asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's future use of individual industrial arbitrators.

Before I answer this Question, may I, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, apologise for the fact that he is unable to attend Question time today, for reasons which I think the House will recognise? He will be here to make a statement later in the afternoon.

The Answer to Question No. 1 is as follows: There has been no change in the Government's policy towards this form of arbitration.

Now that the Government have destroyed confidence in arbitration in the public sector, may I ask the Minister to recommend the appointment of a man acceptable to both sides to inquire into the electricity dispute?

I could not accept the implication of that supplementary question. The statement which my right hon. Friend made last night and his interview with the trade union leaders will, I hope, convince them that arbitration is still available and is still fair. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, about an individual arbitrator, I suggest that he addresses that question to my right hon. Friend when he attends later this afternoon.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the lesson of experience suggests that any arbitrator, if he wishes to stay in business, is bound, in effect, to split the difference between the last offer of the employers and what the employees are demanding because if he does not do that he will not be acceptable to the union side again? Is it not evident, therefore, that the sole purpose of arbitration is to provide an alibi to both sides for an inflationary increase?

That may or may not be so, but the Government's role in arbitration is to be fair and to be outside the actual negotiations; and that is the role which we shall follow.

While it is most unusual for the Secretary of State not to be present for Questions, even in the present situation, may I inform the hon. Gentleman that if his absence means that he is at last engaged in genuine conciliation, we shall be the first to excuse him?

I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is continuing his admirable conduct in this most difficult strike, as he has been doing in the last few days.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what specific steps he is taking to reduce the level of unemployment.

All the facilities of my Department's services are available to those needing fresh employment, including special arrangements whereby redundant workers can be given employment information in advance of their discharge. The additional training measures announced on 4th November will also help.—[Vol. 805, c. 383–4.]

What steps are being taken to inform employers and workers in development and intermediate areas about the new scheme to retrain men over 45?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point because it is important. We are issuing a special Press notice in the areas concerned and our local officers are being instructed to send individual notifications to all employers who are likely to be of help. Leaflets will also be prepared. We intend to press this vigorously to ensure that as many people as possible know about the scheme.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the services of his Department are sufficient to deal with the permanent pocket of unemployment in the South-East Region—namely, the Kent coast and, in particular, North-East Kent?

I am well aware of the problem on the Kent coast. I visited the area this week and the representations which were made to me will lead to further consultations within my Department. I am satisfied that we can do a great deal, though the general question of curing unemployment is tied up with economic prosperity.

Will not the Minister agree that the recent regrettable decision on I.D.Cs. will exacerbate the already desperate position in the North-East of England?

No, Sir. I would not accept that suggestion. In fact, the hon. Gentleman may find that it turns out better than he anticipates but, as he knows, this is not a question for me.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the information about available vacancies is sufficiently widely based? Should we not be looking at the way information is spread around the country so that the unemployed are conscious of opportunities on a national basis?

My hon. Friend has a very good point there. The more sophisticated our means of transmitting information about vacancies, the more chance there is of getting a successful response, but this is tied up with the question of mobility and we are looking at this very carefully at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the present rates of male unemployment in the Yorkshire coalfield intermediate area and in the development areas of England.

At 9th November, 1970, the percentage rates of unemployment in the Yorkshire coalfield intermediate area and in the English development areas were 5·5 and 5·9, respectively.

In the light of that answer, will not the hon. Gentleman consider again raising the Yorkshire coalfield area to development area status? The situation revealed by the figures gives us considerable discouragement in South Yorkshire, and I must ask the Minister to accept that there is urgent need for such reconsideration.

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the question of development areas is not for me. No one can be complacent about the figures, and we believe that our proposals for retraining for people over 45 may well help quite a number of miners. I have seen for myself the way in which many miners have responded successfully to retraining opportunities.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to expand and improve safety training in industry.

I am again drawing to the attention of all industrial training boards that safety should be an important element in all job training.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the initiative I took when I was holding his job, but is this good enough in view of the worsening accident rate and the fact that industrial accidents account for the loss of more days of production than do strikes?

I always think it erroneous to seek to compare the number of strikes with the number of days lost as a result of accidents, because the two are not comparable. I know from what I have seen that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in this matter and did a great deal about it while in the Department. I do not think that we can be complacent and more efforts must be made, but it is significant that the Robens Committee is looking into the adequacy of safety training at all levels and, again, I think that this will help.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he now intends to publish his Industrial Relations Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will publish his Industrial Relations Bill.

The Industrial Relations Bill was published on 3rd December.

