asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what arrangements will be made under Her Majesty's Government's prices and incomes policy to limit the wage increases of groups of workers under 100 in number.

The Government's incomes policy applies to these groups as to other workers and the White Paper "Productivity Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969" calls for early warning of all pay increases which might be significant.

But as all groups of 100 and under do not have to warn of pay increases, how will the right hon. Lady enforce policy over small numbers of employees, as in this category?

Because we have a great deal of information about what is going on and we are sure that we can identify by various means those increases which are significant: we can then examine them and refer them if necessary.

Would the right hon. Lady let the House have more of this information, because all we have had so far is the fact that only 6 million of the 24 million employees in this country are employed by manufacturing companies employing more than 100 people each? What about the other 18 million? How are they employed, where, and in what numbers?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figure is correct. I believe that the percentage of the total of employees in manufacturing establishments employing fewer than 100 workers each is about 25 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations she has had with the Trades Union Congress in order to ascertain to what extent that body can undertake the supervision of the Government's prices and incomes policy.

We have welcomed the development of the wage-vetting work of the Trades Union Congress, but the Government must retain responsibility for the supervision of their own policy.

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that any forthcoming legislation will fully reflect her anxiety to have the maximum co-operation of the T.U.C. in her foredoomed search for an incomes policy?

The Government will continue, as I shall, to seek maximum co-operation with the T.U.C. We have fully taken into account its views as set out in the "Economic Review". There are to be further discussions on the "Economic Review" with the T.U.C., including a meeting which will deal with the prices and incomes policy, and I hope that that meeting will be later this month.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what limit there is to be upon pay increases based on productivity increases during the next phase of the policy for prices and incomes.

None, provided that they can be fully justified under the guidelines in Appendix II to the White Paper "Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969".

Is the right hon. Lady sure that it is entirely fair to have a policy under which some people get no increase and others in whose businesses large injections of capital have been made can have limited increases although that involves no extra effort on their part?

The hon. Member is not correctly summarising the policy in the White Paper nor the Government's intention. The Government's intention is that as there are some fields in which an increase in productivity is less easy to obtain—although it is surprising in how many areas it is possible to get some increase in productivity—it is essential that we should maximise the relationship between productivity and pay increases elsewhere to give us a margin to meet the needs of others who are not on such a lucrative production line.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity by what percentage she expects incomes to rise during 1968.

It is not the policy of the Government to publish estimates of future trends in incomes.

Is it not clear that overall wages have not been frozen in the past 18 months and are not likely to be frozen in the next 18 months? Therefore, is it worth while upsetting millions of workers by a psychological policy based on the mistaken belief that salvation lies in having low wages?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in saying that wage increases have not been frozen and nor are they likely to be frozen. I deduce from that that because we want to get away from a negative policy to a positive policy we are pressing ahead with the White Paper and with legislation.

Can the right hon. Lady say whether or not Government policy is for a nil norm or a 3½ per cent. norm?

Government policy, as laid down in the White Paper, is for a ceiling of 3½ per cent., but the White Paper points out that increases within that ceiling must match certain criteria. There is also scope for exceptions above the ceiling in cases of really watertight productivity agreements which substantially reduce labour unit costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement about the busmen's strike in Liverpool.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the strike of Liverpool bus crews.

This strike is causing serious hardship to the people of Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has seen a deputation from Liverpool and has urged that there is nothing to be gained by prolonging the strike. I expect to receive the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes next week and in the meantime I understand that the Corporation and the trade unions are seeking a basis for a return to work. It is up to the men. I strongly advise them in their own interests and in the interests of their fellow citizens to go back now.

But since this strike is in its tenth week, is the right hon. Lady aware that many people feel that, as it is the result of the Government's policy, the Government should have taken more action in the past than they have until now? Can she not do something about arranging for a secret ballot of the bus men?

Of course, the Government have referred this to the Board and the whole of the time scale and the reasons involved have been thoroughly ventilated on previous occasion. We certainly stand ready, as soon as the Board reports, to get in touch with the parties and to do our utmost to get a settlement in the light of the report.

In view of the right hon. Lady's much-publicised intention to pursue an interventionist policy in industry, should she not have intervened long before now in the interests of the ordinary people of Liverpool who have been without buses for nearly ten weeks?

