asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the change in the number of persons in employment in Scotland between 1964 and the latest available date.

It is provisionally estimated that the number of employees in employment in Scotland decreased by 35,000 between June, 1964 and March. 1968.

In a work of science fiction called the "Scottish Plan", the Government forecast an increase of 60,000 in the number of people in employment by 1970. Since we have gone halfway in the opposite direction, why not scrap the Scottish Plan and do something about its figures?

Because we still have halfway to go. I hope that, when we reach the end, the hon. Gentleman will realise that he has been too premature with his Question.

How much assistance are the Government getting in increasing employment in Scotland from purely Scottish firms as distinct from firms which come from America and other odd corners of the earth?

It is not possible to give that information without notice.

Do the Government still adhere to the targets in the Scottish Plan?

We still believe that, by 1970, there will be a considerable improvement in the economic position in Scotland as compared with what we inherited in 1964.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many reports have been made to the Government by the National Board for Prices and Incomes; in how many cases such reports recommended a reduction in prices; and how many of such recommendations for reduced prices have been put into effect.

Eighty-five, of which about half dealt with prices. Two reports recommended price reductions both of which were put into effect.

In the light of these figures, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Board has a useful rôle to play with this work? Do not recent developments in connection with resale price maintenance show that competition is a more effective method?

I certainly do not minimise the importance and value of competition, nor of extending the application of competition. But I am equally sure that the Board has not only an important but a crucial rôle to play, as its 40-odd reports on prices and two recent price reductions which have come from those reports demonstrate.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many months in 1967 and 1968 the total of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, has been above 500,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many months since April 1966, up to the latest available date, the monthly seasonally adjusted total of unemployed has exceeded 500,000.

Seventeen, from May 1967, onwards.

In the light of that somewhat tragic commentary on Labour Party policy, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can answer simply two straighforward supplementary Questions. First, what is the level of unemployment which the Labour Party now regards as full employment in the light of its pledges? Secondly, when is it estimated that that will be achieved?

The hon. Gentleman already has the information asked for in the first supplementary Question. He merely wanted to ask it again today because he thought it would cause political embarrassment. He has asked the same question three times this year. We are pledged to full employment consistent with a viable economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many people were registered wholly unemployed on 1st October, 1968 or the nearest convenient date; and how many had been wholly unemployed for the nine months ended on that date.

At 9th September, 1968, there were 535,000 persons registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain. Comprehensive duration analyses of the wholly unemployed are made quarterly and the latest available is for July. At 8th July, 505,000 persons were registered as wholly unemployed, and 114,000 has been on the register for more than nine months.

Is it not evident from these figures that we are now suffering the highest sustained level of unemployment since the war? Is it the new policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain a stagnant pool of unemployed to secure the viable economy to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement put out last week by the Confederation of British Industry, which is now beginning to think in terms of a shortage of labour. We hope that we shall now make some inroads into this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she has made an estimate of the level which unemployment is likely to reach this winter.

Yes, but as my right hon. Friend has already said in the House, we are not prepared to give forecasts of the future level of unemployment.

The House will be perturbed that the Ministry is not prepared to make this forecast. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that unemployment is likely to remain at the high level which has been attained already and that that level could have been reduced if the retraining facilities of the Ministry had been much greater? Even at this late stage, would the hon. Gentleman consider introducing a crash programme to increase the retraining facilities?

On the last point, let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the training facilities today, in four years since the Labour Government took office, are just double what they were after 13 years of Tory government and that by 1971 they will be trebled. I hope that as we increase the training facilities, involving additional public expenditure, we shall have no cries from hon. Members opposite about the increase in public expenditure.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to Question No. 18 the Secretary of State said that arrangements were being made for much more detailed forward manpower requirement planning? If all this work is being undertaken, why cannot the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the expected trend in the labour market?

If the hon. Gentleman can give me a forecast of what the weather will be like between now and April, I could probably give him a better forecast of what unemployment there will be.

The Government must be clear about this matter. If greater attempts are to be made to plan manpower in advance, is it not essential that the estimate should be given? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister gave an estimate at the time of devaluation?

I have been a Member of the House for longer than the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot remember a Minister of his party being prepared to give the information which the Opposition are trying to extract from us now.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and of the reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many applicants have been accepted for future retraining in industry in Scotland; and what number to date have been retrained since January 1965.

