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.

Twenty from May 1967 onwards.

How does this lamentable story square with the election pledge of full employment and, moreover, the Prime Minister's devaluation statement that by the end of 1968 it would be a shortage of labour which would be the problem? Is the slightly downward trend now levelling off?

I hope that, far from levelling off, it will continue. As the hon. Gentleman, with a 1·7 per cent. unemployment problem in Banbury, is naturally worried about this, all I want him to know is that, although the numbers may be much higher than most of us would like, it is not to be forgotten that the cross which the unemployed carry is, as a consequence of redundancy payments and wage-related benefits, a little lighter than it would have been had hon. Members opposite been in power.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the national figures have their own importance, the point to be emphasised here arises in the regions? Will he, therefore, assure the House that the Government will continue to give substantial aid to the regions to carry on the process of attracting new employment there?

I cannot think that the Government can do otherwise in the present circumstances than do everything within their power to redress the imbalance in unemployment between the development areas and the rest of the country.

On what grounds does the hon. Gentleman say that the figures would have been higher had we been in power, since when we were in power they were consistently lower?

I did not say that. But what I say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that if his Government had commenced the restructuring of British industry as they should have done when they were in power, the problem would not have been as big today as it is.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will now make a statement on the action she is taking in regard to strikes in the motor industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on progress made towards the formation of a labour relations council for the motor industry.

The hon. Members will recall my discussions in October with both sides of the industry about the setting up of a National Council for the Motor Industry. The two sides are continuing their discussions about such a council's constitution and terms of reference and will be reporting progress to me. The Government's general proposals for the improvement of industrial relations are set out in the White Paper published last week.

As there have been two important developments in the motor industry since October—first, the quickening of the tempo of strikes and, second, the fact that the vehicles industry, based on the Midlands, has now achieved the phenomenal performance of £900 million worth of exports in one year, and the figure is still rising—will not the right hon. Lady try to reach definitive conclusions regarding strikes pretty soon?

The hon. Gentleman asked me about progress with the new joint council in the motor industry. I am glad to tell him that talks have been continuing between the two sides, and I propose to invite both the trade unions and the employers to meet me to discuss what progress has been made in these joint talks and to resolve any difficulties which may be standing in the way of decisive and quick action.

Did the right hon. Lady see the report in The Times last month which stated that the Transport and General Workers' Union had decided to boycott the council? Can she confirm that she will have full union co-operation in this move?

I understand that the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions is at present consulting all member unions about their attitude to the joint talks on the new motor industry council. A number of unions have yet to reply, including the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of strikes in car production itself is in many areas no higher than in other sections of British industry, and that in some areas such as Luton and Dunstable strikes are practically unknown in the car industry?

It is true that assembly firms have not had a particular strike problem, which has been concentrated rather in the component industry; that is why the component manufacturers are joining in the joint talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will now make a statement on the building operatives' pay claim dispute.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on Wednesday, 18th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 1385–91.]

But that statement, which was in reply to me, was a very bad one. Has the right hon. Lady observed since then that the building settlement she announced involved payments which are approximately twice as large as those accorded to university teaching and lecturing staff and twice as large as those accorded to doctors? Is the building settlement to be regarded as a norm in future, being double the 3½ per cent. of the Chancellor's?

I am sorry but I am at a total loss to understand the point the hon. Gentleman is attempting to make. I thought, when he asked previous Questions on this matter, that he was concerned about the building workers, and my statement of 18th December was concerned with their settlement

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what term she has placed as the period for which the building pay settlement of 17th December is to operate; and on what authority.

I have placed no terms on the duration of this settlement.

Can the right hon. Lady, therefore, explain why she said in the House on 18th December that the period of settlement was 12 months? She was very specific about it.

I was referring then to the 12 months' interval between settlements which is prescribed by paragraph 42 of the White Paper.

When the right hon. Lady says that it is prescribed by the White Paper, how can it be prescribed to any industry which is not under the operation of an Order? Surely, such industries are still free.

