asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to receive the Report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes on bank staff salaries.

I received the Report on 21st February and it will be laid before the House and published on 28th February.

Will the right hon. Lady now admit that her intervention in this matter was a great mistake, particularly as this was the first time a freely-negotiated settlement had been agreed between the banks and their staff representatives? Will she now at least undertake to make a very speedy decision on this Report as soon as possible after it has been published?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the second part is "Yes, Sir".

When she is considering her attitude to the Report, will the right hon. Lady particularly bear in mind the importance of equal pay in the banking industry?

There is a Question later on the Order Paper on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to what extent she took into account evidence about staffing difficulties in banking before referring to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the recent bank pay settlement agreed by employers and employees.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consideration was given to the increase in productivity in the banking industry in deciding to refer the salary increases for bank employees to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity why she referred the bank pay settlement to the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and what consideration was given to the fact that bank employees under 23 years of age earn under £15 per week when deciding to make the reference.

I referred this settlement to the Board because under incomes policy pay increases of the size involved could be justified only on productivity grounds and the banks were unable to measure the increase in productivity of the staff concerned.

Both the existing pay scales for junior staff and the banks' staffing difficulties were among the reasons for my allowing a 3½ per cent. interim increase pending the Board's report. Not all of those under 23 years of age earn under £15 a week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that bank employees are baffled by the fact that their claim is referred, while others arising at a similar time are not, particularly in view of the fact that, because of the staff difficulties which she has admitted, it might have been thought that the criteria applying to staff shortages would apply rather than the normal criteria for the prices and incomes policy?

As I made clear earlier, the Board's report will be published at the end of this week. I suggest that we wait and see how the Board deals with these points.

Would the right hon. Lady expand on the difference which has been referred to? Is it not a fact that the heads of the nationalised industries are making their applications because of the salary structure of the nationalised industries? If they can do it under a nationalised structure, why cannot everybody do it if they want to?

There again, as the hon. Lady knows, the Board is considering this question. I suggest that we await its report.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has made of the cost to employers of giving protection of pension rights to employees leaving service before retirement age by preserving their rights in occupational pension schemes; and what she estimates to be the additional cost of giving protection of pension rights in such circumsances by granting transferability.

The cost of implementing the Government's proposals for deferred pensions would be £20 to £25 million a year. Universal transferability of occuptional pension rights is not at present regarded as practicable. Were it possible to achieve universal transferability the additional cost might be in the order of £100 million.

Do not those figures show the urgency of this problem? Will the hon. Gentleman please tell the House what he intends to do?

I think the House, and indeed the country, have been told already in the White Paper which we published a month ago what we intend to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will introduce legislation to regulate occupational pension schemes, defining the status, responsibility and duties of trustees, the conditions under which such schemes may qualify for tax reliefs and the method by which the rights of individuals are to be valued on change of employment, and to appoint a registrar with authority to supervise the administration of occupational pension schemes.

There are already statutory provisions affecting both trustees of funds, including pension funds, and Income Tax reliefs for pension schemes. The calculation of pension rights on change of employment will be dealt with in the legislation to be introduced on the preservation of pension rights. We shall be considering, in consultation with representatives of occupational pension schemes, what supervisory arrangements will be necessary to give effect to these proposals.

While welcoming that statement, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that it would be disastrous for the future of the movement towards private occupational pension provision if there were to be publicised failures? Is not this something which the Government should take into account?

Certainly the Government would and do take this into account. Pensions schemes and the transferability element in the schemes are something which the Government are considering hand in hand with private firms. I am sure that in future investigations we will bear this point in mind.

Surely the White Paper does not commit the Government to introduce a transferability of pensions schemes? Why this reluctance on the part of the Government to do this? It would not cost the Government anything; what are the practical difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred?

The White Paper commits the Government to preservation of pensions schemes but the difficulties about full transferability are outlined in the White Paper. Some people would argue the impossibility of calculating both the entitlement in the old scheme and means of translating that entitlement into the new scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further steps she intends to take to establish a workable basis of industrial discipline within the shipbuilding industry.

