asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many forthcoming redundancies have now been notified to his Department in the greater Manchester area including Stockport and Irlam.

Not all redundancies are notified to my Department, but notification of redundancies involving some 3,700 work-people have been recorded as due to occur in the Manchester travel-to-work area. In addition, some 4,300 jobs will be affected by the proposed closure of the British Steel Corporation works at Irlam.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a gross under-estimate and, indeed, is less than the figure which he gave last time; that this is only the tip of the iceberg; and that many firms, like I.C.I. in my own constituency, are already preparing for more redundancies? Is he further aware that projections with re- gard to the increase in unemployment show the most alarming figures for the North-West? What action is his Department taking? Is it making special provision for the mass redundancies—2,500 alone at Hawker-Siddeley—in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) did when there were only tiny redundancies to be dealt with?

I do not accept that there are the mass redundancies which the hon. Gentleman forecasts. These are the most up-to-date figures that we have. The services of my Department are, of course, available to help actively those who are made redundant. The question of other policies in that area is one for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will not do, and that in my constituency in Salford a firm is likely to close in three weeks, making another 400 people redundant? What action are the Government taking when a prosperous area like the Greater Manchester area faces a large increase in unemployment figures? Something must be done, and what the people in my area want to know is what the Government will do to alleviate the position.

The Government have already taken action in the Budget to restore business confidence, and this will have its effect. The hon. Gentleman must also be aware that at present the Manchester unemployment rate is still below the national average.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the great anxiety caused by the forthcoming redundancies, there are additional anxieties caused by misunderstandings and fears about the qualifications for redundancy payment at Irlam in relation to the B.S.C. pension fund? I have had representations about this from my constituents. It would be a great help if the Minister could find ways of clarifying this situation to remove these burdens of anxiety.

That is rather wide of the original Question, but if there is any misunderstanding, we shall be happy to look into it and try to help.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that it has been announced today that 90 boilermakers, who have been on unofficial strike for nine weeks against their union's directions, have been discharged from Cammell Laird and that the firm has said that unless this dispute is settled, the whole works might have to close? Is it not this sort of thing that is creating unemployment all over the country?

Of course it is a contributory factor and a lesson, I am afraid, which some people have to learn the hard way.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what reply he has given to the application from the National Federation of Builders' and Plumbers' Merchants for their members to be transferred from the Construction Industry Training Board to the Distributive Industry Training Board as contained in their letter to him dated 8th April, 1971.

I wrote to the Federation on 27th April to say that I wished to defer a decision until the completion of my right hon. Friend's review of industrial training.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what this important National Federation urgently seeks is not a transfer from one industrial training board to another but a return to the voluntary system of training which existed before the implementation of the 1964 Act, because it seriously believes that the implementation of the Act in the service industries has been counter-productive?

The Federation has not expressed this view to us.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had to consider the implications of the 1964 Act when I became Minister of Public Building and Works and that, even before there was any experience of it, we had this belly-aching from the construction industry? Would he consider publishing a White Paper about the history of this matter? I notice that, with the change of Government, all hon. Members are being pressurised about the Construction Industry Training Board, and that people are inventing ex- cuses for transferring to the Distribution Industry Training Board. There is nothing very much in this, because the building and construction industry was threatened with being woefully short of apprentices.

We are conducting a very wide review of my Department's manpower services, including industrial training boards. The results will be published in the autumn.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the objections of the so-called dissent in the building industry to the training board are because the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) did something as Minister of Works which led the board into serious debt? Has not that proved that the industry is probably better capable of dealing with its own training without Government interference? When will the report be published?

In the autumn, as said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. The rest of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is a little wide of the mark

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the recruitment of apprentices in engineering, in the regions of the United Kingdom in the year 1971–72.

The engineering industry has maintained a high proportion of apprentice recruitment in recent years. I would hope that with the support of the Engineering Industry Training Board this will be maintained in 1971, but it will not be possible to say until later in the year.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, particularly in Scotland, because of the economic recession firms cannot take their usual intake of engineering apprentices? Does he concede that that will mean a serious erosion of skill in Scotland and in other regions, which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make up in future years? Will his Department, in consultation with the Engineering Industry Training Board, do something about it?

