asked the Minister of Social Security if she will set up a continuing research programme in order to maintain up-to-date information on family circumstances.

I am at present considering with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, how far it may be possible to use the continuous family expenditure survey for this purpose.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be relatively cheap to keep the information obtained about the circumstances of families up to date by doing a limited amount of research each year? If that is not done, there will be a serious lack of information, and when a major survey has to be done again, it will cost that much more.

I considered that possibility, but I think that it will be best to try to get the basic continuous data that we need from the family expenditure survey, the sample for which has been very much enlarged since last year. A good deal of data is available which we are proposing to analyse, and then I shall consider how far, perhaps with the addition of one or two questions, we might be able to keep up to date on the kind of information which the family circumstances survey gave.

asked the Minister of Social Security what approaches she has had from Professors Titmuss, Abel Smith and Townsend for Government financial support for their projected majority survey into poverty in the United Kingdom.

None, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 11th April. I would add that Professor Titmuss has not been involved in the Abel Smith-Townsend survey.—[Vol. 762, c. 333–4.]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that several approaches have been made to her Ministry over the last three years for support for a survey into property? What are the real reasons for the Government not supporting such a survey which is the starting point of all social reforms? Why do the Government not want such a survey? Is the right hon. Lady worried about the possible results of it?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the totally inaccurate and misleading article in The Guardian which may have put the last thought into his mind, perhaps I can assure him that that is not the case. I have not—and this is what I made clear to my hon. Friend in April—had any request for assistance from the organisers of this survey. My predecessor was asked last year whether she would give certain help with it, but mainly on interviewing, not so much on money. Some limited help was given at that stage, but the present survey, which Professors Abel Smith and Townsend have proposed, is a matter for the Social Science Research Council which comes to its own view, and I cannot comment on what is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Order. We have a number of Questions.

asked the Minister of Social Security what objection she has to the use of the Post Office giro for the payment of social benefits.

Some 45 million short-term benefit payments a year now made by postal draft will be made by giro payment order. For long-term benefits, on the other hand, the cheapest and the most suitable way so far continues to be the order book system.

Does the right hon. Lady agree with the Minister of Technology in his weekend speech, and with many other people, including myself, that

"the day will come not long hence when the taxation and social security systems will be capable of complete integration."

Order. No quotations in supplementary questions.

I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend's weekend speech, in whatever form it was made. We in the Ministry are anxious that pensions should be paid in the most efficient and economical way and we shall keep a close watch on the functioning of giro to see how best we can use it.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she now expects to complete her comprehensive review of social security.

The White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for an earnings-related pensions scheme will, I hope, be published by the end of the year.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when the Government are committed to relating incomes to economic growth it is more urgent than ever to get a comprehensive review which will enable pensions and other social benefits to be related to economic growth?

That is the case. I am looking forward, as I hope my hon. Friend is, to the comprehensive nature of the new scheme which we propose to set out in the White Paper. It is an elaborate piece of work. It inevitably takes a good deal of time to prepare, but I hope that the results will be felt to justify this.

Will the right hon. Lady work on the principle that help should go 10 those who need it most?

In the social insurance system, which is what the White Paper will concern itself with, we are concerned with benefits which are a right as a consequence of contributions which have been paid.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will clarify the circumstances in which it is Government policy to repatriate immigrants who want to return home.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will state the existing Government policy to assist those immigrants who want to return home.

asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she has taken to publicise the repatriation of immigrants scheme generally, and in particular among those who could take advantage of it.

The Supplementary Benefits Commission pay the fare for an immigrant to return to his country of origin when the following conditions all apply: first, that he himself genuinely wishes to return there; second, that it will be in his own interests because he has no prospect of settling down in this country successfully; third, that he cannot himself pay his fare; and fourth, that public money is likely to be saved by helping him to return. These arrangements have, I think, become well known to the public.

Would the right hon. Lady not agree that it is still not clear from what the Home Secretary said on television and what the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question last week by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) whether the Government are considering extending this assistance to any immigrant who wants to go home but cannot pay the fare? Would she not agree that even to discuss repatriation in this way in the present climate would be very wrong?

Yes, I would agree. The present scheme has been working since 1935. It has covered a very small number of cases because of the conditions which have to be satisfied and there are no proposals at the moment for extending the scheme.

Would my right hon. Friend agree, first and foremost, that the vast majority of immigrants here want to stay here and have no intention of returning to their land of origin, and that if we are not careful there could be a danger that certain people would try to coerce or bully immigrants to get them home? Would she agree that, in no circumstances, must people be subject to any form of coercion?