What the White Paper made clear was that in the normal way no pay settlement should follow another pay settlement within a period of 12 months. This was one of the criteria. I was referring to that in reply to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page).

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building workers' claim for £17 10s. for craftsmen will undoubtedly, therefore, go ahead? Can we take it that her statement in no way hampers the efforts of the trade unions in this direction? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the claim of the building operatives is much less than the settlement for the engineering workers?

I made clear at the time of my statement on 18th December that if the industries made more rapid progress than the National Board for Prices and Incomes expected concerning productivity agreements, we would be willing to discuss the results of those consultations on their merits. As I have said in reply to an earlier Question today, I will shortly be meeting the unions to discuss progress on the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board's Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on progress with national productivity.

The latest complete figures which cover the whole economy are for the year ending March 1968 when Gross Domestic Product per person employed increased by 5·1 per cent. This large rise was partly due to cyclical factors. Over the same period output per person employed in industries covered by the Index of Production rose by 6·2 per cent.; between the first and third quarters of 1968, there was a further increase of 2·4 per cent. The productivity criterion in the Government's policy for productivity, prices and incomes is helping to create the climate in which this sort of growth can continue.

On the question of productivity criteria, can the right hon. Lady say why there is no information—according to a previous Answer I have had—from her Department about the way these productivity agreements are being honoured when they are made in connection with pay rises?

Of course, we keep in touch with developments through our regional offices and other means. If there is any case where we have reason to believe that the productivity criteria are not being observed, we make full inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps she takes, when a wage rise is vetoed or reduced, under the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, to ensure that such wage rises are not in fact paid.

The first step is to inform those concerned of their legal obligations. If we had reason to think that in any particular case those obligations were not being observed we would have the case investigated.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of builders and engineers are receiving far more than the Id. an hour the Government vetoed? What is he going to do about it?

We would have to look at particular cases. These might well conform with the requirements of Government policy. My right hon. Friend told the House in her statement on the building industry settlement that the Government do not rule out local site productivity agreements which would give the workers concerned an increase.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is perfectly legal for a company to make a lump-sum back payment to cover the period of frozen wages when that period has lapsed?

It is perfectly legal to make retrospective payment when a standstill order has expired, but this is something that the Government do not generally approve of.

It is the Government's claim that one of the purposes of the prices and incomes policy is to promote fairness. How does the hon. Gentleman square this with the fact that some building workers employed by some firms are getting more than the Government say they should have?

As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question, such settlements conform to the requirements of the Government's policy, which does not preclude a local or site settlement on a productivity basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has made of the percentage effect on prices, between 19th March, 1968, and the latest convenient date, of the prices and incomes policy.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 25th November. 1968.—[Vol. 774, cols. 19 and 20.]

But that reply said that the hon. Gentleman did not know what effect the prices part of the policy had had. Since the hon. Gentleman does not know what effect Government policies are having, would it not be better if he stopped them?

I find the logic of that supplementary question difficult to follow; and the so-called facts in it are even wilder than the logic. I said that a precise estimate is not possible but that the Government have no doubt that the policy is making a contribution towards their general economic strategy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the progress of her discussions with trades unions on machinery to replace the existing prices and incomes legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations she has had with the Trades Union Congress in order to ascertain the feasibility of a non-statutory incomes policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and productivity if she will make a statement on the discussions she has recently had with the interested parties on both sides of industry about the future of the existing prices and incomes legislation.

The T.U.C. and the C.B.I, have both accepted my invitation to join in a study of the future of prices and incomes policy and I hope to have discussions with them on this subject during the comming months. I have already had a preliminary discussion with the T.U.C. in the context of their draft 1969 Economic Review.

Can the right hon. Lady tell us to what extent her plans for strike ballots and cooling-off periods are designed to take the place of prices and incomes legislation? Would she not agree that, as someone who, in the words of one of her hon. Friends, has been judging wage claims by reference to the blackmailing power of the unions which present them, she is singularly ill-fitted to devise the future strategy of the Government's prices and incomes policy?

