asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increases made last year by company chairmen in their salaries of up to 50 per cent; and to what extent the Government's incomes policy now applies to them.

In its report on top salaries, the Board said that the salaries of individuals could be judged properly only in relation to the salary structures in which they are placed. My right hon. Friend is considering the reference to the Board of the salary structures of individual firms and will be consulting the C.B.I. and T.U.C. in due course. The income policy applies to all incomes.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the claim of the C.B.I. that it is persuaded that this reference should be in general rather than particular terms? Will he refer particular cases of, for example, Mr. Hawkins of P. B. Cow and Co., Mr. Chapman of Group Lotus Car companies and the £40,000 to £45,000 increase for Sir Val Duncan of the Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation?

I have said that my right hon. Friend is considering reference to the Board of salary structures of individual firms, but it would be improper for me to comment on individual cases. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, consultations we have about references to the Board are, of course, in confidence, but the C.B.I. attitude was publicly declared at the time as one of general opposition to the references.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she is taking to ensure the provision of acceptable alternative employment for those made redundant by reorganisation at the English Electric group of companies on Merseyside and in Lancashire.

My local officers will be making special arrangements to help redundant workers who require advice or assistance in obtaining other employment. The majority of those involved have some skill or technical qualification and there are good prospects of their finding other work. On present evidence it appears unlikely that the measures for reorganisation announced by the General Electric and English Electric Companies Ltd., will lead to any significant increase in local unemployment in Merseyside and Lancashire.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the co-ordination between his Ministry, the Board of Trade, the Department of Economic Affairs and other Ministries involved? Is he aware of the very real concern on Merseyside about the threatened closure of the Netherton plant?

I assure my hon. Friend that all the Ministries concerned about employment keep closely in touch. The Netherton factory is one of the group currently under review, but so far I am not aware of any firm decision having been taken.

When companies are amalgamated for greater efficiency, what action is taken by the Minister to urge concentration of work in development areas rather than in areas where there is no unemployment at all?

The whole policy of the Government has been directed towards that end. There would be something very unbusinesslike and uncommercial in any firm in a development area transferring its work to an outside area and thus losing the very good financial benefits which accrue through our regional policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this work concerned with diesel engines is being transferred to Colchester and Lincoln and that the firm can guarantee only 130 personnel being transferred to those factories? As we have a most serious unemployment problem on Merseyside and there is no guarantee that all these workers' skill will be employed, will he represent to his right hon. Friends that action must be taken to ensure employment for them?

The vast majority of these people are skilled or semiskilled. Our local officers believe that because of their skills there will not be any great difficulty in finding alternative employment for the overwhelming majority of them.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what study she has made of the evidence supplied to her by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire of salary increases of up to £13,000; and if she will take steps to ensure that all proposed wage and salary increases of £1,000 plus are referred to her Department for vetting.

I have written to my hon. Friend about the points he raised in his letter. All increases are subject to the requirements of the incomes policy, but the information to be submitted to my Department under the early warning arrangements is restricted to increases involving more than 100 workers. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the scope of early warning as part of the reformulation of the policy after the end of 1969.

Does it not have a damaging effect on industrial relations when workers who are fighting for a few shillings a week extra find that their bosses can get many thousands of £s a year extra easily? When my hon. Friend is carrying out the references to which he referred in answer to Question No. 1, will he bear in mind this enormous rise at Vauxhall Motors? In general, does he agree that the problems of British industry are basically never solved by a race of supermen but by the man working on the shop floor?

I agree largely with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. He must not assume that large salary increases for chairmen of companies are necessarily inconsistent with the policy. The ceiling and criteria in Cmnd. 3590 do not apply to progressions based on added experience, increased responsibility, or special effort, and N.B.P.I. Report No. 107 suggested that increases for top executives as a whole had been rather less than those within the economy as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many Australians, whether already in this country or outside, in 1968 and in the first quarter of 1969, respectively, applied for work permits in Great Britain and were refused.

Employment vouchers are issued only to persons outside this country. In 1968, 507 applications were made and 97 rejected; in the first quarter of 1969, 184 and 39, respectively.

Why does the Home Secretary refuse to grant an extension of a work permit for an Australian about whom I have written to him, who is a member of a British trade union and who has asked for the extension in a job in which there is no unemployment? As Australia takes so many immigrants from Britain, should there not be a little more reciprocity?

I believe that there is reciprocity. There is a constant to and fro between both countries. As the hon. Gentleman did not give me notice that he would raise this specific case, I am not able to comment on what he thinks is the unfavourable decision he has had from the Home Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest figures for unemployment in Scotland; and what is her estimate of the number of long-term unemployed, who through no fault of their own are unable to work.