I came into a situation in which intervention had already taken place in the form of a reference, and since the Board is examining the matter and we are in the middle of the very inquiry for which a number of hon. Gentlemen asked, it is only common sense for us to await the outcome of that inquiry. As I said, as soon as we receive the report, which will be in the near future, we intend to intervene to get in touch with the parties and try to get a settlement on the basis of the report.

Is it not clear that the ten weeks which have elapsed since the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board, on which no decision has yet been reached, is far too long a period and is not acceptable to the people of Liverpool? But is my right hon. Friend also aware that, although a certain amount of blame rests on the Government, the Liverpool City Council Transport Committee has been making the people of Liverpool the political playthings of the Conservative Party in relation to the municipal elections?

I am aware of the continuing interest which my hon. Friend has taken in this matter and the way that he has fought for the interests of his constituents. The Board has done its utmost to speed up the publication of the Report. We have been in constant touch with it, pointing out how urgent it is and asking for a report as quickly as is conceivably possible. I repeat, my hon. Friend will not have to wait long for the report now.

But if there is any truth in the allegation made by the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Heffer), was not that an added reason why the right hon. Lady's Department should have intervened in its conciliatory function? Can she give any other example of a strike causing so much hardship and inconvenience to so many people which has been allowed to drag on for so long without action?

The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that, when the Board is looking into the situation—we were asked for an inquiry and an inquiry is taking place—even on the most traditionalist interpretation of the former Ministry of Labour's function, this would not have been the moment for the normal conciliatory procedure to operate. I repeat again that we stand ready to intervene constructively as soon as the report appears.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the unemployment position in the Portsmouth travel-to-work area, with special reference to age, sex and skills; and how the relevant figures compare with those both of the South-East Region and of the country as a whole.

On 8th April the unemployment rate for the Portsmouth travel-to-work area was 3·1 per cent. compared with 2·5 per cent. for Great Britain, 1·7 per cent. for the London and South-Eastern Region and 1·8 per cent. for the Eastern and Southern Region. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tables showing the detailed position on age, sex and skills.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, following the drastic closure of Hawker Siddeley, the admiral superintendent of the naval dockyard has now said that there may be a significant rundown of labour requirements in the naval dockyard? Does not he agree that full utilisation of labour and capital resources in the South and the South-East is essential for Britain's economic growth, and will he assure us that we shall have a full statement on the Government's co-ordinated policy for the area as soon as possible?

I agree that the resources to which my hon. Friend refers should be utilised in the interest of the nation. As regards the dockyard, I can only give my hon. Friend the assurance which I gave him when I met a deputation which he brought to see me some time ago, that there will be the fullest consultation with the trade unions and the local authorities before any further steps are taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now expects to publish the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

I understand that the Royal Commission will be reporting very soon.

I have heard that said before. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that, while the Government have been waiting for this report to be published, industrial relations and employment in this country have gravely de- teriorated? For example, can she explain why the total of wholly unemployed have been above 500,000 on 12 occasions in the last 16 months, when it was above that figure on only seven occasions in all the 13 years of Tory rule?

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes far beyond the main Question. If he cares to put a Question down on the unemployment rate, I shall be delighted to answer it.

As regards the report of the Royal Commission, it is not within the Government's control to dictate to the Royal Commission when it should consider that its work should have been done. It has taken rather longer than was hoped and expected at the outset, but I have firm indications that the report will be forthcoming very soon.

Can the right hon. Lady help the House with a definition of "very soon"? May we have an assurance that it will be before the end of next month?

Yes, Sir; I am hopeful that that will be so.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that such reactionary proposals as are contained in the Conservative Party document, "A Fair Deal At Work", which is associated with the report, will be resisted by my right hon. Friend as, I understand, it has been resisted by the Royal Commission itself—or so the leader in the Daily Telegraph seems to indicate?

I was interested to see that in a foreword to the booklet to which my hon. Friend refers, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said that the party's studies would continue and they would take into account not only the reactions to the Conservative Party document but also the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission. It may be that, in the light of the report, hon. and right hon. Members opposite will wish to modify their views.

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is still the Government's intention, as announced by her predecessor, to publish a White Paper giving their reactions to the Royal Commission's report before we adjourn for the Summer Recess and to bring in any necessary legislation in the next Session?

