asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the figures for the numbers of wholly unemployed adults and unfilled vacancies in Great Britain for May 1968; and what are her estimates of the figures for August 1968, November 1968, January 1969 and May 1969.

At May 1968, there were 514,081 adults registered as wholly unemployed, and 193,891 notified vacancies for adults remaining unfilled, in Great Britain. I am not prepared to give forecasts of the future level of unemployment or of unfilled vacancies.

Would not my right hon. Friend accept, however, that forecasts of this type are absolutely necessary and should be expected? Would she not accept, further, that any forecast is better than no forecast, and does she not agree that the underlying trend in the figures is satisfactory and shows that, basically, devaluation is working?

My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), always refused to give forecasts, and I think that he was right. As regards the trend, I would say to my hon. Friend that if exports pick up sufficiently—and the latest C.B.I. industrial survey provides grounds for optimism—the trend of unemployment should fall.

Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister gave the House and the country an earlier general forecast when he said that the problem in the autumn was more likely to be a shortage than a surplus of labour? Does that forecast still stand?

The right hon. Gentleman has said that it was a forecast in general terms, and the Chancellor has himself given a general forecast. My hon. Friend, on the other hand, asked for detailed figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many months in 1967 and 1968 the total of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, has been above 500,000.

Fourteen.

Is the Minister aware that, in the last 14 months, the number of wholly unemployed, as defined in the Question, has been above the half million mark on 14 occasions, compared with only seven in the whole 13 years of Tory rule? Are we to assume that the Government are honouring their election pledge about full employment and that a figure above half million unemployed is now their definition of "full employment"?

The period of seven months under Tory rule when the figures rose above half million was followed by the balance of payments crisis of October, 1963—

What have the present Government got?

—because there was a failure by that Government to tackle the underlying cause, which is what this Government are doing and will continue to do.

Nevertheless, will the right hon. Lady confirm—

Speak up.

Nevertheless, will the Minister answer the question and confirm that the figure of half a million is regarded as normal?

Certainly not, because, as has been said in answer to a previous Question, both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have pointed out that the rise in exports which there is every reason to believe will follow devaluation will enable these figures to come back.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps he is taking to encourage more people who have worked, or are working, in contact with the chemical naphthylamine to be screened for bladder cancer.

The Carcinogenic Substances Regulations, 1967, require that people in factories whose work exposes them to alpha- or beta-naphthylamine must be screened for bladder cancer so long as they work in the factory, and be advised by the issue of a cautionary card when they leave the factory to continue to be screened.

The manufacture and use of beta-naphthylamine is in fact prohibited by the Regulations although there is provision for exemptions for medical and scientific research and testing; no exemptions have been granted. The Department is trying, with the help of the industries, concerned., to trace workers formerly at high risk from these bladder carcinogens, and not covered by the Regulations, to encourage them to be screened.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are several thousand people who worked in industrial rubber processes twenty years ago? How many of those have responded to the Minister's appeal?

So far, we have contacted about 43,000, but, unfortunately, only 2,500 have made themselves available for screening.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many staff in her Department are engaged on duties connected with her work as First Secretary.

None can be separately identified.

What has the Minister done in her office as First Secretary? What is the job of First Secretary? Is it merely a status symbol?

As the hon. Member knows full well, these are matters for the Prime Minister, and I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) on 21st May.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she proposes to take following the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on trade unions.

I would refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on Thursday, 13th June, 1968.—[Vol. 766, c. 449.]

Will the right hon. Lady promise that she will deal expeditiously with the many important matters arising out of this Report and that we shall not have to wait as long for action as we have waited for the Report? Will she also promise the House that, when she is reviewing the action which she will take, she will also consider the Minority Report?

In the first part of his supplementary question the hon. Member is merely repeating a Question which I answered when I was making my statement to the House, when I made it clear that the Government regarded it as important to press ahead with discussions on this Report. It is clearly necessary for us to have consultation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., and both of them have rightly asked for full consultation.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that it is felt strongly on all sides of the House that we should have the opportunity to debate the Report before the Government make up their mind?

I am aware of that point, which was raised from both sides of the House when I made my statement. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that all that I can say is that it is a matter for the Leader of the House and that it should be pursued through the usual channels.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps she is taking to encourage a higher proportion of the total population over school-leaving age to enter employment.

