asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure that skilled personnel rendered redundant by the cancellation of orders for Buccaneer aircraft for the Royal Navy are redeployed so that their skill and experience are put to the maximum use in the interest of the Government's export drive.

Yes, Sir. My officers will do what they can to bring to their attention vacancies in export and other important industries.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his past experience of matters of this kind gives grounds for much optimism? Is he aware that the Americans are now proposing to fly Army trucks to South Africa, and is it not time that we reconsidered the decision about Buccaneer aircraft?

I do not know that I am called upon to answer questions about the trucks, but our experience in the past has been that personnel have been absorbed at a fairly rapid rate. Of the skilled personnel to whom the hon. Member refers in connection with the Buccaneer, so far only 35 trained personnel have been made redundant, of whom about 23 have already been placed.

asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union about the Agricultural Training Board; and what reply he has sent.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14th February to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell)—[Vol. 758, c. 1348-1350.]

While recognising that the hon. Gentleman anticipated his Answer to this Question only last Thursday, may I ask him to answer my Question?

My right hon. Friend has had a number of representations from the N.F.U. including the original request that the Board should be set up in the first place. The most recent suggestion came out on Thursday, when the N.F.U. suggested that a good case could be made out for a Board, but the Board had anticipated that sugestion at a meeting on the previous day by itself suggesting a joint meeting.

asked the Minister of Labour how many farmers have failed to reply to the Agricultural Training Board's questionnaires.

This is a matter for the Board, but I understand that about 90 per cent. of employers have replied to the questionnaire.

asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the many representations from farmers against the Agricultural Training Board, if he will arrange for a poll of producers into the desirability of its continuance.

No, Sir.

In the light of the Minister's statement last week and the need for the Board to live in harmony with the farming community if it is to succeed, will the hon. Gentleman think again about it, especially as the farming community are still upset even now?

I have said many times, and I welcome the opportunity to say again, that the Board can succeed only if it lives in harmony with the farming community. I hope that, as a basis for future harmony, the statement made by the Board after its meeting last week, offering to have new talks with the industry if the industry wished, will be followed up successfully.

When he is looking at the structure of the Board, will the hon. Gentleman look into the fact that there are no farmer members on the Board from the East Midlands and put that matter right?

The hon. Gentleman wrote to me about that, and I hoped that I had convinced him that there were, in fact, members on the Board from the East Midlands.

No.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the percentage movement of labour between service to manufacturing industry since the passing of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1967.

Provisional estimates of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Great Britain show a decrease of about 5 per cent. between September, 1966 and January, 1968. Comparable estimates are not available for the service industries.

Did not the hon. Gentleman say that this figure would be available early in 1968? Is it not quite clear now that Government policies, and particularly the S.E.T., are now enabling labour to be redeployed into productive industry, particularly as 395,000 equals the 5 per cent. about which the Minister spoke?

I have told the House, and perhaps I have told the hon. Gentleman, on previous occasions, that the full effect of the S.E.T. cannot yet be felt, but that our certain impression is that it is doing the job it set out to do.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of persons unemployed in Sunderland and the number of unfilled vacancies at the latest available date.

Provisional figures show that on 12th February, 1968, 3,205 persons were registered as unemployed in the area covered by Sunderland Employment Exchange, and on 7th February, 1968, 272 notified vacancies remained unfilled

In view of the persistently high level of unemployment in Sunderland, and our particular difficulties there, will my hon. Friend ensure that we are row considered as eligible for designation as a special area?

My right hon. Friend knows that all the benefits of the Local Employment Acts and the additional benefits for the development areas are available to Sunderland, and I am hoping that what has happened in the North-East generally this last month in the Nay of new industry determining to go there will apply to Sunderland very shortly.

Will not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a Northern Region unemployment figure of 62,000 means that unemployment there is at a frightening level? Does he, as a north country man and Member of Parliament, recall that some of his Labour Party colleagues in 1966 claimed that Labour had cured unemployment in the region in 17 months?

Of course, I am aware of the acute problem in the NorthEast—it faces me every time I go to my constituency—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman, likewise, will agree that the announcements made since Christmas about new industry going there augurs well for the future.

asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received regarding the activities of certain organisations which are obtaining on behalf of prospective employers personal details of individuals applying for jobs; what steps he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the debate on this subject on 5th February.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance today that he will keep a very careful watch on these rather dubious organisations which inform on prospective employees for money?