Figures for training carried out within industry as a whole are not available. On 9th September, 701 accepted applicants were awaiting admission to Government Training Centres in Scotland. Since January 1965, 4,617 persons have completed courses at these Centres.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is anxiety in Scotland about the possibility of future redundancy in the mining industry? What co-operation is there between industries in order to ensure adequate retraining for the men involved?

I am satisfied that the bulk of the retraining, which must be done under the aegis of the industrial training boards, is being carried out in an appropriate way. The Government are keeping an eye on the provisions made by the boards for Scotland to ensure that provision is made for the redundancy of which my hon. Friend has spoken. I also confirm that, as well as the Government training centre places having been increased substantially in the last 4 years, it is intended to continue the expansion of this programme up to 1971–72.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many school-leavers in Scotland are still unemployed since the last figures were given in July 1968.

On 9th September, 1968, 1,402 school-leavers were registered as unemployed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we attach great importance to the figures for the number of unemployed school-leavers in Scotland? Is he aware that last week a Scottish county reported that it had the smallest number of school-leavers unemployed since 1957?

I am happy to learn that. The overall position is that there are more vacancies for school-leavers than there are unemployed school-leavers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many days were lost due to industrial disputes during the first nine months of 1968, compared with the corresponding periods of 1967, 1966 and 1965, respectively; and what improvement otherwise is occurring in strike losses.

The number of working days lost due to stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes during the first nine months of 1968 was 3,874,000 compared with 1,751,000, 2,043,000 and 2,511,000 during the corresponding periods of 1967, 1966 and 1965 respectively.

Again, do not these figures demonstrate that the aggregation of days lost due to industrial disputes is steadily rising and this year has reached a crescendo? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to date in the motor industry alone £60 million of exports have been lost this year? What does he propose to do about it?

I do not minimise the importance of the figures which the hon. Gentleman has elicited from me. Neither does my right hon. Friend, who is adopting a policy of attacking the causes rather than the symptoms of the strikes. However, I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. The crescendo, if crescendo it was, was reached in 1959 or 1962 when appreciably more days were lost. However, I give that as a statistical correction and not in any way to minimise the importance of the figures which I have quoted today.

Has my hon. Friend any comparison of days lost through strikes in other countries? Is he aware that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has clearly shown that this country is no worse for industrial disputes and strikes than America?

That is a statistical fact, comparing days lost with totals of the working population, but my right hon. Friend has said in the past and I say again today that that is only one of the considerations to be borne in mind and that analysis and that comparison should not make us complacent about days lost in this country. My right hon. Friend is committed to adopting a policy which reduces the days lost here.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House when we are to have not words but action? Does not the Donovan Report clearly show that the trend of wild-cat strikes has been heavily rising over the last decade? This is the scourge of British industrial relations which must be tackled.

I am sure that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he has had a great deal of action during the last three weeks concerning both the motor industry and the general engineering industry. However, I say now as I said in my main Answer that my right hon. Friend is attacking causes rather than symptoms, which is not so politically dramatic, but certainly more likely to bring a pause to this unfortunate figure.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (I) why the men and women employed in Remploy factories are paid on an average £12 10s. and £9, respectively, which is below the national average; (2) why disabled men and women employed at Remploy factories do not receive equal wages, in view of the fact they are both disabled; and how many men and women so employed are receiving war or industrial injury pensions.

Remploy wage rates are determined, as for industry in general, by consultation and negotiation between Remploy and the trade unions concerned. I am sure that this is the right way, and I do not think I ought to comment or intervene. I am afraid that no information is available on the incidence of war or industrial pensioners in Remploy's severely disabled labour force.

In view of the continued rise in the cost of living and as these people are not able to get any kind of bonus, why cannot this be considered again? Will not the hon. Gentleman look into the subject of the differentiation between pay for men and pay for women? They are equally disabled, so why can they not have equal pay for equal work?

I have made it clear that this is a matter for negotiation between the two sides of industry, as in the rest of industry, for the trade unions, representing the work people, and the employing body. Bonuses are paid. They were introduced during 1963–64 and they have led to a substantial increase in earnings compared with what they were pre-1963–64. That is in no way to detract from what are obviously low average wage levels. The same is true of equal pay as of general negotiations—that this is a matter for the two sides, and I hope that they will take account of the guidance offered recently by my right hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House welcome the change in policy to encourage the establishment of Remploy factories and the wonderful work which is done, and that we also welcome the fact that the Government have changed the disgraceful policy followed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office?