I will certainly go into the facts that the hon. Gentleman has just given. In general, it is not possible to judge the level of recruitment until later in the year; 80 per cent. of apprentice recruitment occurs in July and August.

The hon. Gentleman's reply was most unsatisfactory. Does he agree that in Scotland, for example, we have the highest rate of unemployment among the under-18s in Britain, and that for a young person under 18 trying to get a job for the first time in his life there is nothing more soul-destroying and humiliating than to be turned away?

I am sure that hon. Members agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Although the level of unemployment has risen, I urge employers to maintain their recruitment of apprentices so that neither they individually nor the industry at large find themselves short of craftsmen in the future.

I was pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the success of the Engineering Industry Training Board. Perhaps that might be the answer to some of his hon. Friends who are knocking the training boards, which are doing such a magnificent job. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The facts bear out what I am saying. Will not the hon. Gentleman encourage the Engineering Industry Training Board to increase the number of apprentices this year?

I said that I appreciate the importance of the number of apprentices. As to the pros and cons of the training boards, the fact that we are having a wide-ranging review shows that a balanced view will be taken.

Does the Minister agree that if those trying to destroy the training boards have their way, the number of apprenticeships offered to people in the engineering industry will be sharply reduced? Will not that mean a sharp contraction of opportunities for working-class children?

That sort of question is getting very wide of the mark. The atmosphere in my Department certainly is not in that direction. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see that he is not the sort of man who would countenance that sort of development.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce legislation to prevent employers from conducting personality or lie-detector tests on potential employees.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider legislation necessary. We have no evidence of the use of so-called lie-detector tests for selection purposes in British industry.

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has no such information. But is he aware that employers are asking an increasing number of very personal and unnecessary questions, that that tendency is bound to increase as one of the consequences of the Industrial Relations Bill, and that there are a large number of agencies specialising in supplying this very personal information, particularly on trade union activities?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is glad. If he has evidence of specific issues on lie-detector tests, we should like to know about them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the interview situation every intelligent question is a personality test and every interviewer is a lie detector?

There is a certain amount of truth in what my hon. Friend says.

Have not most hon. Members, either at the hands of their local political associations or at the hands of the electorate as a whole, had to undergo personality tests with more or less moderate success?

That opens up far wider areas into which I hesitate to tread.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will hold discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry to examine means of halting the increase in unemployment.

My right hon. Friend is always ready to discuss employment and manpower matters with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scourge of unemployment is one of the most terrible things that can hit an ordinary family, and that it is because of the reversals of the previous Government's policies by his Government that we have ever-escalating unemployment? Will he ask the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to meet him because of this grave emergency, and drop silly things like talking about entering the Common Market, so that ordinary folk will not be able to say, "Why are you talking about industrial training boards to train my boy so that when he finishes training he will be unemployed?"? That is the absurd situation about which people are concerned.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his concern about the high level of unemployment. However, it is due not to present policies but to policies that were in force at this time last year, and we have yet to recover from them.

Would not a conference such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) suggested be quite useful if the T.U.C. told the C.B.I. that it was prepared to accept the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill for the purpose of ending unofficial strikes, which create a great deal of unemployment? Let us get on with that kind of conference.

The C.B.I., Ministers and the T.U.C. have an opportunity to meet once a month at "Neddy", so that conversation may take place.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are all extremely fascinated by the speeches which the Secretary of State is making in the United States, and particularly his statements in Washington yesterday that what he found so encouraging about the employment position was the growing number of identifiable redundancies, because this showed that a shake-out was taking place? Is he aware that what we find significant and extremely discouraging is the fall in the number of unfilled vacancies, which are 46,000 fewer than they were last November, thus showing that there are no jobs for the shaken-out workers to go into? So that we may be absolutely clear about those statements, will the hon. Gentleman arrange for a copy of his right hon. Friend's statements in Washington yesterday to be placed in the Library?