The employment, training and rehabilitation services which my Department provides or assists are available to those seeking employment and are developed to meet changing needs.

Is not the problem, which is a matter of concern for us all, not merely that old people in this country are tending to live longer and to be active longer but that they are still expected to retire at the same age? Could not the Government take some action to encourage the provision of employment for older people, including taking steps to get rid of the earnings rule?

The Government's local employment offices are always requesting employers to judge men on their merits rather than on their age.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the greatest single contribution which the Government could make to getting more people over school age at work would be to make it illegal for people to live on inherited and invested wealth?

My hon. Friend had better put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that some ten years ago we had a special Committee looking at the problems of the employment of the old? Quite rightly, it was dissolved after it had done a certain amount of work. Will the Government consider whether it is appropriate, ten years later, to have another review?

I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what study she has made of the effect that any proposal to introduce a single school-leaving date would have on the employment prospects of school-leavers; and if she will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has consulted the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries. We are now giving careful consideration to their views.

Does the Minister recognise that one of the most important features of this review is the view of employers of what will be added to the value of school leavers through having an extra term, not merely the view of those in education on what they can do with the extra term?

I appreciate that, but the hon. Member will appreciate that while the T.U.C. have expressed their views on the matter, both the C.B.I. and the nationalised industries at the moment are divided in their opinion about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity by what percentage the prices of nationalised industries have increased since October, 1964; and what is the comparable percentage rise in the prices of household goods.

The percentage rise between 13th October 1964 and 21st May, 1968, in the average level of retail prices of goods and services provided by the nationalised industries and included in the Index of Retail Prices was 18·9 per cent. The comparable rise for the durable household goods group of the Index was 10·1 per cent.

Do not those staggering figures show that the nationalised industries, as at present organised, are driving a horse and cart through the prices policy? In those circumstances, will not the Minister make it a point to ensure that he appoints the best possible management to nationalised industries by paying people the right salaries, in line with those paid by many successful private firms such as Hambro's Bank?

The payment of the top management of nationalised industries is a matter which must be raised with the appropriate Ministers. The hon. Member claims that a horse and cart are being driven through the incomes policy, but I am sure that he will recall that the Prime Minister has given an assurance that all major increases in public sector prices will be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is aware that redevelopment will require Messrs. Seaborn Industries, which provides employment for epileptics in a sheltered workshop in Glasgow, to vacate their present premises by August 1969; and if she will take steps to give assistance to the firm to establish its new premises in Glasgow before that date.

I am aware of the problem facing this firm and discussions are being arranged in respect of financial assistance for alternative facilities.

Is the Minister aware that a great deal of gratitude will be shown among those people working in this factory if he can ensure that alternative premises are provided before they are forced out of their old premises?

I thank the hon. Member for that compliment. He can rest assured that, within the financial circumstances in which we operate, we shall do all that we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity by what authority the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Board proposes to enforce payment of levies on employers who refuse to pay.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on Friday, 14th June.

Is the Minister aware that the Question, which received a Written Answer on a Friday, was put down late at night on a Wednesday by a Government supporter, that it had all the characteristics of a planted Question, and that it made it impossible for hon. Members on this side of the House to put supplementary questions? The point which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) and I sought to raise was this: does the Minister realise that this Board is extremely unpopular with the entire farming community and that the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North made it appear even more dictatorial than it looked already?

I have no comment to make on the circumstances of the Question nor on the interpretation of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) of the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North. But I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone for giving me another opportunity to confirm that the Levy Order is in force and that farmers who do not respond to it can be dealt with in the way set out in the Order.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether, in view of the number of refusals to pay the levy, she will now dissolve the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board.

No, Sir.

I repeat my question: is the Minister aware that nearly the entire farming community are dissatisfied with this Board? They are not opposed to training, but they are dissatisfied with this Board. Will the Minister think again about it?

I am aware that the hon. Member is dissatisfied with the Board but I am not at all sure that he speaks for the industry. The National Farmers' Union, with whom I have had the closest consultation during the last few months, are working out a system by which they believe the Board and the industry can live in peace. I hope that it works satisfactorily. I know that a number of comments have been made about the Board, but they are certainly not justified.

Is the Minister aware that the mushroom growers are being made to pay the levy while an appeal is still being considered whether the levy should apply to them?

