asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many men, women and juveniles are registered as unemployed at the Brixton Employment Exchange; and what were the comparative figures for 1967 and 1968.

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

While awaiting the circulation of those figures, may I ask my hon. Friend to what extent the total figures of unemployment have risen or fallen since last year?

If we compare the figure at 11th March, 1968, with that at 10th March, 1969, the total is down in the 12 months by 1,037, of whom 855 are men.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will legislate to bring in a scheme whereby each group of workers in an industry or company may choose which union is to represent them by means of a secret ballot.

No, Sir. The problems involved in inter-union disputes in Britain are often too complex to be settled satisfactorily in this way.

Will the Minister think again about this? Why is it that the exercise of democracy cannot be extended to workers in choosing their union which is to represent them, and would not this have been of great help in the dispute in the steel industry recently?

I am certainly making no comment on the steel industry dispute. I can accept that there may be occasions on which a ballot can be helpful as to which is the appropriate union for recognition. The flexible proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend in the White Paper offer that solution, and many others, and I am sure that that flexible approach is the proper approach.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when a worker joins any particular union within an industry he expects that union to represent him?

I am aware of that, and I am also aware of the problems which it sometimes involves.

If we are talking, as we are rightly talking increasingly, about the need to encourage industrial democracy, does the hon. Gentleman not think it basic to democracy in industry that people should have the right to decide for themselves which union is to represent them?

That is a right which, when expressed in those general terms, of course is unexceptionable, but that is not the sort of right offered by the right hon. Gentleman's policy statement, which would limit that right very severely.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will bring in a Bill to implement the White Paper "In Place of Strife", during the current Session of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she intends to introduce the Industrial Relations Bill promised in the White Paper entitled "In Place of Strife".

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will now state the approximate date when she proposes to introduce comprehensive legislation based on the White Paper "In Place of Strife".

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) on 24th March, 1969.—[Vol. 780, c. 202–3.]

Would not the right hon. Lady agree that it appears that the trade unions have been doing more damage to the economy than the House of Lords, and would it not, therefore, be a better priority to reform them rather than the House of Lords this Session? Would she further say whether the reason why the trade unions are not being reformed is that the Home Secretary has so far been blocking that?

I would not accept any of the premises in the hon. Gentleman's question, and, therefore, not his conclusion.

Does the right hon. Lady mean to tell the House that she no longer means what she says in her own White Paper, on page 14, where she refers to an Industrial Relations Bill——

Order. An hon. Member must not quote when asking a supplementary question.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that her White Paper, on page 14, refers to introducing legislation very quickly, and can she give us any indication that there is now a change of policy?

There is no change of policy. I have always said, and I am still saying, that I think it important to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

But now that there is so much opposition to the introduction of this legislation, can the right hon. Lady give a pledge that it will not be watered down or, to quote the Home Secretary, to be stopped altogether?

I have told the House that consultations on the White Paper are taking place, and, clearly, they must be thoroughly conducted before legislation can be prepared and presented to the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the real intention of Conservative Members is to cripple the trade unions and that they denounce the White Paper because it strengthens them? Is she further aware that there is massive support on this side of the House and on the shop floor for these constructive proposals, and that the need now is to rectify the legislation and then to act?

I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend says, and I agree with him that there is massive support in the trade union movement for this charter of trade union rights which is involved in my proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further talks she has had with the Trades Union Congress concerning a non-statutory incomes policy; and what consideration has been given in these discussions to the likely future rate of growth of the economy.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 20th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 8–10.]

Would the right hon. Lady not acknowledge that there is widespread interest in the development of her talks with the T.U.C.? So that we may all be informed of the lines on which they are proceeding, can she confirm that a non-statutory prices and incomes policy would involve the repeal of Parts II, III and IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966?

No. I cannot confirm anything of the sort. I have told the hon. Gentleman, and I repeat it, that consultations are going on about a future prices and incomes policy and what form it should take when the current legislation expires at the end of this year.

