asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will seek to amend the parts of the Factories Acts and other legislation which restricts the work experience of schoolchildren; and if she will make a statement.

The law on the employment of children and young persons concerns a number of Departments, which are considering the legal and safety problems relating to work experience schemes. Any contemplated amendment of the Factories Act would first have to be discussed with employers' and workers' organisations.

Does my hon. Friend accept that knowledge of the industrial scene is an integral part of the education of children in their latter years at school and that this will become even more important if the school leaving age is raised? Will he put the same pressure on the C.B.I. and T.U.C. in this matter as is being done in other directions, for example, in connection with trade union legislation?

I am not unsympathetic to that suggestion, which is, after all, virtually a recommendation of the Newsom Report. My hon. Friend will agree that in a matter of this kind it is vital than we should carry with us both sides of industry. We will be conducting negotiations with them and I hope that, when they are concluded, my hon. Friend will not be disappointed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what she estimates to be the numbers of employed people who are left-handed; if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT any available breakdown; and if she will initiate an investigation into the increases in productivity which may be achieved by introducing left-handed working arrangements for left-handed people.

My Department has not made any such estimates, but some current research suggests that about 5 per cent. of the population is completely left-handed, and many more have some degree of left-handedness. Most left-handed persons adapt themselves to existing machinery and plant layout and I have no evidence that the problems of such persons are a sufficient obstacle to increased productivity to call for a special investigation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my experience completely contradicts the latter part of his Answer? Is he further aware that in industry the production of an individual or even the production of a team is often hampered by the left-handed person who finds himself in difficulty in a right-handed world? Does he appreciate that this is a serious matter which needs attention not at individual firm level but at Government level to ensure that help is given in terms of machines and industrial working layouts?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's experience also tells him that the same equipment would invariably have to be used by right-handed people; in other words, if machines were altered to suit left-handed people, the problems which now afflict them would tend to afflict right-handed people. The difficulties which my hon. Friend has in mind are quite well known in industry and I do not believe that the cost of further investigations would be justified by the net results.

Which handed is the Secretary of State for Social Services?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations she is currently conducting on her proposed legislation on industrial relations; and when she proposes to present the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the consultations she is conducting on the subject of the proposed legislation on industrial relations.

The Government are consulting the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and representatives of the nationalised industries and local authorities about the proposed interim Industrial Relations Bill. I hope to introduce the Bill as soon as possible.

As a result of the proposals of the T.U.C., is it now the right hon. Lady's intention to introduce a Bill which does not, even in a modified form, propose to include those clauses which her hon. Friends have described as penal?

The discussions which we have been having with the T.U.C. have shown that the T.U.C. has gone a very long way, and we welcome this. There still are, however, differences between us and these will be the subject of further consultations. I believe that it would be most unwise of me to try to foresee the outcome of those discussions.

Is the right lion. Lady aware that after all these years—after a Royal Commission and with time now running out—the spectacle of all this feverish haggling between the Government and the T.U.C. is gravely damaging the national interest? Will she please announce the Bill forthwith?

I cannot accept that grotesquely distorted picture of what is happening. On the contrary, the country welcomes that fact that the Government and the T.U.C. are now in constructive and meaningful discussion as to how to improve industrial relations in Britain. This is exactly what everybody wants.

Is it the position that the right hon. Lady would like, if possible, to avoid legislation in the event of meaningful proposals being put forward by the T.U.C.? In her discussions with employers, has she gained the impression that many employers would, in practice, be prepared to use the so-called penal clauses against their employees?

My aim and that of the Government is to improve industrial relations and reach a situation in which we can get increasing recognition of the need to observe bargains which are freely struck. This is the aim, and we have had, in the response from the T.U.C., encouraging signs of co-operation. It would be most unfortunate if Questions in the House were to try to damage the outcome of those discussions.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that many of us welcome the fact that the Bill will not be published until after the special congress of the T.U.C. on 5th June? Would she assure us that, in considering the penal clauses, she will consider seriously the events in Australia where there is industrial chaos as the result of such clauses and, second, the overwhelming evidence provided by Professor Turner in his book that there is no necessity for this type of legislation in Britain?