As the Government are taking the opportunity to go ahead with this Bill, will the Minister of State tell the House and the country what impact he expects it to have after it becomes law on the incidence of strikes and the rate of inflation?

The Government expect the Bill to have a very considerable impact. We do not claim that it will have an immediate impact or that it is a shortcut solution to our problems, which clearly do not have any short-cut solutions. But we think that as time goes on its influence will certainly be very great and will bring order to a disordered scene.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very wide support there is in the country for these proposals, including not only the general public but many trade unionists? Will he confirm that he will be ready to give careful consideration to Amendments of detail during the Committee stage?

As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, there will be plenty of opportunity, since the Bill is to be debated on the Floor of the House, for every hon. Member to have a share of the debate and to influence the Bill. This was not an offer which the Opposition seemed to accept with any alacrity or enthusiasm. As to the weight of support in the country for the Bill, it is getting more and more clear that that support is widespread.

Is not the hon. Gentleman clearly wrong in saying that the Opposition did not want the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House? Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and I, in the debate on the Consultative Document, demanded that the Bill should be dealt with on the Floor of the House, and we are delighted that the Government have seen the sense of the view then expressed.

As to the Bill itself, as similar legislation exists in the United States of America—which is not as arbitrary as the Measure proposed by the Government—and as that legislation does not deal with the real problems of industrial relations, would not the Government think again, even at this late hour, and withdraw the Bill?

It was very hard to analyse the emotions of the Opposition when the announcement was made about the Committee stage being on the Floor of the House. From this side of the House, members of the Opposition merely looked dumbfounded for several minutes on end.

We do not accept that our Bill is similar to American legislation, but we have made use of experience of countries all over the world and adapted it to the British scene.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many courses of training are available for silk screening in South-East London; and how many applicants there are for such courses.

Training in screen process printing is normally provided by the industry with the help of the London College of Printing. There are also two courses with 24 training places at the Waddon Government Training Centre. On 16th November there was a waiting list of 88 applicants for these classes.

Does not the number of places available in the Government training centre and the waiting list there is for them indicate that many people are having to wait a long time for training courses in this subject? Will the Minister look into the position and see whether he can expedite the availability of places?

The provision of more places is being considered now. The position earlier in the year was that those trained were not being taken into industry very quickly and there appeared to be few opportunities for them. For that reason, more places were not needed, but in view of the bigger demand the position is being reconsidered.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consult with the Royal National Institute for the Blind with regard to the establishment in Manchester of a rehabilitation and retraining college for blind people wishing to be placed in employment.

No, Sir. Present demand would not justify such a college.

Does not the Under-Secretary of State agree that it is a considerable ordeal for blind people in the north of England to go so far from their homes as London, which is the only place to which they can go for courses of training to rehabilitate them and make them fit for occupations which will normalise their lives? Would he not accept that a college such as this could be a centre for the entire north of England and make a great contribution to helping blind people there to be retrained for jobs which would help them to live normal family lives?

I am always very sympathetic to blind people in their extreme difficulties, but I am advised that there is no justification for such a college and, that there is plenty of provision in the country for the rehabilitation and retraining of blind people. There are two centres, one at Torquay and one at Ceres in Fifeshire, and a number of people from the hon. Member's own region are at both of them, and some on the waiting list. But if the situation gets worse I am always prepared to consider the matter further.

On the rather wider question, can my hon. Friend say what progress is being made in the reduction of the level of unemployment amongst the registered disabled?

As I said the last time I answered Oral Questions, my right hon. Friend has asked me to look at this matter especially. We are pursuing it very vigorously, and I hope in due course, probably some time in the new year, that I shall be able to announce something to my hon. Friend.

Whilst I appreciate the reply previously given to me by the hon. Gentleman, can he now say what action is being taken under Section 18 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, which has to do with the training of those who are responsible for placing disabled people in work?

That is rather wide of the original Question, and I should require notice of it, but I shall be very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider legislation to provide an automatic national adjustment to wages and salaries, related to changes in the cost of living index.

No, Sir. I do not think that it would he appropriate to impose such a requirement on negotiators by legislation.

But would not an adjustment of this kind remove one of the principal justifications for wage demands at present? It would not be inflationary. If my hon. Friend will reconsider the question, will he think in terms of a flat-rate payment and not a percentage based on earnings?

I follow my hon. Friend's argument, but the cost of living is only one factor influencing negotiations. Productivity, comparability, differentials, the position of the lower-paid worker—all these factors cannot simply be banished from negotiations.

