asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is her latest assessment of the extent to which productivity agreements which were part of a wage increase agreement have been fulfilled; and if she will make a statement.

The latest general assessment of productivity agreements is that made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its Report No. 123 in August, 1969. This report indicated that in three-quarters of the companies examined the net effect of the agreement was the achievement of lower costs per unit of output.

Now that the right hon. Lady has condemned Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act, can she say whether these recent high pay settlements have been matched by productivity, and if not, are we not moving into a very dangerous situation?

In every case it is the aim of my Department to back up the work of the Prices and Incomes Board, and to have a productivity link-up, if possible.

Does the right hon. Lady have up-to-date assessments? Is it not crucial to know to what extent percentage increases in wages have been matched by percentage increases in productivity? What are the figures?

I can only be expected to give the assessment asked for in this Question.

Would my right hon. Friend now take the opportunity of correcting the unfortunate statement she is alleged to have made, that nurses are not productive workers?

I am at a loss to understand what my hon. Friend can be referring to. I have never made any such statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will list the number of stoppages and working days lost due to industrial disputes in 1969, both including and excluding coal-mining, respectively.

The total number of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom which began in 1969 was 3,021. Working days lost in ail stoppages in progress in the year totalled 6,772,000. Excluding coal mining, the corresponding figures were 2,837 stoppages and 5,733,000 days lost. All these figures are provisional.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of stoppages due to industrial disputes in 1969 is an all-time record in our industrial history?

This, as a matter of fact, is true, but it is not true in respect of the number of days lost.

Can my hon. Friend tell us what was the number of days lost in the corresponding period as a result of people injured in factories and homes?

The latest figures available are the provisional figures for the year ending June 1968. In that year we lost, as a result of incapacity, 328 million days due to sickness, and 23 million days due to industrial injuries—about 50 times as many as were lost due to strikes.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been a marked deterioration since the Government abandoned their industrial legislation proposals last summer? Is he aware that while strikes increasesd by 60 per cent. in the first six months of last year, in the second part of last year they went up by about 120 per cent.?

It is not exceptional for the figures to be worse for the second half of the year. The current industrial unrest is very disturbing but is a phenomenon being experienced by most other industrial countries.

Regrettable though last year's figures were, can my hon. Friend confirm that 1957 was a worse year? Who was the Minister responsible at that time, and what solutions did the then Government put forward?

In the first nine months of 1957 8 million days were lost through industrial disputes. I think that the Ministers responsible were the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and his Parliamentary Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many stoppages due to industrial disputes were in progress during December, 1969 and had lasted for thirteen weeks or more; and in how many of these disputes the Trades Union Congress intervened and with what effect.

Nine stoppages of work due to industrial disputes which were in progress during December, 1969 had lasted for 13 weeks or more. Three arose from inter-union disputes, one of which was resolved following an award by a T.U.C. disputes committee, another is still under consideration by the T.U.C., and in the third work was resumed following action by the T.U.C. and my Department. With one exception, the other disputes were official.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that although there may be a difference in degrees of optimism, nevertheless most of us would want the T.U.C. to be successful in this matter? Therefore, in view of the failure up to the present to achieve any outstanding success, would it not be better for the T.U.C. to come in earlier? For example, would it not be better if it were now to come in on the threatened Ford dispute since it has already been indicated that there is the prospect of a strike there?

I cannot for a moment accept that there has been no outstanding success. The figures I have given in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question show that the T.U.C. has intervened, certainly energetically and very often effectively. Clearly it is a very important part of a successful intervention that the timing should be right.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the T.U.C. is making a valuable contribution to the solving of inter-union disputes, and is it not time that the Opposition stopped sniping at it?

I agree with my hon. Friend. All objective opinion in the country is impressed by the sincerity and energy with which Mr. Feather has carried out the responsibilities that he has undertaken. It is a great pity indeed that hon. Gentlemen opposite should do their utmost to render those efforts nugatory.

How can the right hon. Lady be so complacent when industrial disputes are now running at over three times the rate they were on average when we were in power for over 13 years?