I am aware of the special problems of the mushroom growers, but I am sure that the levy is being applied in a reasonable way. Part of my discussions with the Board and the N.F.U. are concerned with the problems of special groups, one of whom are comprised of the mushroom growers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the estimated total of workers in the building and construction trades unemployed at the latest available date.

At 10th June, 1968, there were in Great Britain 94,900 persons registered as unemployed who last worked in the construction industry, Minimum List Heading 500 of the Standard Industrial Classification.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied, in the light of these figures, that it is reasonable to provide so many places in Government training centres for these trades? Is there not an abundance of labour in these trades?

I cannot accept that. After all, almost half of the 94,000 are unskilled workers. They do not necessarily have a long attachment to the industry. They join it at one time and leave it at another. Generally speaking, it is very necessary to continue our training schemes, remembering that we cannot have too many skilled men.

Would my hon. Friend agree that 94,000 operatives, of whom almost half are skilled, being unemployed in the construction industry is much too high a figure? Can he say which trades are involved? Will he bear in mind that we still have a housing shortage in Britain and that these workers should be building houses and should certainly not be unemployed?

I agree that the figure is too high. We are anxious to see both skilled and unskilled men in employment. It would take a considerable time to give my hon. Friend a breakdown of the figure of skilled men unemployed and, if he will permit me, I will give him the information later.

Before calling the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) to ask Question No. 28, I remind hon. Members that the amplification system is not working and that they should speak up.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many industrial civil servants she estimates will be employed by her Department on 31st December, 1968.

On a point of order. I wish to inform the right hon. Lady that the reference in the Question to industrial civil servants should be non-industrial civil servants. I hope that she will be able to answer my Question, as amended, but if she cannot, then I shall be happy to receive her Answer to the Question as printed.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to be satisfied with my Answer to his Question as printed. It is too late to amend the Answer at such short notice.

The Answer is about 1,100, of whom approximately 200 will be part-time.

Would the right hon. Lady refresh her memory by referring to the Answer given by the then Minister of Labour on 19th February of this year when he forecast substantial cuts in the number of civil servants employed in the Department, although it is probably fair to say that he did not anticipate himself being concerned in that run-down of staff?

I must certainly plead guilty, in answering the main point of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, in that there has been an increase in these figures. On 1st January, 1964, the Department employed 559 industrial staff of whom 81 were part-time workers. I accept that they are much smaller figures. The increase since then almost entirely reflects the continued and considerable expansion in training and retraining in Government training centres and in an increased number of industrial rehabilitation units. This shows that there are often good reasons for an increase in civil servants.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity why the Engineering Industry Training Board does not pay a training grant for students doing one year's thick sandwich industrial training courses.

The Board has recently decided to pay supplementary as well as general grant for the two: one: one type of sandwich course.

Does the supplementary grant also apply to the thick industrial training course, such as the one:three: one year course and so on?

I understand that the one: three: one course is not generally regarded as a thick course, but, rather, the two: one: one. All sandwich courses are covered by the general grant, with varying degrees of application.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the latest position in the current dispute between the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union and the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further action she proposes to take to resolve the continuing dispute between the British Steel Corporation and the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union on the question of union recognition.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is aware that the dispute between the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union and the British Steel Corporation has been extended, and that a large number of clerks in Scotland are on strike, many of whom have been locked out by Stewart and Lloyds, Glasgow, and that a number have been suspended by the same firm in Birmingham; and if she will now intervene, with a view to bringing about an early settlement of the dispute.

About 1,200 members of the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union and 89 members of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Management Staffs have been on strike at plants of the British Steel Corporation since 21st June. I am keeping a close watch on the situations.

May I declare my interest in that I am a member of the C. & A.W.U.? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the members of this union in the industry concerned will in no circumstances give up their basic fundamental right to recognition by the employers? Is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange a top-level meeting—a meeting at the highest possible level—to seek an end to the dispute once and for all on the basis of recognition; otherwise I warn her that strikes will continue in this industry?

I think that my hon. Friend knows that I have seen both the two unions referred to in the Question as well as the British Steel Corporation and representatives of the T.U.C. I have tried to examine the issues implicit in this and to see whether there is any basis for conciliation. I can only say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that a top-level meeting at this stage would help matters forward. In any event, there is some doubt about whether some of the parties would be willing to attend.

We would be.

Would the right hon. Lady assure the House that she is not intending, in connection with this strike, to wait until the last minute, when the matter is settled, and then have a tea party?

