asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on his proposals to reform industrial relations; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement about the discussions he has had with the Trades Union Congress, and individual Trades Unions and the Confederation of British Industries and individual employers associations about the Consultative Document on Industrial Relations.

I met the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the T.U.C. on 13th October, and representatives of the C.B.I. on 22nd October and 11th November. I also met representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation on 3rd November. Officials of my Department have also met, or have arranged to meet, representatives of a number of other organisations that have submitted comments. All the comments received are being carefully considered.

I do not wish to embarrass the Secretary of State by asking him how his proposals might have applied to the local government manual workers' stoppage, but does he believe that he has carried out meaningful consultation, particularly since he imposed restrictions on what the trade unions could usefully talk to him about? Even at this eleventh hour, will he not consider the appeal made this morning by Mr. Victor Feather and extend the period of consultation so that consultation may be uninhibited and of value instead of pursuing the fraudulent exercise in which he has so far been engaged?

Order. Long questions mean fewer questions.

I have not restricted what the T.U.C. may come and talk to me about, and it is important that that should be made absolutely clear. The T.U.C. could have come and had valuable discussions about the whole scope of the Bill. I thought it only right and fair to make clear to the T.U.C. what was already well known to the country, that the Government were firmly committed to and had received a mandate for the introduction of a framework of industrial relations law. I also thought it right to indicate to them that within that framework there were certain main principles which were essential to the framework, although we could usefully have talked about the shape.

Did my right hon. Friend receive any representations from individual trade unions rather than from the T.U.C., and would he be willing to receive such representations if they were made, even at this stage?

I have received some representations from individual trade unions, and I would, of course, still be prepared to consider further representations from individual trade unions, the T.U.C. or any other quarter. Although, to give Parliament adequate time to debate this important Bill, it was necessary to put a final date prior to the production of the Bill, there will be a Committee stage in which, I trust, sensible, constructive proposals can be considered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the T.U.C. has made it indelibly clear that his proposed Industrial Relations Bill is a nonsense, and that the C.B.I. has certain reservations about it? On that basis, will he now do the correct thing for the good of the economy of the country and depart from his proposed legislation?

The answer to that question is "No", because the propositions on which it is based are entirely false. There is a large measure of support in many quarters of the country, and overwhelmingly amongst the people, in favour of the principles of our proposal.

In view of the serious allegations made recently by Lord Robens about victimisation and violence in connection with the unofficial miners' strike, will the Minister arrange an immediate inquiry into the whole situation?

That is a different question, but I hope that the whole House will join Lord Robens and the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers in condemning tactics of this kind.

Does it not make a mockery of consultation to say, "I am perfectly prepared to receive you and to listen to what you have to say, provided that it is clearly understood that I do not intend to vary any of the major proposals, the only ones in which you are interested"? Is not the right hon. Gentleman here repeating his mistake in respect of conciliation, and will there not be some worsening of attitudes as a result?

If I had said that, it might have been a mockery, but I did not say it. I never have said it. Let me repeat what I said to the T.U.C. so that the House may be absolutely clear. I said that we were committed to introducing a new framework of law in this field, and that there were certain principles which we regarded as vital to that framework, but I made it clear—if I may use the pillar analogy which I used then—that the shape and size of the pillars could be the subject of consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has completed his consultations with industry about the proposed Industrial Relations Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Comments on our proposals are still being received from organisations and industries. Full consideration is being given to them and meetings are being held where necessary.

Bearing in mind the mandate to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier for the speedy implementation of all the main proposals in the consultative document, may I ask him to think again about the possibility of including the code of good industrial relations, which I consider to be one of the most important proposals, as a Schedule to the Bill?

In our opinion the code of industrial relations is extremely important and an integral part of what we are doing, but I am afraid that time considerations do not enable me to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. I assure him and the House, however, that it is my intention to introduce this at the earliest posible moment.

Was not the right hon. Gentleman trying to mislead the House when he told my right hon. Friend that he was prepared to meet the Trades Union Congress to discuss all aspects of the Bill? Is it not quite clear that when the right hon. Gentleman says that he is prepared to discuss only the framework of the Bill, he is saying that the main principles are settled and that only the details can be discussed? In those circumstances it is impossible for the T.U.C. to have a meaningful discussion with the right hon. Gentleman.

