asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of wages councils.

The changes in the wages council legislation embodied in the Industrial Relations Bill.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one in five of establishments inspected by wages councils inspectors recently showed that they were not paying their workers even their legal entitlement, and is he further aware that some of the 57 wages councils had not even met to review pay and conditions for at least a whole year? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to redress this gross neglect of responsibilities, and, in particular, will he instruct wages councils to seek to establish basic wage rates rather than the traditional basic minimum remuneration?

We are aware of the deficiencies of the wages council system, and it has been the long-standing policy of both this and the previous Government to try to replace wages councils by effective voluntary machinery. The Industrial Relations Bill, as is generally recognised, will help in this way, which is yet another cause for mystification why hon. Members opposite should be against it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give you notice that at the end of Questions I shall wish to raise a point of order in regard to this Question?

I am obliged.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those rights that the Industrial Relations Bill will allow to trade unions for the first time.

As the reply is lengthy, I shall, with permission, publish the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will my right hon. Friend indicate, also, any similar benefits which may be extended to individual trade unionists, and will he say what means are open to him to make these more widely known?

The list regarding benefits for trade unions is long, and I could publish an equally long list of benefits to individual workers. As soon as the Bill is an Act of Parliament, we shall take wide measures to publicise these and other matters.

Will the right hon. Gentleman list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the conditions which any trade union has to acept in order to have the benefits, and will he publish a list of those benefits which he proposes to remove from trade unions, including the right of protection of their property if they do not register, the individual responsibility of union officers if the union is not registered, and so on and so forth, ad nauseam, in this evil Bill?

I assure the House that the benefits of this good Bill—all aspects of it—will be made fully clear in the literature which we shall publish.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new restrictions the Industrial Relations Bill imposes on a worker's right to withdraw his labour.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the parts of the Industrial Relations Bill which give authority to any body to order a worker back to work against his will.

The Industrial Relations Bill imposes no new restrictions on a worker's right to withdraw his labour; nor does the Bill give anybody authority to order a worker back to work against his will. The right to strike and the right to work are specifically protected by Clause 124 of the Bill.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the widespread distortions about the Bill being spread by hon. Members opposite, deliberately and with malice aforethought, designed to deceive good, honest, trade unionists and to persuade them for political reasons to oppose the Bill? Can he assure us that he has a simple explanation of the Bill in preparation for when it becomes an Act?

I am aware of the distortions. They are so gross that, once the Bill has become an Act, they will rebound on the heads of those who make them. People will find in practice that all the fears which have been whipped up simply are not justified. As I have said, full leaflets explaining all aspects will be prepared as soon as the Bill becomes an Act.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is some measure of the lack of ground for real criticism of the Bill that its opponents are reduced to making distortions and allegations of this kind?

That is clearly the only ground on which they could attack the Bill.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the number of planted Questions he has on this subject. Will he confirm that the Government now have the worst strike record of the last 50 years and that most of the strikes would not be affected by the Bill, because they derive from the Government's poor economic policy?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman dislikes Questions which elicit the truth. Perhaps he has not noticed that the number of strikes in the first three months of 1971 was only about half the number in the same period of 1970. Perhaps he has not noticed, either, that the number of people involved in strikes in the first three months of 1971 was about 25 per cent. lower than in the same period last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment which Clause in the Industrial Relations Bill creates a new offence for which people could be sent to prison.

There is no such Clause in the Bill.

Is there nothing my hon. Friend or the Ministry can do to counter the deliberate misrepresentations being made by influential people, causing completely needless fears?

We are doing what we can by way of speeches and articles to correct the wrong impression being given by people who ought to know better—people who are trying to frighten others into thinking that they might be sent to prison. Until the Bill becomes law it will not dawn on large numbers of people that the Measure is fair and reasonable.

Does the Minister include among those people who do not know any better the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, who made it quite clear in the House of Lords the other day that the Bill can, through many of its Clauses, lead to a person being imprisoned? Does he not know that following an injunction there can be imprisonment? Does he not also know that although it cannot force people back to work, the penalty for not going back to work can also lead to imprisonment? Do not every one of those things refute everything that he has said?

There is no penalty in the Bill for not going to work. The position is that at present under civil law anyone who commits a grave contempt of court can eventually be sent to prison. I should be very surprised if people were sent to prison for contempt of court under the Bill. We have never made any secret of the fact that if someone is determined to go to prison and to make a martyr of himself, he may land up there. The vast majority of people concerned with industrial relations have nothing whatever to fear.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill which would make a trade union liable to a fine.