My Department in consultation with the Shipbuilding Industry Board continues to encourage improvements in industrial relations in this industry on the lines recommended in the Geddes Report, and substantial progress has been made. Proposals in the White Paper "In Place of Strife" for improving relations in industry generally are also relevant.

Is not demarcation in this industry a particular problem resulting, indirectly at least, in loss of orders at present? Considering the Government's direct involvement on such a wide scale in the shipbuilding industry, will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to this in view of the debate we are to have soon?

I think demarcation disputes can be a severe cause of difficulties, although occasionally I think their importance and disadvantages are over-stressed. Because I believe they are an important hurdle to be overcome, I am glad, as I am sure the House is, that in the recent pay settlement both sides agreed to make comprehensive national agreements to cover possible demarcation disputes.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the recent decision to cease placing contracts for nuclear submarines at Cammell Lairds yards in Birkenhead was hardly the best way to encourage industrial morale in an area which has invested a great deal of time, money and expertise in this type of project?

I suspect my hon. Friend realises that that is not a question for me.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of schemes such as we have for productivity on Clydeside is a method of creating industrial peace, which most of us want today?

I certainly agree that that is one example, and there are others, of real progress in this field in this industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she is taking to ensure that the staff at employment exchanges recommend the withdrawal of unemployment benefit as soon as it becomes probable that a claimant is not genuinely seeking employment.

Staff at employment exchanges are under instruction to refer for consideration by the independent statutory authorities any case where there is doubt about a claimant's eligibility for benefit because of an unreasonable attitude towards employment.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are very great variations in attitudes to this matter between the various offices of his Department? Is he further aware that, in a recent case in Liverpool, withdrawal was not recommended until the man had refused 26 jobs, and that recommendation was made only because the man had been found to be forging the signature of the employers to whom he was sent? Would the hon. Gentleman please issue instructions to his offices to be more diligent in the detection of such abuses?

I am satisfied that the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, about which I have had no previous notice, will be an isolated one. By and large, the vast majority of people signing the registers are genuinely unemployed, and are willing to accept work that is available. I am satisfied, too, that the instructions given to the staff at the various employment exchanges are such that the necessary powers are available for dealing with anyone who might be dodging the column.

To get this into perspective, could my hon. Friend give any figures for the number of people who have been refused unemployment benefit for the reasons stated in the Question?

I could not give that information to my hon. Friend without notice. I will certainly see that he gets it by letter.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the instructions are the same as they have always been or whether they have been reviewed in any way during the last year or two?

No. They are precisely the same instructions which obtained when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were sitting on this side of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the effect on the size of classes at Government training centres of the refusal of trade unions to accept trainees if numbers rise above a given maximum.

There have been no cases of refusal to accept trainees for this reason. The size of particular classes however may be temporarily reduced, after consultation with trade unions, to safeguard the employment prospects of trainees.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, while all restrictive practices are to be deprecated, this very restrictive practice, which seeks to nullify the effect of the Government training centres, is particularly to be delored?

The hon. Gentleman is commenting on a restrictive practice which, I have already told him, does not exist. Any reductions in the size of classes is made as a result of a Government decision and is certainly not imposed by trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress is being made towards the phased introduction of equal pay for women; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the progress of her discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on the implementation of equal pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she has received the report of the joint study group set up to consider the costs of implementing equal pay; and whether she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now expects to announce proposals to secure equal pay for men and women as defined in the International Labour Organisation Convention 100.

There is nothing I can, as yet, usefully add to the statement I made on 20th January in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers).—[Vol. 776, c. 3.]

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that talks, studies, discussions and inquiries on equal pay have been held by the Government ever since January, 1965? Is she aware that women comprise the majority of the low-paid workers who should be receiving urgent priority under the Government's income policy?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have now entered into an entirely new phase of the discussions in an attempt to work out the programme for implementation. The inquiry currently taking place is being held with the full agreement of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., who agree that it is necessary to know the effect of introducing equal pay into particular industries.

Is the Minister now in favour of equal pay for equal work agreements, like the current Ford agreement, but which nevertheless fall outside the scope of the Government's prices and incomes criteria?