Nobody is being complacent. We are discussing the activity of the General Secretary of the T.U.C. in helping to deal with the problem of industrial disputes, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out in an earlier reply, is not a problem solely related to this country. I also make the observation that over 60 per cent. of those strikes in the past year have lasted for only a few days, and no legislation could bite on those.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) if she will list the number of stoppages and days lost due to industrial disputes, both including and excluding coal-mining, for the period January to June 1969 and the same figures for the years 1960 to 1968, inclusive;

(2) if she will list the number of stoppages and days lost due to industrial disputes, both including and excluding coal-mining, for the period July to December, 1969 and the same figures for the years 1960 to 1968, inclusive.

I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The House will be aware from answers to Questions this afternoon that the trend in the growth of stoppages and strikes is a serious matter. Can the Minister assure us that the steps the Government have or have not taken to arrest this trend will be successful?

I have not a crystal ball, but, as the House knows, we are seeking to introduce an Industrial Relations Bill which will seek to remove some of the fundamental causes of strikes.

Will not my hon. Friend take a much more severe line with the Opposition on this matter? Many of

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many and what percentage of the recorded stoppages due to industrial disputes other than in coal mining in 1969 were official.

For industries other than coal mining, 78, or 2·7 per cent., of all the stoppages of work due to industrial disputes which began in the United Kingdom in 1969 are known to have been official. These figures are provisional.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is another record broken? At what point will his right hon. Friend admit that the action by the Government and the T.U.C. has proved ineffective. How much more serious will

We should not minimise the seriousness of the problem. It is a matter for concern. Equally we have made clear to the House on many occasions that the proposals put forward by the Opposition so belatedly, after the years in which they had an opportunity to do something, can do nothing but harm to our industrial relations.

I do not know how many times we have to tell the Opposition before it sinks in that this phenomenon is not peculiar to the United Kingdom and that the Government, contrary to what the Opposition did during their years of office—when, for example, in 1957 the number of days lost reached 8 million—have acted and secured an undertaking from the T.U.C., an undertaking which would have been inconceivable a year ago.

Would my hon. Friend agree that we are not too happy about the loss of days due to industrial disputes at present? But could he state the number of days lost due to industrial disputes in the years since 1951, and also say who were the Ministers responsible at that time?

I will not give them in reply to a supplementary question.

Why not?

If I had your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would be delighted to read out the table. One sees, for example, that year after year the Conservative Party in government had a worse record than the average under the present Government. I repeat that in 1957 the number of days lost reached 8 million. This was in the days when the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) was Parliamentary Secretary. The number of days lost in 1962 was almost 6 million. If the House wants the record, I am delighted to give it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the number of stoppages and working days lost due to industrial disputes for the month of November, 1969, and equivalent total figures for 1969, including November, which have affected the industry manufacturing motor vehicles, motor cycles, three-wheel vehicles and pedal cycles.

The numbers of stoppages in the motor vehicle and cycle manufacturing industries beginning in the month of November, 1969, and in the period 1st January to 30th November, 1969, were 32 and 261, respectively. Working days lost at the establishments where the disputes occurred as a result of all stoppages in progress in the same periods were 76,000 and 1,498,000, respectively. All figures for 1969 are provisional.

In view of that absolutely disastrous statement and the fact that the number of working days lost in the motorcar and motorcycle industries is more than three times greater than it was in 1964, does not the hon. Gentleman fee] ashamed that the Government have ducked out of the "In Place of Strife" legislation?

I have had occasion to rebuke hon. Gentlemen opposite for persisting in selecting figures designed to give them the maximum political mileage out of what is admittedly a disturbing situa- tion. However, it is curious that in 1969 our car exports rose by 14 per cent. in number and almost 22 per cent. in value.

For the benefit of industrially illiterate hon. Gentlemen opposite, would my hon. Friend supplement the figures he has given by making a reference to the number of days lost through injury and illness?

I pointed out in reply to an earlier supplementary question that each year we lose 50 to 60 times as much time as a result of injuries and sickness as we lose as a result of industrial disputes.

In view of the great concentration which the Under-Secretary has been placing on hours and days lost and so on, can he explain why his right hon. Friend was at pains in her White Paper to expound the particularly damaging nature of the frequent number of small disputes, which are typical in this country?

