asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will make an order under Section 9(1) of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, making the hotel and catering industries eligible for refund of selective employment tax;

My right hon. Friend has asked me to apologise for his unavoidable absence. He is taking part in urgent discussions elsewhere.

Is it not rather odd that the hon. Gentleman should take these two Questions together, since they deal with different industries. With regard to Question No. 1, is it not clear that the Government have seriously underestimated the potential of the hotel and catering industries for saving and earning foreign currency? Is it not time to relieve them of the burdens of S.E.T.?

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the imposition of the tax on the distributive trades was justified on the grounds that it would redress the balance of taxation between manufacturing and Service industries? Is not Purchase Tax at least as heavy a burden on the retail and distributive trades as on manufacturing? Should not they be relieved of this burden?

Questions numbers 1 and 2 were answered together because they both ask for fundamental and unacceptable alterations to the principles of Selective Employment Tax. Clearly, the Government accept the importance of the hotel and catering industry, and they provide many incentives to its expansion. Specific Questions about them should be referred to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he outlined only one of the fundamental purposes of S.E.T. It has many purposes, and they are being successfully carried out.

Is my hon. Friend reconsidering the application of the tax at all? If so, will he reconsider its application to the theatres, for example?

The House will know that, in answer to previous Questions, I have said that we are looking at the incidence of the tax, but that I could not give individual assurances about what alterations there might be.

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the main purpose of the tax was to encourage the movement of labour from the service industries to manufacturing? Has it had such an effect?

There is a Question on the Order Paper later about that purpose. If the hon. Gentleman reads again the Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will find that the purpose the hon. Gentleman outlined is only one—and a subsidiary purpose—of the tax.

When my hon. Friend is looking at the tax and taking into consideration the catering and hotel trades, will he look at the special Problems of that industry in the development areas, where there are higher unemployment rates?

When we are looking at the incidence of the tax, we look at all these points.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Labour what have been the changes in the number of workers employed by the service industries and in manufacturing industry between the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax and the latest convenient date.

Provisional estimates of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Great Britain show a decrease of about 395,000 between September, 1966 and October, 1967. Comparable estimates are not available for the service industries. Final estimates for each industry and service in the Standard Industrial Classification are made in respect of June each year; June, 1967 estimates will become available early in 1968.

If when the Minister of Labour emerges from the Cabinet he is still a member of it, will the hon. Gentleman advise him to drop the argument that S.E.T. assists the redeployment of labour and suggest to him that the tax should be argued solely as a revenue raiser?

Several times already today I have reminded the House that the shift between service and manufacturing employment is only one of the purposes of the tax. I believe that that purpose is being served, as are the other purposes.

Is the Minister now expecting a change in the pattern of redeployment following the removal of the premium from manufacturing industry? If so, what change?

One of the changes I would certainly expect is that the new incentive in the development areas will be even greater because of the difference between the regional employment premium and the general employment taxation, with the result that there will be a move of work opportunities into development areas—a very necessary move.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to provide for the repayment of all the Selective Employment Tax collected in Scotland over the period of this winter.

No, Sir.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this would be one of the most effective ways of helping Scotland immediately through this winter?

I hope that another way which results from the existence of the S.E.T. and the regional employment premium, will provide Scotland with £40 million of assistance during the winter.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Answer he gave on 5th December, showing that in Scotland nearly twice as many people are employed in non-manufacturing industry as in manufacturing industry? Does this not prove the discriminatory way in which the S.E.T. acts in Scotland?

I have never accepted that the premium would only bring benefits to manufacturing industry. One of its functions is to increase demand generated by manufacturing industry, which will produce greater demand for Services in these areas.

asked the Minister of Labour what further action has been taken by his Department in the current dispute to gain recognition for the National Union of Bank Employees from those banking firms that do not as yet recognise this union.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has been asked to intervene in the dispute between banks and bank employees; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement on the current dispute between the National Union of Bank Employees and certain banking undertakings.

asked the Minister of Labour if he now proposes to intervene in the dispute between some members of the National Union of Bank Employees and the employers concerning the recognition of the National Union of Bank Employees for negotiating purposes.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further Statement on his discussions regarding the dispute arising from the refusal of certain banks to recognise the right of the National Union of Bank Employees to negotiate on behalf of their members.