May I first extend a warm welcome to the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench and wish a certain amount of good luck to this new and interesting partnership on the Front Bench opposite.

On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is not true to say that I have refused to discuss these matters with the T.U.C. I must repeat again that I have made clear what the Government are committed to, and I think that that is the only fair and honest way to start consultations. The Labour Party has often been elected on firm commitments and therefore has been prepared to discuss only the details of those commitments and not the principles of them. That is the way we work in our society.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish his Bill on Industrial Relations Reform.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he now intends to present legislation governing industrial relations; and whether he will make a statement.

I intend to introduce the Industrial Relations Bill before the end of the year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman change his mind? Does he not agree that inflation is the most serious problem facing the nation, and that the Bill makes no contribution to dealing with it? Will he withdraw the Bill as a contribution to getting all parties to work together to solve that problem, particularly as the only effect of the Measure will be to make life difficult and complicated for everybody?

I agree that inflation is the country's current most important problem, but I do not believe that the Bill will make it worse. The Government believe that the Bill is essential to the future improvement of industrial relations on a voluntary basis.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill is inflationary because legally enforceable contracts will lead inevitably to higher wage claims and to bitter and prolonged disputes before settlements on a higher plateau than would otherwise be achieved are reached?

No. Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the Bill is published it takes note of the present situation in Somerset, where miners are being intimidated by their colleagues—if one can use the word—from Wales, and being threatened with reprisals if they do not come out on strike?

The Bill will introduce important new safeguards for individual workers, although it is not particularly directed at the sort of problem to which my hon. Friend referred, important though that may be.

How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to win the co-operation of the trade union movement in tackling the basic problem of this country, namely, inflation, if he alienates them by the introduction of this provocative and antitrade union legislation? Will he get his priorities right and drop these irrelevancies and drop the Bill?

One questions the credentials of the right hon. Lady to lecture me about priorities or provocation. Perhaps if she, with her right hon. Friends, had had the courage to stick to doing what they told the country was essential in the national interest, we might have been better off today.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consult the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the question of industrial relations legislation.

My right hon. Friend has received comments from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry which warmly welcome the Government's proposals. These comments are being carefully considered.

Is the Minister aware that those employers, together with many others, have serious reservations about details of the Bill? Is he aware that in the Midlands the proposal to end the closed shop is a cause of great concern not only to trade unions but also to employers?

I can only say, as I said at the start, that the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce warmly welcomes our proposals. I do not think that I should go into the details of its comments now. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, our proposals in the consultative document on the agency shop are on a voluntary basis. They are that an individual is free either to join or not to join a trade union, and an agency shop is possible if it is voluntarily wanted, and is produced by a voluntary system.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an estimate of the effect of his Department's policy on the Retail Price Index during the next 12 months.

The Government's policy is to reduce the present inflationary rate of pay increases, for which responsibility rests primarily with both sides of industry, and so achieve greater stability of prices in the months ahead. It is not possible to say however what effect such a reduction would have on the Retail Price Index.

Would the hon. Gentleman say how he intends to achieve a significantly lower rate of wage increases, having abandoned a voluntary prices and incomes policy which was working? Is he now to resort to nothing else but greater unemployment as a means of achieving this end?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that our troubles at present are that we are suffering from the aftermath of the policies of the previous Government—policies which he is now recommending to us. I would advise him to wait and see the results of our policy which I have described in my Answer.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that when the rise in cost of living is attributable to an increase in the cost of food its effects are unequal as between single men and men supporting children; and that the proper and selective way of dealing with the problem is not to give blanket increases in wages but to increase family allowances?

This is a circuitous way of asking a question which has nothing to do with the original Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many references he has made to the National Board for Prices and Incomes since 16th July, 1970.

None, Sir.

Is this not a blatant admission that the Government want to do nothing about prices except to leave it to the manufacturer to increase his profit by getting as much as he can out of the housewife? Is this not a complete capitulation of any policy to reduce prices?

