asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will initiate an inquiry into the continuing public transport strikes in Fife and other parts of Scotland, in view of the consequent hardship caused to other people.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the current unofficial strikes affecting public transport in Scotland.

Following rejection of an agreement reached on the National Council for the Omnibus Industry by a Scottish delegate conference of the T.G.W.U. talks took place between representatives of the Scottish Bus Group and the union. As a result certain proposals were put to a Scottish delegate conference of the union on 25th March which accepted them. It is hoped there will be an early resumption of work.

There have been weekly, one-day strikes of railway guards in the West of Scotland since 2nd March over mileage payments, the promotion of guards and the abolition of the conductor/guard grade. These issues are being discussed at national level within the pay and efficiency negotiations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole of Scotland will be very gratified at the reported agreement? Does he agree that, if the reports are true, £17 10s. a week for a 40-hour week is not exactly extravagant from the workers' point of view?

I should not like to comment off hand on the earnings aspect, but I share my hon. Friend's hope that there will be a very speedy response to the decision which has been taken.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many bus drivers in Scotland have apparently obtained other jobs during this long and damaging strike? Has he any assessment of how many might be involved and when services might return to normal?

I am unable to comment on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the second part, I understand that the union is making every possible effort to contact its members at local level today with a view to getting a speedy response and a resumption of work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations she had with the relevant employers' organisations or with the trade unions concerned before referring to the Commission on Industrial Relations the question of collective bargaining in the hotel and catering industry.

My right hon. Friend consulted the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. At the request of the C.B.I. she also consulted the British Hotels and Restaurants Association.

Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as enough to consult the C.B.I.? Is he aware that one of the main trade associations was consulted only the day before the reference was made, and then at its own initiative, and that the other was not consulted at all?

I accept that it was rather late when the British Hotels and Restaurants Association was consulted. But I ask the House to understand that there was difficulty about hammering out a procedure for dealing with proposed references. One has now been agreed with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. We consulted the British Hotels and Restaurants Association as a consequence of the procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will take the necessary steps to enable refunds of selective employment tax to be made to processors of textile, rubber and plastic waste.

Professor Reddaway deals with this matter in his report on the effects of the selective employment tax on the distributive trades. The report is at present under consideration.

As these processors are to be entitled to investment grants in certain circumstances, and as processors of waste paper and scrap metal are already entitled to a refund of selective employment tax in certain circumstances, should not these processors be put on an equal basis with them?

We shall bear all these arguments in mind when considering Professor Reddaway's report.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest employment figures for North-East Lancashire; and if she will make a statement.

The estimated number of employees in employment in North-East Lancashire at June, 1968, was 197,000. A corresponding estimate for June, 1969, should become available during the next month or two, probably in May.

The designation of North-East Lancashire as an intermediate area should do much to alleviate the economic problems of the area.

As new industry is now coming to North-East Lancashire at an unprecedented rate, would my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is giving top priority to ensuring that we do not suffer from the fact that there is at present a shortage of skilled labour and that he is doing all in his power to ensure that skilled labour remains in the area and that more goes to it?

Training grants have been made available in intermediate areas to assist precisely the problem which my hon. Friend mentions.

Would the hon. Gentleman remind the House how many decades it is since the total national unemployment figure remained at over the 500,000 mark for a virtually continuous period of two-and-a-half years?

Order. The Question is about North-East Lancashire.

As you point out, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is hardly relevant. But he should remember that wage-related unemployment benefits and redundancy payments were only recently introduced.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the development of sponsored training in Government training centres.

Courses for sponsored employees have been generally available to employers free of charge since February, 1969. By February, 1970, 569 employers had used the scheme, 932 trainees had completed courses, and there were 358 under training. This is an encouraging response, but I look forward to continued expansion.

Would my right hon. Friend consider encouraging this kind of training because of the shortage of skilled and semi-skilled people throughout the country due to the fact that the Opposition did not carry out their duties and responsibilities when they were in Government, and will he also consider not only encouraging training in the training centres but training in industry to make sure that we obtain the requisite number of trained workers?

We will certainly do everything we can to expand the sponsored training scheme. As for encouraging training in industry, as my hon. Friend knows, that is of fundamental importance, and we are doing a great deal in in this direction by grants in development areas and intermediate areas and through the activities of the industrial training boards and Government training centres.

What plans has the right hon. Gentleman for reducing the very large number of long-term unemployed, who are, of course, a reflection of the very high unemployment figures referred to just now by my hon. Friend?