Of course, the legal sanctions which obtain in Australia are quite different from those which we have proposed in our legislation, and that would be a false analogy to draw. On the first part of the question, I repeat that we do not intend to introduce the legislation, not only until after the special congress, but also until we have had further discussions with the T.U.C. in the light of the special congress.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that she will not allow herself to be stampeded by the Opposition or the Press? Will she further assure us that she will try to reach an agreement with the T.U.C., since we on this side realise that, given any Government co-operation, only the T.U.C. can solve our industrial problems?

I can give my hon. Friend a firm assurance that I will not be stampeded by anyone. I agree with him that the co-operation of the T.U.C. is vital in the whole industrial relations exercise. The Government appreciate the spirit in which the T.U.C. is approaching these negotiations.

Would the right hon. Lady assure us that her worthy determination not to be stampeded by anyone includes the Leader of the House? Would she bear in mind the fact that the House will need an adequate time between the publication of the Bill and its debate on it?

Of course I appreciate that. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that is a matter for the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether, in the forthcoming Bill on Industrial Relations, she will seek provision to deal with the interference with output and production caused by company directors and higher paid executives absenting themselves from work to go to golf matches and horserace meetings; and whether she will also provide for financial penalties for such absenteeism.

As my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 16th April, the Bill will impose restrictions on strikes and lock-outs in defined circumstances. It is not intended to deal with interruptions of work from other causes.—[Vol. 781, c. 1184.]

That reply was not unexpected. Can the Minister explain what will happen if workers decide not to go on strike, but just to go to a horse race meeting, or to go golfing, while their wages are discussed? How will the Government deal with this in the Bill?

It is my experence, and I am sure it is that of my hon. Friends, that when workers are on strike, they say so; otherwise, it becomes pointless. The Bill is intended to deal with people absent from work due to strike and for no other reason.

Even if there were anything sensible in this ridiculous Question, would it not be fair to say that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is the last person to ask it?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress she has made in her discussions with the Trades Union Congress representatives on the use of a special fund collected from unofficial strikers; and if she will make a statement.

This is one of the suggestions I am discussing with the T.U.C. in our consultations on the interim Bill.—[Vol. 781, c. 1186.]

As discussions on this point have apparently not yet taken place, which indicates a shyness on the part of my right hon. Friend to raise this specific matter, and as the T.U.C. has apparently not yet been allowed to say what she can do with such collections, does that not show that this will never be "on" and that it is best to rely on the T.U.C. intervening in industrial relations, especially to expose shoddy management, rather than to involve any concept of State penal law?

I cannot say that I am conscious of any shyness about this point. It would be wrong of me to say here and now that this was not "on" because it is now before the T.U.C. as part of the consultative document sent to it on the clauses now proposed for the interim Bill. The T.U.C. has not yet pronounced upon it and I do not think that my hon. Frend ought to try to prejudge its response.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations she has received from the Confederation of British Industry about her proposals to make it a condition of employment that a worker should be granted the right to belong to a trade union; and what reply she has sent.

This matter is among those on which consultations are taking place with the C.B.I. They have not made formal representatons to me on it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many firms positively discourage people from joining trade unions? Can she assure the House that she will not be deterred from introducing legislation to wipe out these and other Tolpuddle practices by troglodyte employers which result only in wasteful disputes which are damaging to the national interest?

I certainly assure my hon. Friend that I believe that the time is long overdue when we should have had on the Statute Book the right of every worker to belong to a trade union, and this will be one of the very important clauses of the interim Bill.

Will the right hon. Lady at the same time write into such a Bill the right of any individual not to join a trade union if he has deep-rooted or conscientious objections to doing so?

Nothing in the Government's proposals impinges on this right.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the result so far of the conversations which the Government has held with the Trades Union Congress on the implementation of the White Paper, "In Place of Strife".