My right hon. Friend was right to spell this out. It is equally important to bear in mind that of the disputes which occurred in 1969 almost two-thirds were of less than three days' duration; and no policy is likely to bite on those. Would the right hon. Gentleman's policy?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement about her meeting with the authorities involved in North-East Lancashire to discuss employment problems in the area.

The purpose of the conference at Clayton-le-Moors was to examine what can be done to secure the most effective use of manpower in the area, to match the demand for and supply of labour so that production is not held back, and to make full use of Government assistance to intermediate areas.

It provided an opportunity for a valuable exchange of views on a wide range of manpower problems between Members of Parliament for the area, trade unions and employers, local authorities, technical colleges, planning bodies, local employment committees and Government Departments. As chairman of the conference, I found many useful points raised in the discussions, and these are now being considered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this conference, which was quite rightly held in my constituency, was a most successful innovation? Can she say whether she has borne in mind one of the points constantly made; namely, that the Government should consider whether they could increase retraining grants in respect of men over the age of 40?

This was a very interesting point which came out during the discussions. There is a shortage of labour in the area, and it is obviously absurd for anyone to be considered too old at 50 in that situation. The suggestion was made that special grants should be made for the training of the over-40s. We are discussing this with the industrial training board.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the gross average earnings of women workers in the West Midlands.

The latest available annual figure is £581 for the tax year 1967 to 1968 as published in the Abstract of Regional Statistics 1969. This relates to all women, including part-time workers, aged 18 to 59 with at least 48 national insurance contributions paid in the period and covered by P.A.Y.E. arrangements.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for confirming what I told him last time he answered my Question about this. Does he recall that when I asked him what the average gross earnings for women were he did not want to believe me when I said that West Midlands women were earning less? Does he not think that this proves conclusively that it is high time we had the Bill for equal pay for equal work?

I must point out that while the figures for the West Midlands are lower than the national average, they are only marginally so. The national average is £587. But I wholeheartedly agree about the need for equal pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she intends to take to ensure that the 300 workers made redundant at Messrs. Hobsons, Wolverhampton, are found suitable alternative employment with the minimum delay.

I am informed that the final termination date of this redundancy is 27th February. A team of my officers has already visited the factory and interviewed all those concerned who wanted advice or help in finding work. My officers have also made special approaches to employers likely to be interested in the labour becoming available. It is expected that most of those affected will find suitable jobs without much difficulty and indeed about 100 have already done so.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for telling me what I already knew; namely, that his Department in Wolverhampton would go to the greatest lengths to try to find new jobs for men made redundant.

Question!

Is my hon. Friend aware that I do not share his complacency in the latter part of his reply? Does he appreciate that today I have had a telephone message to say that another 400 men, in another of the largest employing firms in my constituency, have been declared redundant today—[Interruption.]—and that in the Hobsons case many of these men are skilled men? What is he going to do about it?[Interruption.]—Be quiet, you lot. This is serious business. Shut up.

My hon. Friend's Question related to one redundancy, where we hope that those involved will speedily secure other work. My hon. Friend now gives me details of another redundancy, and we shall certainly assist in that case in every way we can. It is true that there is little difficulty in this area for a skilled person to find a job.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will indicate the difference, in real terms, of the basic wage, and average take-home pay, of each of the service industries as against the distributive trades; and what action is being taken by the employers and trade unions concerned, in conjunction with her Department, to bridge the differential between the various industries.

With permission, will arrange for some results of the new earnings survey in September 1968 to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These are taken from comprehensive analyses of the make-up of earnings, published in the August, 1969 issue of the Department of Employment and Productivity Gazette.

I regret that it has not been possible to provide the information in the particular form requested.

The differences shown between the various service industries are not very wide, except that there are more opportunities for overtime working in the transport industry. My right hon. Friend intends to make references to the N.B.P.I. of cases of industries where low pay is a problem, and she is in consultation with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. about this.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents employed in the service and distributive trades are receiving some of the lowest wages in the country? Will he give his attention to the claim made by their trade union representatives that selective employment tax is to blame for some of those low wages?