At the latest count on 10th June there were 75,000 persons on the unemployment registers in Scotland, including 71,000 wholly unemployed. On 14th April, the latest date for which I have comprehensive statistics of the duration of unemployment, 35·5 per cent. of the wholly unemployed had been on the registers for six months or more. To judge from past studies, I would say that a substantial proportion of these would find difficulty on personal grounds in getting work.

At a time when, thanks to Government policy, the Scottish unemployment figures are extremely healthy and favourable, would not this be the moment, when no one can accuse of gerrymandering, to alter the presentation of the statistics?

I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no gerrymandering with figures, whether they are favourable or unfavourable, so long as I have to answer about them. I am glad that my hon. Friend has noted the improvement in the Scottish employment figures. I hope that the numbers of unemployed will continue to decrease, because this will be a good reflection of the success of our regional policy.

The Under-Secretary has just referred to the success of the employment figures in Scotland. Have not the numbers actually employed in Scotland fallen compared with the position a few years ago?

In total, yes. If anybody believes that we could have inherited a coalmining industry, a steel industry, and a railway industry in the state in which hon. Members left them and then not have experienced a substantial decline in those industries, they do not know what has been happening. Of course there has been a decrease. Right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench have made it clear in recent speeches that they failed to take cognisance of the rundown in the basic industries. Therefore, we should not be accused of being too responsible for the decrease.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what study she has made of the extent to which Scottish unemployment figures are artificially swollen by the fact that over the past three years more men and women are taking longer between leaving one job and taking another, to try and make certain that the job to which they go is suitable.

Over the three years up to June, 1969, the percentage of persons on the unemployment registers in Scotland for eight weeks or less fell from 38·8 to 34·6. This may in part be due to a more selective attitude on the part of registrants in deciding what jobs to take but the general level of unemployment would also influence the figures.

Is it more than possible to guess at the cause of the selective attitude?

I think that the introduction of our wage-related benefits and redundancy payments have meant that the unemployed man is not down immediately to the poverty level; therefore, he has a right, and takes advantage of that right, because he has the economic support, to look round a little longer so that he can find a job which is appropriate to his talents and which he believes will be satisfying.

asked the Secretary of of State for Employment and Productivity how many firms have now been asked to register their procedural agreements; how many have done so; if she is satisfied with the rate of progress; and if she will make a statement.

So far, 35 companies employing more than 5,000 in a single establishment have been invited to register. These companies employ between them over one-and-a-half million people. Twelve companies have already registered their agreements and a further 14 have indicated that they are well advanced in preparing their replies. I shall shortly be inviting a further 250 companies each employing more than 5,000 people to register. I am pleased with the overall response so far from companies and with the co-operation I have had from both C.B.I. and T.U.C. Moreover, there are indications of growing interest in improving procedures, no doubt due to knowledge of the invitations from my Department.

I welcome that reply. When my right hon. Friend approaches the further 250 companies, will she ensure that firms with a record of bad industrial relations are not allowed to evade agreement or to prevaricate?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's aim. The invitations to register are as yet on a voluntary basis and, therefore, until we have legislation putting it on a statutory basis, I have no power to enforce compliance. I have found that firms are responding well so far, and I hope that they will continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the consultations she has had with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry about the Departmental Report on a National Minimum Wage.

My right hon. Friend will be consulting the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on the future form of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes. The position of low-paid workers will be considered 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 for women, who form the majority of the low paid.

Are not the questions of a minimum wage and equal pay separate but related? Are not the Government already committed in principle to the question of equal pay? Would they care to give a similar commitment in principle to the question of a minimum wage?

I cannot commit the Government on the question of a national minimum wage. The importance of equal pay in this connection is that the great majority of the lower paid are women and the implementation of equal pay would go a long way towards solving the problem of low pay.

What is this interdepartmental report on a national minimum wage? Can hon. Members be acquainted with the details? Is my hon. Friend aware that on two occasions—in 1946 and in 1948—there were submitted to the Attlee Cabinet proposals for a national minimum wage? Are they available in the Department? Can we have information about this?

As I understand the position, the report should be available in the Vote Office. I will check to make sure that it is. If it is not, I will ensure that it is made available to hon. Members. The purpose of the report was not to commit the Government on a policy but to provide a basis for a more informed discussion on the subject.

Will my hon. Friend agree that, on the basis of the report, there is an unanswerable case for introducing fairly speedily a national minimum wage, bearing in mind that many males, as a result of the Government's policy on redundancy payments and related supplements, can receive more money when they are unemployed? If we as a Government are not prepared to give an incentive, shall we not make things difficult for the lower-paid workers?