I always welcome progress towards equal pay, within the prices and incomes policy.

Is the Minister prepared to modify the Government's view, that the implementation of equal pay would raise the national wages bill by 4 per cent. or so, in view of the estimate which has been made by the C.B.I. of something more in the region of 6 per cent.?

It is this disagreement about the cost implications which is one of the reasons why we are having these very detailed consultations with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. A particular problem is the effect in specific industries where it may be very much greater than the average.

Would my right hon. Friend remember that in industry and commerce, female labour, together with its male counterpart, is undergoing a process of job evaluation, which is a sophisticated exercise, comparing job content, without any reference to the sex of the job holder? Under such circumstances, would she direct that people who are assessed in equal grades are paid equal salaries or wages?

I entirely agree that job evaluation is a very useful process on the way to securing equal pay for work of equal value. This is why I was hoping to see it decided that progress should be made with job evalution on women's work in the engineering industry.

Has the right hon. Lady given any indication to the management and unions at Ford's about her attitude to the equal pay aspect of that agreement, if, as we all hope, it comes into being?

No, Sir. That is under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will give the latest unemployment figures for North-East Lancashire.

At 10th February there were 3,486 persons registered as unemployed in North-East Lancashire and the percentage rate was 1·7 per cent. These figures are provisional.

Would the Under-Secretary agree that, encouraging as these figures are, there is still need in North-East Lancashire, for new industry? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to urge upon her colleagues in the Cabinet that North-East Lancashire be given great priority in any discussions on the Hunt Committee's Report.

We shall have to await the publication of that Report, but I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the figure of 1·7 per cent., roughly 50 per cent. lower than the national average, compares very favourably with the figures in the development areas? We would be doing less than justice to the development areas if we were to try to take anything from them to give to the more prosperous areas, before the present imbalance has been rectified.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has formed of the financial loss to the United Kingdom through strikes since April, 1968; and what is her estimate of the total cost of paying workpeople in manual occupations the increases in wage rates demanded over the same period.

I regret that it is not practicable to make such estimates.

If the Question baffles my hon. Friend, could he give me an explicit answer in one direction, namely, what happened in relation to the postal dispute? If negotiations had been entered into, would it not have saved a great deal of money?

There are two assumptions in my right hon. Friend's question, one that strikes arise from wages disputes and, secondly, that the strikes would not occur in the absence of an incomes policy. Neither of these assumptions do I accept.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many people are currently unemployed in Wales, including Monmouthshire; and what was the average monthly number of unemployed in Wales, including Monmouthshire, during 1968.

At 10th February, 1969, the provisional total number registered as unemployed in Wales, including Monmouthshire, was 41,500. The average of the 12 counts made in 1968 was 39,200.

Would the Under-Secretary agree that these figures are still un-acceptably high? What is his evaluation of the prospects of bringing these down to somewhere near the national average?

I readily agree that they are high, and that is why we have a development area policy—one which is beginning to work in most development areas. There are 26,000 jobs in prospect, nearly two-thirds of which are for men and boys, in Wales. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate what the Government are doing in setting up new industries and Government administrative centres. He will be aware of what has happened at Llantrisant, Swansea and Holyhead.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the average time lag in Wales between a man ceasing work in a job in which he has been declared redundant and his entry into a Government training centre for retraining; and what is the difference between men in their fifties and those in their over-fifties in this respect.

Waiting time varies from trade to trade and centre to centre and it is not possible to quote a meaningful average. In Wales suitable applicants can be allocated almost immediately to most engineering and construction training courses. For other trades the waiting time may vary from five weeks to over six months. It is not affected by the applicant's age.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great concern about fifties and over-fifties in Wales because as they are declared redundant in declining industries, unless they are retrained, they become virtually unemployable?

I am very conscious of the concern for and by the over-fifties in Wales and elsewhere. One of our jobs is to convince the over-fifties that if they apply for training they may well be able to receive it with benefit. I hope that that message will go out as a result of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the latest convenient figure for unemployment among men over 55 years of age in Scotland; and if she will make a statement.