Trade unions, like employers' associations, may be fined under Clause 89 and paragraph 40 of Schedule 3 of the Bill. These provisions deal with certain breaches of the administrative requirements relating to registration, and with failure to produce information for the purpose of an inquiry by the Commission on Industrial Relations or the Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, when statutorily required to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does it not clarify quite specifically a matter concerning the Bill which has been grossly distorted? Will he also add this to the list of items which will be carefully spelled out in his explanatory document?

Yes, certainly. It is perhaps of interest to the House to recall that the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1876, which the Bill repeals, contain penalties for failure to provide the registrar with information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have been lifelong trade unionists feel that the rights of workers do not belong to political parties or to individual trade unions but are basic, human, God-given rights and that among them is the right to withdraw labour when a worker feels that injustice is being done? Is he further aware that it will be woe to the Conservative Party if it ever interferes with this human right?

I accept completely what the lion. Gentleman said. I assure him that the Bill does not interfere with that right and that the present Government will never introduce a Clause which does what the hon. Gentleman fears.

May I suggest to the Secretary of State that he reads his own Bill? In view of the point which he made about fines, does he not agree that the Clause dealing with compensation in, for example, cases in which damages are awarded for unfair industrial practices has artificial limitations based not upon the damage done but upon membership? Therefore, it is capable of no other interpretation than that it will be a fine which penalises trade unions.

It is impossible to debate that point at Question Time. But I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation; it is simply not true.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stop misleading the House? He and his hon. Friends know that there are a number of Clauses in the Bill, particularly Clause 148, under which compensation can be paid by trade unions, that compensation is another name for a fine, and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are deliberately putting across this line in order to put a gloss on a Bill which is totally obnoxious?

We must be clear about this matter. A fine is an automatic penalty for a criminal offence. The award of damages or compensation—whatever we may call it—arises not out of an action by the State, nor is it automatic, but out of an assessment by the new civil court envisaged in the Bill, taking into account the contribution which both sides, the union and the employer, may have made to the cause before the court.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the Industrial Relations Bill on the work of the London and provincial theatre councils.

I am satisfied that the Industrial Relations Bill as it now stands will not impair the effectiveness of these councils.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is entirely mistaken in his belief—and that view is held not merely by me but by all the trade unions and employee organisations? Will he therefore give favourable consideration to Amendments now being discussed in another place with a view to rectifying this situation?

I do not accept that a pre-entry closed shop is necessary to achieve the protection which Equity and the profession need. However, I am glad that the hon. Member is coming to see me next week to discuss these matters, and I shall listen carefully to what he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the future of the Professional and Executive Register of the Department of Employment, with particular reference to improvements to its placing record.

As part of the general review of my Department's employment and training services which my right hon. Friend is undertaking, consideration is being given to the possibilities of improving the Professional and Executive Register so as to increase the extent to which it is used by employers in recruiting staff at the appropriate levels.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but, as white-collar unemployment is becoming an increasingly serious social problem, will he not agree that there is urgent need to improve the quality of this service and to give it higher priority in the work of his Department, especially taking into account the devoted work of some of his officers within the limitations put upon them?

Obviously, the growth of while-collar unemployment gives added urgency to the review. It is worth bearing in mind that nearly as many employed persons as unemployed are registered on the Register; the present figures are 46 per cent. employed and 54 per cent. unemployed. Many people are testing the market. But we are aware of the problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for Birmingham.

At 5th April, there were in the Birmingham travel-to-work area 23,539 people registered as unemployed, of whom 3,848 were temporarily stopped. The rate of unemployment was 3·4 per cent. These figures are provisional.

That is an intolerably high figure, the worst for over 30 years in Birmingham, and it is growing rapidly with each month. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider, therefore, that it would be right for his right hon. Friend to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stimulate the economy so that the motor car and engineering industries, in particular, might grow and offer more job opportunities?

The figures are, of course, too high, and the danger of their going even higher would be caused by cost inflation. That lesson has been put forward many times, and it is significant that a growing number of the reductions which have taken place in labour forces have been caused almost exclusively by labour-increased costs.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Draconian measures introduced after the devaluation of sterling in 1968 have no possible relation to economic conditions today, and that Birmingham and adjoining areas such as South Worcestershire, housing many motor industry workers, are gravely concerned about the steady increase in unemployment? In such circumstances, would it not be proper to follow the dictum and advice of the Crowther Committee and abolish all hire-purchase restrictions as the first essential in stimulating the motor industry in Birmingham?

