asked the Minister of Labour how many men, women and juveniles from the Bideford development area received Government training in the period May 1964 to May 1965.

Thirteen persons from the Bideford development district attended training courses under the vocational training scheme in the period May 1964 to May 1965.

I wonder whether the Minister realises that the unemployment figure in this area is still persisting fairly high and has shown no improvement this last month. Would he not agree that this is a very serious problem for our area and that training is the only answer?

I understand the position of the hon. Member, but I do not consider that this area has sufficient industry or population to support a centre of economic size. As the hon. Member knows, people from North Devon who go away from home for training are helped to find lodgings and are paid lodging allowance.

asked the Minister of Labour how many wage settlements have conformed to, and how many have exceeded, the 3½ per cent. basis laid down in the Government's White Paper since 27th May; and how many current wage claims exceed the 3½ per cent. basis.

As I have said before, it could be misleading to quote simple percentage figures either for wage claims or settlements and then to compare them with the 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. "norm". As the hon. Member knows, the "norm" indicates the average annual rate of increase of money incomes per head which is consistent with stability in the general level of prices. Moreover, the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy (Cmnd. 2639) provides for exceptional pay increases in certain defined circumstances.

In addition, many wage claims do not specify an amount. They are rarely expressed as percentages, and the details of wages settlements given monthly in the Ministry of Labour Gazette show how complicated many of them are. However, it is the fact that many claims and settlements have been at an annual rate of more than 3½ per cent.

The hon. Gentleman has given a long Answer but has not answered my Question. Is it not the fact that the figures confirm that the Government's attempt to achieve an incomes policy has so far failed, no doubt partly due to the baleful influence of the Minister of Technology? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it the Government's intention to pursue and persevere with this policy? If so, how do they propose to make it somewhat more effective in future?

This is a problem which the party opposite, when in Government, tried for thirteen years to resolve and failed completely. People will not expect us to resolve the problem in less than 13 months.

What is the difficulty which prevents the Joint Parliamentary Secretary from answering my hon. Friend's Question? Cannot we be told how many have exceeded the 3½ per cent. and how many have been less? It is a simple arithmetical calculation. If we are to have all this cotton wool we shall never really get an incomes policy.

That is where the hon. Member makes a mistake. It is not easy, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) will know. The complications of wages settlements are not all defined in percentage terms. They cover a wide range of settlements and it is extremely difficult to reduce them in all cases to percentage terms.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's prices and incomes policy is based on the voluntary principle and that so far, on the incomes side, the response of the trade unions has been at least as good as that of the manufacturers on prices?

I could certainly agree with that.

Are we to understand from the first part of the initial Answer by the Minister that the "norm" is something which is true by definition and that it is never to be used for comparisons of any kind whatsoever? Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with the point which has been made from this side three times that it is possible to calculate wage increases in percentage terms by a simple arithmetical process?

I repeat, it is not possible to do this. I did say in my Answer, however, that as far as we can calculate, most of these recent settlements have been above the "norm".

asked the Minister of Labour how many employees are now covered by occupational pension schemes; and what steps he is taking to encourage the further spread of such schemes.

About 12 million employees are now in occupational pension schemes. The growth of these schemes is already encouraged by tax concessions.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that encouraging information. Can he say when the Committee which is considering the preservation of pension rights is likely to report to him and when we are likely to see action by the Government in this connection?

I could not give the date when the Committee will report, but, when it does, my right hon. Friend will give urgent attention to the matter.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the transferability of pension rights is perhaps one of the most important recommendations that has come from the National Economic Development Council? Would not he undertake to hurry this matter? It is of great concern to the 12 million people to whom he referred in his Answer.

My right hon. Friend took early action on this matter when he became Minister of Labour. We are doing all we can to get an early report and recommendations on this very complex issue.

In the light of the last reply, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that it was not his right hon. Friend but I who set up the Committee to which he referred?

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

asked the Minister of Labour how many young people below the age of 18 years are registered as unemployed in the Clydebank Employment Exchange.

On 12th July, 1965, 50 young persons were registered as unemployed in the Clydebank Youth Employment Office area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is causing grave concern in the area that we should have all these young people still unemployed and many of them unable to obtain apprenticeships? Would he do what he can to see that young men and women undergo suitable training courses so that we may augment the skilled labour force which we so badly need in Scotland?

