asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations have been made to her recently in her consultations on the proposed Industrial Relations Bill about the legal enforceability of collective bargaining agreements against trade unions; and what reply she has given.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what representations have been made to her in the course of her discussions on the proposed Industrial Relations Bill to the effect that trade union funds should become liable for payment of damages for breach of collective agreements; and what reply she has given.

The Confederation of British Industry proposed that selected procedural agreements might be made enforceable by order of the Secretary of State. I have also received suggestions from some individual employers, notably in the motor industry, that collective agreements should be legally enforceable.

The Government reject the idea that responsibility for deciding which agreements should be enforceable, and for taking action to enforce such agreements, should rest with the Government themselves. The Government's view is that it is for the parties themselves to decide whether the agreements they reach should be enforceable in the courts.

There is, of course, nothing in the present law to prevent a company and a union from entering into a legally enforceable contract, and under the Industrial Relations Bill, published this morning, it will be possible for employers' associations to enter into similar contracts with trade unions if both parties so desire.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that to attempt to encourage better industrial relations by allowing employers to sue trade unions would be at best foolish and at worst disastrous? Is not the real answer to the industrial relations problem an attack on the root causes of industrial unrest, as my right hon. Friend is doing in her Industrial Relations Bill?

I would repeat to my hon. Friend that there has been no obstacle in the present law for many years to prevent a union and an individual employer from entering into a legally enforceable contract. The reason why they have not done so, as my hon. Friend says, is that this is not the most effective way of dealing with industrial relations problems.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that sensible employers are much more anxious to get their workers back to work than to take them to court to sue them for damages—the more so as the employers and the unions concerned have to continue to live together thereafter?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is why employers have not exercised the possibilities open to them under the present law. Nor, indeed, as was said by Mr. Pat Lowry, of the British Leyland Motor Corporation, in his very interesting document " Greener Grass ", is it found in the United States that the employer wants to sue.

Is it not a fact that the employers sue very rarely and that it is the unions which mostly sue in those countries where the policy works successfully?

If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not be quite so emphatic about the success of the policy in other countries. His supplementary question proves what I have said—that the attempt of the Opposition to make a panacea for all our industrial relations troubles out of legal enforceability of contracts is just a gimmick which is meaningless.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many references are now before the Commission for Industrial Relations.

Reports have been issued on eight cases referred, and 13 references are currently before the Commission.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging degree of activity. Is she confident that the Commission for Industrial Relations will he able to play an even more important rôle in sorting out difficulties over recognition disputes and collective bargaining agreements once it has been placed on a statutory basis?

I am glad to be able to tell the House that the commission is working at full capacity. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it has been doing invaluable work in recognition cases but in some cases employers have refused to abide by and act on the recommendations of the commission. My new Bill will give powers to enforce those recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the total sum so far paid out in redundancy payments; what is the number of recipients; and what is the average amount received by each beneficiary.

During the period 6th December, 1965, to 28th February, 1970, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of £210,781,000 was paid to 945,260 redundant employees. The average amount received was £223.

No one appreciates more than I do how helpful this £210 million has been to the workers affected, but does my right hon. Friend realise that redundancy payments are no substitute for a job, and that in my constituency in the next few weeks 1,100 men will become redundant at Palmer's ship repair yard? Will she give me an assurance that, with her Ministerial colleagues, she will do everything she possibly can to keep the yard open, and so provide employment in an area which has already had more than its fair share of unemployment?

I agree with my hon. Friend that redundancy payment is no alternative to a job, but it provides a breathing space to enable the employee to look around and to enable my Department to move in and help to re-deploy redundant labour. He will be aware that the future of the yard which he mentioned is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, but I assure my hon. Friend that my Department is setting up a special job-finding team to go into this area and do everything in its power to ensure that the redundant workers are given other jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great anxiety on the Tyne that, in spite of all the efforts of the Government and the Opposition, the unemployment situation is becoming worse? Will she tell us what the Prime Minister means when he says that he will have a special look at ship building, because this would be of great interest to the Tyne and to all of us?

The hon. Lady is well aware, as I have said to my hon. Friend, that the policy for the ship building industry is not for me. I am aware of the unemployment anxieties which have been expressed by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Lady, and I give an assurance that my Department will be working actively to help place these men in other jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many of the pay increases from 1st January, 1970 to date have been tied to productivity agreements.

Information is readily available only about increases affecting 10,000 or more workers. Of 65 such increases so far this year, 34 were related to increased productivity or efficiency.

Does not the Minister agree that, whatever is happening in other countries, the present deluge of pay increases will hit pensioners and the less well off very hard? Is not this manipulation of the economy for electoral purposes the most cynical, transparent and shameful thing?

I find the hon. Gentleman's approach refreshing, after the long sustained attack on the Government's attempts to operate effectively an incomes policy.

Has my hon. Friend noticed how the recent figures published by O.E.C.D. showing comparative unit labour costs give the lie to the distortions of hon. Gentlemen opposite? They show, for instance, that in the United States and Canada costs have gone up faster than here, that Japan is only slightly better, and that a good deal of the credit for this is due to the Government's policy on productivity.

Yes, I recall that three weeks ago the Prime Minister gave the House some very impressive figures showing that the United Kingdom was maintaining and improving its competitive position in world markets.

