asked the Minister of Labour how many British employers have asked for A vouchers to sponsor the entry of immigrants under the Immigration Act.

418 applications for vouchers had been received from employers up to 3rd July.

Is that the sort of number which the Minister expected, or is it in excess, or less?

It is difficult to say, because we have to judge how we go on this problem. It is very difficult to give any concrete answer to the hon. Gentleman at this stage, as we have only just started.

Have there been consultations between the Ministry and employers, particularly with the nationalised industries, to see whether on some co-ordinated basis they could recruit together in areas such as the West Indies for the labour that is needed?

Every vacancy is checked by my Department. We are working closely with the British Transport Commission and other organisations which are carrying out recruiting schemes. If employers wish my assistance in this connection, as I have said before in this House, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that they are prepared to put forward.

asked the Minister of Labour how many applications he has received for permits from Commonwealth immigrants; and how many have been granted.

asked the Minister of Labour how many applications he has received for permits for Commonwealth immigrants; and if he will make a statement.

Up to 3rd July, 2,817 applications for employment vouchers had been received from Commonwealth countries, and 2471 vouchers had been issued.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recruiting which has been going on may be unnecessary? Surely it would be better to fill the vacancies from those unemployed persons on the registers at employment exchanges and that, if possible, they should be brought from Birmingham rather than from overseas?

I have another Question to answer regarding recruitment. Perhaps I could deal with that point later.

In granting these permits, does the Minister advise applicants about the parts of the country in which not only would it be possible to get a job but also to find reasonable housing accommodation? In other words, does the right hon. Gentleman try to divert people from areas which a re grossly overcrowded instead of persuading them to go to areas where there are jobs and no accommodation?

Areas where there are problems regarding housing are well known. The concept of the Act was not to prohibit immigration but to control it.

Is it the position that—probably because of their anxiety to get to this country before the door was shut—a great many people came here on 1st July; and perhaps the numbers were rather exaggerated and that therefore correspondingly, possibly, my right hon. Friend may have to reduce the numbers a little in the immediate future? But, in the long term and looking at it later in the year, would he envisage being able to allow in a somewhat larger number than at the moment? Can my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of the numbers of immigrants, starting, say, from the beginning of 1963, that he would envisage admitting?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that a large number of people did come in at the last moment before the recent legislation was enacted. So far I have not been in a position of having to refuse many applicants because the numbers have been fairly small. I think that it would be most unwise for the Government or the House to adopt a set attitude as to how this problem should be handled in future, when the number of applications may rise. We have to see what is the situation from month to month and how many of these people can be comfortably and reasonably absorbed.

To what extent is my right hon. Friend taking housing difficulties into account before issuing permits?

Naturally, I have to take into consideration not only difficulties regarding housing but a number of other social problems which would affect the well-being of people who come to this country.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), the Minister said that the new Act was designed to control immigration, but what he and many others are concerned about is the control of immigrants when they arrive here so that they may go to the right places instead of the wrong ones, which is quite a different question.

I entirely see the point made by the right hon. Member. Obviously the difficulty of people going to certain areas is well known, but we do not seek to direct people. I think the right hon. Member would find himself in difficulties if he were to pursue that point too far.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the quota of unskilled immigrants from each country of the Commonwealth allowed into the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act.

asked the Minister of Labour how many applications have so far been received for entry vouchers from intending Commonwealth immigrants who have no specified job arranged or special skill; how many have been issued; and what system of allocation of such vouchers is being used so as to share them among the Commonwealth countries most affected.

Up to 3rd July, 1,870 applications had been received from immigrants with no specific jab or special skill, and 1,620 vouchers had been issued. No quotas have been allotted to individual Commonwealth countries. I explained in the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill that vouchers would be issued to applicants with no specific job or special skill on the basis of first come, first served, and that is being done.

Are neither official nor unofficial quotas being in any way operated? It would be as well to be perfectly clear on this point.

