asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the increase in the numbers of male persons and of juveniles who are unemployed in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region compared with one year ago.

At 8th March, 1971 the provisional number of males registered as unemployed in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 8,258 higher than at 9th March, 1970. The corresponding increase for young persons was 1,313.

Is the Minister aware that, bad as the figures are, a serious increase is likely to occur in the next few weeks in view of recent developments? May I ask the hon. Gentleman what hard action —to use the phrase which the Secretary of State used in the debate last year—he propses to take to improve the very serious situation in the Yorkshire area?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are three intermediate areas in the region, including that announced on 10th March of Bridlington and Filey. I think that it is true to say that the increase is largely due to the rise in the numbers of those on short time. While this is not satisfactory, it is at least better than their being wholly unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what increase has taken place in male and in juvenile unemployment in the exchange areas of the Rother Valley constituency during the last 12 months.

At 8th March, 1971 the provisional number of males registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Rotherham, Maltby and Dinning-ton Employment Exchange was 268 lower than at 9th March, 1970. The number of young persons was 27 higher.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I was aware of those figures, but obviously the hon. Gentleman has not taken account of the very serious increase in unemployment now occurring in those three exchange areas. Does he recall saying last year that April was a particularly chilly month in the unemployment sense? Will it be even frostier in 1971?

We sincerely hope not, because a great deal is being done to try to combat the rise in unemployment. Those are the very latest figures, the figures for March. There has been a fall. That does not mean that the situation is necessarily satisfactory up there, but I am hopeful that it will not become a great deal worse. We shall do all we can to make sure that it does not.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the failure of the second stage of the Devlin proposals to produce the productivity figures necessary to maintain United Kingdom ports in full employment and efficiency.

Devlin II agreements have been introduced in six major ports, mostly fairly recently. Port employers in five of these claim that the agreements have not adversely affected throughput. In the London Enclosed Docks there has been a fall in the amount of conventional cargo handled, and I am informed that the industry is examining how this position can be improved.

I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. Will he confirm that Devlin stage II has been more efficiently implemented by the Southampton Docks and Harbours Board, the employers and the dock employees? Can he give some comparative figures?

Reports from Southampton are certainly good. There is good cooperation, and the traffic is increasing. I see in this morning's Lloyd's List that Mr. Stringer, the dock director, has sent a message to the dock workers and staff saying that 1971 looks like being a record year for the port. Tees-side has also had very good results. I visited there the other day. I cannot give a comparison with all the other ports.

Is the Minister aware that in Liverpool only this week an agreement has been finally reached with the union and the port employers to open the list for further dockers to be taken on, that this process is now going on, and that, I think, 780 new workers will be taken on? Is he also aware that the number of applications was about 3,000 or 4,000—that may be an understatement—owing to the very high unemployment on Merseyside, and that this is obviously the result of Government policy?

I cannot accept that it is the result of Government policy, but it is obviously a disturbing situation. I can only say that my Department has it very much in mind.

Now that the legislative programme of the Minister's Department is a little less, as the Industrial Relations Bill has gone to the other place, will the Minister take the opportunity of asking his right hon. Friend to visit some of the major docks in the weeks ahead? I am certain that Merseyside will give him a sincere, although warm, welcome.

I cannot say that the work ahead is such that my right hon. Friend will be altogether slack, but I know of his very great interest in the ports. As I said, I visited Tees-side two weeks ago. We shall certainly keep our eyes on the situation, both personally and as a Department.

The Question refers to United Kingdom ports. Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the present position on Clydeside?

I have nothing to report at the minute.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress being made towards equal pay; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made with the implemention of the Equal Pay Act; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to keep himself informed of progress towards the implementation of equal pay, preparatory to fulfilling the requirements of Section 9 of the Equal Pay, Act, 1970.

There has been progress towards equal pay in many industries spread across a wide sector of the economy, I am keeping in touch with progress through the information my Department receives about pay settlements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a marked lack of progress towards the achievement of equal pay? The only group of women to achieve it in 1970 were butchers. I appreciate the Government's high regard for butchers, but will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to encourage employers to implement this important principle and consider establishing an intermediate standard to be reached by the end of 1973?

Women butchers may be the only women to have achieved equal pay in 1970, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Act only requires achievement by 1975. The keynote of the Act was that we should make orderly progress towards equal pay. It is too early to consider whether an Order will be needed in 1973, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to see the Act implemented and that I will do all I can to ensure that it is implemented smoothly.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that implementation of the Act is not frustrated by some employers who deliberately segregate women into jobs with abnormally low rates of pay to prevent comparisons being made with men's wages?