I am not sure that I could agree with my hon. Friend about the effect of S.E.T., but I said in my original reply that my right hon. Friend is concerned about the low pay in particular industries and is in consultation with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. about what may be helpful references to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Surely the hon. Gentleman should have a view on this because Professor Reddaway has now presented his report on the effect of S.E.T. in the distributive trades. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say? Has he read the report?

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a matter for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what regulations she has made to ensure the inspection and safety of scaffolding.

These matters are covered by the Construction (Working Places) Regulations 1966 (S.I. 1966 No. 94).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I wonder whether they are adequately covered? In view of the tragic death of Sir David Rose, the Governor-General of Guyana, in Whitehall, is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that existing arrangements adequately safeguard the public, since if scaffolding is expected to be used for only six months the Factory Inspectorate does not have to be informed? Is he aware that in those cases there is literally no safeguard for the public as to how it is used?

Without detracting from the proper concern and sympathy over this particularly tragic incident, I do not think that we ought to be stampeded by one or two spectacular accidents from focusing our attention on what are the real causes for concern. If we look at the accidents in the construction industry, those arising from scaffolding collapses form only a minor part. I have had a full inquiry made into this accident, as a consequence of which the district factory inspector has decided to prosecute both the scaffolding contractor and the main contractor for breaches of the regulations. The case is expected to be heard early in February.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further study she has made of the variations in industry in observing the industrial breaks at Christmas and the New Year; and if she will now initiate discussions with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry on the possibilities of having an annual eight-day national holiday week covering Christmas and the New Year.

Holidays in industry are a matter for negotiation and agreement between employers and employees.

Does my hon. Friend recall that this is as far as we got last year? Is he not aware that it is a major function of his Department to provide a better life for the British industrial worker? What does he feel about the proposition that the increase in productivity after a holiday of this type would more than offset the few hours of production work lost?

It is still a matter for negotiation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will take steps to draw the attention of new firms receiving Government assistance in development areas to the requirement to employ a quota of disabled persons.

All new firms with 20 or more employees have their attention drawn to their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts, 1944 and 1958, including the requirement to employ a quota of registered disabled persons.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that through the heavy nature of the declining industries in many of the development areas those areas have particularly high percentages of disabled persons? Is he satisfied that the new employers to whom my Question refers are aware of their responsibilities?

I think they are, and we are taking special steps to ensure that they remain aware of their responsibilities. In development areas the percentage quota achieved in the employment of disabled persons is, probably for the reasons my hon. Friend gives, higher than for the country in general.

Is the Minister aware that of the firms which are obligated to employ 3 per cent. of disabled persons on their payroll, 44 per cent. are not fulfilling their obligations? Is he further aware that the rate of unemployment among disabled people is 11 per cent.? What are the Government doing about it?

Many firms have permits in respect of the percentage of the number of disabled people they employ. However, we are making particular efforts to ensure that employers are aware of their responsibilities and that they are living up to them. We are tightening up our scrutiny of the application of the present regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is her estimate of the number of retired persons between the age of 60 and 65 years who are registered for employment and are drawing private pensions of over £25 per week.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, on 15th December, 1969.—[Vol. 793, c. 934.]

I am aware of that statement, but does the Minister appreciate that in areas like Folkestone, with a higher than normal number of elderly people retiring, there is a danger that the unemployment figures may get distorted? We must remember that the figures are very bad at the moment. May we have an assurance that these figures will not be fudged so as to hide the number of people involved in this category of unemployment?

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no question of fudging the figures. The statement to which I referred was a statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security in regard to the policy of the provision of unemployment benefit to occupational pensioners. That Department is responsible for that policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will negotiate a research contract with the Economics Faculty of an appropriate university, with a view to general studies, involving the social and economic consequences of a number of mergers in industry.

Following the pilot study referred to in my right hon. Friend's answer of 4th December, we have made good progress, in consultation with a number of academic research bodies, in drawing up a fuller research programme.

Would my hon. Friend say to which academic research bodies these relate?

We are in consultation with a number of bodies; for example, Sussex University. We have not yet decided the manner in which this research will be conducted. We will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Could my hon. Friend's Department bring some pressure to bear on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to have consultations with the trade unions as well as with private employer interests when involved in far-reaching measures which may result in substantial redundancies?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, but my understanding is that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has exactly that sort of consultation in respect of mergers in which it is involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether, in view of the very high wages paid to typists and secretaries in the London area, she will initiate a study group within her Department to determine how rates for women in these occupations compare with rates for men among the lower-paid occupations.