We are considering, as I said in the House a few weeks ago, what more can be done to train unemployed people to fill the gaps now emerging in the economy for skilled people and semi-skilled people.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many references are now being considered by the Commission on Industrial Relations.

12 references are currently under consideration.

Would my hon. Friend say what action he is taking against those firms refusing to accept C.I.R. recommendations for trade union recognition, and what progress is being made with managements to make certain that communication in industry is improved?

I think the House will share my regret that those firms which have been subject to recommendations and have not responded to them should not have done so. Further discussions are proceeding with the parties. On the long-term aspect, my right hon. Friend is proposing to take certain powers in the Industrial Relations Bill which will be presented to the House very soon.

Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to circulate in the FFICIAL REPORT a list of all those cases in which the Commission has so far intervened, and perhaps add his own comments on the results which may have been achieved, and perhaps estimate the amount of man hours fruitlessly wasted?

I do not think we could practically do that, but I hope the hon. Member is not taking a derogatory attitude about the rôle of the C.I.R. which we think—and I think the whole House will agree—has a very useful rôle to play in industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what proposals aimed at mitigating the undesirable effects of the tied-house system have been put to the brewery companies; and what reply she has received.

The proposals have been put to the brewers as part of a continuing discussion on implementation of the Monopolies Commission Report. It would not be appropriate to disclose the details at this stage as the consultations are still in progress.

Have not these proposals been before the brewery companies for at least a month? How much longer is my right hon. Friend going to wait? Is it not rather odd that the brewery companies, and their Tory friends who talk so much about individual freedom, are reluctant to allow individual freedom of choice in public houses?

I am sure we shall get a reply from the breweries quite shortly.

Has the Minister in mind the Monopolies Commission's Report which said that any change in the tied house system should be preceded by a review and alteration of the licensing laws?

Yes, I have that in mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade referred to the social implications in the Monopolies Commission's Report and the need to study this very carefully before action is taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether, in her discussions with brewers on the question of tied houses, she will make proposals to ensure the continuance of public bars.

No, Sir. The object of these discussions is to bring about a greater degree of competition, and not to preserve any particular facilities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the brewers are not only destroying the social amenities of public bars in many towns but that they are also increasing prices to a prohibitive level for those who use the public bar?

All these matters will be taken into account in the discussions that we are having with the brewers. The prime object of these discussions is to bring about a much greater degree of competition.

Does the Minister agree that the brewing industry has shown very great restraint in price increases and has voluntarily accepted restrictions far beyond those accepted by the majority of industry?

There has been a recent increase in beer prices, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about restraint. I do not think that this bears on the question of whether more competition is required in this industry.

Will my right hon. Friend say how much the increases in the price of beer are caused by the substantial contributions that the brewers make to the Tory Party?

Now that these figures are published my hon. Friend can make his own calculations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now proposes to introduce a Bill to deal with the problems of industrial relations.

This will be a complex Bill. My right hon. Friend will introduce it as early as possible after Easter.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Bill will deal constructively with the root causes of industrial unrest like lengthy bargaining and dismissal procedures and not punitively with symptoms, which is all the Opposition are interested in?

Yes. I think that that reflects the Government's own approach to the reform of industrial relations. The need to tackle the underlying problems and not the symptoms.

In view of the fact that his right hon. Friend proposed a Bill last summer, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the introduction of the Bill has taken such an extraordinarily long time?

I have said that it is a complex Bill, and I should have thought that on such a complex Bill as it will be the House would have wanted us to have the maximum consultation to make sure that we have it absolutely right.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that if his right hon. Friend was apparently ready with the introduction of the Bill last summer it has taken a year now to be ready?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill proposed last summer was an interim measure of limited scope.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many references now before the Commission on Industrial Relations concern trade union recognition disputes.

Three references now before the Commission on Industrial Relations concern trade union recognition. Reports have been published on six others.

Yes, but has my hon. Friend any further references in mind? Is it not the case that the C.I.R. has achieved some notable successes like the B.S.R. dispute at East Kilbride? Could he not arrange for his Department to promote greater publicity of the more positive results of the Commission?

We do have more references under consideration, but I do not think I can disclose them in advance while the references are the subject of consultation with the parties affected. On the point of publicising the rôle of the C.I.R., I agree with my hon. Friend that the Commission has justified and is justifying its creation and is playing a useful rôle in industrial relations, and I would hope that greater attention would be paid to the positive measures which the Commission is recommending and the positive achievements it has to its credit.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider, in drafting the Bill, giving a greater say in these recognition disputes to the workers who are involved and giving them a chance to express by ballot their views as to which union should represent them, if any?