Yes, I give that assurance and, because of my concern about certain aspects of this situation, I propose to have talks with the C.B.I.

asked the Minister of Labour if he has concluded his meetings with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress about the future of the Wages Council system; and if he will make a statement on the results.

These discussions have not yet been completed.

In view of the widespread anxiety about the thinly disguised ambitions of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to usurp the duties of the wages councils, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of having these discussions speedily concluded and the views of the Government made known?

As far as I am concerned, the speedier the better. The hon. Member will appreciate that this matter is one of very great importance to the Trades Union Congress, which has been considering it for some time. This is one of the aspects which the Royal Commission will be considering and on which I hope it will give me guidance as to how we can get rid of the difficulties more quickly.

asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to review the future employment position in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement.

The effect of recent redundancies and defence cuts on the future employment position in Portsmouth cannot yet be fully assessed. Since the war, Portsmouth has been markedly successful in attracting more diversified industry, and there is every reason to suppose that the Greater Portsmouth Area will continue to attract further industrial development.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the recent changes in Government defence policy and the recent closure of Hawker Siddeley in the area show that there is still too great a dependence on the defence industry? Can he give encouragement to alternative industry in Portsmouth?

That encouragement is given in the sense that, even though Portsmouth is not a development area, the Board of Trade gives industrial development certificates when they are sought.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will seek to amend the Bank Holiday Act, 1871 to make it obligatory on employers to grant the six annual bank holidays or make compensatory provisions either in payment or time-off in lieu.

No, Sir.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that there are many workers who are not protected by trade unions or wages councils and do not, therefore, enjoy these benefits? I submitted a case of a constituent employed by the chain of betting shops owned by the Mark Lane firm.

I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. I am aware that it operates in other cases as well, but this does not seem to be an instance in which one part of the employer's agreement should be subtracted and made subject to statutory controls.

asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for developing the use of programmed learning techniques for industrial training; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend 'to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 29th January—[Vol. 757. c. 210.]

Would not my hon. Friend agree, however, that in view of the volume of training which has to be undertaken and the shortage of specialist training instructors in many fields, the use of programmed learning techniques has to be undertaken on a very extensive scale?

I certainly agree with that, but it has to be remembered that because of the social as well as the economic obligations of training centres, a rather special form of programmed learning is demanded. That is what is being investigated at the moment.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for each industrial training board, details of the amounts raised in levies and paid out in training grants; and what steps he is taking to step up the total amount of training undertaken.

This information is already published in the annual reports of industrial training boards, which are laid before Parliament in accordance Section 8 of the Industrial Training Act. For the financial year ended 31st March, 1967, the total amount raised in levy was nearly£97 million and the total amount paid in grants by that time was just over£83 million. Ten million pounds was reserved for outstanding claims. The totals of both levy and grant are expected to be considerbaly higher in the current financial year. A prime purpose of the work of the training boards, including The levy and grant system, is to encourage increased training to meet industry's needs.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, while the position is satisfactory as a whole, in view of the observations of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions he should look at what further steps could be taken to increase training? Would he not also agree that in certain industrial and service categories we can get the benefit of training only if we also have some measure of compulsion?

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of the debate in which my right hon. Friend and I made statements about our attitude towards the Report to which the Association contributed. It is not our view that compulsion should he extended, but that the organisation should be able to get on with its work.

When may we expect to have a report on a training board for the printing and publishing industry?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Labour what reduction in the previously planned budget for the Government training programme will result from the policy announced by the Government on 16th January.

asked the Minister of Labour what changes in the expansion programme for Government training centres will result during 1968 and 1969, respectively, from the latest restrictions on public expenditure.

No reductions are contemplated in the programme of construction of new centres. I would refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in the House on 6th February about our Government Training Centre programme.

Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that cuts in the planned programme are to take place? Does he not agree also that it is nit skilled trained manpower that our future depends? Is it not a grave criticism of the Government's policies that they are forced to cut their training programme?

It would be a grave criticism if we were doing that, but, as my Answer was intended to convey, we are not.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary be quite specific about this? The Question is not about programmes for new centres. It is about the budget for the training programme.

A Question about total costs appears later on the Order Paper and I did not want to pre-empt the hon. Member who had tabled that Question.

asked the Minister of Labour what the total budget will be for all activities in the Government training programme during 1968; and how this compares with 1967.

asked the Minister of Labour what the total expenditure of his Department on Government training centres will be during 1968; and how this compares with 1967.