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further discussions she has had with the Trades Union Congress to consider industrial relations legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress has been made in her consultations which have been undertaken with the Trades Union Congress with a view to ensuring that the trade unions take effective steps to avert unofficial strike action, without recourse to legal sanctions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the result to date of her consultations with the Trades Union Congress on the implementation of "In Place of Strife"; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the result of the discussions which the Government have had with the Trades Union Congress on the White Paper, "In Place of Strife".

I would refer hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20th May to Questions from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Since then, my right hon. Friend and I have had a further meeting with the General Council to discuss revised proposals which are being put to the special Congress on 5th June. A meeting with the General Council is being arranged to take place after the special Congress.—[Vol. 784, c. 64.]

Is the Minister aware that I well appreciate the importance of carrying all the interested parties along with her if she can, but the Government's proposals were not enough. Will she therefore, without further delay, make up her mind and announce her intentions so that we on this side of the House can decide what further building is necessary on the foundations which she has laid?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to put forward further proposals, alternative proposals, he and his hon. Friends had better consult the C.B.I., as Mr. John Davies has just denounced their alternative as being rather ineffectual.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone on this side of the House would hope that voluntary agreement may be reached between the Government and the T.U.C. as to how this problem may be resolved without legislation? If in any case she is to introduce legislation, will she introduce a complete measure, with all the proposals in the White Paper rather than half of them, the half containing the most objectionable penal clauses?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's preference for waiting for a comprehensive industrial relations Bill. But there are some matters which urgently need to be got on the Statute Book and I have already mentioned one. They are vital to an immediate improvement of industrial relations. The whole of the proposals in the White Paper are so far reaching and complex that it would take a long time to prepare legislation to get the whole on the Statute Book. Therefore, we have certain proposals which will follow later.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members on this side of the House are hoping anxiously that both parties to the negotiations will make serious efforts to reach an accommodation because, whatever differences exist within the Labour movement on industrial relations, they are much narrower than our mutual differences with the Conservative Party?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, this is something which calls for efforts on both sides. I repeat that we think that the T.U.C. has made a marked advance, but there are still differences between us which are subject to continuing consultation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us who have been firmly opposed to the so-called conciliation pause and fines obviously hope that agreement can be reached with the T.U.C. on the basis of its present programme? However, is she also aware—and I am choosing my words as carefully as I can—that if no agreement can be reached, those of us who honestly believe that we cannot vote for such measures cannot be blackmailed into doing so?

As soon as we are in a position to do so, we shall make a full report to the House on the whole of the discussions and their outcome. It will then be for every hon. Member, in the light of the outcome of the discussions, to decide his reaction to it.

Will the right hon. Lady stop over-dramatising these proposals and their alleged scope? Is she aware that, while this is a useful advance, it is very limited and, as was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), it will be left to the next Government to implement proper industrial reform?

I am well aware that the T.U.C. has taken very careful note of the sort of negative attitude to industrial relations taken by hon. Members opposite.

Will my right hon. Friend also take careful note of what has been said by hon. Members opposite and not lay a base for the Conservatives to build upon? Does she not think that the T.U.C. has gone so far to meet her that it is up to her and her right hon. Friend now to go to meet the T.U.C., drop the penal clauses and get on with voluntary industrial relations?

If my hon. Friend believes that the proposals which I have put to the House, in general terms so far of course, provide a base for Conservative policy to build on, he has not carefully studied either my proposals or those of the Opposition. I therefore say to him that it is tremendously important for all of us in this crucial matter to weigh our words carefully and to state the facts objectively.

On the question of urgency, is the right hon. Lady aware that my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Liberal bench would prefer to wait a little if that is necessary to get workable and enforceable proposals, rather than have unworkable and unenforceable proposals at an earlier date?

I entirely agree that proposals put forward at any time should be workable and enforceable. We would not put forward any which we did not think would work.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the main differences between her proposals and the proposals by the Opposition is that in the Opposition proposals sanctions against individuals play a very much smaller part than in her proposals? Is she further aware that the next Conservative Government will undoubtedly bring in a full-scale comprehensive measure on this subject?