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that, with the delay in the publication date of the Royal Commission's report, it may prove impracticable to keep to the time table which was linked to an earlier publication date. He will be the first to agree that, on receiving the report, we must go into very detailed consultations. I am sure that the House would deplore it if we were to rush those consultations. They must inevitably take time, and, that being so, I do not think that it will be possible to have a White Paper before the Summer Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the national wage claim submitted on behalf of workers in the engineering industry, indicating the extent to which it is consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether the wage claim of the engineering employees is consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

I have met both sides of the industry with a view to clarifying their respective positions and to indicating the incomes policy considerations involved.

As a result of those meetings, can the right hon. Lady say, on the evidence now available to her, whether this claim is consistent with the criteria of the prices and incomes policy, and, if it is not, whether it is her Department's policy so to use its influence as to stiffen the resistance of the employers?

The claim is in very broad and general terms and it has not been quantified even by the unions involved. What I have done in discussing this matter with the Confederation has been to point out that various mixed possibilities are available under the prices and incomes policy, and I am hopeful that, as a result of further negotiations, we shall be able to see an outcome which is consistent with the Government's objectives.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unless the employers drastically alter their offer, there will be no chance of a settlement without severe industrial unrest? Does she realise that the proposal made, for instance, for low-paid workers, which she makes great play of, is that by 1971 a labourer in the industry will be in receipt of only £12 7s. 4d. a week, which is totally unacceptable?

These are some of the considerations which were explained to me when I met the C.S.E.U. I am aware of all the arguments which the unions have put forward. I hope that negotiations will be resumed shortly. As I say, there is room for a variety of solutions within the context of the prices and incomes policy.

Although, as the right hon. Lady rightly says, the claim has not been quantified, can she not say whether it is in accordance with the Government's policy? If it is not, ought she not to give an indication to the employers and the unions of what the Government's attitude will be?

I know that hon. Members opposite would like to embroil me in a row with the engineering unions, and I am refusing to be embroiled. What I am seeking is not a headlong clash. I am seeking a peaceful settlement and a constructive outcome. I have urged upon the unions in this context, as I have in many contexts, that it is essential that any agreements should pay particular regard to the productivity aspects of the prices and incomes policy. There is room here for increases to be made which do not add to labour unit costs if they are backed by a proper productivity give-and-take.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many work permits for aliens were issued for each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967; how many were for 12 months; how many were for less than 12 months; how many dependants have joined aliens working in this country for these years; and what categories of work are covered by these work permits.

As the reply contains several sets of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that when the figures are published it will be clear that the number of white immigrants entering this country exceeds the number of coloured immigrants by two to one? Does he agree that this emphasis on coloured immigration completely distorts the facts? With his colleagues, will he see that when a review of immigration takes place numbers of white immigrants as well as numbers of coloured immigrants are included?

When my hon. Friend and other hon. Members read the figures they will accept that they put the immigration problem in proper perspective, because the number of foreign immigrants coming to this country is roughly 50,000 a year. It is true that just over half, probably half, come for less than 12 months, but this shows that immigrants to this country are not by any means all coloured immigrants.

In view of the continued rise of unemployment in our cities, about which the Under-Secretary's hon. Friends justly complain, ought not all immigration, whether white or coloured, be more steeply controlled?

I suggest that the hon. Member should get into touch with all the employers who ask for permits, because none of these people can come here unless some employer asks for a permit for them to come.

Following is the statement:

The numbers of work permits issued for the employment of aliens in the years 1963–67, inclusive, were 43,868, 47,638, 54,258, 54,837 and 50,303, respectively. Short-term permits issued for less than 12 months are not separately recorded, but the numbers of aliens with such permits actually admitted during the years in question were 17,803, 18,920, 20,991, 22,031 and 22,753. The numbers of dependants of foreign workers admitted in the same five years were 3,337, 4,098, 5,689, 6,434 and 5,647, respectively. Permits are restricted to work for which British labour is not available and embrace professional, scientific, skilled and semi-skilled workers in a wide field of industry, and commerce, hotel and domestic workers, nurses, student employees and entertainers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many of the bodies receiving the first consultative document on proposals for new safety, health and welfare legislation have now replied to this; and how many more replies are still outstanding.