Once again the right hon. Gentleman appears to have a nostalgia for policies which have failed in the past. We have respect for the National Board for Prices and Incomes for a certain amount of the work it did, but we do not regard it as a success in the rôle of keeping down prices.

In the context of the nationalised industries, would my hon. Friend bear in mind that the previous Government referred every demand for price increases from the nationalised industries to the National Board for Prices and Incomes? In contemporary circumstances my hon. Friend is proposing that the Government, Department by Department, should deal with these demands for increased prices. May the House be told the outcome of such negotiations?

The first illustration of our influence on prices in the nationalised industries could be given as the Post Office, where a considerable reduction was arranged by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a statement on the future of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 2nd November.—[Vol. 805, c. 668.]

Is it not becoming quite clear that the Government have been busy demolishing those institutions for which they will find great need? Will he state that it is not his intention to initiate a freeze on prices and incomes?

The answer to the first part of the question is, "No, Sir", as it is also to the second part.

Could the Minister say who will take over from the National Board for Prices and Incomes the duty of examining the problems of low pay industry by industry, case by case, a duty which under our White Paper the Labour Government gave to the Board? Could he in particular say what is happening to the three references made under this section, namely, hospital workers, contract cleaners and laundry workers, and what he will do about the reports?

The references which were made are being completed, as I have told the House before. As for the future, so far as the need for research into general pay questions is concerned, as opposed to inquiries into specific pay claims, we shall regard this as one of the important rôles for our new Office of Manpower Economics.

Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is an extremely dangerous posture for any Government to take to allow wage claims to be decided by so-called independent bodies? Is it not better to have somebody looking at pay claims, if it is thought to be appropriate to look at them, at a given time so that the Government themselves are involved and can express the national point of view?

This attempt has been made in a number of different ways over the last 10 years by successive Governments, and the further it has been pressed the less successful it has become. Everybody would agree that a policy for incomes is one of the urgent needs for this country. We believe that at the moment the best way of achieving this is to put responsibility where in the end it can only belong, namely, on those who have the job of deciding each case in each field and trusting that they will take the national interest into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to assist the unemployed in Midlothian to gain further employment.

Our local officers are continuing to do all they can to help unemployed workers in Midlothian to find new jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry also draws to the attention of suitable firms the possibility of opening up in the area. The measures we announced on 27th October should encourage expansion and new employment in the development areas.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in my constituency because job closures do not match job replacements? Is he further aware that the contraction of the paper and coal-mining industries is causing great anxiety because there are not enough replacement jobs? In the light of this situation, what does he propose to do?

We all share the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I would ask him to cast his mind back to the policies of the previous Government which pumped large sums of money into the development areas without a commensurate increase in the number of jobs. The measures which we announced on 27th October will go quite a long way to improve the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of unemployment amongst registered disabled.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the registered disabled are at present unemployed.

11·6 per cent. of the total of registered disabled persons were unemployed on 12th October.

As this is a quite unacceptable figure, as I am sure all would agree, could my hon. Friend say what positive steps are being taken to improve the situation and when he expects to see results?

Yes, Sir. The Disablement Resettlement Officer Service has recently been reorganised and substantially strengthened. There will be increased inspection of records of employers and full use will be made of rehabilitation and training facilities. My right hon. Friend has asked me to take a special look at this matter to see whether there are other improvements which we can bring about. We are well aware of the disturbing nature of these high figures.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he has given is deeply disquieting? Is he also aware that if there were the same level of unemployed among the able-bodied the situation would be regarded as a national scandal? Will he agree that it is time for a full and urgent inquiry into the employment problems of disabled people?

I wish to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. We all know his deep interest in this subject. I agree with him that this is a disturbing situation, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking further into the matter. We must face the situation that with a higher rate of unemployment, inevitably the figures go up for the disabled; and when the disabled fall out of work it is harder for them to get another job.

In the light of that answer, would the Under-Secretary give special attention to those areas of the country, such as the East of England, which are inadequately served by Remploy services?

I am prepared to look at that matter. Remploy does a very important job in difficult circumstances, and we shall look at the situation in the East of England.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that industry in the Greater London Area is taking its correct percentage of disabled into employment; and if he will make a statement.