Following the hon. Gentleman's initial answer, so that we can judge the success of the Government's policy, will he tell us how much incomes went up in percentage terms during the period of the statutory policy, and how much productivity went up? Does not the disparity show that the policy failed completely?

If the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read the Department of Employment and Productivity Gazette he will see the figures published monthly.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many pay settlements in the public sector have been approved this year which fall within the norm of 2½ per cent. to 4½ per cent.

Six.

Will the Under-Secretary specify what the six are? Does he realize—I am sure that he must—that the wages explosion is very serious? What is his Department proposing to do about it, or is it being completely disregarded in advance of the General Election?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman details about particular cases at Question Time. I am willing to write to him, if he wishes.

Concerning the alleged wages explosion, I have been under criticism for apparently being unduly alarmist. I find it astonishing, on the one hand, to be accused of causing alarm and, on the other, of being asked to respond to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Opposition are seriously concerned about the wages and salaries explosion and that they, like me, will be looking to see whether the six that my hon. Friend has mentioned include the judges' salaries which are to be put up tonight with the support of the Opposition. Perhaps they might oppose that. Can my hon. Friend answer that one?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many employees are receiving training in industries covered by industrial training boards at the latest convenient date and each year since 1964; what action has been taken by boards to increase the proportion of trained women, to extend the range of jobs in which they are trained, and increase their opportunities to train for promotion; and what encouragement the Central Training Council has given them to use the grant scheme therefor.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many employees are currently undergoing industrial training; and how this figure compares with the figure in 1964.

Separate information about numbers in training in industries covered by industrial training boards is not available. My Department's new earnings survey, however, indicated that in September, 1968 nearly 1,400,000 persons were receiving training in all industries and services, including over 500,000 apprentices. As this is a new survey, corresponding figures are not available for earlier years, but the number of employees receiving training in manufacturing industries increased by about 15 per cent. between 1964 and 1968.

In promoting and improving training in their industries, the training boards pay full regard to the needs of women, and the Central Training Council encourage them to do so on equal terms with men.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of her well-known interest in equality for women, when it comes to training women are still second-rate citizens? Will she ask the Central Training Council to look not only at the industries where women are conventionally employed, where there are great difficulties, but also at the engineering industry, in which women are being employed in increasing numbers?

I am anxious to do everything possible to stimulate the training of women, and the Equal Pay Bill made it clear that in giving women equality of terms and conditions we were legislating for them to get equal opportunity for training where this was part of the contract of any male employee. There is no need for us to press the Engineering Industry Training Board to train more women. The board has made it clear in all its recommendations that no distinction is drawn between the sexes, and goes on to say:

" Indeed the board would hope that girls will in future become more and more interested in engineering careers at all levels."

The board would welcome that. It is for the women to respond.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the figures she has announced represent an impressive advance since 1964? As a result of this policy, are not many of those who are undergoing training greatly improving their skills to the benefit of themselves, their families and the country as a whole?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only has there been this massive increase in the quantity of training, but the quality of training is improving all the time, and this is what we want.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many strikes there have been since 1st September, 1964, to the latest date for which figures are available; how many workers were involved; how many work days were lost; and what were the comparable figures for a similar period of time prior to 1st September. 1964.

The number of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom which began in the period from 1st September, 1964, to 30th March, 1970, was 13,781. In all stoppages in progress in this period there were 6,747,000 workers involved and 22.245,000 working days lost at the establishments where the disputes occurred. The 1969 and 1970 components of these figures are provisional. The comparable figures for the period from 1st February, 1959, to 30th August, 1964, were 13,644 stoppages, 7,879,000 workers involved and 20,546,000 working days lost.

Does not that answer show that the Sunday Times was correct in its assessment on 5th April when it accused the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition of deliberately selecting statistics for his own party political purposes, and that this is not a responsible way in which to treat a very serious problem?

My hon. Friend is right. Many recent public speeches have exaggerated and distorted the statistics primarily for political ends. We should take a balanced view, but I do not want to minimise the serious problems we face.

Could the hon. Gentleman deny that when coalmining is excluded, as his right hon. Friend in the White Paper and also the Donovan Report recognised, the number of strikes in the last 54½ years is greater than in the whole of the previous thirteen years?

This is part of the distortion. The White Paper followed the pattern of the Royal Commission, and for statistical purposes in making a current assessment excluded coalmining. But neither the White Paper nor the Royal Commission suggested for a moment that strikes in the coal mines were any less severe than any other strikes in their impact on the economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she is aware that loss of working days due to industrial disputes increased from 2·277 million in 1964 to 4·69 million in 1968: what was the comparable rate of loss during the 15 months ended 31st March, 1970; and what steps are now to be taken to reduce losses and damage to exports.

The answer to the first part of the question is yes. During 15 months ended 31st March, 1970, 8,898,000 working days were lost. This figure includes 6,772,000 working days lost in 1969. Both figures are provisional. My right hon. Friend is stimulating and encouraging the reform and extension of collective bargaining, but the primary responsibility lies with individual managements.

While recognising that nobody in the world has any panacea for ending industrial disputes altogether, would not the right hon. Lady recognise that throughout the last six years the trend of industrial stoppages and the aggregation of days lost has been steadily upwards, including or excluding the coalmining industry? Should we not all be gravely concerned about this disruption of production?