This information is not readily available for calendar years. Net Ministry of Labour expenditure on Government training centres for the financial year 1966-67 was£6, 652, 000; for 1967-68 it is expected to be£8,760,000. The corresponding figures for all activities in the Government's training programme are£9,322,000 and£14,251,000 respectively. The estimates for the financial year 1968-69 will be placed before Parliament shortly.

Have the hon. Gentleman's estimates for the training programme been cut in the recent series of Government cuts?

The estimates for next year will be an increase on last year's figure.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that as the programme develops, the needs of East Anglia and of the East Midlands will be borne in mind?

Of course, I can give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman will know from our G.T.C. programme that they are already borne in mind. Many of the needs of East Anglia and the East Midlands must be met by the industrial training boards, not least for that geographical area by the Agricultural Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board.

Does my hon. Friend realise that, in spite of the deplorable attitude to training adopted by the Tories when they were in office, we are very dissatisfied with what is happening now? We want more and more money spent on it.

My hon. Friend is getting more and more money spent on it, and I hope that when he realises the magnitude of that "more and more money" he will be satisfied.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of Government training centres, the number of places available, the number of trainees in training, and the total number who had completed training, in

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an assurance that applicants for industrial training in Scotland will be allowed to retain in their application forms those parts which will enable such applicants to remain in Scotland, and that the applications of those who retain those parts will receive the same consideration as other applications.

All applicants for training at Government Training Centres are asked to state where they would be prepared to accept suitable employment after training. It may not be possible to offer those who limit their mobility to certain areas the range of jobs available to more mobile applicants. With this qualification those who wish to remain in Scotland after training receive exactly the same consideration as other applicants.

Yes, Sir.

While I am very grateful for that answer, can my hon. Friend explain why training facilities were run down so criminally between 1952 and 1964, and does he not agree that some of our present difficulties of shortage of skilled labour in Scotland arose from this fact?

I do not think it either possible or appropriate for me to comment on what happened between 1952 and 1964, but I agree with the second part of the question, which makes clear that many of our difficulties in increasing the amount of Government training and its acceptability to industry would not have been met had it not been for the rundown during those years.

Has my hon. Friend received any evidence from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) to support her statement on 18th December that Scottish applicants would not be considered for training unless they struck these provisions out of their application forms?

I have had no evidence from the hon. Lady to that effect but am loath to give a categorical assurance that she is wrong without having discussed the matter with her. She has not put the problem to me, and so far as I understand, the problem does not exist. My enthusiasm is to see that Scotsmen are given a chance to train in Scotland. The reference in my earlier Answer to moving out of Scotland was merely a reference to giving some of the men a chance to train south of the Border and then return to Scotland.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) when he expects the National Joint Advisory Council's Report on the Factories Act, as it applies to women workers, to be completed and available for publication;

The Working Party appointed by my National Joint Advisory Council to examine the relevance to modern conditions of Part VI of the Factories Act, 1961 and associated legislation has completed its work and its report should be ready for submission to the meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council in April. I cannot say what proposals will be put forward regarding the restrictions on the working hours of women employed in factories until the Council has considered the Working Party's report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the restrictions at an early date. Will he give an undertaking that equal pay will be a prerequisite in the removal of existing restrictions which hedge round women's employment?

I am very sorry, but I could not.

asked the Minister of Labour, if he will state the numbers, by sexes and trades, of the persons now unemployed in the city of Aberdeen and the figures for each of the last five years.

I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of figures for January, 1968. Correspcnding figures from 1963 to 1967 were given to my hon. Friend in answer to a similar Question on 6th February, 1967.

I thank the Minister in advance for the figures he is to give. Will he use his good offices with the present President of the Board of Trade with a view to asking him to continue the useful work by way of advance factories, trade, industry and commerce in Aberdeen initiated and carried out by the previous occupant at the Board of Trade?

One Board of Trade factory was completed in November, another is due to be completed very shortly, and there is a projected factory to be built by the local authority. I hope that all these will get tenants very quickly.

asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to seek to implement a minimum wage guarantee.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) on Monday, 29th January 1968.—[Vol. 757, c. 216.]

In view of the fact that the Government have promised to safeguard those who will have to withstand the burden of devaluation and other measures, when will my hon. Friend do something about the most difficult group of all, those on desperately low wages?