The average level of compliance in the London and South Eastern Region is below that for the country as a whole but the unemployment rate amongst registered disabled people is also lower. While I am satisfied that most employers in Greater London are willing to employ disabled people provided they are suitable for the jobs on offer, I am having a fresh look at the problem to see whether any more can be done to improve the overall level.

I am grateful for the last part of that reply. There is very significant concern both in Remploy and in the organisations for the disabled in Greater London that industry is not taking up its fair share of disabled employees. Therefore, I welcome very much the proposal to have a thorough investigation.

That is one of the reasons that we are looking again at the problem—to make sure that people are fulfilling their obligations. There are special problems in the London area, but we think that the whole problem should be tackled.

Would my hon. Friend remind the Chancellor of the bad effect on employment of S.E.T.?

I will see that that point is drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.

asked the Secretary of of State for Employment if he will take steps to establish a minimum earnings guarantee.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce legislation for a minimum wage.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy towards a national statutory minimum wage.

I have no plans for introducing legislation for a national minimum wage at the present time. We are studying all possibilities for tacking the problems of low pay and family poverty including the possibility of a national minimum wage.

As millions of low-paid workers in industries covered by wages councils are receiving increases less frequently—and smaller increases—than better-paid workers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider urgently legislation for a national minimum wage as soon as possible?

All I can say at the moment is that the hon. Gentleman's point will certainly be taken into account in the study to which I referred.

I am encouraged by the thought that the Minister is looking into the problem. Will he give the House an indication when he expects to produce recommendations to the House for consideration?

I am afraid not at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that the low wages paid by some industries present one of the greatest dangers to the economy and to industrial relations? Will he look into this proposal very carefully?

Yes, indeed. I certainly agree, as I have made clear on previous occasions in the House, that if we could get larger increases for the lower-paid, while using strength to see that they are not immediately reflected in equal increases for the higher paid, our economy and society would be better off.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment in what way and when he intends to commence the work of reviewing the operation of the industrial training boards in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the proposed review of the work of the industrial training boards.

The review of the work of the industrial training boards is being conducted by my Department's planning unit. It is already well under way and should be completed early next year. In the light of the findings of the review I shall then consider how best to consult with the interested organisations.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he accepts from those en- gaged in training in industry that it is a somewhat disappointing reply? Will the Minister reconsider inviting industry to give its views before the Departmental committee produces its report?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks the Answer disappointing. We have a great deal of information both on the substance of the matter and on the views of many sectors of industry. I felt that if we were to set up some new formal inquiry, with all the paraphernalia of formal submission of evidence, it would last a great deal of time, whereas some firm view and, if necessary, action is urgently required. I assure my hon. Friend that those involved will be closely consulted.

Did not the Government promise a massive increase in industrial retraininig facilities? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how his Department, or the Government in general, propose to do this? Will it be through more Government training centres, or do they hope to get that massive increase through in-training within industry?

I think that the answer to that is probably "Both". But one major reason for the review which I am conducting is to form conclusions about the best way of getting the increase which is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial training boards are now in existence; what is the total amount of the levies imposed by them on employers in a full year; what is their total cost to public funds; and how many staff they employ.

There are at present 28 boards. The total levy receivable for the year ended 31st March, 1970 was £175 million. Generally over 90 per cent. of the levy receivable from firms goes back to industry in the form of grants. The total cost since 1964 to public funds is about £3½ million. Staffing is a matter for the boards themselves but I understand that it is now about 4,900.

Pending the review to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier, does my hon. Friend expect to be able to deal with the financial crisis in the Construction Industry Training Board and with the very heavy levies imposed on small hairdressers by the Hairdressing and Allied Services Industry Board?

There is a Question on the Order Paper about the C.I.T.B. and I had better leave it to my right hon. Friend to answer. But we are well aware of the problems of small firms and are paying particular attention to small firms in the review which is currently going on.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the assistance his Department provides to workpeople who have been made redundant without adequate notice by employers; and if he will make a statement.

My Department operates special arrangements for giving advice and information to workpeople faced with redundancy. These are varied to suit the requirements of each case. I think they are sufficiently flexible to meet the needs in most of the cases where little advance notice is received.