My hon. Friend is too old a hand not to know that that is not a question for me. There is growing concern about unemployment, particularly in the motor car industry, but, if costs keep on escalating, this has an impact on the employment situation.

In view of the very unsatisfactory reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the case of the motor industry on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in view of the fact that the liability of the Construction Industry Training Board to pay grants in its Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31st March 1970 is only taken to 31st July, 1969, which is the same period covered by the Statement of Accounts for the preceding year, he will request the Board to publish audited interim accounts to cover the period to 30th September, 1970.

No. The basis of the Board's accounts was changed in 1970 on the advice of independent consultants to bring out more clearly the grant expenditure to which the levy income shown related. An interim set of accounts would be misleading.

Will my hon. Friend accept that what the vast majority of small and medium-sized building firms await, along with similar-sized firms of builders' merchants, is not a set of interim accounts or annual accounts but one final account to wind up this unhappy inflationary concern?

As my hon. Friend would expect, I am particularly interested in this Board and keep in close touch with it. Indeed, I spent an hour with the Chairman the day before yesterday. Financial control has been considerably tightened and I believe that the industry has more confidence in the Board now that this is so.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will do nothing to destroy one of the few useful measures introduced by the previous Conservative Government, which has done a great deal to improve the standard of industrial training which, in the construction industry, was so abysmal?

My Department is conducting a deep inquiry into this question together with all other manpower aspects of our activities, and we are taking into account both the successes and the failures of the boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the outline draft of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the draft of the new Code of Fair Industrial Relations Practice.

I hope to publish a draft of the Code as a basis for consultation in the next few weeks.

I welcome that reply. Will the scope of the Bill be restricted to those sections of industry which are unionised or will it be of general application, subject only perhaps to a de minimis provision? As the Government have rightly withdrawn from the responsibility to pay sickness and unemployment benefit for the first three days, would it not be appropriate for the Code to make it clear that, for employees with minimum qualifying service, this should be the responsibility of the employers?

I will take that suggestion into account. The Code will be universal. We want trade union membership to increase and believe that it will. But this is a code of practice for industrial relations in every company, in every centre of employment in the economy, and therefore it must be universal and apply to non-trade unionists as well as to trade unionists.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for informing us that the Code will be published in the near future. Will he confirm that there will be months rather than weeks for consultation? Has there been any indication from the T.U.C. whether it will consult the Department about the contents of the Code, contrary to its present practice of non-co-operation.

I very much hope that, when I publish the draft document, the T.U.C. will consult fully with me. I shall do everything I can to help and encourage it to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be months for consultation. The timetable I have in mind is that it should finally be put to the House towards the end of the year. That will give many months for consultation.

Is it not ludicrous that it is possible—although, with the situation in the House of Lords at the moment, it may also not be possible—that the Bill will have gone through the House before we have an opportunity to see and discuss the Code? Will not the right hon. Gentleman have second thoughts so that, when the Code comes before the House, we shall have an opportunity not only of discussing it but of amending it?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not possible under parliamentary procedure. In this respect, the Bill is an enabling measure in that it enables the Secretary of State of the day to produce a code and in due course to produce new codes, revised versions, and additions. The Bill is an enabling measure, so what the hon. Gentleman suggests is not possible under the procedure of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when the Road Safety Code was before the House, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides said how frustrated they felt that they could only discuss it and not put forward amendments to it? If such a feeling of frustration exists in the House, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of changing the procedure in order to enable us to amend codes of this kind?

A change of procedure is not a matter about which I can reply, and I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. I hope, however, that by publishing this Code as a draft document in plenty of time, there will be ample opportunity for hon. Members, as well as for people outside, to discuss it and to make their views known, and it may well be that we could have a debate at that stage before we finally approve or reject it. I cannot give any undertaking—it is not my business to do so—about a debate earlier, but if that is the wish and there is discussion through the usual channels, I will see what can be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in national, regional and percentage terms.

On 5th April, 1971 the total number registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 774,533 or 3·4 per cent.

I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information in respect of regions as it consists of a table of figures.