My right hon. Friend has pointed out to the House before that we do not rule out the usefulness of the ballot in certain circumstances, but we do not think it is the whole answer by any means.

Can the Commission on Industrial Relations do anything about the 3,000 workers Odhams sacked last night in Watford as a result of an industrial dispute?

I am afraid I require notice of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she proposes to introduce legislation to place the Commission on Industrial Relations on a statutory basis.

The Government propose to put the C.I.R. on a statutory basis in the Industrial Relations Bill which will be introduced as soon as possible.

Is it not true that the Commission on Industrial Relations has also shown the way to reducing industrial strife particularly in union recognition disputes, and will the Secretary of State introduce legislation as soon as possible to enable it to widen the scope of its activity?

We will, as I said, be introducing legislation as soon as possible, but the scope of the activity of the C.I.R. I do not think will be appropriate for the Bill.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, far from being reduced, industrial strife has actually been increasing very substantially indeed, and that the figures for 1969 were the highest on record? Is it not about time that the Government were prepared to initiate a cost-benefit analysis into all these commissions and boards and councils which have been set up?

There are many Questions on the Paper about strike statistics and so on.

Would my hon. Friend remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that deaths in industry are up 7 per cent. this year as well, and that perhaps he should address himself to that problem?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what response she has received to her consultative document on a Commission for Industry and Manpower.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the discussions she has had about the proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower.

The Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and a number of other organisations, have given my right hon. Friend their views and these have been taken into account in the Commission for Industry and Manpower Bill which is now before the House.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the Confederation of British Industry has tried to sabotage the recovery in the nation's economic position by refusing—[Laughter.] This is serious—

Hon. Members opposite are not interested.

They seem to be acting like clowns—by refusing to notify price increases on a voluntary basis, and will my right hon. Friend use her statutory powers to require notification of such price increases?

I do not think it would be right to say that the Confederation of British Industry is trying to sabotage the nation's economic recovery. I understand that the Confederation of British Industry has now recommended its members to continue to notify price increases but without the period of advanced warning which has been given heretofore. I expressed yesterday my concern about the matter, and my right hon. Friend will naturally have to consider what action would he appropriate.

Is it not true that the undertaking given voluntarily by industry about advance warning of price increases was given for a temporary period, as part and parcel of a temporary prices and incomes policy, and since the policy has been entirely abandoned by the Government is not the C.B.I. merely acting in line with Government practice?

I know of the right hon. Gentleman's support for the C.B.I. in this matter. The voluntary notification of incomes continues, and I am glad to see that at any rate the C.B.I. is continuing voluntarily to notify prices. What I regret is that it now seems to be unwilling to give the Department sufficient time to investigate these price increases and to consider whether it would be appropriate to refer them to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This is a very grave step and I regret that it has been taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many wage and salary awards notified to her in the last three months have been restricted to a 2½ per cent. increase.

Information is readily available only about major awards involving 10,000 or more workers. Two such awards involving increases of 21 per cent. or less have been notified, although in one case the increase was more than 2 per cent. at an annual rate.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this makes a complete farce of the whole of the incomes policy, since the whole idea was that some would get the minimum to enable others to get the maximum? Does he not agree that most of the awards have been plus the maximum?

It is a matter for general regret that the guidance laid down in the current White Paper has not been more closely observed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the average number of severely disabled workers employed by Remploy Limited in 1969; and what was the corresponding figure for 1960.

The average number of severely disabled workers employed by Remploy Limited last year was 7,486, as compared with 6,329 in 1960. The policy of expansion is to continue in 1970.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the expansion is particularly gratifying in Remploy's silver jubilee year? Can he say what proportion of these workers are able, in time, to find their way back to normal industry?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has referred to the fact that this is Remploy's 25th anniversary year. I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate it on what it has achieved throughout that period. As to my hon. Friend's second point, I cannot give him an answer without notice. I am afraid that the proportion is not great. This type of employment is for people requiring sheltered employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will hold further discussions with the Confederation of British Industry so as to encourage it to take initiatives to improve industrial relations comparable with those taken by the Trades Union Congress.

My right hon. Friend has repeatedly stressed the need for managements to take the lead in seeking to improve industrial relations.