Does the Minister accept that the cost of living has increased by 7 per cent. over the past 12 months, and that for an average family of man, wife and one child, earning the average wage today, a further 4 per cent. is needed to cover the increased cost of tax and insurance contributions, so that the combined total of 11 per cent. means that the minimum wage increase today for such an average family on an average wage must be 11 per cent. to enable them to stand still and maintain their living standards from one year to the next.

I should have to confirm the figures, which I do not carry in my head, but what I can say is that the Government have shown a bigger concern for lower-paid workers than have any previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost due to strikes taking place in opposition to or in protest against the Government's proposed industrial relations legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the numbers involved in the unofficial stoppage on 8th December in protest against the Government's proposals on industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many different industrial establishments were affected by the 8th December demonstration against the Industrial Relations Bill.

It is impossible to make a close assessment, but my Department estimates that some 350,000 employees may have taken part in the one-day stoppage on Tuesday. Information on the number of establishments affected is not available.

I am sure that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members will join in condemning the Communist-directed political strike on 8th December, but, in view of the questions and views expressed in the Lobby on Tuesday, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the need for even greater publicity to explain what the proposals in the new Bill are?

I do not know exactly what my hon. Friend means by the expressions in the Lobby, but all sections of opinion had better get used to the idea that we intend to press on with industrial relations legislation. The House cannot tolerate attempts to dictate by industrial action what it should do. I hope that those concerned will quickly realise the futility of further industrial action.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our parliamentary democratic system is just as much under attack by those who seek to use industrial action to censor the contents of newspapers as it is by those who foment strikes in order to frustrate the will of the House?

I think that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree with what has been said.

No, they do not.

I was about to add that, to be fair, I think that that expression of view had been put from both Front Benches.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was probably more criminal for some doctors to refuse to sign medical certificates last May than it was for some workers to take part in a peaceful demonstration against a reprehensible Bill?

Both actions were misguided.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes have occurred since 1st July, 1969; and in how many the Trades Union Congress has intervened in accordance with its agreement with the previous Government of June last year.

It is provisionally estimated that 5,118 stoppages of work due to industrial disputes began in the period 1st July, 1969, to 31st October, 1970. The General Council's report to this year's T.U.C. records that over 180 disputes were reported to the T.U.C. in the 12 months ending June, 1970, and I understand that a further 27 disputes have been reported to the T.U.C. since June.

I welcome the efforts which the T.U.C. and Mr. Victor Feather, in particular, have made in seeking settlement of some of these disputes, but do not the figures show beyond a shadow of doubt how wrong the previous Government were in June last year to climb down and run to ground beneath the skirts of the T.U.C.—a somewhat indecorous position in which, so far as I can see, right hon. and hon. Members opposite still are?

I think that the answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes, Sir". At the same time, having said that, I acknowledge that the T.U.C. has tried in good faith to do its best to carry out the Croydon undertaking of June, 1969. Obviously, we welcome its efforts, especially in inter-union disputes. However, the very figures on this question show that the task is beyond what the effort of an organisation of that sort can achieve.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the United States, where a system is operated similar to that under the Bill now before the House, there are three times more strikes than we have in this country? Second, does he agree that the T.U.C., on the basis of the White Paper introduced by the previous Government, has now accepted responsibility, which it did not previously take, and will he acknowledge that the T.U.C. is the appropriate body to deal with its own members, not the Government of the country?

As I have said already, I do not accept that we are introducing so-called American legislation. We are introducing legislation tailor-made for this country. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can only repeat that the size of the problem—we are now running up to 4,000 strikes per year—must call for stronger measures than can be supplied by the Trades Union Congress.

Is not the Minister of State aware—of course he is—that two-thirds of the strikes are over in three days or less, and, therefore, intervention by anybody is impossible? Second, is his sudden and rather belated tribute to work of the T.U.C. not connected with the fact that the Government are at this moment deeply thankful for the intervention of the T.U.C. in the power dispute, and that they are pinning their hopes to the thought that Mr. Victor Feather will be successful in breaking the deadlock which they have created? Is it not a fact that, following the agreement with the Labour Government, Mr. Feather and the T.U.C. have done more conciliation in a matter of hours than the Government have done in six months?

The fact remains that there has been a greater escalation of strikes during this period than ever before. We cannot get away from that.

As to the first part of the right hon. Lady's question, I take it that she has been reading the Guardian, which, I must explain, is entirely in error. My right hon. Friend, in his task of trying to do his best to move towards a settlement, will welcome help from the Trades Union Congress or anyone else who is willing to help effectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes have occurred between 1st July, 1969 and 31st October, 1970; and by how much this figure exceeds that for the previous 16 months.

The number of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes which began in the period 1st July, 1969 to 31st October, 1970 is provisionally estimated at 5,118. This exceeds the figure for the previous 16 months by 1,589.