As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question, the purpose of the report was to provide the basis for a more informed discussion and not to draw conclusions. However, if I may draw a subjective conclusion representing purely my own attitude, it seems to me that there are strong indications in the report that we might misuse resources by introducing a national minimum wage at this time, and those resources might be better used through the existing social security arrangements, the provision of family allowances, and the like.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage to protect badly organised industries is a necessary preliminary to a move from nationally negotiated wage agreements to plant and company bargaining? Will he consider the introduction of a national minimum wage for that purpose?

As regards industries in which the general level or the tendency is towards low pay, this is the sort of question which, among other things, exercised the mind of the Royal Commission, which made recommendations, for example, about the need to develop more effective collective bargaining machinery in those industries, particularly those covered by wages councils. Its recommendations are currently the subject of consultation between the Department, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many young persons were unemployed in Caerphilly at the latest available date.

On 9th June, 1969, 72 young persons were registered as unemployed at careers offices in the Caerphilly area.

Will my hon. Friend appreciate that in areas of high unemployment such as this and many others like it, juvenile unemployment must be a cause for grave concern? Can he tell me what the situation is, taken at the nearest convenient date, as compared with a year ago? If there has been an improvement, does he estimate that the trend is likely to continue, and what is his prognosis for juvenile unemployment during the coming winter?

As I said in my original Answer, there were 72 young persons unemployed at the last count, and in the corresponding count last year, there were 135, which shows a substantial improvement. I know my hon. Friend's deep concern about the matter, but I think that he will be happy to know that all known Easter school leavers have found employment, and we feel that the prospects for those leaving at the end of term this July and August are reasonably good.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will seek powers to place the Local Government Training Board on a statutory basis under the Industrial Training Act.

My right hon. Friend is considering the advisability of seeking such powers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present voluntary levy is bringing in only about half the money necessary for a comprehensive training scheme in local authorities, and will not this lead to a considerable wastage of potential skilled manpower unless a statutory scheme is introduced?

There is by definition some difficulty in running an effective training board on a purely voluntary basis, and this was one of the considerations which my right hon. Friend and other members of the Cabinet have had to consider. In fact, much of the provision which is properly under the aegis of other industrial training boards covers local authority employees.

This is an important matter for a large number of people. If action is not to be included in the next Queen's Speech, could something be done under a Ten Minute Rule Bill or in some other way to set things going?

Precisely because it is an important matter covering a large number of people, our final decision about such a board has to be preceded by adequate consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what studies she has undertaken of the increases in output to be achieved by legislation to enable women to work overnight shifts in industry and commerce; what is her estimate of the number of women willing to undertake nightwork; if she will take steps to give women this freedom; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement about her policy regarding night and shift working for women.

The restrictions on night and shift working for women in factories are under review at present following the Report of the Working Party of the National Joint Advisory Council which was published at the beginning of March. Consultations are now going on between officials of my Department and the various interests concerned. The restrictions do not extend to commerce.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, whereas the great majority of women would not wish to work at night and the great majority of us would not wish to see them working at night, legislation which discriminates in this way on sexual grounds is completely Victorian and has no place in 1969 society?

I might be a bit of a square in relation to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I ask him to accept that it will not be easy to secure complete unanimity on this matter among all those who have a right to be consulted before the existing law is changed. Consultations are taking place, and we shall take account of what the various people have to say before we make a decision about whether to change the law.

In those consultations has not the T.U.C. opposed it, certainly until equal pay and special security provisions have been obtained? As one who has had a belly-full of night work in two industries, I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that many of us regard it as outrageous for women and consider that production and profit should not be put before all human needs.

The existing law is that they can work nights in factories only provided that an exemption is obtained, and exemption is granted only on the basis of increased efficiency and production and provided that the women are willing. This is not imposed on unwilling women workers, and I cannot imagine that it will ever be so in future because no employer will introduce night work for women if it means that his factory is stopped in consequence.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) what progress has been made in plans to change the law controlling work experience for school children;

I am not yet in a position to add to the replies given on 22nd May and 12th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts).—[Vol. 784, c. 629–30 and 1644–5.]

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that work experience could be a real step forward in interesting young people to go into industry and could be of particular value in areas to which new industry is brought but in which the local people have no actual experience of industry? Will not he encourage it and ensure that the law is changed so that advantage can be taken of this vital step forward?