At 13th January, 1969, 16,100 men aged 55 and over were registered as wholly unemployed in Scotland. This was about 24 per cent. of the total male register, a rather lower proportion than in Great Britain as a whole. Ten thousand of these men were over 60. I am well aware of the difficulties of the older unemployed man and my Department will continue its efforts to encourage employers to make capacity, not age, the test of suitability for any job.

Without being complacent, are not these figures and facts a reflection of the success of the Government's development area policy? What proportion roughly has applied for retraining?

I am sorry that I cannot answer the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. However, having regard to the tremendous rundown in the basic industries in Scotland, these figures show how much more appalling the situation would have been without what the Government have done.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these people are people like bank managers who retire early and have to register with the unemployment exchange to safeguard their right to retirement pension at the age of 65?

I am sorry that I cannot give that information without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the White Paper, "In Place of Strife".

None, Sir.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is important that her White Paper be thoroughly discussed whatever our views on it? Would she discover why copies of the White Paper have not been available in the Stationery Office and through official sources to those people, such as Roman Catholic workers' organisations, who are seriously interested in these matters and who have been trying to obtain them?

I am very surprised by what my hon. Friend says. Assuming that he is referring to the situation in Scotland, I can assure him that the Stationery Office in Edinburgh has always had copies of the White Paper in stock and, I understand, could and can meet any order. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any complaints he has received, I will look into them.

Certainly.

My right hon. Friend's Answer was to the effect that she had received no representations from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Would it have made any difference if she had?

My right hon. Friend knows full well that all the major affiliates of the Scottish T.U.C. are affiliated to the T.U.C., with which I have had and will continue to have detailed consultations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in preparing the legislation based on the proposals outlined in the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", if she will provide that contracts between unions and employers, freely entered into, shall be legally binding, unless the parties concerned specifically agree otherwise.

No, Sir. The reasons for the Government's rejection of the hon. Member's proposal are given in paragraph 43 of the White Paper.

But is not this the crux of any plan to reform industrial relations, and is not this the experience of practically every other industrial country in the world?

Legal enforcement of collective agreements is the practice in some countries, but we believe it important that we should decide our policy in the light of our own special position and conditions. While the strike record of some countries which have legal enforceability is better than that in Britain, it is appreciably worse in other countries, notably America and France.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way in which we can make progress is by ensuring that negotiations are carried on by people who know the job? I hope that she will not follow the hare which has been started on the benches opposite, but will give more power to the shop stewards, which will not suit hon. Members opposite.

As I explained in the White Paper, my approach is that it is for the employer, for management, to convince the trade unions that making agreements legally enforceable is in their joint interest. It is a matter for management.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the evidence, which is not in the White Paper, for her belief that Britain is the only country in which nine out of ten strikes take place in breach of agreements and the only major industrial country in which contracts are not binding?

We shall no doubt have a full opportunity of deploying these debating points next Monday.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the percentage increase in wage rates in 1968; and what was the last year in which that rate of increase was exceeded.

During the period end-December, 1967, to end-December, 1968, there were increases of 6·9 per cent. in the index of basic weekly rates of wages and 7·1 per cent. in the index of basic hourly rates of wage. 1956 was the last calendar year in which these percentage rates of change were exceeded.

When did the Government change their hopeless policy, which was announced on 21st March by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, that incomes should rise more slowly than the cost of living over the current financial year?

The qualification which I think my right hon. Friend added was, having due regard to the growth of production and productivity. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the latest figures, he will see that both output per head and productivity are rising very rapidly indeed and make up the gap.

Do not the figures show the absolute futility of an attempt to intervene in wage negotiations by using compulsory powers?

I do not think that they show anything of the kind. The policy is clearly related to levels of earnings, and increases in wage rates and scales do not necessarily find their reflection in earnings.

But does not my hon. Friend recognise that figures about percentage increases are most misleading in many instances? In some cases, the lower-paid workers have had no advance at all.

There are no statistics to confirm my hon. Friend's contention.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is aware that a significant number of skilled men over the age of 45 years cannot obtain comparable employment after being made redundant; if she will have a special survey made of this problem; and what proposals she has for remedying it.