Although not immediately available, information about the earnings of secretaries and typists in the London area could be extracted, but at some expense, from the data collected in the New Earnings Survey carried out by my Department.

Is the Minister aware that we do not really need the information since it is there to be seen all round us? It shows that there are a great many young girls who are being grossly overpaid for work which cannot be compared with the work being done by some young men in London for which they are grossly underpaid? When we are talking about equal pay, can we be sure that the right hon. Lady is also concerned to see equal pay for the boys and the men?

I do not see any reason why some women should not get more than some men if they are doing a more highly skilled job. This will be increasingly so when equal pay rightly is introduced.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the total number of references she has made to the Commission on Industrial Relations to date; and when reports are expected to be available.

I have made 16 references to the Commission on Industrial Relations so far. The reports on five of these have already been published. Further reports are expected next month.

In view of the rather unproductive rôle of the Commission on Industrial Relations, would the right hon. Lady consider combining it with the C.I.M., when that body comes into being?

The answer to that question is "No", because I do not accept the premise from which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I cannot for one moment accept that the C.I.R. has an unproductive rôle. An extensive programme of work is being worked out for the C.I.R., and the reports that it has already produced have made valuable contributions in the matter of trade union recognition and industrial relations.

Would my right hon. Friend say what effect the work of the industrial training boards has had on the quality and quantity of men trained?

The Question relates not to industrial training but to the work of the Commission on Industrial Relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many men were trained in Government training centres in the Northern Region in 1964 and 1969, respectively; and what percentage of these men was placed in employment subsequently.

In 1964, 316 men completed training, and 96 per cent. of them were subsequently placed in employment. In 1969 the number completing training was 1,461, of whom 90 per cent. had been placed by the end of the year.

While I agree that the figures are very good indeed, can my hon. Friend say what are the commonest reasons why trained men fail to secure jobs?

In certain cases simply because of lack of employment opportunities. As my hon. Friend will see, in 1969 over 90 per cent. had been placed by the end of the year. We would expect that figure to rise to 95 per cent. at least in the course of a month or so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many places were available in Government training centres in the Northern Region in 1964 and 1969, respectively; and how many more places will become available in 1970 and 1971.

The number has risen from 400 in October, 1964 to 1,060 in December, 1969. By mid-1970 there will be over 1,500 places, and by mid-1971 about 1,800.

Do not these figures show that the Labour Government have done an infinitely better job than the party opposite during its years of office?

Yes, Sir. The extension of the provision of Government training centres has been a major achievement by this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if, in view of the recent proposals on wage parity between persons employed in the motor industry in different parts of Great Britain put forward by trades unionists at Vauxhall's and Ford's, a copy of which is in her possession, she will now initiate as a matter of urgency a general inquiry into wage parity in the motor industry.

As negotiations following a claim for parity with the Midlands are taking place at Fords at present, it would not be appropriate for me to comment.

We all know that negotiations are taking place, but would my hon. Friend not agree that it has been evident for a very long time that this problem would dominate the motor industry this year? Does he not accept that the real need for his Department in matters of this kind is for it to anticipate and solve problems, and not merely to react to them?

I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would be one of the first to complain about Government interference with collective bargaining if we responded to that suggestion.

Does my hon. Friend not realise that he was warned that this trouble would arise four months ago? It is all very well for people to laugh at the suggestion that his Department ought to intervene, but this is a problem that will always be with us. Whether or not this differential is now evened out, this matter is sure to arise again in regard to the people who have the differential taken from them. This matter must be settled on a nation-wide basis, not just in relation to one lot of unions.

My right hon. Friend and other Ministers have repeatedly warned of the dangers of constant leapfrogging and the restoration of differentials. In so far as my hon. Friend refers to that matter, I agree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will now introduce legislation to provide for the phased introduction of a national minimum wage.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) on 6th November, 1969.—[Vol. 790 c. 1172–3.]