I know the interest taken in this matter particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency because I know something of the report by the sub-committee of the Bideford Youth Employment Committee. It will need new legislation. We are aware of what the Newsom Committee had to say on the matter, and we shall be talking about whether any change can be made with all the interested parties, which include not only employers and trade unions but the local authorities.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the weight of feeling in the teaching profession is growing in favour of this kind of experience, and will he further accept that many in the teaching profession regard it as unrealistic to raise the school-leaving age to 16 and not have as a component of the course between 15 and 16 just such training for adult life?

I appreciate that there is growing interest and concern. It will be much easier to persuade those who are now opposed to this principle to look at it afresh once we guarantee that every child receives a classroom education until he is at least 15, and the year from 15 to 16 can then be a period when we try to introduce this reform.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she will announce the conclusions of her review of the seasonal adjustment of unemployment figures.

I cannot give a date. The review is not expected to be completed for some time.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that this is the third year running in which the trend of the unemployment figures shows that the seasonal adjustments are way out? Why is it taking so long to have the new figures? Will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing the alternative figures which the Department has at the same time as the existing series?

I do not think that it is possible to predict the reasons which are delaying the completion of the review. I refute the allegation that there are any errors in the existing figures, not least because the alternative schemes organised by the Statistical Office and the Bank of England show very similar trends to those about which the hon. Gentleman complained. Therefore, if a statistical error exists nobody is yet sure of its nature.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans she has for legisla- tion to impose penalties on employers who provoke strikes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what rôle sanctions, penal or otherwise, will play in her forthcoming industrial relations legislation.

I would refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement on 19th June when he said that consultations on future industrial relations legislation will continue with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the other organisations concerned.—[Vol. 785, c. 701.]

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the course of those consultations that it has been determined on examination of the cause of strikes that in a substantial number of them the cause of the trouble was abrogation of agreed terms by the employers?

In the White Paper we pointed out that it was undoubtedly true that arbitrary action by an employer without proper consultation was a substantial element in the causes of unofficial strikes. That is why we included the status quo provision in the conciliation pause procedure which was outlined for the interim Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to rectify this, but probably the best way to deal with it is again, as the White Paper points out, through the reform of procedures so as to allow a status quo provision.

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive and effective industrial relations legislation in the next Session, and that it will have sufficient teeth to bring about the necessary changes of heart on the part of both management and trade unions?

As I said in my main reply, the position on penal clauses was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th June, and consultations on the contents of the major Bill are now going on.

Whilst the earlier provisions of the White Paper laid great emphasis on the improvement of industrial relations and bargaining and negotiating procedures, did not it also include provisions for the imposition of sanctions against an employer who broke the rules? Was not that Clause opposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)?

It is true that in the interim Bill provisions there were to be equal obligations laid on employers and unions, and therefore equal sanctions were to operate.

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the question of penalties cannot be in any way part of the consultations to which she refers, because, as the country understands it, the Prime Minister has given a solemn pledge that there will be no legislation with penalties in it during the lifetime of the present Parliament?

The Prime Minister's statement was perfectly clear—[Laughter.] It is never any good answering questions from hon. Members opposite, because they do not wish to be enlightened. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that the outcome of the discussions we had been holding with the T.U.C. on the provisions outlined in our interim legislation had been successful, and therefore the undertaking had been given that those penal provisions would not be introduced in the lifetime of the present Parliament. He aded that the consultations were now proceeding on the contents of the major legislation embodying the rest of the White Paper, which we are to introduce later.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many unions are committed to observe the Trades Union Congress policy of voluntary supervision of industrial relations; and how many union rule books will require revision to satisfy the Government that this policy can be effectively imposed.

The undertaking given to the Government by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress applies to all unions affiliated to the T.U.C. The T.U.C. has taken up with affiliated unions the question of amendment of union rules.

Does not the right hon. Lady recollect that with great clarity the Prime Minister indicated that the rule book was one of the sanctions whereby the T.U.C. could apply its policy? Surely, the Government must have some idea about the present state of the rule book? Surely, they must be aware that the T.U.C. is trying to obtain a revision of the rule book? Surely, that is the kind of information which the right hon. Lady should be able to make available to Parliament?

Exactly. That is just what I have been saying to Parliament, that the T.U.C. has taken up with the affiliated unions the question of amendment to union rules. It conducted a survey some time ago on the contents of union rules, and it made the information from that survey public. It followed this up on 25th June with a circular to affiliated unions setting out the principles which should be contained in all union rule books. Therefore, it lost no time whatsoever in following up its pledge to the Government given in the solemn and binding undertaking.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the eagerness with which unions may be prepared to modernise their rule books will depend on their anticipation of the shape and content of the industrial relations legislation next Session? Could she tell us, therefore, whether we shall now have a White Paper or Green Paper within the next few weeks on the basis of which it will be possible to consider the proposed changes during the next few months?