We went into this in the debate. I see the right hon. Gentleman's point in favour of a quota system, but it would be very difficult to apply such a system fairly. I will give two examples. If the system were based on population, it would give an overwhelming advantage to India. If it were based on the number of immigrants before control operated, Pakistan would say that she was being penalised through the exercise of restraint at our request.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficulty? Once the figures reach the point where he has to stop people entering, Commonwealth countries, in the absence of any knowledge about how admissions are being shared out among themselves, will never know what to do about encouraging people to apply for entry vouchers. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that once he gets to the point of stopping people entering, he will have to let the Commonwealth know how he is sharing out the vouchers that he has available?

It would be the greatest possible mistake to tie ourselves down at this stage to some rigid scheme for the distribution of vouchers when it is not so far necessary. We shall learn a lot as we go along. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is not an easy problem. I keep an open mind about it, but it would not be right at this juncture to tie ourselves down to what has been suggested.

asked the Minister of Labour what is his policy in regard to the issue of labour permits under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act to labour recruited in the West Indies by the British Transport Commission.

Employers wishing to bring Commonwealth citizens to this country for specific jobs may obtain employment vouchers for them on application to my Ministry. Men recruited by the British Transport Commission in the West Indies will therefore get vouchers.

As on 1st May this year, there were more than 35,000 Commonwealth immigrants unemployed in this country, that being more than 20 per cent. of the total unemployment in the main industrial areas, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the recruiting agencies are superfluous, and will he ensure that all possible means of recruiting immigrants in this country will be explored before permits are issued for others to come 4,000 miles from the West Indies?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that the British Transport Commission is in the same position as any other employer and that under the terms of the Act it is open to it to nominate a person from the Commonwealth for a certain job. It would be unfair if it were treated in a different way from other employers. However, I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.

Is not this about the only category of immigrants coming to work here where the employer takes trouble to ensure that housing accommodation is available for them, and to that extent might this not provide an example for the Minister to follow in granting other permits?

It is true that lodging arrangements are made. On the general point raised by my hon. Friend, we never proposed in the Bill to cut off immigration until all the unemployed were at work. We must keep a proper perspective in this matter.

asked the Minister of Labour up to what total vouchers for entry to Great Britain are issued to intending Commonwealth immigrants who are seeking work but do not come within the special categories of having a specified job arranged or a special skill and how this total is being calculated.

At the moment, employment vouchers are being issued without restriction to Commonwealth immigrants who have no specific job or special skill. The Government are, of course, keeping this matter under very close review, in the light of the number of applications being received and 'the capacity of this country to absorb them.

That is not satisfactory. Is the Minister not aware, for example, of the dilemma facing the Government of Jamaica, who do not know whether to encourage a large number of people to make application for these vouchers lest they end up with a large number of very disappointed and irate people who think they are on the list but are not? Will he realise that he must, at some point, give some indication of the numbers involved so that Commonwealth Governments will know what to advise their people?

Again, I think the tendency of hon. Members is to try to lay down at this stage rigid rules and principles which we are not in a position to do. It would be inadvisable, in fairness not only to the Governments but to the peoples of the territories concerned, for us to make judgments now. There can be no actual pressing need to do so until we have gained the experience we will get from the number of applications we shall receive in the coming months.

rose—

I called the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).

I am sorry, because I rather hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) had been called. Has my right hon. Friend worked out what effect the regrettable possibility of our joining the Common Market would have on the number of people from the Commonwealth he would be able to allow to enter this country?

That is a hypothetical question. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend would care to put down a question on that subject, although I do not think it would be very easy to give him an answer.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that the main purpose of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was to restrict this immigration and not to stimulate recruiting in the overseas territories to which it refers? Will he also bear in mind the fact that there are some people who would be very glad to see the administration of the Act breaking down through intensive recruitment overseas?

I do not see any danger of the latter event happening. I have noted the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on this matter.

asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed in Great Britain at 30th June, 1962, or the latest available date.

There were 34,255 on 18th June.

In view of these continuing high numbers, does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is quite wrong to issue labour permits for unskilled labour before the unskilled labour at present unemployed in this country has been absorbed?

