asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to be able to announce the location of the headquarters of the Health and Safety Commission.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on 18th March 1975—[Vol. 888, c. 1446–7.]—I am not yet able to say when the advice of the commission will be available.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that Sheffield is getting anxious about a decision on this matter, which is regarded as important for the development of new employment opportunities in South Yorkshire generally?

I admire the persistence with which my hon. Friends from Sheffield pursue this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that we are about to make an announcement on it, and that the claims of Sheffield will certainly not be overlooked.

Is the Minister aware of the severe problems of health and safety involved in the offshore oil industry? In those circumstances, will he consider setting up a special branch of the commission or a division of the commission based in Scotland to deal with those problems?

I am aware of the problems associated with safety in the North Sea. However, the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question would primarily be for the commission to consider and make recommendations about.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he remains satisfied with the working of the social contract.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the current operation of the social contract.

As I told my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ashley) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 18th March—[Vol. 888; c. 1437–9.]—progress has been made on both the Government's side and the trade unions' side in fulfilling the social contract, which covers a whole range of policies. But firmer adherence to the spirit of the TUC guidelines is certainly required if we are to avoid higher unemployment and curb inflation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that wages are rising too fast, which, in effect, means that the social contract is no longer working? Will the right hon. Gentleman list those major settlements which are lower, thanks to the social contract?

To answer the hon. Gentleman's last question first, I have said on a number of occasions why I do not think it appropriate, right or desirable that the Government should list individual settlements in the way the hon. Gentleman asked. It is true that wage settlements have been running ahead of the retail price index—that is one of the factors which led to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget—but I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point, that that means that the social contract is no longer working, because, as I said in my reply, it covers many other factors apart from wages. Moreover, in many cases the guidelines are being followed.

Does not the social contract also cover the question of job security, about which the TUC and most of us on the Government side of the House—all of us, I assume—are very concerned? Does not my right hon. Friend take the hint even from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last Tuesday, when he seemed to declare that the new and further development of the social contract and economic strategy is to create a greater pool of unemployed? Does that not lead us to the conclusion that the social contract is a contract to join the dole queue?

I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of the social contract, particularly in the latter part of his last sentence. I agree with the implication of what he says in the first part of his question—that two other important strands of the social contract are that the Government should do everything in their power to prevent the rise of unemployment and to curb inflation. Both of those matters are also part of the social contract. But what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was seeking to deal with in that part of the proposals was the fact that continuation of the rate of inflation in this country at a considerably higher rate than that in many other countries would also threaten jobs in this country. That is one of the reasons why action must be taken to deal with it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to some of us how we determine whether a wage settlement is within the social contract or outside it? Is it inside when an increase of 30 per cent. is allowed, or an increase of 20 per cent.? How do we know what is the Government's measuring stick to decide what percentage increase is within the contract and what is not?

The hon. Gentleman should study the guidelines laid down by the TUC. One of the important aspects of those guidelines is keeping up with the cost of living, but there are other guidelines, such as the 12-months' rule, the possibility of restructuring that can be taken into account in some cases, and the special provision for meeting the target on dealing with the problem of low pay. For those various reasons it is not possible to summarise the guidelines in terms of a simple, single percentage.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wage element is by no means the main one in the rise in inflation, and that therefore what is needed is a new turn in the Government's economic strategy to deal with inflation other than by putting the main burden on the shoulders of working people?

I agree that wages are not the only item contributing to inflation. It is wrong that the problem should ever be stated in that way. As I have said many times, at this Box and elsewhere, there are many other contributory factors. But nobody can deny that over recent months the rate of wage settlements has run strongly ahead of the cost of living. If that continues, particularly at this period—it may be that at other periods it could be borne—it will undoubtedly feed inflation in the future. That is fully accepted, not merely by the Government but in the TUC's Economic Review. Therefore, in that respect I agree with the TUC on the subject.

We are very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has to go into hospital, and we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks, about my illness, which, like Mark Twain's death, has been greatly exaggerated, through no fault of my own. None the less, I thank him for his kind remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now seek to negotiate a revision and tighter definition of the terms of the social contract.

No, Sir. What we should like to secure is more effective application of the terms of the existing contract, but naturally we have had and will continue to have discussions with the trade unions about all aspects of the subject and how we may deal with it in the future.

As the Secretary of State insists on recognising a dead creature as a live one, will he at least confirm that it remains Government policy in no circumstances to resort to statutory intervention in wages?