I am sure my hon. Friend knows that it is Government policy to assist the lowest-paid, partly through the criteria specifically directed to them in the Prices and Incomes policy and partly through the system of social security. He should know, if he is advocating a national minimum wage of about£15 a week, that the minimum cost to the country in a whole year would be£2,220 million, which is a sum not likely to be spent at present.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is something wrong in a system whereby a man in full-time employment and with family responsibilities is sometimes worse off than a man on State assistance?

Of course, there is something wrong with that system and the Government understand the necessity to put it right, but it is not something which can be done in the short run.

asked the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that a number of men will be redundant as a result of the closure of North Walbottle Colliery, what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient suitable unfilled vacancies are available in the area.

My employment staff will be making continuous efforts to find vacancies for any of these men who need help in obtaining new employment.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that if a tenant had been found for the advance factory standing empty on the Stanners trading estate, Newburn, the job of the Ministry of Labour would have been easier in reallocating these redundant miners?

Of course, I agree and the Board of Trade will do everything it can to obtain a tenant for the factory. Of the 524 employed at this colliery, 283 will be offered alternative employment in other collieries, 72 will be retained on salvage work and 166 will become redundant.

asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has had from men who may be redundant when North Walbottle Colliery is closed, for retraining or rehabilitation courses; and what reply he has sent.

We have had no representations so far. Those miners who want and are suitable for training could obtain it at the Felling and Killingworth Government Training Centres where waiting time is short for most trades. Men needing industrial rehabilitation will be able to take a course at the Killingworth Industrial Rehabilitation Unit.

Will my hon. Friend consider having his officials hold pithead consultations well in advance of closures to let miners know precisely what training facilities exist for them?

That course of action would present substantial difficulties, not the least of which is that it is not yet known which men will be made redundant and which men will be re-absorbed. The Ministry of Labour cannot give any specific help until that information is available.

asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has to make a Government contribution to a voluntary severance pay scheme in Great Britain's docks.

While stressing the need for suitable arrangements to be made within the industry as soon as possible, I have informed the National Association of Port Employers that I see no case for a Government grant towards the cost of its proposed voluntary severance payments scheme.

Does not the Minister agree that increased productivity in the docks is a major need for Britain? Is it not very disappointing that owing to the economic situation the Government cannot make a contribution?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition, but it must be borne in mind that the docks are not a declining industry as is the case with some industries. The£2¾ million initially required is still less than 5 per cent. of the wage bill.

If the Government are unable to support a voluntary scheme, should not the docks industry be brought within the national redundancy payments scheme?

It is certainly a matter which is worth considering, but there are problems. One problem is that the docks industry has never paid any contributions to the fund. I am giving consideration to this point. It will be understood that the docks industry was excluded from the scheme at its own request.

asked the Minister of Labour what was the cost to his Department of the administration of Selective Employment Tax and repayments during 1967.

The estimated cost to the Ministry of making payments of premiums and refunds of Selective Employment Tax in 1967 was about£370,000.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at least now satisfied that this is the most expensive and wasteful method of collecting taxes that has ever been devised?

I am satisfied that the Selective Employment Tax is doing the job for which it is intended very well indeed.

asked the Minister of Labour what he expects to be the cost to his Department of the administration of Selective Employment Tax and repayments during 1968.

I estimate that the cost to the Ministry of making payments of premiums and refunds of Selective Employment Tax in 1968 will be about£495,000.

I am grateful to know that the cost will be about£80,000 less than that for 1967, but is not this a very high cost of administration?

I am sorry that I did not make it clear to the House on the previous Question that I regard the Selective Employment Tax, and certainly the cost of its administration, as money well spent.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary keeps on saying that he has evidence that this Tax is achieving its designed purpose. Why, then, has the purpose been changed by removing the premium?

If the right hon. Gentleman rereads the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer some weeks ago, he will see that one of the reasons why the selective employment premium was removed was, not that it was being a failure, but that it was being too successful.

Where has the margin of saving of about£80,000 over 1967 occurred?

By transferring the collection to a computer.

asked the Minister of Labour what effect the recently announced restrictions on public expenditure will have on plans for recruitment to the factory inspectorate.

The restrictions on public expenditure will not affect recruitment to the current establishment of the factory inspectorate. They will, however, slow down the rate at which I can enlarge the inspectorate's establishment.

I am grateful to the Minister for the first part of his Answer. Will he press as hard as he can to ensure that the slow-down in the rate of increase will be as small as possible?

