asked the Lord Privy Seal what policy Her Majesty's Government are adopting inside the Western European Union regarding raising the limits on West German destroyers to 5,000 tons and her supply ships to 6,000 tons.

As these discussions are confidential, it would not be right for me to make public the views of Her Majesty's Government in advance of a decision by the Council of Western European Union.

Surely, the Minister can tell the House whether he is for or against? Is not this increase intended to accommodate nuclear missiles and not only anti-aircraft missiles? Why are the Government step by step permitting, and indeed encouraging, the revival of German militarism? Where is it going to end?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to make those suggestions until he knows to what decision the W.E.U. Council has come.

Cannot the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether these so-called destroyers, which are as large as cruisers used to be, will be capable of launching missiles?

I cannot start to give the right hon. Gentleman answers to individual supplementary questions of that nature, because otherwise one is obviously breaching the confidence of the discussions in the W.E.U. Council.

Is not this a matter of the highest public policy? Could not this House be informed what the Government's intentions are? Are they or are they not in favour of the relaxation of the Brussels Treaty to allow German rearmament to expand further and further without limit?

The Government will inform the House when a decision has been reached, and of the details of that decision. It is not the practice when confidential discussions of this kind are being carried on to give details beforehand. Otherwise, obviously, there would be no point in the confidential nature of the discussions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if the air and land transport of persons and goods into and out of Berlin, particularly the British sector, is now unimpeded; and whether he will make a statement.

Air transport remains unimpeded. Land transport is proceeding normally, apart from a few recent instances of interference with imports to West Berlin from Poland, and with exports from West Berlin to the Federal German Republic. Within Berlin, the illegal East German requirement that citizens of the Federal Republic must obtain a permit in order to enter the Soviet Sector is still in force.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the discussions which have taken place with regard to this matter with responsible Governments include the Russians, and if so, what was the result?

There have been discussions on a tripartite basis between the three Western Governments. They have made their views known in repeated notes to the Soviet Union about these restrictions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegates on the Trusteeship Council and General Assembly of the United Nations voted on the resolution that Portugal should supply information on her overseas territories without delay; and which delegates voted for the resolution on each occasion, which against, and which abstained.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the British delegate abstained from voting on the motion before the Trusteeship Committee on 13th November calling on the Portuguese Government to comply with the terms of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.

The United Kingdom Representative abstained on this resolution, which was adopted by 45 votes to 6, with 24 abstentions. Twenty-three delegations were absent. Full details of the voting are contained in United Nations document No. A/C.4SR 1048 of 16th November, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman correctly—that the Government abstained upon this issue? Is not Portugal the only Power which has territory in Africa now and which declines to make these reports—territory where there is forced labour and scandalous conditions which are arousing the opposition of fellow-members of the Commonwealth in Africa?

As the House knows, we ourselves provide the information which is required. But Governments of both parties have taken the view that it is for the administering Power to decide what are its obligations under Article 73 (e) of the Charter, and that is the reason we abstained on this resolution.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the obligations include the obligation to

"accept as a sacred trust…to develop self-government…and to assist…in the progressive development of their free political institutions"?

How can he tell whether Portugal is doing that unless she sends in a report, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that Portugal is doing any of these things?

It is not for me to discuss the policy of other countries in their own colonial territories. I am explaining the reason why we did not support this resolution.

Does not Article 73 (e), which the Minister has quoted, say, in terms, that it is the obligation of every member of the United Nations to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes statistical and other information about the territory? Why did not we vote in favour of Portugal carrying out the Charter obligations?

For the same reason that the Government in 1950, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, took the view that we take now, that it is up to the administering Power to decide the extent of its obligation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations voted on the Nigerian motion that the election of three non-permanent members of the Security Council and of six members of the Economic and Social Council should be postponed; and which delegates voted in favour, which against, and which abstained.

The United Kingdom Representative voted against the Nigerian motion which was adopted by 51 votes to 38, with 9 abstentions. Full details of the vote are contained in United Nations document A/PV.914 of 11th November, 1960, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Nigeria and other African countries voted in favour of this, because it was known that the United Kingdom and America were going to nominate Portugal for the Security Council? In view of the Answer to Question No. 5, does not this indicate that we are acting as allies of this dictatorship in Europe, this dictatorship in Africa and this dictatorship in India?

I think there is a much wider question at issue here. We have taken the view that the two Councils need to be expanded. We have always taken that view. At the same time, we believe that the new elections should take place in the very near future. It is usual for them to take place at the end of the general debate in the Assembly, but this year that has not happened. The other view is that these elections should wait until the reconstruction has taken place, but we do not believe that to be practical in the present issue.

Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what progress the Government are making in seeking the reconstruction of the Security Council on these lines, which is long overdue?

We have repeatedly made known our view that we should like to see this expansion.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations to move for an inquiry into the system of command, military planning and deployment of United Nations forces, including the adequacy of the weapons supplied for the various tasks involved, whether for police duties, rioting, or large-scale operations, and to examine the criteria by which commanders-in-chief and their staffs are selected, and to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government, while supporting the United Nations Organisation, is determined to secure the highest degree of efficiency of a military command which may be ultimately responsible for the lives of British soldiers.

Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly advocated the idea of a permanent United Nations force, including a small planning section in the Secretariat. This would meet many of the points referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members are aware of this But would not the Minister agree that the Congo situation, even making allowances for its special geographical and political difficulties, has revealed serious weaknesses in the system of military planning and command? Will not he press for some discussion of whether the criteria governing the selection of national contingents are those of diplomatic expediency or military efficiency? May not it be necessary in future operations to tilt the balance in favour of military efficiency for the sake of the safety of the troops involved? Is he aware that it is becoming increasingly clear that successful United Nations action can be carried out only if the United Nations possesses an effective military force?

We are most anxious that the United Nations force should be efficient. These are very interesting and important points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. So far we have failed to carry conviction with the points we have put forward about the nature of the force which would help the hon. Gentleman in the aims he is trying to achieve.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has considered the report issued on 2nd November by the United Nations High Commissioner in the Congo; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action he proposes to take in the United Nations arising out of the Dayal Report on the situation in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has considered the Report on the Congo issued by Mr. Hammarskjoeld on 2nd November; and if he will make a statement.

The United Nations debate on the Congo has been adjourned. If and when it is resumed we shall have to consider to what extent the Report is still relevant to the circumstances then prevailing. In the meantime there is no action for us to take on the Report, which was transmitted by the Secretary-General for information.

I had Mr. Dayal's Report in mind when I spoke about the Congo on 4th November in the debate on the Address. I have nothing to add to the statement which I then made.

Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether Her Majesty's Government endorse the very serious allegations made in the Report about the behaviour of Belgian citizens in the Congo, allegations which were endorsed by the Indian Prime Minister in his Parliament a few days ago? Can he tell us, if he does endorse these allegations, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to discourage Belgium from allowing these men to stream back into the Congo?

It is a large Report with a large number of statements in it. I could not make any general covering remarks about it. I made plain on 4th November in the debate what we believed to be the position. It is that Belgian citizens have a part to play in the Congo. The real problem is to match assistance which can come from those individual citizens with the assistance being provided by the United Nations, and we are hoping that that can be brought about.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that all reports confirm that the Belgians were guilty of criminal negligence before independence and are now attempting to gain control of the Congo through stooges? If any aid is to be given to the Congo from Belgium it must be through the United Nations. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Parliamentary representatives have been prevented from meeting by Colonel Mobutu's men, and that one of the prime objectives of U.N.O. policy must be to ensure that elected representatives are allowed to meet?

I cannot accept the hon. Member's remarks about what the Belgians are trying to do at the moment. On the constitutional position, I have always made it plain that we believe that one of the first needs must be to try to get a constitutional organisation to emerge with which the United Nations can carry on negotiations.

Does the Answer to the original Question mean that the right hon. Gentleman disputes what was said in the Report? Does he not agree with it? Has he a different view?

What I said was that there are a large number of statements in this Report and, in question and answer, I cannot say that I accept every statement made in it or challenge particular ones.

Is it not the case that the Report lists a very large number of actions by Belgian citizens in direct contradiction of the tasks of the United Nations forces in the Congo? While agreeing that it is desirable that Belgian citizens in the Congo should co-operate with the United Nations, is there not every day fresh evidence that Belgian citizens are frustrating the United Nations in the carrying out of its task not only in Katanga but in Leopoldville itself?

If Belgian citizens do not carry out the law, of course they are liable to the same as everyone else; but I cannot accept the all-embracing statement that Belgian citizens are going there to frustrate United Nations action, because there are also tributes being paid to the work which Belgian citizens are doing in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct Her Majesty's Government's representatives at the United Nations to support discussion of the Algerian situation by the United Nations as a threat to peace.

An item entitled "The Question of Algeria" was placed on the agenda of the General Assembly without a vote on 10th October. I understand that discussion in the First Committee of the Assembly will begin on 5th December.

Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what attitude Her Majesty's Government propose to take in this discussion? Is it not the case that in recent weeks the Algerian affair has taken on very serious international implications and that the rebel Government are now being recognised by a large number of members of the United Nations? Is it not highly desirable that the United Nations should at this time seize itself of the problem and use every influence it has in order to bring about negotiations between the French Government and leaders of the rebellion in Algeria? Would the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can in this direction?

Of course, we must see the terms of the resolution on which the debate is to be carried on before we can define exactly our attitude towards it, but, as I said on 4th November, our attitude will be a constructive one to try to reconcile the differences which exist over Algeria.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why Her Majesty's Government abstained in the vote in the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations on 14th November on the question whether South-West Africa should be discussed by the Committee; and whether Her Majesty's Government accept the opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1956 that the supervisory functions in relation to the mandate previously exercised by the Council of the League of Nations are now to be exercised by the United Nations.

The motion was that the debate on South-West Africa be adjourned on the grounds that the matter was sub judice.

The United Kingdom Representative abstained on the motion. He explained our belief that the Committee should do nothing which might in any way impair the standing of the International Court of Justice. The text of this statement is being placed in the Library of the House.