No form of coercion would be possible because of the conditions which have to be met before the fare can be paid. It has to be clear that the immigrant has no chance of settling down successfully here, that he wants to return to his country of origin, and that public money would, in the long run, be saved. These conditions, I think, successfully preclude any possibility of coercion.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Home Secretary's remarks on television gave the impression— wrongly, I think—that there had been a change of policy here? Second, is she aware that very few immigrants have been helped by this scheme? Would she ensure that those who genuinely want to return home are made aware of it?

On the last point, there has been a good deal of publicity given in the last three weeks. This is why I think that no further publicity is required. I do not agree that my right hon. Friend gave any false impression. He said that this scheme had been in operation for many years, and it has been made quite clear that the numbers who have been assisted are very limited. I gave the full figures in a speech quoted in the Press about two or three weeks ago.

Does the right hon. Lady not feel that, with better publicity, there might be greater acceptance of this scheme by those who need to be helped? Would she bear in mind that there are often language difficulties and that, if this could be explained in the languages of the immigrants concerned, this would also help?

What has to be remembered—I know that I am not answering the question directly, but I think I am answering the point behind it—is that immigrants coming in on either A or B vouchers have a high degree of skill or professional training, or have jobs ready for them. It is wrong to suppose, therefore, that immigrants are a burden to the community in the sense that they fail to find work. It is in the odd case, where there is perhaps some genuine social maladjustment or illness, that it is necessary for us to assist them with their fares to return to their countries of origin, if that is what they want to do.

asked the Minister of Social Security how many immigrants are claiming benefit for dependants resident outside Great Britain; how many dependants are involved; what annual sum is sent out of Great Britain for this purpose; and how she satisfies herself as to the existence of these dependants.

An immigrant to this country can qualify for benefit for dependants abroad only in limited circumstances. In practice, the hon. Gentleman's Question relates almost entirely to dependants living in Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Malta, Cyprus and Turkey, with which we have relevant reciprocal agreements. I regret that the figures and costs asked for are not available.

Would the right hon. Lady agree that a substantial number of immigrants are claiming relief for alleged dependants who are said to be resident in areas where it is practically impossible for their existence to be checked? Would she consider whether or not these unprovable claims should be met in future?

For an application of this kind from a country which is not covered by a reciprocal agreement the conditions are, I assure the hon. Gentleman, extremely tightly drawn. Any case of doubt goes to an independent statutory authority and is carefully judged on a stringent basis.

Even though, technically, my right hon. Friend's Answer might be satisfactory, is she aware that it does not answer the malicious propaganda, which certain hon. Members are using, directed against immigrants? Would she agree that it would be worth while to get the statistical information, since this would disprove the allegations that are being made?

I have set that in hand. What I have said in reply to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite points out exactly how far the scheme has been restricted to people from countries which are not, I believe, normally in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this connection.

asked the Minister of Social Security how many forms are in use by her Department; how many people are engaged in compiling and distributing them; and how this compares with the previous three years.

About 3,500 forms of different kinds are issued by my Department, and some 40 staff are occupied in their compilation and distribution. Enlarged responsibilities over the past three years have led to the need for more forms but the number of staff used on the associated work has not increased.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I asked specifically how many more forms? Does he realise that the nation is getting fed up with filling in forms? Can he not reduce the number?

The hon. Gentleman has not received the reply which he expected. I said that the number of staff used on the associated work for these forms has not increased.

What proportion of the increase in forms is due to the fact that people are now entitled to supplementary benefits, to which they were not entitled under the previous Government?

A considerable proportion.

asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she now has for abolishing National Insurance contributions by widows; and if she will make a statement.

The great majority of widows under pension age receive widow's or other benefits and are excepted from the obligation to pay contributions; the contributions paid by the remainder, who are for the most part in work, maintain their insurance rights under the scheme. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that this Government have already made substantial improvements in the provision for widows, but my right hon. Friend cannot forecast what further measures may be proposed.

Can I take that answer to mean that further measures are contemplated? Will the Minister also consider the position of widows whose husbands die when the widows are within three or four weeks, or even three or four days, of their fiftieth birthday?

Yes, Sir, we are studying these matters very carefully. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the 50 age limit, and we are giving full consideration to this.

asked the Minister of Social Security what is the number of individual tests of means she estimates will be carried out by her Department during the financial year 1968–69, and the total administrative cost involved.