The latter part of that Question is a matter of opinion, and the hon. Member is entitled to his own personal opinion. As to the first part, these are two entirely separate matters. When one is dealing with the whole question of industrial relations, one puts forward proposals for dealing with them on their merits.

Is it not a grotesque fantasy to believe that the T.U.C. can supervise the voluntary incomes policy? What sanctions does the right hon. Lady expect the T.U.C. to impose on constituent unions? What sanctions will exist for those in employment who are not union members?

The rôle of the T.U.C. in prices and incomes policy is exactly one of the matters which is now the subject of the discussions I am having.

As the Prices and Incomes Board found, on a very careful statistical analysis, that wages had been held back only by 1 per cent., and since my right hon. Friend could very likely achieve that anyway by a voluntary policy, and since it might help her new policy if she reverted to a voluntary system, would she now assure us that she will not bring in fresh legislation?

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the answers to those questions, which have been ventilated several times in the House. I would remind him that the Prices and Incomes Board did not draw the deduction from those calculations in its report that a prices and incomes policy was unnecessary. On the contrary, it thought that devaluation made it more difficult to administer but all the more imperative to have. The possibilities of what legislation, if any, should follow the expiry of the current legislation at the end of 1969 are exactly the matters which I am discussing with the organisations concerned.

It was precisely on that point that about two months ago I put a question to my right hon. Friend, to which the answer was that she could not anticipate the contents of the White Paper "In Place of Strife". In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply today divulging the content of the White Paper which is to be published on 28th January, are we now to assume that the Department has changed its policy over White Papers?

I am sorry, but again I totally fail to follow the argument. I could not accept for a moment that the content of any White Paper to be published on 28th January has been divulged this afternoon. Nothing more has been divulged than the title of that document, which of course is already known to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will now review the criteria she has used to decide whether price increases are consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Prices and incomes policy for 1969 was set out in the White Paper published in April last year; my right hon. Friend has invited the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. to join her in a review of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes after the end of this year.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend yet grasped the fact that, every time she and her clever friend Mr. Jones intervene to prevent a price increase by a manufacturer, the Chancellor has to raise taxation and thus increase prices that way? Is she not yet aware that, economically, it makes far better sense if the consequences of a price increase go to the manufacturer rather than to the trader?

If that question means, is there a conflict of policy between my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor, the answer is "No".

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Chairman of the Commission on Industrial Relations will be invited to take part in these talks?

That is a very different question. Clearly, the invitation to the T.U.C. went to the T.U.C. when Mr. Woodcock was General Secretary. As to when he will relinguish that post, that is a matter for the T.U.C. and not for me in this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has now made as to the numbers and ages of the men and the women who have left the hotel and catering industry since the imposition of Selective Employment Tax; and the extent to which they have been successful in obtaining alternative employment.

Mid-year estimates of employees in employment in Catering, Hotels, etc. (Minimum List Heading 884 of the 1958 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification) can be compared for different years to show net changes in the level of employment but there are no comprehensive statistics of the numbers of persons who have entered or left the industry. The changes between June 1966 and June 1967 were given in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 13th May 1968. It will be possible to measure subsequent changes when the mid-1968 estimates become available in a few weeks' time.—[Vol. 764, c. 169.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties in which people find themselves if they are thrown out of their jobs in the middle or during the latter part of their careers? Does he realise the difficulties made for them by the operation of the Selective Employment Tax in particular?

I do not minimise any of the problems. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that in 1966 and subsequent situations there was need to find another and different method of raising revenue, and the S.E.T. is a unique and in many ways desirable way.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, so far as the S.E.T. was designed to redeploy labour, it has been a total failure?

I would not agree. All the statistical evidence suggests that movement between industries has been substantially changed by the existence of the S.E.T. But I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reference to the redeployment intention of the tax, since he thereby reminded the House that the tax has other objectives which it is also achieving.