I do not think that any party has a monopoly of virtue in this matter. We have certainly increased the the volume of Government assistance to Remploy and if the opportunity affords and there is a necessity for it, we shall look carefully and sympathetically at the prospect of doing so again in future. The current support for Remploy is £3,750,000, which is about £500 per worker per annum.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will introduce legislation laying an obligation on foreign firms operating in the United Kingdom to negotiate with trade unions in this country.

Trade union recognition and effective collective bargaining are among the topics on which I am consulting industry in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is looking into this matter. Does she not agree that as the nationalised industries have been put under an obligation to negotiate with trade union organisations, there can be no obstacle in principle to solving the problem on the lines I suggest in my Question?

The Royal Commission did not find that there was any particular problem of trade union recognition in connection with foreign firms. This rather forms part of the whole problem of dealing with non-unionism. As I said, we are consulting about the application of the Donovan recommendations.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that most foreign companies co-operate exceedingly well with the trade unions concerned and have excellent labour relations? I can quote one company which has not had a strike in 94 years.

The practice varies with foreign firms, just as it does with British firms. Some foreign firms are very good in this matter, while others have caused difficulties by refusing to recognise unionism. As I say, we must consider this in the context of the Donovan Report as a whole.

Will the right hon. Lady make it clear that she is not proposing any separate legislation or discrimination against properly controlled foreign firms in this country as opposed to home based firms?

I thought that my replies made that clear and I have repeated it more than once. This is not a problem which can be considered separately from the problems of non unionism as a whole.

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

The Retail Price Index rose by 4·5 per cent. between devaluation and September, 1968, Bearing in mind the predictable effects of devaluation and the budget measures, this indicates our success in avoiding unjustifiable increases in retail prices.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that although, of course, many prices have gone up, there is nevertheless certainly a psychological element in what people believe to be the case? Has he any plans to provide more factual information about the way in which prices are behaving, particularly as between one type of retail outlet and another?

It is very difficult to provide adequate information about alternative forms of retail outlet, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking into the format of the publications which he produces to give an indication of the prices of food and related substances. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that our success in limiting price increases is far less well known than it should be and we are committed to doing all we can to bring home to the public the remarkable success which we have had in this respect.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to the Chancellor's post-devaluation strategy was a fall in the standard of living of the British people? Will he remind his right hon. Friend of that fact? Does he not agree that that strategy cannot be fulfilled unless price rises occur faster than rises in wages?

In his Budget statement and subsequent speeches the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it very clear that the Government expected increases in prices as a result of devaluation and as a result of his Budgetary measures. I have referred to them in my Answer this afternoon. But in no way does our economic strategy require us to tolerate unnecessary price increases. Indeed, such increases would work against our economic strategy, and it is to that end my right hon. Friend has mounted her highly successful policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest figures of unemployment of adults and school-leavers in the Thorne district; and how these compare with the national average.

At 14th October there were 833 adults and 111 young persons, of whom 40 were school-leavers registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Thorne employment exchange. The unemployment rate in the Doncaster, Askern and Thorne travel to work area was 4·3 per cent (provisional). On 9th September, the latest date for which comparable national figures are available, the rate was 4·4 per cent. and the corresponding figure for Great Britain was 2·3 per cent.

Has the hon. Gentleman now found a defence for the 11 per cent. unemployment in Thorne by a statistical swindle by amalgamating Thorne and two other areas of much lower unemployment? Why will he not persist in doing what he promised to do some time ago, and adopt special measures to help the 11 per cent. unemployed at Thorne?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend should question my integrity, because that is what this implies. I would not allow anyone to "cook" any books. What happened with regard to travel-to-work areas in Thorne has happened up and down the country, as successive Governments have tried to give a more realistic figure on an area basis. I know how deeply my hon. Friend feels about the Thorne problem, but he knows that the Board of Trade will look sympathetically at requests for industrial development certificates which may be required within the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the recent strike of Dundee Corporation busmen.

The strike started on 13th August, 1968, the day on which the Government referred a local pay agreement to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and imposed a standstill on its implementation. Work was resumed on 5th September. I greatly regret the inconvenience which was caused to the citizens of Dundee. The Board has now reported adversely on the agreement. The Report also shows that there is ample scope in Dundee for a real improvement in productivity and suggests ways of achieving this. The Manpower and Productivity Service of my Department is ready to help the Corporation and the Union in the application of the Board's recommendations.