Does the right hon. Lady not realise that consultations have been going on for a long time and that it is of great importance to both sides of industry that they should know as soon as possible what the position will be as from the end of this year? Is she aware that this is particularly so in view of the leaks in the Press at the weekend? Will she undertake to tell the House as soon as possible whether it is true that the Government have decided to give up this stupid and damaging policy?

I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be too experienced to confuse leaks and suppositions. I have said that the House will naturally wish to discuss this important matter in good time, before the preparation of any further legislation which might or might not be necessary. I stand by that position.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many agreements have been considered by her Department which do not comply with the criteria in the current Prices and Incomes Act; and which have been allowed to continue.

Since March. 1968, 50 agreements submitted to my Department have not been approved, either because they failed to satisfy the criteria or because they exceeded the 3½ per cent. ceiling without justification on productivity grounds. Many agreements have been approved only after modification, following discussion with my Department. A special exception to the strict requirements of the White Paper was made in the case of the recent increase for agricultural workers, as my right hon. Friend explained in her statement on 30th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 1547 et seq.]

I understand that the Ford increase is 4½ per cent. above the maximum laid down in the White Paper. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the savings brought about by the elimination of strikes would be equivalent to a 4½ per cent. wage increase, and would he also agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Very well, I will be happy with an answer to that.

My right hon. Friend dealt very fully with the Ford settlement on 19th March, and I have nothing to add to what she then said.

In his original Answer to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), my hon. Friend said that there had been 50 cases. Can he say what percentage the 50 cases represent of the total number? That would be particularly relevant.

I cannot give that information without notice, except to say that, in the last 12 months, we have dealt with some 2,000 cases.

Under which criterion does expectation of continuity of production occur? Certainly it does not come under any of the four criteria in the White Paper.

My right hon. Friend explained on 19th March how this was an essential and important contributory factor to the productivity gains in this case. There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with this point.

Is my hon. Friend saying that, out of the 2,000 cases handled by his Department, 1,950 have complied with the criteria?

All the cases did not necessarily involve productivity. To the best of my recollection, that is the total number of cases with which we have dealt seeking approval under the requirements of the policy in the last twelve month period for which figures are available.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she proposes to take on the Report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the pay of senior executives.

I shall be making a statement about the Report later this week.

In the meantime, without anticipating that statement, could the right hon. Lady indicate whether, broadly speaking, she accepts the recommendations of paragraph 94 and whether she also fully accepts the statement in paragraph 98 that this Report and the execution of it will have quite considerable significance outside the scope of the immediate investigation?

I have seldom heard an hon. Gentleman contradict himself so completely in his own question. He must realise that it is impossible for me to state what my position is without anticipating my statement.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that for many of us the greater priority is with the large number of workers on very low wages? Is she aware that there is hardly any support at all in the Labour movement for the recommended increases for the Chairmen?

I have heard various views expressed, by my hon. Friends in this House and by people outside. Clearly these are all being taken into consideration.

Will the right hon. Lady give us an assurance that she will not make the statement which she has promised on Thursday, which is a day devoted mainly to general debate, but on Wednesday, when more of the House is present?

I cannot give any assurance on the exact time of the statement. Apart from anything else, consultations on the Report are still going on. I cannot say when they will be completed. The business of the House is also a matter for others than myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will introduce legislation controlling the hours of employment of young persons working in offices so that the same limitations apply as in factories.

This is one of the questions mentioned in the Report of the National Joint Advisory Council's Working Party on Hours of Employment of Women and Young Persons employed in Factories. The Report was published on 3rd March, and it is shortly to be discussed with the C.B.I., T.U.C. and other interested organisations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Report, a copy of which I have been reading, refers only to women and young persons employed in factories? Is he aware that many young persons, including young girls, are employed in computer installations not covered by the Factories Act? Does he not think that legislation ought to be assimilated so that these people are covered?