The finding of the International Court of Justice to which the hon. Gentleman refers is contained in the Advisory Opinion given in 1950, which Her Majesty's Government have accepted as a whole.

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, he does not add anything to what was said by the delegate at the Committee meeting. Will he say "Yes" or "No" whether he accepts the contention of South Africa that the matter is in fact sub judice? On the second part of his reply, in view of the adamant refusal of the South African Government to implement the Advisory Opinion of the International Court, which Her Majesty's Government now accept, will he consider recommending that the International Court be asked for its opinion on whether this wilful refusal of South Africa to accept supervision has changed unilaterally the status of the territory?

With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the view taken by Her Majesty's Government and the British delegation was that this matter was sub judice, but that in itself did not exclude all consideration by the Committee. On the second part of the supplementary question, I think we had better await the result of the present reference to the International Court.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that some British votes in the past have done great harm in South Africa? Is it not now desirable that Her Majesty's Government and their delegation in New York should do everything in their power to persuade the South African Government that they must accept the Advisory Opinion of 1956?

That is a very much wider question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the result of his discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding compensation for Stateless victims of Nazi persecution.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent negotiations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on compensation for Stateless and other refugees who were persecuted by the Nazis by reason of their nationality.

I am glad to say that agreement was reached on 5th October between the Federal German Government and the then United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for compensation for refugees who suffered persecution under the Nazis on grounds of nationality.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken a keen interest in this question over the years will warmly welcome what is without doubt a generous settlement?

We are very grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped us to get this agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will draw the attention of the Security Council under Article 34 of the Charter to the camp in Guatemala where insurgents are being trained and armed with the proclaimed intention to attack Cuba as a circumstance tending to affect the good relations between nations and capable of endangering peace.

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the camp in Guatemala is being conducted on a scale far beyond the financial resources of the Guatemalan Government, that the whole incident bears a striking resemblance to the intervention which set up the present Government in Nicaragua, with the help of the United States, and that President-Elect Kennedy has advocated a policy of intervention of this sort? Will he please do something before the situation blows up in our faces?

I have seen Press reports of a similar nature, and I have also seen denials by the President of Guatemala of the truth of these reports.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Security Council to the interference by Cuba in the affairs of South American Governments?

asked the Lord Privy Seal what decisions have been reached in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the construction of bomber bases in the Spitsbergen archipelago.

None, Sir.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Norwegian Government in a recent Note to the Soviet Government had to admit that last year surveys were carried out by an American-financed expedition with a view to the construction of aerodromes in the Spitsbergen islands; and that this was done without the knowledge of the Norwegian Government and contrary to its policy and to the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1921? Is not this a deplorable example of the way in which the Americans can implicate their N.A.T.O. allies in matters which might have very dangerous repercussions?

As soon as the Norwegian Government heard of these incidents it recalled the expedition, and it has stated quite clearly that it has no intention of constructing airfields on Spitsbergen.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will oppose, at the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference, any proposals to set up a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force.

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arming of N.A.T.O. with nuclear weapons would turn it into an offensive force, that the control of the use of nuclear weapons would for all practical purposes pass out of our hands, and that the net result would be to increase the danger of war, and—although this would affect the right hon. Gentleman differently from the way in which it would affect me—that it would greatly increase the opposition in this country to our remaining in this position?

N.A.T.O. is already armed with nuclear weapons.

As the only information we have on this subject derives from the speech of the Supreme Commander, General Norstad, may we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that before any decision is reached by the Government the House will be consulted as to its views?

I will certainly consult the Leader of the House about that.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will take urgent action in the City of Stoke-on-Trent to eliminate pneumoconiosis from the pottery and mining industries; whether he will make available in the district increased temporary assistance for the factory inspector; when he expects that there will be complete dust control; whether he will introduce a safe code of practice and ensure its urgent application; and what further action he will take in this connection.

I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power share the hon. Member's concern to eliminate dusty conditions which may cause pneumoconiosis. All potteries in the Stoke district were specially surveyed by the Factory Inspectorate between 1956 and 1958 and the report of the survey was published in 1959. The problems to which the report drew attention are being dealt with by a special committee on which both sides of the industry are represented. Special regulations already exist dealing with the dust hazards in the industry. The allocation of inspectors between different districts is regularly reviewed. An additional officer is being attached to the Wolverhampton Divisional Office which covers the Stoke area.

While casting no reflections upon the present Minister, may I ask whether he is aware that I have had similar Answers for many years? Has not the time arrived when some sense of urgency should be introduced into this problem in order to prevent this needless suffering? Has he seen the very serious observations made by the city coroner to the effect that a large number of the deaths from congested heart failure had been contributed to by silicosis? If so, will he give an undertaking that a sense of urgency will be introduced and that there will be a great drive to deal with this problem?

I have every sympathy with the hon. Member, but I think that it is unfair of him to say that little or nothing has been done. A great deal of work has been done, as he must know from having read the survey report. We are not complacent. A great deal more work needs to be done and we shall press on to the best of our ability.

asked the Minister of Labour how many apprentice training schemes are in operation in Government Training Centres; how many firms have taken advantage of these facilities; and how many apprentices are now undergoing training in them.