Yes; I will certainly bring all the pressure I can to bear at the appropriate time.

asked the Minister of Labour which activities of his Department will be affected by the cuts in public expenditure announced on 16th January.

No cuts directly affecting my Department were announced on 16th January, but plans for the development of the Ministry's activities have been formulated with due regard to the present economic stringency.

Would the Minister be good enough to consider two possible economies that his Department could make—first, to abolish the Selective Employment Tax; and, secondly, to abolish the Agricultural Training Board?

In both cases, "No".

asked the Minister of Labour what postponement of the development of the Occupational Guidance Service will result from the recent restrictions on public expenditure.

Expansion will continue but at a slower rate than previously planned.

Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary assure us that he will resume the previous faster rate as soon as the economic situation permits, because we attach great importance to this?

I can certainly give that assurance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that this means increasing the number of civil servants. In a recent debate the Government were subjected to a Motion of censure because of the numbers we already had in employment in the Civil Service.

asked the Minister of Labour how many employment exchanges he estimates will be open by the end of 1968; and how this compares with the total on 31st December, 1967.

The number of employment exchanges on 31st December, 1967 was 902. No change is expected in 1968.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that he will be able to cope with the extra work that his staff will be undertaking in the coming years with the existing numbers of exchanges?

We are satisfied that we shall be able to maintain the same standard of service as we have given up to now.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will now take steps to give Gibraltar an immigration quota on the same lines as that for Malta.

I would ask the hon. Member to await a statement which I hope to be able to make in the near future. In the meantime, he may like to know that last year 32 applications were received for vouchers for Gibraltarians and 20 were issued, compared with 52 and 16 respectively in 1966.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he bear in mind that what the Gibraltarians really want is exemption altogether from the Commonwealth Immigrants Act?

I am fully aware of that. Sir.

asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the total number of civil servants who will be employed by his Department on 31st December, 1968; and how this compares with the equivalent date in 1967.

asked the Minister of Labour what decrease in recruitment to his Department during 1968 will result from the policy announced by the Government on 16th January.

The total staff of my Department on 31st December, 1967, was 29,920, including 970 industrial staff. On 31st December, 1968, I expect to have some 500 fewer non-industrial civil servants. Not all the decrease will result from the policy announced on 16th January.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give slightly more detailed information about which of the functions of his Department will have to stand the greatest burden as a result of the cuts which he has announced?

I do not think that there will be any burden on any section. There will, I am sure, be a fall in unemployment, which will give us some relief there; and there will be a saving of staff as a result of the introduction of payment of selective employment refunds and premia by computer.

As the staff of his Ministry rose by over 1,500 between July and October, what has changed so dramatically so that a decrease is now possible?

When I bring blessings, they are not well received. There has been no dramatic change. This is our assessment for the coming year, and I had hoped that it would be well received.

How many are employed in administering the Selective Employment Tax—the question I missed a minute ago?

Yes, I remember that. I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to answer a previous question on this, but the answer is "None".

asked the Minister of Labour why, on 27th January, he took administrative action under Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act to postpone the payment of£1 per week award to be paid from 4th February to bus drivers and conductors in the City of Nottingham.

Because the Government were not satisfied that the proposed increase was consistent with prices and incomes policy.

Does the Minister believe that, by putting an obstacle in the way of Nottingham Corporation's attempt to overcome the problems of transport staff shortage, he is helping the growth of the economy? If he does not—I do not believe that he does—will he give an undertaking not to put further obstacles in the way of implementing this award?

I could give no guarantee that I shall not impede settlements which are out of accord with the prices and incomes policy. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions Nottingham, but this was part of a national settlement which was quite out of accord—it was 7.8 per cent. and without any element of productivity at all.

If my right hon. Friend will not endorse this award—he may have good reasons for not doing so—how do the Government propose to deal with the position of lower-paid workers? What is their policy to deal with that situation?

I have asked the parties to go back to the Prices and Incomes Board to discuss this matter in detail. One of the dilemmas to be faced, in talking about the Prices and Incomes Board and the lower-paid worker, is that in this case, although I fully concede the point about the number of hours worked, the average gross pay of municipal drivers was£22 6s. 5d. and of conductors 19 1ls. 11d. In the circumstances, I asked the parties to go to the Prices and Incomes Board to discuss this fact, and, more particularly, whether they would sit down and talk about increased productivity.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will instruct the Professional Executive Register to refuse to provide names of persons on that register to employers who use the services of management inquiry agents.