I would point out to my hon. Friend that, of the 50 I mentioned in my Answer, 19 have just left school and we do not anticipate a great deal of trouble in placing them.

asked the Minister of Labour what proposals have been made to him by the employers' organisations and trade unions in the printing industry on changes in the system of apprenticeship.

None, Sir, but I welcome the measures to increase the recruitment of apprentices recently agreed by the Joint Ma-power Committee set up by the printing industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the interests of productivity and improving industry such changes in the apprentice schemes as are suggested in the Question are most necessary?

Yes, Sir.

Would the Minister bear in mind that it is most disappointing that nothing has yet been done, although one understands that something is being attempted to be done? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the printing industry is about the worst in the country for restrictive practices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lawyers."]—and that something is urgently needed to be done? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not talk about lawyers in his answer.

First of all, it was not I who mentioned lawyers. Secondly, there is no one in this House who offers me as much temptation as the hon. Gentleman does to make indiscreet statements as Minister of Labour.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to facilitate the placing in employment of men trained at Government training centres.

There is a placing service at each Government training centre which works closely with the placing service of the employment exchanges. About 95 per cent. of trainees who complete courses obtain suitable employment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very difficult in an area such as Clydebank and Dumbarton where we have a Government training centre in which men have been trained for skilled jobs in industry when at the same time there are large redundancies of skilled men? Is he aware that this very weekend an English company is recruiting labour in Clydebank for England while trained men in Dumbarton cannot get a job?

I am sure that Scotland still needs skilled men. The Dumbarton training centre was opened only in September, 1964, but of the six trainees who have completed the course five have been placed in employment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the situation, of which he will be aware, where there has been difficulty in the past in placing people after training? Is he getting co-operation now from the people concerned?

I am getting more and more co-operation.

A good Minister.

asked the Minister of Labour what report he has received from his wages inspectors on wages being paid in the retail book trade in the West End of London; and how many prosecutions have taken place as a result.

Reports of wages inspection in the retail bookselling and

asked the Minister of Labour what grants are being paid to trainees in Government training centres.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the recent labour dispute in this trade in the West End disturbing allegations were made by representatives of the workers about the wages paid by this firm? Would my hon. Friend look at this matter again?

I think that the matter is covered in an answer to a later Question.

asked the Minister of Labour what progress he is making in setting up a training board for the agricultural industry.

Exploratory discussions with the industry about a training board for agriculture have begun and I hope that good progress will have been made by the end of the year.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the outcome of these discussions is eagerly awaited? Can he give any further indication of when the board will be set up?

I could not give any firm date, but it will be appreciated that many organisations will have to be consulted, including those in industries which are, so to speak, on the fringe of the agricultural industry. At this stage I can only say that I hope that we shall have made very good progress with our discussions with the industry by the end of the year.

While welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether he will press on with this matter so that the existing training schemes, such as the Y.M.C.A's. "British Boys for British Farms" scheme, can co-operate fully with the plans of the training board?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he will take to ensure employment for those who may be made redundant by the contraction of a branch of Plessey's in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

I understand from the firm that they are planning a major reorganisation scheme but that this will not lead to any redundancy in Liverpool.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the automation group in question is an expanding section and is to be concentrated in the Poole district? Is he also aware that the management are arguing that female labour is more available in Poole than on Merseyside, and yet on Merseyside there are over 3,000 unemployed women as against 300 in the Poole area? Will my right hon. Friend also confer with other Ministries concerned to ensure that this type of industry is not only kept on Merseyside but expanded on Merseyside, which is a development area?

I understand that my hon. Friend has been in communication with another Ministry on this point. I am aware of the proposal to transfer a certain section to Poole, but I understand that it is the intention of the company further to develop telecommunications manufacture principally in Liverpool and Beeston.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the contraction of employment is not confined to Plessey or to Liverpool? Would he care to make a statement?

Not on this Question.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the result of his inquiry into the unofficial strike at London Airport at Whitsun; and whether he will make a statement concerning this dispute.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in his reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. John Harvey) on 15th June, I am collecting information about strikes which have affected the travelling public at holiday periods. This will include information about the unofficial strike by employees of British European Airways at Whitsun.