It is estimated that about 6¼ million claims for benefits subject to a test of means will be received, in 1968–69, including second and subsequent claims in that year; and that the immediate administrative cost to my Department of dealing with them will be of the order of £5½ million.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a very serious criticism of the National Insurance system that more than 2½ million people are now obliged to apply for supplementary benefits on top of their National Insurance?

Rather than this being undesirable, I would have thought that the fact that we have put in additional benefits at supplementary benefit level is very desirable, compared with what applied when we came into power.

Why is the means test now called the test of means?

Test of needs.

asked the Minister of Social Security what effective net benefit does a family wholly dependent on social security benefit derive from the increase in family allowances; and how this compares with the benefit accruing from the allowance to a taxpayer on an income of £1,500 per annum with three dependent children of school age.

The taxpayer with three children and an income of £1,500 a year derives virtually no benefit from the April and October family allowances increases because he was already paying tax at the standard rate before the change. Families on supplementary benefit have been helped if they are subject to the wage-stop. The increase in family allowances in April and October are specifically intended to help the family of the low wage earner in work. National Insurance benefits and supplementary benefits were increased last autumn, and supplementary benefits are to go up again this autumn.

But is it not a fact that families wholly dependent on social security benefits derive no benefit from the increases in family allowances? How is it defensible to increase family allowances for people who are working and have an adequate income, even if it is not £1,500, and give nothing to those on social security benefits?

My hon. Friend will know that we discussed this fully last Thursday. If the kind of family which he mentions, which of course needs our help, has three children, it has been having 14s. a week more since last October. We were seeking then specifically to help the low income family the father of whom is in work and therefore cannot benefit from any social security benefit other than family allowances, and who often has an income, on which to support his family, lower than that guaranteed by supplementary benefits.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that, from figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary in a Written Answer on 24th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), it would appear that the man on £1,500 a year and above will lose more the more children he has? Is this the Government's intention?

I would need to see to what proposal the hon. Gentleman refers, but I doubt whether he has made the right interpretation. The tax adjustments which have been made are such that the full value of the increase in family allowances is not kept by people above a certain level of income and at a certain level only part of the value of the increase is kept. It means nothing more than that.

May I plead with my right hon. Friend to look again at the position of widowed mothers and separated mothers who are drawing supplementary assistance and who, as a result of the family allowance increases, are not receiving one penny more? Is there not a special case for allowing these people to receive more money by not having their supplementary benefits reduced?

My hon. Friend will readily understand that in our somewhat complex social security system it is not possible to help every group at the same time. That trouble has caused some unhappy feelings. The kind of person to whom my hon. Friend is referring got an increase last October. This time we undertook a different exercise and it was specifically designed for a different group of people. In circumstances such as this, we cannot assist everybody simultaneously.

With respect to the right hon. Lady, is she aware that she appeared on Thursday not fully to understand the workings of her own selective scheme? Would she now make it clear —she did not on Thursday and her Answer has not, either—whether or not she is taking into account earned income relief?

I gave the hon. Gentleman a very full statement about this last Thursday and I do not intend to repeat it now. I am sorry if my accusations of his misunderstanding have provoked him today.

asked the Minister of Social Security what was the average administrative cost of refunding a single prescription charge when they were last in force; and what is the estimated cost when the charge is reintroduced.

The average cost per refund under the pre-1965 arrangements was about 6d. The new arrangements for exemption will reduce considerably the total number—and consequently the total administrative cost—of refunds that will be necessary. It is not practicable to give a precise estimate in advance of the cost per refund.

Nevertheless, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the total cost of the refunds and exemptions that will be necessary under the scheme being introduced will considerably lessen the revenue from the reintroduction of prescription charges and cast in doubt the whole economic justification for the scheme?

I very much doubt, having successfully arranged exemptions for numbers of people who pre-1965 were covered by refunds, if this will add to the cost. It will, in fact, produce a considerable staff saving for my Ministry as against having to deal separately with each refund. This is, therefore, a move which is doubly desirable; first, in terms of staff time and, secondly, to secure a better system for the people concerned.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will reconsider the arrangement whereby persons in work over retirement age pay earnings-related insurance contributions, but do not receive earnings-related sickness or unemployment benefit when sick or unemployed.

No, Sir. There remain strong reasons against paying sickness and unemployment above the retirement pension rate to those who are over minimum pension age.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware—since the Department admitted to a constituent of mine who raised this matter that it was an injustice—that justice should rate higher than administrative convenience?