My right hon. Friend has received requests that he should intervene in this dispute from the T.U.C. and from the National Union of Bank Employees. Officers of the Ministry have had informal discussions over the past week with all the interests concerned and following these, the Committee of London Clearing Bankers will be holding meetings within the next two days with the union and with the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations to discuss the question of negotiating machinery in the banks.

Is not it disgraceful that bank workers are still on strike in this day and age to win recognition from their employers? Does my hon. Friend hold out much hope that the bank employers will begin to see sense on this matter, and thus prevent strikes taking place in the next few weeks which will cause great inconvenience to the people and the country?

The chances of a happy settlement have appreciably improved in the last fortnight. I would not want to do or say anything to diminish those chances by describing the actions of either party as disgraceful.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friend said that he would not act until the Royal Commission reported in 1968 but has now taken the action he refused to take earlier and which, if he had taken it earlier, would have prevented a great deal of bitterness?

My right hon. Friend said that the Royal Commission would have something to say about recognition of staff unions, and we must be bound by consideration for the possible findings of the report before doing something about this matter generally. But that does not exclude an intervention by my right hon. Friend, and when he was asked to intervene in this dispute he accepted the invitation and took the action he did.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the attitude of some of the banks towards trade unions is more reminiscent of 1867 than 1967? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to continue to endeavour to persuade the banks to recognise this eminently respectable and responsible body of men?

I agree that the attitudes of the banks differ, but during a week when consultations are taking place I would not want to put a date to any of those attitudes.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in many cases, the employees are quite happy with the staff unions? Will he try to get a compromise rather than pressurise one side against the other?

I am sure that some employees are happy with the staff unions, but it is interesting to note that the N.U.B.E. has shown an appreciable increase in membership during the last fortnight.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement as a result of his meeting with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on 7th December concerning equal pay for women.

I met representatives of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. on 7th December to consider a report by a Joint group of officials on certain technical aspects of implementing the principle of equal pay. I am arranging for a copy of the agreed Statement issued after this meeting to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as we are a party of principle, implementation of equal pay should not be delayed until after the next general election, and that a prices and incomes policy is neither fair nor just unless women are paid the rate for the job?

The Government have stated on many occasions that they are committed to the principle of equal pay, and I am happy to reiterate that commitment. But I am sure that the House will agree that the present economic Situation is not propitious for implementation. The Government have made plans to take some technical steps to ensure that we are ready to implement it when the economic Situation is right, however, and that is why I had talks with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. on 7th December.

asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to plan a renewed increase in the number of disabled persons employed in Remploy factories.

The increase has already started; the current strength of over 7,000 severely disabled persons is the highest in Remploy's history, and I hope this trend will continue in 1968.

Will my hon. Friend think of continuing his good work by relating the Ministry grant proportionately to the increase in the company's sales over, say, the past few years?

I would like to look at that Suggestion without making any specific promise.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the current waiting list for entry into Government training centres in the Northern Region.

528.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the question of training has top priority in the Northern Region? We have made a marginal improvement, but far more must be done, and immediately.

I accept that more must be done, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take as evidence of my acceptance of that the fact that during the next two years training places in Government training centres in the North-East will more than double.

Will the hon. Gentleman look with urgency at the range of training courses in Government training centres in the North-East, as the complaint from incoming industrialists of there not being a sufficient width of training courses is causing regular and increasing concern?

I hope to answer a Question specifically about this later.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied with retraining arrangements for redundant workers, especially miners in Scotland; and if he will make a Statement.

Most of the retraining required by redundant workers is at semiskilled level and is best undertaken by their new employers with assistance from the industrial training boards, and the Government grants available to firms which train workers for new Jobs in development areas. Accelerated training for skill is given by eight Government training centres in Scotland with a potential annual output of over 1,700 trained men; by the spring of 1970 there will be nine centres with an annual output of about 2,500. These arrangements will go a long way towards meeting the needs of redundant workers, but retraining needs in Scotland will be kept under review.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is now an urgent and important matter which requires high priority, particularly in view of the impending pit closures in Scotland?

I am aware of that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take as evidence of that the fact that training places have been doubled since October 1964 and will treble on the October 1964 figure by the end of next year.

Can my hon. Friend State the number of miners who have applied for retraining facilities and how many have been accepted, and whether there has been any acceleration of the Programme of industrial training consequent upon publication of the Government White Paper on Fuel Policy?