Has the Minister seen the Motion on the Order Paper signed by many of my hon. Friends and myself about making collective agreements enforceable at law? Does not he agree that this is the only practical way of dealing with unofficial strikes, and, if he does, will he say when he envisages legislation to that end being introduced?

I have been looking at resolutions and letters of that character for a very long time. I am still not yet in a position to see clearly how the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman could be the proper one at this time. It is not as simple as he imagines to have legislation in this field without further guiding lights.

The Minister will agree—he has said so himself—that this was a very serious matter. We discussed it on another occasion only last week and I shall not go over that again, but will he use every endeavour to discourage unofficial strikes in every way possible, including legislation if he can see his way to it?

Of course, I shall do everything I can to stop unofficial strikes, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not as easy as all that. On the question of legislation, I can only say, as I said during the passage of the Trade Disputes Bill and on other occasions, that I wish that hon. Members opposite would realise that one can have all the legislation one likes but one will not remove the "old Adam" out of men. We have got to have certain guiding lights about the relationships between the worker, his employer and the State before we can make a move in that direction.

asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for increasing training and re-training in Fife and the east of Scotland generally.

As I announced on 22nd June in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), a further expansion of Government training centres has been authorised, which includes a new centre at Edinburgh. There will also be some expansion of the existing centre at Dunfermline.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since that announcement a further statement has been made by the Minister of Power which means an accelerated closure of pits in central West Fife, in particular? Is he satisfied that the announcement to which he refers takes account of that situation, in view of a likelihood of an increased number of miners wanting retraining?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have been looking very carefully at the position as it was outlined by the Minister of Power. All I can tell him at this stage is that we are watching it carefully, particularly in the light of training needs.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a further statement on the dispute at Foyle's bookshop; and whether he is satisfied that the firm is conforming with all statutory provisions concerning wages and working conditions.

With the help of the regional industrial relations officer, this dispute has now been settled and normal working was resumed on 12th July. I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on 14th June that I would arrange for inquiries about compliance with the provisions of the appropriate Wages Councils Order, and I will do this now that the dispute is settled. I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 14th June about the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable satisfaction in all parts of the House that this dispute has been settled in the manner he has described, but will he take the matter a little further? Will he give an undertaking that there will be an investigation of the entire retail book trade, particularly in the West End of London, in respect of which suggestions were made to us at a meeting upstairs that there were conspiratorial tendencies among the owners of these retail shops to reduce wages and jeopardise working conditions generally?

As regards the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the evidence we have in the Department does not confirm what he says. Inquiries and examinations which have been made over the past two and a half years reveal a state of affairs in relation to West End booksellers in which the rate of errors, underpayments and non-compliance is only about one-tenth of the rate in the United Kingdom as a whole.

asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the recommendation in paragraph 41 of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Command Paper No. 2695, that his Department should give consideration to the absurdity of retaining an increasingly redundant Wages Council, if he will take the steps to abolish the Council; and if he will make a statement.

Under the Wages Councils Act, 1959, a wages council may be abolished only when adequate alternative wage regulating machinery exists which is substantially representative of the two sides of the industry concerned. I welcome the recent moves by the Road Haulage Association and the trade unions concerned to set up voluntary wage negotiating machinery for the road haulage industry, and I hope that sufficient progress will soon be made in the operation and development of this machinery to enable the parties concerned to make a joint application under Section 5 of the Act for the Road Haulage Wages Council to be abolished.

As the Report states specifically that the continued existence of the Wages Council may possibly militate against the full development of the new machinery, ought not the old machinery to be removed; and, if the old-fashioned wages councils are a hindrance to welcome new developments, ought not the same thing to be encouraged in other industries as well?

My right hon. Friend is well seized of this position and he is taking a very active interest in the matter.

asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the condemnation by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its Report, Command Paper No. 2695, of the restrictive practice in the road haulage industry in refusing to operate lorries at 40 miles per hour, and by keeping to the old speed limit of 30 miles per hour, if he will confer with the union leaders with a view to ending this practice; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend proposes to discuss the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on this subject with the trade unions concerned at an early date. He has already had informal consultations with this in mind.