When the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act was passed in 1963 there was no indication of any exploitation of young people in those spheres in employment. The hon. Gentleman can take it that the paper which we are to submit to the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. will include these matters and that they will be discussed.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the survey which is taking place, examining the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, and see that the matter referred to in this Question is dealt with by it?

I will look at that. I can tell my hon. Friend that all the interested parties, including employers' and employees' organisations, will be given the opportunity of voicing their views on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will consider introducing legislation enforcing industrial and commercial firms to pay the wages and salaries or part thereof of employees laid off work due to industrial disputes in which they were not directly involved.

Such legislation would need to be considered in the context of any general requirement for employers to make payments to suspended workers. The Government are keeping this matter under review.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that while private industry are wallowing in public money—S.E.T., premium repayments, development grants and so on—his Department should insist that they have certain responsibilities to their employees and the public generally?

Virtually all of the public money placed at the disposal of industry is essential to the general economic objectives of the Government. As to payment while workers are suspended, the Government are anxious to bring in such a scheme but very severe actuarial problems are involved.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that private industry already carries a very onerous burden, especially heavy on factory owners and managers, through the fractricidal strife created by inter-union disagreement? Should he not tackle the matter fundamentally rather than go for the overburdened employer?

If the hon. Gentleman would read my right hon. Friend's Report, he would find that that is exactly what she intends to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will investigate recent developments in management practices in British industry with a view to introducing legislation to curb undesirable management practices.

The Manpower and Productivity Service is in close touch with developments in management practices in British industry and the officers of that Service are available to give advice and guidance to management. The legislation and other measures proposed in the White Paper "In Place of Strife" will assist in promoting desirable management practices in the industrial relations field.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that there are political implications in some of the management attitudes recently adopted by large firms, particularly international companies? Would he not insist that when international companies invest in Britain and derive money from the British taxpayer, they should do so under certain specified conditions?

The rules of good management practice which ought to characterise the behaviour of foreign firms are identical with those which we expect from indigenous firms. As to individual examples and complaints, my right hon. Friend and her Department have done all they can to make sure that they are cleared up satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many men are expected to be redundant following the closure of Crag-head Colliery, County Durham; and what action she proposes to take.

It is estimated that about 180 men will become redundant when Craghead Colliery closes. My local officers will do all they can to help these men to find other work and will offer training facilities where appropriate.

Does my hon. Friend remember telling me two weeks ago today that the male unemployment rate in Stanley was already 7·5 per cent.? In view of this already high figure, does he expect difficulty in placing these men in alternative employment?

There will be some difficulty. I am very conscious of what mine closures have done in my hon. Friend's constituency. He will agree that I am not being complacent when I say that, having regard to how heavily hit his constituency has been by mine closures, the number of new industries which we have been able to get there is remarkable. I hope that we shall be able to get more there in the near future, so that these unemployed miners will be able to find alternative employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Producivity if she will now appoint one or two women members to the Commission on Industrial Relations.

Although I have no woman in mind for immediate appointment to the C.I.R., I shall certainly consider women equally with men in considering future appointments.

May I thank the right hon. Lady for that mildly encouraging reply? Would she not agree, as the Commission is likely to be very much occupied with the problems of women in industry, especially equal pay, that the appointment of at least one woman member should be made as soon as possible? Would this not help to lend extra weight to whatever views the Commission puts forward?

I entirely agree that the C.I.R. should be equipped to deal with problems arising in industries or undertakings which employ large numbers of women. If a large number of cases arise involving problems concerning women employees, I shall certainly consider appointing a woman.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many appointments have been made to the Commission on Industrial Relations; and what its eventual membership will be.

In addition to the chairman, three full-time and two part-time members have so far been appointed. It is too early to say what the eventual membership of the Commission will be. This will depend on the progress the Commission makes and the number of cases requiring reference to it.

Can my right hon. Friend say how long these appointments are for, what are the salaries in each position, and whether she is satisfied that the numbers appointed are sufficient to do the job which the C.I.R. will ask them to undertake?