Cheap.

Is she aware that some of us believe that while the Government may not be willing to enter into these matters, it is vital that they maintain the conciliation machinery of the Ministry? Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that this conciliation machinery is permanently active and is not something that comes into existence when it is too late?

The hon. Gentleman is mischief-making.

That supplementary question proves what a blessing it is for British industry not to have the Conservative Party in office.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position and re-examine the question of whether this is not the time for top-level talks? Is she aware that most of those who belong to the C. & A.W.U. joined that union because of a circular sent out by the British Steel Corporation in which the Corporation advised them to get into their appropriate unions? Is she aware that these union members are, therefore, feeling very bitter because they consider that their democratic rights are being taken away from them?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that the Government cannot issue directions to the British Steel Corporation in this matter. The question of recognition is, in this connection, not a matter for the Government but for the Corporation, which went out of its way to consult the T.U.C. and tried to go through the appropriate procedure. These inter-union matters are extremely difficult to handle and they must be handled within the trade union movement in consultation with the Corporation.

Does the right hon. Lady think that these sort of recognition problems are likely to increase rather than decrease in the next few years? Might it not be wise to conduct an inquiry into this and other systems—for example, the American bargaining agency system—so that workers are given an opportunity to show by vote which union or unions they would like to represent them?

I note the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. This question of inter-union recognition was dealt with in the Donovan Report and will be one of the items which I shall be discussing in my early consultations with both sides of industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a steel trades unionist, I welcome her cautious approach to what is essentially an inter-union dispute and which, I believe, can be more favourably resolved by the T.U.C?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many productivity agreements have been examined by her Department up to the latest available date in 1968; and what proportion she has approved.

By 21st June, 1968, my Department had dealt with 1,192 productivity cases in the application of the Government's policy for productivity, prices and incomes, of which 1,098 had been approved.

While being grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask her to make an early statement about the proportion of agreements that include provisions for non-process workers like supervisory, specialist and sales staff? Is she satisfied that she has sufficient staff in her Department to do this job?

If my hon. Friend will table a Question on the first part of his supplementary question, I will do my best to answer it. To answer the second part, I am confident that the setting up of the new productivity department will put us in a very strong position to deal with what I hope will be the increasing number of productivity deals which will come before us.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough for us not to have any amplification in the Chamber, but might I point out that the temperature in the Chamber seems to be much higher? It seems that the air conditioning system is not functioning. Could that be looked into as well?

The matter will be attended to.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in view of the dangers of false productivity agreements, if she will issue further guidance to employers' and trade unions' organisations to bring again to their attention the criteria previously set out in the Prices and Incomes White Papers.

Guidelines drawn up by the National Board for Prices and Incomes are set out in Appendix II to the recent White Paper "Policy for Productivity, Prices and Incomes in 1968 and 1969", Cmnd. 3590, and are brought to the notice of industry by my officers both in examining claims and also in the course of providing general advice on industrial relations matters. A leaflet based on the National Board's report on productivity agreements has been prepared by the Board and widely distributed.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, while many of our fellow trade unionists take great care in the preparation of productivity agreements, there are some who do not, and would she not also agree that "phoney" productivity agreements are better than none at all?

I agree that they are very little better, and that is why my productivity department will have a very important rôle to play in ensuring that we get discussions between unions and managements on productivity agreements on an expert basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the percentage of unemployment in Bradwell, Hathersage and Bakewell in Derbyshire; and how this compares with similar figures for 1967 and 1964.

At June, 1968, June, 1967, and June, 1964, the percentage rates of unemployment for Bakewell were 1·7, 1·4 and 1·1, respectively.

Bradwell and Hathersage form very small parts of the area covered by the Sheffield employment exchange. At the same dates, the percentage rates, which can only be calculated for the whole of the travel-to-work area comprising Sheffield, Attercliffe and Woodhouse, were 1·7, 1·7 and 0·7.

Would not the Under-Secretary of State agree that his reply shows that the figure has gone up since 1964, and will he do his best to encourage industry to the area?

Whilst I acknowledge that there has been a relative increase in unemployment in the area the hon. Gentleman mentions, it would be very remiss of me at this moment, with the undoubtedly high unemployment there is in the development areas, to say that we will look too kindly upon applications for I.D.C.s in areas where unemployment is still only 1·7 per cent., while we still have some areas where it is much higher.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will conduct an inquiry as to the effect of higher wages on efficiency in British industry.