There are at present ten classes; 85 firms are participating; and 120 boys are in training.

Is it fair to say that this scheme has failed and that small firms are not taking advantage of the Government's offer to provide the first-year apprenticeship in their workshops? Will not the Government have to take over apprenticeship training to a much larger extent if we are to deal with the bulge now coming out of the schools?

I do not think the hon. Member is right. The scheme was announced in the House only in May of this year. It Is true that the expansion has been slower than I personally hoped, but now that we have it under way I have reasonable confidence that recruitment will improve next year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, even in filling the 120 places, some of his officers in different parts of the country had great difficulty in getting firms to participate? Will he comment on this? Why should this be? Is it that employers are reluctant to accept a new idea, or are there other reasons?

As I have said, the expansion has been slower than I expected, but now that we have it under way and firms are able to see what these classes are doing, I hope that recruitment will be better next year.

What is the geographical distribution of these centres? How many of these are in the North?

It is rather a long list. If I send the list to the hon. Member it will perhaps save the time of the House.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons in Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire, respectively, were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.

At 14th November, 7,637 in the County of Lanarkshire, excluding the City of Glasgow. Of these, 6,936 were in North Lanarkshire.

Is the Minister aware that these numbers are far too high, that they have been registering at the employment exchanges for far too long and that this is all due to the fact that the Government have done far too little? Will he abandon this negative approach and adopt a positive attitude by preparing effective plans whereby these unemployed persons can be absorbed in the near future?

The hon. Member ought to be fair. The situation is not satisfactory, but it is very much better than it was a year ago. There has been an improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] This shows that things are being done. The hon. Member can take some satisfaction from the fact that whereas the percentage of unemployment in North Lanarkshire a year ago was 6·6 per cent., it is now 4·9 per cent.

It is too high.

I hope that the new jobs in the pipeline will help the situation.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the prospect that in 1962 30 per cent. of the school leavers in Clackmannanshire will face permanent unemployment; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to improve the position.

No, Sir. Although the increase in the number of school leavers in Clackmannanshire in 1962 will make the employment situation more difficult than at present, I expect that the great majority will find employment without excessive difficulty.

Am I to understand that the Minister's information is different from that of the youth employment officer? When he answers "No, Sir", what does it mean? Is he contradicting the youth employment officer, or is he saying that he does not intend to take steps to improve the situation?

I am aware that a statement has been attributed to the Clackmannan youth employment officer, and "No, Sir" means that I certainly do not agree with that statement. I hope that any apprehensions that may have been caused by it will be dispelled by what I have said.

asked the Minister of Labour in which areas of the United Kingdom the percentage of school leavers accepted as apprentices during 1959 fell appreciably below the national average.

In Wales and the Midland Region of England.

Does the Minister propose to carry out the recent recommendations of the Industrial Training Committee in relation to local development districts; namely, that firms already in the area should, with Government assistance, train supernumerary apprentices and, further, that firms coming to the area should receive special encouragement to set up training facilities in their factories?

Those suggestions, which we consider to be very interesting, will certainly be carefully considered.

asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the failure of nearly 5,500 boys to secure apprenticeships with the Services during 1959, he will take steps to arrange for a substantial number of apprentices to be trained supernumerary to Service requirements whilst the present difficulties in apprenticeship training persists.

The failure was due to the boys being below the required standard. There are vacancies for apprentices which the Services would be glad to fill if applicants of the right quality were available. The question of supernumerary training does not therefore arise.

Does not this point to a very considerable lack of propaganda to recruit the right types of boys? Surely, with the present pressure for apprenticeship, there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of boys who would want to do this sort of training?

As I have said, the Services did offer more vacancies to boys who sat the examinations than were, in fact, accepted by the boys.

asked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers of unemployed men and women in Selby at the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the corresponding numbers on the same date in 1958 and 1959.

At 14th November, 34 men and 8 women; at 17th November, 1958, 58 men and 19 women; and at 16th November, 1959, 46 men and 9 women.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons registering at each of the employment exchanges in the area covered by the Easington Parliamentary division.

On 14th November the numbers were 197 at Haswell Employment Exchange, 656 at Houghton-le-Spring, 627 at Horden, 622 at Seaham Harbour and 270 at Wingate.

What does the Minister intend to do about it?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that, with the exception of Wingate, where unemployment is 3·2 per cent., all the others that I have mentioned—including Haswell, which has been added to the list—are on the list of places that should benefit under the Local Employment Act, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing all that he can to attract new projects to that area.

Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend has done nothing at all? Will he convey my compliments to his right hon. Friend, and tell him that the sooner he gets on with it the better, otherwise he will have trouble from me?

From what I know of the right hon. Gentleman, he is very capable of conveying his own compliments to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Minister of Labour what are the prospects of providing employment for the increased number of school leavers in Stirlingshire in the next four years; and what proportion is likely to remain unemployed.