Is not one of the lunacies of the S.E.T. the fact that people have been turned out of service industries at the same time as a substantial drop in employment in manufacturing industry?

No, Sir. There are many virtues in the S.E.T. Time does not allow me to go into them, but the Opposition really should shed their obsession with the tax, which all objective judgment shows to be doing exactly the three jobs intended for it by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps she is now taking to protect the rights in occupational pension schemes of men and women displaced from their employment by takeovers, mergers and the winding-up of their companies.

The White Paper on the new State pension scheme, to be published on 28th January, will outline the Government's proposals for safeguarding occupational pension rights on change of employment. They are intended to cover loss of employment due to the takeover, merger or winding-up of companies. If the hon. Member has in mind situations in which the pension scheme itself ceases to exist, there are already certain safeguards but consideration will be given to any feasible additional means of protecting members of such schemes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recent spate of mergers is making this an urgent problem? Can we have a statement that the transferability of pension rights—including the contributions of both the employer and the employee—will be made statutory? Will the hon. Gentleman also make a statement very soon clearly laying down the method of valuation?

That is a rather different question, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will be comforted to know that it will be answered in the White Paper to be published on 28th January.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Stock Exchange shows no ability to have either the will or the intention to control its own members? In this situation, would it not be appropriate for the Government to provide that take-overs can be undertaken only in conditions laid down by the Government?

That is not a rather different but a very different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the average monthly number of permits to employ non-disabled people which were issued to firms employing less than their quota of disabled in 1968; and how many permits were issued in December, 1967 and December, 1968.

I regret that this information is not readily available. Figures are collected on an annual basis and relate to the number of firms which have received permits and not to the number of separate permits issued.

As the unemployment rate for the disabled is over 10 per cent. and over half the employers responsible are employing less than their quota of the disabled, with or without permits, what measures are the Government proposing to deal with the problem?

Since my hon. Friend raised this matter in an Adjournment debate before Christmas, I have had the opportunity to meet my regional officers who have responsibility in this matter, and we are now examining how much we can do to meet the position that causes my hon. Friend so much concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will refer those industries with a high proportion of low-paid workers to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for investigation.

A number of references relating to industries in this category have already been made. Further references will be made in future when appropriate. The fact that an industry contains many low-paid workers does not necessarily mean that a reference would be useful.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's achievements in this field are not outstanding? If references are to be limited, would he tell the House what the Government intend to do about the problem of low pay?

My hon. Friend should remember that redistribution of incomes is not the prime purpose of incomes policy. This subject is influenced by a wide range of Government policy, including their social and fiscal policies. He should not overlook the rôle of social security policy in aiding low-income groups, in which field the Government's achievements are very creditable.

Would my hon. Friend give us a precise definition of a low-paid worker, since the House has never yet had such a definition?

No, the Government have never essayed a definition, because one would obviously have to take into account the varying needs of individuals. The nearest that one could come to it is, no doubt, that contained in the early N.B.P.I. Report on the agricultural industry, I think No. 29.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider, for instance, the question of Admiralty pay, in one of the particularly low-paid industries? Why did he mention social security, since that surely cannot help anyone who is actually earning?

I referred to low-income groups, because, by definition, talking about low-paid workers excludes those who are generally the worst off of all, those who receive no income. If the hon. Lady would like me to, I will carefully consider earnings in the Admiralty.

asked the Secretary of State for Eployment and Productivity whether she is now in a position to give an official definition of a lower-paid worker.

The Government have never sought to attempt a single definition of "low pay". Every case has to be considered on its merits in the light of the relevant information about total earnings, hours worked and differentials.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us on this side have supported the prices and incomes policy on the ground that it was the only hope for the lower-paid worker? Will he now tell us whether a farm labourer taking home £12 a week qualifies or does not?

I have already told the House that the question of agricultural wages is one for negotiation between the individual employers and the workers. There is nothing at present to prevent them obtaining an increase. The reference at present before the Board does not prevent agricultural workers from negotiating and obtaining an increase at this moment.

