asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

I shall be satisfied with the operation of the Act when I am sure that all people at work—employers, employees and the self-employed—are taking all necessary measures for their own and others' health and safety.

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the deterrent effect of a level of fines averaging £95 for successful prosecutions under the Act? Is he aware that in my constituency an accident took place recently, involving death which was caused by the employer's negligence, and that a fine of £200 was imposed? In addition, GEC—it was not GEC in the instance to which I first referred—was fined £300 on six serious summonses. Will my hon. Friend contrast that——

Order.

I understand the disquiet of my hon. Friend. We are not responsible for the decision of the courts. The Act provides for unlimited fines on indictment as well as imprisonment for some offences. As I have said, I share the disquiet of my hon. Friend about the level of penalties imposed by the courts. I hope that the courts will heed the remarks made in the house.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the way in which companies are providing a written statement of health and safety policy to all their employees? Has the Health and Safety Commission had to remind many firms of this obligation under the Act?

This is one feature of the Act to which there has been a good response. Companies have got down to the task of preparing written statements and in many cases have published them. The Health and Safety Commission has produced guidance on what a written statement should contain. A feature of many of the statements that has caused me much anxiety is that they tend to over-emphasise the responsibilities of the employee and to underplay the responsibilities of the employer. I hope that we shall see a better balance in some of the statements when they are revised.

What is the full establishment of the Health and Safety Inspectorate, and is it yet filled? If not, what progress is being made towards filling it?

Without notice, I cannot give the full figures. The latest information is that 819 inspectors are in post in the Factory Inspectorate. That represents a 12 per cent. to 14 per cent. increase on the numbers in post when the health and safety at work legislation came before Parliament. We are keeping up to date with the proposed expansion of the inspectorate. We are pretty well on target.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now extend the scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act to cover offshore installations and activities and if he will make a statement.

This question is at present receiving urgent attention by the Government and it is hoped that a statement will be made shortly.

I would not call that a five-star answer. Does my hon. Friend recall the public indignation—indeed, the wave of indignation—in the trade union movement over the lack of health and safety provisions concerning our offshore installations and in the new technologies? It was thought necessary in 1974 to set up the inter-departmental study group. The study was a long time ago in history, and a week is a long time in politics. I should like an answer. I do not want to table the Question a second time. I am looking for action.

My hon. Friend is right to be impatient. This is a serious matter. I hope that he will have the chance to table a Question in the near future, in response to which I hope to be able to give him a five-star answer.

Is the Minister aware that there is concern on both sides of the House about the lack of rights possessed by the people working on offshore installations? Indeed, some of my constituents have been dismissed under incredible circumstances after suffering injuries, and are apparently no longer able to work. When will the Government get their finger out and do something about it?

The Government are concerned and I am personally concerned about the accident rate in the North Sea and the tragic events that have occurred there. I am hopeful that before long we shall be able to announce to the House that we have extended to those workers engaged in the dangerous areas of the North Sea the protection and safeguards of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not only on the offshore installations that workers are facing difficulties over the Health and Safety at Work Act? Does he further accept that installation workers in the asbestos industry are facing particular difficulties? Recently a firm called CDN dismissed 13 workers for demanding overalls when using calcium silicate materials which were not marked to exclude asbestos as the code of practice requires them to be marked? Will my hon. Friend bring a maximum amount of pressure to ensure that employers apply the Health and Safety at Work Act fairly and that people are not penalised for calling in the factory inspector?

I am very familiar with the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred. It goes beyond the firm of CDN. The problem has been a festering sore for years. It is interwoven with industrial relations problems. I do not want to say anything that will in any way diminish my concern about the danger associated with asbestos and its use in these installations. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Health and Safety Executive and the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to have another careful and critical look at exactly what is happening in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement on the current level of unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the current level of unemployment; and whether he will make a statement.