The employment prospects for school leavers depend largely on the general employment situation, which has improved in Stirlingshire in the past year. I do not at present foresee that the county's additional school leavers in the next four years should have much difficulty in finding work.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary call the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to a part of Stirlingshire in the Slamannan Plateau which has not so far received any help in providing employment?

Yes, I shall certainly convey that matter to my right hon. Friend but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, his Question related to Stirlingshire as a whole. The unemployment figure in Stirlingshire is 2·3 per cent. of the insured population, which is certainly below the Scottish average. There are parts of Scotland that require attention before many parts of Stirlingshire.

asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received from the Guild of Insurance Officials requesting that the Guild should be recognised by insurance employers as the employees' negotiating body; and what has been the nature of his reply.

I have received no representations from the Guild of Insurance Officials. A number of hon. Members have, however, written to me following representations made to them. I have explained in reply that the question of recognition is a matter for settlement between the Guild and the insurance employers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the negotiating machinery in this industry is very unsatisfactory? In view of the desire there is on both sides of the House to improve such negotiating machinery wherever it may be deficient, will he not take some initiative in trying to persuade the employers to mend their ways a little?

The basic fact is that this is a matter for agreement between the two sides of industry. As regards conciliation, or any assistance that both sides of the industry want in setting up negotiating machinery, I have already said that I shall be only too willing to lend the services of my officials.

In view of the fact that one or two of the larger insurance offices do recognise the Guild, could my right hon. Friend represent to the other companies the advantages of such recognition in all cases where a substantial body of the employees of a company are members of the Guild?

I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says, but until we can get agreement on the side of the employers there is nothing more that I can do.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be rather more positive on this matter? Does he subscribe to the statements often made by his predecessors that they wanted to see voluntary bargaining extended to new fields? If so, with banks, insurance companies and others lagging behind, cannot he make a firm statement that he wants to see them meet the demands of their staffs for representation, and offer the services of his officials to iron out the details?

There is a considerable difference of opinion among the employers concerned, but I am sure that they will take note of the principle. Naturally, I am always willing to do what I can to improve relations in any way, but until we get both sides to agree to take action there is nothing I can usefully do.

The Minister has not answered my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As the present Minister of Labour, does he subscribe to the repeated statements of his predecessors that, as Ministers of Labour, they wanted to see voluntary negotiating machinery extended to these fields? Will he say that this is now his policy? Will he then get the employers together, and see what he can do to get them to follow out that expressed wish?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is my policy, and that it has been the policy of my predecessors. I think that it is the policy of hon. Members opposite, too, but he is knowledgeable in these matters and will apreciate that, until people agree, one cannot get them to do things—[Interruption.]—unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to use some form of compulsion, which I am sure is not in his mind.

Will the Minister say categorically today that it is his wish that the employers should recognise the trade unions in this sphere of industry? Will he say that he desires them to do so?

I do not think that that supplementary question is helpful. For instance, it is very difficult to say which trade union should be recognised.

Oh.

Will the Minister see the employers in this case and, even if he does not wish to say it publicly, will he assure us that he will in private—[Laughter.]—urge them to meet the Guild of Insurance Officials and enter into negotiations with them? Will he see the employers? Will he put to them what he has told us is his policy, and urge them to proceed to carry it out?

If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman put a very "Irish" question to me. I have the views of the House, and hon. Members have my own views—that I do want a satisfactory arrangement. I hope that the House will allow me to do the best that I think can be done.

asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made following the publication last January of the second preliminary draft of the Factories (Ionising Radiations) Special Regulations; when he expects to lay these Regulations before Parliament in their final form; and when he expects to issue Regulations dealing with unsealed sources of radiation.

I hope to publish early next year the statutory draft of the Factories (Ionising Radiations) Special Regulations dealing with sealed sources of ionising radiations and a preliminary draft of Regulations dealing with open sources. Unless any general objection is received, I shall make the Regulations dealing with sealed sources and lay them before Parliament after the completion of the period allowed for consideration of the statutory draft.

While acknowledging what the Minister has said about the Regulations concerning sealed sources, may I ask him to do all he can to expedite Regulations relating to unsealed sources? The matter has been hanging fire for some years. In view of the I.L.O. Convention, should we not have on the Statute Book as soon as possible a code of safety for people exposed to these risks?

It would probably be better to publish both drafts together. This is a complicated matter, and we have had many consultations and comments. I hope to be in a position to have the Draft Regulations available for consideration in early March.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate extending the scope of the Regulations to cover medical and educational institutions?

I should like to consider what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "day", to insert:

"(not being later than the third day of February, nineteen hundred and sixty-one)".

This Amendment seeks to remedy the really heartless feature of this Bill, which is the postponement of its benefits until the first week of April. I am sure that the Minister and the Committee as a while will be aware that there has been widespread criticism of the delay in bringing this relief to millions of those receiving social payments. The delay concerns the aged, the disabled and the sick.