We discussed this very thoroughly during the Committee stage of the Measure. We have never claimed this to be a permanent scheme; and the whole matter is, of course, being examined in planning the new long-term provisions.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether the additional contributions paid after retirement age by those still in work represent actuarily the increment in pension received after retirement, bearing in mind the pension forgone in the interim period.

No, Sir. Increments provide only partial compensation for pension forgone and additional contributions paid, but they are complementary to the retirement condition and are not solely an actuarial matter.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will take steps to relax the earnings rule in respect of married women whose husbands are disabled and in receipt of National Insurance benefit owing to their incapacity to work.

My right hon. Friend shares the hon. Gentleman's concern about the position of these families. This is one aspect of the wider question of the provision to be made for dependency benefits in National Insurance, which she is at present studying.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is often desirable, if not essential, in this type of family for the wife of a disabled husband to augment the family income? Would he therefore consider either raising the limit of £2 16s., which the husband's benefit curtails, or have a graduated scale so that if the wife earns more than £2 16s. the family retains some of the benefit.

I agree that that would help some families in these circumstances. However, I am not so sure that it would be right to give additional assistance— for that is what we would be giving— to such families where the wife is able to go out to work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It would mean that wives who, for various reasons, are not able to go out to work, would not get any advantage at all. We want to deal with the subject so that equitable assistance is given.

When will my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement about the plight of mothers and housewives who are themselves disabled and who for this reason cannot go out to work? When will a statement be made about some consideration being given to a type of pension for these people, perhaps along the lines outlined in the evidence sent to him by the Disabled Incomes Group?

My hon. Friend can rest assured that we are very concerned about the chronic sick and, in particular, about disabled housewives. We will have the information upon the completion of the study as quickly as possible and give the House the fullest information at the earliest possible moment.

For how long has the Minister been studying this matter? How much would it cost to implement this proposal? Is he aware that this matter has been under consideration for some time and that I received an Answer about two months ago saying that the Minister was studying it?

We cannot give an estimate or cost the proposal until we know precisely what we are going to do. We have been studying this for two years. It is not a new problem and if half the studies conducted by previous Conservative Administrations had gone into this matter, we might now have been in a position to solve the problem.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will include the cost of window cleaning as an allowance when her officers are assessing supplementary benefits for infirm people.

The basic supplementary benefit rates are intended to cover, among other things, small household expenses such as the cost of window cleaning.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain cases people are capable of carrying out their normal household duties but are not, particularly in old houses with high windows and modern flats, able to clean their windows and that this means additional expense? Will he ask his officers to use their discretion in these cases?

I appreciate the difficulty caused by certain types of window, and perhaps the same difficulty arises with windows which open outwards. In the last review of the Supplementary Benefits Commission an attempt was made to get away from the constant examination of minor types of expenditure, some of them of less than 1s. a week. That was the reason why the position was recast; and the supplementary benefits rates take into account these additional small items.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the estimated gross product of the 2s. surcharge on cement in a full year; and what is his estimate of the aggregate gross profits of the cement companies in the most recent complete financial year, in the light of the prices and incomes policy.

The 2s. surcharge on cement prices in respect of oil-fuel costs were applied on 16th August, 1967. During the nine full months since then deliveries of Portland and Rapid Hardening Cement have been 12·7 million tons, and the surcharge has amounted to about £1·3 million. It is estimated that in the first full year it will amount to about £1·7 million. My Department collects no figures of profits. The prices and incomes policy applying to cement prices is based on the report of the N.B.P.I.

In view of the very high yield of this surcharge and the fact that the cost of cement is an important element in the cost of a great many other things, will my right hon. Friend keep this matter under very stringent review?

I give an undertaking to do that. I hope very much that the moment the reason for the surcharge is over we shall get a reduction.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) in view of the fact that the new British Embassy in Rome is to cost approximately £1 million, what steps will be taken to ensure that the maximum use is made therein of British timber, ceramics, sanitary fittings, kitchen equipment, furniture and furnishings with a view to obtaining some indirect benefit for British industry from their display in Rome;

It is my policy to give the maximum opportunity for the supply of British materials and equipment to British Embassies provided they are competitive in design, price, delivery and maintenance. Designers and contractors are made aware of this policy and every encouragement is given to British suppliers to take advantage of it.

With regard to the embassy in Rome, will the Minister give instructions to Sir Basil Spence to see that it is not only an advertisement for British design but also for British craftsmanship and is not filled with Italian marble and all the rest?