I think that if, in a supplementary answer, I were to give all these details for six members I should be in trouble with Mr. Speaker for giving too long an answer. If my hon. Friend puts down a Question we shall ensure that the details are given.

Will the Home Secretary be joining the C.I.R.?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what studies of industrial relations problems are currently being undertaken by the Commission on Industrial Relations; and what procedure agreements she has referred to the Commission.

I am at present consulting the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. on the initial cases which I hope to refer to the Commission shortly.

May I ask my right hon. Friend which type of industrial problems the initial references to the Commission are likely to involve, and whether she considers that it would be advisable to put the C.I.R. on a statutory basis as soon as possible?

I am considering referring a case concerned with procedure arrangements in a group of companies in the engineering sector. I have also in mind references concerning trade union recognition, including one in the white-collar sector.

Can the right hon. Lady say when she intends to make the C.I.R. respectable?

It is impossible to answer an incomprehensible question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress has been made in her consideration of action to reduce injury to health from excessive noise in factories.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on 29th January. The report of the survey on occupational deafness carried out by the Medical Research Council and the National Physical Laboratory to which I referred has been received. It is now being studied to consider whether it provides an adequate basis for legislation.

Since every week that passes means further injury to many employees, and since there has been a great deal of technical progress on such matters as baffling noise and changing its pitch, will my hon. Friend get on with protecting employees before the present generation is damaged?

We are anxious to get on with it, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that nothing has been done about it. As a matter of fact, some of the best firms in the country are already taking adequate precautions to protect their employees and, through the Inspectorate, we are doing all that we can to bring what might be called the backward employers up to the standards of the best in this respect. In addition, we are getting industry to do what it can, when producing machinery, in the way of baffling and reducing noise.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in considering this very important matter, that the dangers and damage resulting from noise go far beyond the causing of occupational deafness?

Yes, we are very well aware of that, and I am sure that those circumstances will be taken into account when we frame our legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans she has for extending and improving the usefulness of her Department's Professional and Executive Register; and if she will make a statement.

Much has already been done to improve this service. Many of the premises used for it are being improved or replaced by new buildings. Extra staff has been provided; a better system of staff training is being introduced; and a central clearing house has been established to improve the circulation of particulars of vacancies and registrants between offices. In 1968, placings by the 40 offices operating the Register were over 10,000, compared with about 7,000 in 1964. Another office will shortly be opened, at Norwich. We intend to press on with further improvements.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing number of redundant professional men whose only crime is that they are over 45? Should he not be doing more to try to counter this insidious trend?

I am well aware of the problems faced by some of the over-45s, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department will do all that it can to find them suitable positions. I hope that, when he presses me to do more than we are doing, he will recognise that it means an increase in the number of civil servants and an increase in Government expenditure and that he will try to convince some of his right hon. and hon. Friends that such increases are very desirable.

While I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks, may I ask whether he is aware that the difficulty experienced by the over 45s in obtaining jobs is still a major problem? Will he give close attention to it?

The officials of my Ministry always seek to get employers to take into consideration ability and not age. If a man has the capacity, irrespective of his age, we believe that he should be given the job.

In relation to public expenditure, is the hon. Gentleman aware that employers are well accustomed to paying and willing to pay for good employment services? In order to get more resources here, would he consider making a charge for this service and, therefore, make it more professional and intensive?

Speaking off the cuff, I do not think so. I believe that this should be a public service. If we want it to be an excellent service, we should not challenge what it costs. It is a service to the unemployed. They have a right to it. I hope that it will be maintained as a public service.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she plans to publish the survey about the incidence of low pay throughout the economy.