The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is in the affirmative. I would like notice of the first part.

As the pit closure Programme begins again in February, cannot the hon. Gentleman site the new training centres nearer the areas of colliery closure?

A good deal of the new programme for training centres is concentrated in the development areas and therefore in many cases is particularly convenient to redundant mine workers.

asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for entry into industrial retraining were refused in the year ended September 1967 due to the non-availability of places; and what plan he had for increasing the number of places available.

None. But some applicants have had to wait a long time for admission to Government training centres. The waiting time will be considerably reduced by the 10 new centres and over 4,000 additional training places which will become available between now and early 1970. Four—Beilshill (North Lanarkshire), Maryport (Cumberland), Port Talbot and Runcorn—are expected to open in 1968; the remaining six—at Darlington, near Durham, in North Staffordshire, near Wakeneid, in West London and at Wrexham—by early 1970.

While the whole House welcomes this information, would not my hon. Friend agree that, since retraining is a vital factor in technological change, if British industry is to have the degree of skill required to maintain its position in world markets, we must go even further and somehow or other treble the number of retraining places between now and 1970?

I agree that there has to be a renewed expansion of industrial training. But I think my hon. Friend is wrong if he implies that all this renewal should and must come from Government training centres. Much of it must and will be done by industry through encouragement by the industrial training boards.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of different skills and trades offered at Government retraining centres and the location of the training; and what plans he had for extending the range of skills available.

Yes, Sir, the OFFICIAL REPORT will show that 40 trades are taught at 38 Government training centres. Each centre teaches a selection of these trades. The trades are kept under constant review and a number of new skills are to be introduced into training courses during the next few months.

Would my hon. Friends agree that, in view of this great need to increase the number of skills, there is room for even further co-operation between the Colleges of technology and the Colleges of further education and the facilities which are already available in large industrial firms?

These consultations already go on. It is as a result of them that we have new courses introduced into the G.T.C.s.

I wonder if the Minister can say what progress he has made in overcoming trade union resistance to the acceptance of adult trainees from Government training centres? Is it true that the trading centre in Manchester has been closed because of the obstacles put up by the trade unions?

I do not want to anticipate a Question on exactly that point, which appears later on the Paper today.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the vetting committee of the Trades Union Congress is sufficiently effective to control the movement of wages and salaries during the period of extreme moderation; and if he will make a Statement of Government policy in this respect.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 5th December, 1967.—[Vol. 755, c. 289.]

That is a pretty poor reply. Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that Article 12 of the Letter of Intent sent to Mr. Schweitzer said specifically that vetting arrangements would be strengthened? Now in what way have the T.U.C. vetting arrangements been strengthened since that letter was sent? Can the House be told that in explicit and forthright terms?

I am afraid it cannot be told in explicit and forthright terms at this moment. The hon. Member will know that the T.U.C. is at this moment considering its incomes policy in this Situation. I am sure that when it is ready to make a Statement it will do so. Till that happens I believe it would be quite wrong for me to say what it may say or to comment on the probable outcome of its discussions.

asked the Minister of Labour what minimum level of earnings constitutes a lowest paid worker for the purposes of the Government's prices and incomes policy.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4th April, 1967.—[Vol. 744, c. 30.]

Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that those replies are so unsatisfactory that one comes back constantly to this question? Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this question is of such significance that it cannot be shuffled off on to the Aubrey Jones Board? In the Situation of post-devaluation, can the Government State quite clearly what, in their view, constitutes the earnings that qualify for the definition of the lowest paid worker?

Our view is and always has been that there is no simple answer, certainly no simple figure, which can be given. The Government accept that their Obligation is to look at individual industries and individual decisions and consider whether they cover the lowest paid workers on the case presented to them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1964 over 8 million people in this country were receiving National Assistance for payments at those levels or below? I would suggest that the Labour Government would not have thought those would be the only "lowest paid workers" since devaluation.

asked the Minister of Labour what immediate steps he proposes to take to promote the more efficient use of manpower in industry so as to help the increase in exports now necessary in the light of the devaluation of the £ Sterling.

The promotion of the more efficient use of manpower is a continuing and complex process which the Government have assisted through a number of measures. This policy will be continued and developed.

The Government are always paying lip service to this, but when are they really going to do something about restrictive practices? When will they act? Is not the matter now extremely urgent?