I would say that the implications for individual trade unionists of the Opposition proposals are very serious indeed. As to their workability, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the article by Mr. John Davies of the C.B.I.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she proposes to introduce the order activating Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966; and if she will issue a White Paper guilding the National Board for Prices and Incomes in the interpretation of the next stage of the statutory prices and incomes policy.

My right hon. Friend will be taking steps to re-activate Part II of the 1966 Act before the end of the year. A new White Paper also will be published during the course of the year.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that Part II includes Section 16, which contains the penal sanctions, and aganist which his hon. Friends below the Gangway have voted in the past and doubtless will vote again in future? In view of the failure of this policy, does it not seem that the scepticism of his hon. Friends was well founded?

As to the failure of the policy, if the hon. Gentleman will do the House the courtesy of reading the speech which my right hon. Friend made during the Budget debate, he will understand the number of false premises upon which his judgment is based. As to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, I am sure that they look upon the prices and incomes policy as one of the necessary factors in our continuing economic recovery. I am sure that many of them understand the necessity for its continuation.

Since the Prime Minister said on television that other evening that he felt that his hon. Friends were possibly right on the question of east of Suez, when he was lagging behind a bit, would my hon. Friend not accept that perhaps many of us have been right about the prices and incomes policy? Is it not time to recognise that there is no need to pursue this policy any further?

I certainly do not draw that final conclusion. I am prepared to concede that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was right on one of the occasions on which he has disagreed with the Government, but then, he has done it so often that it would be bound to happen at least once.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, last September, his right hon. Friend told the Labour Party con- ference that the Government's policy on prices was "nothing short of miraculous"? At the end of a month in which the index has risen a deplorable 1.4 points, are we to understand that the new White Paper will contain a norm roughly four times the present one?

There is a later Question about the new White Paper and I must wait to reply to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will now make a statement on the future of the prices and incomes policy after the end of 1969.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to publish her proposed White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to publish her White Paper giving guidelines for those fixing wages, prices, dividends and rents.

A new White Paper will be published later this year.

Apart from the compulsory clauses already referred to, when it comes to this White Paper, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will reconsider the whole position of the Prices and Incomes Board? Will he not reflect that experience so far shows that it has been tackling symptoms rather than basic causes and that the whole existence of Mr. Jones and his Board probably aggravates wage discontent rather than the reverse?

The hon. Member's allegations are so wide and so lacking in substantiation that they are difficult to answer. If he considered many of the Reports of the Board, particularly those dealing with general subjects like productivity, I should have thought that he would see that it has made a spectacular contribution to the reorganisation of all sorts of industrial institutions. I am sure that Part II of the Act, continuing, as it will, next year, will need the Board to work in much the same way.

Can my hon. Friend assure us that, in the new phase of the prices and incomes policy, the Government will have adequate powers to control the possible raising by Conservative-controlled councils of council house rents?

I am conscious of the need, as is my right hon. Friend—as she said in the Budget debate—to keep this under review. The discussions about the future White Paper will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Does the hon. Gentleman's answer just now mean that, instead of an Order to activate Part II, we shall have new legislation?

It certainly does not mean that and I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman could have concluded that it did.

He has a devious mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity why she has decided to reduce the statutory period over which she can delay increases in prices and incomes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is now satisfied that the economic situation will allow a relaxation later this year of her statutory prices and incomes policy; and if she will make a statement.

I would refer the hon Members to the Budget Statement on 15th April and my right hon. Friend's speech in the debate on the Budget Resolutions on 16th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 1004–5 and c. 1176–9.]

What improvement has there been in the economic indicators mentioned in the Budget Statement over the period when prices and incomes policy covered a longer period of restraint? What improvement has taken place which the hon. Gentleman feels justifies the policy?