Information about the incidence of low pay in September 1968 is being obtained from our recent new survey of earnings of employees. As results become available, they will be published in the Employment and Productivity Gazette. I hope the first results will be given in the May issue.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why she is being less successful in dealing with the problems of low-paid workers than with those of the chairmen of the nationalised industries? Can she assure the House that when the survey is finally published, she will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes all those industries with a high proportion of low-paid workers, in the hope that they can benefit from the generosity of the Board?

Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that I have not yet dealt with the chairmen of the nationalised industries. As I have said already, I shall be making a statement on that point later in the week.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the latest monthly figures of unemployed persons on the Disabled Persons Register; and what measures she is taking to reduce the figure to the national average.

On 10th February, 1969, 69,298, or 10·6 per cent. of registered disabled persons, were registered as unemployed. The rate of unemployment has never been as low as general unemployment. There are various reasons for this, an important one being that registration as a disabled person is voluntary, and there are many disabled persons in employment who are not registered. My Disablement Resettlement Officers are doing everything possible to find suitable employment for those who are unemployed, including industrial rehabilitation and training where appropriate, and I look to employers to do all they can to make opportunities available. The operation of the quota scheme and the provision of sheltered employment are being kept regularly under review in consultation with my National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, is he aware that, despite his own sincere efforts, those of his D.R.O.s and those of his Advisory Council, the problem is getting worse? In the last six months, on his own admission, the figures have risen from 9·9 per cent. to 10·6 per cent., which is over four times the national average. Is he further aware that thousands of disabled workers regard the system as a failure and a flop? Will he, therefore, conduct an inquiry into the best means of tackling this terrible problem?

I am aware that many unemployed disabled people are seriously worried about their difficulty in finding employment, and I share their anxiety. But I do not agree that the placing service provided by my Department is a failure. Over 34,700 disabled persons were placed in employment by my Department over the last six months. The Training and Employment Committee of the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled is shortly to consider the situation, which I agree is one for concern. When it reports I will consider what other steps are necessary.

Order. Long answers mean fewer questions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the percentage of registered disabled persons in Government employment has fallen to a regrettably low level? In addition to looking at outside employment, will the Minister get his colleagues to try to put their own houses in order in this respect?

I am satisfied that if a survey were made of the whole of Government establishments we should be found to be filling our quota. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury has sent out an intimation that it wants all Departments to make sure, as far as they possibly can, that they are meeting their quotas.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will seek powers to enable Government training centres to recover part of their costs by way of grant from relevant industrial training boards.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans to seek such powers.

Does not the Minister think that there would be a great deal of advantage in expanding training through the Government training centres if there were closer links between Government training centres and the training boards?

I think that a strong, theoretical case can be made out for developing the sort of links that the hon. Gentleman advocates, but there are also substantial disadvantages. One is being sure which costs in each centre should be rightly allocated to which board. A second is the Government's emphasis on placing new G.T.C.s in development areas, which might be regarded by some board contributors as an unfair burden on them.

Would not considerable advantages accrue to Government training centres if they were in the main stream of industrial training developments because they would have all the information and all the influences at work on training as a whole?

The hon. Gentleman's question implies that because the G.T.C.s are not under the direct control of the training boards there is a dichotomy of interest. I think that is quite untrue. If the hon. Gentleman considers the relationship between the Construction Board and Government training he will see how closely the two organisations work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if, following her acceptance of the criteria laid down in the Doctors' and Dentists' Tenth Report, she will now invite the National Board for Prices and Incomes to re-examine the pay of university teachers.

No, Sir. The National Board for Prices and Incomes keeps the pay of university teachers under continuous review on the basis of a Standing Reference under Section 3 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, and the Board will initiate a further review when it judges this to be appropriate.

Because of the suspicion, anger and conflict in the universities arising from the Government's action on their salary claim, and because many university teachers feel that they have had a raw deal whereas the doctors have managed to get away with it, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of giving urgent attention to a new salary structure and negotiating machinery for university teachers?

This question is currently being considered by the Minister of State for the Department of Education and Science who, at their request, has had exploratory discussions, without commitment by anybody, about the machinery for settling university academic salaries with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the discussions, which will take some time.