Yes. The sense of the hon. Gentleman's last remark was indicated by the Prime Minister to the representatives of the General Council of the TUC in our liaison committee yesterday, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied on that account. We have no intention of returning to a statutory policy, because that was an utter disaster. That is why we think it is irresponsible for those who led us to disaster under the statutory policy to pour scorn, and anything else on which they can lay their hands, on the social contract as it operates now. It is a pity that Opposition Members cannot rediscover some of the virtues of democracy which lie at the heart of our voluntary policy.

Is it not obvious that Opposition Members who denied the existence of the social contract now demonstrate by every question that they have not grasped the concept of the social contract? Would it not be advisable for those Opposition Members to read the able speech which was delivered by my right hon. Friend in Aberdeen last Wednesday, in which he outlined what has been achieved and what has still to be achieved by the social contract?

If my hon. Friend provokes me too far I may try to deliver that speech again now, but, if I did that. Mr. Speaker, you might call me to order. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement on the operation of the pay guidelines of the social contract in the public sector.

As I have explained to the House on several occasions, we do not maintain a detailed monitoring system on adherence to the pay guidelines in either the public or the private sector. If the hon. Member will indicate upon which aspect of the matter he wishes me to comment further, I shall do my best to assist.

In view of the Chancellor's policy of reducing deficits in nationalised industries, will settlements outside the guidelines in the public sector be paid for by increased prices or by a reduced work force?

When it is negotiating, each nationalised industry has to take into account the desirability of allegiance to the guidelines and the economic consequences of going beyond them. In some cases a nationalised industry may choose to go beyond the guidelines, but it has to accept responsibility for that settlement, which will have financial implications which have to be taken into account. On several occasions the Government have indicated that.

As the Opposition do not wish to bring in a compulsory wages policy and have not suggested an alternative, surely all we have is the social contract, and it behoves all of us in the House to see that it works?

Yes, but there are some parts of the social contract about which we could hardly expect Opposition Members to be enthusiastic. As I said in my Aberdeen speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) referred, a large part of the social contract is unfinished business that we want to finish as speedily as we can. There is a whole series of legislative measures that we think can contribute greatly to the health of industrial relations. That has to be taken into account as well.

Why cannot the Secretary of State answer the supplementary question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and indicate at least one major settlement which as a result of the social contract was lower than it would otherwise have been—or is the essence of the social contract that the Government do what the TUC wants them to do and get nothing in return?

I know that that is the kind of imbecile slogan that is repeated by Opposition Members throughout the country in their attempt to assist the Government in overcoming our economic problems, but it has nothing to do with the facts. If I responded to the hon. Gentleman's invitation about one settlement, no doubt the Opposition would ask why, if I have done it in respect of one settlement, I have not done it in the case of all the others. In January I gave the House an indication of the overall position when I said that I thought that 75 per cent. of the people covered in the settlements were within the guidelines. But when I said that, I also made clear what were the limitations in the declaration I was making—because the Government do not have available full statistics about every settlement. That has to be taken into account as well, and that is another reason why it is not possible to give the statistics for which hon. Gentlemen clamour. I do not think that they clamour for the statistics because they think they might help; they do so because they hope that they will be able to cause more disruption.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to assist in settling the dispute affecting the business of F. B. Atkins and Sons Limited of Derby, whose vehicles are being blacklisted by the Transport and General Workers' Union from using the container base at Perry Barr, Birmingham.

As I told the hon. Member in answer to a Written Question on 11th April, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is endeavouring to assist in the resolution of this dispute.

Why do not the Government support the lorry drivers and the management of the firm, who are being bullied and blackmailed by an official of the Transport and General Workers' Union into breaching the guidelines of the social contract? Is it not time the Government came off the fence and defended their own social contract, and prevented jobs from being lost?

I understand that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has arranged a meeting between the parties to the dispute, which is to take place tomorrow afternoon. In view of that fact, I do not think that it would be helpful in seeking a solution for me to comment on any allegations against either of the parties to the dispute.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have in my possession a copy of a letter from one of Atkins' shop stewards giving details of gross violations in the regulations concerning drivers' hours and of undue management pressure on drivers? That letter was sent to the Minister for Transport with a request for an inquiry. Is my hon. Friend further aware that the reason why these vehicles are being blacked in Birmingham is not to do with wages—which is a red herring—but concerns the firm's insistence on using tachographs, which is against the national policy of the Transport and General Workers' Union?

For a considerable time there has been no legal obligation on hauliers to fit tachographs. I understand that a complaint has been made against the firm in respect of the excessive hours worked by its drivers. That is a matter for the licensing authority and is currently being investigated. On the other matters raised by my hon. Friend, I give him the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), that it is not advisable for me to comment on the dispute if we wish to see a solution to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average length of time that those registered as unemployed in 1974 remained unemployed; how many successfully applied for retraining; and how many subsequently found employment.