I am sure that that Answer will be very encouraging to the people of Dundee, who have been so gravely inconvenienced. Is it not a fact that the Prices and Incomes Board, in its wisdom, said that the main clue to increased productivity in Dundee was the spread of single-man buses, and that the sole consequence of the strike has been the removal of those single-man buses which were in operation before the strike? Furthermore, is it not clear from a comparison of the way in which the right hon. Lady provoked this strike, the way in which she has treated the engineers last week, that the only criterion of a prices and incomes policy now is the ability of the union to blackmail the Government?

Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

What the hon. Gentleman says is misleading, because there were three recommendations in the Board's Report. The operation of one-man buses was but one of them. Whether one-man buses have been withdrawn at present is open to question. Negotiations are taking place. The settlement referred to the Board had to be seen against the background of the national negotiations in which my right hon. Friend was then participating. As to the convenience or otherwise of the citizens of Dundee, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that such an increase in wages as was proposed in the original agreement would require, in order to clear the deficit of the Transport Committee, a rise in fares of 7 per cent. or 8 per cent., and I am sure that that, too, would inconvenience the citizens of Dundee.

Order. Answers must be reasonably brief, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many cases of Selective Employment Tax have so far been heard by tribunals under the procedure laid down in Section 7 of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966; and how many such cases have been referred to the courts.

By 30th September, 1968, 1,094 cases under the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, had been heard by industrial tribunals. Of these, 47 had been taken on appeal to the courts.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that this is a further example of what a silly tax S.E.T. is? Does she realise that it is one of the causes of rising unemployment? Would she now accept that she is giving employment to lawyers, instead of to those who are really producing?

That is in no way revealed by the answer, and even if the supplementary question was in any way relevant the answer to it would be "No."

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, what assessment she has made on the impact of Selective Employment Tax on the employment of part-time workers; and if she will make a statement.

As the House is aware, provision was made in the Finance Acts of 1967 and 1968 in respect of part-time employees, which were aimed to discourage any tendency for employers in the tax bearing industries to discharge such workers. In the absence of any comprehensive statistics of part-time employment no quantitative assessment of the effect of Selective Employ- ment Tax can be made, but the indications are that the objects of these provisions are being achieved.

As this particular part of the Tax seems to bear most harshly on women who have to seek part-time employment, because of home responsibilities, can the hon. Gentleman say what representations the Minister has made to the Chancellor, in order to obtain some modification on this part of the Tax?

I hope that I do the hon. Gentleman no disservice by saying that his supplementary question implies that he does not know what was provided for in the 1967–68 Finance Acts, which is the refund in tax-bearing sectors for part-timers doing less than 21 hours a week. Surely that is the result of the sort of representations he would like us to make—made two or three years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the setting up of the new productivity, manpower planning and intelligence units in her Department.

Since I announced, on 2nd May, my intention of setting up a Manpower and Productivity Department, the recruitment of about 20 consultants with suitable management and trade union experience is well advanced. Their job is to give specialised advice on improving productivity by the more efficient deployment of manpower and to act as a mobile task force to assist my industrial relations staff in the regions whose numbers are being increased from 60 to 90. A number of firms are already seeking our help. Particular attention is also being paid to assessing short-term manpower prospects, both nationally and in particular regions and localities, identifying future shortages and surpluses of labour.

Does the right hon. Lady not agree that feminine intuition, formidable though it may be, is not a wholly adequate substitute for hard facts in decision-making? Can she give an assurance that these units will not be held up for lack of finance in carrying out the research as expeditiously as possible?

It is just because I do not think intuition, feminine or masculine, is adequate in this sphere that I have set up this new service.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what criteria it is proposed to apply to wage increases taking effect after the end of 1970.

A decision on incomes policy after the end of 1969 has not been taken. I have asked the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and also the N.B.P.I. to join in a study of what incomes policy should be after the expiry of the current legislation.

If, for example, pay increases for women workers, phased over a seven-year period to bring about equal pay, are entered into now what guarantee can the right hon. Lady give us that employers will not be forced to repudiate the promises in perhaps 1971?

Obviously if a phased programme for the introduction of equal pay was negotiated and agreed by the Government, they would not ask the employer to repudiate such a programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many proposed productivity agreements are at present being helped to function by the intervention of her Department; and how many civil servants are employed on this task.