There will certainly be a White Paper in due course, but I could not hold out any hope of its coming within the next few weeks, because there are some very far-reaching proposals involving detailed consultations. These are already going on, for example, on how one operates the statutory right of appeal against unfair dismissal. That is only one example. It is a very complicated matter, and we shall have to spend some time in carrying out these detailed consultations.

What consultations is the T.U.C. having with unaffiliated unions on how the policy will affect them? Is not there something to be said for referring the question of union rules to the Commission on Industrial Relations and asking it to produce a model set of rules embodying basic principles of justice and so on?

Obviously, the T.U.C. is not circulating non-affiliated unions; that is clearly not within its sphere of responsibility. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it would be inappropriate to refer the matter to the C.I.R. The T.U.C. is actively dealing with it, and we must wait and see what results.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that such questions do a disservice to good industrial relations? Is she aware that as a result of the circular letter that has already gone to all affiliated organisations it is now being shown that unofficial stoppages are being dealt with expeditiously by the T.U.C., much to the disgust of the Opposition, who are obviously keeping the issue aflame, as is the national Press?

It is a tribute to the good word of the T.U.C. that, although the solemn and binding undertaking was signed only on 18th June, within a matter of days three circulars had gone out to affiliated unions on the ways in which the undertaking was to be implemented. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a great pity that there should be so much desire among hon. Members opposite to see the T.U.C. fail.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will publish a White Paper setting out the reserve statutory powers she proposes to seek to enable the Trades Union Congress to supervise a voluntary policy of control of incomes and industrial relations, respectively.

No, Sir.

I am not surprised. If a voluntary industrial relations policy proceeds without the background of penal sanctions, why cannot a voluntary incomes policy proceed without the background of penal sanctions? Will not the right hon. Lady take this occasion to make a clear statement that, come this November, she will not proceed with the reactionary and meddlesome Sections of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966?

I made clear to the House recently in a lengthy speech what we intend to propose to the House in the form of legislation following the expiry of the current powers—namely, the reactivation of Part II of the Act in order to enable references to be made to the Prices and Incomes Board. This will be discussed in the House in due course.

Did not my right hon. Friend note yesterday that the T.U.C.'s Economic Committee believes that reactivation of Part II will be harmful to industrial relations and to normal wage bargaining? Will she take this view seriously into account?

I cannot agree with the comments made by the T.U.C. on this. I think that the T.U.C. appreciates as much as anyone in this House the valuable rôle played by the Prices and Incomes Board, and we all hope that it will go on playing a valuable rôle. But if it is to do so it must be given scope and time in which to consider references and to make recommendations at a point at which they can influence decisions.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her flat "No" to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen)? Among other reasons, if I remember correctly, in her speech on the Budget, she made some references, for example, to rents, which are not covered in Part II of the 1966 Act and therefore not only this House but the country needs a statement from the Government urgently about their intentions.

We know that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) does not like statutory powers over prices and incomes when they apply to rents. Hon. Members opposite have never wanted any interference with the rent increases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The policy of hon. Members opposite is that they object to statutory interference with rent increases and that is part and parcel of the attitude of the right hon. Member for Mitcham. The Government have explained why they believe that certain statutory powers are necessary—the "early warning" power, for example—and we still believe them essential if we are to have any influence on prices and incomes. Consultations on the details of the legislation are now going on.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what checks are made on persons registered as unemployed by labour exchanges to ensure they are not working as labour-only sub-contractors whilst drawing unemployment benefit; and what action is taken to stop this practice.

A person who claims unemployment benefit is required to make a declaration covering every day of his claim that he is unemployed, capable of and available for work in an employed contributor's employment. He has to lodge his national insurance card at the local office dealing with his claim, and inquiries are made to verify the circumstances of the termination of his employment.

Have not labour exchanges the power to make a man claim daily or hourly for benefit? That would stop him from working as a labour-only sub-contractor. What action is taken against employers who deliberately employ men as labour-only contractors knowing that such men are still claiming unemployment benefit?

I think there is one thing that we should make clear. I believe that the general body of unemployed are as honest as any other citizens and that if we were to try to make out a case that the unemployed in general are fiddlers or bigger fiddlers than anyone else, it would be unfair. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that some hon. Members are acquainted with income tax and expense fiddles. There were 598 prosecutions last year and wherever we have any evidence that men are claiming benefit under false pretences, action is taken.

Long answers and long supplementary questions means fewer Questions.