286 bodies have replied and a further 34 have intimated that they will be doing so shortly. No replies have been received from the remaining 220.

In view of the fact that Factory Acts usually have a life of about 10 years, will be hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend give the fullest possible weight to the views and advice of all those in industry who have to implement the Acts?

I can readily give that assurance. We are having very detailed discussion with both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., who are primarily concerned in this new legislation. We want to expedite those discussions, but their views will be taken fully into consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who asked for copies of this document were immediately supplied with copies and received every courtesy from the Department, but we had to learn of the existence of the document from sources outside this House? Will he have a copy placed in the Library, where all hon. Members can see it?

Certainly. Anyone who wants a copy can see me later outside the Chamber and I will gladly give him one. We sent copies to all employers' organisations, all the trade unions, and all other interested bodies. Every hon. Member who has applied, as my hon. Friend did, has been given a copy and everyone who wants one can readily have one.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question his hon. Friend asked? Are Members of Parliament and Parliament itself not interested in this subject? Should we not have a copy placed in the Library?

Of course. I have said that not only can one be placed in the Library, but anyone who wants to have a personal copy can have one.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to be in a position to introduce new comprehensive legislation in the field of industrial safety, health and welfare.

I am not yet able to say, though I am anxious to press ahead with this legislation as soon as the complexity of the subject and the Parliamentary time-table allow.

Recognising that there are a number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have some know-lodge of these matters and a great interest in them, will the right hon. Lady facilitate discussion by hon. Members through the medium of a White Paper before final arrangements are made for legislation and final details are worked out, but after the present stage of getting industrial reaction?

I am sure the hon. Member realises that the consultations are going to take a considerable time and the House would wish them to be efficient consultations, but I will bear in mind the point he made about a White Paper being issued later.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the previous reply by her hon. Friend about dissemination of this information was far from satisfactory? This proposed legislation will affect millions of workers and the 440 organisations which have been circulated are mainly employers' organisations. Should there not be more consultation with industry and Members of Parliament before the Government bring forward such legislation?

As I said in my reply, we have not yet reached a point at which we can indicate the timing of the legislation, and there is time for discussions with Members of Parliament to take place.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that much more time is lost in industry from preventable industrial injuries and industrial illnesses than through industrial disputes, and that it is very much in the interest of our nation that we should have coherent and comprehensive occupational health service?

In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question I answer, yes, very readily. This is why we are pressing ahead urgently with the examination of this whole field.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will introduce legislation to ensure that employers pay accumulated holiday money to people who leave during the year.

No, Sir; but the Government consider that employers who have not already done so should reach agreements with their workers on all aspects of holidays and holiday pay.

Is it not a fact that while the majority of employers do accept their commitments there are still those who, given an opportunity, fiddle their work-people?

There are certainly some who do not fulfil their commitments. The proper course of redress for individuals in this situation is to join a trade union and to make sure that it comes to a satisfactory agreement with the employers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received urging her to amend the existing law with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit to workmen suspended from work because of an industrial dispute in which the workman himself has played no part; and what action she intends to take thereon.

This is among the questions which the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations was asked to examine. When the Commission reports it will be for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security to consider any proposal it may make.

Could not the hon. Gentleman indicate the Ministry's attitude to this problem, as it appears to people outside to be grossly unfair that a man who is suspended because of a dispute in which he takes no part is refused unemployment benefit by the Ministry?

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not expect me to indicate the Ministry's attitude on any problem a few weeks before the Royal Commission reports. This is what the Royal Commission is intended to do. Our task is to examine its report after it has been published.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is aware of the rise in unemployment in Goole to 4·3 per cent.; and what action is being taken to provide full employment in the area.

I am aware of the position in Goole. My local officers are doing all they can to help those unemployed to find other work and 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.

As there is some doubt in the area as to the Government's intentions, can we have a clear statement as to whether the Government's purpose and policy is to create unemployment and, consequently, to depress the standards of living or to create full employment? If it is the latter, what active steps are to be taken other than the routine reply which I have just received?

I assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's policy to create full employment. What my hon. Friend is asking us to do is to make more and more areas development areas. When I tell him that the region in which his constituency is situated contains 9 per cent. of the insurable population and that unemployment is roughly the same—just over 9 per cent. of the total population—whereas in the Northern Region, where there is only 5 per cent. of the insurable population, unemployment represents 10 per cent. of the total, he will see why we have to concentrate on the development areas until we reduce those figures.

Order. Questions and answers are getting rather long.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take steps to set up separate regional prices boards.

I do not think that this course would be justified.

Would not regional prices boards serve to speed up the investigation of price increases and take into account the variation in prices of the same commodities which occur in different parts of the country?

I am aware that there are such regional variations, and the Index of Retail Prices takes account of such local and regional variations. I expect a report in a few days' time from my Advisory Committee on the Index of Retail Prices which I think will deal with the question whether a regional price index would be valuable.

Would not the best way of reducing regional or national prices be to have a change in Government policy, particularly in regard to taxation.

No, Sir.

Would it not be better if the Government stopped pretending that they can have anything more than a marginal influence on prices? In the circumstances, is it not impossible to get the co-operation of the trade unions, which is needed to get an effective incomes policy? By persisting with legislation are we not in danger of jeopardising any long-term prospect for a realistic policy?

My hon. Friend is going very wide of the original Question. I shall be very happy to debate this matter with him again, as I have in the past, on appropriate occasions. I cannot for a moment accept his defeatism about the possibility of having an influence on prices. We know that already the Government machinery has had a continuing influence, because firms know that all the fluctuations or variations are watched and that we take action wherever we think that is necessary. Already this has had an effect. The powers contained in the new Bill will have an even greater effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many wages and salaries are tied to the Cost-of-Living Index by industrial agreement; in what trades; and whether these automatic increases will be rejected under the incomes and prices policy.

About 450,000 workers are at present covered by these agreements, the largest numbers being in iron and steel, carpets, footwear, textiles and newspapers. Where the agreement was concluded before 20th March, 1968, increases are not subject to the current policy for employment incomes.

In view of the rapidly increasing cost of living due to devaluation, is it not unfair that any group of workers should be able to contract out of the Government's general policy of prices and incomes?

The Government's policy is to ensure that people do not contract out in the fashion suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The White Paper, Cmnd. 3590, says:

"Pay increases based on a rise in the cost of living are not due under the criteria, and should not be conceded."

The reason for this is that the cost of living rises for us all. It would be wrong if some people, because of a grievance, were able to contract out, as the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will seek to amend the Redundancy Payments Act so as to stop employers avoiding such payments by dismissing workers and then declaring them unsuitable; and how many appeals to the industrial tribunals have been turned down on this ground.

The Act already provides safeguards against employers who suggest unjustifiably that dismissal was for reasons other than redundancy. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.

Is not this an obvious loophole in the Act, because in this case the tribunal said that it could not consider whether the employers' reasons for dismissing the man were good or bad?

I think that the case to which my hon. Friend refers in the subject of a later Question. In terms of principle, I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the knowledge that the presumption in all these cases is that redundancy has occurred and that redundancy payment is therefore appropriate until the employer is able to produce very substantial evidence to justify the opposite conclusion.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that there has been examples of workers working for 10 to 15 years for an employer and then the employer saying that their work was unsuitable, which is ridiculous, and not paying redundancy payment on that basis? This is a loophole. I ask my hon. Friend to take a further look at this. I gave him details of a case.

I am very well aware that cases have been brought to our attention of employees having been dismissed for reasons which I regard as altogether reprehensible and reasons which might be different were there a legitimate policy of dismissal procedure at the moment. This is irrelevant to the question of redundancy pay. Irrespective of the merits of his dismissal, a workman can get redundancy payment only if he is genuinely redundant. That is the only question to which I can address myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she proposes to take regarding the highly skilled Salford plasterer who was dismissed as unsuitable by his firm after 19 years' employment without any redundancy pay, about whom she has been written to by the hon. Member for Salford, East.

An industrial tribunal dismissed an application made by this employee for a redundancy payment, and I have no power to intervene once such a decision has been given.

Why did this man, after having spent 19 years with one firm, suddenly become unsuitable? It is monstrous. Is the Minister aware that what I said on Question No. 19 was correct, that the tribunal said that it could not discuss the question whether it was a legitimate dismissal.

