asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will seek to amend the Redundancy Payments Act so as to prevent an employer who is reducing staff from transferring employees to other jobs and dismissing from those jobs employees who have served less than, or little more than, the minimum qualifying period under the Act, unless such transfers are provided for by an agreement between the employer and the trade unions representing those who are dismissed.

No, Sir. Procedures for dealing with redundancies are a matter appropriate for voluntary negotiation.

Can the Minister conceive of the resentment felt by a man who is sacked from a factory after a year's employment so that a man from a department which is to be closed down can be transferred into his job, solely because that man would, if dismissed, have a very high redundancy payments claim? Does he appreciate that this practice can militate against a man's chances of ever being employed long enough to have a proper redundancy entitlement? Will he consider whether its effect may be to establish the policy of last in, first out, on a much wider basis than has ever been contemplated hitherto?

I quite appreciate the situation that the hon. Gentleman described. I hope that it is not widespread, and I think that it probably is not, although I shall be glad to go into any cases he wishes to bring forward. I think that the general rule arrived at in negotiation between employer and employee is that those who arrive last, go first. In that case, what he said would not obtain in any well-run establishment. Negotiations between trade unions and employers would come to a proper arrangement on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures of unemployed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and by regions within the United Kingdom.

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

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first month of this year more days have been lost through unemployment than were lost by strikes in the first 11 months of 1970? Is it not high time the Government got their priorities right, created more job opportunities, and stopped attacking the workers, who have created the biggest trade surplus in history?

There are a lot of non sequiturs in that supplementary question. Of course the present unemployment figures are serious and should be taken seriously. But it is well known that, as history shows, there is a long time lag before changes in policy reflect themselves in unemployment figures. The current level of unemployment reflects the policies of the last Government.

Does the Minister agree that the figures will no doubt show an increase in unemployment in the regions and that the Government's policies, as outlined in yesterday's edition of The Times, seem to be having a standstill effect on new industrial opportunities going into the regions?

I would not, because the new policies, good or bad, have not yet had time to have an effect one way or the other.

This is the effect.

It certainly cannot be the effect as yet. The first requirement to deal with the unemployment situation is to control the present level of cost inflation. There can be no doubt that the extremely rapid rise in cost levels is seriously affecting the viability of many companies and, therefore, their ability both to employ people now and to invest to provide employment opportunities in the future.

Is the Minister fully convinced of the efficacy of the Government's policies, such as they are, for dealing with unemployment? If he is, will he give us an undertaking that as a consequence of the policies in which he believes and which he put forward, there will be a fall in unemployment within a reasonable time—say, the next six months?

The hon. Gentleman must address questions about regional policy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to employment comes from the fires of inflation which were lit by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and her right hon. and hon. Friends?

That is indeed true. The House and the country must realise that just as one man's inflationary increase is another man's price increase, so it is another man's unemployment.

Following is the information: TOTAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AND PERCENTAGE RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT AT 11TH JANUARY, 1971 (PROVISIONAL) Registered unemployed Percentage rate South East 147,265 1.9 East Anglia 18,353 2.9 South Western 45,001 3.4 West Midlands 56,915 2.5 East Midlands 37,807 2.7 Yorkshire and Humberside 67,285 3.3 North Western 93,125 3.1 Northern 67,573 5.1 Scotland 115,114 5.3 Wales 42,269 4.3 Great Britain 690,707 3.0 Northern Ireland 40,853 7.9 United Kingdom 731,560 3.1

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were prosecuted during 1970 under the Disabled Persons Employment Acts for failing to take or maintain their quota; and if he will make a statement.

None. Neither of these things by itself constitutes an offence under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave feeling in the organisations for the disabled that employers are dodging their responsibilities? Some Remploy officers feel this, and the disabled themselves feel that this is a most disgraceful state of affairs which is getting worse. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he is prepared to examine my claim that there is evasion, and that some employers are not taking up their full quota?

Yes, Sir. Many employers fail to reach their quota because of the unsuitability of those disabled people who are available. But I accept the genuine concern on both sides of the House and I am taking urgent steps to extend our enforcement procedure in this matter. In future, it is proposed to inspect the records of employers much more frequently. We are also looking at other measures by which we can perhaps stimulate greater activity in the employment of the disabled.

I am grateful to hear that my hon. Friend is seeking to improve the Department's enforcement policy, but this is a question not only of enforcement but of trying to persuade employers that to seek to fill their quota is a responsible attitude to take, to try to improve the deplorable record we have in the employment of the disabled.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also hope to initiate talks with leaders in various areas of commerce with just this aim in view.

Is the Minister satisfied that the present quota of 3 per cent. is enough, against the background of an unemployment figure in excess of 11 per cent. for employable disabled people? As he is a ware, this is a deeply sensitive human problem. Does he agree that we should have a Green Paper on the whole question of the employment problems of disabled people, including the very important problem of access to places of employment?