If that can be arranged, I will certainly arrange it. "Shake-out" was a word invented by the Leader of the Opposition some time ago. On the general question of unemployment, which is what the right hon. Lady is raising, it is acknowledged from this side of the House that the steps taken in the Budget cannot possibly have quick results. Such measures as the increased child allowance and the cut in S.E.T., which will help the expansion of the economy, cannot possibly have an effect before July. It is a gradual process, but we believe that we are on our way to success.

May I have an answer to my request for a copy of the Secretary of State's statements to be placed in the Library?

The Minister gave it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further action he intends to take to reduce the number of young people who are now unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Careers officers will continue to make every effort to help unemployed young people find suitable employment. I am pleased to tell the House that my right hon. Friend has now made arrangements to pay grants for additional posts for careers officers in areas where unemployment is highest.

Does the hon. Member not realise that that will give no help to the 40,000 young people below the age of 18 who are unemployed and are fast losing any hope of entering into apprenticeships? Is he aware that as a result they could spend much of their adult life drifting from job to job because they have no basic skill? Is it not possible for the Government to realise that the young people of our country do not want the dole queues or the street corners—they want the right to work, and they look to the Government for indications that they will give them that right?

They can look for that with confidence from this Government. The hon. Gentleman overstates his case, because although it is true that there are over 40,000 unemployed, there are also over 50,000 vacancies for young people throughout the country. This is a problem and something is being done about it, as I have announced.

Will my hon. Friend hold discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to improving careers counselling in schools and the status of careers teachers? Is he aware that that will help to improve this difficult situation?

That is a valuable suggestion, but the main problem for careers officers is not so much the school leaver as the less-able 16 and 17-year-old who has drifted around and had several jobs already and has fallen out of employment.

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, while there is a serious problem throughout the country in relation to young people, the most serious problem is in the so-called development areas, where young people have almost no opportunity of getting skilled or any other training? Apart from the increase in the number of careers officers, what are the Government prepared to do to assist young people, particularly in these areas? Let us not have a quick statement, but a serious answer about what the Government intend to do.

The Government are already taking measures, through providing careers officers and through our other services, to deal with unemployment where young people are affected. We give all the help we can. The question of development areas is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but the extra business confidence which will be generated from the Budget, and which has not yet had time to work through into the economy, will eventually reap dividends, as the hon. Gentleman will see.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department is conducting into the extent to which unemployment is caused by falling production as opposed to improved productivity or shake-out.

Analysis of this kind is undertaken by the Treasury as part of the regular assessment of trends in the economy. The evidence available so far is that unemployment over recent months may have risen faster than the movement of demand by itself would have indicated. But the causes of unemployment are complex and it will not be possible to make a clearer assessment for some time yet.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he give us, perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT, more specific details of the research studies that are being undertaken, in view of the enormous importance for future policy of knowing exactly what is the pattern of unemployment?

I will consider what can be produced for my hon. Friend. He is right in saying that this is important. Particularly important is the realisation that unemployment levels are no longer mechanically related to the level of demand, as some hon. Members seem to think.

In the light of that reply, will the Government repudiate their fallacious theory that the cause of unemployment is excessive wage demands?

There is nothing fallacious about that theory. One absolute certainty is that excessive wage settlements put men out of good jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the latest unemployment statistics published by his Department.

Between April and May the provisional total number of persons registered as unemployed in Great Britain fell by 18,736 to 755,091 and the percentage rate was down from 3·4 to 33 per cent. of all employees.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are now four people unemployed for every three people who were unemployed at the time when the Prime Minister said that he would cut unemployment at a stroke? If the Prime Minister is not to be accused of a combination of mendacity and cynicism, would the hon. Gentleman say when he expects unemployment to be at a lower level than it was when the Prime Minister made his statement on 16th June last—will it be before the next Budget, by the Budget after that, or by the Budget after that?

The words attributed to my right hon. Friend were, in fact, never said in that context.

Yes they were.

No wise Government would ever make forecasts in this field.

Would my hon. Friend agree that between 1964 and 1970 under the Labour Government unemployment doubled, and could he explain why they are so proud of the fact?