I am not sure what restrictive practices the hon. Member refers to. If they are some of those we have heard about over the last fortnight or month, I think he will remember that we regard our Obligation as one which involves waiting for the report of the Royal Commission on trade unions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I have tried to obtain Information by means of Parliamentary Questions about productivity of our own industries compared with that of our major overseas rivals, I have been told that no such information or comparison existed? How can the Government help productivity when they do not know this?

I am aware that the hon. Member has sought that information, but I am not surprised that he has found it impossible to come by it. Clearly the problem is so complex that international comparisons are meaningless. What I think I can assure him and the House is that we are doing all we can to build up productivity levels and to improve the position here in Britain.

asked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the effect of devaluation of the £ Sterling on the cost of living index; and what will be the resulting total additional cost in increased wages where wage rates are automatically linked to the index.

I estimate that the devaluation of the £ Sterling will raise the Index of Retail Prices by 2½ to 3 per cent. The effect of future index movements on cost-of-living sliding-scale arrangements for manual workers cannot be forecast with any precision, but it is estimated that it might add something of the order of £100,000 to the weekly wages bill.

Is it not a fact that prices are rising very rapidly at the moment, and has not the hon. Gentleman taken very clearly into account the consequential effects on wage rates of the movement of prices themselves?

No. We have considered all these things and the best estimate we can give to the House is 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will establish a Government training centre to re-train redundant miners in the Consett-Stanley area of County Durham.

A new centre is to be set up near Durham and is planned to Start training by the end of 1969. It will be available to retrain redundant miners from the Consett-Stanley area who want and are suitable for the accelerated training given at Government training centres. Two existing training centers—Felling and Tursdale—are within daily travelling distance of Consett and Stanley.

While appreciating my hon. Friend's Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that it will be necessary in the next three years to create 3,000 to 3,500 new jobs in the Consett-Stanley area? Is he satisfied that those training facilities will be sufficient for retraining on that scale?

We certainly understand the need to create new Jobs in the area and to make sure that some of those jobs are for skilled men and that there are skilled men available to All them. That is why we have accelerated the programme for training in all development areas.

asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of strikes in the last 18 months was in breach of collective agreements.

From the figures of strikes known to be official it can be estimated that between 90 and 95 per cent. of the strikes which occurred in the 18 months covering 1966 and the first half of 1967 were unofficial. Most of these strikes were in breach of procedura agreements.

When will the Minister of Labour introduce legislation to enable collective agreements to be enforceable at law?

The question presupposes that the Minister of Labour will introduce some legislation at some time. If that supposition is right, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he will know that we have no intention of that till after the report of the Royal Commission on trade unions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this quite extraordinary answer will cause great disquiet in the country and that the country is expecting the Government to take action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend?

I hope, if there is disquiet in the country, the country will get the matter clearly in perspective. For the first nine months of this year, the ratio of days lost through unofficial strikes as opposed to official strikes was about four to one. This is by no means the worst record. For the first nine months in 1960, for instance, the figure was six to one.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour movement and even the most intelligent Conservatives recognise that it is impossible to stop industrial disputes by legal action?

I think we need to see if the report of the Royal Commission on trade unions upholds that view.

The Minister has three times mentioned the Royal Commission on trade unions. Would he care to say when this Commission will report? Does he realise that this is a matter of the utmost urgency for the country?

We certainly realise the urgency of all these matters. I think the House will recall that my right hon. Friend once said that he looked forward to good advice in the spring, and that is the time when we hope to have something from the Royal Commission.

asked the Minister of Labour how many hours were lost in strikes in the first nine months of 1967; how many hours were lost by men and women made redundant in consequence of these strikes; and what were the comparable figures for the first nine months of each of the previous five years.

As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a Statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the modern arrangement of industry means that a large number of innocent people are put out of work when there is an unofficial strike, and will he consider, after the Royal Commission, a cooling-off period?

I am sure that the Royal Commission will consider it, and we will consider anything that it recommends. However, I could not give an undertaking before its report is published.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further Statement on the dispute between the British Airline Pilots Association and the Airline Corporations.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply given to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 11th December, 1967. My right hon. Friend has now appointed the Court of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson.—[Vol. 756, c. 11–12.]