We are looking at all aspects, and perhaps in due course we shall be able to make an announcement. As to whether the quota of 3 per cent. is right, of course the figure could be increased, but we must be realistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said, the important thing is encouragement to get the right response. If we can fill the 3 per cent. I think that we shall be making very good progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment why information as to the number of employees employed by employers who employ a total of four persons or less is not available.

This figure would be excessively expensive and time-Consuming to extract. It is known that the number is less than three million but may be nearer to one million.

That is a staggering reply, particularly since this group of workers is specifically excluded under the unfair dismissal part of the Industrial Relations Bill. Will the Minister bear in mind that some of those workers, particularly agricultural workers, work in extremely precarious industries which are not known for having the best employers in the economy?

Perhaps these matters can still be considered during the discussions on the Bill. There is an admirable precedent for what we are doing. The right hon. Lady proposed exactly the same thing in her Industrial Relations Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy with regard to conditions of employment which require the membership of a trade union.

The Industrial Relations Bill establishes a clear legal right to belong or not to belong to a trade union and provides remedies against actions aimed at preventing or deterring a worker from exercising this right or discriminating against him for so doing.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of British Transport Hotels Ltd. to this policy and urge it not to discharge employees whose only fault is that they are unwilling to join a union?

At the moment, of course, all employers have to operate under the law as it stands, but I hope and imagine, particularly after our debate yesterday, that all employers will be aware of what the new policy is to be.

Following his reply, will the right hon. Gentleman issue publicity material to British Transport to give it guidance as to how it should encourage its employees to become members of trade unions?

I hope that British Rail and all employers, as I said last night, will regard it as one of their tasks normally to encourage their employees to join their appropriate unions. I do not think it would help for the Government to lay down precisely how each employer should do this.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many meetings were held by his Department in which they acted in the rôle of conciliators in the recent power dispute.

I and my conciliation officers held eleven meetings with the unions and the employers during the course of the dispute affecting industrial staff in the Electricity Supply Industry.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which outlines that the Government are using the conciliation officers at their disposal. At what stage did he decide to use conciliation? Was there a time lag?

No, Sir. It would have been inappropriate for me to have intervened before the industry's own machinery had broken down. The moment it did break down, I was informed of the fact by both employers and unions, who both asked to come to see my Department, and meetings were fixed up immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost as the result of the work-to-rule in the power workers' dispute.

Statistics of working days lost through industrial disputes relate only to stoppages of work and not to other forms of industrial action such as working to rule, nor are statistics available of days lost in establishments other than those in which the disputes occurred.

Will not the hon. Gentleman concede that working days were lost during the power strike and that there was considerable disruption in the economy? If he will concede that, can he inform us, in the light of experience, what future steps he is taking to ensure that there will be the minimum disruption as a consequence of any power strike if, for example, the unions reject the Wilberforce recommendations?

I do not think that the House will underestimate the number of hours lost in industry generally as a result of the work-to-rule. Everyone will concede that. Obviously, the Government look forward to every sort of eventuality and are ready for it. We hope that we shall not have to put these steps into action.

Has there been any assessment of the total impact on national production caused by the work-to-rule? Is it not a nonsense, and a contradiction in terms, that action which causes danger to health and, indeed, to life is called a "work-to-rule"? Should not the rules in these circumstances change?

We have given a good deal of thought to the whole question of the amount of disruption and the hours of production lost in industry as a whole. It is impossible to get anything like an accurate figure in this respect without literally requiring a return from employers, and so on, which would not be possible. One can do no more than make one's own judgment.

Bearing in mind the recent power dispute and statements made in the House about it by hon. Members opposite, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many station superintendents in the electricity supply industry have since spoken in glowing terms of the co-operation they received from their workers during the dispute? Is it not time that the Government acknowledged this fact, which is contrary to the statements they were making during the dispute?

I do not think that the Government have made any derogatory remarks about power workers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of days lost in industrial disputes was lost by power station workers in 1969; and how this compares with the national average.

Separate figures are not available for power station workers but working days lost in the electricity industry accounted for just under 0.2 per cent. of all working days lost through stoppages in the United Kingdom in 1969. This represents about 45 days lost per 1,000 employees in the electricity industry compared with about 300 days lost per 1,000 employees in all industries and services.

As the hon. Gentleman's Answer shows, very great disruption can be caused in the power industry without workers going on strike. Can he tell us how his Industrial Relations Bill would have affected the dispute that took place before Christmas?

The question of how the Bill affects a single disruption of any sort is not a helpful way to approach it. As has been explained time and again in the debate on the Bill, its whole purpose is to provide a background that will in good time supply better negotiating machinery and more orderly collective bargaining. If we start from that, over a period of time we expect disputes to decrease in number and in severity.

If, as we are constantly told, it is essential to put industrial relations within a framework of law, surely the hon. Gentleman can tell the House how that framework would impinge on a particular, concrete situation. If not, what are we all wasting our time about?

May I then ask the right hon. Lady how—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—"In Place Of Strife" would have affected that dispute?