Is the Minister aware that these figures represent approximately 60 million working days lost this year as a result of the Government's deliberate, calculated policy of increasing unemployment—five times more than the number of days lost in strikes, the figures for which, incidentally, have been published today? While the Tory women's Primrose League, which was addressed yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, and the Monday Club, might appreciate these figures and the rigid discipline of the dole queue, is he aware that many well-informed sources consider that the unemployment situation is completely out of hand?

I deny absolutely that it is the calculated policy of the Government to increase unemployment.

Of course it is.

The policy of the Government is to bring down unemployment.

When?

The policies of the last Government set off serious cost inflation and put the country on a course which inevitably started a steeply rising trend of unemployment. This will have to be remedied by getting the economy right, and we are taking steps towards that end.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that one of the most disturbing features in this total is that, even by January, of the total number unemployed, over 27 per cent. had been unemployed for more than six months? Bearing in mind that the lifetime of the Government is still only 10 months, is it not absolutely clear that what is now happening is that the labour force is suffering from the profligate policies of the previous Government?

My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. One other thing I would add is that concern about unemployment figures is not the monopoly of one side of the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation has become much more grave? Does he realise that because of the situation in the steel industry, sub-contracting industries are facing redundancies and that in my constituency it is reported that 150 men will work only one week out of two? Has he taken account of that and what is he doing about it?

It is not merely in one industry; it is spread over a wide area, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I appreciate the particular problems of Scotland. This is all tied up with the question of inflation, and we shall have an opportunity of debating that in detail later today, when my right hon. Friend will have some very adequate answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will reconsider his decision not to continue to accept financial responsibility for United Kingdom participation in the international Apprentice Competition.

The matter for decision was whether my Department should assume the financial and administrative responsibility for the Competition previously carried by the City and Guilds of London Institute. I remain of the view that we should not accept this responsibility.

Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider this decision in view of the extreme importance throughout the country of maintaining a high standard of apprenticeship training and also because of the great opportunities this gives for us to demonstrate the high standard of industrial craftsmanship that exists in many of our industries?

I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in this subject. It appears to be the considered judgment of the training boards and the industry that the cost and work involved do not correspond with the benefits arising from this competition.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that fire prevention is an integral part of all full-scale industrial training courses recognised for grant by industrial training boards.

It is generally accepted by boards that safety training, including fire prevention, should form an integral part of industrial training. My Department has recently reminded boards of the importance of safety training.

Since fire losses last month were £11 million, would my hon. Friend agree that it is immensely important that all workers should, if possible, be trained in fire precautions, as this will help protect their jobs?

Fire training is part of the general safety training. I do not doubt that in the Robens Report, which we are expecting before long, this point will be covered, and we can reconsider the point. In the meantime, apart from advice the Department supplies nominated inspectors from the Factory Inspectorate who give advice to the boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an official visit to Fauldhouse, West Lothian.

I have no such plans at present, but I hope that an opportunity to do so may arise in the future.

Would the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the appalling industrial behaviour, at which some of us are aghast, on the part of a small minority of management who give no notice of reorganisation or closure, either to local trade union officials or to county planning authorities, let alone Members of Parliament? Would his Department look in particular at the case of John Collier of Blackburn, with its head office in Leeds, which closed a factory without saying a word to anyone in the district, before any plans could be made? This must be looked at in detail.

I have no knowledge of the individual case mentioned by the hon. Member, but I will certainly make inquiries and look into it. On the general point, this is one of the matters that I hope will be seen to figure importantly in the Code of Industrial Relations Practice. I agree strongly with the hon. Member that good procedures here, good notice when, unfortunately, there have to be redundancies, to individual workers, trade unions and my Department are of immense importance in handling these matters, not only in the most efficient way but in the most humane way.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is now satisfied with the working of the Commission on Industrial Relations; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has now taken to fill the chairmanship and the trade union vacancies on the Commission on Industrial Relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will name the present full-time members of the Commission on Industrial Relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what appointments he has now made to the Commission on Industrial Relations since June, 1970.

The present full-time members of the Commission on Industrial Relations are Mr. George Woodcock and Mr. Leslie Blakeman. Further appointments, including that of a successor to Mr. Woodcock as Chairman, are under urgent consideration.

The Government attach great importance to the work of the C.I.R. in promoting the voluntary reform of industrial relations and will continue to give it every support.