No, Sir. The operation of the Government's policy for productivity, prices and incomes ensures that a close and continuing watch on the link between wages and efficiency is maintained.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that a minute ago she said that a bad productivity deal had some merit? Does she accept that a bad productivity deal has no merit but that a good one, which gives high wages in return for extra work, is something the Department should go for to the fullest possible extent?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of a good productivity deal. A "phoney" productivity deal can be very dangerous. It is valuable, none the less, that we all start thinking in productivity terms, and then it is for all those concerned in industry, with the help of my Department, to ensure that we are talking in realistic terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) what information she has regarding the movement of salaries of computer programmers during the past 12 months;

(2) what information she has regarding the movement of salaries of systems analysts during the past 12 months.

I regret that comprehensive information about salary movements in these occupations is not available in the form requested.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is vital that this information should be available when we are dealing with the whole question of wages and salary negotiations? Will he please look at this again, because how can he expect the prices and incomes policy to succeed without the fullest possible information over the widest possible area?

We are seeking to extend the area of information available. To this end, we are instituting a new sample survey in September of this year which will yield additional information.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a further statement on the matter in dispute between the British Overseas Air Corporation and their pilots.

Since I last reported to the House on 17th June, my Department has had informal discussions with B.O.A.C. and B.A.L.P.A. and on 28th June I appointed Professor John Wood of Sheffield University, with the agreement of the two sides, to act as an independent chairman to assist them in seeking a basis for a resumption of work and in the subsequent negotiations on outstanding matters.

Following a meeting of the two sides under Professor Wood's chairmanship on 29th June, the B.A.L.P.A. representatives reported yesterday to their Committee and B.A.L.P.A. is seeking clarification of certain outstanding points at a further joint meeting under my Department's chairmanship today.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that appointment. She may recollect that that was one of the first things I suggested to her. May we hope that the professor succeeds in bringing this disastrous dispute to a successful and speedy conclusion?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am sure that he will be the first to understand that, as the talks are now at a very delicate and hopeful stage, it would be unwise for us to pursue any details at this stage.

Will Captain Merrifield and Sir Giles Guthrie meet across the table personally? Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would have been much better if they had been started off on those lines instead of hurling insults at each other?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date in his supplementary question. The negotiations are now at a very hopeful stage. I should not like to say anything in the House which might jeopardise them.

Once the aeroplanes are flying again, will the right hon. Lady consider consulting the President of the Board of Trade to see what can be done to improve industrial relations in B.O.A.C.?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is not a question for me.

Will the right hon. Lady try to get the air services resumed while the negotiations are going on, because it seems a pity that that should not be the case?

I do not want to be drawn into any more details.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will ask the National Board for Prices and Incomes to investigate all cases where directors' remuneration has been raised to above £20,000, plus dividends, or by more than the norm of wages increase.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await the Question I hope to answer at the end of Question Time about the treatment of the highest levels of remuneration under the Government's policy for productivity, prices and incomes.

In view of that reply, I have no supplementary questions.

When the right hon. Lady is making that statement, will she have regard to the difference between net and gross incomes and draw attention to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the principal profiteer from this sort of increase?

The right hon. and learned gentleman had better await the statement.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) seems to be showing an unusual sympathy for the higher income groups by this Question, will my right hon. Friend look at the remuneration of directors at much lower levels as well as at the higher increases of directors?

I suggest that my hon. Friend awaits my statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did the right hon. Lady indicate that she does not intend to answer Question No. 67 following this Question?

The right hon. Lady said that she would be making a statement in answer to Question No. 67 at the end of Questions.

May I intervene here, Sir? I am somewhat confused by the fact that we have made such rapid progress. I see that the hon. Gentleman who tabled Question No. 67 is here in his place, so, instead of making a statement at the end of Questions, perhaps I could answer all these points on Question No. 67 at the end of Questions.

Perhaps that would be better.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps she will take to ensure that the highest levels of remuneration are kept in line with incomes policy.

Paragraph 50 of Command 3590 makes it clear that the principles of incomes policy should apply to individual salaries and other forms of remuneration, including that of Company Directors and Executives, that are fixed outside the usual process of collective bargaining. The Government have, however, decided that there is a need for further guidance on the application of this general principle. They are therefore asking the N.B.P.I. to examine the application of this general principle to remuneration at the highest levels, both in the private sector and in nationalised industries.