The cost is £850,000, not £1 million. We had better get that right. We shall ensure that all the furniture and furnishings and as much equipment as possible will be of British origin, and Sir Basil Spence has been told that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that although the kitchen equipment in the embassy in Rome will be British the food which is served will not be?

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in his discussions with the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, on techniques relevant to the construction industry.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I have agreed that any facilities at the Royal Aircraft Establishment which are suitable and available will be used to help the construction industry. Ways of extending the close co-operation which already exists between the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Building Research Station are being examined.

My right hon. Friend has personally taken a great deal of trouble in this matter, for which I thank him. Will he say whether any results are expected in the matter of condensation in new housing, which is a great problem that perhaps could be solved at Farnborough?

I cannot give an answer to that, but in reply to the representations which have been made to me personally I have taken this matter up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. My hon. Friend is quite right in suggesting that research facilities which are available should be made available to the Government as a whole and not only to a particular Department.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total expenditure by his Department for any convenient period during 1967–68 at Aldabra Atoll, in the Indian Ocean.

Expenditure at Aldabra was negligibile, but the total cost to my Ministry of the 1967 survey and of planning in connection with the project was about £10,000.

From his experience, have my right hon. Friend and the Department learned anything about the difficulties of forward estimating techniques, and what conclusions have been drawn?

One thing we have learned is not to try to build bases in places like Aldabra.

asked the Minister of Technology what are the annual totals of financial support which he has given to civil aerospace projects from and including 1964 to that estimated for 1968.

The figures for the four financial years from 1964–65 were £29 million, £34 million, £52 million and £67 million respectively. The estimate for 1968–69 is £85 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply, which I think indicates the measure of support the industry is receiving from this Government. Can my hon. Friend say whether the figure for 1968 includes an amount for the European airbus?

No, the figure for the European airbus is not in this particular amount.

Bearing in mind the recent decision over E.L.D.O., when the present programme comes to an end, is it proposed to ensure that the maximum value is obtained from the money already spent by carrying on a space programme for this country thereafter?

Space is another subject and I must ask that a separate Question be put down on that.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will state the totals of British aerospace exports since and including 1964 and his estimate of the likely level of exports in 1968.

In the years from 1964 to 1967 the exports of the British aircraft industry were £104 million, £150 million, £229 million and £207 million respectively. Present indications are that exports in 1968 may exceed £250 million.

Will my hon. Friend continue with the outstanding efforts he has made in supporting the industry and also, I trust, point out to those who were critical of the earlier efforts of the Government that the Government's policy is now paying very handsome dividends for the nation?

I thank my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. It is absolutely true that during the last four years we have been able to reduce the emphasis on defence building and put the emphasis on building for export. This is shown up in the figures I have given this afternoon.

But is it not abundantly clear that a great deal of this is attributable to the initiative of the companies themselves and that most of these export figures arise from matters long before 1964?

If the hon. Gentleman would consult his friends in industry, I am sure he will have ample information from them that they give great credit to the partnership with the Government in the last four years. Many of the exports would not have been achieved unless this partnership had been established.

asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to co-ordinate Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the findings of the Seebohm Committee.

My colleagues and I will be considering the Report as soon as we have been able to see and digest its recommendations.

When the Report is published, will the Lord President of the Council consider establishing in each local authority area facilities for consultation with the field workers in the social services? Does he also agree that it might be useful to establish joint bodies which would look at position and reorganisation at every possible stage so that there is no frustration in the social services?

I am not prepared to exclude any possibilities. We shall certainly consider everything at national level and consider possibilities at local level as well.

Will the Lord President of the Council approach his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that soon after the publication of the Report there will be a full debate on the subject in view of its extreme importance?

It is not wise to anticipate what happens. I would not expect the Report until July. We shall have to see how things go after that.

asked the Lord President of the Council what structural changes he intends to propose in the Ministries of Health and Social Security or other Ministries, in the light of his duties relating to social policy; and what savings he expects to make as result.

No date has yet been fixed for the merger of the two Departments and, after the merger itself has been accomplished, the final structure may well take some time to fashion. It will need to reflect the Government's developing social policies and to be attuned to any decisions taken in the light of the Seebohm Report, the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government and the review which the Minister of Health has initiated of the administrative structure of the Health Services.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from that reply it sounds as if this merger will never take place? Will he indicate the rough time scale of what he has in mind?

I do not think there is any reason to think that the merger will not take place. It will take place in the near future. What I said is that there are two stages, the merger itself and the final structure later. I would regard the merger as something relatively simple to do and it will not take too long. What I warned the hon. Member of was that after the merger the second stage almost certainly will require legislation.