In view of the reference in the White Paper to a national minimum wage and the number of families living on incomes of less than £15 a week, does my right hon. Friend agree that a national minimum wage would be a valuable instrument for tackling poverty?

I certainly agree that a national minimum wage would be one way to help a substantial proportion of low-income households. However. it might be an unduly costly and cumbersome way of dealing with the matter. This is why I said in the White Paper that the problem of low pay should be tackled case by case and industry by industry. It is also why I am suggesting that certain references relating to the low pay problem should be made to the Prices and Incomes Board while we are giving further consideration to the question of a national minimum wage.

While the Minister is tackling this matter industry by industry and case by case, will she also tackle it place by place and look at the special need for this legislation in Scotland, where wages are lower and prices are higher?

Naturally, the purpose of the references which I shall make is to enable tile Prices and Incomes Board to identify pockets of low pay, wherever they may be.

They are in Scotland.

As I have told the House, I have been in consultation with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. about the list of proposed references that I have put before them. I understand that the General Council of the T.U.C. yesterday approved the proposed references in principle and is now consulting its individual unions about the detailed suggestions.

Is it not now obvious, after the considerable experience that we have had and with respect to the trade unions, negotiations and other matters of this kind—including the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Board—that we cannot solve the problem of the lower-paid worker except through a national minimum wage enforced by law? May I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to the submissions which I made to the Attlee Government on two occasions—they probably require some modification now—on the subject of a national wage policy?

While sympathising with the aim of my right hon. Friend, I do not believe that a national minimum wage introduced by legislation would achieve its aim unless there were co-operation from the trade union movement. If a national minimum wage were used only as a new floor on which higher differentials were to be built, the whole process would be self-defeating. I have expressed a willingness to receive any representations from the trade union movement on the basis of the Report on a National Minimum Wage which I published.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will now investigate the effects of selective employment tax on the unemployment of people on the Disabled Persons Register.

Investigations which have been carried out by my Department on a number of occasions have not shown any connection between the incidence of selective employment tax and unemployment among registered disabled persons.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 10 per cent. disabled unemployed will be absolutely fascinated by those remarkable conclusions? Will he publish the nature and details of the survey so that they may study them?

I am certainly prepared to write to my hon. Friend giving him the information on which this is based.

Publish it.

Between August, 1966, and August, 1969, the increase in the number of unemployed registered disabled persons in tax-bearing industries was less than that of all other unemployed persons.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the numbers of people on the Disabled Persons Register has gone up since the introduction of S.E.T.? If so, can he deny that S.E.T. has had some effect on the employment of disabled people?

The number of registered disabled persons has risen since S.E.T. was introduced, but there are many other factors involved in that increase in unemployment. We have no evidence of there being a connection between the two.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the percentage increase in the index of retail prices for food and for all items, respectively, in the 12 months ended December, 1969 and in each of the previous equivalent 12-month periods since December, 1959.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that over half the rise has been caused by indirect taxation imposed by this Government, and in particular by S.E.T.? Is not this another good reason for abolishing S.E.T.?

One effect of the policy of this Government, of which increases in indirect taxes have been a part, has been to place Britain in one of the strongest balance of payments positions of any country in the world, and that justifies the actions that the Government have taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will take steps to ensure that the National Board for Prices and Incomes or the proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower automatically investigates the affairs of those firms where profits rise in the wake of large scale redundancies deliberately induced by the management.

The movement of profits in relation to prices is one of the matters which may point to a need for a reference to the N.B.P.I. The basis on which it is proposed that references should be made to the Commission on Industry and Manpower is spelt out in the consultative document, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the fashionable drive towards ever-bigger organisation, with all its rationalisation and so-called shakeout of labour, is motivated not necessarily by an urge for efficiency but simply by an urge for monopoly profits? Is it not time for this process to be investigated far more regularly and scrupulously by the body which she has in mind?

One of the purposes of the Commission for Industry and Manpower, which we are proposing to set up, and about which we will shortly be introducing legislation, is to ensure that monopoly profits are not made at the expense of the consumer and that the public interest is safeguarded in a situation in which we are having larger and larger units of industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in what proportion of the industries for which the Ministry of Technology is responsible is shift working normal practice; and how this compares with the same industries in the United States of America, West Germany and Japan, from information available to her from international sources.