In view of the announced intention of Mr. George Woodcock to retire from the chairmanship of the C.I.R., because of his intense dislike of the Industrial Relations Bill, and since the other members of the Commission are known in the past to have opposed penal sanctions, and having regard to the role of the C.I.R. in the forthcoming legislation and the policy of non-co-operation adopted by the T.U.C., how does the right hon. Gentleman expect to man this body in future?

The hon. Gentleman should, for the sake of accuracy, read the statement which Mr. Woodcock made on his resignation, because, while he made it clear that he did not like the legislation, he also made it clear that the reason for his resignation was not the legislation but the decision of the T.U.C. to refuse to cooperate, which is very different. I shall appoint a new chairman and new members to the Commission. I shall make sure that, within the statutory number allowed by the Bill, there is ample room for good trade unionists to join the Commission as soon as they are ready. I refuse to believe that trade unions will for long damage the interests of their own members, let alone fail to participate in legislation which is for the benefit of the whole country, because that is not the sort of attitude for which the trade unions have usually been well known.

Is it not clear that the Commission is now literally a one-man band and that it is probably the first casualty of the Secretary of State's noxious Bill? In view of the very heavy dependence of the Bill on the role of the Commission, is it not clear that these resignations have probably done more than the combined efforts of the T.U.C. and the Parliamentary Labour Party to kill the Bill?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the combined efforts of the Parliamentary Labour Party and of some elements in the T.U.C. will not succeed in damaging the national interest by killing the Bill. I repeat that I do not believe that the trade union movement, which has a long history of responsibility behind it, will for long continue to refuse to co-operate in an organisation which is not only in the national interest but the activities of which have been and will still be very much to the benefit of trade union members throughout the country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it will be virtually impossible to get people of independent standing in industrial relations, let alone trade union members, to serve on the Commission? Is not the Commission a ghost of the body which the right hon. Gentleman's policies have destroyed as an effective force in industrial relations for the future?

It is a ghost which will soon be seen to have rather substantial form.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that whoever the chairman is eventually, he will not select him from among Ministers, of either party, who have failed in the House?

Hear, hear.

Will he also ensure that he does not go to Securicor for someone to do the job?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be as careful to avoid appointing failed Members as failed Ministers. I shall look as carefully as I can for someone well qualified to do the job.

Is it not rather odd that we should today hear the Opposition Front Bench spokesman talking about killing the Bill when during the wind-up speeches on the Third Reading the official Opposition spokesman said that, in the unlikely event of the Labour Party getting back to power, it would not kill the Bill?

I think that there are a lot of inconsistencies and improbabilities about attitudes towards the Bill. One of the certainties, I believe, is that the Bill will become law and will accumulatively do great good to the country and will remain an essential feature of our institutions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that Mr. Woodcock resigned from the Commission as a result of opposition to the T.U.C.'s position? Will he not confirm the truth, namely, that it was an act of solidarity with the T.U.C. which made him resign?

I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), that Mr. Woodcock should speak for himself in this matter, and he did speak for himself in a very carefully worded statement which I suggest the hon. Gentleman should read.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he proposes in the Manpower and Productivity Advisory Service.

I have nothing to acid at present to my reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 25th February when I said that the Manpower and Productivity Service will continue to offer an advisory service to industry in the field of industrial relations and related questions of labour utilisation.

But in view of repeated comments in the Press, is it not time that we had a comprehensive statement from the Minister about the reported changes in the Department's role in manpower? Will the hon. Gentleman refute the report in the Press that he is proposing to introduce fee charging for the Department's advisory service?

As I said earlier, the whole question of the manpower services of my Department is the subject of an inquiry in which everything will be considered, even the possibility of charging.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what machinery he uses in estimating the rise in incomes of the six million employed persons whose salaries are not priced by joint-bargaining procedures.

My Department's regular earnings surveys obtain from employers information about the earnings of all types of employees, including those not covered by collective bargaining procedures.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that when the Seventh Survey is published the figures will include not just the 12 million employed persons covered by joint collective bargaining arrangements, but also the six million who are not?

The decision about what precisely is to be published has yet to be taken, but I will bear that point in mind when taking the decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of persons retrained in the West Riding of Yorkshire during 1970, and the number of persons retrained in the county since June, 1970, who are currently unemployed.

702 completed courses at Government Training Centres during 1970 and 504 were in training at the end of the year. 39 who completed training since June, 1970 have not yet been placed in employment in their training trades. Information about the numbers retrained by employers is not available.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the need for an expansion in retraining in view of the unemployment figures, many individuals are extremely reluctant to apply for retraining because they fear that they will not be able to get a job when their retraining is completed?