These figures are high, but considering the large number of additional Commonwealth immigrants who came in, so to speak, in order to be here before the Act was implemented, it is interesting to note that the number of unemployed dropped by about 550 in June as compared with May. I have told the House, both today and in the debate, that we have to watch this with the greatest possible care. We must consider the employment prospects and other social conditions which will enable us to absorb these people in a way which will be reasonable to them as newcomers to this country. At the same time we must not place too great a strain on our social services here.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the complaints that have just been made on behalf of Scotland and the fears of increased unemployment? Will he also bear in mind the complaints that have been voiced about the fears of the north-east of England and Merseyside? Does he not think that it is unwise to allow more and more unskilled people to come in when so many of our own people are in fear of losing their jobs?

I can only repeat what I have said. Of course, we all must have regard to the number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed and the employment prospects in this country. I made it clear during the passage of the Act that we are not prepared to cut off immigration until all those unemployed are at work.

asked the Minister of Labour how much time has been lost in the motor industry through strike action, both official and unofficial, in the last year; what has been the effect of these interruptions on the cost of production; and what steps he is taking in conjunction with employers and trade unionists to produce greater stability in labour relations within the industry.

In the year ended 31st May, 1962, 750,000 working days were lost in the motor industry through industrial disputes. I must point out that about half were the result of the two national one-day official stoppages in engineering. Figures are not available to show the effect of these stoppages on production costs. A number of steps have been taken by the industry to improve relations following my discussions last year with leading employers and trade unionists. I propose to have a further meeting later this year to review the position.

Do not the figures show that there remains a serious problem of stoppages in the motor industry which the mutual expression of good will between employers and trade unions will not adequately dispel? Is not a deep-seated reason for these strikes in the motor industry the fear of redundancy, which becomes aggravated as winter approaches? In those circumstances, will the Minister take some statutory power in order to try to present to the industry a pattern of terminal payments for workers liable to become redundant?

I share the hon. Member's disappointment that there were so many unofficial strikes, but since we had these talks the employers and unions have kept strictly to agreed procedures and to agreements. The unofficial strikes which have taken place have gained no unofficial striker anything but have imposed great hardship on his fellow workers and damage to the prospects of the firms concerned. This factor must be kept clearly in mind. There is a difference here from what has happened before. I think the hon. Member knows my feelings about the need for employers to plan very carefully any redundancy they may have in mind and to give plenty of notice of it. I think he knows my general views but in particular I should like to see all workers in industry given greater security than they have at present.

At the meeting last December, to which the Minister referred, the employers said that they were taking new steps to improve communications in the industry and were increasing personnel departments, including training of supervisors and so on. Can he say anything about the success of those proposals?

A great deal has happened. A number of firms have strengthened their personnel requirements and got down to the job of improving their systems of communications. As the hon. Member knows, better arrangements are being made and are in operation for the training of supervisors and others concerned in management. I am glad to say that the training of shop stewards is also being developed.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazettefor stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in 1961 include days lost through unofficial as well as official strikes; and whether he will name the three industries which lost most days per 1,000 employees through unofficial strikes in 1961, and give the number of days lost per 1,000 employees in each case.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes". There are difficulties in defining and classifying strikes as official and unofficial. The three industries which lost most days per 1,000 employees through strikes not stated to be official were coal-mining, the docks and the motor industry. It is estimated that the number of days lost per 1,000 employees in these industries fell within the ranges 1,000–1,500. 500–1,000 and 500–1,000, respectively.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is true that the greater number of these unofficial strikes are also unconstitutional in the sense that they are in breach of agreed disputes procedure? Do the figures he has given include men thrown out of work who were not actually on strike but were put out of work as a result of dislocation in production following unofficial strikes? Is it possible for consultation with the trade union leaders to stop this happening?

These figures do not include those thrown out of work because of the action of unofficial strikers. In the last few years, I think there has been a stronger recognition on both sides of industry of the damage which is done in this way. I was glad to notice the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) on this subject the other day.

asked the Minister of Labour if the will introduce legislation so to amend the Wages Councils Act, 1959, as to make provision for fixing minimum severance payments for workers who become redundant.