Shift working is practised in all the industries for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. Information available to my Department suggests that it is quite extensive in about half the industries concerned.

No information is available on which valid comparisons with practice in other countries can be based.

Is it not true that as a result of this Government's policies a large part of our industrial capital is obsolescent and standing idle for half the time?

I have no information to show how our practices compare with other countries, though I accept that it is important to secure the maximum utilisation of capital equipment; that is, consistent with considerations of health, safety and welfare.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity which of the industrial training boards have incurred a deficit on their annual income and expenditure accounts; and if she will state the amounts and the years concerned.

I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Minister of State satisfied with the efficiency of the financial management of these boards?

If the hon. Gentleman will bring to my attention any case which troubles him, I will certainly look into it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the concept of the Industrial Training Act is good, there is a growing impression that it is not being property managed? Is he further aware that there is a general feeling that some training is going on merely to qualify for grant and that it is not really necessary?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Act was introduced by his hon. Friends. I would have thought that an important result of the Act, as administrated by this Government, has been the significant improvement in the quality of industrial training in this country.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate further studies by Departments on the effect of Great Britain joining the Common Market, in the light of the report of the Confederation of British Industry, a copy of which has been sent to Her Majesty's Government.

The forthcoming White Paper about the effects of entering the E.E.C. will take account of the C.B.I.'s report.

May I express the hope that the Prime Minister's injuries are nothing more than superficial?

Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any further studies into the question of Britain joining the Common Market will be supplemental to the White Paper, the publication of which should not be delayed beyond 16th February, in view of the strong suspicion that the original estimates were much higher than the Prime Minister liked and that the relevant Departments have been told to do their sums again?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the preamble to his supplementary question.

The answer to the first part is that there will be no delay as a result of any further work that is being done. The answer to the second part and the suspicions of which he spoke is that he has been totally misinformed. There has been no question of our asking Departments to do their sums again.

In welcoming my right hon. Friend back from the United States, may I ask him to comment on the question of the industry-by-industry growth sectors associated with Europe and state whether it would be possible to say whether, in the cost-benefit analysis that has been made, sufficient attention has been paid to the scientific value of our going into Europe?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to study the White Paper when it comes out. It is extremely difficult at this time to make an industry-by-industry analysis, but we have the benefit of the C.B.I. analysis to help us in what we are doing.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in expressing sympathy to the Prime Minister following his fall.

The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the White Paper would be presented quite early in February. While I appreciate the complications involved in producing the White Paper, is he aware that the more complicated the matter is the more important it is that public opinion should have the information? Can he, therefore, give a specific date for its publication?

I cannot at this moment give a specific date. There has been no further delay in the matter since I informed the House of our hope of presenting it by that time. The House has been told about some of the difficulties we had in December, when we had to wait for decisions to be taken in Brussels.

I wish to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks at the beginning of his supplementary question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the various Government Departments concerned with the problems of mid-development areas; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since North-East Lancashire has been given mid-development area status there has been a dramatic and welcome increase in the number of firms expanding and wishing to expand in the area? Is he aware, however, that the one danger we face is the potential shortage of skilled labour? Will he stay in close contact with his right hon. Friend the First Secretary about this matter?

Yes, Sir. Indeed, my right hon. Friend and I were in the North-East Lancashire area earlier this month. I agree that there has been an improvement in the number of applications for i.d.cs., though until the legislation is through, if Parliament approves it, we shall not be able to see the full effects of the measure in relation to the incentives which will then be available to the area.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will announce his policy for the non-mid-development areas?

Answer.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to the United States of America.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions in Washington.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent consultations with members of the United States Administration.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Nixon during his recent visit to the United States of America.

I understand through the usual channels and following yesterday's exchanges in the House that it would be for the greater convenience of the House to answer these Questions now, and not cut unduly into the time available for today's debate by asking leave to answer them at the end of Questions.