As the hon. Lady, and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), know, this is one of the matters to which much thought was given during the debates on the Bill. I cannot compel employers to employ men on certain jobs and not women, or vice versa. But I assure the hon. Lady that we shall keep a close watch on the situation. I do not think we are aware of any signs of that sort of thing happening at the moment, but if they come to notice I should appreciate being told about them.

I appreciate that there are no overt signs that this is happening, but will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to make a public speech in which he, first, reminds employers of his reserve powers under Section 9 of the Act and, therefore, of the necessity for them to take phased steps towards equal pay in the intervening period, and, secondly, points out to employers that if there is any attempt to bypass or evade the Act in the way mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) the House would welcome amending legislation?

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her constructive suggestion. I shall look for such an opportunity, because I want to assure not only the House but the country that we in this Administration intend to ensure that implementation of the Act is pushed forward just as hard as the right hon. Lady would wish.

Has my right hon. Friend any evidence of "Heffers" being disposed of by women butchers?

That would require an independent inquiry of a very deep nature and I should have great trouble in finding the necessary equivalent of Lord Wilberforce to chair it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received following the decision not to reappoint Professor Hugh Clegg as Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal; and what replies he has sent.

Representations have been made by the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and by some Civil Service Unions. These have raised a number of points to which I have given individual replies.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he take full cognisance of what it means when the national Staff Side makes its representations? Does he not think that it would be in the interests of the Staff Side and everyone else if he were to reappoint Professor Clegg? Will he use his good offices to stop the Government loading the dice in the manner that they have done on industrial relations?

I do not accept for a moment the implications in the last part of the supplementary question. The Question is about reappointment, and reappointments are always open. We must put this the other way round for a moment and wonder what the Staff Side would have said had the independent Chairman accepted nomination as an employers' representative on a court. There is no slight on Pressor Clegg's integrity, but if one takes on a job which is judicial in nature one must, however reluctantly, refrain from doing things which otherwise one would have done quite properly.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for the use of computers in his Department.

The Department already uses computers for the compilation and processing of statistics, for the staff payroll, for making repayments of selective employment tax, and to a limited extent for compiling lists of vacancies. Consideration is being given to using computers to assist the employment service more widely but no decisions have been taken.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that information. What proposals does his Department have for the computerisation of more personal information, particularly in matching vacancies with applicants? Furthermore, what track is his Department keeping of the computerised personal information services now being built up on personnel by many big British companies?

Since the autumn of 1970, lists of vacancies in the London area have been compiled by computer and circulated to employment exchanges in the London area. Arrangements have just been made to begin compiling a similar list of skilled vacancies nationwide, particularly to help with the Rolls-Royce situation. The question of personal information compiled by private firms raises broader issues which perhaps would be better touched on when we reach Question No. 8.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for the maintenance and preservation of accepted standards of confidentiality of personal information data stored on computers in his Departments.

All personal information held by the Department, whether clerically or on computers, is treated as confidential and computer staff have recently been reminded of this. As an additional precaution, personal information stored in computers in the Department, except for the payroll records of staff, excludes the name of the person concerned, and the documents giving this information are held under separate control.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that information, but is he aware that those safeguards will not particularly enthuse or fool anybody? Is he aware that under the proposals in the Industrial Relations Bill personal information, particularly on militants' activities, will become a very valuable commodity? There is the real prospect of factory spies increasing in number. Already two or three private information firms offer spy and espionage services on the factory floor. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the arrangements he has made will be adequate, because I am not?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's dramatised version of what will flow from the Industrial Relations Bill. On the question of confidentiality, I am aware of his very close and expert interest in this matter, and I confirm that the Government take it extremely seriously. The safeguards are very stringent. As I said, personal information on people is held under separate control, and anonymity is preserved in any information going out from the Department.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this matter is giving a great deal of concern to many people? With the growth of terminal units, as I believe they are called in computer work, it is possible for people to get extremely confidential information. I should like an assurance that the hon. Gentleman's Department is using a proper key system so that only people entitled to the information can get it.

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that very high standards of confidentiality are observed. The Government recognise the strength of feeling on this very serious and important matter. In that light, the Government have said that they will take note of the recommendations of the Younger Committee and they have decided to carry out a major study which was initiated by a questionnaire going out from the Civil Service Department to ascertain all aspects of information held in Government Departments so that action can be taken.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend in relation to spying in industry, the right hon. Gentleman himself at one time was associated with a firm which offered services which implied spying in factories. Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this sort of activity will most certainly be discouraged by the Government, and will he urge employers to refuse to use the services of such organisations?