Does that somewhat elastic answer to the original Question suggest that even the pay of the chairmen of nationalised industries might suitably be considered as bringing them within the criterion of the lower paid?

When the hon. Gentleman talks about its being elastic, I think that he is stretching the Question a bit too far.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if, in view of the productivity criteria applied within the prices and incomes policy, she will make arrangements for researches into methods of measuring the productivity of technologists, scientists, teachers and other professional people.

Inquiries into the measurement of the productivity of these and other categories of employees may be made as appropriate by the National Board for Prices and Incomes or the Research and Planning Division of my Department.

Would my hon. Friend not agree, however, that some of us who initially supported a prices and incomes policy now feel that some of the recent decisions, including the pantomime over university teachers' salaries, are such that the Board, its authorisation and its criteria are now in complete disrepute and that the whole thing should be looked at again from scratch?

No, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman give even one example of how he could propose to measure the productivity of teachers or other professional persons?

There are undoubtedly difficulties in measuring the productivity of many professional groups, but continuing experience shows that there is more scope for this than was originally thought. An indication is given in the recent N.B.P.I. Report No. 86 on the pay of staff workers in the gas industry. The Manpower and Productivity Division of my Department is now preparing to look at the possibilities of starting ways and means of increasing productivity in these fields.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has made of the trend of executive and senior management salaries in 1968; and what is the expected trend during the current year.

The Department's regular survey of salaries covers all salaried workers and does not separately distinguish executives and senior management. Information about the earnings of this group will become available during the spring from a new type of earnings survey. It is hoped to repeat this new type of survey and this will provide information about the trend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Government machine is limping along, many outside executive employment agencies regularly publish information, all of which indicates that any progressive and commercially aggressive company must pay increases well above 3½ per cent. to keep and recruit the managerial staff that it requires? Is this a situation which the hon. Gentleman accepts as being desirable and consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy?

What the hon. Gentleman has just said contrasts rather oddly with the repeated criticism of the Opposition of the earnings survey which we instituted. The only private survey to which I have seen reference is the A.I.C. survey which undoubtedly is of interest and value and which I intend to study very carefully. While it says that the salary increases among the groups referred to in this Question have been above 3½ per cent., they are offset to some extent by reduced bonus payments and are far less than the proportionate increases for manual groups.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will give the latest figures for the youth employment situation in Scotland.

At mid-December 1968, 2,909 young persons were registered as unemployed at youth employment offices in Scotland and there were 5,797 unfilled vacancies for young persons.

Are not these significant figures a reflection of the success of the Government's development area policy in Scotland?

I think that they are. What is even more important is that in the first 11 months of last year 46·4 per cent. of those entering employment in Scotland went into apprenticeships as against 43·1 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole.

What is the prospect up to the end of 1969? How many unemployed youths will there be in Scotland? Can the hon. Gentleman give even a rough estimate?

If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have understood that there are far more vacancies than young persons unemployed. There are 125 vacancies for every 100 young men unemployed and over 300 vacancies for every 100 young girls unemployed. It may sometimes be difficult, because of geography, lo match the job with the needs of the young person concerned. But, taking Scotland as a whole, the position from the point of view of young people is very healthy indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will given an undertaking to include hotels within the scope of future safety legislation relating to industrial and commercial premises.

No final decisions have yet been taken as to the form of this legislation but the proposals now under discussion provide for the inclusion of hotel workers.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the unhappy spate of fatalities in hotel fires towards the end of last year underlines the need for more stringent safety regulations backed by adequate inspection which his Department is most suited to provide?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my Department is concerned only about the health and safety of workpeople. Others are the responsibility of the Home Office, particularly in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has just outlined.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she will publish a Green Paper on the results of the Government survey on proposals for industrial health, safety and welfare legislation.