In paragraph 47 of its recent Report, the Board stated that the average speed of the motor vehicles involved is only 21/23 m.p.h., which is an under-use of the existing machinery, and that the recommendation that the maximum speed should be allowed to go to 40 m.p.h. was resisted by the trade union leaders because they had not been consulted. In the national interest and the interests of efficiency generally, will the hon. Gentleman consult the trade union leaders to see that this go-slow on their part is discontinued?

It would be unwise to ignore the safety factor here. My right hon. Friend is well aware of all the implications and he is anxious that progress should be made as quickly as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this side of the House at least will welcome his observation that the safety factor must be borne in mind? Is he aware that the high speeding of lorries is a cause of grave concern on certain of the cross-country routes in the Midlands and the factor of great importance to be borne in mind is the safety of such elements of the population as school children who have to use the roads? Will he note that on some country roads the danger can be very great?

Will the hon. Gentleman realise that an average speed of 22 m.p.h. for freight vehicles compares very badly with most other countries of the world and that the safety consideration is one primarily for the Minister of Transport, who, as he has not revoked it, presumably agrees with the earlier order? Will he, therefore, persuade his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to take some energetic measures in this very obvious case?

My right hon. Friend is aware of all these considerations and, as I said in my original Answer, he has already had some consultations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that average speeds are very misleading, particularly in this country, and that those of us who travel on the main trunk routes have very seldom seen lorries travelling at anything like 22 m.p.h.? Will he agree that, on those occasions when lorries do hesitate to travel at more than 30 m.p.h., the reason may be the mechanical standard of some of the vehicles involved?

These are all factors which must be borne in mind.

Will the hon. Gentleman say, from his personal observation, whether he has ever seen a lorry travelling at under 40 m.p.h.? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to use his wit and ridicule on the trade unions to bring them into line on this very practical point?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received the report of the official committee on equal pay; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive the Report shortly.

When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on 14th June, the hon. Gentleman said that he would receive the report within two or three weeks. Can he say what is holding it up? Is it the cost of equal pay?

I must apologise to the hon. Member and to the House—it is my second apology today—for unconsciously misleading hon. Members on 14th June when, as the hon. Member said, I stated that we expected the report in two or three weeks' time. I corrected this in the Adjournment debate on 23rd June.

When does the hon. Member expect the report now?

We expect it very soon indeed. I had better avoid saying "in a week or two weeks".

Will my hon. Friend say whether "very soon" is in terms of weeks or months?

I think I can venture to say that it is in terms of weeks.

When the report comes, will the hon. Member bear in mind that there is a distinction between equal pay for equal work and the rate for the job?

asked the Minister of Labour how many workers in the engineering industry are supplied under agreements with labour-only subcontractors; and what proportion they are of the total number employed in the industry.

I regret that the information is not available.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that this practice is growing in areas which are short of skilled labour. Will he give an assurance that he will resist any attempt to undermine his own efforts for better redundancy payments, industrial training reforms and retraining as a result of the growth of this system in the engineering industry?

I will certainly give that assurance, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that some of the problems which arise are really best left for examination by both sides of industry.

asked the Minister or Labour how many workers in the building industry are supplied under agreements with labour-only sub-contractors; and what proportion they are of the total employed in this industry.

I regret that the information is not available.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this system is an alternative system to the attempt to decasualise the building trade, and that with the growth of industrialised methods it is important to begin thinking and moving forward on this front?

Yes, indeed, Sir. I am glad to note that the national joint council, representing both sides of industry, has had a look at this.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very dangerous and pernicious practice and that if it is allowed to expand to any great degree it will undermine the negotiated agreements in the building industry? Will he give an assurance that he will use his influence as far as possible with both sides of the building industry to ensure that the practice is cut out altogether?

I have already indicated that we are watching the dangerous implications of the system very closely. However, I would rather that it were left at present to see what conclusions are arrived at by both sides of industry. They are now negotiating on this matter.

asked the Minister of Labour when he intends to introduce legislation to extend the Factories Acts to include Health Service and local government employees.