I do not think that these implications arise on this Question at all, nor do the propositions that the hon. Member raised about the Industrial Relations Bill. These matters simply do not arise, and I do not think it necessary to give an assurance on matters which have been asked on questions which do not arise.

On a point of order. Since the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a remark concerning me, should I be in order in giving an explanation about it? The implication is serious, and it happens to be seriously untrue.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to develop that point of order further I would rather that he did it at the end of Questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Questions to the Department of Employment, the Secretary of State said that he would raise on a point of order later a matter to which I had referred. Are we to have that point of order, is this the time for it, at the end of Questions, or does it come after the business questions?

Whether a right hon. or hon. Member raises a matter on a point of order is entirely for that Member. All the Chair can do is to suggest, with respect, that points of order are better not raised during Question Time.

As the hon. Gentleman has referred to that matter again, may I be allowed to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the point on which I sought your guidance at the time?

In the course of a supplementary question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as spying activities in industry, or industrial espionage—I forget the exact words—[HON. MEMBERS: "Spying."]—in industry alleged to be carried on by a company of which I was at one time a director. He gave me no notice of that charge, and I have not, therefore, the documentation with me, but, as this is a canard which has been raised a number of times over recent years in certain documents published by the Labour Research Department, I should like to speak from my memory of the matter and express the facts briefly as I recall them. I feel that I am entitled to do that, Sir.

It is true that I was a director of the company called Securicor, and an executive of a subsidiary of that company, without authority, did offer a service which appeared to approximate to the undesirable kind of service to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The moment that service came to the notice of the board, the service was immediately withdrawn and the executive concerned, who had acted without authority, was disciplined.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Withdraw!

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman feels aggrieved that I had not given him notice, I apologise. All I did was to refer to the fact that there was, or had been, an organisation, which supplied or suggested supplying, this type of spying service—an organisation with which the right hon. Gentleman had been associated in the past, and I asked for an assurance from the Government that they would discourage such activities on the part of any organisation in the future, particularly as spying could well become an important part of the industrial relations scene.

Order. I think that the matter has now been disposed of.

Disgraceful.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a statement about the future size and membership of the Commission for Industrial Relations.

It is my intention by new appointments to ensure that the Commission will be fully enabled to continue its work in the reform of industrial relations and to meet the important new tasks it will have in the future.

At the same time, I have to tell the House with regret that Mr. George Woodcock has today announced his intention of resigning as Chairman in the near future. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the valuable work he has done.

Is it not now absolutely clear that the first victim of the Industrial Relations Bill is the C.I.R., to which the whole country was attaching so much hope as a valuable instrument for bringing about long-overdue improvements in our industrial relations? Is it not also clear, in view of the resignations, that the right hon. Gentleman has little hope of restoring the credibility of the C.I.R. so long as the Industrial Relations Bill is going through? Will not the C.I.R. now be a lame duck?

I note with some distress, as I think the country will, the pleasure and in fact the laughter with which the benches opposite received that news. I hardly think it a responsible reaction. Mr. Woodcock has said, in his statement accompanying his letter of resignation, that, although he had long made clear his disagreement with the proposed legislative approach to the reform of industrial relations—a disagreement which he had with the right hon. Lady's Government as much as with mine—he had felt—

It is not in the letter.

I am not saying that it is.

You are dodging about.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that what Mr. Woodcock has to say is dodging about, he is entitled to his opinion.

On a point of order—

Order. There is a much earlier point of order. All remarks are directed to the Chair, and I am not aware that I was dodging about. I will not have that sort of thing said.

Mr. Woodcock made clear in his letter that, although he had long expressed his disagreement with the proposed legislative approach to the reform of industrial relations, he had felt that it would still be possible under the Bill for the Commission to pursue effectively its work for the voluntary improvement of industrial relations. He has, however, been forced to conclude that this will not be possible under the decision of the Special Congress of the T.U.C. which required all affiliated unions to withdraw their co-operation. Mr. Woodcock has made it quite clear that it is the decision of the T.U.C. and not the Bill which has been the cause of his decision.

On a point of order. Would it not have been far more appropriate for the Secretary of State to have made a statement after Question Time today instead of using up our Question Time in delivering it?

I have no responsibility for answers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend has a valid point, and that the information extracted from the right hon. Gentleman by the Question is of great relevance, both to the debates and decisions of yesterday and to the implications of the future working of the Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he received George Woodcock's letter, and when George Woodcock informed him that he wanted to resign?