My right hon. Friend has no present intention of publishing a Green Paper on this subject. As the hon. Member knows, a First Consultative Document, containing proposals for new safety, health and welfare legislation has already been circulated to over 500 bodies, including the T.U.C. and C.B.I.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree it is important that there should be the fullest possible consultation with Members before the Government finalise their proposals on legislation and that it is equally important that there should be no undue delay in introducing legislation on safety? Cannot the hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that there will be an early debate in the House on the Government's health, safety and welfare proposals?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer which he would like. However, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is sitting beside me, and no doubt she has heard his request.

Would the right hon. Lady the First Secretary take my hon. Friend's request seriously? Surely this is a subject on which the Government could well take the views of hon. Members as well as those of people outside. This is a subject on which there are no party political differences and in which the House should be interested.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the committee of hon. Members opposite who are interested in this subject have received the First Consultative Document, as have hon. Members on this side of the House. If we give widespread distribution to this document and, at the same time, note the comments made, it will tend to delay the legislation which we have in mind.

Would my hon. Friend agree that a Green Paper on industrial health, safety and welfare would be a tremendous help to hon. Members so that we could try to persuade the Minister to understand our views on this important subject, which may help the First Secretary of State when she formulates her White Paper leading to legislation?

My right hon. Friend has not said that she will issue a White Paper. This document has been liberally issued to all those whom we look upon as interested parties. Many hon. Members have received the document. They are perfectly entitled to make their comments on it. However, prolonging the discussions will only delay whatever legislation we have in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she has now considered the proposals on training submitted to her by the National Farmers' Union; and if she will make a statement.

We are still considering the proposals in consultation with other Departments concerned.

Does not the hon. Gentleman regard this as a matter of urgency? Is he not aware that about 30 per cent., or rather more, of the farmers have refused to pay the levy imposed on them and that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the industry? Cannot the hon. Gentleman give an indication as to when the Minister will be in a position to make a reply?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there is a need to get this matter cleared up at the first reasonable opportunity, but he will understand that consultations are complex. There is an obligation on me and my right hon. Friend to produce a formula which enables the Board to go ahead under the 1964 Act with the cooperation of the industry, and that poses certain difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will take steps to ensure adequate employment opportunities for those employees who for urgent domestic reasons are prevented from accepting a liability to work on night shift as a condition of employment.

The employment exchanges will always try to find suitable day work for people in this position. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it if he will let me have details.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely wrong of both employers and unions to discriminate against a skilled man purely because on medical advice he is not allowed to leave an invalid wife at night to do night shift work? Would not a little more intervention by his Department help the situation in an admittedly small number of cases?

As I have already said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars of the case he has in mind. I have no knowledge of it, and nor have I any knowledge of any agreement between unions and employers on the lines intimated.

Would not one of the consequences of equal pay for equal work be that women would be called upon to do night shift duties on an equal basis with men?

I would prefer to answer that question when we have equal pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many man-hours have been lost in Great Britain through official strikes, unofficial strikes and working to rule, respectively, for each year since 1964.

In the official statistics loss of time due to stoppages is measured in terms of "days lost". Information is not available about losses due to other forms of industrial action. We have separate figures for stoppages known to have been official. We do not know whether all the remainder were unofficial but the great majority would have fallen within this category. As the rest of the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, excluding coal mining, the number of stoppages has virtually doubled in the last five years? In view of the gravity of the situation and the state of the economy, why cannot we be given an absolute assurance that the First Secretary of State will introduce legislation on her White Paper this Session?

I suspected that the supplementary question would concern the White Paper. I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine the circulated figures, and indeed those going back further than the period about which he asks, and then decide whether they lead him and his right hon. Friends to draw the conclusions about industrial relations which were distributed to the Press yesterday. I do not read that sort of inference into the figures.

First, could my hon. Friend say what proportion of the stoppages occurred in private industry as opposed to the public sector? Secondly, following the publication of the White Paper, how does he and the First Secretary of State hope to overcome the difficulty of improving industrial relations by taking legally enforceable action?