I am well aware of this problem, because the attendances which we are achieving are less satisfactory in some areas of unemployment than in others. This is very much in our minds.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the official meeting he had with the Confederation of British Industry on Tuesday, 6th April.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 20th April.—[Vol. 815, c. 385.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether in his discussions with the C.B.I. reference was made to Ford's long-term agreement, and how it ties up with the 60-day pause imposed by the Industrial Relations Bill? Bearing in mind that during the passage of the Bill it was stated that stoppages would occur only after a 60-day period, will the Minister tell us that he categorically frowns on long-term agreements?

I certainly do not frown on long-term agreements. They are a development which we should welcome, and that part of the Ford agreement I very much welcome. I believe that the actual quantum of the Ford agreement —and not only the Ford agreement—is more than this country can afford as a rate of increase in earnings. That is a view which I have stated and must continue to state. But the nature of the long-term agreement I warmly welcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to find employment for the redundant employees of Windsor Pottery Works, Stoke-on-Trent.

My Department will make every effort to find alternative employment for those who are to become redundant. Arrangements have been made for a job team to begin interviewing at the pottery during week commencing 3rd May, following a special canvass for jobs in the surrounding area.

I appreciate the energetic action taken by the Minister's Department. Will he ask his officials to have special regard for the older workers concerned, who have difficulties in finding alternative employment immediately?

Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance. The Stoke unemployment rate for men is 0·2 per cent, less than the national average, so there is reasonable hope that most of the 150 or so workers will find other employment.

asked the Prime Minister what is the amount by which his salary is annually increased as a result of the 2½p off income tax.

Since the Prime Minister is so coy about his self-given gains, let me give him the felicitous news that he has awarded himself an extra £22 a week. Does the Prime Minister regard as a proper balance of priorities a 2½p cut in income tax which, with the other mini-Budget and Budget measures, has given more than 80 times more money to those with incomes over £5,000 a year than to those living beneath the supplementary benefit poverty line? Are not the statistics of Tory injustice the truth behind the Prime Minister's rhetorical charade of "one nation"?

As I said, the income of any Prime Minister, as of every right hon. and hon. Member of this House, is his own private affair, and the hon. Gentleman has no means whatever of calculating the effect of the reduction in income tax on any hon. Member.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on ordinary pay principles a very substantial increase would be justified in view of the big increase in productivity since his predecessor left office?

That is a view which I fully share.

Without going into the statistics, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his reaction to the benefit he has received from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirms or otherwise the Chancellor's belief that tax reductions produce incentives? Does he feel a great upsurge of energy? If he does, will he devote a little of his extra energy to solving the unemployment problem?

What I know from the reactions which have been given to us, particularly in N.E.D.C., is that the changes which have been made in direct taxation will deter many of the able from leaving these shores and will also give greater mobility to those who want to change their jobs in industry on promotion. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who studies these matters carefully, will agree that that is the effect.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the House of Commons Library a copy of the public speech he made in Glasgow on 26th March on economic matters.

I did so on 29th March.

Since the Prime Minister in his speech said that the escalation of wage demands was a prime cause of the decline in industrial investment, and since he has said that the escalation of wage demands has been brought to a halt, will he therefore be increasing the Treasury forecast of a zero per cent. increase in investment in the second half of this year?

The purpose of my right hon. Friend's Budget measures was precisely to increase the incentive to investment. From the change of climate that is already evident in the C.B.I. and amongst industrialists, there is every hope that that will be brought about.

What advice has the Prime Minister for trade unionists who are at present negotiating productivity bargains if, as a result of signing those bargains, men are made unemployed? Should trade unionists go ahead and sign productivity agreements if men will be put out of work as a result of them?

The hon. Gentleman is making the assumption that if one makes an agreement which results in an increase in productivity comparable with the increase in wage rates, plus the reduction in employment hours, one will put people out of work. That is not the case. It means, in fact, that the product can be manufactured at a price which remains competitive in world markets. Far from putting people out of work, one can, thereby, increase employment.

asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the implementation of his policies for improving the standard of living.

About 1,400 since the General Election.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest contribution any Government can make to the maintenance of the standard of living of the British people is the maintenance of full employment? With that in mind, will he put a figure on the total to which he is prepared to see unemployment increase before being willing to act directly to reduce it?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already explained the impact of his measures on the employment situation and has said that if further meaures are required, he has the necessary powers to take them.