I am well aware of that, because that was the sort of answer I tried to give to a previous Question. The circumstances surrounding this man's dismissal may well be as my hon. Friend describes them. But redundancy payments are for redundancy only as defined in the Act; and, unfortunately, the man did not qualify under those criteria.

Does not a case like this underline the need for the implementation of the proposal in "Fair Deal at Work" that every employee should have the right of appeal to an industrial court against unjust dismissal?

I have said to the House on previous occasions—and on occasions before that pamphlet was published—that there is a strong case for a system of dismissal procedures in Britain. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Labour discussed the question with both sides of industry, but this did not merely apply to matters of redundancy payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest unemployment figures for Dorset; whether they show an increase or decrease on the previous figures; and how they compare with two years ago.

At 8th April, 1968, 2,670 persons were registered as unemployed in Dorset. This was 40 fewer than in March 1968 and 1,120 more than in April 1966.

I am glad to have those figures, but is there not a case for the Government modifying their policy of discouraging new industry from going to Dorset?

Not at the moment, because the vacancies are now arising in Dorset. I hope that that will continue, because that will inevitably lead to further falls in the present unemployment rate.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the present trend of retail prices in relation to the objectives set out in paragraph 23 of Command Paper No. 3590.

The retail price index rose by 1·8 per cent. between devaluation and March, 1968. This suggests that traders generally are heeding the Government's call to them to limit price increases to unavoidable increases in costs, but we are keeping the general movement of retail prices under close review.

Is the Minister aware that many people who believe in the need for prices and incomes policy are most encouraged by the emphasis which she is placing on retail prices, which is what concern the consumer, and will she give an assurance that she will continue to apply this distinction between justified and unjustified increases as vigorously as possible?

Yes, Sir. I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will have had even more recent evidence of our determination to keep an eye on the level of retail prices by the decision to refer retail margins in the paint industry to the Board.

If the demand for a domestic product has gone up because devaluation has raised the price of an imported substitute, would this justify a price increase?

I am not sure that I grasp the full meaning of the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he is trying to suggest that because imported products have increased in price, an equivalent domestic product can be increased in price as well, I would entirely repudiate that, and that is one of the matters we are watching.

Does not the right hon. Lady think that the Government would have much greater control over prices if they were not so extravagant in their spending, which has gone up by over £5,000 million in the last five years?

I do not accept that for a moment. This expenditure is an integral part of our whole relations with an attitude towards incomes policy because the importance of the social wage, particularly to the lower paid, is very great indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will instruct Sir Jack Scamp to carry out a special inquiry into labour relations in Liverpool Docks in order to avoid a boycott, by the merchants and shippers to Australia and New Zealand, of the port of Liverpool which will lead to large-scale permanent unemployment.

Good progress is being made in implementing Sir Jack Scamp's recommendations for increasing productivity following the inquiry which he has already carried out last October. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has been assured by Australian and New Zealand shippers of their desire to foster trade through the port.

Is not the right hon. Lady aware that only a few days ago Australian and New Zealand shippers said that because of strikes in Liverpool they would be driven to taking their trade from that port? Is she aware that if that were to happen it would mean the death of the port? Will she do something to put a stop to these strikes and stop this trade being taken away from Liverpool?

The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the matter does not tally with mine. I understand that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which has considered this matter, has stated that it is highly unlikely that there would be a boycott of the port by Australian and New Zealand shippers. Officials of the Board recently visited Australia and New Zealand and received general assurances about their desire to foster trade through the port.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is talking a lot of exaggerated nonsense; that there are no more strikes in Liverpool than in any other port in this country and that the problems of the port of Liverpool arise from the bad working conditions there, conditions which are now being tackled for the first time on the basis of the Government's policy in relation to the ports?

Yes, Sir, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the fact that intervention has in this case had a very successful outcome.

Would not the right hon. Lady agree that the Seaforth Container Dock Scheme, which is now being actively developed with the full support of the Government, will in the long run inevitably lead to a large reduction in employment in the Liverpool docks?