The present level of unemployment is extremely high and in seasonally-adjusted terms is likely, I fear, to rise even higher over the next few months. The measures announced by the Chancellor last Thursday, like those previously announced in September and December of last year, can have some mitigating effect, but we cannot claim more than that for them. Meantime, we wish to make every preparation we can to expand the economy without recreating an intolerable rate of inflation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a £50 million boost to the construction industry—a £10,000 million industry—will make no significant difference to the level of unemployment?

It will not have as great an effect as a much larger programme of reconstruction, but I think it will make a worthwhile contribution, along with the other measures that have been taken. I think that it can have some influence. I understand the nature of the full figures.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the comments of the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) are quite unworthy when we take into account the deplorable record of the Conservative Government in the public building sector? The building programme in the public sector under the present Government shows a continuing improvement that should be welcomed by all hon. Members.

It is perfectly true that there has been some stepping up of the general building programme, but we want to carry it further, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, as soon as we possibly can.

Does the latest evidence available to the Secretary of State confirm the suggestion that handicapped people, especially the blind, are being severely affected by the rising levels of unemployment? If so, what action does he plan to take?

By the various measures we have taken under the community industry arrangements, for example, and by the announcement that has been made about our plans in this respect, we have taken such steps as we can to help the disabled and the blind. We shall continue to do everything we can in that direction.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce a dramatic decrease in unemployment?

I am as eager as my hon. Friend to reach that stage.

In view of the fact that month after month the Secretary of State constantly says that he finds the unemployment figures unacceptable, what figure will have to be reached before he finds the situation so unacceptable that he feels it necessary to resign?

We want to do everything in our power to bring down the unemployment figure, partly with the aid of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. I put the figures in proportion in my original answer, but what we need to bring down the figure is a general expansion of the economy. I wish to reach that point as speedily as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend say what is the average cost to the Exchequer in terms of the loss of revenue and other payments of an adult unemployed male?

It is a very heavy cost indeed. If my hon. Friend tables a Question on that point I shall be happy to give him the specific figure. It is undoubtedly the case that unemployment at any figure, and certainly at the present figure, imposes a heavy burden on the Exchequer and on the borrowing requirement of the nation. That factor must be taken into account in all the decisions that the Government must take.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received the figures which I recently sent to him showing that a worker in my constituency is paid £44·50 per week when working and receives £42·50 when unemployed, which hardly makes it worth while for him to work?

I have not seen those specific figures, but I shall examine them.

Will my right hon. Friend consider his answer about construction workers. Although I support the figure of £50 million, does he not agree that it is an insufficient sum to deal with the problems of the construction industry? Is he also aware that this week 33 per cent. of Merseyside ship repairing workers at the Weston Ship Repairers are likely to be made redundant? This is a continuing problem, and will he impress on his Cabinet colleagues the fact that despite the recent measures much more needs to be done to get to grips with it?

I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend said. I did not say in my original reply that I regarded the sum of £50 million as sufficient to deal with the problems; I said that it was a worthwhile contribution to help solve the problem. The measures taken by the Government over many years to assist building, and house building in general, have been of some assistance. However, I agree that, especially in view of the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend in regard to Merseyside construction workers, more steps will have to be taken. The sooner we can get to that stage the better.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the forecasts of unemployment over the next few months and perhaps even into next year, so that we can orientate ourselves more towards the future problems of unemployment and try to deal with the longer-term implications rather than with the serious situation which we all know exist at present?

I do not think any Government have published forecasts of that nature, but I believe that one of the matters to be considered in a fresh light is the medium-term problem. I do not deny that such a problem exists. Moreover, I understand from reports that the TUC General Council has been considering the proposal of a target to bring down the unemployment figure over a period. I think that can well provide a worthwhile approach to the problem and it is a matter that will be reconsidered by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he can make of the number of those out of work who were formerly employed by small firms, as defined by the Bolton Committee.

No unemployment statistics are available from which an estimate can be made.

Does the Minister agree that small businesses have a considerable contribution to make to job creation? Does he also agree that with some easing of the burdens and the introduction of further incentives for small businesses a useful step forward would be taken, in terms job creation?