Some confusion has arisen over what the Chancellor has said in his various statements. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while, in his Budget Statement, the Chancellor said that he was hoping to achieve the modest target of holding unemployment at its present level—there was no suggestion of reducing it—in his more recent speeches he seems to have indicated that until the wages position is brought under control, unemployment must be allowed to go on rising to whatever level it finds itself?

I do not accept that, and, I am sure, inadvertently, the right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what my right hon. Friend said. There was an opportunity to examine this in the Budget debate, and it can be debated again today in the debate on unemployment, which the Opposition have chosen as the subject for one of their Supply days.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the annual dinner of the British Rubber Manufacturers' Association on 23rd March on the economy represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question which was posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has apparently completely changed Government policy? Whereas in his Budget Statement he said that he was prepared to take action if necessary to reflate the economy, in the debate yesterday he specifically said that he was not prepared to expand the economy to reduce unemployment. In the Prime Minister's view, does this mean, for example, that his right hon. Friend is not even prepared to consider an autumn Budget, if that should prove necessary and if unemployment continues to rise?

My right hon. Friend has always made it plain that the measures which he was taking and which he announced in the Budget Statement would affect unemployment. He also said on that occasion that if further action were required, he had the means to take it. That remains the position. He also made it plain that greater action could be taken when inflationary wage claims were abated and, therefore, when the economy had a better chance of expanding without demand inflation being added to cost inflation.

In which way in the course of this year are the measures which have been taken expected to begin to affect unemployment?

My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that in his speeches.

Will my right hon. Friend remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that full employment does not necessarily mean a high standard of living, as they can easily see for themselves by going behind the Iron Curtain?

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely true. One must have increasing investment, better plant, more effective management and greater productivity if, at the same time, one is to have full employment and a rising standard of living.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Home Office and the Minister of Agrculture, Fisheries and Food with respect to the affairs of the brewing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not as naive as his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who yesterday tried to persuade us that the standstill in beer prices was due to the cut in S.E.T., when everybody knows that it is due to the record profits which the brewers have been making, even at the present level of S.E.T.? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present state of affairs in which the British public have to rely on the Sunday Mirror to learn what is in their beer, a large proportion of which would not qualify for that name even in the days of prohibition in the United States? Is he aware that we cannot get this information from his colleagues?

The matters raised in the second part of that supplementary question are certainly not for me. The answer to the first part is that I would not have thought that anyone would doubt the effect of halving the rate of S.E.T.

Is it not a fact that some breweries, such as Courage, have reduced the prices of some of their beers because of the cut in S.E.T.

That is exactly right.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the profit figures announced yesterday by Courage? Is he aware that the workers of that firm have not had wage increases of anything like the percentages of the increase in the firm's profits? Does he agree that profits at this level are due to prices being shoved up, when the Government should be controlling them?

The Government have no responsibility for that. It is a matter of commercial judgment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to improve co-ordination between the Departments of Education and Science, Social Services, and the Scottish Office in relation to the problems of mentally handicapped children.

There is already close co-ordination between all Departments concerned with services for mentally handicapped children.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at what has been happening in relation to the Corsbie Hall private fee-paying school in my constituency, where the fees are over £800 per child? Is he aware that the Minister in England has been allowing local authorities to send their children there, although some of them have subsequently been withdrawn because of the unqualified staff and unsatisfactory premises? Will he take steps to ensure that before any more children are sent there by English or even Scottish education authorities, the school is properly registered and has properly qualified staff with properly equipped buildings?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the school has already been fully inspected. A decision on its final registration will not be taken until it is inspected again.

asked the Prime Minister how many representations he has now received protesting against the increase in unemployment.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 22nd April to Questions from the hon. Members for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) and Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter)—[Vol. 815, c. 1356–9.]

How far does the right hon. Gentleman intend to allow unemployment to soar before taking positive steps to counteract it? Is he aware that such steps could include the reintroduction of investment grants and an easing of credit restrictions, particularly for the building industry? Is he keeping the balance of payments surplus at an artificially high level simply to pay for Britain's entry into the Common Market?

The balance of payments surplus is certainly not being kept at an artificially high level, although it will obviously be required in part to continue paying off the debt which we inherited from our predecessors.