In view of this general reference to the N.B.P.I., I have decided that it would be inappropriate to answer any questions on salaries and other forms of remuneration paid to individuals.

The answer to this Question was postponed pending the arrival of the Minister. We now come back to Question No. 67.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her Answer will do something, but not very much to convince people that for a prices and incomes policy to be effective it must apply to all sections of the community? Will she, however, say something to reassure Mr. Jocelyn Hambro that he is not sufficiently important to be singled out for special treatment and help him to get rid of his inferiority complex and feeling of persecution?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that this reference will not mean very much, because, of course, we have given the Board very wide terms of reference and there is ample scope for examining the whole field. I am sure that the evidence will be of very great value to the Government.

Is not the truth of the matter that the First Secretary has got herself into a ridiculous position and is now trying to get out of it? Does she not think that at a time like this she and her Department have better things to do than to organise witch hunts?

I am sorry. I cannot accept either of the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions. This is an aspect of prices and incomes policy which the Government have had under consideration for some time. I should have thought it was obvious to the House that we cannot have either a continuing situation in which the needs of the nationalised industries are not given very careful consideration and at the same time the need for convincing the people of this country that the policy can and must apply to all sections of the community.

As wage increases are only a few shillings a week in most cases, why should there be increases of thousands of pounds a year? While my right hon. Friend's Answer gives some satisfaction, is she aware that she has said that only the principle will be investigated whereas, in the case of wage earners, their increase has been investigated and not the principle?

The Government have always recognised the difficulty of controlling individual salaries, not only in industry or in the City. There is a problem here once we go away from groups covered by collective bargaining to individual salaries, but the Government's recognition of the need for restraint in the field of individual salaries, which the C.B.I. has accepted, has always been part of the prices and incomes policy. One of the things which may emerge from the Board's Report is how far the policy has been effective in this area. The Government will obviously have to consider the position in the light of the Board's report.

When I asked a question earlier, the right hon. Lady asked me to await the statement. Will she draw the attention of the Board to the very penetrating supplementary question I asked?

I regret to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I have forgotten what the question was. The terms of reference of the inquiry are very wide indeed and I am sure that the Board will have under consideration all relevant factors.

In view of the allegation against my right hon. Friend that she is trying to get herself out of a ridiculous situation, will she say which is the worse—to suffer an accusation of that kind or to deal with the merchant bankers, people in the City of London and industrial tycoons who are exploiting shareholders and their own concerns by taking far more out of the profits than they are entitled to?

Far from feeling myself to be in a ridiculous position, I believe that I have announced an important step forward.

Why does not the right hon. Lady admit that her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dropped a goo-lie in his reference to Mr. Hambro and get on with a consideration of the genuine issues here? For example, will the Prices and Incomes Board be able to consider the relationship between the salaries paid to the heads of nationalised industries and those in private industry, with a view to ensuring that we have the best men in the public service?

I thought that I had made that absolutely clear in my original Answer when I said that we should examine the application of the general principles of remuneration at the highest levels both in the private sector and in nationalised industry. I repeat that this is a problem which the Government have had under consideration for some time, as anyone who is concerned about the future strength of the nationalised sector, as I am.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is little logical relationship between the various wage differentials, and far less between the remuneration paid to company directors—for example, the £91,000 a year paid to one gentleman and the remuneration paid to other directors—and will she accept my congratulations for instituting an inquiry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the Board will produce a valuable report.

What is the position of Mr. Hambro now? Was he not informed that his individual case would be investigated by the right hon. Lady's Department? Is that still so, or has that individual investigation been dropped, and it is. now a general investigation by the Board?

The House was informed that we intended to get in touch with Mr. Hambro, and we did. A letter from him in reply to our earlier approaches is on its way. In view of the earlier answer, I do not propose to comment on Mr. Hambro's case.

Why has not this action been taken before, since many of us on this side have for the past two years consistently pointed out that only organised workers are brought under scrutiny by the Prices and Incomes Acts? Second, can my right hon. Friend explain why some hon. Members opposite think that it is a witch-hunt when higher salaries are to be investigated but not a witchhunt when working-class earnings are investigated?

I entirely agree with the point implicit in the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It is an indication of the whole attitude of hon. Members opposite in this matter. They always believe in these investigations so long as they are unilateral.