I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that there was no magic elixir. Of course, in the past we have been led to believe that the Opposition could provide one. It is our belief that it would turn out to be a poison chalice if ever they have the opportunity to try to apply it to those in industry. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is genuine cause for concern, although I would point out that the 8 million-odd days lost during the 15 months concerned in his Question were also equalled by the 12 months of 1957 during the period of office of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). [Interruption.] It is a fact that in 1957 8 million days were lost. The phenomenon which we are now experiencing is not unique in that other countries are undergoing the same kind of experience.

This is a serious matter, despite the trivial way in which the subject is being treated by hon. Members opposite, but bearing in mind that it is essential that both sides of industry and firms should get together, would not my hon. Friend condemn the attitude of a firm in Perivale, Middlesex—Davalls— which has refused to meet officers of the A.E.F. and also conciliation officers from his Department? Does he not agree that this sort of attitude does not assist industrial relations?

I would be reluctant to comment about a particular situation without knowing all the facts, but I would regret that any employer should refuse to meet trade union officials or officers of the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) what was the total number of days lost through strikes between 1965 and 1969; and what was the comparable figure for 1959–63; and

(2) how many strikes took place between 1965 and 1969; and what was the comparable figure for 1959–63.

11,806 stoppages of work due to industrial disputes began in the period 1965 to 1969. In all stoppages in progress in this period, 19,572,000 working days were lost at the establishments where the disputes occurred. The 1969 component of these figures is provisional. Comparable figures for the period 1959 to 1963 are 12,128 stoppages and 18,893,000 working days lost.

In view of that further enlightenment, can my hon. Friend say what all the fuss is about? Have not we proved conclusively today that all the noise from the party opposite is so much humbug and that if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want an issue to improve their rating in the opinion polls they must look elsewhere?

I have already said how deplorable is this practice of the Opposition in selecting and distorting figures in order to make political capital. I repeat that we should not seek to minimise the problems, but we shall not help by approaching them in a fashion which exaggerates and distorts them.

Is it not a fact that the incidence of stoppages in the last 12 months, including or excluding mining, is the worst in our industrial history?

What about 1926?

It is not the worst in our history, but it is certainly serious. I repeat that we should not minimise the problem, but we only exacerbate it by making a political football of the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the total number of stoppages due to industrial disputes, excluding mining, from October, 1964 to the latest date.

Excluding mining and quarrying, the provisional total of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom which began in the period 1st October, 1964 to 31st March, 1970 is 11,154.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that that figure is greater than the comparable figure from October. 1951, to September, 1964?

I cannot confirm that without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity out of more than 600,000 men and women registered in early April as unemployed, how many have been out of work, respectively, for three months and over, for six months and over, and 12 months and over; and what steps she is now taking to reduce long-term unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many persons have been registered unemployed for six months or more.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the number of persons who have been registered unemployed for 12 months or more.

The latest detailed duration analysis available relates to January, 1970. At that date, 628,325 males and females were registered as unemployed. They included 608,736 who were wholly unemployed and of these 263,124 had been on the registers for more than three months, 165,108 for more than six months and 97,364 for more than 12 months.

The developments in our employment services and in industrial training and rehabilitation will make some contribution to relieving long-term unemployment, though it is a deep-seated problem.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Government policy is creating and perpetuating a stagnating pool of unemployed? Is that not a policy of which the Labour Party in bygone years sought to indict my party, whereas the right hon. Gentleman and his Government really are the responsible and culpable persons?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a reduction in unemployment during the next 12 months. Long-term unemployment, about which the hon. Gentleman was asking, is largely a matter in the higher age groups and in large part has been an effect of the industrial changes which have taken place over the last few years. More than half of those unemployed for 52 weeks are 55 and over; 45 per cent. of those unemployed for six months were 55 or over. Two-thirds of the increase in the over-12 months category in the last two years occurred in the Northern, and Yorks and Humberside Regions and are attributable to the extensive colliery closure programmes and the run-down of many other traditional industries. This creates a serious problem. All the departmental services are available to assist wherever possible.

In presenting these appalling figures, does not the Minister recognise that industrial training and priorities are useless without employment opportunities to go with them? Does he not also recognise the urgent need for consultation with his colleague the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning to ensure that the money available for development is spent most effectively in the creation of new jobs?

The regional development policies introduced by this Government have been more effective than any previous policies. Without them the massive run-down in traditional industries which has occurred in this country would have resulted in far worse unemployment figures. In fact, there has been a considerable increase in the employment opportunities in the development areas as a direct result of this Government's regional policies.

Is my hon. Friend not nauseated by the crocodile tears of hon. Members opposite about unemployment while they constantly attack the massive incentives in regional development policies pursued by this Government?

I know their attitude, and I also know that their policies in regional employment incentives could only have a disastrous effect on employment opportunities in development areas.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the generalised assertion by the Chancellor that he thought unemployment was likely to fall. Since the Minister of State answers for the Ministry directly responsible for employment, could he give to the House some kind of quantification of that fall which was referred to by the Chancellor in such general terms?