Answer.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have heard your predecessors inform Ministers on several ocasions that it is not a Minister's privilege to ask questions but that it is his responsibility to answer them.

Order. I join my predessor in deprecating points of order during Question Time. The content of an answer is not a matter for me. If a Minister chooses to put his answer in the form of a question, that is not a matter for me.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the position for the future with power workers is greatly aggravated by the fact that the chairman of the nationalised industry has had an increase from £12,500 to £17,500 a year, being a 40 per cent. advance, and that the leader of the union, Mr. Chapple, has now given himself an advance of 42 per cent., after deprecating advances for senior civil servants? Is not that sheer, naked aggravation in an already difficult situation?

I do not know whether this information is relevant——

It is relevant.

If it is relevant, it will undoubtedly be considered by the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry.

Does the Minister agree that the difference between the Treasury Civil Servants and Mr. Chapple is that the Treasury was opposing the 10 per cent. increase while Mr. Chapple was in favour of getting proper reward for his members?

I do not think that that has anything to do with the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the comparative figures for the number of persons employed in the brick industry in the employment areas covered by the Faversham constituency in October, 1964, and June, 1970.

The figures for June, 1970, should be available by the middle of the year. Until then, I cannot add to the reply given to a similar Question on 16th July, 1970, when I said that the number of those in employment in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Sheerness Employment Exchange Areas in bricks, fireclay and refractory goods industries fell from about 500 at mid-1964 to about 200 at mid-1969.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there was a continuing decline of this important local industry during the last year of the Labour Government and that this represents a very serious loss to an area which is suffering from higher than average unemployment? Is he aware that there is special need in certain areas of the South-East for the encouragement of new industries and a more generous granting of industrial development certificates?

I accept that there has been a decline. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the latter part of his supplementary question is not for me. But I am informed that there are some signs of improvement in the brick industry generally, and perhaps the Faversham area will benefit from that.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, were we able to enter the Common Market, this area of the country would do very well and new industry would come to it?

I should be getting into deep water if I started debating the Common Market on a question of this sort.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he has made to enter into wage negotiations involving workers eligible for Family Incomes Supplement to ensure that wages will be increased substantially enough to save public expenditure on the supplement in relation to all save the largest families.

None, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman persuade his right hon. Friend, in setting up the committees he is establishing at his Department, to give one of them the job of finding out where these lower-paid workers are and in what industries they are employed? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is morally wrong to ask the taxpayers to subsidise employers who are paying wages which are, to all intents and purposes, below the living level? If such workers go on strike for justifiable wage increases, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, contrary to previous practice, the Government will make pronouncements aimed at the betterment of those workers' conditions?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. But I do not agree that the Family Incomes Supplement represents a subsidy by the taxpayers of lower-paid workers. We expect the supplement to affect only a small percentage of households.

Does it not mean that the higher wage and salary earners must contemplate a reduction because of the position of average income in this country?

I am afraid that I am not clear about the point my hon. Friend is making, but it is true that, as long as there are real differentials, so long will there be lower-paid workers and a lower-paid workers' problem.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, when a wage claim is made to bring a person's wage up to at least £15 a week, the Department will support it, because it is a claim for a sum at which people can barely live, and that it will not lean on the unions to take less?

As a general proposition, I cannot support something which might refer to a particular situation. If the hon. Gentleman is talking of the idea of a national minimum wage, then that is something which the Government are considering.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those industrial disputes concerned with pay which have led to strikes or other industrial action involving more than 10,000 employees since 1st July, 1970, and indicate those in which the claim for an increase had been first made before 1st June, 1970.

As the reply is somewhat lengthy I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

That is not a great deal of information upon which to base a supplementary Question.

Supplementaries are not compulsory.

May I ask whether the reply, when I see it, will indicate that many or some of these wage claims started before the election and that, therefore, the impact of this rush of substantial wage claims is the inheritance of six years of Labour Government and indicates just how bad conditions had become throughout industry, so that the unions involved felt it necessary to put these substantial wage claims forward?

Yes, Sir. The full answer will show that it is a fact rather than a debating point that the Government took over a situation of excessive claims that were likely to lead to disputes unless the employers made settlements which were bound to be inflationary.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the first wage claim dealt with by the present Government was that of the doctors? Is it not fair and equitable that working people should base their wage claims on the 20 per cent. criterion laid down in that case by the Government?

That claim was not a once-a-year claim.

When the Minister is producing his list, will he include those disputes which would not have taken place if the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill had been in force?

That is not the Question I have been asked.

Did not the Prime Minister make a substantial contribution to the generation of inflationary pressures when on television in February and April, 1970, he said that wages in this country were low compared with other Western European countries and that he was in favour of high wages? Was not that an incitement?

I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can slide away from their responsibilities in this way. The background to the question with which we are dealing is the situation starting at the beginning of last year when the Government were laying down a norm of 2½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. for 1970, which was absolutely meaningless against the background of wage settlements which were made.