This would be impracticable.

May we have the Minister's assurance that those who may in the past have been in trouble with the police may nevertheless put their names on the register and have them put forward for suitable jobs as they arise?

Yes, Sir. I tried to make this clear in answer to Question No. 5. This is one of the things I resent most about it. If lads who may have made a mistake are to be hounded for it throughout the whole of their working lives, it is a very poor tribute to conditions in this country.

Will the Minister make names on the register available to bona-fide employment agencies and consultants so that a wider range of opportunities for employment may be given to these people when seeking jobs?

That matter has been raised before. The great difficulty is to determine which are bona-fide agencies. There are so many, and I do not want the task of saying that one is respectable and another is not.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that responsibility in this type of activity rests squarely with employers, and will he say what action he can take to combat the menace? We cannot solve the problem by saying that names should be taken off the official register or that they be withheld. Something more positive must be done.

I have tried to explain that it is extremely difficult for the Government to contemplate legislation which in itself might be impracticable in enforcement. But my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the duty of identifying past character and the capabilities of people he is minded to employ rests squarely on the employer. He should make inquiries, as the vast majority do, of the previous employer.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the question of equal pay for women.

No, Sir.

Why not? One appreciates that it might be difficult in present economic circumstances to implement this objective, but, at the same time, does not the Minister think that to take this course and put the matter before the Prices and Incomes Board would at least show the Government's support for this proposal and for its ultimate implementation?

The course suggested by my hon. Friend would in many ways be a duplication of what is happening now. He will know that the Government have already accepted the commitment in principle to equal pay—

Not before time.

Yes, I know it is a long time—but what is in question is the difficulty of implementing the principle in present circumstances. A study of the technical problems and an effort to come to terms on the divergence of opinion within the unions themselves and between industry and the unions is now going on, and I await the report.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will amend the redundancy pay scheme, in view of the fact that the fund is now£8 million in deficit.

We have no current plans for amending the Redundancy Payments Act, but we are consulting with industry about the financial position of the fund.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, every time he tells us that he is putting up the contributions or something like that, the fund goes more into deficit? Does he realise that this happens because he is being taken for a ride—it is a sort of bonanza for anyone lucky enough to get a bogus sacking—and he must do something about it soon? Will he do it now?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It is not when announcements of increased contributions are made that the fund goes further into deficit but when I come to the House and ask for permission to allow the fund to go further into deficit. Moreover, he is absolutely wrong in that part of his supplementary question when he described the fund as a sort of bonanza. That is totally out of line with the facts.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the one or two instances where it has appeared that the fund is being abused, namely, where there is a transfer of the name and occupation of an employer, and, very often, golden handshakes being given out in the main to executive grades?

With a scheme of this complexity and magnitude, there will be individual occasions when unscrupulous advantage is taken of the fund, but these are by no means frequent. I think I know the example to which my hon. Friend refers, and my information is that it is a very peculiar one depending entirely on the firm in question being set up after a franchise and the franchise running out at a specific time.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, while there is universal support for the purpose of this scheme, there is some doubt, in the light of experience as to whether it is quite the best way of achieving that purpose?

I know that feeling very well, and the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have expressed it for some time. All I can tell the House is that the financial stability of the fund is under consideration. I am sure that we all want to ensure that it continues on a sound financial basis.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many new jobs were created in Scotland in 1967; and how many of these were in manufacturing industries;

The only estimates of jobs in Scotland analysed by industry are those for each mid-year. The first opportunity to measure the change between June, 1966, and June, 1967, will occur later this month when the June, 1967, figures become available.

As the White Paper on the., Scottish economy, sometimes also known as the Scottish Plan, was closely geared to the creation of new jobs, will the, Minister try to get this information much sooner, so that we can see what the effects of the Selective Employment Tax have been?