Of course small businesses have an important contribution to make to the unemployment problem and to job creation, but they are not excluded from proposals in regard to job creation. They will benefit from the recent reduction of the qualifying numbers in terms of temporary employment subsidy and they may also receive recruitment subsidies for school leavers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I hope that with the aid of these measures small businesses will contribute towards the solution of the unemployment problem.

Are there not indications that small businesses in the private sector are bearing more of the burdens of the present redundancies in unemployment than is the bloated public sector?

We shall know better the extent to which small businesses can benefit from assistance when the new qualification for temporary employment subsidy has been in existence for a period. That will give us a basis of measurement. In regard to existing figures, we find that about 60 per cent. of the applications for temporary employment subsidy come from small firms.

In view of the fact that the Bolton Report found that small firms were more labour-intensive than larger firms, would it not be more sensible to sweep away some of the more complicated provisions and regulations that so inhibit small firms from taking on additional staff?

In so far as my right hon. Friend and I are responsible for introducing measures to deal with the present abnormal levels of unemployment, we are doing so in a way that draws no distinction between large and small firms—as far as it is possible to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that South Kirkby Town Council in my constituency, which three years ago was a parish council—and one cannot get much smaller than that—has successfully launched a job creation programme with a grant of £45,000 from the Department? Is he aware that that council would like to expand its programme if it could be given more money? Will he comment on that situation?

I very much welcome the job creation project to which my hon. Friend refers. I assure him that any proposals put to the Manpower Services Committee for further job creation schemes will be carefully considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation with a view to providing compulsory minimum standards of training for schools leavers intending to enter industry; and if he will make a statement.

We hope to be able to make a statement of policy on vocational preparation for young people within the next few weeks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a leading employer is reported as saying that 300,000 young people enter industry every year with no semblance of training? In view of the restructuring of industry and the maximum advantages we hope to gain, has not the time arrived when young skill should be developed by introducing the principle of compulsory training?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in a debate on 24th November last that there were 300,000 people in the category to which my hon. Friend referred. He said that a forthcoming statement to the House would contain proposed measures to deal with the problem. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the document prepared by the Training Services Agency entitled "Vocational Preparation for Young People". That will give an idea what the statement will contain. If my hon. Friend has not seen that document, I shall be happy to give him a copy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will review the operation of the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, whereby such subsidies are not paid in respect of school leavers who have taken temporary work for more than six weeks.

The operation of the recruitment subsidy for school leavers has been reviewed. As announced on 12th February 1976 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the life of the scheme has been extended to 30th September 1976, and as from 16th February 1976 Christmas school leavers have been included. No other changes in this scheme are contemplated at present.

Does the Minister realise that because of the six-weeks' rule some young people are being discrimi- nated against and that they are the very people who should be encouraged, because, in deciding to take on temporary employment until they gain full employment, they are casing the burden on the State?

The hon. Gentleman wrote to me about a particular case. I appreciate the difficulty. However, if we were to amend the rule which says that the period of work must be no longer than six weeks or must be vacation work, we might find difficulty by having to subsidise job changes as well as employment. There is some hardship wherever one draws the boundary line. I have looked at the matter and I do not think that we can review the rules.

is my hon. Friend aware that the latest research suggests quite clearly that it is far more difficult for a trained man in his fifties to get a job even in a low unemployment area than it is for a young person—a school-leaver or a young worker—completely without training to get a job in a high unemployment area? Under these circumstances, will he consider with the Treasury possible incentives to firms willing to take on redundant workers in their fifties, after retraining?

There is a difficulty at both ends of the age scale—for the younger worgers and for the older workers. I cannot commit myself in response to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I shall give it consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created or saved to date as a direct consequence of the Government's job creation programme; at what total cost and at what cost per job; how many redundancies have been notified; and what has been the reduction in the number of vacancies during the same period.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that, up to 13th February, 795 projects have been approved under its job creation programme, creating 9,906 jobs at a cost of £11·07 million. This is an average cost per job of £1,101 but the net cost is considerably less when savings in unemployment and supplementary benefit, and statutory deductions, are taken into account.