I visted Washington accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in response to the invitation extended by President Nixon during his visit to London last February. It provided a welcome opportunity of continuing the close relationship established at that time and renewed at Mildenhall last August, and of discussing a broad range of subjects of mutual concern, including the Middle East, Vietnam, N.A.T.O., East-West relations, economic and political prospects in Europe, the international monetary situation, the British and United States responses to the Nigerian Government's requests for relief supplies, and a number of social problems common to our two countries. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend and I joined in a meeting of the National Security Council held under the President's chairmanship yesterday morning.

Before visiting Washington I also had useful discussions with the Prime Minister of Canada in Ottawa, and with the United Nations Secretary General in New York.

The House will be grateful for that statement. Did my right hon. Friend tell the American President about the deep concern which exists in Britain over the massacre which is alleged to have taken place at Pinkville, which was not only tragic for the victims but harmful to American democracy, which I for one admire?

On Rhodesia, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in the Press reports that the American Administration will recognise the illegal regime? What about the consulate which the Americans have in Salisbury?

As my hon. Friend would expect, we had a very full discussion on Vietnam. With regard to Pinkville, the President is aware of the strong feeling in this country and in his own country. It is one which he shares. On all these matters, I spoke in the terms of what I said in the debate in this House last December.

We discussed Rhodesia, but I have no statement to make. Obviously, I cannot make a statement on behalf of the United States Government. However, my hon. Friend will be well advised not to believe the rumours which have been spreading this week, about which he was obviously concerned in his Question.

Did my right hon. Friend tell the President that if America reduced her troops in Europe we would not increase our forces there but, on the contrary, would reduce ours, too? As leading members of the United States Administration have suggested such troop reductions, can my right hon. Friend give us such an undertaking?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the statements made by leading members of the Administration about their intentions in the matter of keeping troops in Europe. The second part of his question, therefore, does not arise.

We were more concerned, as I am sure my hon. Friend is, with the policy of N.A.T.O. countries, which we would like to see reciprocated, in favour of a general reduction on both sides; in other words, mutually balanced force reductions. This offer has been made by the West, and we would like to see some response to it.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that his celebrated memory is not failing? Is it right that, once again, he forgot to renegotiate the Nassau agreement?

There was no question of any loss of memory in this matter. Everything that needed to be done was done in my first talk with President Johnson in December, 1964.

Following my right hon. Friend's conversations with President Nixon, what estimate has he made of the likelihood of a significant recession in the American economy and the steps which Her Majesty's Government should take to protect our economy against such an eventuality?

I had full discussions with leading Ministers, bank officials and others concerned with these matters. As every commentator finds, it is very difficult to form a clear impression of what is likely to happen, and even more difficult to sum it up in a few words. On the whole, I was encouraged by what I heard. As for the movement of interest rates, which would have a big effect on us, and the movement of raw material prices, which have inflated our import bill, it is difficult to make an estimate, particularly with the time-scale related to them. I heard nothing to suggest that we would be likely to expect a major effect on our exports in the near future.

Can the Prime Minister be more specific, especially on the size of United States forces in Europe, quite apart from international East-West negotiations? Did he secure any assurance about the size of the forces to be con- tinued in Europe? Are they to be reduced, and, if so, over what time?

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was encouraged by the state of the American economy; but that might be interpreted in two ways by those who study his analysis. Can he be more specific? Are the Americans on top of their inflation?

Thirdly, what was the reply of the American Administration on the question of closing the American consulate in Salisbury?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, there was no attempt in the discussions to go beyond the public statements of Administration leaders in Washington about maintaining their troops through the middle of 1971. That was as far ahead as it was possible to look at the present moment.

With regard to the economy, it is hard for us and for them to be categoric about what is happening. However, there are a number of favourable factors which seem to be developing—favourable for us, for them and for the world—partly arising out of the progress which has been made in world monetary relationships and also in certain suggestions about the movement of world interest rates. It is not possible to be more specific than that.

As for Rhodesia and the consulate, that was covered by my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick). I am not in a position to make a statement on behalf of the American Government at this time.

Will my right hon. Friend please make it clear that we have held the ring twice in the lifetime of most of us while the Americans decided that Europe was part of their concern? Will he, therefore, please make it absolutely clear, with reference to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), that this is part of the free world, and that if the Americans were to go out the consequences for them would be as bad as the consequences for us?