I understand that the Confederation of British Industry is reviewing the rôle of its members in the reform of industrial relations, and has also held important discussions with the Trades Union Congress on current problems. The industrial relations legislation which my right hon. Friend will introduce will further stimulate a reappraisal by many employers of their rôle and responsibility.

While welcoming that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend if he would not agree that the characteristic posture of too many employers' leaders is to stand on the sidelines and pontificate abut the failings of strikers and trade unions? Since so many industrial disputes are clue to bad management, would my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the C.B.I. should attempt to take the kind of initiative which the T.U.C. has been taking?

It is a matter of regret that management has not responded in the way that the T.U.C. has in adopting a co-operative attitude towards its responsibilities, in helping reduce the number and incidence of strikes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's observations.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall his right hon. Friend's statement that power was now on the shop floor? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend to say quite clearly where is the responsibility? It is now separated from power.

My right hon. Friend was drawing attention to the realities recognised by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, among others. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need for responsibility to go hand in hand with power. Equally, the Royal Commission drew attention to the fact that management has the primary responsibility for the reform and conduct of industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to receive the Commission for Industrial Relations Report on Elliotts of Newbury Limited.

The Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations on Elliotts of Newbury Ltd. was published on Wednesday, 18th March, 1970 (Cmnd. 4311).

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the report compliments were paid to the responsibility of the trade unions? Would he try to encourage the employers to foster harmonious relations in the industry by coming to terms with the union?

It is my hope that the company will speedily respond to the recommendations of the C.I.R.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to publish the report of his inspector who conducted the appeal by Mr. Bond against the refusal of Somerset County Council to permit minerals excavation and the regrading of land on the site of Brent Knoll; how long it has taken to prepare this report; and what are the reasons for the delay.

The inquiry was held in October, 1969. The case is a complex one but the inspector's report was submitted in December and will be made public when I issue my decision, which I expect to do shortly.

Is the Minister aware that not only Mr. Bond but a large number of my constituents are concerned with the results of this inquiry, and that I should be grateful if he could expedite the answer as soon as possible?

I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. He realises that this is a rather difficult case and that important amenity considerations are involved. There are also a number of extremely technical questions to be considered. I appreciate the need for speed and I will give my decision at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to ensure that future adjustments in the salaries of the chairmen and board members of state-controlled industries will be related to the financial performance of these industries and the extent to which they improve their service to the consumer.

Where is the Minister?

On a point of order. The Minister is not here. This is a very important Question, and I understand that an announcement is expected.

This clearly is a most important Question. It is one that my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Civil Service is considering. No doubt he will communicate with the hon. Gentleman at the earliest opportunity.

On a point of order. We are interested to hear any comments that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government may have to make. We welcome and are deeply grateful to him for his assurance that his colleague is considering this Question. But, Mr. Speaker, would you think it fitting to remind the right hon. Gentleman that notice is given on the Order Paper of Questions in order to give Ministers adequate opportunities beforehand to think up answers and that they are also under notice to arrive at the proper time? Not even the urbanity of the right hon. Gentleman is sufficient to excuse the gross negligence, discourtesy and lack of regard for the House which the Government are once again showing.

rose—

Order. I will deal with only one point of order at a time. The House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

In looking at the Order Paper I find that 11 Tory Members who had Questions down are absent, although the House is still sitting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] In fact I met one who was going off for a week in Malta, starting last night. It is shocking behaviour towards this House.

Again the House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

On a point of order. Are we still to be given this extremely unsatisfactory answer? The other Minister intervened and said that his right hon. Friend, who has now arrived, was considering the matter. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the matter or not and are we to be given a satisfactory answer?

Order. I shall call on the Minister to answer the Question.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With the leave of the House and with sincere apologies for the unintended discourtesy, I should like to reply to Question No. 68. I do not believe that this would be a practicable course.

Although I fully accept the Government's policy that there should be adequate salaries in the nationalised industries, salaries which are comparable with those paid by private corporations, may I ask whether the Minister feels that it would help the public enterprises if we put the salaries of State board chairmen under the normal disciplines of the private enterprise system, whereby salaries were related to a financial target set by the Government? Would this not bring some incentive into the State boards, help the country in general and enable the Government to pay these chairmen the salaries they richly deserve?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nationalised industries have financial targets laid down in the White Paper published in 1967. But, that apart, I do not think it is universal practice in large private firms to relate the pay and rewards and emoluments of their own top management necessarily to performance. Although this may be an interesting suggestion, it cannot easily be applied over the great range of industries with very different circumstances.