Equally the Government cannot slide away from their ancestry. Is it not a fact that the present Government fought and won the election on the proposition that inflation could not be blamed on the wage demands of workers but on the level of prices and that the right way to cure it was not by trying to hold wage rates down, of which they accused the Labour Government, but by acting directly and immediately on prices? And did not the Government win the election on a lie?

At no time during the election campaign, or at any other time, did the Prime Minister give the slightest inclination that he would condone wage rises of the type that we have had recently.

Following is the information:

The following stoppages of work since 1st July, 1970 were the result of pay disputes and involved more than 10,000 employees: the national stoppage by dock workers between 13th and 31st July: the local authority manual workers' stoppage between 29th September and 13th November: the stoppage in the coal mining industry between 26th October and 20th November: and the current stoppage by Post Office workers. The dispute involving some municipal and company busmen led to stoppages in some areas and other industrial action between 5th September and 21st November. Industrial action short of a strike was taken in three instances: by industrial staff in electricity supply from 7th to 14th December, by some employees in civil air transport from 14th December, and by members of the Fire Brigade Union from 17th December. In two cases, the claims were made before 1st June, 1970. That for local authority manual workers was first presented in April, 1970 and the latest in a series of claims which finally led to the stoppage by dock workers was presented in March, 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes occurred in 1970; and by what percentage this figure exceeds the comparable figures for 1969 and 1964.

There were 3,888 stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in 1970. This was an increase of 25 per cent. over 1969 and a 54 per cent. increase since 1964.

Will not these startling figures provide strong supporting reasons for the legislation which is now passing through the House in Committee? Could my right hon. Friend say what proportion of these stoppages were unofficial and what proportion official?

I cannot offhand give the exact figures, but I am sure that I should not be far wrong if I said that about 95 per cent. of all industrial disputes were unofficial. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the present situation does stress the urgent need for some action. The previous Government recognised that over two years ago but they did nothing about it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that over the same period of time the number of days lost through illness rose from 280 million to 312 million— that for every one day's strike, 30 days were lost through illness? Would he not apply the same energy to industrial health as he seems to be applying to industrial relations?

That, too, is an important question in terms of industrial effect and we must do all that we can to improve the situation. In terms of industrial effect the loss through illness and voluntary absenteeism is not comparable with the loss through strikes because whereas places can be kept going when one or two people are away, they cannot keep going when the whole place is shut down.

To what extent does my right hon. Friend think that the alarming increase in disputes is attributable to the steep increase in the taxpayers' subsidy of strikes through the supplementary benefit system? Is he aware that if there is any truth in this morning's reports that the Government may be thinking of continuing this curious practice, this might be unlikely to reduce the continuous proliferation of strikes?

Any question of legislation in the social security sphere must be for my right hon. Friend to deal with. Evidence on this subject is not so easy to come by. The cause for the increase in strikes is difficult to analyse, but we are in no doubt that one of the reasons is that they have been a side effect of a statutory incomes policy, one which we forecast many years ago.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we should get a more balanced picture if we looked at the statistics over a period? Is he aware that if we look at the period from 1964 until May, 1970, and compare it with the preceding comparable period from 1959 to 1964, no matter whether we calculate it in terms of number of days lost, number of workers involved or the number of strikes, the figures almost exactly match?

As the Donovan Report pointed out, in June 1968, the serious and urgent problem was the number of strikes and their increase in all industries other than coalmining.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the number of days lost from stoppages due to strikes in 1970; how this figure compares with those for the previous five years; and what percentage of both were due to unofficial strikes.

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

Is it not a fact that the vast increase in the number of strikes, as given in the previous Answer, causes disruption in other industries? What evidence has my hon. Friend that the increasing number of strikes is the cause of rising unemployment?

I do not think that I have any evidence on paper to prove that point. I can but reiterate what has been said previously, that undoubtedly the number of strikes causes great disruption. By any standards, whether by days lost or by number of strikes, the situation is getting progressively worse. The table which will be published as an answer to the Question shows that in 1965 the total number of days lost was just less than three million, while last year it was over ten million. The escalation has been very rapid.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Donovan that while the majority of strikes investigated by Donovan were unofficial, they lasted only two or three days, while official disputes were three or four times longer? Will not the Government's legislation bring about the development of official disputes which may last for weeks and months, as happens in America and which will damage the British economy more than anything that has happend before?

We certainly and sincerely do not believe that that forecast will prove to be correct. It is worth underlining once again that all these unofficial strikes, short or long, are, relatively speaking, more disruptive than official strikes.

Following is the information: STOPPAGES OF WORK DUE TO INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, UNITED KINGDOM Working days lost in all stoppages in progress in year (000's) Total(1) As a result of stoppages Known to have been official † (2) Column (2) as Percentage Column(1) 1970* … 10,970 2,734 24.9 1969 … 6,846 1,613 23.6 1968 … 4,690 2,199 46.1 1967 … 2,787 394 14.1 1966 … 2,398 1,171 48.8 1965 … 2,925 607 20.8 * Provisional. † Separate estimates are available only for stoppages known to have been official.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions he has given to industrial training authorities under his control to alert themselves for evidence of drug taking among 15-to 18-year-olds.