I am aware of the difficulties experienced by older workers who become redundant although these affect unskilled more than skilled men. It is my Department's policy to encourage employers to make capacity, not age, the test of suitability for any job and the proposals in the Redundancy Rebates Bill for changing the rate of rebate on redundancy payments are designed to discourage undue concentration of redundancy among older workers. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, retraining courses are available at Government Training Centres which are being substantially expanded.

But is it not a fact that many companies are refusing to consider skilled men over the age of 45 who have lost their jobs? Can a nation in economic difficulties afford to dispense with the skilled services of such people?

No, it cannot, and I am surprised that employers, particularly in the area which the hon. Gentleman represents, should take that line. The hon. Member will be glad to know that, compared with this time last year, when there were four skilled men out of work for every three jobs available, this year there are approximately four jobs available for every three skilled men out of work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the average age of the members of the Commission on Industrial Relations so far appointed.

The average age of those so far nominated for appointment is about 63 years.

With all respect to the distinguished members of the Commission, does the hon. Gentleman really expect the Commission to be sufficiently dynamic and manifestly impartial?

I am astonished that hon. Members should suggest that the Government should apply age standards to those who serve it when they are not applied to Members of the House. There are plenty of good tunes played on old fiddles, as the House will testify.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether increases in average wage rates in all industries and services during 1968 were contained within the guidelines set by the Govenment's prices and incomes policy.

Yes, bearing in in mind that certain long-term commitments, dating from before the prices and incomes standstill, were implemented during the year.

How can the Under-Secretary conceivably come to the House and say that average increases of 7 and over 7 per cent. in hourly wage rates for all industries and services between December, 1967, and December, 1968, are still within the criteria of prices and incomes policy?

I should draw to the hon. Member's attention the fact that the period for which he has asked for figures is not strictly comparable with the present phase of policy, which did not start until March.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity the latest estimate of the number of local, plant and shop floor agreements which have been concluded in the engineering industry since the national award; how many of these took account of the productivity guidelines contained in that award; and what is the average increase in rates and earnings arising from these settlements.

It is not possible to estimate the number of local plant agreements which have been concluded since the implementation of the national engineering agreement on 16th December, 1968.

If it is not possible to estimate the number, how can the hon. Gentleman assert that they have all been stringently tested, which, we understand, is the requirement of the Government's policy?

Perhaps the hon. Member has not noticed that only about nine weeks have elapsed since the implementation of the main agreement. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that any local agreements inspired by the main agreement have been entered into.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity the estimated percentage increase in wage rates and earnings during 1968; what were the corresponding figures for salaries; and how these compare with the norm indicated by the incomes policy.

During the period end-December, 1967, to end-December, 1968, there was an increase of 6·9 per cent. in basic weekly rates of wages or minimum entitlements. Basic hourly rates increased by 7·1 per cent.

It is not possible to give a comparable figure for wage earnings for the calendar year 1968, but according to the results of the half-yearly inquiries the average weekly and hourly earnings of full-time manual workers increased by 7·8 per cent. and 7·1 per cent., respectively, between October, 1967, and October, 1968. The results of the annual inquiry into the earnings of administrative, technical and clerical employees held in October, 1968, are not yet" available.

Inasmuch as that information reveals the current state of movement in wages and salaries, is it the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that these increases above the norm indicate an inadequacy of statutory powers or ineffective application of the statutory powers which the Government possess?

I have already pointed out once to the House that increases in wage rates and scales do not necessarily find their reflection in earnings. The policy is directed at imposing a ceiling on earnings. Secondly, as to earnings, which I dealt with fully on 20th January, I pointed out then to the hon. Member that earnings have to take into account a number of factors which are not provided for in the policy, such as, for example, increases in payments by results and overtime earnings.

What sparked off what the Minister referred to just now as the present phase of the incomes policy? What is this?

The present phase of incomes policy started in March, 1968. I thought that the House was aware of this.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether the settlement of the overseas telegraphists' wage dispute was in conformity with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Yes, Sir.

In that case, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the approved formula for any firm which has difficulty concerning a productivity deal, either with the Department of Employment and Productivity or Mr. Jones, is to disconnect a piece of labour-saving machinery and then reintroduce it as the condition for its productivity deal?