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that I have corresponded with his Department about such an issue and that there was inability on the part of his Department to give any real assistance in the matter. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the working of his Department, in relation to the issue which we are discussing, is sufficient to deal with and help workpeople who are in difficulty with employers who are trying to thwart what, after all, is the will of Parliament?

Yes. I am satisfied that the Department always uses its best endeavours to help in these cases. Most employers give reasonable advance notice of redundancy and this often materially assists those who are affected.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that his correspondence has not been properly treated. If he is prepared to see me personally, or if I could make some arrangement with him, perhaps we can go into it.

Will the hon. Gentleman make an investigation into what is happening at Vauxhall's today, where 325 members of my union—the Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians Association—are having to resort to sit-ins, bog-ins, days of thought, and other forms of protest simply because the management refuses to negotiate in a proper manner on the redundancy notices which have been given to them?

I am not aware of the exact details of that case, but perhaps my right hon. Friend and I can look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce measures to improve safety in the building industry.

Comprehensive regulations covering safety in the construction industry were made in 1961 and 1966, and my right hon. Friend has no plans at present for altering or adding to these.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the daily accident figures in the building industry are a national disgrace? Is his Department prepared to spend more money on publicity and other action to get to the root of the matter and also to consult the trade unions, the F.M.B. and the N.F.B.T.E. about the best way of spending this money?

All accidents are undesirable and the more that they can be reduced the better. The hon. Gentleman may not be entirely aware that the numbers of accidents in the construction industry have been going up, whereas there has been a slight reduction where building is concerned, to which his Question refers. But there is no reason why anyone should be complacent. I agree that the rate is too high and every possible measure must be taken by way of consultation and example to try to improve the situation.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a great contribution could be made to safety in the construction industry by discontinuing British Standard Time in winter?

That is another matter entirely. I am sure that we have our personal views about it. I understand that we shall have an opportunity shortly to vote on it.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill was largely an agreed measure and eagerly sought after by his Department's Industrial Health Advisory Committee and Industrial Safety Advisory Committee. Will he tell the House whether his Department has any intention of introducing it?

Yes. My right hon. Friend has it under active consideration, and there is no objection to it. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, when I responded to him from that side of the House I gave the Bill an unreserved welcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will promote legislation, along lines similar to those of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1968, to provide compensation for long-term employees who are dismissed from their jobs because of illness or accident.

No, Sir, but the provisions which the Government propose to include in the forthcoming Industrial Relations Bill to increase the minimum periods of notice of termination to be given to long-service employees and to safeguard employees against unfair dismissal will be of considerable help to employees dismissed in these circumstances.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous financial hardship suffered by people who lose their jobs because of illness or accident through no fault of their own and get no redundancy benefits? Will he explain why the Government will not give them rights equivalent to those who lose their jobs through redundancy?

The redundancy scheme has a completely different objective. I appreciate and share the hon. Gentleman's concern for this unfortunate category of employee, but the object of the redundancy scheme was the optimum use of manpower and redeployment of skills. I do not think that we could use such a scheme to deal with this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of the Youth Employment Service.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Written Reply I gave him on 20th July. Any statement of policy on the future of the Youth Employment Service must wait until my right hon. Friend has given full consideration to the views put to him by the many organisations consulted.—[Vol. 804, c. 47.]

First, does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities see this as an essential part of the education services?

Secondly, will he consult his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, before any final decision is taken?

Yes. I am aware of the views in many parts of the education world, but there are also views expressed by other people. This matter cannot be taken in isolation from the question of career guidance and the development of the adult employment service. However, I promise my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science before a decision is made.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, particularly in Liverpool, youth employment is running at one of the highest levels for many years, and that there is a need for getting apprenticeship schemes going? Will the hon. Gentleman look into it and perhaps consider an expansion of the service?

We shall consider that. If we examine the whole situation, we see that the youth employment side is crucial to future jobs. That is why we want to get it right and why my right hon. Friend insists on the proper consultation before making a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of the number of unemployed and the numbers of unfilled vacancies in Scotland in the months of June, July, August, September and October, 1970.