There has been criticism in the Press. There is criticism from organisations of old-age pensioners, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have received individual letters from constituents and others protesting against the delay in bringing these benefits into operation. I myself have received many letters—appealing, pitiful letters—from people who believe that this overdue relief of their conditions should be brought into operation more promptly. When these people hear such slogans as "You've never had it so good", and of the problems and the excesses of the so-called affluent society, I am sure they feel that they are being mocked in their distress.

On this occasion, the Minister cannot say that during the period of waiting those who may be suffering hardship can go to the National Assistance Board, because the improvements in National Assistance payments are being delayed as long as all the rest.

Why are these benefits being withheld until April? It has nothing to do with the difficulty of administration. We shall listen to no excuses on that score, for two reasons. First, the beginning of April has been the date in the mind of the Government all along. I believe that this operation has been carefully planned and that the date of the introduction of the Bill has been governed by the operative date. The date fixed for the introduction of the Bill has been planned as part of the main operation, the introduction of the benefits, to coincide with the increase in contributions.

The second reason is that when, in 1957–58, the Government wanted to move more quickly they were able to do so, and they boasted about it. In 1957, during the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, the Minister referred to the timetable. I ask the House to bear in mind that the date of Second Reading of that Bill was 13th November and the date for the operation of the new benefits was 27th January of the following year. The Minister said:

"To do this by 27th January will, of course, involve very rapid moving indeed. One or two newspapers have made the comment on my statement of last week that we were being slow in getting these benefits into payment. That is the very converse of the truth. Normally, the time taken—and I have been into this in some detail—between an announcement in this House and the operation of the announced changes has rarely been less than between five and six months. From 6th November to 27th January is under three months. That is an indication that we are seeking to carry through this very large operation just as speedily as possible to give help as quickly as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 988.]

The Minister was proud of the achievement which he was asking the Ministry to carry out. He referred to the much longer time which had been taken between the announcement and the operative date on previous occasions. This time, however, the Minister has slipped back to a period very approximate to the period of previous changes

The truth is that this Bill could have been introduced at any time earlier than this if the Government had wished to bring the changes into operation any earlier than the first week in April next. I believe that the Government have willed it this way and that there are no accidental considerations about the timetable of the Bill. We can find the explanation for this delay in one word—"finance". This is a sordid exercise in accountancy. Since over 90 per cent. of the cost of the improved benefits is to be passed on to the contributors, the Government are not prepared to pay out the improved benefits until they can begin collecting the extra money from the contributors. That is the sum and substance of the matter.

The National Insurance Act, 1959, fixed April as the beginning of the collection of graduated contributions. It is these contributions which are to be used to pay in substantial part for the new benefits. The Minister felt unable to bring that date forward, so that the pensioners and other beneficiaries have to wait for it. I agree that it would have been a great inconvenience on all sides to have changed the contributions earlier than the beginning of April, having regard to all the arrangements which are being made for the introduction of the new scheme. We recognise that it would be asking too much for contributions to be adjusted to the new benefits earlier than the first week in April, which had already been fixed.

3.45 p.m.

I want to ask whether the date of the introduction of the new contributions really stands in the way of an earlier operative date for these benefits. My conviction is that the money to bridge the gap is available to the Minister if only he would use it. As I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, there are huge reserves in the National Insurance Reserve Fund—well over £1,000 million. The present generation of retirement pensioners probably has contributed more to the building up of this reserve than any other section of National Insurance contributors. They were paying higher contributions than were necessary to pay for the benefits because the contributions were heavily loaded for a level of unemployment which, happily, we did not suffer. Because of that, only in recent years £300 million was transferred to the reserve fund from the accumulated balances in the National Insurance Fund.

There are other resources available to the Minister. I sometimes wonder for what purpose this National Insurance Reserve Fund is to be used. I wonder whether it has been salted away and whether it is a phantom fund. One might even wonder whether it is a fraud. It seems to be a book entry which can never be translated into a tangible asset. This is the folly of the Government in investing in themselves. They can never pay out from their own investments without fresh borrowing or increased taxation. That is why I believe that this National Insurance Reserve Fund is a hidden reserve to the Government but a much more hidden reserve to the National Insurance beneficiaries.

However, let us leave that aside. We do not need £1,000 million. I suggest that all we need to cover the few weeks between the date mentioned in the Amendment and the first week in April is about £20 or £25 million. That is the best estimate that I can make. From where can this money be drawn? I suggest that it can be drawn from the balance of £325 million which was made available in the National Insurance Act, 1954, and renewed in the 1959 Act. I explained on Second Reading that under the 1954 Act provision was made for payments to be made from the Exchequer in addition to the ordinary Exchequer supplement, and for a period of five years beginning April, 1955, sums not exceeding £325 million could be paid.

"in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may determine"

and, for later years, such sums as Parliament might determine. In the 1959 Act renewal of those provisions in modified form, was made. In the four years to 1959–60, only £39 million of the £325 million had been drawn. I estimate that at the end of the period of the 1954 Act about £286 million remain.

Under the 1959 Act, provision was made for the Minister to draw upon the unexpended balance of the £325 million during the financial years ending in 1961 and 1962. That, I suggest, is where the Minister might go for the money to bridge the gap between the first week in February, which we suggest in our Amendment, and the first week in April, which otherwise will be the operative date for the new benefits.