Is it not a fact that not only university teachers but right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House were highly critical of the result of that standing reference and thought that it ought to come to an end? Can the Minister assure the House that not only the Minister of State, whose efforts we all know about, but the whole Government machinery, including the right hon. Lady's Department, is currently and urgently examining the future of university salaries and the possibility of negotiating machinery?

Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance, and my Department is associated with the discussions to which I have referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the total cost of gathering the information and of printing and publishing Command Paper No. 3858 of December, 1968.

I regret the information is not available. It would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time to cost separately one of the Board's many concurrent investigations.

Is the cost which must be involved justified by the conclusions in this case? Is this not yet another example of how public money is being expended most unwisely at a time of economic stringency? Could not the house- wife have done this more effectively for the hon. Gentleman?

On the contrary, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have repeatedly pressed the Government on prices and the need to investigate some margins. The original reference made to the Board was because, as its terms stated, the Government believe that an examination in this area of costs and margins would be helpful to the development of the policy. We are amply satisfied that the outcome has justified this belief.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether, in view of the anomalies in the Redundancy Payments Scheme relating to the benefits paid to redundant employees, she will introduce further amending legislation.

As I stated during the Second Reading debate on the Redundancy Rebates Bill on 30th January, it is intended to introduce further legislation to deal with anomalies in the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965.—[Vol. 776, c. 1562 and 1600.]

Can the Minister say how many substantial redundancy payments have been made in cases in which neither loss of work nor loss of wages was involved? Can he also say in how many cases concerning elderly people declared redundant the payment has been quite paltry?

I cannot give my hon. Friend any precise figures for the categories about which he asks, but I can assure the House, as I tried to do on 30th January, that our policy of remedying the anomalies is not because it draws a significant amount from the Fund but because it is necessary to do it in equity.

Can the Minister tell us when the Bill will be introduced? Can he also assure us that this will not be the end of the story and that we shall be taking a more fundamental look at the Redundancy Payments Scheme?

I can give no assurance at the moment on the second part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many unemployed persons received earnings-related unemployment benefit during the last 12 months; and what has been the average size of the earnings-related supplement paid.

At any time during 1968 an average of 101,582 persons was receiving earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit. The average weekly amount of supplement paid was £3 6s. 7d.

Is my hon Friend aware that this benefit is of great help to people who are, for example, displaced by mergers and technological changes in industry? Will he continue to lend his support to the sharp action which is being taken by his hon. Friends to deal with that tiny minority who abuse the system? Further, will he continue to resist any pressure from the benches opposite to curtail this very necessary benefit?

I can give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance on the last part of his question. I think that the abuses are probably microscopic. In order to try to eliminate them we might have to impose hardship on people who did not deserve it. When the history of the last three or four years is written, I think that the part that the earnings-related supplement has played in keeping the peace, as it were, and helping through the technological revolution will be much more appreciated than it is now.

Can the Minister say for what average period wage-related benefits have been paid?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that information without notice, but anyone is entitled to it for six months provided that he is continuously unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is satisfied with the progress the industrial training boards are making in developing group training schemes; and if she will make a statement.

Rapid progress is being made. Over 400 schemes are now in operation and training boards are planning or actively considering proposals for at least another 200 groups.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this group scheme gives an excellent opportunity to the small firm to give first-rate training to apprentices and operatives on a par with the large firms? Will he re-emphasise that grants are available to enable such schemes to be launched?

I am very happy indeed to do that and to confirm that one of the objects of the 1964 Act was to enable small firms to come together in this way under the aegis of the boards. Grants are available for firms covered by boards, and for those firms for which boards have not yet been created grants may be possible direct from my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement about her policy with regard to mergers and their effect upon employment.