Perhaps the first and most obvious is that referred to in the Answer by my hon. Friend to a previous Question, the 7 per cent. increase in production in manufacturing industries in the present year. This is clearly attributable to the emphasis my right hon. Friend has put on productivity arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans she has to deal with the problem of low wages, in view of the conclusions of the Green Paper, "A National Minimum Wage".

I am considering the problem of low wages in the light of the inter-departmental report on a national minimum wage, the information becoming available from the new earnings survey and the question of equal pay, since the great majority of low-paid workers are women.

Since the Green Paper comes to the conclusion that a national minimum wage would be a less efficient way of relieving poverty than selective social benefits, is my right hon. Friend familiar with the contribution which negative income tax could make in this area?

First, it is not really a Green Paper. It is an inter-departmental report by officials and it is put forward so that all of us who are interested in the problems of the low paid can have some of the essential information for considering this problem. There is a separate Question on the second part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will set up an inquiry to examine the effects on work incentives of the introduction of a system of negative income tax to replace family allowances.

No, Sir.

Since the Office of Economic Opportunity in the United States is running an experiment in negative income tax at the moment to test just this point, could my hon. Friend ask the United States Government to give him as much information as possible about the progress of this experiment?

That is a rather different question—

No, it is the same question.

I have noted the persistence with which my hon. Friend has pursued this with the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Services, and the replies which they have given. My hon. Friend asked for a separate study of the effect of negative income tax on incentives to work. This is not practical in the circumstances without the details of tax proposals and their relationship to other social benefits being taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will now introduce legislation to establish the principle of equal pay on the lines of the Bill introduced in 1954.

The survey into the implications of equal pay for certain industries, which has been carried out by my Department in consultation with the T.U.C. and C.B.I., is now complete and a report on its findings is being prepared. I expect to receive it shortly when I shall be able to resume my discussions with both sides of industry on the timing of the implementation of equal pay and the form which legislation might take.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that every ounce of speed will be used in bringing forward this legislation, as it is bound of its nature to be somewhat complicated?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that I shall now press ahead with discussions with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. in the light of this report which has been drawn up on a survey carried out in consultations with both of them and which both of them feel to be an essential preliminary to our decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what response she has had to her invitation to certain companies employing more than 5,000 employees in individual establishments to register their procedure agreements with her department.

These companies were invited, on 30th April to let my Depart- ment have copies of their procedure agreements by the end of June. It is therefore too early to assess the response but I am glad to tell the House that we are receiving the full co-operation of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the positive proposals contained in the White Paper "In Place of Strife" would fit in very well with the sort of response that she is having, but would have a more significant effect on the whole of industry?

I consider this examination of the procedure agreements, with which we are to press ahead as quickly as we can, to be an absolutely vital part of improving industrial relations. In the questionnaire which we have sent to employers we have tried to get from them information not merely about their procedure agreements, but about a wide range of procedural arrangements which affect consultation on the shop floor and the improvement of relations on the shop floor.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will now make a statement on the Government's proposals for wages councils; and what consultations have taken place on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultation she has had about the wages council's proposals of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions; and if she will make a statement.

Three separate meetings have been held with the chairmen and leaders of the workers' and employers' sides of wages councils. The T.U.C. and C.B.I. were associated with their respective sides and other employers' organisations in the retail distributive trades have been consulted. Arrangements are being made for further discussions with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. to take place shortly, after which I hope to be able to make a statement about the Government's proposals.

Does the Minister intend to amend the 1959 Act to exclude from the scope of wages councils undertakings which have satisfactory arrangements for collective bargaining on their own, as recommended by the Donovan Commission and approved by the right hon. Lady in her White Paper?

As the White Paper makes clear, the recommendations of the Royal Commission relating to wages councils are subject to further consultation with the T.U.C., and C.B.I., and the interested bodies to which I have referred. We must await the outcome of those consultations before we decide what to do about those specific proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity which industrial training boards make provision in their schemes for grants for the training of shop stewards.

Twenty do so already and others have the matter under consideration. I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the importance of shop stewards in a modern industrial society, will the hon. Gentleman see whether successful schemes can be spread over a wider basis?