To what extent do the current levels of unemployment reflect cut-backs in industrial investment resulting from the catastrophic fall in corporate profits following the policies of the Labour Government?

One cannot put a specific figure on that analysis, though, as has been made absolutely clear by everyone in industry, and certainly by the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., what is particularly worrying is the lack of investment due to a lack of corporate resources by companies, and that can only be the consequence of the policies of the previous five years. We have taken measures, such as the halving of S.E.T. and the reduction of corporation tax, to ensure that they have greater liquidity. This, accompanied by a reduction in Bank Rate, should help further investment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday of this week The Times argued with the greatest conviction and credibility in the columns of its economics editor that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is using unemployment as a major weapon to combat inflation?

There is absolutely no truth in the allegation that unemployment is being used as a matter of policy to combat inflation. We have been using every other weapon open to us, and we still hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will support us in the battle against inflation.

Will my right hon. Friend tell hon. Gentlemen opposite with very great emphasis that a fair day's work for a fair day's pay would help enormously in solving all these difficulties?

A fair day's work for a fair day's pay would be very desirable from Her Majesty's Opposition.

Reverting to the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, since he had no difficulty when he was Leader of the Opposition in prophesying what the unemployment levels were likely to be under a Labour Government, why, when he is in full possession of the statistics, cannot he take the House into his confidence and tell us what is his prophecy about unemployment? Does he think the figure will go up, will remain constant or will have been reduced by Christmas?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that successive Administrations have never made forecasts of unemployment.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects next to have a meeting with the Trades Union Congress.

The T.U.C. know that the Government are willing to discuss with them at any time matters of common concern. I have at present no plans for a further meeting with the T.U.C.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If the T.U.C. continues to claim to talk in the national interest, does not my right hon. Friend consider that it might follow the example of the Institute of Directors and invite the Prime Minister of the day to talk to the full conference rather than keeping matters on a close, cosy, party-political basis?

It is a matter entirely for the T.U.C. to decide who it wishes to address its conferences. I am sure that if it were to send an invitation to the leader of any political party, naturally he would give it careful consideration.

Did the Prime Minister see the General Council's reaction to the Social Security Bill in its statement issued yesterday opposing the abolition of the three waiting days for unemployment, sick and injury benefits? What would he tell the T.U.C. about these proposals if he met it?

The T.U.C. has not asked to discuss these matters. Our reasons for this Bill have been set out. They were shared by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice of my wish to raise a point of order on Question No. 2. May I now draw your attention to the fact that there are some eight obviously sponsored Questions and that, although I refer to Question No. 2, the same remarks apply to each of those Questions?

It is a rule of the House that an hon. Member may not put down a Question asking for information which is readily available. [Interruption.] If the Leader of the House will stop exploding for a moment, I repeat that this is a rule of the House, and very often the Table Office refers hon. Members to the relevant official documents and papers. If the hon. Member cannot find the information that he seeks he has the assistance of the Library, which gives an admirable service.

It is also a rule of the House that an hon. Member cannot table Questions on a Bill which is in process of going through the House. All the Questions to which I have referred ask for information which is readily available from the Vote Office. Each Question could be answered by the hon. Member concerned getting a copy of the relevant Bill and taking the information from it. The hon. Members concerned may well say that they found difficulty in getting the information that they required from the relevant Bills. Bills are sometimes very complicated. However, if a Bill is too complicated for an hon. Member opposite to obtain the information that he seeks, that does not say much for the chances of an ordinary trade unionist working in a factory.

Each one of the Questions to which I have referred asks for interpretations and for information which is contained in the relevant Bills. I ask you to say, Mr. Speaker, that you will see in future that the rule is abided by strictly on these sorts of questions.

I have had an opportunity to consider this point. I think that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would be quite right if he were to say that Questions which suggest amendments to a Bill would not be in order. But Questions merely seeking elucidation have always been acceptable. I do not think that the Table Office would have been justified in refusing to allow any of the Questions on today's Order Paper.

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to Question No. Q8, tabled by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)? Two weeks ago I tried to table an identical Question, but it was refused by the Table Office, and a letter was sent by the Prime Minister's staff saying that he had transferred it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While accepting that the Prime Minister has the power to transfer or dodge any Question that he does not want to answer, is not it against the rules of the House for his Department to accept a Question from an hon. Member opposite when it has rejected the same Question from an hon. Member on these benches?

These are not matters for the Chair.