In view of those very serious figures, may I ask my hon. Friend whether his right hon. Friend has made any estimate yet of when the legislation he is introducing will reach the Statute Book and be able to start its vital work?

As my right hon. Friend has said before, we expect to get the legislation through Parliament by the end of this Session. We shall certainly do everything we can to do so.

Would the hon. Gentleman carry out some research among the employers concerned in those 5,000-odd strikes asking them how many would have sued the unions or organisers of the strikes for damages, and would he secondly say in respect of how many strikes the Government would have applied for an injunction under their proposed legislation to restrain the strike from taking place for 60 days?

The answer to the question, I would estimate, is "Very few." We do not expect a flood of litigation to follow our Bill. We do expect that the standards it lays down will be effective in producing the sort of atmosphere which will lead to more order, better procedures and better industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an official visit to the Longbridge works of British Leyland.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present but I certainly hope that such a visit may be possible some time in the future.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that that was a most disappointing reply, as 5,000 British Leyland car workers have been made redundant in the past few days? As that is the result of the Government's economic policy, will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to lift restrictions on the car industry in order to avoid further redundancies?

I do not accept for a moment that it is the result of the Government's economic policy. A result of the Government's economic policy will be that many further jobs will be saved which would probably have been lost under the last Administration. These redundancies, regrettable as they are, have to be made, in the light of commercial considerations, by the companies concerned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since this great British motorcar combine was formed, it has had only three weeks without an industrial dispute in its organisation?

So what?

Yes, and we can all draw various conclusions from that fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total net decline in employment in Scotland between April, 1966 and June, 1970.

Provisional estimates show a decrease between March, 1966, and March, 1970, of 82,000 employees in employment in Scotland. There are no estimates for April, 1966, and estimates for June, 1970, are not yet available.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Labour Government promised in their period an increase of 60,000 jobs in Scotland? Is he aware that, because of the shameful loss of 82,000 jobs in the same period, the gulf between promise and performance in Scotland amounted to 142,000 jobs?

Yes, Sir. We are well aware of this in the development areas—and others besides Scotland are concerned—there has been a general decrease in the numbers in employment. The previous Government's efforts failed, and we have to tackle and cure the situation. It will probably take some time, but we are confident of the outcome.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this net loss of jobs was the result of the very quick decline of the basic industries? Would he give the figures to show the number of jobs in the pipeline in June, 1970? What response have industrialists made to the Government's proposals to accept the Hunt Committee recommendation to reduce I.D.Cs. from 5,000 to 10,000? Is not this causing great concern among the industrialists in Scotland?

The hon. Gentle man is right to say that a large proportion is due to the decline in traditional industries. I entirely grant him that. However, it is an undoubted fact that the policies of the last Government to try to stimulate extra activity in Scotland failed. The hon. Gentleman's question about I.D.Cs. is not for me and should be addressed to my right hon. Friend. We are not complacent about the figure and we intend to try to improve the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if it is his intention in his proposed legislation to make it illegal for employers and trade unions to agree that all persons engaged in an occupation shall be required to have an agreed qualification of experience or skill.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such a policy would be ridiculous and disastrous? Is he aware that in all areas of employment it would result in a decline of skill? Is he aware that in some areas it would be positively dangerous? Is he aware that the whole standard of British performance, with its considerable contribution to the balance of payments, rests upon these agreements between employers and employees?

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Bill. There will be nothing in the Bill to prevent unions from making agreements with employers about conditions of entry into certain trades or employment, provided that the agreement does not make union membership or union approval a prerequisite of employment.

As union membership must be a prerequisite to keeping up standards, would the hon. Gentleman at least match his unfairness and irresponsibility by some consistency and apply the same rules to the Bar Council, the Law Society, and the British Medical Association?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it must be a prerequisite to preserving standards. However, this will no doubt be discussed when we reach the Bill. I do not think that the analogy is fair.

We are talking of the closed shop. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the closed shop has been of inestimable value to the country in maintaining high standards of skill and qualifications? Is he not abrogating to the employer the sole right to be the labour recruiting agent?

I acknowledge that the closed shop has had its advantages for industry, but what we are doing in the Bill is to include the fundamental right of the individual employee to freedom of choice. The Government's proposals on agency shop agreements strike a fair and reasonable balance between an individual's right not to join a union and his social responsibility to contribute towards union negotiations from which he will benefit.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Bill will spell out in absolute detail that strikes with purely and solely political objectives will be unlawful?

That is something we can debate during the course of discussing the Bill.