It is essentially an obligation on training boards to promote that sort of training. They have already been encouraged to do so by the circular sent out by the Central Training Council. The 20 boards have received copies of that circular.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will set up an inquiry into the practice of charging employers for the services of the Professional and Executive Register.

It is not the practice to charge employers for the services of the Professional and Executive Register, and we have no plans to change this arrangement.

Might it not be a good thing to make some charge in the case of someone being successfully employed, and to give the board some money to spend on a rather wider service without it being to the detriment of public funds?

It is refreshing to hear an hon. Member opposite asking us to put a burden on employers. We are always told that the burdens placed on them are far too heavy. I remind hon. Members opposite that under I.L.O. Convention 88 each member of the International Labour Organisation

"shall maintain or ensure the maintenance of a free public employment service".

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to introduce legislation to amend the Redundancy Payments Act.

I am not at present able to say when legislation to amend the Redundancy Payments Act will be introduced.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. May we hope that this matter will be looked into to clear up many of the anomalies which have arisen since the Act was brought into force, particularly that concerning a man or a woman who feels obliged to resign a position because of undue pressures brought to bear upon him or her?

I have said several times in this House that the Government accept that some anomalies exist. The object of the consultations now going on and of the proposed Bill is that these anomalies shall be rectified. The case to which the hon. Member referred would be more appropriately dealt with by our proposals for legislation on unfair dismissals, which are an important part of my right hon. Friend's White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many cases in which productivity agreements have been held to justify increases in wages and salaries in excess of the norms of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, increased payments have been made before productivity has increased; in how many cases additional payments have been made after productivity has increased; and what are the total figures for increases in incomes and productivity in these two circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many pay settlements during the last 12 months increases in excess of the norm were approved on the grounds of increased future productivity; and in which of these cases the projected increase in productivity has been achieved.

Since the present phase of the policy began in March, 1968, my Department has dealt with nearly 2,000 productivity cases of all kinds. Most were negotiated at the local level and, in general, productivity was expected to increase concurrently with pay. The average increase in pay under productivity deals at the national level was 4·2 per cent. In 10 cases the increases exceeded 3½ per cent. per annum and in two of these, part of the increases involved were based on past productivity. More detailed information would have to be specially extracted at a cost disproportionate to its value.

Would not the Minister agree that the fact that many productivity payments have been made before productivity has increased, particularly in the nationalised industries, has been one of the main inflationary pressures in the economy and one of the main reasons why the cost of living index has gone up by 1·4 points today?

I cannot accept the conclusion the hon. Gentleman draws. It is true that certain productivity deals are concluded before the benefits are seen, but we and the National Board are absolutely convinced, because of the changes involved, that the productivity increases will come. Certainly within the last 12 months there has been proof of that.

Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to the road haulage industry where many small agreements have resulted in rises of over 30 per cent. without any comparable increase in productivity?

I have answered Questions on this subject in the past. We are looking at some of the agreements and our regional manpower and productivity people are examining carefully the effects of some of these agreements.

Will my right hon. Friend consider referring managers' and directors' salaries to see if their productivity has increased before their salaries increased?

The National Board has a reference before it at present to look into salaries of that kind.

What evidence is there of increased productivity going hand in hand, for example, with increases granted to tally clerks?

If the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to go to London Docks, as I do, he will see dramatic changes taking place in operations in the port and will be convinced that this is a bona fide productivity deal. There is not the slightest doubt that figures for the last 12 months prove that there has been a dramatic upsurge in productivity, for part of which we must give credit to the policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she is aware of the recent increases in prices of confectionery and toiletries; and if she will now refer these prices to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The N.B.P.I. reported in July, 1968, on costs and prices in the chocolate and sugar confectionery industries, and I understand that price increases introduced since that report have been consistent with the Board's recommendations. Manufacturers' prices of toilet preparations were referred to the N.B.P.I. in December, 1968, and the Board's report is expected shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past six months there has been a persistent increase in prices of the items mentioned in my Question? Is he further aware that this is causing annoyance to ordinary housewives, who do not know when it will stop? Does he realise that they think, because of the prices and incomes policy, that someone is cheating somewhere? Will my right hon. Friend conduct an inquiry into the increases mentioned in the Question, and make a full statement as quickly as possible?