Has it ever occurred to the Minister that if that money were used to cut taxes, especially for small businesses, many more jobs would be created or saved?

I should have thought that the whole House would welcome—as I understood the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) welcomed—first of all the establishment of the job creation scheme and, second, the considerable progress it is making and assistance it is giving in the areas which have perhaps suffered unemployment most severely. I regret that the hon. Gentleman has taken this line in respect of a project that I should have thought he would have welcomed, especially, in its application to his own area.

Does the Minister agree that many hon. Members will believe that this is money well spent? Does he further agree that in areas of unemployment some of the jobs that have been created—for example youngsters helping in schools with ESN children, and the like—have given youngsters a first-class knowledge not only of working but a social conscience, which they would not have received without the scheme?

I wholly share my hon. Friend's view.

I welcome the aims behind the job creation programme, but does the Minister agree that many more jobs could be provided under the programme if the people who obtained the jobs were not paid the full industrial wage? Does he agree that people would be fully prepared to take jobs at a lower wage?

I think the whole House would look askance at any idea of employing young people at anything other than the rate for the job. We must be very careful about doing anything that may eventually smack of exploiting unemployed young people as cheap labour.

Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1972, when unemployment reached just over 1 million, the then Secretary of State for the Environment sent out a circular to local authorities asking them to do pretty much what my hon. Friend is now doing? Does he not realise that, arising out of that circular, Clay Cross Council employed men for jobs that were necessary but have now been surcharged £30,000 by the district auditor for carrying out these necessary—

Order.

I doubt whether my hon. Friend or the House would expect me to comment on the difficulties facing his colleagues at Clay Cross. When Operation Eyesore was introduced it was welcomed by the Labour Party in opposition. We thought it a sensible scheme. It is wrong, to make comparisons between Operation Eyesore and the measures that we are taking now, which go considerably beyond what was then proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the General Secretary of the TUC.

The General Secretary of the TUC and I are frequently in touch with each other on a wide range of matters.

When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. Murray will he place on the agenda for discussion the issue of what practical steps Mr. Murray now believes, judging from his most recent pronouncements, can be taken towards harnessing the EEC Regional Fund in combating the problem of structural unemployment in the British regions?

That is one of the few subjects on which I have not had discussions with the General Secretary. However, I am prepared to have discussions with him on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. We are in favour of using the Regional Fund to the maximum degree for the benefit of this country, even though we know that regional funds as operated by this country are of infinitely greater importance than any Regional Fund established by the EEC.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the General Secretary of the TUC will he draw to his attention the fact that the current number of hours overtime worked in manufacturing industry is greater than all the hours that would be worked by the unemployed in that industry? That is a standing indictment of the British trade union movement.

I would not describe it quite in that way, but it is one possibility, which may be of assistance in dealing with the present unemployment problem. I am sure that trade unions will take that into account in their discussions.

In view of the need for increased investment, what consultations has the Secretary of State had with Mr. Murray concerning relaxations in price controls which will enable companies to have greater confidence that they can get a return on their money and to invest in further important projects?

There are practical discussions with the TUC on investment generally on an individual basis, and there are discussions at the NEDC. The TUC has put forward a number of proposals on these aspects of the matter. Some of the proposals were accepted in the package that was put forward by the Chancellor last week. I have no doubt that there will be further developments of that kind. Questions on price control and its future prospects are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. She has discussions with Mr. Murray on this subject, and that is the correct way for a report to be made to the House. That is one of the matters that figure in our discussions with him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government persuaded the TUC to accept the present wages policy on the understanding that they would keep down the level of unemployment? Does he not agree that the Government have failed to carry out their share of the bargain? Does he agree that it is impossible to solve the problem of unemployment under capitalism? When will the Government attack this problem and other problems in our society by means of Socialist policies?