I cannot give any such quantification, and no Minister in any Government would reply to that question in quantitative terms. I merely drew attention to the estimate made by the Chancellor in regard to employment prospects in the next 12 months.

Would my right hon. Friend, despite the crocodile tears opposite, admit nevertheless that the level of unemployment is much too high? Would he not agree that it is particularly high in the building industry, whose members comprise almost a quarter of the unemployed? Would he make it clear to the Chancellor that we must do more to help the industry out of this difficult situation?

I agree that the unemployment figures are too high, and I agree that the situation in the construction industry is serious. On the other hand, the recent measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and other measures referred to in a recent debate by the Minister of Public Building and Works will, I hope, have a considerable impact on unemployment in the construction industry.

But are not regional policies failing when in the Northern Region alone 23 per cent. of the unemployed have been out of work for a year or more? Is it not time that the Minister started taking some positive action, beginning by cutting S.E.T.?

That particular remedy would make the difficulties greater. One of the greatest aids given by this Government to development areas has been the regional employment premium, which I understand the Conservative Party wishes to abolish, though it has not clearly stated when. What is clear is that it would do major damage to employment opportunities by taking away the one labour-intensive incentive for employment in the development areas that currently exists.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation on Merseyside is not helped by the attitude of Merseyside dock employers, who are now refusing to employ or recruit any man who is over 30? This is making the position of the older man almost impossible.

I agree with my hon. Friend that if that is happening it is a serious matter which should be investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards those areas with above average unemployment in regions with below average unemployment.

In these areas, as in all areas, our local officers do all they can to help workers who register with us to find employment, including the offer of training opportunities where appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology takes full account of local levels of unemployment in considering applications for industrial development certificates for the areas referred to in my hon. Friend's Question.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will not agree that an unemployed person is a supreme social challenge, wherever he may be? Will not he further agree that in, for example, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire there are pockets of disturbing unemployment in areas which do not share in the prosperity of the South-East? Will he ensure that his Department has the interests of such people high in its priorities at all times?

I agree about unemployment being a supreme social problem. As for my hon. Friend's constituency, he will be interested to know that 98 projects which have been issued i.d.cs are still to be completed and are expected to create 4,350 jobs in the Portsmouth travel-towork area when the projects are fully manned.

Although the right hon. Gentleman agrees that unemployment is a supreme social problem, when will the level be reduced to what the Prime Minister calls an acceptable level, which is somewhere between 1½ and 2 per cent?

As I have said, the significance of the unemployment figures has greatly changed over the last few years due to certain measures introduced by this Government. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forecast a fall in unemployment during the next 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what discussions she has had with both sides of industry about the recommendations of the Select Committee on Race Relations as they affect her Department.

I met the C.B.I. in March, and next week I am to meet the T.U.C. to discuss the relevant recommendations of the Select Committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report dealt with the necessity of achieving a fair crack of the whip for coloured school leavers in the interests of racial harmony and of using all the nation's talents? Is he further aware that, from the evidence given to hon. Members, it is apparent that there is an enormous amount of good will on all sides of industry? Will he pay strict attention to all the recommendations, including the possibility of local conferences, and see that they are carried out?

My hon. Friend refers to local conferences to assist in giving equal employment opportunities to young people. We have supported local initiatives in three or four cases in recent months, and we are prepared to support other local initiatives on this subject where they arise. Our general policy is to support the development of equal employment opportunities for all people on an equal basis, whatever their origin—British or immigrant.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what result her department has achieved in placing those registered under the Industrial Selection Scheme in London in employment in the new towns.

One thousand and five London Industrial Selection Scheme registrants were placed in employment in the London new towns during 1969. During the same period, 3,137 were placed in the London expanding towns.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that this policy will be continued with vigour, since it relates to homes with jobs in new and expanding towns, and that no impediment will be put in the way of people such as my constituents going to those new and expanding areas?

There should be no such impediments. Certainly it is the Government's intention to persist with this scheme. At the moment, the Government's Social Survey is carrying out an investigation into the operation of the scheme with a view to finding out why it is not more successful than it is. Certainly we will go on with the scheme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his colleagues about the need for i.d.c.s being available in the expanded towns to which these people are due to go?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, priority for i.d.c.s is given to the intermediate and development areas. The next priority is the expanded towns.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what proportion of those attending courses at government training centres has left employment to take up places.

A little over half in recent years. 54 per cent. of those accepted for training during March were in employment at the time.

Can my right hon. Friend say what rate of expansion is planned for Government training centres in the current year and in what direction it is most likely to be?

We intend to continue to complete the current programme for opening Government training centres which has resulted in the numbers trained in G.T.C.s rising from 4,000 in 1964 to 12,500 in 1969. We shall introduce a new programme if it proves necessary on the basis of current experience.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the total number of people placed in employment vacancies in Portsmouth by her Department in the year ended 31st March, 1970.

Between 6th March, 1969, and 4th March, 1970, 17,732 persons were placed in employment by employment exchanges and youth employment service careers offices in Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport and Havant.

While again thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he will accept that there is widespread respect and appreciation for the dedicated work of his officers, often in difficult circumstances, and that throughout the House there is every possible support for all that they endeavour to do?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. They will be greatly appreciated by the officers to whom he has referred.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman keep repeating the bromide put out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a drop in unemployment? Since the right hon. Gentleman spoke, the figures have gone up. Does not the situation emphasise the fact that no attention can be paid to these pre-election fantasies, which are designed to do nothing other than mislead the public?