From my discussions with those concerned in Liverpool, when I was Minister of Transport, I am certain that the Seaforth development is essential for the continuance of Liverpool as a major port.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she is taking, in view, of the increased number of disabled now unemployed in the Cheltenham area, to make funds available to build the sheltered workshop in Cheltenham without further delay.

Unemployment has recently fallen among the disabled in the Cheltenham area. Nevertheless, it has been agreed that a sheltered workshop should be provided for the severely disabled. My Department is awaiting revised plans from the local authority. When these and other details have been studied and approved, a grant will be offered, of which the first instalment can be paid early in the next financial year.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Is he aware that there is now an excellent site available, that there is a substantial number of disabled people in the area and that his reply will be very welcome indeed?

indicated assent.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is aware that unemployment figures for Yorkshire and Humberside are worsening while the national figure is declining; and what action she is taking to recognise it as a development area attracting the appropriate benefits now limited to such areas.

I am aware that the rate of unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region has remained unchanged at 2·6 per cent. since January, 1968, while the rate for Great Britain has fallen from 2·7 per cent. in January to 2·5 per cent. in March and April. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the designation of development areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that areas such as those mentioned in the Question are submitting evidence to the Hunt Committee but that a subcommittee of the Hunt Committee while visiting Yorkshire is not visiting Thorne, which has an unemployment rate of over 10 per cent.? Will he communicate with the Hunt Committee and ensure that attention is paid to what is the worst unemployment area in the district?

I will certainly see that my hon. Friend's observations are brought to the notice of the Committee.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that the figures for Hull follow the same pattern as those for Goole, particularly in the building and construction industries? Would he be shocked to know that I have constituents who are electricians and who are having to find work in Norway?

No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would not be shocked, but I hope that we will be able to remedy the position. [interruption.] I would not be shocked because I appreciate, from the experience in my constituency, that specialists travel all over the world. Indeed, we have American electricians working here because of their special skills. Unemployment has dropped a little and, more important, vacancies have gone up by over 2,000 in the last month. I hope that this development will continue.

Will the Minister bear in mind that while we are sorry that the Yorkshire and North Humberside area has growing unemployment, we in Lincolnshire, on the southern side of the Humber, are doing very well because our people are working hard and are not subject to strikes?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the annual cost of the staff of the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board.

The number and remuneration of staff are matters for the Board to determine. Relevant information is given in the published accounts of the Board. Expenditure on salaries for the seven months the Board was in operation during its first financial year ended 31st March, 1967, was £15,226. The accounts for the last financial year have not yet been published.

Does the cost fall on the producer, by way of the levy, or on the taxpayer? What steps are being taken to restrain the growth of staff of this Board in the same way as the Department is attempting to restrain it in respect of Government Departments?

We are anxious that all industrial training boards should run with minimal staffs because of the obligations on us all to restrain increases in servants in the public service. To answer the first point of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, from now on the Board's costs will be borne entirely by the industry, according to the policy of the Industrial Training Act which his right hon. Friend introduced three years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what percentage of strikes during 1967 were in breach of agreement.

From the figures of strikes known to be official, it is estimated that between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. of the strikes which occurred during 1967 were unofficial. Most of these strikes were in breach of procedure agreements.

Do not these very striking figures, of 90 per cent. to 95 per cent., underline the need for trade union agreements to be enforceable at law?

No, Sir. They are not striking figures, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because they follow very much the pattern of former years, and, indeed, are somewhat lower than in, for example, 1960, when the figure was considerably worse. It should also be borne in mind that the figures do not differentiate between strikes and lock-outs. There are some—for example, the recent Roberts-Arundel issue—in which there is obviously a question of deciding where the responsibility lies.

Is my hon. Friend right in respect of these figures? Do not many, of the strikes for which he has given figures start as unofficial ones and later become recognised by trade unions? Should not the position be made absolutely clear?

My hon. Friend is correct. Many difficulties arise in defining what is an official and what is an unofficial dispute. In some industries before a strike can be recognised by a union it must be embarked upon, and at that initial stage it is unofficial. As I say, there are difficulties in defining these matters, and we must remember the need to differentiate when different trade unions are involved. In some cases official recognition of a dispute is given while in others trade unions have not given official recognition. These difficulties of definition must be borne in mind. However, the most important thing is not whether a strike is official or unofficial but the total volume of strikes and our anxiety to reduce that number.