The average length of unemployment for all unemployed persons who registered with the Employment Service in 1974 is estimated to have been about eight weeks. During the year about 49,000 unemployed persons successfully applied for retraining. Further information is not available for unemployed persons, but of all persons who successfully applied for retraining, over half successfully completed their course and about 80 per cent. of these found jobs in the occupation for which they were training.

In view of the changing pattern of employment due to changes in the price of energy and advances in technology, will the Minister consider setting up an inquiry into apprenticeship courses with a view to making possible changes? Will he also try to get closer co-operation between Government retraining centres, local education authorities and employment exchanges, so that the country is better prepared to face the challenge of unemployment in the mid-1970s, which will differ from anything we have previously experienced?

The pattern of apprenticeships and their duration has been changing significantly over the past few years. This is a dynamic and continuing change. As to closer liaison between the various agencies, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Manpower Services Commission was established about 12 months ago and the various agencies are taking significant steps in this direction. We are addressing our attention to the matter.

I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that the figure he has given for the average length of unemployment on a national basis is bound to be misleading and that he will not wish that impression to get abroad. Does he agree that to help the House to analyse the position more precisely it would be of assistance if regional figures could be included in the Official Report, especially those relating to people of 45 years of age and above?

I stressed in my original reply that the duration of unemployment to which I referred was the average length. I take the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I think he will accept that there are considerable difficulties in undertaking regular regional analyses on the duration of unemployment. None the less, I shall bear in mind what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the contribution to unemployment made by the cost of travel.

The cost of travel is one of many factors affecting people's job preferences but it is not considered to make a large contribution to unemployment.

Is the Minister aware that I and many other hon. Members representing rural constituencies have workers who are taking home £32 or £33 a week and who are forced to spend £9 a week on getting to and from work? Is he further aware that such men would be better off by staying at home and claiming, benefits? When will the Secretary of State grant some sort of travel allowance? Does the Minister understand that constituents who are spending that much money in travelling to and from work are getting tired of seeing their neighbours receiving more money whilst staying at home?

First, I do not think that it would be practicable or proper to introduce a travel allowance. Secondly, I remind the hon. Gentleman that local authorities will spend over £100 million in 1975–76 in subsidising local bus services and that total Government support for the rail industry will amount to about £500 million in that year.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the increased cost of fares is having a very serious effect on those who commute to London over long distances because they cannot obtain jobs more locally? Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to get some income tax relief for those who have high travel costs?

That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The difficulty is that it would not be possible to distinguish between those who are forced to travel to their work and those people who incur travel costs as a matter of personal choice. It may not be a good planning concept to encourage commuting over long distances. Surely it would be better to try to have work close to people's homes rather than to encourage long periods of travel.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress achieved in establishing safety committees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

My hon. Friend will be aware that before safety committees can be established on a statutory basis at the request of the workers' representatives, regulations must be made under Section 2(7) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. As I informed my hon. Friend on 25th March, the Health and Safety Commission has under active consideration proposals for the making of regulations regarding safety representatives and safety committees. I have no doubt that the commission will wish to present its proposals to me at the earliest possible opportunity.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his answer is very disappointing? Does he also accept that the Health and Safety Commission has been tardy in producing these regulations, and that for the proper implementation of the Health and Safety at Work Act he will need the cooperation of the Factory Inspectorate? Will he now advise the commission not to go ahead with the proposed reorganisation, which involves the closure of dozens of local offices? Is he aware that the Factory Inspectorate is opposed to that measure? Will he now direct the commission to show a more energetic attitude and to make more constructive proposals to get the Act implemented, instead of trying to cover up what is an administrative morass?

Let me assure my hon. Friend that he is no more eager than I am to see the regulations put into effect concerning workers' safety representatives and committees. My hon. Friend has suggested that the commission has been tardy in its approach. I assure him that in its short life—it has had a life of less than six months—it has already met 20 times. It is meeting at this moment to discuss precisely the point that he has raised. I am not suggesting that it will come up with the answer this afternoon, but I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that it is working very hard. He referred to the proposed reorganisation. Let me assure him that as yet there is no proposed reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate, or any decision to have one.

Does the Minister accept that an employee can be a useful member of a safety committee whether or not he is a member of a trade union? As the Act has only just appeared on the statute book, why are the Government contemplating making changes by way of the Employment Protection Bill? Does the Minister not agree that this is an unnecessary measure?