As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a Question on 21st May, it is my policy to encourage industry to make proper arrangements for dealing with the problem of redundancy. Considerable progress is being made on a voluntary basis, but I will, however, bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion in the light of developments in industry generally and the special position of industries covered by wages councils.

The Minister referred to "considerable progress". Would he agree that something less than 5 million workers are at the moment covered by arrangements of this sort and that progress is far too slow? Does he think the type of suggestion made in the Question would give a boost to progress in this field?

We want to treat this on the broad pattern of industry generally. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that under 5 million workers are covered, but it is equally true that most of them are covered by the very progressive policies pursued by employers within the last few years.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken in his Department to promote wider arrangements for sick leave with pay; and whether he will introduce legislation to make the necessary amendments to the Wages Councils Act, 1959, so that wages councils may recommend minimum conditions for sick leave with pay.

The introduction of arrangements for sick leave with pay is a matter for employers, after discussion, where appropriate, with employees or their representatives. My officers give advice and information on sick pay arrangements to interested firms. I am advised that the Wages Councils Act, 1959, does not debar wages councils from proposing that, where the contract of employment continues during sickness, minimum payments should be made in respect of the period of absence due to sickness.

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation on the latter point. Would he therefore take steps to encourage wages councils to help to extend sick leave with pay? Is this not a case where some sort of push by the Government would help the schemes to spread? Will he keep in touch with the survey which the T. U. C. is conducting at the moment among unions in connection with proposals for sick leave with pay?

I do not think I can prejudge particular proposals until I have considered them in detail. I would certainly give consideration to sick leave payments proposals provided they were within the powers of wages councils. I would not feel inhibited in this respect as was the last Minister of Labour in the Labour Government who turned down such a suggestion and referred back the sick pay proposals to the council concerned.

Does the Minister realise that these 5 million workers are the lowest paid in the country? If they have no sick pay they have no resources to fall back on, because they have not been able to save anything out of the miserly wages they receive. The proposal is being made so that they should not suffer undue hardship.

I think I have cleared the atmosphere by saying that I am going a great deal further than did the Minister of Labour in 1951 when he referred back the proposals to the wages council concerned. I hope that what I have said will be noted by everyone concerned.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the decision of Messrs. Bellis and Morcom, Ledsam Street, Ladywood, Birmingham, to discharge a large number of employees in the near future; what notice he has received of this decision; how many employees are involved; and what arrangements he is making to provide alternative work for those discharged.

The Department was informed by the firm on 14th June that 400 workers were to be discharged on 6th July; those who needed assistance in finding alternative work were registered in advance of their discharge and every effort is being made to help them.

Is the Minister aware that although this firm has made a loss in three successive years it was able to give its workers only two or three weeks' notice before discharging 430 workers a large number of whom have given over thirty years service, and a number over forty years, without a single penny compensation being paid to them? Is this fair? Could not the Ministry safeguard workers from this kind of thing?

The Department has no legal powers to do what the hon. Member has suggested. I understand that the difficulty is because of the firm's financial position. I am aware that compensation has not been offered, and I gather that the redundancy is the result of a real decline in orders for the firm's products.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the firm has a pensions scheme or not?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Labour how many men are unemployed in the Bishop Auckland travel to work area; how many of these are classified as being in the construction industry; how many are in mining; and how many in transport.

1,857 on 18th June, of whom 434 were last employed in construction, 362 in coal-mining and 73 in transport and communication.

Is it not very serious indeed, especially at this time of the year, to have nearly 500 men unemployed in the construction industry? Has the Minister made any representations to his Cabinet colleagues that there ought to be an acceleration of public building of schools, houses, hospitals and so on to absorb this serious unemployment?

We are, of course, deeply concerned about the problems in the area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. So concerned are we that it is scheduled as a development district, and we hope very much that this will attract new growing enterprises to the area in time. There are 960 jobs which are expected to arise from new buildings now. The hon. Gentleman—he mentioned hospitals—will also be aware of, for example, the Hospital Plan which my night hon. Friend the Minister of Health is introducing.