In September my right hon. Friend's Manpower and Productivity Service, as part of its advisory work, discussed productivity agreements in 29 cases and closely related matters in 69 others. The service has about 60 civil servants in the regions to carry out this and other functions.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will the productivity agreement, which presumably will emerge from the engineering settlement, be nationally negotiated and will the Ministry have a hand in it?

No agreement has yet emerged. It has not yet reached the stage of the involvement of incomes policy, and I am sure that the whole House would agree that, in view of the delicate situation with which we are confronted, it would not be helpful if I were to comment.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if an increased payment is made as a result of the productivity agreement before the productivity is achieved, this will be inflationary, and would such a payment be against the prices and incomes policy or not?

My right hon. Friend will be making a statement at the end of Question Time, if she catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, about the situation in the engineering industry and the progress of the negotiations.

Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that, with the introduction of productivity agreements, particularly in the construction industry, there will be the fullest consultation with the workers on the sites who will operate those agreements as well as with their national trade union leaders?

Full consultation is an essential element in obtaining full cooperation, and we shall seek through the normal industrial channels to have the fullest consultation possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement regarding the dispute in the engineering industry.

I will, with permission, answer this Question at the end of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the question of industrial accidents and their cost to the nation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if, in view of the rise in industrial accidents by 40,000 to 938,000 in 1967, she will recommend that a Royal Commission be set up to investigate such accidents and their prevention.

No, Sir. I am naturally concerned to reduce the number of industrial accidents, but I do not think that the establishment of a Royal Commission would be the best way of dealing with the problem.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1967 more than 24 million man days were lost on account of industrial accidents, which is about eight times the figure of man days lost through industrial disputes? Is it not time that this matter was given a more searching investigation?

I assure my hon. Friend that to achieve a reduction in industrial accidents is one of my major preoccupations, but I cannot agree with him that to set up a Royal Commission is the best way of achieving it. I am already advised by my Industrial Safety Advisory Council., which represents both sides of industry, and I am satisfied that this gives me the insight into the problem which I need.

Why it is not the best way when Royal Commissions have been considered appropriate for betting and marriage and divorce, when this proposal has considerable union support, and when, in addition to the figures given by my hon. Friend, there is the mass of human suffering involved? It is not only a question of days lost.

It is essential that we get the figures clear, because there has been a good deal of confusion about them, as my Chief Inspector of Factories pointed out in his Annual Report for 1967. In that year, just over 304,000 accidents were reported under the Factories Act compared with 296,600 in the previous year. These figures include quite a number of minor injuries such as sprains. The 938,000 quoted in the Question is the number of successful claims for industrial injury benefit, which is not the best measure of accidents. It is encouraging that the number of fatalities dropped by 137—to 564.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many school-leavers are at present signing for employment at the employment exchanges in Ashington and Morpeth in the county of Northumberland; and what action is being taken to assist them.

On 14th October, 1968, 43 school-leavers were registered as unemployed at Ashington and 7 at Morpeth. Youth employment officers are making every effort to help these young persons find employment.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too complacent about the growth of unemployment among school-leavers. Is he aware that with the decline in the mining industry recruitment in that field is now limited? Would he consider the establishment of an East Northumberland Training Centre so that these young people may have some assurance of employment as new industry unfolds?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a reply to the last part of his supplementary question today, but we will write to him. On the first part, the number of school-leavers has substantially dropped since August, when the figure was 101 in Ashington and 31 in Morpeth. My hon. Friend can be assured that, knowing the effect of unemployment on young people, my officers and I will do all we can to speed up the provision of employment for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement regarding her decision to extend the period allowed to the National Board for Prices and Incomes to report on her reference to them of the wage structure in the building and civil engineering industries, and the effect which this extension will have on industrial relations in those industries, in view of the fact that their current three-year wage agreement expires at the beginning of November.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) what reply she has given to the request by the Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes for a further extension of the time required to produce the reports on the wage structures of the building and civil engineering industries; and whether she will make a statement;

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and I greatly regret that it has been necessary to extend the period allowed for these references. We fully realise the difficulties this has caused for the industries. The Board was asked to deal with three important and complex references within a very restricted time. Its timetable was therefore, from the start, extremely tight and unfortunately the results of its earnings surveys in the industries have been delayed. We have had to accept that the Board could not report without this final information. We have been assured that a comprehensive report will be published before the end of November.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that, not only has the Board taken longer than the three months which it is supposed to take in these matters, but that the reference to the Board came late in the day after considerable delay? This sort of delay overrunning the end of the long-term agreement is liable to cause bad industrial relations.