Government policy is to encourage mergers which are in the public interest and which, by making a more efficient use of resources, will enable the companies concerned to improve their competitive position at home and overseas. It is the policy of my Department to encourage management to carry out an early examination of the manpower requirements of the new organisation and to plan recruitment and training programmes accordingly. There should be the fullest possible consultation with employee representatives, particularly if it is found that in the interest of overall efficiency redundancies are likely to arise.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if redundancies are to take place as a result of rationalisation it is vital that they take place in those areas where there is alternative employment rather than in those areas where it will be difficult to find employment for people declared redundant?

Certainly one of the criteria which affects vocational redundancy must be the company's judgment about what is economically the best procedure for the firm, but when there is a balance of advantage which is more or less equal my right hon. Friend will certainly urge that one of the objects of merger policy should be to encourage companies to group themselves in development areas and other areas of high unemployment.

With regard to shipbuilding on Clydeside, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the Government's policy to use pressure to promote mergers if these are against the wishes and commercial judgment of either party?

That is quite a different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what has been the decline in employment in coalmining, railways, iron and steel and cotton between 1965 and 1968.

Between mid-1965 and mid-1968 employment in these four industries declined by 287,000.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that job losses of this magnitude make it vital that the Government should do all they can to bring new industry into these areas? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Government have done sufficient in this respect?

I am perfectly satisfied that it is a major task of the Government to bring alternative work to areas where redundancies of this magnitude have taken place. My hon. Friend asks whether I am satisfied about what has been done. I am not satisfied, in the sense that there are still some people unemployed, but we are doing what we can to provide alternative employment and I think that the measures are beginning to work.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in most of the major mining areas in Scotland the National Coal Board is advertising for miners, admittedly of the lower-paid category? Has my hon. Friend's Department ever considered trying to give some help in this matter?

I assure my hon. Friend that where the National Coal Board places an order for men the officers at our various exchanges will do what they can to induce suitable unemployed men to take up the vacancies to which he has referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what studies she is making of the problems of framing legislation to protect pension rights by procuring transferability in all cases of change of employment involving comparable schemes.

The proposed legislation will protect occupational pension rights by requiring the offer of a deferred pension on change of employment, but this will not preclude the offer of a transfer value as an alternative. We hope that this will encourage the negotiation of transfer arrangements between comparable schemes but do not think it is feasible to make such arrangements a statutory requirement.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the pledge in the Labour Party election manifesto to deal with the problems of transferability of occupational schemes? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in this area there is no real problem? Why does he not act?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has fulfilled that pledge. We dealt with the problem by encouraging transferability where this is feasible, and where it is not by offering the country the prospect of a law which makes the preservation of pensions an obligation on all employers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what study she is making of the methods by which the value of assets held in trust for employees by the trustees of occupational pension schemes can be defined for each individual employee at any stage of his career; and if she will make a statement.

The accrued rights of employees who are members of occupational pension schemes will need to be defined in order to give effect to legislation on preservation of pension rights. The method of calculation is under active consideration with those who operate pension schemes.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that once the individual beneficiary's rights in occupational pension schemes can be defined precisely the way to transferability is wide open?

I hope that that was the implication of the previous Answer. The problems of definition are such that I do not think it feasible for any law to stipulate that where a definition can be arrived at transferability is an obligation on the parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many companies have had or are receiving assistance from the Manpower and Productivity Service of her Department.

The Manpower and Productivity Service has been in contact with some 1,500 firms during the Mast six months and has carried out detailed surveys of problems impeding productivity in about 60 organisations in the public and private sectors. My officers are also in touch with firms, employers and trade unions in a number of major industries.

Can my hon. Friend say what action his Department intends to take to extend its activities on the basis of this excellent record? Can he also say what collaboration his Department has had on this score with other Government Departments involved in production such as naval dockyards and Ordnance factories?

The resources of the Manpower and Productivity Service are available to other Government Departments, some of which have taken advantage of them, for example, the Ministry of Defence, with particular application to naval dockyards. There is an increasing demand for the service because it is proving so successful in so many areas, and its efforts are becoming more widely known and publicised.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans she has to expand or develop the facilities services provided by the employment service of her Department.