That is a gross slander on the people who work for the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they deliberately sabotaged new equipment or refused to accept its implementation until they were paid for it. That is quite untrue. The fact is that the equipment was disused before the negotiations of the recent month arose and part of the productivity package was the acceptance of the need eventually to reactivate it.

If this deal was in the terms of the Government's incomes and productivity policy, why did it need a strike to prove it?

This was explained fully to the House by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on 20th January, 30th January and 3rd February. He explained the position clearly and I have nothing to add to what he said on those occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what proposals she is considering to amend the method of calculating the frequency rate figure of industrial accidents.

After consultation with the; Research and Statistics Sub-Committee of the Industrial Safety Advisory Council, it has been decided to discontinue publication of figures of accident frequency rates, because experience has shown these to be unreliable. My Department will continue to publish figures showing the incidence rates of legally notifiable accidents, and will also compile additional incidence rates of accidents which result in severe injuries.

In welcoming my hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him when the new method will come into operation, or, at least, the old one be discontinued?

As soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many men and women in the Portsmouth area have completed industrial retraining courses in each of the past three years.

Figures for the whole field of industrial retraining are not available. The numbers who completed courses at Government Training Centres were 88 in 1966, 96 in 1967 and 76 in 1968.

In view of the above average unemployment in the city and the impact on the city of the White Paper on Defence, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the facilities for courses in Portsmouth will be increased as soon as possible?

I cannot give my hon. Friend assurances about facilities within Portsmouth itself, but I can certainly assure him that facilities within travelling distance of Portsmouth are available for men who may need them. Clearly, the Government will keep under review the general position in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress her Department has made in evaluating the general criteria by which white collar productivity is to be measured; and if she will discuss such proposed criteria with the Trades Union Congress before submitting to the National Board for Prices and Incomes any claims for salary increases by white collar employees.

My right hon. Friend has asked the National Board for Prices and Incomes to carry out a second inquiry into productivity bargaining with special reference to the application of productivity measurement and productivity agreements to clerical and other non-manual work. I think it would be desirable to await the Board's report before taking a final view on the matters raised by my hon. Friend.

In view of the admitted difficult of measuring the productivity of many white collar workers, would it not be desirable for my right hon. Friend to make a statement on this topic at an early date, so that white collar workers can know precisely where they stand in relation to the prices and incomes policy?

I referred to the Board's report on the pay of gas staffs on 20th January, when I drew attention to the fact that the Board suggested that the approach to the question of white collar productivity put forward in its Report was potentially of wide significance. I would not want to go further than that today in anticipating the Board's report on its considerations.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the chairmen of nationalised industries come within the designation "white collar workers"? Could he further say that, when the Prices and Incomes Board's report on the pay of senior executives is received, special indication will be given of how the House and the country will be able to measure the productivity of these people?

We had better await the report, I think.

Would my hon. Friend give an indication regarding the Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levying Board? Does he qualify as a white collar worker? He has had a 50 per cent. increase in 12 months. How was that decision arrived at?

On white collar workers, how he comes to justify—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend will write to me about this, I will consider the matter. I was not aware of it up to now.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the policy of her Department regarding the growth and reorganisation of trade unions on the basis of separate organisations for white collar and blue collar workers.

As Paragraph 54 of the White Paper makes clear, the Government are anxious to encourage trade unionism and the extension of collective bargaining machinery among white collar and other categories of employees. The question whether white collar employees should be in separate organisations is primarily a matter for the individuals and unions concerned.

Is that entirely so? Would my hon. Friend now care to clarify the Government's attitude towards the Pearson court of inquiry's recommendations regarding the two white collar unions? Would he not agree that the Government's attitude on this vexed problem will establish the future evolution of trade unions for many years to come?

My right hon. Friend will be seeking to answer a Question on this matter at the end of Question Time.

Would the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend consider setting up a system of elections so that the workers themselves can decide which unions should represent them, rather than the unions taking arbitrary decisions on their behalf?

The Government considered this, as did the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and, on balance, we thought that this was not the best way of tackling the problem. We have our own approach to this, embodied in the White Paper on industrial relations.