None, Sir.

It is advisable to await the outcome of the Misuse of Drugs Bill and to see what schemes of information collecting and monitoring may be introduced.

Leaving the punitive measures out of this, does the Departmental philosophy accept in the matter of care and help with drugs that those at work are at a disadvantage compared with those at school?

The campaign against drug taking must be directed from the Home Office. If, as a result of the Misuse of Drugs Bill, my Department is required to co-operate we shall gladly do so. Frankly, I do not see that we shall be able to help to a tremendous extent in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average weekly wage at 1st January; how this figure is broken down expressed as earnings for male worker and female worker, respectively; and how the wages index has changed, compared to that of the retail prices index over the last five years.

Figures of average weekly earnings are not available for 1st January but are available for October of each year.

At October, 1970, the provisional figures of average weekly earnings of full-time manual workers were £28 Os. 11d. for men aged 21 years and over, and £13 19s. 10d. for women aged 18 years and over. Between October, 1965 and October, 1970, average earnings of all workers covered by the regular inquiry rose by 45.9 per cent. and the general index of retail prices by 26.4 per cent.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that detailed Answer, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that wages and salaries account for a figure of £29,000 million out of a national income of £35,000 million? Is this not evidence that one man's pay rise today is another man's price rise and that if the nation is to level out incomes then there is no alternative to higher wage and salary earners accepting a reduction for the benefit of the lower wage and salary earners?

My hon. Friend would be surprised if I could absolutely confirm the figures he gave at the beginning of his supplementary question. Although it is never argued that prices rise in absolute direct relation to wages, undoubtedly the excessive wage claims that we have had are a major cause of the excessive price rises.

Is the Minister aware that there are women in the Shetlands who last year were earning only £10 to £13 a week? While it may be impossible to have the type of detailed prices and incomes policy which we have attempted from time to time, does not he agree that we must have an incomes policy which ensures justice, otherwise those at the top of the scale and those who are highly organised get enormous increases and those at the bottom of the scale are left behind altogether?

The whole accent of the Government's policy has been in favour of the lower-paid worker. At the same time, when this country had a statutory wages policy the lower-paid worker suffered and gained no advantage from it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that male industrial earnings in the West Riding of Yorkshire are about 25 per cent. lower than the average, and that unemployment in that region is rising faster than anywhere else in the country? Will he do his best to bring the new science-based industries to this region, which are so crucially needed for diversification and high earnings?

The West Riding of Yorkshire is an area which I know very well, for I have lived and worked there, and I realise the needs which my hon. Friend describes. However, regional policy, with which the Government are extremely exercised, comes under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

If the Government's policy is designed to help the low-paid worker against the higher-paid worker, why have the Government done their best to prevent postmen getting more than an 8 per cent. increase, whereas, when the Secretary of State was informed last December by Chrysler directors that they intended to give an 18 per cent. increase to their workers at Lynwood, he raised no objection?

Neither of these statements is true.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will initiate an urgent inquiry into the decline in employment in Glenrothes, Fife.

No, Sir.

Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that there is a good deal of disquiet among trade unions about the way in which things are developing in Glenrothes? Will he undertake to inquire of firms, particularly big firms, in Glenrothes the trend over the last six or 12 months as there seems to be justification for measures to be taken by the Government, not only in Glenrothes but in Scotland as a whole?

Part of our policy is to maintain contact with the employers in areas of difficulty. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the electronic industry in that part of the world, but I am pleased that most of the redundant workers have been re-placed. We are not complacent about this and will certainly look at it further.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a new retail food prices index, the weights of which relate to food consumption patterns in households which have a total income of less than £20 a week.

Households with weekly incomes of less than £20 vary to such an extent in size and pattern of food consumption that no reliable index could be established.

Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Is he further aware that the Government are not only deliberately forcing up food prices but are also trying to hold down the wages of lower-paid workers? It is not true, as his right hon. Friend implied, that the Government are offering the workers a choice between more wages and a higher level of unemployment. The Government are forcing them to accept both.

I do not accept that string of assertions. The Cost of Living Advisory Committee looked into this in 1968 and found that it simply did not make sense, because of the great variety in the patterns of households, except in the case of the one-person or two-person households.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that one reason for the slight rise in food prices is the tremendous increase in the sale of "convenient" foods? If people want "convenient" foods they will have to pay the correct price for them.

This is a question about food price indices rather than about food prices. Nevertheless, I agree that my hon. Friend has talked a lot of sense.

Does not the fact that the rise in the price of food has been faster since 18th June than it was before, and that food prices are expected to go up 10 per cent. in the next year, reinforce the argument against the Government's selective incomes policy which is being forced upon the public sector, which is already behind the private sector and it is therefore not surprising that we now have the highest level of strikes since 1957, when a Tory Government were last in power?