Is it not the case that salaries of chairmen of nationalised industries compare fairly poorly with those of chairmen of private enterprise concerns? If one compares the scale of responsibilities of the chairman of Marley Tiles with that of a chairman of a nationalised industry, the salary in the nationalised industry in relation to performance is very much lower than that obtaining in private enterprise. Is it not also true that nationalised industries serve social purposes and are not related solely to profit-making activities?

My hon. Friend makes a justifiable point. The House has recognised, as has the N.B.P.I. Report, that there was an enormous gap between the top rewards in the public sector—indeed it is often difficult to find comparable institutions in the private sector—and that, unless this was dealt with, a gap would emerge of a kind which would be damaging to the future performance of the nationalised industries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider resuming the practice that existed under the previous Government of issuing quarterly a White Paper setting out the names of the holders and their salaries?

I will certainly consider that suggestion. I had thought that practice to be an annual one.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unfair to the nationalised industries to be compared with private industries since many of the activities of the nationalised industries are related to public service more than anything else? When one takes into account what happened in the National Coal Board last year after a 10 per cent. increase and little profit, how would he pay the Chairman of the Coal Board in view of such an increase? If this policy had obtained throughout the whole of industry, perhaps we would not need to bother about the balance of payments in the years ahead.

My hon. Friend is right. It is too crude a yardstick to apply to the determination of rewards at the top of the public sector simply the question of profitability. We know that certain nationalised industries, for understandable reasons, not only under this Government but their predecessors, have not been able in the conventional way to balance their books.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, before he arrived, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing said that he was considering the answer to this Question? Is it not clear from the fact that he has read the answer, that he had already considered the matter. Is it not unfortunate that one Minister stands up and stonewalls for another?

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. It would have been improper for him to have said that I had reached a conclusion when I had not stated my conclusion and he had no reason to believe that I had reached it.

Is my right hon. Friend able to say how he compares these salaries with their counterparts in the E.E.C., since he has a wide knowledge of this matter?

That adds a dimension to the Question which I was not expecting The question of comparability between public sector rewards and those in the private sector in other countries is a matter of which so far we have not taken notice.

In regard to the salary of the Chairman of the National Coal Board, has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recent serious allegations made by the Chairman about failures in co-ordination over the application of clean-air policy? Could he assure the House that he will take up this matter with the Chairman of the National Coal Board?

That is not a matter for me to take up with the Chairman of the National Coal Board, but my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General had an opportunity not long ago, given to him by the Opposition, to make clear the Governments' concern—not only their concern, but their energetic action to overcome what I hope will be a temporary failure of supply to meet demand.

On a point of order. As I just missed my Question Nos. 20 and 21 to the Secretary of State for the Department of Employment and Productivity by the skin of my teeth, due to abnormal traffic hold-ups and domestic circumstances arising from the birth of my fourth grandchild, may I ask, in view of the continued presence of the Minister concerned, that my Question may now be dealt with, in view of the fact that there are still six or seven minutes to go before the Prime Minister is due to answer his Questions?

Order. On behalf of the House I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his grandparenthood. I cannot go back.

Would I be in order to say on behalf of this side of the House how glad we are that at least one hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House has achieved something?

Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the salaries of the individual chairmen mentioned in this Question alongside the increased annual productivity of the respective industries, because the productivity of the nationalised industries compares extremely favourably with that of private enterprise? Would he also care to put in the same table the salary of the official Leader of the Oppocition alongside any increase in his productivity since he has taken over?

My hon. Friend will realise that it would be difficult to bring together all the relevant comparisons and to publish them in a single convenient form. On the matter of productivity we would be in some difficulty as to how best to measure—I am not thinking just of the Leader of the Opposition—the productivity of the nationalised industries.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that his right hon. Friend who filled in for him is, I understand, to join a nationalised industry in the not-too-distant future? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend's joining this nationalised industry would be accelerated if the right hon. Gentleman announced an adjustment of salary levels in the public sector?

That is a hypothetical question. I am not aware of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Does my hon. Friend agree that most of the industries which are at present nationalised had a pretty poor financial performance before they were nationalised? Will he consider the arguments in favour of bringing into public ownership private industries whose financial performance is based upon exorbitant profits?

That does not arise on this Question. I think that forward public ownership policy is a matter best discussed outside this House.