Bearing in mind the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and the reference to participating democracy, does my right hon. Friend agree that there might be some value in producing a green paper so that we could participate in this most important matter?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was referring to the Seebohm Committee or to the merger. With regard to the merger, I would not think a green paper necessary.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this merger will be widely welcomed by workers in this field and will provide considerable opportunities for progress? Will my right hon. Friend try to break down some of the divisions which exist in the Health Service between hospitals, general practitioners and local authority services?

Everybody in the Service will agree that there is much to be done, but we should not commit ourselves. We have this long list of reports to study. They will take some time to digest. I have no doubt that we all want to see a break-down of these artificial divisions. Agreement on the next stage will be a great deal more difficult to achieve.

When will the promise made in 1964 to transfer the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health to the Welsh Office be fulfilled?

That seems to be a slightly different question. I would like to reflect on it before giving a considered answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is aware that there has been a fall of 9,000 in the number of persons employed in manufacturing industries in the Northern Region in the year ended June, 1967; and what steps she will take to find employment for these people.

I am aware of the estimated reduction in manufacturing industries in the Northern Region during the period June, 1966, to June, 1967. This reduction was a percentage decrease of 1·9 and compares with a percentage decrease of 3·1 in persons employed in manufacturing industries in Great Britain as a whole, for the same period. My local offices are doing all they can to provide alternative work for those made unemployed, including offers of training facilities where appropriate.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point on comparative percentage falls, but does he appreciate how very serious this fall is, particularly as the latest D.E.A. figure on the jobs needed to replace those lost in contracting basic industries is 17,000 annually?

Yes, I very much appreciate this need. During the last six months several major firms have announced that they are going to the North-East. We shall continue to encourage firms which will provide alternative employment and bed themselves down there to do so.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that these comparative percentage figures do not truly reflect the deep concern felt in the area? There are two points which he might examine. First, will he consider that the Tees-side and Hartlepools area cannot afford any more unemployment? I refer to the Furness shipyard. Secondly, will my hon. Friend report to the Secretary of State the urgent need to review once again the effect of S.E.T. and the Regional Employment Premium on the Northern Region?

As last Thursday I met all the local employment committees covering the Northern Region, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully aware of the problem throughout the region. During the last two months announcements in relation to Tees-side— Monsanto, I.C.I., and various other firms—provide some hope that there will be increased employment in the area. I wish that my hon. Friend would address his questions on S.E.T. to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

The S.E.T. was surely introduced to shift people from commerce to manufacturing. As it has completely failed in this objective, will not the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor to have this tax abolished everywhere?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor has asked Mr. Reddaway to look at the effects of S.E.T. We shall have to await his report.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the extent of the serious concern we all share at the continuing high level of unemployment in the Northern Region? Will he undertake to make representations to the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that the grant for machinery and plant is not reduced at the end of this year from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent., because this will surely reduce the employment opportunities in the region?

My hon. Friend is only repeating what other hon. Members have said. Nobody could be more aware than I, because I represent Jarrow, of the need for more employment. I will certainly bring my hon. Friend's comment about investment grants to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is aware of the substantial fall in the number of persons employed in service industries in the Northern Region in the past year; and what investigation she has made to discover the causes of this fall.

I am aware that the estimated number of employees in service industries in the Northern Region in June, 1967, was 4,700 less than in June, 1966, a difference of 0·8 per cent. No special investigation has been made. Decreases in some service industries were in part offset by increases in others.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since June, 1967, there has been a continuing and ever-increasingly rapid fall in the number of people employed in service industries in the region? Is he aware that the region's great need is diversification of industry? Will he take fully into account the highly detrimental effect of Selective Employment Tax on development areas?

I am aware that the July, 1966, measures had a serious effect upon service industries in the North, as they did throughout the country. I will certainly ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to that fact. We intend to relieve certain hotels in rural parts of development areas from the payment of S.E.T.

Will my hon. Friend make strong representations to the Treasury for a favourable decision to the North-East on the siting of the P.A.Y.E. computer centre at an early date. This is urgently needed by the North-East.

I am as interested in where that centre should be sited as is my hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he appears to be rather complacent in that he has given no reason for the decline in employment in service industries in the Northern Region and has said that he is not finding out anything about it? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State, who is not here this afternoon, is fully informed of the strong feelings which have been expressed from both sides of the House?