During all the discussions that we had with the TUC in establishing the present pay policy it emphasised very strongly its views about unemployment policies, and it continues to do so. It is well aware of the factors that led to the present appalling level of unemployment, and that led, in turn, to some discussions in recent weeks which culminated in the Chancellor's announcement last week. I have not the slightest doubt that discussions about the level of unemployment will figure very prominently in all the discussions we have with the TUC about a fresh agreement for the coming period. I believe that the two matters are intimately connected. I believe that the general crisis is one of Western capitalism, as I have said before, and we need long-term fundamental remedies for it, but we must have short-term remedies to deal with the immediate situation.

In his discussions with the General Secretary, what mention has been made of a reduction in company taxation which will lead to revived confidence in industry? Does the Minister accept that only by new investment can unemployment be reduced and employment increased?

That raises very general questions. Hon. Members are rightly anxious to hear the views of the TUC on these subjects, and I therefore suggest that they order now their copies of the TUC Economic Review, which will be published very shortly and will set out the TUC's approach to these questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available to his Department regarding the average interval that occurs between the creation of an employment vacancy by a retirement at normal retirement age and the filling of the vacancy by the employer.

I regret that no information about vacancies caused by retirements in the form requested by the hon. Gentleman is available to my Department or to the Manpower Services Commission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider, as possibly the only way in which they can prevent unemployment from rising further this year, encouraging, by a scheme of Government assistance, the voluntary retirement of men aged 63 and 64 in cases where the employer gives an undertaking that he will immediately fill the vacancy created?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has written to my right hon. Friend on this matter, and I know that he has made a number of constructive suggestions on the effect of unemployment of changes in retirement arrangements. Retirement policy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and the hon. Member might like to take up the proposals with her. There are difficulties in a voluntary scheme such as the hon. Gentleman proposes. We would have to gauge what the effect of it would be on unemployment and whether the additional cost to the Treasury would be the most effective way of spending the money, in comparison with some of the other measures open to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further specific measures he proposes to take to stimulate employment on Merseyside.

I would expect Merseyside to share in the benefits from the additional package of measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th February. I fully accept that the employment situation on Merseyside remains extremely serious, despite all the measures taken to help.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in spite of the welcome measures taken by the Government, unemployment on Merseyside is at an intolerable level? Is he aware that the rate there is higher than in Scotland and Wales, and that this has a tremendously demoralising effect on the area. The situation is, of course, exacerbated by the present recession, but we have witnessed a steady decline in employment opportunities on Merseyside in the last decade. Will my right hon. Friend now undertake a major review of the employment prospects in the area, with a view to securing its long-term prosperity?

I fully accept and understand the frustrations and feelings of my hon. Friends from Merseyside about the situation there. They will accept that, in spite of the great difficulties, the Government have made efforts to help. Help under the Industry Act has safeguarded about 17,000 jobs on Merseyside. To assist with the longer-term situation, the Government upgraded Merseyside to special development area status in August 1974. The dispersal of about 3,500 Civil Service jobs to the region has been promoted. Under the mitigating measures the Government have introduced, 63 job creation projects have been approved to provide about 1,100 jobs, and eight applications for the temporary employment subsidy have been approved involving about 788 workers. A considerable proportion of school leavers have had their jobs safeguarded by the subsidy. I fully appreciate, of course, that the school leaver problem, along with the general unemployment problem, is more serious on Merseyside than in the rest of the country. We have also stepped up the community industry scheme on Merseyside. I accept that we need more than that, but it shows that the Government have been making an effort to assist, and we shall consider any other measures put to us.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although 1,100 jobs have in theory been created under the job creation programme, only half that number have actually got started? Instead of the officials of the scheme swanning around the country trying to advertise the programme as the panacea for all ills, they should be concentrating on mobilising people into jobs. Task Force was one organisation that was submitted for job creation approval on 19th November. It has still not had a reply.