We have fixed the first week in February because we believe that that would be administratively possible even at this date. If 27th January is possible when the Second Reading of the Bill is on 13th November, I should hope that the first week in February would be possible with the Committee stage of the Bill taking place now and the final stage being reached tomorrow. I am sure that that is not too much to ask the Ministry to do, although I fully appreciate—none more so, I hope, in this Committee—the problems of administration in the public service. It would mean very hard work and very quick moving in the Ministry to do it, but I am sure that if the Minister gave the word for full steam ahead to have these benefits in payment by the first week of February it could be done. But he does not wish it that way.

The Committee will realise, of course, that not only are the National Insurance benefits deferred for operation to the first week in April, but that nearly everything else hangs upon the same date. What is the saying?

"For want of a nail the shoe is lost;

For want of a shoe the horse is lost;

For want of a horse the rider is lost;

For want of a rider the battle is lost".

Here, because National Insurance benefits are delayed until the first week in April, the Minister is deferring also the improvement in National Assistance benefits. Because the National Insurance benefits are to be deferred until the first week in April, industrial injuries benefits must be so deferred.

Yet they have nothing basically to do with National Insurance benefits; they are not dependent upon the collection of increased contributions. In fact, the Minister is to reduce contributions to the Industrial Injuries Scheme. Also, we find that the war disability benefits hang upon the industrial injuries benefits. The whole thing is one operation, and the operative date is delayed until the same week in April.

We take the strongest exception to the delay. We regard this Amendment as fundamental to the Bill and we shall certainly press it to the utmost of our power in Committee, because we believe that it is what the country would wish. We believe that it is what the various beneficiaries under the schemes badly need. We believe that this relief is overdue. I am sure that it would not be the wish of the Minister to send out, as a cynical message to all the retirement pensioners,

"If winter comes, can spring be far behind?"

We believe that these benefits should be paid as near as maybe at the coming of winter. We know that the opportunity to bring this relief by Christmas has now gone. The end of January and the beginning of February is the very earliest date at which it could be done, but better then than wait until the first week of April. I hope that the Committee will give serious attention to the Amendment and, from both sides, press the Minister to accept it.

Despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I hope that my right hon. Friend will not see fit to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member very wisely agreed that it was an impossibility in administration to put up the contributions at the time that the benefits were put up, should the benefits be put up at the beginning of February, and then be altered again at the beginning of April. I think that that would be common ground between both sides of the Committee.

The hon. Member said that if we were to increase the benefits earlier than the date proposed by my right hon. Friend this would mean very hard work and very quick moving in the Department. It would require extraordinarily hard work and extraordinarily quick moving, because we are not dealing here with just an increase in contributions and benefits as was the case in the 1957–58 operation. Then my right hon. Friend was able to halve the time that had been taken on previous occasions because he was dealing solely with an operation of increases in contributions and benefits.

At this time, he is dealing also with the immense amount of work which has to be undertaken so that the graduated pension scheme under last year's National Insurance Act can be brought into operation. He has to see to the large numbers of schemes which are being submitted to him and to the Registrar by the various independent pension schemes. His Department, I know, is being overwhelmed by questions and requests for advice. I should have thought that it was virtually impossible for the graduated scheme to come in in April and for these benefits to come in earlier.

It was a great tribute which my right hon. Friend paid to his Department—and to himself also, I think—when, in the Second Reading debate, he said that he did not base his argument about the timing of these new benefits upon the mere fact of the amount of work involved. I suggest that that is something we should not forget.

The hon. Member for Sowerby agreed that we could not alter both benefits and contributions twice in the new year, and we should, if we followed the proposals of the Amendment, have a period when benefits had risen and contributions had not. Because he realised that benefits have to be paid for—although I sometimes wonder whether his views have very wide circulation on the benches behind him—he devoted part of his speech to considering whence the money should come. It is important to realise that the pensioner today is having a very good bargain indeed out of National Insurance.

I think that it was my right hon. Friend, on Second Reading, who said that a pensioner today who had paid contributions for as long as was possible was drawing a pension with an actuarial capital value of £3,000, but that he himself and his employer together could not have paid in more than £300. So let us not start with the idea that people have, over the past ten, fifteen or twenty years, been paying to the Government more than they are likely to draw out in National Insurance benefits and retirement pensions in particular. We are dealing with a fund which has managed, with the aid of substantial Government additions or contributions, to provide a very good bargain indeed.

The hon. Member suggests that either securities should be sold out of one of the National Insurance Funds or, alternatively, that the overall budget deficit should be increased. It is worth remembering that, whichever of the two processes were adopted, the ultimate result for the Chancellor would probably be the same. If the Government were to increase their overall Budget deficit, they would have to fund to a greater extent if that was not to be inflationary. One assumes that the Government would, for the extra money involved, have to sell gilt-edged securities held by the Department or raise money by the sale of further gilt-edged securities to meet the amount of the deficit accruing.

4.0 p.m.