In making a comparison between the public and private sectors, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that our achievements in exports are attributable to the private sector and hardly at all to the nationalised industries?

That is not the whole truth but, to the extent that it is true, it is for the simple reason that manufacturing industry accounts overwhelmingly for our exports. There is a small public sector in manufacturing industry and, whenever the public sector engages in manu- facturing industry, it exports successfully.

Does my right hon. Friend know of any special criteria which exist for the payment of heads of firms in the private sector? Will he explain why it is that, when some of these big industries in the private sector crash, collapse and go bankrupt, so often it seems that those at the top are pretty well cushioned and never seem to suffer?

The plain truth is that we do not know enough about the criteria which are used in the boards of large companies in determining the level of rewards for their top management. When one looks at this, one is always struck by the variation in practice. Some appear to be high, and others to be quite modest. There are no consistent criteria. This is a matter for the private sector.

The answer to my hon. Friend's second point is simple. In so many of our large firms, we have at the moment a substantial separation of ownership and management. In a sense, the top managements of large private firms are like salaried employees and get paid even when the firms over which they preside collapse. In that case, it is the shareholders who carry the loss.

Since the right hon. Gentleman is talking about inconsistency in criteria in settling pay in the private sector, and since he used to be an expert and, indeed, was responsible for these matters, can he say the sort of criteria that the Government are applying in their incomes policy at the moment?

Again, that is a different question and not one for me. As for the consistency of criteria in private firms, the important matter is to get the necessary information first in order that there can be informed public discussion. In the provisions of the Companies Acts, we have made it possible to collect more information about rewards at the top than was possible previously.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

rose—

Order. An hon. Member announcing his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment stymies further supplementary questions.

Apropos the interesting suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), does he know—

Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has given notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, he will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That finishes questions on the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I assume that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has taken this line in order to avoid the next two questions being reached, which are in the name of one of his hon. Friends?

No. He has done it because he does not like me.

Order. I am never interested in motives.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for participating in the negotiations on British entry to the European Economic Community.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 22nd January to a question by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker).—[Vol. 794, c. 690.]

I cannot readily recall that answer. Does not my right hon. Friend think it quite important that his own presence, especially in the early stages of negotiations, would impress upon our own people as well as people on the Continent the importance which we attach to getting the right conditions, particularly as regards the agricultural policy and the consequent food prices, and more particularly so in view of the tepid approach of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio in his speech last night in Manchester, which struck about the right chord in the view of many of us?

We have not heard from the Common Market countries the basis on which they want negotiations to start, but I have heard no suggestions about what they call a summit meeting. If there were one, that would be different. I made clear in my answer that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be in general charge of negotiations on the Continent, but of course he will operate under the control of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

With regard to what my hon. Friend wants to be said to them, we have made it clear that we must get the right terms to enter. I have made clear also in the debate that we are extremely anxious to get in, if we can get the right terms, and that we will proceed to negotiate with full determination to that end.

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that, whoever else negotiates, the Minister without Portfolio will not be included in the team? Does the Prime Minister agree that his right hon. Friend's speech yesterday at best showed his total opposition to political involvement and, at worst, gave increasingly the impression that this Government cast themselves in the rôle of Mr. Facing-Both-Ways on Europe and will be largely and improperly influenced by electoral considerations?

That is not how I read my right hon. Friend's speech. The position of the Government is clear. We are negotiating to get in with determination and, if the terms are right, we shall put a proposition to that effect before the House.

While there will be satisfaction that my right hon. Friend has made the position clear, ought not he to recognise that there will be considerable anxiety in Europe about the remarks made last night by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio? One hopes that there will be no public discussion by Cabinet Ministers in future, even if they have private reservations.

The position was made clear by the Government in the statement that I made when the White Paper was published. That was the decision of the Cabinet, and it carries the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. It was further developed in my statement in the House and those of my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the speech of the Minister without Portfolio last night, in which he said that the decision should not be left only to politicians, mean that the Prime Minister is considering a referendum on this in due course?

No, Sir. It does not. I have not read the whole text of the speech, nor, I presume, have other hon. Members. I am informed by my right hon. Friend that in the questions which followed the speech that point was put to him, and he specifically ruled out any question of a plebiscite, which would equally cover the word "referendum". That is not our policy. My right hon. Friend was saying, as I have said, that this is a matter not only for Parilament but for public debate. We have continued the public debate by publishing the White Paper and giving the House not only in the White Paper but in other ways, all the information that we can on which this public debate can take place. However, as far as I know, there is no public debate at all about the fact that the negotiations should go on, and go on in a meaningful way.