If the hon. Gentleman chooses to talk about pre-election fantasies, one need only consider the programmes of the party opposite, in so far as it is possible to identify them.

Is not the underlying trend towards long-term unemployment?

I do not see the relevance of that to this Question. However, as I have indicated, the change in the country's industrial structure has created a serious problem of unemployment amongst older people. We are doing everything that can be done about it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware especially of what we have done about older people made redundant as a result of coal mining closures.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the number of registered disabled unemployed on 1st April this year and for the same date in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many registered disabled were unemployed at the latest date for which figures are available.

The April 1970 unemployment figures for registered disabled persons are not yet available. On 9th March 1970 in Great Britain 73,037 registered disabled persons were registered as unemployed. The March figures in the previous years are as follows:

These figures are rather horrific. They have almost doubled since 1966. Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend do something with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get rid of S.E.T., which is the real cause of increases in the unemployment of disabled persons?

There is no evidence for that statement. Action is being taken to deal with this very difficult problem, which is a matter for great concern. In particular, we are strengthening and reorganising the disablement resettlement advisory services, and our reorganisation should be fully operational by the summer. In addition, we have increased the facilities for industrial rehabilitation, vocational training and sheltered employment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any rise in the overall figures of disabled unemployed is very serious, as we all accept that this is the most vulnerable section of employed persons? Will the Minister give special attention to this matter and do everything that he possibly can to reduce the unemployment of registered disabled?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the most vulnerable section. We shall certainly do all that we can to assist in situations such as exist at present.

In answer to the original Question my right hon. Friend said that he had no evidence that the payment of S.E.T. on disabled workers was having any effect on employment. Will my right hon. Friend tell us where his evidence for that comes from, because it is contrary to the evidence that I have?

I answered a Question in the House on this point some time ago. The evidence comes from our officers in the regions and from an examination of the figures. I am prepared to send the detailed evidence to my hon. Friend.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what were the percentage increases in the Index of Retail Prices for nationalised industries, food, housing, fuel and light, durable household goods, clothing and footwear, transport and vehicles, miscellaneous goods, services, and for all items in the Index since October, 1964, since July, 1966, and since November, 1967, respectively, to the latest convenient date.

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

In the light of those figures, can the Minister say what the pound in his pocket in November, 1967, is now worth?

Not without notice. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the economic policies of this Government, we are now in the strongest economic position that this country has ever known.

Has my right hon. Friend had drawn to his attention the report in this quarter's publication by Hill, Samuel, the banking people, which clearly indicates that the productivity of those in the nationalised industries is much higher than in any of the private industries?

That publication has been drawn to my attention. It gives encouraging backing to the Government's policies in the sphere of public ownership.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate a meeting with the Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with a view to easing tension and creating a more peaceful atmosphere in Northern Ireland.

I would refer to my reply to a question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 6th November, 1969. —[Vol. 790, c. 1173–5.]

Would not such a meeting serve three purposes: first, to assure the Unionists that there is no intention on the part of the Republic of Ireland to coerce them; secondly, to demonstrate the futility of any attempt by extreme Unionists at U.D.I.; and, thirdly, to make clear to Northern Ireland that the British Government are willing to legislate, above the head of Stormont if necessary, to secure the same rights, privileges, democracy and equality as in the rest of the United Kingdom?

On the attitude of the Republic of Ireland, my hon. Friend will be aware of the helpful statement made by its Prime Minister which I quoted in a recent exchange at Question time. That is the position of the Irish Republic.

On the question of U.D.I., no responsible person in Northern Ireland is contemplating such a solution to the difficulties. Therefore, I think that we can regard that as hypothetical.

Regarding legislation and human rights, I refer my hon. Friend to the declaration signed by Major Chichester-Clark and myself at Downing Street last August when we made clear that all citizens of the United Kingdom, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, have the same rights in respect of civil rights, freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion, or any other matters.

Concerning the last point, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that any threat, either direct or indirect, is counter-productive in present circumstances, because it encourages the Nationalists and aggravates the extreme Right wing, and that, therefore, it is better in this case to avoid making any threat one way or the other?

We have not made threats in this matter. Our policy throughout the troubles of last summer and since—indeed, over the period since we took office—has been to assert the rights which are necessary in Northern Ireland, but not to give any aid or comfort to extremists on either side in the dispute.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are not as pessimistic about the affairs of Northern Ireland as others? For instance, in the sphere of voluntary church schools the Northern Ireland Government treats almost every Church with the same facility as does this Government, and equally generously. It is not a pity that this could not be emulated in Northern Ireland in the housing and employment spheres?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, knowing his strong feelings on many of these matters, for putting his supplementary question in the way that he did. Concerning housing, discrimination in jobs, and investigation of grievances not only in central Government policies, as we have here, but also in local government now, it is a fact that, as a result of discussions that we have had over a period with Major Chichester-Clark, the Northern Ireland Government have moved, if belatedly—I also include what Lord O'Neil did—with a clear determination in the spheres referred to by my hon. Friend, and in other matters as well.