I regret the delay as much as the right hon. Gentleman does. It is a pity that there has been this overrun. There was some delay in starting the references because last-minute representations were received which had to be the subject of rather detailed and protracted consultations. Since the Board started its earnings survey, it has found that the response was so much above expectation—60 per cent. instead of 40 per cent.—that it has taken longer to process it, but I think that the result will be a very thorough job.

But was there not a delay on the part of the Govern- ment before they consulted the N.F.B.T.E. and the N.F.B.T.O. in April of this year, a delay of six months between November, 1967 and April, 1968 which could have been avoided?

No, I do not think that there was any serious delay in deciding on this and going through the normal consultations. These meetings were concluded on 1st May and then last-minute representations were received.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many young people under the age of 21 years are unemployed on Tyneside and Northumberland, respectively, at the latest convenient date.

Separate figures for persons under 21 are not available. On 9th September, 1968, 2,084 young people under the age of 18 were registered as unemployed on Tyneside and 1,833 in Northumberland.

As there have been repeated occasions when there have been far too many unemployed young people on Tyneside and in Northumberland, will the hon. Gentleman please give an assurance that plans in future will be made well in advance? Will he give an assurance that there is a plan, and will he tell us what the plan is.

The hon. Lady is well aware that last year, for instance, the North received between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total investment programme. The hon. Lady is aware that three times as many industrial development certificates were received as should have been received in relation to the insured employees. The hon. Lady knows full well what we are trying to do. I hope that the new industries which are now being set up in the North-East will provide the job opportunities for young people about which she is as concerned as I am.

Will my hon. Friend give an indication of the length of time for which some young people have been out of work, since there is anxiety on Tyneside about this problem?

I am sorry, I cannot give that information without notice, but I will write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will amend the order in which Ministers answer Questions by abolishing the existing Welsh and Scottish Question days and replacing them with days where Questions from every region of the United Kingdom can in turn be taken.

No, Sir.

Although we understand some of the difficulties, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the present set-up produces an unhealthy form of nationalism and, at the same time, gives undoubted advantages to hon. Members who represent constituencies in Scotland and Wales over those who represent constituencies in England? Would he not agree that this is merely a matter of a square deal for hon. Members who represent constituencies other than in Scotland and Wales, and that many of us would welcome an extension—

Order. Hon. Members must be brief, please, on this important issue.

Many of us would welcome the extension of the Parliamentary working year to enable other regions of Great Britain to receive equal treatment.

I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend has said. I deplore unhealthy nationalism, but my hon. Friend must appreciate that the inclusion of Scotland and Wales in the roster is justified because specific Ministers have responsibilities exclusive to those areas, and no area claims the exclusive attention of particular Ministers. It is for this reason that we have that arrangement.

Has the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Bedfordshire (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) not shown amazing parochialism and ignorance by putting that question? Does the Minister not appreciate that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for answering Questions which are answered by an equivalent of seven Government Ministers on a national basis, and that he does not answer these Questions very well in any event?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should disagree when I say that I deplore unhealthy nationalism. He knows full well the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Secretary of State for Wales. My answer was precise, and I should have thought that it would have been accepted. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that this is a party matter.

While I share the view of my right hon. Friend that Welsh Questions must go on, may I ask whether he would agree that it would be a great pity if we were to lose the lovely Welsh accent of my hon. Friend?

I think that the loss of accents would be a tragedy for any reason. I deplore the standardisation of English.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when, in the next Session of Parliament, he plans to move to set up a Select Committee to review the problems arising on the rules governing Parliamentary Questions.

I hope that a Select Committee on Procedure will be set up very early in the new Session. I have noted this as one possible subject for their consideration.

In noting subjects for their consideration will the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that, whereas the number of Ministers and the scope of their intervention in the national life has steadily widened over the years, the time available for oral Questions is no greater than it was in 1945? In those circumstances, will he consider this as a matter of urgency, and set up a Select Committee to recommend quickly an improvement which will enable hon. Members to have a reasonable chance of putting an oral Question to a Minister?

As I said, I am aware of this; that is why I gave the answer I did.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the first Report on Public Schools was not available to Members of Parliament in the Vote Office on the day of publication.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 14th October.—[Vol. 770, c. 46.]