I was informed this morning by Mr. Woodcock. The letter was sent by hand to the Prime Minister—the Commission being a Royal Commission, that is the proper form—with a copy to me, this morning. It seemed to me, as I had this Question to answer, that this was the first opportunity and the proper way of announcing it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House regret the decision taken by Mr. George Woodcock to resign, and the reasons for it. Will he accept our assurance that we wish to see the Commission grow from strength to strength to bring about better industrial relations?

I assure my hon. Friend that this is the case. He might also like to know that Mr. Woodcock in his statement has expressed his belief that eventually the C.I.R. will again be widely accepted as a body. It might also interest the right hon. Lady, her hon. Friends and the whole House to know that in his statement he says—

Too long.

On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of the procedure of the House for this information to be given by the Minister in this bedraggled "bits-and-pieces" fashion? Would it not have been far more appropriate for the Minister to have made a statement to the House in which he could have given us all the information he wished to give us on this point?

These are not points of order. Things which hon. Members shout from sedentary positions are directed to the Chair, whatever they may think. I suggest that we can move on quickly to the next Question.

Further to that point of order. Is there not a rule of the House that any document which is quoted must be laid before the House?

I want to know exactly what the document is and to study the references made to it. I will certainly rule on it when I know what the document is and the circumstances, but I will not rule on it on the spur of the moment.

Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in making clear that Mr. Woodcock will make this document public—I believe that he is holding a Press conference later this afternoon, but that is his affair—and that he specifically gave me his permission to quote from it this afternoon if I were asked?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days' production have been lost by strikes in protest against the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the strikes called or proposed by certain trade unions against the Industrial Relations Bill on 1st and 18th March.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate of the cost to the economy he has made of the one-day strike by the Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry-workers Union which took place on 1st March.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were on strike on Monday 1st March and again on 18th March in protest against the Industrial Relations Bill, how many turned up to work in factories which were unable to start production and were paid datal rates; how many were locked out by their employers because of inability to start production; how many companies were involved; and how many agreements were broken.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated number of days lost this year through strikes called in protest against the Industrial Relations Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of working days lost in strikes during 1971 where the cause of strike action was attached to political objection to the Industrial Relations Bill.

Just over three million man-days have been lost in one-day strikes, including 1·2 million on 1st March and 1·26 million on 18th March. It is not possible to estimate the cost of these strikes or how many other employees were prevented from working by them.

Is it not an extraordinary indictment of a Measure which is put to the country as being designed to bring about an improvement in industrial relations that, before it gets on the Statute Book, it is itself directly responsible for losing almost as much production time as we should lose in the course of a normal year?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask that question, in view of the part which his union played in calling this political strike.

Order. I propose to follow the usual practice of first calling to ask supplementaries hon. Members who have put down Questions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many reasonable trade unionists must have gone on strike because they were hoodwinked by the misrepresentations of the Bill presented to them by right hon. and hon. Members opposite?

I believe that that was one factor. I also believe, and on accumulated evidence, that many people went on strike unwillingly.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly what will be the effect on exports of these two strikes?

No. It is impossible to quantify. It will be of interest to the House to know, however, that the engineering Employers' Federation, which represents the industry most seriously affected, estimates that on the first of the two days, namely, 1st March, some 80 per cent. of its 4,500 member firms were affected and lost output to the value of approximately £70 million. One must presume that at least the equivalent happened on 18th March. The engineering industry includes our most important export industries.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us what were the consequential layoffs as a result of the strike, which was for political motives, and what was the adverse effect on cash flow, therefore undermining the security of future employment?

As to the numbers who did not work, I cannot give a better estimate than the three million man-days lost which I gave in my original answer. This, of course, is no more than an estimate.

The effect on cash flow, too, must have been serious, but it is equally impossible to estimate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this form of strike is adequately covered by the Industrial Relations Bill and that it shows only too clearly how a militant minority could bring this country to its knees?

I very much hope that we have now heard the last of political strikes of this character. I am encouraged at least by this part of the T.U.C's. recommendations of last week.

Is my right hon. Friend able to advise the House whether these politically motivated strikes are lawful under existing legislation? If not, am I right in assuming that there is a right of redress for those who have been victim- ised and disciplined by their unions for working?