Would my hon. Friend remember that, in industry, there have traditionally been two sides, namely, the employers and the employees, and that I believe that it is invidious in 1969 that we should now sub-divide the workers into those who wear white collars and those who wear blue overalls? I believe that the trade unions—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must concentrate his beliefs when asking a supplementary question.

I understand the point which my hon. Friend was seeking to make and I entirely agree with it. I would ask him to read the White Paper, in which we make the same point with great emphasis.

How can the hon. Gentleman make his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) tally with what is said in Paragraph 18 of the White Paper, about the need to give workers the chance to participate themselves in deciding future changes?

The question of the hon. Member referred to balloting workers to decide which union they should belong to, and I said that we and the Royal Commission had considered this and, on balance, decided that it was not the best way to tackle the problem. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is, or that my answer is in some way inconsistent with the White Paper policy, no doubt he will develop that argument when we have our debate next week.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take steps to limit statutorily the number of hours of overtime working in industry.

I do not think legislation would provide a practicable solution to the problem of overtime working, at the present time.

What is the practical solution then? Would my hon. Friend not agree that the amount of excessive, systematic overtime worked in industry has now become a soft option for both management and workers, which is a discouragement to high productivity and the growth of basic earnings? Is it not time to look at the very valuable suggestions contained in the research paper submitted to the Donovan Commission on this very point?

We have had a very good look at Mr. Whybrew's paper, which condemned excessive overtime in industry. I share that condemnation of excessive overtime, but I think that it is a matter primarily for industry itself to resolve. The Government's policy on productivity bargaining, none the less, holds out incentives for reducing overtime as part of a productivity deal.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is now able to give a date for the publication of special indices of retail prices for pensioner households.

I regret that I am unable at present to give a firm date, but my right hon. Friend expects to be able to publish the figures by the end of June.

That is a most disappointing Answer. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there are many pensioners who are sick and tired of waiting for jam tomorrow, while the Government, in this respect, say that they can do nothing for them?

I am impressed by the picture of old-age pensioners urgently awaiting the production of another Government statistical index, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the compilation of such a series takes time, certainly if we are to produce it accurately and in a way which is seen to be accurate. That is essentially what we shall be doing between now and June.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on what grounds she now decides that exceptions to the ceiling of 3½ per cent. on wage increases are allowed.

On the grounds laid down in the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969.

Would the Minister not agree that the ceiling of 3½ per cent. for lower-paid workers is quite inadequate?

This question has been dealt with time and time again, and we have pointed out that one of the criteria set out in paragraph 34 provides for increases for up to 3½ per cent. for lower-paid workers, and it is the Government's policy that within the framework of an overall settlement the ceiling of 3½ per cent. may be exceeded for lower-paid workers if higher-paid workers will accept less than 3½ per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many claims for increases in pay for employees of municipal bus undertakings, in addition to the increases paid since 26th December, 1968, have been notified to her Department; and how many she has approved.

Since 26th December, 1968, eight pay proposals affecting municipal bus workers have been notified to my Department. In six of these cases no objection was raised to payment.

Is the Minister aware that there is bitter anger amongst skilled maintenance workers in Midland Red who were recently granted a pay rise of 25s. 1d. to bring them into line with Birmingham and Coventry municipal bus employees but who, thanks to the Prices and Incomes Board interfering, are getting only 10s. 2d.? This is an obvious injustice. What is the Minister going to do about it?

I am very well aware that there are disparities between groups employed in similar tasks, but these are not new but are a legacy of the free bargaining system and of the operation of the free market beloved by the party opposite. We are not able to remedy these disparities very quickly, within the framework of the present policy.

Does the Minister not realise that the case brought to his notice by my hon. Friend has nothing to do with a free market but is a direct result of the statutory incomes policy?

Quite the contrary. The differences between the incomes of bus workers in the municipal sector and of workers in the company sector have existed for a long time and certainly before the introduction of the Government's policy.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many wage agreements made at local, company or plant level in industries for which national wage increases have been approved during the past 12 months have been notified to her Department; how many of them she has approved; and how many she has disallowed.