Does the Minister think that we can have strengthened industrial relations in this country until we reach a position where agreements, once made, are kept? Is he aware that no other industrial country suffers from this disease as we do?

I do not think that we shall reach the situation the right hon. Gentleman seeks until agreements are freely and voluntarily entered into by both sides. For example, the agreement on procedure in the engineering industry, which is a source of considerable dispute, was entered into in a period when the trade unions concerned were subject to duress by the employers. It is when we reach the situation where they are freely and voluntarily entered into by both parties that we might start to consider—but I must not anticipate the report of the Royal Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the change, in numbers and in percentages, in the total number employed in manufacturing, in service industries and in all industries, respectively, in each region of Great Britain between January, 1966, and January, 1967.

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

Is it not a fact that S.E.T. has failed to encourage employment in the manufacturing industries? Will the Government take a long, cool look at the mess they are making and get rid of this iniquitous tax?

If that was the supplementary question the hon. and learned

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take powers to order a cooling-off period when industrial disputes threaten essential national services.

The law on strikes is among the subjects being examined by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employer's Associations. My right hon. Friend will consider in the light of its report whether it needs to be changed.

Would not the Minister's right hon. Friend find that such powers come under her own phrase, used earlier this afternoon, of "constructive intervention"? Would not she find such reserve powers immensely useful in the sort of situation which nearly developed last week over the Post Office workers?

My right hon. Friend does not possess such powers at present. There is one country in the world where such powers have been tried and the Ministry of Labour's written evidence to

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the Ministry's evidence, in the United States the lawyers and the legal people have become completely involved, which has complicated the whole position as the result of such legislation?

My hon. Friend's point is to some extent indicative of the difficulties we can get into in industrial relations once we start to become involved in litigation instead of having the flexibility that arises from the present system, for we then start to have to watch rigid, legally defined guide lines.

Is the Minister aware that he has given a most misleading account of the experience of the United States in relation to the cooling-off period?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many working days were lost during 1967 due to unofficial strikes.

Certain stoppages are known to have been official, but it is not known whether all the remainder were unofficial, though the great majority would have been. Stoppages known to have been official accounted for a loss of about 394,000 working days out of a total of about 2,787,000 days lost during 1967 through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes.

Does the Minister agree that unofficial strikes are one of the most grievous self-inflicted wounds on the British economy? What powers would he consider taking to mitigate their effect?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the harm done by industrial disputes and strikes that ensue from them, but we must not get the picture out of perspective. The House should bear in mind that the total time lost from strikes, either official or unofficial, is only a very small fraction of the total lost through industrial injuries and diseases. When we talk of the effect of unofficial strikes we should bear in mind that some of them arise not from the people directly involved but from outside influences.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in a country where relatively few strikes take place, one way to deal with unofficial strikes is to make them all official, and that the right to strike is fundamental to a democratic society?

I do not know who would have had the responsibility of determining whether the London dock strikes in the past few weeks were official or otherwise.

Does not the Minister realise that what matters is not whether the strike is official or unofficial but whether it is in breach of agreement?

In earlier Answers I pointed out the difficulty of determining whether a strike is in breach of an agree- ment and gave the example of the engineering industry, where the procedural agreement itself gives rise to disputes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will deposit in the Library a copy of the Report prepared by the Ministry of Public Building and Works on the standard of lighting within the Palace of Westminster.

Yes, Sir. I am making arrangements accordingly.

Since the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the contents of the Report, is he aware that in any modern industrial organisation a minimum of 25 lumens is thought to be necessary for good quality reading, and that there are few places where Members work in the House where the standard is in excess of 10?

I should have thought that I have answered the Question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is quite pleased.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what visual aids are now available for use by Members within the Palace of Westminster.

There are none at present, but I will glady look into any suggestions made by the hon. Member.

Would it not, for example, greatly facilitate the work of the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill upstairs if in the presentation of involved and complex statistics such visual aids were available?

I am aware that visual aids and all methods of education are important, but there is a cost factor. I am looking into this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, since we are discussing visual aids, that one of the visual aids the House would not welcome very much would be televising the House? We are in enough trouble already without letting the people look at us at the same time as they hear us.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now move that a Select Committee be set up to consider the Scottish Office.