In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, there are two reasons. Only since the coming into operation of the Companies Act have we had a source of real information. That is one important factor. Second, as I have said to the House already, the policy has been evolving all the time, and, if we are tightening up in other directions, we should certainly tighten up in this.

Was not Mr. Jocelyn Hambro grossly in error in saying that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) is the worst Prime Minister since Lord North? Is not he the worst Prime Minister ever?

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As I have on the Order Paper a Question about Mr. Hambro, are not these questions out or order?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's Question was answered.

I have not made my point clear, Mr. Speaker. I have a Question about Mr. Hambro on the Order Paper, not for today but for some days hence. In the circumstances, do not these questions and answers anticipate that Question in dealing with the matter today?

It is not out or order to ask such supplementary questions as arise from the answer today. The rules governing supplementary questions are not as rigid as those for other matters.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will move that it be a standing order that seven clear days' notice be given of the first meeting of a Standing Committee on any Bill.

I should not wish to propose such a change without prior consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure.

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Select Committee? Is he aware that it is very important that hon. Members with outside interests should have at least seven days' notice of the first meeting of a Standing Committee in order that they may discuss Bills properly?

I will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The position is not unusual, but I take note of his remarks.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will move to amend the practice of the House so that in no circumstances may two Bills be taken in a Standing Committee on the same morning.

No, Sir.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point. It is not a party matter. It is for the convenience, not only of hon. Members but of the many people who wish to make representations, that they should know when the Committee is to meet.

I accept that this is an important matter. Of course, this does happen on a number of occasions and it affects mainly Private Members' Bills. I do not think that I can change this now, for obvious reasons, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to have more detailed information I should be glad to speak with him.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why barmen employed in the Refreshment Department receive an average of 30s. a week more than barmaids; and what are the differences in their duties.

The bar staff of the Refreshment Department are paid according to the Wages Council Act.

As I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be the first to recognise that equal pay on a gradual basis is now Government policy, will he start by seeing that things are put right in this House?

My hon. Friend is on a very important point there. I sympathise with her. I will convey what she says to the Chairman of the Department concerned.

Would not the Lord Privy Seal think it wise to consider the wages of all the refreshment staff before the Summer Recess?

This is certainly a matter in which we are anxious to help those who serve us so well.

As the bars concerned are in a Royal Palace, are the payments of the staff subject to the rules of the Prices and Incomes Board?

I should have thought so, as in any other nationalised institution.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received on the experimental broadcasts of proceedings of the House of Commons; if he will make a statement on the result of the experiment; and what progress he will recommend towards public broadcasts along similar lines.

Other than those of my hon. Friend, I have so far received few representations about this experiment. A report from the B.B.C. has been received by the Services Committee, which is now examining it. I hope that the Committee will be able to report its recommendations to the House before the Summer Recess.

Will my right hon. Friend agree about clarity of the reproduction? It was so good that one could hear the comments of the interjectors, who were often more interesting than the speakers. As some of us think that Parliament is not the private property of Members of Parliament but should belong to the whole nation, will he now suggest that there should be a public experiment in this Chamber?

I think that the first step should be for the Services Committee, which represents the House, to study the matter and perhaps bring out a report before we come to any conclusions. That seems to be the right order of going about it.

Is the Lord Privy Seal now sympathetic towards an experimental closed circuit television broadcast on similar lines?

No.

That is another matter. I am dealing with the sound broadcasting experiment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will seek to amend the House of Commons Offices Act 1812 to substitute for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General as members of the House of Commons Offices Commission, the Leader of the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the Opposition Chief Whip and three other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker.

It would be premature to draw conclusions at this stage. As I said during the exchanges following the business statement last Thursday, the present position regarding the issues raised about the staffing of the House will be urgently considered by the Services Committee and reported to the House.

Does the Lord Privy Seal recollect that the Services Committee apparently did not protest at the cuts that were enforced last year? Will he also have regard to the fact that as the Services Committee is mainly nominated by the Whips the Government could always have a majority on it, and to change it in present conditions is rather like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire? Finally, will he bear in mind that this House is the watchdog of the taxpayers' interest, and that it is an unnecessary impertinence for the Treasury to interfere with it?