I cannot answer the first part of the supplementray question without notice. The second part is clearly a different matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my hon. Friend's question about the date of legislation? As the Government evidently regard this as an important matter, is it not urgent that we should have legislation quickly?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is both a different question and a question for the Leader of the House. My right hon. Friend regards her task as attacking the causes rather than the symptoms of our industrial troubles, and that means that she must attack them at the right time rather than the time which will gain the maximum publicity.

While there are no unofficial strikes in Germany, for example, that is not necessarily because of the industrial courts there, although they may have some deterrent value, but mainly because of the legal action at local level in setting up workers' councils and worker directors on supervisory boards. Will my hon. Friend consider that in the wider context of solving the problem of industrial unrest?

I can only say that I am astounded by the number of conclusions to be drawn from a table of figures to be circulated in HANSARD tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity which firms in Wolverhampton applied for A vouchers for immigrant workers during each of the last five years.

I regret that the names of employers applying for vouchers cannot be disclosed. I will however, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers of applications received and vouchers issued over the past five years.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. Does he not agree that as industry has been largely responsible for the concentration in Wolverhampton, industry should be compelled to play its part in providing for the social needs in this area? Is he aware that there is an urgent need for social centres, for example, for young immigrant schoolleavers? Does he not think that industry should play its part with the Government and the local authorities in providing for these needs. and will he take action to do something about it?

I should like to think that most employers do as my hon. Friend requests but whether we have power to compel them to do anything if they are failing to play their part in what I would call the social needs of their community is a different matter.

Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that, whereas under present legislation, as the hon. Lady has said, it is for industry to take the initiative, this is a public responsibility and a move to a different system in which local authorities and Government have the initiative is desirable?

I would have thought that what the Government have already announced about areas of this kind, deprived areas, would be helpful, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what has been the increase to date of employment in central and local government, respectively, since October 1964.

Excluding Post Office employees and casual staff and counting part-time employees as half units, the numbers of central government non-industrial staff increased by 58,300 in the period 1st October, 1964, to 1st December, 1968, and the numbers of industrials decreased by 21,800 in the same period.

Is there any sign yet of the increase in the public sector slowing down in favour of the private sector, where employment has actually declined since October, 1964?

Like many other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind. If he is suggesting that we should not have more policemen, that we should not have more teachers, that we should not have more day nurseries and that we should not pass more social legislation which demands civil servants to administer it, then I agree that we can have fewer civil servants; but he and many other hon. Members speak with two voices when discussing this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what has been the average annual rate of increase of wage earnings for the four-year period October, 1964, to October, 1968.

The results of the October 1968 inquiry into the earnings of manual workers are not yet available, but between October, 1964, and April, 1968, the average rate of increase in the average weekly earnings of adult male manual workers was 6·0 per cent. per year.

Why is this so staggeringly out of line: with the norm, criteria, guidelines and other rubber prison bars which are meant to guide prices and incomes policy?

Because the earnings figure mentioned takes account of a number of factors which are not contained within the incomes policy criteria, for example, increased earnings resulting from payments-by-results systems and overtime earnings.

Is it possible to give the average rate of increase in the cost of living over the same period?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps she proposes to take to reduce unemployment in South Yorkshire.

My local officers are continuing their efforts to help those unemployed to find suitable work, including the offer of opportunities for training where appropriate. The Hunt Committee is studying the problems of places outside the development areas where the rate of economic growth gives cause for concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs expects to receive their report shortly and it will be published as soon as possible.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are now more individual men and women out of work in the Yorkshire and Humberside region than in any other development region except Scotland and that there are many more men unemployed in the Yorkshire coal field than in the whole of the Southwest development area? Will he now anticipate the report of the Hunt Committee and take action while the winter is still with us?

The hon. Gentleman has very cleverly quoted a big geographical area containing a substantial number of people aid has compared it with a geographical area with a small number of people. The percentage figure is only slightly above the national average, although I accept that it is not satisfactory. However, it has to be accepted that in many development areas there are places where unemployment is three or tour times higher than it is in the Humberside area generally.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to see whether, by diversifying the activities of the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation, new opportunities for jobs can be created in this area?