Information covering the past 12 months could not be supplied without incurring disproportionate expense. During the past six months my Department has dealt with 531 cases involving some pay improvement for workers in industries where national wage increases have been agreed, of which 511 were accepted and 20 rejected.

In these cases was account taken of increases at national levels, and how at the time was account taken of national agreements which might or might not be sanctioned by the Secretary of State?

Certainly, local productivity deals coming before my Department for approval are seen against the background of national wage increases which have taken place, but national increases which are pending usually provide some offsetting arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether it remains her policy that in considering increases in pay settled at national level account must be taken of probable increases at local level and conversely that increases in rates settled at plant level should take account of relevant increases settled at other levels; and if she will make a statement.

The Government's policy remains as stated by the hon. Member.

How can this in fact be done? How can local agreements take account of national agreements which, at the time of the local agreements, are being negotiated and might or might not finish by being sanctioned by the Secretary of State?

There are difficulties, but I have just explained to the hon. Member that agreements coming before my Department and affecting local settlements very often include some offsetting arrangements to take account of national increases either pending or current.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many cases intervention by her Department has resulted in a reduction in the rate of remuneration paid as a result of agreements made between employees and employers; and what were the average earnings of the employees concerned.

Because the numbers of settlements submitted to my Department cannot readily be distinguished from the much larger numbers of proposed settlements I am unable to give a precise answer to the first part of the question. Many agreements or proposals for agreements have been modified after discussion with my Department. I regret that to provide an answer to the second part of the question would have involved a disproportionate expenditure of time and money.

Does not the Answer which the hon. Gentleman has given show that never has so much been done by so many people with such little result?

I just cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to what extent it remains her policy that increases in pay are justified where it is recognised that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out of line with the level of remuneration for similar work; and if she will make a statement.

Increases in pay up to a maximum of 3½ per cent. per annum are justified in the circumstances described by the hon. Member, provided that, in the words of the White Paper, the pay in question "needs in the national interest to be improved".

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate she has made of the increase in productivity during the past 12 months of tally clerks employed at the London Docks and of agricultural workers, respectively; and what are the present average weekly earnings of adult male workers in each of these two occupations.

The tonnage of foreign trade other than fuels handled in the London enclosed docks per ships' clerk employed increased between 1967 and 1968 by some 15 per cent. Output per person employed in agriculture was estimated in the recent report of the National Beard for Prices and Incomes to have been increasing at an annual rate of 6 to 7 per cent. The current average weekly earnings of ships clerks are estimated to be about £33 and of adult male agricultural workers in England and Wales about £17.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think there is something rather strange about that Answer?

Nothing so strange, I think, as the supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received from road haulage companies in the West Midlands about the effect of strike action by their employees on wage increases in excess of increases in productivity; and what reply she has sent.

Last year two road haulage firms in the West Midlands wrote to my regional office in Birmingham expressing doubt about the productivity justification for pay increases given after strikes had taken place. After consultation with the employers these settlements were referred to the N.B.P.I. for examination along with a number of other road haulage agreements which had already been implemented. The Board criticised the West Midlands agreements on the ground that they did not provide for realistic scheduling. They went on to suggest guidelines for future productivity bargaining in the industry. My Manpower and Productivity Service is available to help the industry in future negotiations.

What happens as a result of the persons employed in these businesses being deprived of what they would otherwise get, and in many cases have already received?

I am sorry, but I really do not follow that.

What happens in those industries and undertakings where persons employed therein have been deprived of what they struck for, and received in other cases where they were honestly agreed, but have been deprived thereof?

Nothing has happened. No one has been deprived of anything.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the number of unemployed in the Maltby and Raw-marsh areas for the years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, respectively.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will seek to amend the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, so as to make provision for better safety precautions in regard to the use of forklift trucks in factories, in the light of the evidence sent to her by the right hon. Member for Leyton.

This question is being dealt with in the current revision of safety, health and welfare legislation.

Does "dealt with" mean that the present state of affairs will be altered? Is my hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine was killed, and that there is no way at the moment of putting right the kind of accident which led to his death?