But that hardly touches the problem of the area. There is an enormous programme of slum clearance there. Why does not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend make serious representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to provide more money for this aspect of the problem?

I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. All I am trying to tell him——

Do something.

—is that we are doing something. I am sorry that these things take a little time to mature.

asked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the total migration from County Durham in the first six months of 1962; and what amount of this migration was from the Bishop Auckland travel to work area.

I regret that this information is not available in this form.

Will the hon. Gentleman keen an eye on this set of figures, because if the migration is still running at the rate shown by the Registrar-General—about 600 a year—from south-west Durham, surely this aggravates the situation referred to in Question No. 9?

What we do know—I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep a very close watch on it—is the net loss by migration from the northern region. The figures are collected regionally, and I suggest that it makes more sense to continue to do that, because there is a substantial amount of movement within the region which would have to be discounted if we collected figures within region's.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the area there are 2,500 juveniles unemployed? What does the Board of Trade, which has scheduled the area under the Local Employment Act, intend to do for these young people?

There is, of course, an obvious connection between the opportunities for young people and the general employment prospects in any one area. I accept that. [Laughter.] I would not have thought it was a laughing matter. It is for this reason that so much of the County of Durham—rather more than half—can now have help under the Local Employment Act, and there are already certain fruits from that. I am certainly not detracting in any way from the seriousness of the situation there, but certain fruits are already apparent in the shape of new buildings and other developments which have already been notified to the Board of Trade. I hope that these developments will continue and prosper.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now name a day authorising the payment of wages by cheque; and if he will make a statement on the negotiations between his Department and the banks and the Trades Union Congress.

I am unable yet to fix an appointed day because I am still awaiting the comments of some of the many interested organisations whose views I have invited. However, I have been promised the outstanding replies within the next few weeks.

Will my right hon. Friend write to the interests concerned pointing out that it has taken a very long time to reach finality on this matter and that the advantages to the country are such that they really ought to agree among themselves to enable him to make a decision as soon as possible?

I have already taken the advice of my hon. Friend and made clear my own views about the length of the delay.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received the views of the National Union of Bank Employees? Will he bear in mind that my hon. Friends and I think that he ought to consult direct with the union, partly because its members will have to operate the proposal when it comes into effect and partly because it would be a good chance for him to set an example to the bank in having consultations with a bona fidetrade union?

The hon. Gentleman has skilfully introduced a red herring, but I have taken notice of what he has said.

asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of registered as unemployed at the Irvine, Kilwinning, and Kilbirnie employment exchanges at the nearest convenient date; and what action he will take to reduce the number.

At 18th June, 1962, 348 were registered at Irvine, 179 at Kilwinning and 235 at Kilbirnie. These numbers should be reduced as jobs in prospect mature.

This seems like the old, old story. Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that this is a development district under the Local Employment Act? Is he also not aware that at Kilwinning there is an industrial estate which cost the Government more than £100,000 for site preparation and servicing? There has been only one factory on this estate since 1948, so will the hon. Gentleman try to advise the President of the Board of Trade to take action to build advance factories? Skilled labour is available in the neighbourhood.

Regarding the last part of that question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave an answer to the hon. Gentleman on 15th March last. It is a matter to be referred to my right hon. Friend and not to me. However, the hon. Member might like to bear in mind the fact that part of this area—and we realise its difficulties—is within daily travelling distance of an actual, as opposed to a pipeline, development at Linwood.

That is utter nonsense.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the clothing and footwear industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the vehicles industry in Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the paper, printing and publishing industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the chemical and allied industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the metal manufacturing industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the building and construction industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the engineering and electrical industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

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

Since the Minister is well aware of the serious unemployment in Scotland, does he realise that we want to know what and when he will be doing something about it so that the people of Scotland may have some confidence in him?