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that, given the political circumstances of the time, he and his hon. Friends imposed this provision on the then Government contrary to their will. At the time we made clear the overwhelming reasons for it being desirable for the employment of safety representatives to be on the basis of recognised trade unions. We pointed out to the House the industrial relations consequences of the decision that Conservative Members imposed on the Government. During the 1970–74 Government their experiences in industrial relations should have shown how incompetent they are and how bad and ill-advised is their judgment on these issues. That is why we shall reverse that decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has yet prescribed a list of cases for exception from the general duty of every employer under Section 2(3) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to prepare a written statement of general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of employees.

No. The Health and Safety Commission is now urgently consulting both sides of industry on proposals which, if agreed by the Government, would exempt employers with fewer than five employees except where there are workers' safety representatives.

Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to end the uncertainty in this matter and bear in mind that there are employers with more than five people working for them who still have an excellent record of health and safety at work? Could not those small employers be rewarded by exemption?

I think that the commission has arrived at a reasonable figure, but there will be consultations and no doubt it will be considering whether that figure is right. I shall draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the commission's attention.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the opinion of many Labour Members there are already far too man exemptions—for example, the whole of the agricultural industry?

I repeat that the commission has probably got the situation about right. Where there are a small number of employees, employers no doubt find it easier to communicate with their workers. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that it was regrettable that last year the Conservatives deprived agricultural workers of the full protection of this legislation. We intend to extend the legislation when the Employment Protection Bill comes before the House.

Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no exemption in respect of gas, oil and chemical installations in respect not merely of an industry's own employees but where the concentration of risk affects the surrounding public?

I understand the point, which the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly made. He can be assured that the commission is fully aware of his anxieties. I know that its members are anxious to do what they can to safeguard the position not only of his constituents but of others who are exposed to similar risks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a progress report on the community industry schemes for the employment of young people.

Community industry has been extended to 20 areas, and now employs 1,518 young people.

Will my hon. Friend consult the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department with a view to the possibility of dovetailing the community industry scheme into the final school year curriculum for young school leavers? Will he also give consideration to the starting of such a scheme in Stirlingshire, where at present 235 boys and 187 girls are out of work? Is he aware that there is a possibility of the figures increasing with the next batch of young school leavers after the June school leaving date?

On my hon. Friend's last point, I shall certainly consider his proposal and determine what can be done. My hon. Friend's first point goes rather wide, but I think that it is worth considering the possibility of community industry providing work experience. This is a matter that will have to be discussed not only with the Scottish Education Department but with the Department of Education and Science, local authorities and other professional bodies. It is one that is worth investigating.

Will the Government do more to see that community industry schemes are available in the city areas, where they are desperately needed?

Yes, most certainly. I think that they have a valuable contribution to make in the stress of inner city areas. I have looked recently at one such scheme in Lewisham and I shall look at another one in Manchester. I shall press that point of view.

As this has been one of the most successful schemes ever initiated by any Government, will my hon. Friend ensure, as far as it lies within his power, that whatever other cuts there may be in public expenditure there will be none in this area?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Department has authorised the continuation of community industry. The present authorised capacity is 2,000 and the number that I have given is well within that capacity. There is no question of any cuts.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we wish to see this scheme expanded, particularly in the areas which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) has mentioned? Is the Minister aware that it is particularly important that it should be extended, as it is generally accepted that those now leaving school will experience more difficulty in getting jobs than has been the case at any time since the end of the war? Anything we can do to help them by something like community industry schemes will greatly ease the pressure and make for a better social system in Britain.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand my enthusiasm for community industry, but I would be deceiving the House if I suggested that the scheme, which has a capacity of 2,000 entrants at any one time, could cope with the much larger number of school leavers. That is why the Government have taken other measures, including the expansion of training facilities, to deal with the problems which may be met by those leaving school during the summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment rates for men in the Caernarvon, Pwllheli and Porthmadog employment areas, respectively.

At 10th March, the rates of unemployment for males were 11·7 per cent. in the Caernarvon travel-to-work area and 10·4 per cent. in the Pwllheli travel-to-work area, which includes Porthmadog.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware how disgraceful those figures are and how much they will be worsened by the Chancellor's Budget, which will lead directly to more redundancies in my constituency? Is he aware that that rate of unemployment, if it applied throughout the whole of the kingdom, would lead to a revolution? What will the Government do about this, and when will they do it?

I respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Government have done a great deal for North-West Wales. The Government made it a special development area. They have doubled the regional employment premium. They have tightened up the operation of industrial development certificates and there are further jobs in prospect in the area which come from the Dinorwic pumped water scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this Government have done rather more than their predecessors in this part of Wales.

What have the Government done in North-East Wales, which has a comparable rate of unemployment?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers and from employers' organisations about the proposals in his Employment Protection Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the Employment Protection Bill since its publication.