On a point of order In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply to the supplementary question about professional trade union qualifications, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent he estimates that the growth of private employment agencies has reduced the number of vacancies notified by employers to public employment exchanges.

Such evidence as we have suggests that the number of vacancies notified to employment exchanges is not significantly affected by the operation of agencies except in regard to commercial and clerical vacancies, particularly in London.

Is the Minister aware of the ever-increasing extent, particularly in London and particularly with secretarial and clerical vacancies, to which private employment agencies are creaming off the vacancies from local employment exchanges, to the very great profit of the former, thus leaving Government employment exchanges with an ever-increasing proportion of unemployables and dropouts?

There is nothing to stop both employers and employees from coming to us to get staff or jobs and to get the assistance free. We are trying to develop this side of our commercial service and doing so successfully to some extent. When the resources are available, we hope to develop it further. I am aware that there is a problem, but I am not persuaded that legislation is the best way in which to deal with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to ensure training of shop stewards.

No, Sir, but I agree that increased training for shop stewards is of great importance and I am awaiting the report of the Commission on Industrial Relations on this subject.

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has it in mind. Will he help when training is being undertaken locally? I draw to his attention the Brookly Technical College in Birmingham where the T.U.C. regional advisory committee has already run one of these courses and where another course is in being. It would be extremely useful if the Minister would give every assistance to such courses.

In studying this matter I have been impressed by the wide range of training available. While this is the responsibility of the trade unions and is regarded as such, the training boards have certain responsibility in this connection and many do their best to help.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he introduces his Industrial Relations Bill, nobody will volunteer to be a shop steward? Is he aware that anybody who volunteers to be a shop steward will be virtually putting his head in a noose and that what will ensue will be chaos on the factory floor, because nobody will accept leadership?

The hon. Gentleman will no longer be able to say that the Bill will have no effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has to assist coalminers aged over 50 years who have been made redundant or had to leave the industry through ill-health.

Ex-miners are among those who will benefit from the new scheme of training grants starting next month which is designed to encourage employers in the development and intermediate areas to take on and train older men. Industrial rehabilitation units can do much to help those who have to change their jobs because of ill-health.

While thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask him whether he is tackling this human problem in the correct way? Would he not agree that we are adopting a rather pessimistic approach in suggesting that we are doing a favour to these men who have contributed so much—and that that is wrong? Would he not agree that the right approach is to have these men producing real wealth for the nation, which will give them confidence in any retraining or future policies?

I do not think we are pessimistic about it, but we should be deceiving ourselves if we did not recognise this as a very special problem. It will probably take a long time to solve, particularly in view of the rundown in the coal industry. I genuinely believe that the new provisions for older men will make some impact and I am also pleased that we are able to bring forward some "limited skill" courses in G.T.Cs. All miners can benefit from this if they can be encouraged to take the courses.

Is there not some good news in the North of England today about a considerable number of jobs reopening for the miners there? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this has just been issued by the public relations officer of the National Coal Board? If the facts are as stated, does he appreciate that it would be very helpful to us on the North-East coast, since we have suffered tremendously from the closing of so many of our pits? Is my hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for this news?

My hon. Friend is right. The National Coal Board is now recruiting men, including older miners. This will certainly help the situation but we have still to bear the long-term consequences in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction workers are currently unemployed in Scotland, in total and by the employment exchange areas concerned.

At 9th November, 1970, there were 20,009 persons registered as unemployed in Scotland who last worked in the construction industry.

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

While I will look for the answer with a great deal of interest, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a very serious comment on all of us that we should have such a high rate of unemployment among construction workers? Is it not a scandal that we should have to announce such a position when there are thousands of homeless in Scotland who want to know what their housing opportunities are to be?

It may be a scandal, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this has developed during the time that his Party was in Government. If we look at the arrangements which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on 27th October, we can see that this will be a contribution towards easing the problems of the Scottish construction industry.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a disturbing fact that there should be spare resources in Scotland, in view of the state of housing? Do I understand that the Government expect the announcements made in October to increase the demand for building workers and the output of houses? Is not the unemployment in this industry due to the squeeze and should not this be looked at?

Yes, Sir. But some of the fiscal changes which were made will contribute towards solving the problem. Again this is not something which will be easily solved, as there has been a general contraction over the years in the Scottish construction industry. At least we are taking positive steps to do something about it.

Is it then the Government's policy to increase the number of houses to be built in Scotland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year, for the third year in succession, there will be a record number of houses built and all indications are that the Government's policy will drive that down?

That is an entirely different question and not one for me. The right hon. Gentleman knows from long experience that when the Conservatives are in power housing figures consistently go up.