As the hon. Lady knows, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Board of Trade and myself are very concerned about the employment position in Scotland. I hope the hon. Lady will not be one of those who try to indicate that nothing is being done about this, but will realise just how much has been done in the last ten years to get a better balance of industry in Scotland generally. The fact is that there are now, in addition to a large number of new jobs created by the special facilities given by the Government of the day, a large number of jobs in prospect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from what he has said the overall picture is very unsatisfactory? While it is true that the Government may have been doing something, is it not about time that they really woke up and did something much more effective, because the position is getting worse each year?

As I have told the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), a great deal has been done and is going to be done. I can assure the House that the Government have got the difficulties of Scotland very much in mind.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is because of the very deep concern felt by my hon. Friends about the position in Scotland that this series of Questions appears on the Order Paper? The right hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate that his Local Employment Act is not meeting this case. Will he take steps to set up industries in those areas suffering from continual unemployment?

One should not minimise what the Local Employment Act has done, for I think that it has done a great deal. The hon. Member says that it has not done enough. These are all problems which the Government are considering, and I think that in these matters, although we want more to be done, it is a great mistake to minimise what has been done. This is a tendency I have noticed in the remarks of some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Scottish seats.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will note with some concern the increasing unemployment in the Scottish paper industry? Is there any possibility that the reduction in the tariff on paper imports under the E. F. T. A. Agreement may have had an effect on the number of people employed in the paper industry? If the E. F. T. A. Agreement is responsible for this, does not the Minister realise that the movement of trade with the Six may mean that the paper industry of Scotland and of Britain may be destroyed entirely? I would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's observations on whether or not the E. F. T. A. Agreement has played any part in the contraction of employment in this industry.

asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he is making to deal with the problems

I have no information on that, but I do not believe for a second that our paper industry would not be fully competitive with the countries of the Six if we joined the Common Market. I have every reason to think that they would, indeed, be well capable of competing. Taking the argument, which I believe to be true, that if we joined the Common Market there would be considerable trading facilities, then that would be to the advantage of a great manufacturing country like Scotland.

Then why has it been necessary to keep in operation a tariff of 16⅔ per cent. on the importation of paper? Why is it believed that that tariff is necessary if, by wiping it out, the British industry could compete in the Common Market countries?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that our industry is quite incapable of working without a large measure of protection because, if it were so, we should not be able to earn our living.

Our local officers are today beginning to register workpeople at the factory in advance of their discharge, and should have little difficulty in finding alternative employment for most of them.

Will my hon. Friend instruct his local officers to have particular regard to the problems of the older men—those of 55 years and upwards—who, even in an area with mercifully high employment, are likely to find it most difficult to find another place?

I accept that.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the Reading Employment Exchange has kept in touch with the movement, because many of these men at Woodley live in Reading; and will all assistance be given by that exchange to deal with these redundancies?

I take my hon. Friend's point. Since unemployment in the Reading area is about 1 per cent. we do not anticipate that we shall have too much trouble there.

asked the Minister of Labour how many apprentices have been made redundant during each of the last three years; and what action is taken to ensure that they can complete their apprenticeship.

When such cases occur, the employment exchange and the Youth Employment Service co-operate with the interested parties to place the apprentice with another employer with whom he can complete his indentures. Statistics are not kept, but very few cases of difficulty are reported to my Department.

Can my right hon. Friend make known the procedure for this exchange of apprenticeship in the Reading area because, in the lay-off referred to in the previous Question, a number of apprentices are affected and it is essential that they should be given every opportunity to complete their apprenticeships with other indentures?

I shall certainly see that that is done; and, in particular, that the youth employment officer is made aware of the point my hon. Friend has just made.

asked the Minister of Labour what notification he has received of short-time working in the cash register industry in Dundee; how many people are affected; and if he will give details of their entitlement to unemployment benefit.

I understand that from 6th July, 3,300 workers will lose one day's work a week. Subject to the normal rules, they will be entitled to unemployment benefit for any day on which work and earnings are lost.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that this short-time working is causing considerable hardship, particularly at the holiday period? Is he aware that anomalies appear to have arisen in the, payment of unemployment benefit to those working on short time? Will he instruct his officers in Dundee to do everything possible to see that the benefit is paid to as many as possible?