About 45 individuals and organisations have sent in comments since the Bill was published, the great majority of which have come from employers and employers' organisations. They suggested that the Bill was generally biased against employers, and expressed concern about the additional cost of the proposals—particularly those concerned with guarantee payments and maternity. They also suggested that the provisions on recognised terms and conditions were likely to have inflationary effects.

Will the Secretary of State accept that many companies in my constituency are appalled by the implications of the legislation? How can he reconcile his burdensome Bill with the remarks by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday about the need for a healthy private sector?

If companies feel as the hon. Gentleman suggests, they are quite unnecessarily alarmed. Of course employers have some questions and doubts about the Bill, which they have put to us, but we have had discussions with many organisations, most of which understood the Bill better after the discussions than they did before. That may not be saying a great deal, but that has been the situation. At any rate, I hope that that has been our purpose. I believe that as the Bill goes through the House in the next few weeks more and more people will realise that the legislation as a whole makes a greater contribution to better industrial relations, and that employers, as well as everybody else, will have to make their contribution.

Although I do not doubt that provision of payment where no work is available and freedom from dismissal as a result of pregnancy are desirable matters in themselves, should they not more properly be provided through the social services? Is this the right time to impose additional burdens of expenditure on employers when they are already suffering badly in the present industrial situation?

All these questions will be fully debated when the Bill comes before the House very soon. It has already been presented, and discussions will take place very soon. That will be the best time at which to discuss these matters. What the Bill is seeking to do on the guaranteed week is to attempt to apply to manual workers a provision which non-manual workers have enjoyed for generations, without anybody regarding it as remarkable. Conservative Members should be more generous on this subject. They should realise that what we are trying to do in that part of the Bill and in respect of maternity benefits is to catch up with the proper practice that has been followed in many firms, and certainly in many other parts of the world, for a lone time.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £100 million cost, quoted as the figure which the Bill would represent as an extra cost to employers, represents a one-half millionth part of the total wage and salary bill?

My hon. Friend, in quoting that figure, has put the matter in proper proportion. All the Bill is doing is to make a small beginning in regard to a guaranteed wage. We say that in present economic circumstances we cannot bring in the provision on a larger scale, but once the principle is established it can be carried further at a much later stage.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the description of the Bill given by one of the most distinguished of labour commentators—namely, that it represents a bonanza for the unions—is an example of giving the TUC what it wants under the social contract and getting nothing in return?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Mr. Woodrow Wyatt as a distinguished labour commentator—

No. I was referring to the Financial Times correspondent.

That is quite all right—so long as the hon. Gentleman is not referring to Mr. Woodrow Wyatt in such a way. That is at any rate an advance. I was glad to hear the universal derision with which that name was greeted. Certainly Mr. John Elliot is a most eminent labour correspondent—not "Labour" in the political sense, but one of the best labour commentators. He produced an extremely intelligent and balanced article on the working of the Bill. I did not agree with every conclusion, and I do not believe that Mr. John Elliot wrote the headline. Headlines are often written by people who are not acquainted with the facts.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the operation of the arrangements announced on 7th April for Ministers who disagree with Government policies to have Questions addressed to them transferred to other Ministers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the operation of the arrangement laid down in his Written Answer of 7th April concerning the answering of Questions to Ministers who themselves differ from the Government's recommendation on membership of the EEC.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the working of the arrangements laid down in his Written Answer of 7th April about the answering of Parliamentary Questions to Ministers who differ from the Government's recommendation on membership of the EEC.

asked the Prime Minister whether he satisfied with the operation of the arrangements laid down in his Written Answer of 7th April concerning the answering of Parliamentary Questions addressed to Ministers who themselves differ from the Government's recommendation on membership of the EEC.

Yes, Sir.

Has the Prime Minister read the Hansard report of yesterday's questions and answers, involving his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry? In that exchange he will notice that his right hon. Friend resolutely refused to say whether our industrial investment prospects are better for our being in Europe or would be worsened by our leaving Europe. As the Secretary of State would not say anything on that score, will the Prime Minister now say it for him?

I read yesterday's Hansard, and I compliment the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on having forecast yesterday's Hansard two weeks ago, when he tabled this Question.

It was Inevitable.

Having read yesterday's Hansard, I could not feel very convinced that most of the questions put to my right hon. Friend were genuinely seeking information. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues that it is about time they devised a policy, instead of spending all their time putting questions of this kind.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I was one hon. Member who asked the Secretary of State for Industry a supplementary question yesterday? Is he further aware that I was quite unable to get the information which I tried to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman, namely, whether investment would go up or down depending on our withdrawing from or staying in the Common Market? Will he assure his right hon. Friend that at least until referendum day he should keep within the guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister?