Order. Supplementary questions should be reasonably brief.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not look upon the Services Committee as a tool of the Executive. It is an all-party Committee which does valuable service, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, appreciate. As I said as Leader of the House during business questions, the first step in relation to an inquiry into this important matter should be for the Services Committee to consider it. I thought that there was agreement on that on both sides.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I resent the imputation made by some hon. Members that I am a tool of any party? Furthermore, does he not agree that the Services Committee has not been given a chance to consider the matter before, but that we look forward to considering it?

I am quite sure that the Services Committee will consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom abstained on 28th May from supporting in the United Nations Economic and Social Council a resolution condemning the continued infringement of trade union rights and unlawful prosecution of trade union workers in South Africa.

We voted in favour of those parts of the resolution which endorsed the conclusions and recommendations of the ad hoc working group on trades union rights in South Africa, but we felt obliged to abstain on the resolution as a whole because it also extended the original mandate of the working group to cover infringements of trades union rights in South-West Africa, Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories in Africa.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it docs no good to Britain's reputation for us to appear to be indifferent to or to condone this kind of practice, which is the product of the apartheid doctrine of South Africa? Could we not take a positive attitude in the Councils of the United Nations on this kind of resolution?

We make our abhorrence of apartheid perfectly clear constantly and consistently. The question here was whether this was the best method of dealing with the matter in the territories I have named. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained the position fully, and I think it is widely understood and accepted.

Was not such a resolution a clear infringement of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter?

I could not at the moment say whether the resolution was an infringement of that Article.

Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman speak up? There is no microphone.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly table that question, I will do my best to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the reasons for the abstention by the United Kingdom on the resolution on South-West Africa adopted on 12th June by the General Assembly of the United Nations by 96 votes in favour, with two against.

The United Kingdom was one of 18 members States which abstained on this resolution. We were opposed to the provisions of the resolution calling for severance of economic and other relations with South Africa; nor could we support its other provisions which derived from earlier General Assembly resolutions on South-West Africa on which we had abstained.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am concerned that the United Nations Organisation should work as effectively as possible, having worked there myself for several years. But does not this decision and other decisions which the United Nations has taken recently show that a majority of members is not always right?

The majority of no organisation, national or international, is always right.

In view of the nature of the South African Government and the policies they pursue, is it not all the more necessary to make sure that the territory of South-West Africa is not permanently controlled by the South African Government?

We are constantly studying the best way in which to solve this very difficult and legally doubtful question. I have already said that we are engaged in a study of the issues raised. Our friends in the United Nations perfectly well understand our efforts and we hope that in co-operation rather than in polemic this very difficult question may be solved.

asked the Minister of Public Building ad Works when he will announce his policy regarding the disparity between new public investment in construction per head of population in the North-West and in other regions; and if he will make a statement.

This is only one aspect of the development of the North-West. The Government are now studying the position as a whole in the light of the Report of the North-West Economic Planning Council, and their views will be made known in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern in the North-West to see action on this Report at the earliest possible date? Could he also say what has been done by the Government in this very important field?

In the North-West Region from 1964–67 over 40,000 new jobs had been found. The record of the previous Administration over a similar period of time was 29,000 jobs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories are still untenanted in the Northern Region; and what action is being taken to ensure a tenancy either private or public service.

Nine Board of Trade advance factories in the Northern Region are untenanted; negotiations for the disposal of five of these are under way. Our efforts to interest industrialists in the remainder continue actively.

While we recognise that the Ministry's efforts in the establishment of advance factories have been commendable, is not my hon. Friend aware that at the moment there are some of these factories which have been empty for more than 12 months? If private enterprise cannot be induced to take this opportunity, should not public enterprise be encouraged to do so?

We are concerned about the number of advance factories standing empty, particularly in the Northern Region, but we are encouraged by the fact that there have been an increasing number of inquiries since the beginning of the year, and that we are going at great speed, and have done for some time.

What is the capital cost of keeping these advance factories, not only in the Northern region but in the country as a whole?

I should require notice of that question.

Will my hon. Friend reply to that part of the Question which relates to provision for publicly operated firms if private enterprise is not coming forward to this vital opportunity?

While we quite understand the immediate approach and the immediate appeal of the idea of the Government moving into these kind of factories, this is not quite a simple question and not one on which we have as yet been able to reach a decision.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction to British Railways to withdraw the two-car Craven diesel units from service on commuter lines pending the report on the accident on the Luton-St. Pancras line on 12th June.