employment classifications are those appearing in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, copies of which are in the Library.

Does the Minister realise the urgency of separating the true from the false, the real from the unreal and the productive from the unproductive? Does he not realise that if this country is to get prosperous again we must have a proper classification, and will he come and see me afterwards about this matter?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by productive and unproductive. Would he include transport as being unproductive? There is such a wide variation that I think it very dangerous to try to classify.

Will the Minister see me afterwards?

Will the Minister say whether the hon. Member is productive or unproductive?