Is it not clear that the position is becoming more difficult because of the firm decision taken by the Six on the agricultural policy? Is it not clear, too, that the agricultural policy of the Common Market is not suitable to British conditions, and that there must be a renegotiation of this point in order for us to get into the Common Market?

While there have been continuing and protracted meetings of the Council of Ministers, the agricultural Ministers and others on certain internal matters, I am not aware—but I will check this—that any decision about agriculture or the agricultural financial policy has been taken by the Six since the House last debated these matters. All the considerations which would affect the minds of right hon. and hon. Members were fully deployed during that debate. We then knew all the facts that we know now on agriculture. The view of both Front Benches and other parts of the House was that obviously the question of agricultural financing represents one of the most central points in the negotiations. This does not mean that there has been anything to justify a change in our decision to enter into negotiations as quickly as possible and in a meaningful way.

Will the Prime Minister say to what extent he considers the result in the marginal seat at South Ayrshire to have been attributable to the outright opposition to this country's entry into the Common Market by the Socialist candidate?

I never speculate on particular by-election results. The hon. Gentleman can take as much comfort from the South Ayrshire result as he finds appropriate.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now meet the Heads of Government of Zambia and South Africa to consider the Rhodesian situation.

asked the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from Heads of Commonwealth Governments in regard to the situation in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to meet the Presidents of Zambia, Tanzania and other African countries and also the leaders of Portugal and South Africa to discuss the latest developments in Rhodesia.

I have no present plans for meetings with these Heads of Government to discuss the Rhodesian situation. On contacts with the Commonwealth, I would refer to my reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 19th March.—[Vol. 798, c. 198.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread admiration for the outspoken condemnation of apartheid, initiated by the Smith régime, by the Roman Catholic and other Churches in Rhodesia? Is it not a fact that Mr. Smith and his Government have revealed that they are out and out racialists, which we on this side of the House have always suspected?

I think that there will be very strong support not only for the idealism, but also for the courage shown by the leaders of the Catholic Church, by the leaders of the Anglican Church and by the leaders of the Nonconformist Churches, all of whom are in great difficulties about expressing in public what they said to me when I met them in Salisbury in 1965.

On the racialist nature of the present constitution and the régime's intentions, hon. Members may have heard, as I did, a British radio programme on an interview with Sir Roy Welensky in which, when asked about suggestions that there might be a last set of negotiations with the régime, he said that he did not see—I am paraphrasing, but the words are on record—how this could succeed because they were now committed publicly, in their own words, to a racialist constitution.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the reservations and criticisms of inadequacies as they are seen in Government policy towards the crisis in Rhodesia, there is growing concern abroad and, indeed, contempt for the treacherous opportunism on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their backdoor dealing, as is suspected, with the Smith régime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the possibilities earlier of dealing with Rhodesia in isolation, Rhodesia now has to be seen as part of the Southern African situation as a whole, of which Portugal is an important part? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do everything possible to pressurise Portugal on its totally unacceptable rôle in Southern Africa at the moment?

I think that, on the attitude of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary last week put the pertinent question to them, which no doubt, at their leisure, they will decide to answer. All I would say on that part of my hon. Friend's question is that, now that recog- nition—even the recognition of a consulate—has been withdrawn by all countries except South Africa and Portugal, if the Opposition want to persist in their policy they could probably find a cheap consulate to maintain a continuing Conservative Central Office presence to deal with the régime.

Will my right hon. Friend consider calling a special Commonwealth Conference because of the situation in Rhodesia and its rapid deterioration? We now see that the Churches are oppressed and that the principle of free speech is vanishing—[Interruption.] The Churches are being oppressed. If the Leader of the Opposition does not know it, he should—

Question.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question.

I am leading to my question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want any help from the right hon. Gentleman. He might need some help from me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.

My point is that the Church, free speech, free Press and everything has now been attacked in Rhodesia. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend try to urge responsible Members on the other side of the House to join with him, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has, in condemnation of Rhodesia and support the United Nations on the principles of freedom and democracy as this House of Commons understands them?