I am not complacent. I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has asked Mr. Reddaway to conduct an inquiry into the working of S.E.T. Mr. Reddaway will ascertain what its effects are, not only nationally, but in the Northern Region and in other development areas in particular.

ask the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will institute an inquiring into the feasibility of 24-hour shift systems.

At the request of the National Joint Advisory Council, industrial rela-lations officers of my Department under took a series of studies of shift working which were published at the end of 1967. Several independent studies have also been carried out, and others are still in train. My right hon. Friend is not proposing to initiate a further general inquiry.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full and helpful reply. Some of us regard 24-hour shift systems as most important in an area of high capital intensive industry. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not prepared to institute a full inquiry, may I ask that the utmost consideration be given to this matter?

We shall certainly encourage the further spread of shift working where it shows itself to be advantageous.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 24-hour shift working does not operate at all in the Palace of Westminster, where hon. Members have to work all three shifts?

That is not a matter for me.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if some of these efficiency experts had to do a bit of night shift and shift work themselves, as some of us have, they would not be so damned enthusiastic about it?

I agree with my hon. Friend, speaking as one who has had a lot of experience of working night shifts in a factory. Studies have been carried out by the Medical Research Council's Industrial Psychology Unit into the social aspects of nightshift work. We await the publication of the report of these studies with interest.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in coal-mining and in the steel industry three-shift working has been normal practice for a very long time—for 50 or 100 years—that there is a great deal of plant in British industry which is working only one-third of the day and not working at all on Saturdays and Sundays, and that we are losing out as compared with other countries which are now adopting two-shift and three-shift systems?

The economic advantages of shift work are not so clear-cut as the hon. Gentleman suggests. They tend to be offset by such factors as night-shift premiums. It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that a detailed 10-year survey into shift-working was conducted by Robin Harris and financed by my Ministry for the period 1954 to 1964. The conclusion was that there was no evidence to prove that shift-working was in all cases advantageous or profitable.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, where it does operate, night-shift working creates a great deal of unhappi-ness, unpleasantness and difficulty for the people involved, and that, while it may be true that there is a greater use of plant and machinery, people's happiness and health come before that? Further does my hon. Friend know of any lawyers who work 24 hours?

The legal profession is not a responsibility of my Department. I accept that any economic advantages which can be gained wherever shift work proves to be advantageous must be weighed against the social consequences.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what percentage increase has taken place in the employment of factory inspectors since 1960.

Between 1960 and 1968 the establishment of factory inspectors increased by 34·6 per cent. and the effective strength by 30 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of factory inspectors is still inadequate, and will he say what representations he has received from the Trades Union Congress to increase the number?

I cannot answer the last part of my hon. Friend's question without notice. I accept that there are not enough inspectors—I have said that we are under establishment—and this is why we are constantly advertising for more men who have the necessary skills.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many employers have undertaken off-the-job training schemes at semi-skilled level and for upgrading adult workers to skilled level in the North-East and in other development areas; and what Government assistance has been provided

I regret that information is mot available to answer the first part of the Question. On the second part, a scheme of grants was introduced last year under which £2 million was made available to encourage off-the-job training schemes at the semi-skilled level. Applications to the value of £1,150,000 have been approved or are under consideration.

As this is a very important matter, will my hon. Friend follow it up with inquiries, since there seems to be evidence that employers are not taking as much advantage of these opportunities as they might?

At the beginning, there was that fear, but the scheme was extended as employers began to demand, or at least request, additional assistance under it, much of it stimulated by the beneficial effects of the regional employment premium.

The first part of my hon. Friend's Answer will disappoint many of us on this side. Will he consider making a Paper available and also indicating the growth of off-the-job training schemes during the past three or four years?

I shall consider that; but to give an accurate picture we shall have to define the terms a little more precisely than they are in the original Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many applications, up to October, 1967, and since that date, have been made by new or expanding firms in the North-East development area for Government assistance to help meet the cost of training additional labour; how many of such applications have been approved; and what has been the amount of the assistance for each of the two periods.

From September, 1964, to 30th September, 1967, there were 369 applications from firms in the Northern development area; 286 were approved. From 1st October, 1967, to 30th April, 1968, a further 158 applications were made, of which 117 have been approved. Ninety-nine applications were still under consideration at the end of April. Payments of grants totalled £400,000 up to and including September, 1967, and £294,000 from 1st October, 1967, to 31st March, 1968.

Does my hon. Friend regard that as a satisfactory response? Does it not show the willingness of the Government to give really practical assistance in this crucial respect?