I am sure that that will be done. I did speak of the normal rules, and I am quite sure that those will be promptly and punctually operated.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the reason for the short-time working is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still thinking of going over to decimal currency; and that nobody will buy these cash registers if they think that we shall not stay on sterling? Will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor to make up his mind quickly?

I do not doubt that that is a factor, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish a large general problem to be resolved by reference to one particular problem.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the case of Aaron Diboku, a citizen of Bechuanaland, who was chained at night by his South African employer and escaped home to Bechuanaland with an 8 ft. chain, attached to an 8 lb. 11 inch metal ring, padlocked to his left ankle.

Her Majesty's Ambassador has drawn the attention of the South African Government to the case. A South African named Willcox had already been convicted by a Bechuanaland court of manstealing for the removal of Dikobu from the Protectorate. Her Majesty's Ambassador has suggested that the South African Authorities should consider the possibility of further prosecution for any offence committed in South Africa.

I welcome what has been done, but is it not a scandal that a British citizen and subject should be chained down by his employer in this way and, when he escapes, has to escape with an 8 ft. chain attached to his ankle, as well as a large metal ring. If that had been in a Communist country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the very strongest protest would have been made by the Government. Surely, the least that can be asked is that general compensation should be paid to this man for the infamies committed on him.

Of course, this is a thoroughly deplorable case, and I agree with the hon. Member entirely on that. The facts arc that the man concerned has been apprehended, the case has been heard, and. he has been convicted on the charge.

Do not these sound mealy-mouthed words— "drawing the attention of the Government" and "asking them to consider the possibility of further prosecution", seeing that both sides of the House made very strong representations when British subjects were being held prisoner in Laos only a week or two ago? Cannot we expect the same toughness from the Government towards the South African Government over this treatment of a British subject?

There is nothing whatever mealy-mouthed about it at all, and I reject the words. This was a case in which a private individual took the action, not a Government—a very important distinction. The South African authorities did co-operate in the apprehension of the man, and in bringing him to justice.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will introduce legislation to amend the South Africa Act with the object of withdrawing the economic privileges allowed to South Africa; and if he will notify the Government of the Republic of South Africa of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.

No, Sir.

In view of the introduction of the Sabotage Act by the Republic, which is about the crowning of the Nazi system in that territory, why should we give Imperial preferences, subsidise sugar and enter into a defence agreement with a country which is now obvious to the world as a Nazi Power?

It was only a short time ago that we had long and detailed discussion about the South Africa Act. I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about the introduction of the Sabotage Act, but we cannot at this stage change an Act that we so recently passed.

Does an employer who chains his employee enjoy the benefits of Imperial preference?

The hon. Gentleman himself took part in the discussion we had about that when we thrashed out the whole question of the political policy of South Africa, and its relationship to the Act we then passed, which included trade matters.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those whom many of us represent do not wish South Africa to stop buying our textiles; that because South Africa is buying our textiles the whole of my city is fully employed, including 30,000 coloured immigrants?

Does the Lord Privy Seal's reply in regard to the debate we had in this House mean that nothing but a change in the vote of the House will change his attitude on South African preference? If so, does it not mean that we shall have to wait for a General Election and a change of Government?

What I was meaning was that we devoted a great deal of time to the South Africa Act, which has so recently been passed. Hon. Members on all sides took part in those debates, in which we examined very thoroughly the relationship between the political policy of South Africa and any economic and other arrangements we made. We came to a decision and it is much too early to consider changing it.

Have not the developments that have taken place since the South African Act was passed, including the passing of the Sabotage Act, made a new case for reconsideration of the South Africa Act, greatly reinforcing the arguments we advanced from this side?

In those debates, I expressed Her Majesty's Government's view about South African racial policy. That was an aspect of those debates, but we reached a decision on the South Africa Measure in those circumstances.