Is not the violence in Northern Ireland largely caused by people who wish to promote violence to disturb the Governments of both Northern and Southern Ireland and play upon local grievances to cause the present disputes and violence?

It is true that this is an extremely complicated issue. It has been debated in the House, and the whole analysis was set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is true that some of the violent trouble comes from extremists who can be acceptable to neither the Government of Northern Ireland nor that of the Irish Republic. There is, however, a great deal of other violence, arising in some cases from fear, perhaps irrational fear, and some violence which arises, as we know, from drink, and other violence, because violence breeds and begets violence, some even resulting, we are told, from the deployment of a Scottish Regi- ment there—because of some doubts about which football team in Glasgow some of the members of the regiment supported.

As the Prime Minister referred to a previous reply to me, may I ask whether he will endeavour to include in any such conference as is proposed ecclesiastical leaders to give a lead to their flocks who seem to be at the root of much of the trouble?

As my hon. and learned Friend knows, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited Northern Ireland twice last year he made it his business to have very full discussions with all sections of opinion in Northern Ireland, including church members of all persuasions. He received an extremely helpful response from the vast majority of church leaders of all denominations whom he saw. He met trade unionists, industrialists, and representatives of all shades of opinion. I do not think that it is necessary to contemplate the kind of conference which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind.

Is the Prime Minister aware—and I say this as moderately as I can—that in contradistinction to the Home Secretary, by his tendency to party political replies in this House and by some of his television broadcasts, notably the one on " This Week " during this month, he has himself done a certain amount to encourage the very forces of Paisleyism and the like which he detests so much?

No, Sir. In this House I always reply to questions in the spirit in which they are put, and if I have sometimes been a little rough with the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), I think that I have shown considerable restraint in view of his continued attitude on some of these questions.

With regard to other remarks that I have made, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that all of us in this House have shown great restraint in these matters, because the difficulties of the last year, particularly, all stem from the failure of politicians over 50 years to move fast enough. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman cannot wipe out the past, nor his party's responsibility for it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be generous enough to admit that over the past 50 years people of all parties in this House have been alarmed lest intrusion into the delicately poised affairs of Northern Ireland might cause the loss of innocent lives and the very sort of thing which has been happening during the last 12 months?

Yes, Sir. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is particularly right in using the phrase " delicately poised ". We have all had bitter experience during the last year or more of how true that phrase is. But, taking the situation over 50 years, it would perhaps have been easier to avoid some of these confrontations, or at any rate to concentrate blame on the intruders to whom he referred, and other extremists, if more progress had been made on reform, particularly in regard to civil rights and non-discrimination, on which great progress has been made by Lord O'Neill and his successor, Major Chichester-Clark, during the last three or four years. The whole of human history shows what happens when reforms are pressed on with in a situation where too little was done before.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the last part of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Prime Minister what requests he has received to receive deputations on housing.

I have received two or three such requests mainly from tenants' associations.

What action do the Government intend to take over those local authorities which refuse to carry out their house building responsibilities? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many private tenants fear that their security of tenure and protection will disappear if the Tories are returned? Rachmanism could come back to Britain.

On the first question, I have nothing to add to the answers given by myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government about local authorities which are failing to carry forward their housing programmes as they should be doing.

On the second question, I have expressed anxieties about the programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, particularly with regard to the Rent Act. I was pleased to see that the Opposition housing spokesman said that it is now Conservative policy—should the matter ever arise—to accept our Rent Act, including the standards of fair rent laid down by us, and not to return to the Tory Rent Act which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when Chief Whip, forced through the House.

Would the Prime Minister welcome an opportunity to explain to a deputation how it is that if the Government's promises or pledges, call them what one will, had been kept between 1965 and 1970 more than another 300,000 houses would have been built?

I have answered that question before in the House. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that we have built 2 million houses in our period of Government, which is about 25 per cent. more than our predecessors did even in their last five years.

Would my right hon. Friend be willing to receive a deputation from the Borough of Bexley, which started no local authority housing in 1969, and had one of the lowest under-construction programmes of the London boroughs? Perhaps my right hon. Friend would be able to tell the deputation how it could get someone to lead its borough, never mind lead a party.

I feel that if there were to be such a deputation it should be received by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who would no doubt reply appropriately to its anxieties. It may be that in Bexley there is perhaps a feeling that there might be a Conservative Government, and they probably feel that they must get ahead of the situation because local authorities all over the country will be unable to build council houses under the Tory proposed subsidy policy.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in his reply to the original Question, he included the request of Dr. Reid, the Deputy Chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council? When he saw the Prime Minister he drew attention to the fact that certain action was needed by the Government in relation to housing in Northumberland.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She has written to me about this, and I hope to let her have a reply because there is a Press report which is somewhat at variance with what I said to her in the House. Unfortunately, Dr. Reid has been abroad since then and I have not been able to check with him the accuracy of what he said. As I and others who were at the meeting recall he, as acting Chairman of the Planning Council, did not raise the question of help for housebuilding but referred to the construction industry in a different context. I hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Lady on the question she has raised by writing to her as soon as Dr. Reid returns.

In view of the Prime Minister's quite erroneous remarks about our housing policy, may I ask whether it is not a fact that he inherited from us a housing programme rapidly advancing and that he will bequeath to us a housing programme rapidly falling?