A large number of these employees are already covered either by the Factories Act or the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for extending this legislation to other employees in these fields.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a most disappointing reply inasmuch as in the Health Service, for example, laundry workers are covered but those in boiler-houses are not, and people who serve meals to the staff are covered, while those who serve them to the patients are not? Ought not people

If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any group or groups that he has in mind, we will certainly look into the matter.

Can my hon. Friend tell us how many persons who work in the Palace of Westminster are covered by the Factories Acts?

Not without notice.

I do not think that any of them are Health Service or local authority employees.

asked the Minister of Labour how many young people between the ages of 15 and 18 years, and men and women over the age of 18 years, respectively, were registered as unemployed in the area of the Gravesend Employment Exchange; and how many vacancies for such workers have been notified to the exchange, in the latest week for which figures are available.

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

As in the past there have been high unemployment figures, particularly for young people, in the Gravesend area, if that position arises again will my right hon. Friend consider consulting his colleagues in the Government with a view to getting more light industry into the area?

If such a position should arise, I would certainly do what I am asked to do.

Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage the high unemployment which is feared in Gravesend spreading to the rest of the country by the end of the year?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Labour what number and percentage of insured workers in the United Kingdom have three weeks' paid holiday per year; and what steps he proposes to take to increase this number.

About 735,000, or 5 per cent. of the manual workers covered by collective agreements or statutory wages regulation orders, have three weeks' paid annual holiday and a further 440,000, or about 3 per cent., will have three weeks at a future date under the terms of some recent settlements. In addition, there are a number of agreements and statutory orders under which the annual holiday entitlement varies be-between two and three weeks, according to length of continuous service. It is not possible to estimate the number of manual workers entitled to three weeks' annual holiday under these arrangements, but 2,440,000 are employed in the industries and services covered.

In the public sector the majority of non-manual workers receive a basic three weeks or are entitled to three weeks after a period of continuous service. The annual holiday provisions for non-manual workers in the private sector are in many cases not determined by collective agreement.

Holidays with pay are normally dealt with by collective bargaining and my right hon. Friend does not think that any action on his part is called for.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, even on the basis of the figures which he has quoted, we are well behind the majority of West European countries and possibly some other territories as well in this matter? Is he aware that most of these countries have a minimum of three weeks' holiday paid and that we very much need to extend this kind of holiday service, if one likes to call it that, throughout the majority of our workers?

My hon. Friend is probably right in saying that we are behind West European countries on the question of paid holidays. However, in recent years unions and employers' organisations have been tending to give more attention to fringe benefits, which include longer holidays.

Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to try to persuade workers in the Coventry area not to jump the gun over holidays, to stick to the arrangements, which have been properly drawn up between the unions and the employers' associations, laying down the holiday period, and not take an extra week ahead of the holiday period?

I think that point is covered by a later Question.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the agricultural industry, because of the last Price Review in particular, is in no position to give extra holidays? Nevertheless, there is a strong case for agricultural workers having three weeks' holiday. It is an industry which has never gone on strike but has always done a great job for the country. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this?

I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks, while not necessarily agreeing with his opinion.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a special investigation of the industrial dispute involved in unofficial stoppages and working to rule on the Southern Region of British Railways.

I hope that the majority decision yesterday of delegates from branches of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen will lead to an immediate resumption of normal working and that following the national conference of the Society fixed for 10th August, it will be possible to reach a settlement by negotiation. This is clearly the right course and preferable to an investigation, but I shall keep a close watch on the position and not hesitate to take any action which I may consider appropriate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although some of the motormen have changed their minds, a great many of the trains are still running extremely late? Does he recall that he said that the Government would not stand aside if the unofficial action continued? What specific action does he intend to take if it does continue?

I thought my answer conveyed it. Hon. Members should not use exaggerated language, there was, in fact, an improvement this morning. Delays at Cannon Street and Charing Cross were down to 8 minutes. However, that is not good enough. I hope that the meeting this morning between the unions and the motormen will reinforce the decision taken yesterday. I shall watch the position.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the industrial dispute which has led to working to rule on the Southern Region of British Railways.

At a meeting of delegates from branches of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen yesterday it was decided by a majority vote to advise their members to end the "non-co-operation" which has been disrupting services in recent weeks. I hope, therefore, that there will be an immediate resumption of normal working by all concerned, but I shall, of course, keep a very close watch on the situation.