Does not the Minister agree that, where it is necessary to use a green form, hon. Members, having filled one in, should receive a Report on the day of issue and not subsequently?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read the reply of the Secretary of State on the Newsom Report. I need not repeat the answer; I thought it was reasonable. He said that he would try to avoid any difficulty.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many hon. Members have now informed him of their support for the proposals that new Members desiring to take their seats may be called on to do so immediately after Question Time, rather than after the end of Statements to the House.

I have had representations only from the hon. Member himself, although I see that five other hon. Members have signed the Early Day Motion tabled by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that small number is mainly because it was during the Recess? Could the Minister not take appropriate action such as referring it to the Committee on Procedure? This is a very simple, very small matter, and there are three by-elections pending.

I understand the hon. Member's concern on this question. As he said, it is a simple, small matter. I do not detect any major volume of opinion in the House for a change. I have noted what he says, but I do not think that I could change it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many additional Clerks have been recruited for the service of House of Commons committees; and whether the total number of Clerks will now be up to establishment.

Two new Clerks were appointed on 1st August last, and the appointment of a temporary clerk has been extended. The total number of clerks is now thirty-nine. Two new higher executive officer posts have also been authorised, to assist in the work of Committees. It is hoped that during the coming Session it will be possible to increase the total number of clerks up to the establishment of 42.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that meanwhile the Clerks in post are under a great deal of unnecessary pressure, brought on by the fact that we are under establishment? Can he say whether this state of affairs will inhibit the Government in establishing further Specialist Committees, which have been such a hopeful development of the last year or so?

I appreciate the positive approach of my hon. Friend. I think he is right about this matter. Inevitably the number of Clerks—and the Clerks give great service to the House—affects the setting up of Specialist Committees. I am aware of this, and I am continually in touch with the Chancellor on this matter. I take my hon. Friend's point.

Was not the complement of 42 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred laid down before the decision to expand the number of Select and Specialist Committees, and is not the whole working of that system, whatever view one takes of it, being prejudiced by the inadequate number of extremely hard-worked Clerks?

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I accept this. That is why, as I have said, I am in touch with the Chancellor. This is a very important matter. Hon. Members who are so enthusiastic about reforms forget that we must have the staff to meet these requirements.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now initiate the establishment of a Specialist Committee to investigate the activities of the Scottish Office, and the activities of other Government Departments in Scotland.

I shall bear this suggestion in mind when I bring proposals for setting up Select Committees before the House early next Session. But I cannot enter into any commitments at this stage.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether that Answer has been influenced by the fact that we are short of Clerks, or is my right hon. Friend saying that he agrees very much in principle with the importance of establishing such a Committee but that he is prevented from doing so until there are available the required number of Clerks to man the Committees?

The hon. Member has put to me a very subtle question. Of course I must bear in mind the ability to staff Committees. I have said that, and the hon. Member will have appreciated my reply to the previous Question. There are matters affecting Scotland and Wales; I am pressurised by many hon. Members from different parts of the country, as indeed was shown in a previous Question, to consider the needs of other areas as well. All these factors must be borne in mind. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but perhaps early in the next Session, as I have said, I may be able to make a more definite pronouncement.

When the Leader of the House is bearing this in mind over the next week or two, will he bear in mind also that the Secretary of State for Scotland, even as distinct from the Secretary of State for Wales, has executive responsibilities to this House which are the equivalent of seven or eight Ministries, that, therefore, the capacity of the individual Member to cross-examine him on individual matters of policy is much less than with other Ministers, and that the establishment of this Specialist Committee is a good suggestion, which would go a long way to improve the responsibilities of Government to the people of Scotland?

I am aware of the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the desire of several hon. Members to have this Specialist Committee. I said that I must look at many sides of this. I will bear the matter in mind.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the cost of importing sound equipment for use in recording the proceedings in Parliament; and to what extent export orders to reciprocate have been negotiated by Her Majesty's Government with the European country concerned.

I understand that the imported element in this contract amounted to £1,500. The selection was made after a careful survey and competitive tendering.

In view of the exhortation of the Government to everybody else to replace imports with home products, should we not set an example in this place, even though it is only a matter of £1,000 or so for tape recorders, and not have overseas cutlery and tape recorders?

I have explained the difficulties. This applies to a much wider field than materials which we import here. I would hate not to have good French wines, even here.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will seek to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the convention whereby members of the House are unable to discuss matters or table questions relating to the administration in Northern Ireland.