I will bring what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend's attention, but my hon. Friend could more appropriately put down Questions to the Minister concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will publish a cost of living index especially for pensioners.

On the recommendation of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee my right hon. Friend has arranged for the compilation of special indices of retail prices for the one-person and two-person pensioner households which are excluded from the weighting pattern of the Index of Retail Prices.

As price increases hit pensioner households harder than the rest of the population, is it not important that this survey should start very soon to get an index for pensioners established, bearing in mind that the increase in the cost of living since October, 1964, is now no less than 19 per cent.?

It would be unwise to anticipate what the index will say. I do not disagree about the need to get it operating as quickly as possible. My only reservation is concerned with the absolute need to make sure that it is an accurate index and is known to be accurate, and that is the sort of process which is now going on.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have available an analysis of the different patterns of consumption and when the index is expected to be ready and in operation?

I could not give a precise date for either of those things.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are currently the national average weekly wages and the national average weekly earnings, respectively, for male industrial workers.

A precise answer cannot be given for average wage rates because there are thousands of basic or occupational rates covering varying but often unknown numbers. According to the results of the April, 1968, inquiry into the earnings of manual workers in manufacturing and certain other industries and services, the average weekly earnings of adult male manual workers in the United Kingdom were £22 5s. 3d.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how his right hon. Friend can justify sending the wage settlement of the agricultural workers to the Prices and Incomes Board when this group of workers has the finest record of productivity of any industry and has never had a strike?

I do not quarrel with the hon. Lady about the productivity of farmworkers, but I am at a loss to understand how it arises on this Question. I would only say that the reference before the Board is a general one of the level of wages in the agricultural industry and that what is at issue is only the statutory minimum for agricultural workers. There is nothing at present to stop agricultural workers from negotiating increases with their separate employers.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the extent by which the average wage in the development areas falls below the national average?

I do not have that information, but it is hoped that our new earnings survey, which has been the subject of so much criticism from the Opposition, will provide it in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what discussions she has had with the National Union of Bank Employees regarding the reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes of the pay of bank employees.

My right hon. Friend met representatives of the National Union of Bank Employees on 20th and 21st November, 1968, before the reference was made on 29th November.

Has not the right hon. Lady taken the trouble to meet them since the reference was made, in view of the fact that there is the possibility of industrial action towards the end of the month? Would it not be possible for the Department to get in touch to see whether that can be avoided?

I am not aware that the parties have requested such a meeting. If they do, it will, no doubt, be given sympathetic and speedy consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, what action she is taking to reduce unemployment in Goole, in view of the fact that it is now at its highest point for over 10 years.

My local officers are continuing their efforts to help those unemployed to find suitable work, including the offer of opportunities for training where appropriate. The Hunt Committee is studying the problems of places outside the development areas where the rate of economic growth gives cause for concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs expects to receive its report shortly and it will be published as soon as possible.

Has my hon. Friend no hope to offer to Goole other than that stereotyped and sterile reply which I have been getting for the last four years?

I cannot, of course, anticipate what the Hunt Committee will say about areas such as Goole and South-West Yorkshire in general.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state by trade, sex and occupation the number of persons unemployed in the city of Aberdeen during each of the last 10 years and to the latest convenient date.

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

Even in the absence of the figures, which the Minister has not given us, can he not devise means of eliminating: unemployment entirely from the otherwise prosperous City of Aberdeen?

If my hon. and learned Friend looks at the graph over the last ten years, extending back to the time of the previous Administration, he will find that we have been very successful concerning Aberdeen. The unemployment graph there has steadily gone down almost year by year. My hon. Friend will, further, be happy to know that of the two advance factories which the Board of Trade has constructed, one has already been taken by Ladybird (Scotland) and the Department is hoping that a tenant will be found for the other factory very shortly.