While sharing the right hon. Gentleman's hopes, which, I think, will be reflected on both sides of the House, may I ask whether he does not think that the circumstances which gave rise to the dispute and which have caused such widespread disruption and inconvenience should now be looked at further? Has he in mind any sort of further inquiry which might bring a little light to bear on the circumstances which have led to this situation?

Not at this stage. I hope that when negotiations are resumed following the conference of 10th August—and I will say a prayer that they start on the 11th or 12th—we will be able to look more clearly at the position.

I am sure that we are all glad, in all parts of the House, at the improvement which has taken place since we debated this matter last week. May I, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman how he sees the position developing? He stated in his last reply that he hopes to get further negotiations started. He will, I know, agree that that will be the start of further problems which may arise in getting a settlement. Will he use his good offices in every way to get the matter cleared up satisfactorily?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. When the negotiations reopen—I hope immediately after 10th August—there will then be highlighted many of the deep complications that lie not only behind the row with the locomotive men but filter through to many of the other workers.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will seek powers to enable him to encourage companies to have trade union officials and shop stewards elected to works council instead of representatives elected on the shop floor.

I think the form of representation on works councils is best settled within individual firms in the light of their particular circumstances.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary watching the experiment at Samuel Fax & Co., a branch of the United Steel Companies, by which shop stewards for the first time and now trade union officials are being brought on, so that questions of productivity, mechanisation and redeployment of labour can be discussed within the works? Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a helpful approach and should, perhaps, be encouraged throughout industry?

I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is watching this procedure with close interest.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to discuss with the motor manufacturers and unions concerned the breakdown in arrangements to co-ordinate holiday dates throughout the motor industry, with a view to preventing the repetition in another year of such a break in production as has recently occurred in some factories in the Coventry area.

I am informed that the ballot to determine the holiday period to be taken by employees in the motor industry next year has already taken place, and that on this occasion employees in Coventry firms have taken part. The industry is confident that the difficulties which have occurred this year will not be repeated in 1966.

While we are glad to learn this, do I understand from the Minister's reply that on the previous occasion the Coventry employers were not even consulted? It seems to have been an extraordinary situation if that was so. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all those concerned will be fully aware on this occasion so that there is no misunderstanding, which probably was the cause of the trouble before?

Yes, indeed; I understand that steps will be taken in that direction. In reply to the first part of the question, the position seems to be a little confused. I formed the impression that the employers were consulted but that they abstained.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure that Press releases on the monthly cost-of-living index give a clear indication of the main causes of changes that take place.

When the index moves by 0·2 or more points, the Press notice mentions the more important changes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, fuller details of changes are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. I think the information given is adequate, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any particular suggestions I will consider them.

The reason why I put down the Question was because the May Press announcement said that the rise in the index during the month was due to increases in a number of items but specified potatoes in particular and said that this increase was partly offset by a reduction in the price of eggs. When, however, the June issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette was published, it showed that apparently the major item in the rise in May was a 1·8 per cent. rise in services, which related almost entirely to postal charges. It therefore seems that this should have been included originally.

I have noted that point.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for old-age pensioners and other sections of the population the monthly fluctuations in the cost of living index do not mean a thing, because it includes all sorts of items in which people are not interested? For this reason, should not the factors which go to make up the cost of living index be completely revised?

That is a larger question which does not arise out of this one.

asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the labour force of those factories covered by the quota system is made up of disabled workers.

An inquiry carried out in June 1964 revealed that within approximately 65,000 firms to which the quota provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, applied, 2·75 per cent. of the total labour force within those firms were, or had been while in their current employment, registered as disabled.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side will regard a figure of 2·7 per cent. as very disappointing? Does he realise that this percentage has fallen significantly during recent years because many firms are failing to meet their obligations? In seeking a solution of the problem, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of varying the quota according to the type of work?

That point has already been considered. We must, however, apply quite a lot of common sense in dealing with this question. Because of the nature of the work that they offer, many firms are unable to reach a level of 3 per cent. Thousands of firms exceed this figure and are generous in this matter. We are, however, watching the position carefully.

Can the Minister say how many disabled people are unemployed?