As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we are still suffering from the policies of a year ago.

Could the hon. Gentleman say what was the average wage of those unemployed, and does the hon. Gentleman think that they were being excessively paid when they became unemployed?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement about relieving smaller firms of the obligation to pay levies to industrial training boards, in the light of the review he is making.

My right hon. Friend expects to make a further recommendation on this question when the results of his review of industrial training are published. Meanwhile, following his interim guidance, boards are increasingly exempting small firms from the levy.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I press him to say a little more about what progress there has been since the interim guidance of about three months ago and, in particular, whether he will name some of the industries in which progress has already been made?

Since my right hon. Friend's guidance was issued, eight boards have increased their exemption limits. The latest example is the Construction Industry Training Board which, in its current levy proposals, is excluding firms with payrolls below £6,000. This will remove 23,000 firms from the levy.

While we are awaiting the results of the review may I ask whether the Minister is not under an obligation to come to this House and to make an interim statement? Is he not under an obligation to tell the House that he overruled the unanimous view of the Air Travel Board with regard to travel agents, particularly the smaller agents? Is it satisfactory that he should tell the House by written reply about the winding-up of an industrial training board? Is this not just one more departure from one of the Prime Minister's promises at Ayr, immediately before the election, when he promised us a vast expansion of industrial training?

In the short debate that we had on industrial training boards the other day the Opposition was outnumbered by 40 to one, or certainly 20 to one. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) was the only Member present on those benches—the only person interested. On that day I acknowledged that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had overruled the board in that respect.

Would my hon. Friend also bear in mind the claims of small transport firms, to many of whom this is a heavy burden bringing very little benefit?

As I said in the debate—it was heard by one hon. Member opposite—the small firms will be one of the major problems which we shall have to study in our deep review.

Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that small firms in industry have as much responsibility as the larger firms for providing a quota of apprentices? Is he aware that one of the difficulties which I found in the building industry was that certain well-known firms have first-class apprenticeship schemes and the whole of the industry is expected to live off those. I do not see that exemption from the training levy is necessarily a progressive step.

With respect, we are not talking about apprentices; we are talking about the difficulties of small firms.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the presence of 40 Conservative Members and of one of my hon. Friends is just about right and resulted in a very evenly-balanced debate?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what increases in staff he expects to make this year in his Department to deal with unemployment; and what the respective figures are for each region.

The staffing system allows for adjustments—upwards and downwards—to deal with changes in volumes of work which depend on the level of unemployment. I am satisfied that sufficient staff will be available to deal with my Department's unemployment work this year, both nationally and regionally.

Is the hon. Gentleman not somewhat alarmed about the level of unemployment, particularly in Scotland, where we have over 120,000 unemployed, with a deteriorating economy? Will he confirm or deny the calculations made by industry and trade unions that unless the Government do something immediately we shall have over 160,000 unemployed in Scotland next winter?

Like the previous Administration, we do not make assessments of the likely future level of unemployment. Like the hon. Gentleman, we are concerned about the level of unemployment. He could make a valuable contribution to bringing down that level by discouraging his right hon. Friends from encouraging excessive wage demands and by getting them to talk demands down instead of consistently talking them up.

Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the adequate staff in his Department are yet employed on the long-range study of the unemployment problem, referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) who pointed out the ever-increasing level of unemployment which can be identified since 1955? Is he aware that there is a growing trend which invites considerable concern over the future employment prospects, irrespective of the level of demand and reflation?

I noted with great interest the valuable speech by my hon. Friend on this subject. A number of my officers are employed on this and we are having wide-ranging studies on the whole question of manpower policy and unemployment. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this rise in unemployment has been going on remorselessly since 1966 and this Administration will not be able suddenly to bring down the level of unemployment any more than the previous Administration was able to do so. The situation is now being tackled in a realistic way, whereas it was neglected by the last Administration.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increased numbers being employed in his Department are people who were previously working in the Department of Trade and Industry providing jobs in the weaker regions of Britain? Is this not a deplorable situation which has arisen?