The facts to which my hon. Friend refers are four price increases in chocolates and sugar confectionery, all of which are consistent with the N.B.P.I. inquiry into the industry, and all of which stem basically from increases in the cost of raw materials. One of the price increases, I am sure my hon. Friend will be interested to know, was modified as a result of Government intervention.

Is it not a fact that the principal constituents in the increased costs of these articles, toiletries and confectioneries, are the practices of the Chancellor, which have more than doubled purchase tax on certain toiletries and greatly increased purchase tax on all the articles referred to?

Certainly purchase tax and devaluation have had an effect. Those things were told frankly to the House in the prices policy and that is one of the reasons why we have run a prices policy which has been so much derided by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many people were on either official or unofficial strike, respectively, on 1st May.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the estimated number of working days lost on 1st May due to unofficial strike action; and how many were lost as a consequence of that action.

Reports from my regional officers suggest that the total number on strike on 1st May was between 80,000 and 90,000 and that almost all of these were on unofficial strike.

Can it be deduced from these figures that there is a large amount of unofficial support for the measures of the Minister within the trade union movement? Is this an indication of it?

It is unwise, and perhaps tempting fate, to deduce too much from those figures. Certainly the strike was nothing like as large as the proponents of it announced it would be before 1st May. It would have been even smaller had many of the men who were called out on strike by unofficial leaders understood what my right hon. Friend proposed in her White Paper, rather than being told about it by a number of unofficial publications which gave the wildest possible distortions of her proposals.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that his figure conforms with the figures expressed in various public opinion polls showing that the hostility to the provisions of the White Paper is nothing like as severe or strong as the opposition of a certain vocal minority?

That conclusion is obvious, and I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's judgment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when we have decent employers who will open the doors of communication with the trade unions, we will have no unofficial disputes? Is he prepared to get in touch with these employers to ensure that proper procedure agreements are reached? Is he aware that this is particularly necessary in the engineering industry where they are waiting for five weeks for local consultations? Is he aware that if he was prepared to do something about this it would solve many of the unofficial stoppages?

No doubt my hon. Friend is right. That is the job for which the C.I.R. was established and it is the job that it will do as a first priority of the White Paper proposals.

askd the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many working days per 1,000 employees have been lost to date this year due to official or unofficial stoppages; how this figure compares with that for the previous year over the same period: and how the average to date compares with the average of previous years.

Seventy eight working days were lost per 1,000 employees in the United Kingdom through official and unofficial stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the period 1st January to 30th April, 1969. This figure compares with 43 for the corresponding period in 1968. During the previous 10 years the figure ranged from 13·21 in 1963 to 188·13 in 1962 giving an average of 52 for the whole period.

Am I right in assuming that at present the rate of stoppages is among the highest in the history of this nation? Does this not justify the action of the Minister?

It depends upon what sort of average we take to describe the highest rate. I tried to say in my original Answer that this is about one-third of the 1962 rate.

Is it not true that the whole question of unofficial strikes has been grossly exaggerated in this country? Is it not true that the highest level in the period under discussion was reached under the Conservative Government in 1962? Would my hon. Friend consider once again the views expressed by Professor H. A. Turner in his recent publication, which conclusively proved beyond doubt that we are being forced into an impossible and unsatisfactory situation?

Irrespective of various opinions as to the importance of the damage caused by unofficial strikes to the economy, I am sure the House agrees that many unofficial strikes do irreparable damage both to the country and to other workers affected by them, put on short time or laid off. It is less important to make a precise quantification of the days lost than it is to make sure that my right hon. Friend has the opportunity to do what she can to bring unnecessary unofficial strikes to an end.