We have, for some years, been pursuing a programme of expansion and development of the Employment Service. Steps taken include the provision of better premises, more adequate staffing, better staff training, and a new area management system to improve co-operation between neighbouring offices; special arrangements for dealing with redundancies; the establishment of an occupational guidance service for adults; and improvements in the arrangements for circulating particulars of vacancies. We are also planning, over the next few years, to use computers for some of the unemployment benefit work and make benefit payments by post. This should help the exchanges to concentrate on employment work.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread respect for the achievements of his Department in these exchanges? Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the defects from which they suffer is the old "dole" image? Can my hon. Friend say what action is being taken to overcome the difficulties of this image and to extend the scope of the agencies, particularly in relation to the professional services?

I have already indicated what we are doing with regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. I am glad to have his tribute to the work being done by the staff. I assure my hon. Friend that I want to get rid of the "dole" image as quickly as anybody possibly can. That is why I hope that when we come to the House for money to do this we shall find hon. Members very responsive.

Bearing in mind that the "dole" image to which the hon. Gentleman referred has led, among other things, to offices being located largely to a pattern reflecting unemployment of bygone years, will the hon. Gentleman at least consider the possibility that "placing" work in the future might be improved by having fewer offices in different locations?

I readily accept what the right hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his supplementary question. He can take it from me that where new offices are being planned we take into account the necessity for their fitting in and being established in areas of general commercial interest. That is our policy. We should like to proceed with it much faster, but resources are the determining factor.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress she has made in her discussions on labour-only sub-contracting and self-employment in the building industry.

I am glad to say that representatives of both employers and unions in building and civil engineering have indicated in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and myself, their general support for regulation of labour-only sub-contracting and self-employment in these industries on the lines recommended by the Phelps Brown Committee. Detailed consultations are now taking place with a view to legislation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that will be very welcome, especially by the building trade workers? My right hon. Friend says that legislation is likely to come along. Can she indicate how quickly we may expect it? Secondly, does not she agree that the time has come to eliminate the abuses which arise as a result of this type of employment?

I accept my hon. Friend's last remark. It is because we are conscious of the abuses and the need to eliminate them that we expedited these consultations and are now expediting the preparation of legislation. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date because that depends partly on the time it takes to prepare the legislation and also upon the legislative time table, but we have the importance of this very much in mind.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that one of the most rapid ways of reducing the total number of labour-only sub-contractors would be to get her right hon. Friend to abolish the Selective Employment Tax?

That is a typically regressive way of approaching this problem. The right way of eliminating abuses is on the lines of the Phelps Brown Report, which advocated not what the hon. Gentleman has advocated but, rather, registration and the acceptance of the principle of deeming as ways in which these abuses could be stopped.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what discussions she has held on the National Board for Prices and Incomes Reports numbers 91 and 92 on The Building and Civil Engineering Industry.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and I have held discussions with both employers and union representatives on the constructive and far-reaching recommendations in these Reports. I have indicated my concern that rapid progress should be made and have asked to be kept in touch with developments.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what steps she has taken in pursuance of her policy of getting companies to register collective agreements; and what response she has had.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress has been made in consultations between the Government, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the nationalised industries on the scope of the voluntary registration of collective agreements; and whether she will make a statement.

Consultations with the C.B.I., T.U.C. and nationalised industries are in progress, but I hope in the course of next month to issue invitations to the largest of the companies and undertakings employing more than 5,000 to register their procedure agreements. Invitations to other firms in this category will follow shortly afterwards.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether she has any plans to approach Messrs. Turriffs in this context about the situation at the Ivy Bridge building site in the London Borough of Hounslow? Is not this just the sort of dispute which her proposals for registering agreements should be able to prevent?

I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. Registration is primarily proceeding on the basis, first, of companies and undertakings, in a general way, but I will bear the point in mind.