We inherited an advance in one year, an election year, after 12 years in which that figure was not reached. We shall not hand over anything to the right hon. Gentleman, nor do we intend to, because he will not be there.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I had not understood the Opposition's subsidy policy. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a declared maverick on nearly all Conservative policies and that he likes to dissociate from time to time, whether on investment grants or whatever else it may be. I was assuming that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was speaking on behalf of his party, and even of his right hon. Friend, when he gave assent to an estimate that the present record level of housing subsidies of £130 million would be cut by £100 million if the Conservatives got in. The right hon. Gentleman can calculate what that would mean for council housing.

Can my right hon. Friend do anything about the sordid Tory political manoeuvring in the town halls of the country and especially of my constituency? For example, last year 1,900 starts of housing units were to be made and we had only 24, and this year once again they have been cut back to less than 300. Is it not obvious that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is using this kind of action to arrive at the national figure?

As to the decision of Conservative councils, which we were told on high authority three years ago was being orchestrated from Tory Central Office, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has said on these questions. As to the broader aspect of what I think my hon. Friend called squalid or sordid manoeuvring by the Tories, I will in due course give my attention to the question whether anything further might be done about that.

Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge the facts, which are that under Conservative housing policy local authorities will be able to build houses for the disabled and the elderly, for slum clearance, and for those who cannot afford the full rent? Will he explain why he believes that subsidies should be given to people who do not require them?

In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, local authorities are free now to build the houses needed for the disabled, for slum clearance and for the other categories to which he referred. Many Tory authorities are cutting down on their building in these respects, despite the fact that we are giving a record amount of help to them to get on with the job, and despite the fact that they can borrow for this purpose at 4 per cent., under legislation passed by this House.

With regard to the second part of the question, in which the right hon. Gentleman referred to the non-priority categories of the Selsdon Park policy— [Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman has referred to his policies, and these should be noted.

Get on with it.

I will when hon. Gentlemen are listening. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's own pronouncements—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Conservative Party's policy. I have at last got him up; I must be allowed to enjoy it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about subsidies for general housing need. What I am saying is that they are not to be equated, as he puts it, with people who do not require them. The right hon. Gentleman knows this to be the fact. What he is saying is that there will be no provision of subsidies.

You are saying it.

Order. Let us leave it to the protagonists.

The right hon. Gentleman is saying that there would be no provision of subsidies either for overcrowding or for general housing need, because if he cuts the subsidy from £130 million to £30 million there will not be a penny left over for those purposes.

First, the Prime Minister is making up the figures for himself. Second, it is our declared policy that under us local authorities should be able to build for people in need. What I am asking the Prime Minister is: how does he justify giving subsidies to people who do not require them? Will he now answer that single, simple question?

Yes, Sir. I will first answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

What about the second part?

I will answer both parts of the right hon. Gentleman's question, whether that is convenient to him or not.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I invented these figures. If he is now saying that he has not said them, if he is now saying that he has not confirmed the figure of £100 million cuts, I shall be delighted to let him have the evidence, as on the last occasion he denied that the Tories in 1955 said that they would not introduce a Rent Act—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. If the right hon. Gentleman makes assertions in his questions of alleged facts which are not true I reserve the right to reply to them. He was wrong then, and he is wrong again today.

With regard to the second part of the question—why do I justify general housing subsidies?—I do it on the basis that it has been the policy of every Housing Ministry in this country since 1924. The right hon. Gentleman wants to cut housing back to the level before 1924.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite the fact that Prime Minister's Question Time has lasted 21 minutes instead of 15, he has dealt with only two Questions. Is there nothing in Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, which will allow the House to stop the Prime Minister giving long-winded answers, obviously with the intention of evading other Questions on the Order Paper?

Order. I am not interested in the motive of any right hon. or hon. Member. Long questions and long answers are not confined to one right hon. or hon. Member. We happened to he on two Questions that the House thought to be rather important.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will propose the establishment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the relationship between the increased consumption of alcoholic liquor and the increased incidence of crimes of violence.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will no doubt recall the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure on Questions to the Prime Minister. Quite clearly, the spirit of the recommendations is being flouted in that we have had only two Questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered in a quarter of an hour. I feel fairly strongly about this, particularly as the Question No. Q3 seeks to relate the drink trade with the Tory Party and crimes of violence, and more particularly since the drink trade gave the Tory Party £98,000 last year instead of spending it on research into the links between crimes of violence and the drink trade.

Order. On the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, he is quite right. It is an embarrassment, especially for someone as high up the list as No. 03, not to have his Question reached on Prime Minister's day. It is similarly an embarrassment for anyone as high up as No. 30 not to be reached on an ordinary day. I have appealed from time to time for brief questions and brief answers.

The rest of the hon. Gentleman's point seemed to me to be political.

Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the large number of supplementary questions which it seemed right for you to call on Northern Ireland and housing, and the length of some of the supplementaries, and, therefore, of the answers, and of the very wide interest obviously shown by the whole House in the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), if it is the wish of the House I would be glad to ask your permission to answer my hon. Friend's Question.

Order. The Prime Minister has not yet sought my permission.