The Churches—I mean all the Churches—in Rhodesia are almost now the last remaining bastions of multi-racialism in that country. They know what is involved. They have said in the strongest terms this week that they consider that, because of their multi-racial operation on the basis of their church doors being open to worshippers of all races, they are in danger because of threats from the régime. Certainly the whole House, and the whole Commonwealth, would back the Churches in the stand that they have taken and will continue to take. I do not believe, however, that that is an argument for calling a special conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. We have had abundant discussions on all these matters at previous conferences. I am in regular touch with my Commonwealth colleagues on all these matters and we shall be meeting in January next year. I do not see the need, in the light of the argument used by my hon. Friend, for an earlier conference.

The Prime Minister knows full well that we on this side of the House have always condemned apartheid whether in South Africa, which the Prime Minister has recognised as a State, or in Rhodesia. We have also made clear our opposition throughout to mandatory sanctions by the United Nations, because it takes the matter out of the control of the British Government, as we saw at the last meeting of the United Nations.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country the specific purpose of Government policy towards Rhodesia? Is it not right, as the question by his hon. Friend suggests, that there should be meetings between Government representatives and the other countries of Africa to consider whether a solution can be found? What is the precise objective of Government policy now towards Rhodesia?

What is the right hon. Gentleman's?

That is a question which I could turn back to the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition—[Interruption.]—but I will answer it. The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to refuse any recognition of a racialist régime, to refuse to recognise the racialist constitution, and to say that we will not put before this Parliament any proposals for independence in Rhodesia which do not fully honour, and can be seen to honour, the five principles which the previous Administration supported and on which they seem to have since ratted. This is our purpose and policy, and I believe that it is the policy not only of the vast majority of people in this country, but also of all civilised nations which have expressed an opinion on this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman must ask himself how far his own equivocal and divisive speeches on Rhodesia have contributed to encouraging the régime—I emphasise the word "divisive"—because that has been his aim on Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister knows full well that my speeches have repeatedly reiterated the support of this side of the House for the five principles which we set out when in Government, and I did so in the last fortnight. I therefore challenge the Prime Minister on that and ask him to withdraw that absolutely unjustified accusation.

Withdraw.

If the right hon. Gentleman objects to my use of the words "equivocal" and "divisive", will he explain how he came at the Tory Party conference to call for a great divide on Rhodesia? If "divide" is not divisive, will he explain the meaning of the term? Will he also make clear his answer to the pertinent question of my right hon. Friend—namely, whether, if he is talking, on certain unlikely assumptions, of a further attempt to get a deal with the racialist régime, he would maintain the sanctions, which alone could make any further dealings with that régime—even if they were regarded as possible—meaningful, or would take them off before talking?

Let me make my position quite plain on that. I have never called for a great divide on Rhodesia, and the Prime Minister knows it. What we have done from this side of the House is to try to get agreement on Rhodesia, and the Prime Minister has dragged it down into the gutter. I have never suggested for one moment taking off sanctions before negotiations. The Prime Minister is denying any future possibility of negotiations, and his policy is therefore purposeless.

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last replied to my right hon. Friend's question. This means that a Conservative Government, if there were one, would continue sanctions. That is the first time we have heard that from the right hon. Gentleman. He and some of his hon. Friends abstained when sanctions were imposed; they voted against sanctions, and they supported the racialist régime in turning down the "Tiger" proposals. I am glad that he has said this; it helps to get a more bipartisan attitude. This is a very important step forward and I welcome it.

Withdraw.

If I am asked to withdraw what I said on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he has never called for a great divide on Rhodesia, I would ask him to look up the speech he made at his party conference, I think in 1968, although it might have been in 1967, when he called for a great divide on four issues. I cannot remember what the other three were, but I do remember Rhodesia. If the right hon. Gentleman denies that, let him look up his speech, as I have done.

The Prime Minister will recollect that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) very properly reported in confidence to the Government the result of his discussions in Salisbury. The Prime Minister will have seen the suggestions that the Official Opposition have been having secret talks in Salisbury. Has he received a denial of this damaging allegation, or, alternatively, has he received any information from the Opposition relating to any such alleged talks?

Secondly, since Portugal and South Africa still recognise the sovereignty in law of Her Majesty the Queen and have diplomatic representation in London, should not we suggest that, if they do not withdraw their consulates, we shall have seriously to consider reducing the status of their missions from that of embassy to that headed by a minister?

In reply to the first part of the question, I have not received any information from the Official Opposition on this point. If these accusations have been made it must be a matter for them. In reply to the second question, I do not think that bilateral action on our part with Portugal or South Africa is the right way. This matter is properly before the United Nations, and I believe that the United Nations would want to move as far as agreement can he reached in common on these matters.