As I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, I do not accept the arguments which follow from it. As I say, this question is about indices and not about food prices.

asked the Prime Minister whether he had any official meetings with officers of the International Monetary Fund during his recent visit to Washington.

asked the Prime Minister when he will seek to pay a visit to the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund.

I did not meet officers of the International Monetary Fund when I was in Washington, nor do I plan to visit their headquarters.

That is a pity, because no doubt the Prime Minister would have relished being able to tell the officials of the Fund that in 1970 we had a record balance of payments surplus compared with the last time when he was in a position to address them officially.

Order. Will the hon. Member now put a question?

In the light of our balance of payments surplus and the present reliance on monetary policy, will the Prime Minister consider approaching the officials of the Fund for permission for a temporary flow of sterling to relieve the dilemmas of his present reliance on monetary policy?

No, Sir. These matters are handled by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

When the Prime Minister next visits the International Monetary Fund will he explain why, in his speech of 16th June last year, he said that the balance of payments was heading downhill and that the surplus would melt away in a matter of months—or were those words for domestic consumption only?

No, Sir, because those words were correct. The figures showed it, and they could not be challenged at the time. The trend of those months was a running-down. I am glad now to welcome the fact that the balance of payments on current account last year was strong. I welcome it particularly, as I know does the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it enables us to make progress in paying off the enormous debts left to us by the Labour Administration.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that at the moment there is no conflict between the authorities of the I.M.F. and Her Majesty's Government on economic policies?

That is correct. I know of no conflict between the I.M.F. and Her Majesty's Government.

As it is clear from the figures already published that the balance of payments for the second half of 1970 will be even better than for the first half, and that the right hon. Gentleman was therefore clearly wrong in June, does he not now have the self-confidence to admit, without blustering, that he was mistaken on one point at least?

If I had been mistaken in what I said at the time I would tell the right hon. Gentleman so, but he knows perfectly well that he could not prove that it was a mistake.

Really!

There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman slumping in his seat and saying, "Really". If he could have proved it at the time he would have done so. If not, he was failing in his duty both to his party and to the electorate.

We have now heard the right hon. Gentleman's idea of his duty to his party and the electorate, namely, to say things that are not true and to hope that they will not be denied. He has now twice said that when he told us what was false about the balance of payments, he was able to do it only because we did not have the figures for the second quarter to prove him wrong. Is he now saying that we did not have the figures then available and he relied on that to prove the deception?

Not in the least. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be referring to the current account and not to the balance of payments, because he knows perfectly well that the complete balance of payments cannot yet be available.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct his Ministers to give reasons to hon. Members when they decide to transfer Questions.

No, Sir, because the reason for transferring Questions is that they have been addressed to the wrong Minister.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is the worst offender? On his performance this afternoon he is not only transferring Questions but beginning to transfer supplementary answers as well? Does he not think that we should be able to ask Questions without their being transferred? Will he come clean with the House, and get to grips with the realities of the country's problems?

If the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends ask such inadequate supplementaries they must expect to have Questions transferred. There has been a 57 per cent. increase in Questions to myself, and a 40 per cent. increase in the number of Questions answered, with no increase in my staff to deal with them. If there had been the same 40 per cent. increase in productivity throughout the nation, with the number of staff remaining unchanged, we should not have any problems.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is on record as telling the House that certain Ministers are designated to answer certain Questions on prices? We can understand why the Prime Minister and the Government are touchy about prices, but does he not agree that it is going too far, almost to the edge of political cowardice, when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food refuses point blank to carry out the Prime Minister's instruction to answer my Questions and those of other hon. Members on prices? Will he put a stop to it?

My right hon. Friends have not refused to answer, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

On a point of order. For the purpose of future statistics of Prime Ministerial Questions, may we have your Ruling that Questions begged by the Prime Minister will not be listed as Questions answered by him?

That is not a point of order.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had in his recent talks with President Nixon about international monetary problems.

The details of my talks with President Nixon are confidential.

Following the failure to cut Bank Rate today, are we to take it that the Prime Minister is unwilling to change his solutions to these problems so as to bring down the intolerable level of unemployment, and that, therefore, his priority for unemployment is different from that of the late Iain Macleod?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of future Bank Rate is never discussed in the House.

Whilst I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's discussions with President Nixon must be confidential, did he tell President Nixon that his electoral expansionist policy was likely to increase the balance of payments deficit for the United States and put Europe once again in the dilemma of having to accept either dollars or gold? Despite his interest in apartheid and South Africa, will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will not support an increase in the price of gold and devaluation of the dollar?