Therefore, there is a very distinct aspect of this which reflects upon the aim of the Government not to create money and upon their desire thereby to do their best to hold the value of the £ steady. Over the few years I have been in the House of Commons, I have always done my best to oppose any proposals that have been made in regard to the National Insurance Scheme that I felt might have a contributory effect to putting up the cost of living.

Let us take the National Insurance Fund by itself. This year, the Government are doing quite a lot towards financing deficits on the fund. If we look at the Government Actuary's Second Quinquennial Review, we see, in Table 14, page 20, that in the current year, ending April next, there is a deficit on the National Insurance Fund of £47 million. Turning back a few pages, to Table 10, we see that that deficit of £47 million is incurred after the Government's contribution of £123 million and also after an additional Exchequer payment of no less than £47 million. It is on top of that extra deficit of £47 million that the hon. Member for Sowerby proposes a further deficit, to be shouldered either by the Exchequer or by sales from the National Insurance Fund.

Was it not just for this that the 1959 Act authorised the Treasury to draw on the unexpended balances during the financial years 1961 and 1962?

Indeed it was. It is a question here, as in so many cases, of whether circumstances are such as to warrant one running further into debt than one receives from one's bank manager permission to do or further into debt than one had hoped to do a little while before.

If the pension increases were being made because of increases in the cost of living—because, in fact, of hardship—I should be tempted to support the hon. Member in his Amendment. I agree with him that the National Insurance Funds, totalling £1,500 million, must exist for some purpose. We all agree that they exist to meet unforeseen contingencies and expenditure or to meet a grave crisis which might affect the nation. Therefore, I should only like to run them down if we met a grave situation of that kind.

I would regard a substantial rise in the cost of living, necessitating an increase in benefits before contributions could be raised, as constituting such an occasion when the fund might be run down. That, however, is not what we are considering, because, according to the retail price index, the cost of living has risen by only 3 per cent. since January, 1958. If one takes some of the constituents of that price index—I have not yet seen the October figures—one finds that the prices of fuel and light are actually slightly less than in January, 1958, and that clothing and footwear is very slightly—1¼ per cent.—above the 1958 level.

Therefore, what we are considering is, not a rescue operation, because the real purchasing power of the pension, as I hope my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will confirm, is higher today than when it was instituted at 26s. at the beginning of the scheme. I suggest, therefore, that as we are not here indulging in a rescue operation to relieve acute hardships, but are actively indulging in a campaign to raise the standard of living of the pensioner, these considerations, which alone would justify increasing the Exchequer deficit or a raid upon the National Insurance Fund, do not apply.

Where these considerations of hardship or the need for a rescue operation do not apply, it is vital, if we are to continue to finance the National Insurance Scheme in a way which neither permits inflation nor endangers the future of the pension, that we should have firmly linked in the minds of people outside, and in our own minds, the close relationship between contributions and benefits and the close relationship that must exist between an increase in benefits and an increase in contributions. People should not be led to expect that an increase in benefits can be obtained without an increase in contributions also having to be put upon the shoulders of those still at work. It is because I do not here see a sufficient ground to depart from this important principle of National Insurance that I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accede to the request of the hon. Member for Sowerby.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) has the one virtue, if such it can be called—consistency. He has opposed increases in pensions on a number of previous occasions. On 15th December last year, he is reported as saying in the House:

"I do not believe that our industrial recovery has yet taken place to a sufficient extent to have created the necessary wealth to enable an increase in pensions to be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1959; Vol. 615. c. 1258.]

That was immediately after an election, in which, I understand, the hon. Member also told his constituents that we in this country had never had it so good.

After a further year of Conservative administration, when, one would have thought, we were having it still better because, according to Conservative Members, we have such a good Government, surely the pensions could be increased sooner than is proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member referred also to deficits on previous occasions, but he has not so far told us how the deficit arising from Blue Streak is to be met.

While one must welcome crumbs as they fall from the master's table, in the same way as somebody who had been stranded without water in the Sahara for some time would welcome a drink, we must face the fact that even though some crumbs are to be given, they are long overdue. For this reason, I take pleasure in supporting the Amendment to advance the date on which the increases in pension become payable.

Judging by the speeches of the Minister and of hon. Members opposite last week, they are completely removed from the reality of life as it is lived by the old-age pensioner. Last week, on Second Reading, the Minister said:

"I would stress—I hope that hon. Members will give due weight, whatever their views on it may be, to this matter"—

that is, the matter of the date—

"that this is a change made in wholly different circumstances from those of the other changes. It is not in any sense a rescue operation designed to compensate pensioners for pensions whose value had already been eroded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 233.]

I should like the Minister to recall that at about this time last year, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams), I went with a deputation to his room in the Ministry. That deputation comprised representatives of old-age pensioners from all over the country, not from any one section, but including people from as far apart as Aberdeen, in the north, and Wales and the south of England. A year ago, those people were pleading with the Minister to be rescued from their plight. Now, a year later, he comes forward with the claim that this is not a rescue operation.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the cost of fuel is less today than it was two years ago. I should like to know where I could purchase a bag of coal or a unit of gas or electricity at less cost today than I could buy it two or three years ago.