Yes, of course, I was aware that the hon. Gentleman was the originator of one of the questions. That rather adds strength to the force of my reply about the quality of the particular question. On the question of investment, and gains to Britain, I have tried, in this House and outside, to suggest to the campaign organisations on both sides not to exaggerate the consequences of being in or out. We all know that the answer to our economic problems lies within this country. The most complete answer to the total absence of Conservative policy is to be found in the speech made last night by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will the Prime Minister comment on the speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition during the weekend at Stratford, when he implied that the Conservative Party could not be declared as accepting a "No" verdict in the forthcoming referendum? Does the Prime Minister not agree that that is a repetition of the old trick of "Heads I win, tails you lose"? Will he confirm that even the consenting Ministers of the Cabinet will accept the wishes of the British people in this matter?

I cannot comment on the speech referred to. There is no ministerial responsibility—and as far as I can see there is no Opposition responsibility, either—for the various speeches of disassociation by members of the previous Conservative Government, which are made by the present Opposition Front Bench speakers, such as they are. My hon. Friend has made a significant point.

Will the Prime Minister clarify the position—[Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. Lady is asking the Prime Minister a question. She must be heard in silence.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I should accept the constitutional position with regard to Members of Parliament, whether or not they were tied by the referendum vote, the constitutional position being that they cannot be fettered by the result of the referendum, as the Prime Minister said on 23rd January in c. 1751? Will he clarify the position of the Labour Party? Is the Prime Minister saying that whatever the turnout in the referendum, whatever the vote, whatever the majority however small, every member of the Labour Party will be expected to vote in accordance with the result?

I repeat what I said during two General Elections, a precedent which the right hon. Lady may care to consider following. I said that we would accept the majority verdict of the British people in that respect. The Government will certainly accept it. I have said that we shall do that. However, the right hon. Lady has not answered the question whether she will accept the verdict of the British people.

Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister is paid to answer questions and not to ask them, and that clearly on that criterion he does not earn his keep, will he now say whether the answer to my question is "Yes" or "No"?

I shall answer that question. First, I deplore the personal attack contained in the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about the relationship between the salaries of Prime Ministers and productivity, because what she said was a terrible attack on the previous Prime Minister, since all his answers were in the form of questions to me. I do that occasionally.

Does the Prime Minister accept that everyone in the House would agree with the concept of the full-hearted consent of the British people, whatever that might mean? If there were a 40 per cent. poll, with 21 per cent. of the voters voting one way and 19 per cent. the other, would my right hon. Friend be assured that neither he nor anyone else would bind me as to how I vote?

I have never regarded my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) as a particularly bindable person to anything. I find this very interesting. My hon. Friend will be gratified by the Opposition cheers at what he has said. I do not recall that he received such cheers when he spoke on the Civil List, for example. However, we find odd alliances across the Floor of the House.

When the Prime Minister was first elected to the House, did not he feel, as did some of us, that he was sent here to exercise his judgment in the best interests of the nation? Will he please cease reading us lectures on arrogance and allow us to exercise our own judgment?

I always listen with great care to what the hon. Gentleman says about these questions. However, this is a unique occasion of a vote by the British people. This is its exercise of sovereignty. After the campaign in 1970, during which the hon. Gentleman campaigned, those pledges were broken, because the people were not consulted.

The European Parliament has now asserted its control over the Regional Development Fund. However much Cabinet responsibilities may be shuffled around in the present peculiar fashion, does not the Prime Minister agree that important powers will slip away irrevocably from the House if we remain in the Common Market?

No, Sir, I do not accept that interpretation. This is a difficult question about the distinction between compulsory expenditure for the Assembly and non-compulsory expenditure. What it has now is, within the limitation set by the increase in the gross product of the Community, the right to propose additional grants for regional aid within the total of the regional fund.

Reverting to the referendum and recalling the Prime Minister's arguments against a referendum up to 1972, does he accept that there are still some right hon. and hon. Members in this House who believe that the promises that they made to the electorate at the last election are still binding? If he wishes to underline the sovereignty of Parliament by suggesting that those promises can now be broken, the right hon. Gentleman will not take the whole House along with him.

I think that the expert on Dr. Johnson, the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), is standing in the back row of the Opposition benches now.

Despite the tender solicitude shown by Opposition Members for the unity of the present administration, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they are equally unhappy whether the Labour Government are divided or not?