May I ask the Minister two questions arising out of that? First, as a matter of clarification of the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry, to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute, could the Minister say what dispute? Is this dispute between B.O.A.C. and the Association, or does it cover B.E.A. pilots as well? Is he aware that, pending the report of this inquiry, there are no talks on any subject whatever between the Corporations and their pilots, and that the matter is one of very great urgency indeed? Would he press this upon his right hon. Friend?

My right hon. Friend accepts the urgency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be comforted to know that we understand that the outcome of the inquiry is likely to apply to B.E.A. as well as to B.O.A.C. As for talks between the parties during the time that the inquiry is being carried on, an undertaking has been given that, at least while the inquiry is taking place, there will be no industrial action by either side.

To try to avoid these disputes in the future, will my hon. Friend encourage top-level management in B.O.A.C. to take a closer interest in the Problems of the pilots than hitherto and not leave everything in that direction in the hands of second line executives?

Whatever encouragement is given to the Corporations, either by my right hon. Friend or by the President of the Board of Trade, had better await the outcome of the inquiry.

To ensure good working arrangements in future, would not the hon. Gentleman suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that if the Corporations were to appoint senior captains as members of their boards who could keep in dose touch with aircrew problems much of the troubles could be overcome?

Again, I would not like to endorse or accept suggestions before the inquiry is over.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the unemployment figure at Thorne is now 8·6 per cent.; and what action is being taken to provide full employment there.

I am aware that the percentage rate of unemployment for Thorne is high, but the figures are distorted by extensive travel to work movements in the area. My local officers are doing all they can to help those unemployed to find other work and to offer training facilities where appropriate. In considering applications for industrial development certificates, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will take full account of the level of unemployment in the area.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that if there was not considerable movement by workers in Thorne to employment elsewhere the figure would be much higher than 8·6 per cent.? Since his is the fifth Government Department to acknowledge this unemployment figure, will he tell the House which Department will do something about it?

I think all Government Departments want to do something about it. I accept that it is a totally unsatisfactory and completely indefensible figure.

asked the Minister of Labour how many people were unemployed in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available; and how many unfilled vacancies existed in Scotland on that date.

At November, 1967, there were 83,200 registered as wholly unemployed and 2,700 as temporarily stopped; 14,400 notified vacancies remained unfilled.

As a good number of these were in shipbuilding, and as two Clyde yards are building their last ships, with no Orders to come, will the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot afford to turn down valuable and major Orders from South Africa, and will he tell his right hon. Friend so?

If the future of the British shipbuilding industry has to depend upon orders of that kind alone, then it has no future—[Interruption.] But I believe that the Clyde, the Tyne, the Mersey and the rest of the British shipyards are in a better position today, as a result of what this Government have done, to obtain a greater proportion of the world's new ships.

Can my hon. Friend specify where these unemployed are and what are the areas where there are unfilled vacancies?

Not without notice. I have given the figure for the whole of Scotland.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he cleared the first part of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) with the Cabinet?

No. The hon. Gentleman asked for my opinion and I gave it.

asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of persons in employment in Scotland in October, 1964, and at the latest available date; and what percentage change this represented.

Estimates of the total numbers employed in Scotland were made at mid-year only up to June, 1965, and subsequently at quarterly intervals.

Between June, 1964, and March, 1967, the latest date for which information is available, the numbers decreased by 1·1 per cent. from 2,132,000 to 2,108,000.

Is it not deplorable that we do not have more up-to-date figures? These figures are already six months late and they show a very unsatisfactory trend under the present Government. Should we not have something more up to date to show how much worse the Situation has become since March?

I do not know whether that is possible, but we will look into it.

Could my hon. Friend say how far that reduction has been affected by the advance of technological industry in Scotland?

No. I would say, quite frankly, that much of this reduction is a consequence of the neglect of Scotland over the years.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will seek powers to enable him to ensure that men trained in engineering in Government training centres in Scotland are not prevented from taking employment for which their training has qualified them by union regulations.

We are not aware of any union regulations which prevent the employment of men trained in Government training centres in their training trades. We have the co-operation at national level of the unions concerned in the acceptance of men trained in engineering, but there are restrictions in a few areas including parts of Scotland. We are continuing our efforts to overcome these by persuasion, through the good Offices of the T.U.C. and the executives of the unions concerned.