I repudiate all the charges by the hon. Member against the job creation scheme. If he were a little more diligent in finding out how the scheme was working he would give a fairer report on it to the House. We are prepared to have everything out about what is happening under the scheme. If the hon. Member examines it more carefully he will see that it is doing a good job. No one has ever made the stupid suggestion—least of all those in charge of the scheme—that it is a panacea for all our ills. The hon. Gentleman should know that.

I have a letter on my desk indicating that there is a further job loss of about 2,500 in Liverpool and that the position at Tate and Lyle and at Bear Brand is doubtful. Is my right hon. Friend aware that together these could result in Liverpool's losing more than 5,000 jobs? All the measures that have been taken have proved inadequate, and long-term measures are of no comfort to the unemployed. Will my right hon. Friend take immediate steps with his colleagues to look into the situation to see what can be salvaged from the job loss that is taking place?

I understand my hon. Friend's feeling on the matter. The Government consider every case where jobs are threatened to see whether we can assist either with the temporary employment subsidy or by direct means. This is the more successful way of sustaining industries in the long run. If my hon. Friends from Merseyside have any specific proposals that they wish us to look at, we shall certainly do so.

Following the list of all the things the Government have done to improve employment on Merseyside, will the Secretary of State list all the measures that the Government have promulgated which have harmed employment prospects, not least of which is the Dock Work Regulation Bill?

The House gave a very short answer to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) on that subject a few days ago. I am amazed that he dares to raise it again so soon. It is not true to say that we are responsible for creating difficulties in this matter. We are seeking to overcome them.

Order. If we had had shorter questions and answers, I could have called more hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to deal with inbuilt overmanning in the nationalised industries.

Manning levels and the effective use of manpower are the responsibility of the management of the industries and enterprises concerned, and improvements are best sought by management and unions acting together. My Department, however, does have a rôle in seeking to ensure that where redundancies are inevitable regard will be paid to the interests of the workers concerned and effective arrangements made for their speedy redeployment.

Does the Minister accept that his answer is all waffle? Will he and the Secretary of State call a conference of all the chairmen of nationalised industries to report within the next six months on how they propose to deal with the problem of long-term overmanning, which is, alas, endemic in nationalised industries?

I totally reject the implication of that question, which is clearly that these problems are somehow peculiar to nationalised industries. Over the last 10 years, the coal industry has reduced its labour force by 245,000 and increased output by 25 per cent. per man, the steel industry has reduced its labour force by 29,000 and the gas industry by 17,000—while increasing the amount of gas sold by 270 per cent. Over the same period, the electricity supply industry has reduced its manpower requirement by 58,000 and British Rail's manpower requirement has been cut by 168,000. We accept that it is important that the most efficient possible use should be made of manpower in the nationalised industries, but we do not accept the proposition that only nationalised industries are overmanned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that demanning in the public sector is infinitely greater than in the private sector? Is he aware that his hon. Friends would prefer capacity to be increased in the public sector to maintain existing employment of the workers who frequently have to be dismissed when the State takes over inefficient private industries to keep them going?

Of course, we would prefer nationalised industries to increase output and services without any reduction in manpower.

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) about calling a conference. If he does call such a conference, will he raise with the leaders of nationalised industries the proposition that wage settlements in those industries should all be arrived at on one day of the year, in order to prevent leapfrogging? Does he agree that when wage increases are granted for productivity, they should be paid only when the productivity has been achieved, and not before?

In the majority of cases, the possibility of making payments on the basis of productivity in the nationalised industries is curtailed, if not completely prohibited, by the existing pay policy. We have no reason to suppose that we would want to use different tests between the public and private sector in this matter. There are matters which are discussed with the chairmen of all nationalised industries, but I do not think that the idea of a common date for pay increases would take first place on the agenda.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem is largely caused because nationalised industries are labour-intensive? Does he further agree that if we took into public ownership banking and investment industries, this problem might not arise?

My hon. Friend will see from the figures that I have given that nationalised industries are now less labour-intensive. Where labour-intensive industries are brought within the public sector, the Government and this House have more control over the overall employment effects on industries and services in this country.