These are matters one does not discuss in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that as I do not accept his premise, I did not tell President Nixon that.

asked the Prime Minister if he will reduce the number of Ministers in the Department of Employment.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that all sections of British industry are suffering from the worst wholly-unemployed figures since the end of the Second World War and that a few more Tory Ministers added to the unemployed will not make any appreciable difference? Would he also accept that the pledge which he gave on 16th June, among the many other pledges, to cut unemployment at a stroke has now been added to the long list of broken promises?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House while I was in Singapore— and this has been emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer— that if a high rate of cost inflation continues, there is bound to be higher unemployment. It is the whole question of inflation that we are tackling at this moment. If the Leader of the Opposition likes to give his support in the country to stopping excessive inflationary wage claims, he and the hon. Gentleman might serve some more useful purpose.

The right hon. Gentleman will not continue to get away with this kind of answer. As I understand it, he is now trying to say that the reason he has broken his pledge on unemployment, in common with all the other pledges, is inflation. Was not that pledge about unemployment, which was also covered by the phrase "at a stroke" since it was all the same sentence, made in the course of a long discourse on inflation, involving a promise to break into the price-wage inflation so that we could cut unemployment? Why has he flown in the face of those clear election pledges?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that throughout the election I emphasised that the basic cause of inflation was the wage explosion which had been released by his right hon. Friend. It was the deliberate abandonment of the right hon. Gentleman's prices and incomes policy as well as his abandonment of the reform of industrial relations which led to that position.

Since two of our Ministers can carry out the work of four Ministers in the Labour Government, does my right hon. Friend not agree that, once the Industrial Relations Bill is through the House, we should not only be able to reduce the number of Ministers in the Department of Employment but also to get rid of the present inflation, reform the strike situation in industry and thus reduce employment?

As the House knows, when I formed this Administration, I greatly reduced the number of Ministrys below that required by the present Leader of the Opposition in the former Administration. Of course, I shall keep the numbers under review in the same way as I shall keep under review the whole organisation and machinery of government.

Was it part of the Prime Minister's anti-wage inflationary policy during the election to endorse the statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for the then Government not to pay 30 per cent. to the doctors was wholly unacceptable?

I dealt with that matter fully and I always challenged the Leader of the Opposition, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Secretary of State for Social Services to say exactly what was the economic situation in which they were deciding the doctor's award. On that they would never come clean, but now we know what it was.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Dorset in 1971.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the famous conviction of industrial workers in the County of Dorset for joining a trade union in the first industrial revolution? Is he also aware of the inadequacies of the law in the first half of the nineteenth century to deal with the problems of trade union organisation? Will he not further concede the inadequacies of the present legislation that is going through the House to deal with the problems of the second industrial revolution and will he not withdraw that legislation?

As the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows, the Tolpuddle Martyrs were not convicted— [Interruption.] I can understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment, because he got the story wrong—under the Combination Acts against forming or joining a trade union. They were convicted under an Act of 1797 against administering an oath by an unlawful society. This was done under Lord Grey's Whig administration, for which I accept no responsibility whatever. They were then in 1836 returned to this country under Lord Melbourne's administration. What would astonish them if they were alive today would be to see the Labour Party and members of the trade unions actively opposing the reform of industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in view of his statement that he intends to dispose of the publicly-owned company, Thos. Cook & Son Ltd., what consultations he has had with the Trade Unions concerned and if he will make a statement as to the procedure to be followed and the terms he will require to safeguard the interests of its employees.

I recognise how important this decision is from the point of view of the staff whose interests and welfare will be kept very much in mind both by the Government and the Transport Holding Company. I have already had a preliminary meeting with the General Secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association at which I assured him that, in the event of sale, the pension rights of the staff would be safeguarded. The unions will be fully consulted at all stages about the detailed arrangements which will now be worked out in conjunction with the Transport Holding Company.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that this is a matter of considerable importance, may I ask why did he not come to the House yesterday to make a statement instead of sheltering behind a Written Answer? Is he aware that his decision is widely regarded as another act of political spite against the public sector? Is it his ultimate intention to leave the entire public transport complex with only its loss-making activities?

Will he accept a bid for Thomas Cook from another public undertaking such as British Rail or British European Airways? Is he aware that much of Thomas Cook's business is in foreign exchange transactions, and how does he propose to deal with that problem? Finally, is he aware that the staff of Thomas Cook enjoy rather better rates of pay and conditions of service than do staff in the private sector of travel agencies? Will he ensure that when the sale takes place the conditions of service and superannuation arrangements of the staff of Thomas Cook will be fully protected?

I have already dealt with the last part of that question and the answer is "Yes". May I first deal with the point made by the hon. Gentleman about any discourtesy to the House? The answer was given yesterday to a Written Question. I had hoped that it would be to an Oral Question [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] But in fact it turned out to be the third Question asked by the hon. Member concerned and so the answer was allowed to go as a Written Answer. I must explain to the House that the Government were in some dilemma since they had to choose between answering the Question yesterday, or alternatively eating into the time allocated to the Industrial Relations Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Excuses."] Perhaps I might be allowed to observe that until this moment I had understood hon. Members opposite to be anxious to win some time for the Industrial Relations Bill. Certainly no discourtesy was intended to the House, and if there is any suggestion of that I unreservedly apologise.