That is probably true—indeed, it is certainly true. I am touched by the solicitude of Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend fairly described it. I think that it is the only escape that they have, because they have no policy on any subject, as became clear in the debate on the Budget, for four days. One day the right hon. Lady, who does not like answering questions, from wherever they may come, will tell us whether she supports the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) yesterday. The Opposition have also talked about cutting expenditure. One day the right hon. Lady will tell us a single item which she will cut—and it will not be defence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of Prime Minister' Questions is to ask questions about Government policy, not about Opposition policy, and to receive answers on them? In the light of the difficulties into which the Secretary of State for Industry got at Question Time yesterday, and in view of the Prime Minister's unique ability to face both sides of every issue, would it not be better if all Questions to dissenting Ministers were in future transferred to him?

The hon. Gentleman took so long getting into this House, as we know from successive elections, despite the disreputable character of his campaign in Slough—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]—I am delighted that so many Tories are backing that campaign—that, unfortunately, we missed his company from 1970 to 1974, when every question put to the then Prime Minister by the syndicate which I think he has now joined as a kind of consenting Member asked the Prime Minister to put a question to me. I do it occasionally, because I am not getting any lead from the Opposition. It is very bad for democracy. That is why I am trying to help them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of over- coming the Opposition's difficulty in interpreting the meaning of his Written Answer on 7th April would be to speed the passage of the Referendum Bill, which would enable the whole House to accept the traditional democratic British practice of accepting a simple majority verdict of the British people on all questions?

Yes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I understand from what I read in the Conservative Press, which on these matters, at any rate, must be believed, that the occupants the Conservative Front Bench—I am sure that their lead will be followed—intend, whatever they may think about the Referendum Bill, on which the House has taken a decision, to facilitate the passage of the Committee and Report stages while pressing, as they have every right to do, particular issues on which they believe the Bill should be amended.

I will now give my ruling on the matter of privilege which was raised yesterday.

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at beginning insert

'Subject to subsection (4A) of this section'

With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 26, 29 and 31, with Amendments (b), (a) and (c) to Amendment No. 31, and Government Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 37 and 38.

Amendments Nos. 31 and 38 are related to Amendment No. 13. The Committee will see that these amendments are designed to make special provision for those members of the Armed Services and their spouses who are eligible to be registered as Service voters to vote in the referendum whether or not they are so registered and for voting to be conducted by the Services in units and, in exceptional circumstances, in advance of the day appointed for the poll.

Accepting that the referendum is a fairly unusual situation and that my party, the Scottish National Party, believes that these people should be encouraged to vote, does the Minister consider that the ordinary rules for parliamentary elections should be in any way relaxed, because they still put the onus on the Service man to make his own arrangements to make sure that his name appears on the register?

I think that the hon. Lady is being somewhat premature. If she finds that I have not dealt with that point during my remarks, certainly I shall be very glad to answer it later. The point she now makes is in my mind as it is clearly in hers.

There seems to be one category that has not been covered. Some of us were members of a Select Committee which visited Germany last week and talked to the Forces. It appears that under these proposals one category will be omitted. Has any thought been given to those dependants of Service people who are of voting age and are living with their spouses, husbands or wives, or their mothers and fathers in Germany, because it appears at present that they may not be enfranchised by the amendment? Will the Minister clarify that point?

The hon. Member will know that there is an amendment on the Notice Paper relating specifically to this point. Since it is in the group which you, Mr. Thomas, have specified for our current debate, I shall be referring to it in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that it is a special group. I will tell him what our view is about what ought to be done.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the likelihood is, as in the case of the 1945 General Election, that the 25 per cent. of Service men who are on the electoral register, and presumably have proxies, could, if they desired or by mistake, vote twice—once by proxy and once directly in their unit under this amendment? This happened in 1945. Can the Minister confirm that it could happen under these circumstances?

I cannot confirm that, for reasons I shall explain in a moment which are encompassed by our amendments and our further proposals for voting. I cannot deny, and I am not doing so, that there are bound to be certain anomalies in any proposals of this kind. It is for the judgment of the Committee whether the anomalies outweigh the advantages, as we see them, of these amendments. What we are proposing is that Service personnel throughout the world and their spouses when overseas should be given the opportunity of voting locally at special polling stations within their units, the votes so cast being returned for counting to the United Kingdom.

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said. If I understood him correctly he said that there were 400,000 members of the Armed Services and their spouses overseas. [Interruption.] Perhaps I have misunderstood. May I ask for clarification? Will the facilities to which he has referred extend to all members of the Armed Forces and their spouses whether they are serving within the United Kingdom or outside it?

The arrangements I am explaining will apply to all members of the Armed Forces wherever they are but to their spouses only when their spouses are abroad.

This illustrates the dilemma and seems to be one of the anomalies. Can the Minister tell the Committee why spouses will be able to vote under the arrangements he has set out only if those spouses are without the United Kingdom but not if they are within the United Kingdom. I assume from that that the spouses of those serving in Ulster will not, as I understand it, be able to avail themselves of this Service facility.