Not only do I regard it as a satisfactory response, but I know it to be a response which is difficult to assimilate at a single hearing. What it means in simple terms is that the rate of application has more than trebled over the. recent past.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she plans to introduce legislation along the lines indicated in the document entitled "New Safety, Health and Welfare Legislation".

I regret that I am not yet in a position to say when the proposed legislation will come before the House. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is a very complex subject entailing a lot of consultation with interested parties, but we are pressing ahead as fast as we can.

This matter has now been under discussion for very many months and it is now urgent. May I press my hon. Friend to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity announcing the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the subject?

I give my hon. Friend a firm promise now that it is our intention during the lifetime of this Parliament to endeavour to bring the new Bill forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether her Department has been notified of the threatened stoppage of work by staff employed by the British Steel Corporation over the question of union recognition; and what action she intends to take to resolve the dispute.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union today.

I appreciate the prompt action taken by the Minister, but will my hon. Friend point out to his right hon. Friend that there is deep resentment felt by clerical staff, who have always been recognised by firms in the past, that such recognition is declined by the nationalised steel industry? There is great resentment. Will every effort be made to resolve what could be an ugly dispute?

It would be inadvisable for me to add to the reply which I have already given.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in the consultations that more than one union is involved and take care not to short-circuit discussions which have been taking place in the T.U.C. on this matter with the other unions traditionally concerned in the steel industry?

I assure my hon. Friends that the views which they have expressed will be brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Is my hon. Friend saying that there has been no connection at any time between his Department and the British Steel Corporation and that no instructions have been given that it must recognise trade unions because it is a nationalised industry?

The Department has been continually informed about the situation, but we have not intervened until it was deemed appropriate. That intervention is occurring today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding the latest decisions of the Council of Europe about the membership of Greece on the Council.

Although the situation in Greece was debated at the meeting of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg at the beginning of May, no resolutions or recommendations were passed by the Assembly.

One appreciates that there is still time for consideration at the Council of Europe, but is it not time that discussions about political developments in Greece were carried forward into the N.A.T.O. Council as well for decision there?

As my hon. Friend and the House know, certain procedures have been started through the agency of the Council of Europe, and I think that it is the general view that we must await the outcome of those while in the meantime hoping that Greece will move in the direction we all want to see.

Will the British Government support the latest Scandinavian plea for political prisoners in Greece and the former Greek Prime Minister? Why does Britain tend to lag behind the Scandinavian countries in the concern felt by all democratic countries about political prisoners?

As I made clear in the debate on the subject of Greece just over a month ago, initiated by my hon. Friend, we have a great deal of sympathy with the initiative which the Scandinavian Governments took in the Council of Europe, and I think that no one reading that debate will have any doubt of how strongly we feel about those events in Greece to which all of us must take exception.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will set up an official inquiry into the causes of the damage to Putney Heath.

Not if the right hon. Member is referring to the deposit of soil from road improvements. The Greater London Council can by their General Powers Act, 1966, deposit soil on the common in places agreed by the Conservators. The council must afterwards grass the land and replace any buried trees.

Did the hon. Gentleman study the recent correspondence in The Times? Does his Answer imply that he is quite detached as regards the serious damage done to this lovely heath by the deposits there of masses of slag, gravel and rubble over certain parts of it, with permanent damage to some of the flora?

Work is being carried out under powers authorised by Parliament, and the Conservators and the Greater London Council are in discussion with one another about how to maintain the amenities.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made, to the latest convenient date, of the effect on industrial building of the Selective Employment Tax.

The effect on industrialised housebuilding costs will vary according to the system but will be less than the effect on contractors in general. That was covered in the reply given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) on 14th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 229–30.]

Is not that a very vague Answer? Is it not a fact that the imposition of double S.E.T. has a very considerable effect on industrialised building?

Industrialised building has some advantages in this matter over traditional building.

asked the Minister of Health when the study on the social welfare of the elderly, which was submitted to the Government Social Survey on 14th December, 1965, is going to be completed and published.

A report summarising results in 11 areas in England, Wales and Scotland is now in draft. The final version will be published as soon as possible.

Is not the Minister ashamed that the report on the social welfare of the elderly has taken nearly three years to get out, during which time many of the people being surveyed must have died? Will not he give the Government Social Survey a shot in the arm and get its work done quickly?

Any questions about the workings of the Government Social Survey should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have no reason to believe that the Survey has been anything but expeditious in this matter, which it has carried out thoroughly.