As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank the Minister for that inadequate reply. I shall certainly look at the official record. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the trend in Scotland is an ever-increasing gap between the level of employment and the level of unfilled vacancies? Does the Minister further agree that within the figures for unfilled vacancies and unemployment there are certain discrepancies which he will see if he looks at the minimum list headings on the Standard Industrial Classification which show quite clearly that there is a need to raise the level of earnings, particularly in the mining industry, to attract sufficient labour to ensure the future of the Scottish coal-mining industry?

I do not consider that my reply is inadequate. If I had read the whole table of figures I should have been rebuked by you, Mr. Speaker. We are all aware that there is an unemployment problem in Scotland. That is why the Government have announced measures which we consider will be far more effective than the measures introduced by the previous Administration.

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the recent comments by the managing director of Chrysler United Kingdom in Scotland about the discouraging impact on potential incoming industry of the reputation for militancy and irresponsibility of some of the unions in central Scotland? Will he consider sending copies of that speech to union-sponsored Members of Parliament from Scotland?

I have seen that and I shall have to consider what my hon. Friend said in the second part of his question. I am sure that in a situation in which there is a great unemployment difficulty it does not help if there are bad industrial relations, and it behoves both sides of industry to try to co-operate to the maximum where there is an unemployment problem.

With the Minister disregard the statement made by the hon. Member for South Augus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and take it from me that industrialists in Lanarkshire have given me carte blanche to say that they are prepared at all times to state that workers in Scotland are second to none? If, on that basis, we as Scottish people continue to say that, we can encourage industrialists to go there, because the industrial record of trade unions and managements is second to none.

As with my hon. Friend's comments, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy regarding varying the present regulations over employment of Commonwealth citizens coming to work in this country.

A statement of the Government's policy on immigration was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the course of the debate on the Gracious Speech and I have, at present, nothing to add to this.—[Vol. 804, col. 211.]

Is the Minister aware that his Department's evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in the previous Parliament, the evidence from the Home Office and the evidence from C.B.I. representatives and the T.U.C. alike was that there was no enthusiasm for this change of policy? Is it not, therefore, a costly gimmick, and will it not lead to harassment of coloured people in this country?

I cannot agree to that at all. The policy of my right hon. Friend, as laid down in the Gracious Speech, is a general policy to ensure that there is no more permanent large-scale immigration. But side by side goes another policy which I put forward in the very first speech I made as Minister in this Department, which was in Manchester. The point which I tried to make there and the emphasis which I tried to lay was that our whole objective is to create conditions in industry in which Commonwealth immigrants would finally have the same opportunities as citizens of this country.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that many coloured immigrants are working in this country illegally? Will he use his utmost endeavours to see that these people are found out and returned to their country of origin?

I do not think that that comes under this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is now the number of working days to date this year lost through official, unofficial strikes, and in total; and how this figure compares with previous years.

Separate estimates are available only for stoppages known to have been official. The rest of the reply consists of a table of figures which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My hon. Friend will see from this table that in the current year the proportion of working days lost in disputes known to have been official is very small.

How does the total figure compare with those of other countries at present? Can my hon. Friend state the extent to which unofficial strikes are increasing due to the activity of mobile guerrilla units such as are operating in South Yorkshire and elsewhere?

The most important figure about strikes in this country is the one which shows the way in which they have increased over the last year. This is an escalating picture. The figure of stop- pages this year up to now is 3,196, a 42 per cent. increase on last year, which was itself a record. Already this year looks like being the worst year since the General Strike.

What proportion of those strikes lasted for fewer than three days, and what proportion consisted of a six-weeks' strike of up to 66,000 local authority employees, directly caused by the policies of the hon. Gentleman's Government in putting pressure on local authorities?

First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his advent to the Front Bench, which I am sure will be of great value to his party? I cannot tell him exactly how many strikes there have been of less than three days or other duration. But it is the number of strikes which shows the general temperature and condition of our industrial relations. It is for this reason that we are bringing in the Industrial Relations Bill. On the last point, regarding the recent strike, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said about conciliation and so on. I think that he acted absolutely correctly.