The power of a trade union to discipline its members derives from its rules. Whether a particular strike is an industrial dispute or a political act and whether, and if so to what extent, the rules apply if it is a political act are matters which can be decided only by the courts. Any members of unions who feel aggrieved will be well advised to seek legal advice.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, according to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, in answer to a contribution made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), it is quite plain that a purely political strike is outside the scope of the Bill? Does he further agree that if workers are prevented from having the cherished freedom to strike in normal circumstances, we might see a growth of political strikes as opposed to those which arise from industrial disputes proper?

That would not make political strikes lawful. Certainly the Bill does nothing to do so. But whether a strike is or is not political and what follows from it is, as I said, a matter which can be determined only by the courts.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take further steps to assist registered disabled persons in their search for work.

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

However, I can tell my hon. Friend now that a steady increase is being made in the provision of sheltered employment and rehabilitation and training facilities and special steps are currently being taken to look more closely at the position in larger firms below quota.

This statement will be widely welcomed in the country because such persons already face grave difficulties. Is my hon. Friend aware, for instance, that all too often today the production of a disabled person's card to a prospective employer at the same time coincides with a marked lack of interest by the employer in the applicant?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have recently approached the Rotary International, British Junior Chamber of Commerce and Round Table leaders, and I am having a conference with them to try to encourage them to get the attitude of individual employers to change where it needs to be changed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we shall read the full text of his answer with close interest? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the current level of unemployment among employable disabled people? Moreover, will he tell us how soon he expects the steps which he has announced today to have an improving effect on that position?

No one would pretend that this will be an overnight improvement. It is a difficult problem. The current unemployment rate among the disabled is 12·5 per cent., but it has always been higher than the national average of ordinary unemployment because of the extra difficulties. In some ways the figures are a bit illusory, because not every disabled person is on the register. People tend to go on it only when they lose their employment. I am hopeful that our measures will be a contribution. We also had a fundamental review within the Department to see whether we can bring about any other improvements.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will warmly appreciate the steps which he is taking to make genuine improvements in the situation? Nevertheless, the trend is increasingly bad for disabled workers over a long period. Will he therefore, without making a specific commitment now, consider a thorough-going inquiry into the whole question of the employment of disabled workers?

Yes. That is why the Department is looking into the question very seriously. It is, as I said, a very difficult problem. When the national unemployment rate is high, it becomes more difficult for the disabled. However, I am hopeful that the measures which I have announced today will make some improvement in the situation.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to encouraging local authorities which have empty factories within their areas to take them over, by purchase, to establish a much larger and wider range of sheltered workship facilities for the disabled than exist now?

I am not sure that that necessarily would achieve the desired end, but I will look into the matter and perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Following is the information:

We have been considering what specific measures we can take in present circumstances to ensure that everything possible is being done to help those disabled people who are unable to find work.

It is only recently that the Disablement Resettlement Officer service has been re-organised and strengthened and it is as yet too early for the full effects to be felt. But the preliminary indications are that the changes have improved the effectiveness of the service and we expect this will be increasingly confirmed as further experience is gained of the revised set-up. Even in the present difficult condition the Disablement Resettlement Officers continue to find jobs for about 70,000 disabled people a year.

In this field, much depends on the attitude of individual employers. I am sure there is much good will but we need them to make a special effort. That is why I have approached Rotary International, the Junior Chamber of Commerce and the Round Table seeking their help in stimulating further local action in areas where the problems are greatest. I am hopeful that this will produce results.

Arrangements have been made to put greater emphasis than previously on formal inspections of employers' records as against informal visits. I am also taking steps to look more closely at the position of large employers who are below quota. We want to ensure that opportunities for employing disabled workers are not being overlooked.

My Department has set in hand a fundamental review of its services for the disabled. When this is completed we shall decide whether any revision of the present machinery is needed.

A steady increase is being made in the provisions of sheltered employment, industrial rehabilitation and in the training facilities available to the disabled. More than half the disabled persons currently unemployed are over 50, and we hope to help some of them through the scheme recently introduced in Development and Intermediate Areas under which employers may receive grants for re-training older unemployed workers who are engaged for permanent jobs. 1 am ensuring that disability is taken sympathetically into account in fixing the period of grant. We are also urging Disablement Resettlement Officers to make greater use of the arrangements, available in all areas, under which disabled persons may be trained with employers in semi-skilled trades at Government expense.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he is now issuing to employer organisations regarding the position when the Industrial Relations Bill becomes law.

My right hon. Friend is issuing no formal advice at present, but he intends to publish a guide to the Bill when it becomes law.

The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that a new situation has arisen unexpectedly from the Government's point of view—namely, that quite a number of employers have given a cooler reception to the Bill than was probably expected. How do the Government propose to deal with this situation?