On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules of the House the Prime Minister is allotted 15 minutes in which to answer Questions addressed to him and that you cannot intervene however long the supplementary questions and answers may be. My submission, however, is to ask you if you think that the Prime Minister should be allowed to bore the House for about 22 minutes rather than the 15 minutes allotted to him?

That is not a point of order, but a point of criticism.

On a point of order. I understand that the Prime Minister has expressed his willingness to answer Question No. Q3, which is addressed to him. As my right hon. Friend is prepared to give his time—indeed, is prepared to work overtime—surely the House should allow him to do so?

Order. I did not refuse the Prime Minister permission. If he asks for it he will get it, but he has not asked.

In these circumstances, and in view of the wide interest being shown by hon. Members in Question No. Q3, and of the suspicion that the length of some of the supplementary questions and answers has prevented this Question from being reached, may I have your permission to answer it now, Mr. Speaker?

No.

Order. If a Minister asks for permission to answer a particular Question which has not been reached, it is for the Chair to decide whether to give permission.

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), is it in order for me to ask the Prime Minister whether he will—that is, if he intends to answer Question No. Q3—answer Question No. Q25? I had intended to raise in connection with that Question the very important matter of the Walter Terry report in the Daily Mail about the Government's intention to send an expedition up the Gulf of Aquaba before the Suez trouble broke out. It follows, does it not, that if the right hon. Gentleman will answer Question No. Q3, he should seek permission to answer Question No. Q5 as well?

Order. It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to ask that, but it is for the Prime Minister to ask for permission to reply, if he decides so to do.

On a point of order. If the Prime Minister is to be allowed at this stage to seek permission to answer Question No. Q3, then surely he should be encouraged to answer two other Questions, since two unfortunate people, General Gowon and President Nasser, are under serious threat in those Questions of the awful possibility of a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister. Is it not your solemn duty, Mr. Speaker, to put these unhappy gentlemen out of their misery?

One at a time, please. No doubt the Prime Minister has heard the serious plea which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has made.

May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order which I have been seeking to raise for some time? The Prime Minister has claimed that it was because of the length of supplementary questions—

And answers.

I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman mentioning the length of his own answers. [HON. MEMBERS: " He did."] Be that as it may, it is not really material.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's claim that the length of supplementary questions is largely to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves, may I suggest that what the House requires is an impartial examination, which perhaps the Leader of the House could set under way, into the respective lengths of the average replies given by the Prime Minister and the average supplementary questions?

Order. That is a piece of research in which any hon. Member could indulge.

On a point of order. May I ask you respectfully to consider, Mr. Speaker, the possibility of a precedent being created if the Prime Minister is permitted to answer Question No. Q3? [Interruption.] I have not asked him to ask permission to answer it. I have been in the House of Commons for many years and if my memory serves me correctly I have never heard a Front Bench spokesman answering a Question immediately when asked to answer it. It has always been the case that he has been asked some time beforehand to answer it.

The hon. Lady is a distinguished parliamentarian, but her recollection is not quite the same as mine.

On a point of order. While the Prime Minister may be very good at arranging extra time for himself on " Sports Report ", may I ask you if we are justified in arranging to give him extra time in the House in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies which he gives to Questions, anyway?

That is not a point of order.

Not more points of order. I remind the House that we have a lot of work ahead of us. A multiplicity of points of order do not help us to get through that work.

On a point of order. Would you now rule unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, on this matter so that it is beyond doubt that what the House wants is Wilson's and not Watney's?

On a point of order. It is my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that it has always been the custom, if a Minister wants to answer a particular Question which has not been reached, for him to say, " With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No.…" whatever the Question might be. You may have given permission to the Prime Minister to answer Question No. 03, but I am not sure that the House has.

The hon. Gentleman has a long career in the House and yesterday celebrated his 36th year in Parliament. However, it has been ruled time and again by the Chair that the expression " With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House ", is just a courteous convention.

rose—

On a point of order. As the Prime Minister's Questions have now taken more than double the time that they are supposed to take, and as we have Business questions to follow, do you consider it a desirable precedent to set, Mr. Speaker, that in response to a request made by one of his hon. Friends on purely political grounds Prime Minister's Question time should be further extended in this way?

Order. About half of that time has been taken up with points of order.

On a point of order. Would you be kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to help the House by advising the Prime Minister to take something for his verbal incontinence?

That is not a point of order.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q3, as follows:

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Question was put down with a very serious intention, as there is a link between the consumption of alcoholic liquor and crimes of violence and there seems to be an insufficient amount of research done to establish the relationship between them? Could he not appeal to the brewers to make a contribution to this field of research rather than to the Conservative Party because, if £98,000 spent by them in 1968 had been spent on research into this matter, that would have shown much greater sense of responsibility than has been shown hitherto?

I think that it is generally felt, and that there is some evidence for the view, that alchohol has been responsible for a significant proportion of crime and of the increase of crime in this country. But there is not any very conclusive evidence, certainly not conclusive statistical evidence. A report from other countries suggests that there is some connection. That is why we have set in hand these inquiries. Anyone feeling able to contribute to the cost of such inquiries, be they brewers or anyone else, should feel that they are making a helpful contribution.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is in my part of the country a beer called " Wilson's Bitter " and that we have known it for some time?