In reply to the hon. Gentleman's point about a public corporation being free to make an offer for this concern, if it has the cash available to do so I imagine it will be free to make an offer, along with any other interested body.

In regard to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about spite against a nationalised concern and the very great venom with which, uncharacteristically, he asked that part of his question, I would only say that until now I had not regarded Thomas Cook and Son as being one of the commanding heights of the economy.

In disposing of this very important business, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it has developed very much less of its true potential because of the financing terms imposed upon it by the British Transport Holding Authority, and in particular in respect of the sale of travellers' cheques which in private hands would be a source of very large revenue, had Thomas Cook not been so disallowed?

Yes, Sir. I am obliged to my hon. Friend and will certainly bear in mind what he has said. I have little doubt that under private management this concern should be able considerably to improve its earning record.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is compounding this scandalous decision by the sheer hypocrisy of the way in which yesterday he tried to shield behind a Written Answer—hypocrisy which is uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman? In regard to whether this great undertaking can be acquired by another publicly-owned industry if such an industry wants to make a bid, does it not come before the right hon. Gentleman to approve as a piece of capital investment? Will he not refuse that in turn?

I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman, who usually speaks with such moderation, straying into hyperbole which betrays the weakness of his case. I have absolutely nothing to add to the answer I gave to his hon. Friend just now, namely, that if a public corporation has the resources available to make a bid, I am sure it is free to do so.

Could it be made clear to any purchaser of Thomas Cook that it should not expect to have the monopoly of travel facilities within the Palace of Westminster? Will he give an undertaking that in future this franchise will be put out to tender to the whole travel business?

That is a very important matter which I have no doubt will receive——

Why not sell off the Chamber?

It depends on the contents.

As I was saying in reply to my hon. Friend, the question of the franchise of serving this House will no doubt receive the energetic consideration of the Services Committee.

Since the right hon. Gentleman does not regard Thomas Cook as a commanding height of the economy, may we take it that he regards it as a nice morsel of loot?

My answer to that is quite clear—no. Whoever acquires Thomas Cook will have to pay a very steep price.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision will be widely welcomed? Is it not clear to anybody who takes the trouble to look at the balance sheets of Thomas Cook that the return on assets employed is very poor and is falling? Is it not therefore very much in the interests of the taxpayer that it should be sold at a fair price and the proceeds used in a more useful manner?

I entirely endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has always been held in such respect in this House for his polished performances that we are disappointed that he should try to emulate his Leader in the level of his remarks?

Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that he does not know that if one hon. Member has three Questions on the Order Paper the third is not reached? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the abundant precedent for asking leave to answer an Oral Question and even, appropriately, a Written Question?

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer another question put by my hon. Friend in his opening supplementary—namely, whether another public company can bid for Thomas Cook? The right hon. Gentleman said "If they have the cash". Will he therefore allow any other publicly-owned organisation to borrow in the City, exactly as the private buyer will be able to do, to buy the assets of Thomas Cook? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking — [Interruption.] —that Thomas Cook, which is widely respected and is responsible for the safety of so many hon. Members flying abroad, and their welfare— [Interruption.] —yes, literally—will not be sold to one of the crook organisations in the tourist travel industry which are not too squeamish about the safety of their customers——

Names?

On a point of order. I distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition refer to "crook organisations". As all travel agencies are properly conducted— [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—in accordance with legal and statutory requirements, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule now that the term "crook organisations", directed against people outside this House, is an unparliamentary expression unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman which ought, in common decency, to be unreservedly withdrawn?

Further to that point of order. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—I shall wait; do not worry. Is it not true that Sir Thomas Cook—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Thomas!"]—and Son has in no way contributed to the many thousands of holidaymakers who have been filched by the crooks to whom my right hon. Friend referred?

Further to that point of order raised by the hon. Member for Worcester——

Not Worcester. Worcestershire, South.

—would it not be quite simple, as a matter of public record, to list those companies against which actions have been successfully brought?

Further to that point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has, within the last month, agreed to take action against a travel agency about 50 yards from this House—the Westminster Touring Association—and that the remarks of my right hon. Friend are fully justified?

Order. I am grateful for all this assistance, but I was prepared to rule straight away. I think that there is a convention in this House that remarks made in the general are permissible.

I also thank hon. Members for their help. Perhaps I might finish the sentence. I referred to crook organisations, of which I have, through members of my family, personal knowledge, and the fleecing of a lot of— [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen want to justify an organisation, not a hundred yards from where I am speaking, which fleeced vicar after vicar and parishioners throughout the country going to Oberammergau this year and demanded more money on the eve of going—this includes my sister, who was fleeced, too, if hon. Gentlemen are interested—will they get up and justify it? I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman, whose standards I know to be higher than those who have just interrupted, will give an assurance not to sell Thomas Cook to firms of that kind?