I have the figure with me but I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment.

asked the Minister of Labour how many working hours have been lost, in 1964 and this year to date, respectively, by men on strike in the Scottish motor industry; and how many hours have been lost by men laid off in consequence of these strikes.

The numbers of days lost in 1964 and in the first six months of 1965 by workers directly involved in strikes in the Scottish motor industry were about 9,000 and about 11,000, respectively. The corresponding figures for workers made idle at the establishments where the stoppages occurred who were not themselves parties to the dispute were about 7,000 and about 30,000 days, respectively. Precise information about the number of days lost at other establishments is not available, but it is estimated that about 12,000 days were lost in the first six months of 1965. The loss of time in 1964 at other establishments is thought to be negligible.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while these figures are no worse than for the motor industry generally, the figures for the first six months of 1965 in Scotland are rather alarming? Will the hon. Gentleman examine the figures and try to find the causes of this disruption, particularly in view of the importance of the motor industry to Scotland's development?

Unofficial strikes of this kind are an indication of a poor standard of industrial relations. We hope that those relations will be improved. The services of our Department are always readily available to help to secure improvement in labour relations.

To what does the Parliamentary Secretary ascribe the fact that they seem to be worse this year than last year?

I would point out to the hon. Member that they were worse again in 1962.

While deprecating un-official strikes or any loss of man hours because of industrial friction, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that there is far more co-operation between workers and managements in the motor industry and much more co-operative endeavour than friction which leads to industrial disputes?

That is one thing that we should keep in mind. The absence of strikes is not news but strikes are headline news.

Can the Minister explain what he means by "unofficial strikes"?

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the numbers of young people who entered apprenticeships for skilled trades in each of the last five years; and what are the figures in respect of Scotland.

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

Does the Minister recall that on 9th November he said that he would look at the question of apprenticeships in shipbuilding, where the ratio of apprentices to journeymen had declined from a figure of one to 3·8 in 1954 to one to almost five journeymen in 1964? Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the position, and what has he seen?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps are now being taken to retain former workers on the TSR2 in this country who are now considering going overseas.

None, Sir, except by maintaining a high level of employment here and by providing all possible help through the employment exchange service for those who need help in finding other work.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the past eight months the House has been frequently told that men becoming redundant from the TSR2 project would go to jobs helping exports? How does he square that with the fact that it is now reliably reported that between 200 and 300 of these men are to join the Atlas Aircraft Corporation in the Union of South Africa, where they will be completely lost to this country?

I have heard of these Press reports, but they have not been confirmed and we cannot get confirmation of them. We have had reports of the activities of American firms here, one of them using a British agent in Weybridge pubs. The agent, who was offering £200 a week, was subsequently disowned by his own firm. We have no means of stopping men who want to go abroad, but our information—and I cannot attach any figures to it—is that not many are going.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the alarmist talk of widespread redundancy among certain aircraft firms, few of the men are unemployed and that other aircraft firms are advertising for labour? Will he bear that in mind when what I hope are drastic armament cuts are proposed in the future?

Has the right hon. Gentleman any figure of the number of these aircraft workers he expects to go abroad? Would he not agree that it would be lamentable if we were to import aircraft and export aircraft workers?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are living in a free society. I have no authority to go around checking on what people do.

asked the Minister of Labour what guidance he has given to industrial training boards about the recommendations they are required to make regarding further education courses to be associated with the industrial training of young people.

In the light of the advice which I have received from the Central Training Council about the importance of closely integrating further education and training, and bearing in mind the importance of increasing more rapidly the number of boys and girls receiving further education in association with industrial training, I have decided that I shall normally approve the proposals of industrial training boards only if they make it a condition of grants to employers that day release or the equivalent is provided for young people in occupations requireing a substantial amount of training.

Would my right hon. Friend enlarge on that reply, for which I thank him, by telling the House what he means by "substantial"? Will he say a little more about what is meant by "young people"?

Generally speaking, I shall regard periods of training lasting a year or more as substantial, but there may be occasions when release for further education is desirable even though the training lasts less than a year. We have not defined nor sought to define "young person". It was suggested that we should lay down the age of 18, but we do not consider that to be wise, because there may be older people in need of this education.