Is the hon. Member aware that that is a pretty unsatisfactory answer, in the light of the correspondence that I have sent to his right hon. Friend? Will he study that correspondence again and confirm that this shows a disgraceful Situation persisting in this matter in eastern Scotland?

I am aware of the correspondence that the hon. Member has sent to my right hon. Friend. The difficulties that I outlined in my Answer occur in areas within the hon. Member's constituency—

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to be on his feet at the same time as the Minister?

It is not in order.

Certainly the Problems to which the hon. Member referred occur in certain parts of his constituency, but the letter that he wrote to my right hon. Friend did not include an entirely accurate description of the position.

asked the Minister of Labour what Provision is made, under the industrial training boards, for supplementary language tuition for immigrant trainees who may seek it to make their training more effective.

Facilities for language tuition for immigrants are provided by the education Service and industrial training boards are free to recognise for grant purposes any costs incurred.

As a language difficulties are a main obstacle for many young immigrants who have not had much education in this country, will the hon. Gentleman, in consultation with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science, not take more positive action towards helping them?

If the hon. Gentleman examines the recommendations of the 21 industrial training boards, he will find that virtually all of them allow language tuition, as long as the course is appropriate. The only bar placed on grant is according to the nature of the course. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Situation meets his demand.

Have the recommendations in this respect been followed by all the boards concerned?

My information is that language tuition of some sort rates for grant in every board. However, I emphasise the words "of some sort". The recommendations vary from board to board, as one would anticipate, because boards are supposed to meet the specific demands of their own industries.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that Gibraltarians seeking vouchers to take up work in the United Kingdom are being given reasonable facilities to do so; and how such facilities compare with those enjoyed by Spaniards seeking work in this country.

To the first part of the Question the answer is, Yes, As regards the second part, the circumstances differ so much that comparisons cannot properly be made.

Does the hon. Gentleman not recall his answer to a Question on 30th November which showed that the Proportion of Gibraltarian applicants getting work in this country was far lower than the proportion of Spanish applicants? Does he not consider this sort of discrimination against Commonwealth Citizens to be most unfair, particularly at a time when Gibraltarians are under such intolerable pressures?

The circumstances are not identical. Once a Commonwealth Citizen has a permit given to him he can, if he likes, remain here for ever. A Spaniard gets a permit for only 12 months and can be sent back, though it is possible for it to be reviewed. If the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the difference between those who can come and stay here for ever and those who are granted vouchers for only 12 months, he is not facing up to the realities of the Situation.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that, since special concessions have been made for the unemployed of Malta who wish to come here, there is a precedent for making special concessions for Gibraltarians, especially when only a handful would want to come?

We are looking closely at the possibility of a special allocation to dependent territories.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement on the dispute in the municipal bus industry, with particular reference to the restoration of national negotiating machinery in that industry.

As a result of direct negotiations between representatives of the employers' federation and the trade unions, an agreement was reached on 14th December which is leading to a return to normal working within the industry. The agreement covers improvements in the terms and conditions of employment and commits both sides to continuance of discussions within the National Joint Council. The agreement will, of course, be subject to review by the Government under the prices and incomes policy in the light of the report of the N.B.P.I. on pay and productivity in the industry which is due to be published this week.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread satisfaction that there will be that this damaging dispute is now ending? Would he clarify the extent to which local negotiations for payments above the national basic minimum will be constrained by the forthcoming report to which he has referred?

I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend. We cannot make any comments about constraints which the report will impose until we have seen it.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to protect the public from such disruption of essential municipal transport Services as has occurred throughout the country, including the Wirral peninsula, Cheshire, in recent weeks.

I do not think it would be right to consider this in advance of the report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the bus strike which has affected my own constituency since l0th November is still on? In these winter months, is it not essential for the Government to ensure that the public, including old-age pensioners and school children, are not made the pawns of disputes of this character?

These are very complex issues. Even if we were to accept the contention that essential industries should be treated in this way, there would still be a dispute about what constituted an essential industry. I understand that the Passenger Transport Board is being examined by the Royal Com- mission in the light of this definition. Therefore, it is not a decision which we should rush.

Will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend that the public are not prepared to go on tolerating the leisurely procedures of this Government in this matter and really demand action more quickly? Even now, is it not possible to ask the Royal Commission to produce a short interim report on one or two of the more essential but nevertheless easier matters on which it is to recommend?