No, Sir. The House is already free to discuss, on an appropriate Motion, those Northern Ireland affairs which are within the transferred field.

But would not my right hon. Friend understand that that is a most disappointing Answer, particularly in view of the brutalities which we witnessed on television in Londonderry a week last Saturday and particularly because of statements in the Press this week that the Royal Ulster Constabulary were stationed on H.M.S. "Eagle" the evening before they went into action in Londonderry and also because—

On a point of order. The Lord Privy Seal said that it is not his intention that the convention should be upset whereby questions are asked which are properly within the confines of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Surely, this is precisely what the hon. Member is now trying to do.

The question is about whether Ministers should change the convention.

rose—

Order. The hon. Member must be brief.

I wanted to raise a point further to that point of order, but, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I will curtail my remarks. In view of the fact that this Government give a subvention to the Northern Ireland Government of over £100 million a year, surely we in this House can discuss civil rights for our own fellow citizens?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I answered what I think was really the point at issue, in relation to the constitutional position over responsibility. I did not seek to deploy an argument about matters which my hon. Friend has raised concerning brutality, which I deplore. As I said, the House is already free to discuss, on an appropriate Motion, those Northern Ireland affairs which are within the transferred field. It is up to my hon. Friend to make his position felt if he so wishes.

When the right hon. Gentleman is considering these matters, would he bear in mind that it is ill-informed sniping of the kind which we have just heard which may in the end drive people in Northern Ireland into undesirable entrenched positions and, indeed, destroy moderate opinion there?

No one in the House wishes to encourage bigotry, from whatever quarter it may come. I deplore it. It is only right that we should, by our actions, encourage free discussion, above all in areas where we have responsibilities. That is important. I merely say that it is open to individuals to make their points.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom Government have been prevented from signing the European Convention on Human Rights because of the existence of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland? Would he not regard this as a most appropriate matter to be discussed by all sections in the House? Further, is he aware that it is only by question and answer and discussion in the House that we can relieve the frustration which has brought about such a tense situation in Northern Ireland?

Order. The hon. Member must be brief.

Finally, on the matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), will he give an assurance that the defence forces of the Crown will not go to the aid of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party in the suppression of civil liberties?

Order. The last part of that question is out of order.

I understand my hon. Friend's feeling on this. As I said, I deplore brutality—[Interruption.]—indeed, from whatever side it may come. That is not in question. I have always argued, as hon. Members know, for good relations between north and south. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I tried to encourage this: unfortunately, some hon. Members opposite tried to disagree with me on this, but I believe that I was right to do it. I merely say that hon. Members have opportunities in the House. The House is free to discuss, on an appropriate Motion, those Northern Ireland affairs which are within the transferred field. That is the position, and hon. Members have that right.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one cause of concern is that the Government have not merely stood by the 1920 Act but have interpreted certain conventions which have no juridical validity to suppress debate in this House—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must link his remark with the Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when this House is expected to vote millions of pounds every year to Ulster, and when Ulster Members of Parliament have no inhibitions about interfering in our internal affairs, it is quite intolerable that this House does not urgently and in detail discuss matters going on in Ulster today?

The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that I have answered the Question and have not tried to evade it. He has raised a wider question. It is up to hon. Members to make representations to Ministers concerned. I am merely suggesting the position for which I answer as Leader of the House. If it is constitutionally possible to have a debate on these issues, it is for hon. Members to make their representations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many days of Government time he proposes to allocate in the next Session to debates on Reports of Select Committees.

I am not ready to make new proposals, although I am, of course, always ready to look at the Session's arrangements.

But is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the niggardly amount of time given for discussion of Reports coming from Select Committees. As the Select Committees have now been expanded and increased in number, will he undertake that the amount of time to discuss those Reports will also be increased?

My hon. Friend knows that I am always anxious to take note of Reports of Select Committees. Throughout the Session, there have been seven and a half days on which Select Committee Reports have been or could have been dented. That is 4·4 per cent. of the Session. I am anxious to do this.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the value and weight of waste paper collected annually from the House of Commons.

Separate figures for waste paper collected from the House of Commons are not available. But collections from the Palace of Westminster as a whole are approximately of the order of 143 tons per annum.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the weight of paper which comes into the Palace of Westminster?

I am afraid that I should waste the efforts of the staff if I were to require that figure.