I do not accept that for a moment. In fact, I believe that, on the whole, the reception has been extraordinarily good. I am encouraged to find how well many managers understand the provisions of the Bill. I believe that it would have been even more widely understood by individual employees if we had not had such an expensive campaign of misrepresentation directed against it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the suggestion is being put round the workshop floors of Britain—I have proof of this in Great Yarmouth—that redundancy payments will cease with the introduction of the Bill?

I should be very pleased to have that evidence from my hon. Friend. If he will let me have it, we will go into it, because there is no foundation whatever for such a suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that are required in the Lanarkshire area to bring down the number of unemployed to the national average.

It is not my Department's practice to make estimates of this kind. My right hon. Friends are however very much aware of the need to increase employment in Lanarkshire.

Will the hon. Gentleman make some efforts as a Minister? The figures which prevail at present do not give the true picture, since many of the redundancies declared for Lanarkshire have not yet borne fruit, and this will drastically increase the numbers. Is he aware that we have an advance factory in Lanarkshire which is still lying without a tenant, that the Lanarkshire people are now firmly convinced that we are moving back to the Hungry Thirties, and that, unless the Government are prepared to do something, they will take the law into their own hands?

If they think that —I do not necessarily accept that they do—they are wrong, because most of Lanarkshire is a special development area, attracting all the benefits of that status which can come forward. I know that the situation is difficult in Lanarkshire, as it is generally in Scotland. That is why the Government are taking these actions and pursuing policies which we hope, in the long term—and perhaps not too much in the long term—will have an effect on the unemployment situation.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are concerned not only to attract new jobs, as we did in the last six years, but to keep the jobs which we already have? Would he therefore use his good offices with the British Steel Corporation to ensure that its rationalisation plans are such that the jobs which we presently have in Lanarkshire steel mills are retained in Scotland, and that as many as possible are retained in Lanarkshire?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, steel rationalisation is not a matter for me, but I take his point and will see that it is drawn to the attention of those responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he can now give the number of apprentices who will become redundant with Rolls-Royce Limited; and what plans he has to allow them to continue with their apprenticeship.

I understand it is unlikely that there will be apprentices among the Rolls-Royce redundancies announced on 8th March. My Department and the Engineering Industry Training Board will do their best to help any future redundant apprentices to continue their training by placing them with other firms.

I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but if, by some misfortune, any of these lads become redundant, will he ensure that they are fully assisted in carrying out their trade in our training centres?

On future redundancies, of course, the full resources of my Department are being made available to assist employees who become redundant. With regard to apprentices, my Department is certainly in touch with the situation and is standing by to see what may be required in future, if anything further is required. I was on the telephone this morning to the E.I.T.B. and they told me that they are willing to take any first-year apprentices on to their own payroll. We shall see how much further we can go if it is required.

I echo my hon. Friend's thanks to the Minister. The present is covered, but would he accept that the future of engineering apprenticeships in Scotland is very important? Would he do his utmost to ensure that other industrialists are persuaded to take on more than their normal quota of apprentices, to ensure that the erosion of skill in Scotland is not continued?

I said that we are keeping in touch with the situation, and I get the impression that employers and the training board and all concerned very much agree with what the hon. Member said. We shall certainly do our very best.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of strikes in 1970 was due to demarcation or similar inter-union disputes; and how this figure compares with previous years.

Figures are compiled for demarcation disputes as a whole but not separately for inter-union disputes. Complete analyses for 1970 showing the cause of stoppage are not yet available; they are due to be published in the May issue of the Department's Gazette.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a diminution of this type of dispute over the past few years, and that much of that is due to the work of the T.U.C.? But would he not agree also that a reduction in the number of unions would be helpful to a further reduction in this type of dispute? What steps can his Department take, either directly or indirectly, to bring that about?

The general process of amalgamation has gone on over the years, but probably more important is that the unions should be of a sufficient size to meet the needs of their members. I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that all hon. Members would want to acknowledge the role of the T.U.C. in inter-union disputes. The Bridlington Agreement of the T.U.C. and the T.U.C. constitution provide for action on all kinds of disputes between affiliated unions. The Government certainly want that there.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was just because of the increasing effectiveness of the T.U.C. in dealing with inter-union disputes that the proposals in "In Place Of Strife" for other methods of dealing with them were dropped?

Despite what the right hon. Lady said, the efforts of the T.U.C. are clearly inadequate when one sees what has occurred. That is why we have introduced a Bill which will improve the position.