I am sure that no one is suggesting that in December we should ask for an interim report when a full report is expected in the spring of next year.

Concerning public opinion, no Member of this House is more in touch with it than my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for encouraging apprentice training in development areas.

We are making a new Provision, through industrial training Boards, for grants to employers in development areas who provide additional off-the-job training facilities for apprentices or technicians or otherwise increase their numbers of such trainees. There are two alternative types of grant—a capital grant of 60 per cent. of the relevant costs of additional training places or per capita grants of £100 a year for up to five years in respect of any approved trainees in excess of the numbers under training on 1st January, 1968. Under the latter scheme, an additional per capita grant of £50 will be available in mid-1968 for employers who increase their number of approved trainees by then.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very welcome news. Can he say whether the grants which he has announced are additional to the training grants already available from the industrial training boards?

These grants from a totally new incentive for employers in development areas. The new grants will be supplementary to the wide range of grants already available for industrial training boards, and will therefore afford a potent Stimulus for increased training in these important areas.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the new grants are to be limited to apprentices and technicians, and are not available, for example, for adult retrainees?

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is already a large apparatus of grants available for training in the development areas, including grants for some upgrading training of adults. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced a comprehensive addition to that range of grants. This is the penultimate item in that addition, and more is yet to come.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the latest figure in total numbers and percentage for unemployment in the South-West; and how this compares with the equivalent month in 1962.

The figures were 76,700 and 2·7 per cent. in November, 1967, and 27,900 and 2·2 per cent. in November, 1962.

Is the Minister aware that this is a rise of 0·3 per cent. from one month to the next, and, at this rate of increase, is it not time that the Government took positive steps to check unemployment?

The figures which I gave are for comparative months in 1962 and 1967.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is not the total number of unemployed in this region, but the fact that a high proportion of them is concentrated in the far South-West, in the South-West Development Area?

It is precisely because we recognise that that the grants have been made availble to the development areas.

asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to have the report on manpower demand for the next 10 years; and if he will publish the report.

The Government are as a matter of course examining future employment prospects in all industries as part of their assessment of developments in the economy generally, but no special report is being prepared on the next 10 years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the Opposition to the introduction of adult trained people arises from a sense of insecurity among those already engaged in industry? If an accurate study could be issued, surely it would reduce this sense of insecurity, and therefore allow for a much wider acceptance of adult, retrained employees?

I readily accept that until we can remove the uncertainty we cannot get men to give up practices which they think are self-protecting.

asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the increased number of industrial accidents, what action he is taking to improve the service provided by his factory inspectors.

A number of steps are being taken to strengthen the Inspectorate, including the establishment of a new class of construction inspector for inspection and advisory work in the construction industry; the recruitment of a number of fire officers for fire certification of premises under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, an increase in the staff of the specialist branches and the extension of the scheme started in 1965 under which Departmental officers are attached to the Inspectorate as assistant inspectors.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I ask when the schemes will Start?

Starts have been made in particular industries.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to look at the whole question of an occupational health service in reviewing the work of his Factory Inspectorate and its possible relationship to the Ministry of Health?

We will look at it, yes.

asked the Minister of Labour how many building trade operatives have been injured while working at their trade in 1966 and 1967.

Thirty-seven thousand, five hundred and fifty eight in 1966. The experience of the first nine months of this year suggests that the total number of reported accidents will slightly increase, but that there is likely to be a significant and very welcome drop in the number of fatal accidents.

Would not the Minister agree that that is a large number? Will he say how many people receive training before they undertake this type of work?

I could not give the hon. Lady that figure without notice, but I assure her that it is an increasing number.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a Statement on his talks with the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and nationalised industries on the wide acceptance of adult trainees.

My right hon. Friend met representatives of these bodies on November 7th, when they agreed that an increase in the training of adults for skilled occupations was necessary in the development areas.

Detailed information is now being assembled about the places and industries in the development areas where there is difficulty in arranging such training. When the information is available we will have discussions with the two sides of industry on the further action that can be taken.

I heard only the tail end of that Answer. Will the Minister bear in mind that discussions on this matter have gone on for long enough and that it is time the trade unions were convinced by the Government, or by someone, that these trainees are acceptable to industry?

The Government have made their attitude on this matter clear, and I am sure that the next few months should be characterised by negotiations, rather than by bellicose action which may imperil the progress which has been made.