The answer is that the spouses of those serving within the United Kingdom will be able to vote in the normal way, with the rest of the electorate. Under our proposals, subject to any qualifications I may make, we expect that all Service men and their spouses wherever they are will be able to vote. But some will be voting under the special arrangements spelt out in our amendment and some will be voting in normal circumstances, living in the United Kingdom.

May I ask a question on this point? I understand that there are, in the Minister's plans, 1,600 Service voting units at home and overseas at which balloting will take place. How many of the 1,600 are overseas? Can the Minister take us more into his confidence about the reasons why he feels it necessary for the ballot boxes to be returned to this country for counting?

I prefer not to give details about the first point. This figure of 1,600 may be a little smaller than that. It illustrates the difficulty of being precise. We have to think of units which make good practical sense from the point of view of voting, bearing in mind also the size of polling stations in this country. I would be glad to help the hon. Gentleman but I must not mislead him by implying that these matters are finally settled. The figure fluctuates. We believed it to be 1,600 a few days ago. We now think that it may be nearer 1,000.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why he has seen fit to exclude a small number of people? Civilians attached to Service units overseas—not those at home—are in a similar situation, except that they are not in uniform, nor are they defined under the provisions of the amendment as people serving the Crown. Would it not be right and proper to include this small number of people? They meet all the criteria that the Minister is setting out. They are attached to units, they could work within units, and their votes could be recorded in the same way as those of serving personnel. Would it not be sensible—perhaps this has escaped the Minister's thinking—for this to be considered and these people to be allowed to vote?

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very fairly, but he is wrong in saying that they meet all the principles. One principle which they do not meet is that under the present electoral law they are not Service voters. Every person who is considered under the present legislation to be a Service voter is met by the scheme that I am proposing, but there are clearly some categories outside the Service voter, as defined, and one of these categories is referred to in another amendment on which I wish to comment briefly. But that is an important dividing line, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise its validity even if he may not agree that the fence is set up at the right place on this occasion.

Will my hon. Friend explain why proxies will be left out? The matter has been explained to me in general terms elsewhere, but I am not satisfied with the explanation. Can my hon. Friend be more specific?

The basis is that we shall not cancel the Service register because we do not want to disfranchise Service men and their wives who have come home from overseas service, but we propose to cancel all proxies, because, if we do not, there is a possibility of a serious anomaly arising whereby Service men will be able to vote in their units, and a large number will have a proxy at home.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that because some people may break the law and attempt to vote twice, 100 people must be disfranchised altogether?

No, I am not saying that. I think the hon. Gentleman should have a greater sense of proportion. This is a difficult matter, and I think the Committee supports as many safeguards as possible to avoid duplication of voting, even by accident.

That is a remarkably small figure. If the proxies are cancelled, any Service man who is away from his unit on the day of voting and is not registered with some other unit will be unable to vote. I think that a considerable number of people, for instance, those attached to the Ministry of Defence, will be affected in this way. Does the hon. Gentleman stick to his figure of 100? I think that it is likely to be a considerable underestimate.

Yes, I stick to the figure. I cannot be absolutely certain; I say "about 0·1 per cent. of the whole". The hon. Gentleman seems to be overlooking advance voting. We are saying that we think that 90 per cent. will vote in their units—I hope that the figure will be higher—and that 10 per cent.—I hope that the figure will be lower—will be eligible to vote in some other way. There remains a tiny residue who simply are not in contact for long enough at the right times in the right places, and whom we do not think we can reach I greatly hope that I am right. If I believed that it were not so, I should tell the Committee. We are trying to reduce this to a minimum. On the best estimate that we can make, it will be only a handful.

The Minister of State says that it will be only a handful. What about the considerable proportion of men who will be on leave when the referendum is held? Would it be possible for them, if they undertook not to use a proxy, to do it from their depots in this country?

No, I do not think that they could do it from their depots in this country, because it would need the sort of verification that we have in mind in their units. I do not think that the provisions for advance voting will fail to cover such an eventuality If, on further examination, I find that the figure is any greater, I shall bring it to the attention of the House of Commons, because I am concerned that we should reduce it to the very minimum. For the moment I have no other proposal which I could make which would reduce it beyond the figure I mentioned, nor any other method that I could adopt which would prevent it from rising were the circumstances such as some hon. Members believe.

How will this be drawn to their attention?

This, again, is an example of how premature giving way on my part merely extends the length of the debate, because I was going to say, before the hon. Gentleman intervened, that I am sure that the amendment which has been tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, and this debate, will bring to the attention of reservists likely to be abroad the desirability of making proxy arrangements.