The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait much longer for the figures to which I referred, but I wish that he would understand that the more detailed information hon. Members demand, the more staff is required to supply it. Hon. Members cannot one day ask us to give them detailed information which demands a great deal of manpower and next day call for a reduction in the Civil Service.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) on what grounds he decides whether or not to issue permits for foreign singers to undertake operatic roles at the Royal Opera House;

asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many of his staff, of what grades, are employed in making comparative evaluations of British and foreign artistes; how many foreign artistes have been banned during the past 12 months on the grounds that British artistes were as good if he is satisfied that the method of evaluation adopted is consistent with the highest standards of artistic judgment; and if he will make a statement;

Permits for foreign opera singers to perform in this country are issued in the light of the known circumstances with due regard to the availability of British artistes. My staff are not required to assess the artistic merits of the artistes concerned and no staff are engaged on comparative evaluations of this kind. Permission was given for Mr. Richard Cassilly to appear at Covent Garden because no suitable British singer was available to undertake this particular rôle, but for the B.B.C. production of "Aida" it was ascertained, after consultation with the British Actors Equity Association, that a British artiste of international repute, accustomed to singing the role of Radames, was available to undertake the engagement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Richard Cassilly was announced to sing only that one performance, which was the one being televised? Does the Ministry of Labour now keep a roster of all operatic roles with a little tick against them where it is considered that suitable British singers are available? Are we to understand that if in the future a performance is televised, as we hope it will be, changes may be required in the cast already singing at Covent Garden because the Ministry considers that if it is televised different conditions appertain?

Order. Too long—even for "Aida".

I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not have a list that we tick. During 1967 there were 112 applications for opera singers and only one was refused. Of a total of 7,323 applications for artists of all kinds, only 40 were refused—just over one half of one per cent.

How does the Minister decide whether suitable British performers are available if he cannot assess their artistic merits?

That is why we must consult. The difficulty was greater in this case because, as I understand it, there was no conflict as to who had the better voice. It was a question of what the B.B.C. called the physical appearance. Whether that meant that one artiste was tall or short, or whether he looked better in tights, I do not know.

Does not the high standing of Covent Garden depend on the fact that it presents international opera on the highest level? Is it not quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to interfere in the choice of artistes, and is it not damaging to the standing of our greatest opera house?

Let me be very clear about this. This is the first occasion I have had to face a situation of this character as Minister of Labour. In my wildest dreams I never imagined that I should be brought to this state. I thought that the regulations laid down were concerned with the safeguarding of British workpeople and their conditions. But the theatre is an industry and I must have regard to the overall regulations. I always understood that among the cultured people art was international—hands across the sea and the rest of it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the result of the consultation to which he referred has been that this country pursues a more liberal policy than any other in this respect? More people from elsewhere in the world perform here than is the case in any other country.

Yes, indeed, and that is one of the difficulties. There are other countries which are much more restric live with British artistes, and therefore it is very natural that our people want to have a bash occasionally.

asked the Minister of Labour what advice he has received from outside bodies to issue a work permit to enable a tenor singer to appear at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden; and if he will give an assurance that this advice will receive the same consideration as the negative advice in respect of the same singer received on a previous occasion.

I assume that the Question refers to Richard Cassilly, the American tenor. An application for this singer to appear at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, in "Jenufa" was approved following the normal inquiries including consultation with the British Actors Equity Association. Advice given in such consultations is confidential but information from all appropriate sources is given full consideration before labour permits are issued.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will define the term, full employment, as used by his Department.

The reduction of involuntary unemployment to the lowest practicable level.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever some of the academics say, there is only one interpretation of full employment on this side of the House, and that we want it implemented?

Indeed.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Winstanley Babes, a troupe of juveniles, employed in pantomime at the Palace Theatre, Manchester, were paid£1 12s. 6d. per week each; and if he will refer this to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The welfare of these children who, I am informed, are aged 12 and 13, is a matter for the local authority. I do not think this is an appropriate matter for reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Is it not the case that the terms under which the National Board for Prices and Incomes was set up do not preclude the possibility of raising salaries as well as reducing them? Does my hon. Friend agree that 32s. 6d. a week is a very small salary for anybody who appears professionally, even if under the age of 16?

My hon. Friend is right about the powers and functions of the Board, but I am not sure that he is quite so right about the wages of these children received. There is a question of whether they were wages or simply expenses.

asked the Minister of Labour how many salaried workers gained annual increments to their earnings during 1966 and 1967, respectively; what was the total amount of such increments in each year; and in what proporportion of cases were these increments related to increases in productivity.

This information is not available. Annual salary increments are usually related to increases in age, experience and responsibility.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be one law for the salaried worker and another for the manual worker? Many manual workers regard the annual round of wage increases as equivalent to the annual increments received by salaried workers. Is it not time for the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be seen to be realistic and fair? Will my hon. Friend have this sort of anomaly looked into quickly?