No. We adopt a flexible policy and members of the staff are deployed where they are most needed. Unemployment will not be solved by having extra people to deal with employment placing. The primary concern of my Department will be to reduce unemployment by the correct policies, which the Government are pursuing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now take steps to find work for unemployed people in Leicester.

My Department's local officers will continue to make every effort to help unemployed people in Leicester to find new jobs.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if the Dunlop Rubber Company carries out its expressed intention to close St. Mary's Mills in my constituency, more than 800 more men and women will come on to the labour market, many of whom are highly skilled rubber workers for whom no alternative employment will be available in the area at present? What steps do the Government propose to take to deal specifically with this worrying problem?

I am aware of the difficulties over the Dunlop Rubber Company redundancies, and I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern. In Leicester the percentage of unemployment is substantially below the national average. My Department deploy a wide range of services, and we will do what we can.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the unemployment in Leicester is in part the direct result of industrial disputes in the motor car industry, on which it is dependent for the supply of components, and in part due to lack of investment because of high taxation in previous years?

These are certainly two reasons for the present situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill which enable a trade union legally to refuse to operate a legally binding procedure agreement imposed upon the union and its membership against their will.

The Bill contains no such provision.

Is the Minister aware of the provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill which impose procedure agreements on trade unionists against their will? Has he read the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in New York earlier this week, in which he put our strike record in a much truer perspective than he has done in this country? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that speech clearly indicates that there is no need for the Government to make such an absurd proposition in the Bill?

No, Sir, I will not accept that. My right hon. Friend made a very good speech, reiterating many things which he has said in the House. The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous attender at our debates on the Bill, and he knows full well that this imposed procedure is only for exceptional cases and as a last remedy after a great deal of conciliation.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the last supplementary question is yet another example of the distortion to which my right hon. Friend is exposed, and that this procedure would be invoked only in the most intractable and difficult situation when all other reasonable measures included in the Bill had been pursued?

Yes, but my right hon. Friend, fortunately, is more than capable of dealing with such distortions.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been fascinated to hear of the right hon. Gentleman in the United States correcting some of the distortions which he and his hon. Friends have been busily spreading about our strike record as a justification for the introduction of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said in the United States that to give the impression that British industrial relations are diseased—which is a favourite word of hon. Gentlemen opposite—is to give a wildly inaccurate impression. May a copy of this speech be placed in the Library so that we on this side, in particular, may enjoy reading it?

Yes, certainly; if it is possible, it will be placed in the Library. I am amazed at the right hon. Lady's nerve in asking such a question, in view of the supine attitude which she adopted when she was trying to put through legislation on industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of people who have passed through government training centres in the last 12 months; what are the expected numbers for the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement on his industrial training policy.

15,800 completed courses in the 12 months up to March, 1971, and the estimate for the next year is 17,000 or more. We shall continue to expand Government training facilities.

I welcome this increase in numbers, but does not my hon. Friend agree that this is still a small proportion of the total labour force? Will he not consider making available some of the energies and facilities of the industrial training boards for the improvement of Government training centres?

Despite the great expansion there has been over the last years in Government training centres, they still represent a small proportion of the labour force. In an announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 4th November, he said that the number of training places with G.T.C.s would be increased by a further 2,000. This brings the places up to 14,000 by 1975, which means that the output in a full year will be about 20,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the rising level of unemployment in the Huddersfield employment exchange area.

The main reason for the increase in unemployment in Huddersfield over the past year is redundancies and short-time working in woollen textiles. More recently, my Department has been told of reundancies affecting some 600 workers employed at a Huddersfield establishment making tractors. Our officers will continue to do all they can to assist those affected to find suitable jobs.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is an unsatisfactory answer, and that, since his Administration has been in power, unemployment in the district has doubled? Does he further realise that the firm in question has announced another 300 redundancies in the area? We want to know what he intends to do about it?

As I said, we shall do all we can to help those who are made redundant. Although unemployment in this area has gone up by 1·1 percentage points over the past year, fortunately it is still well below the national average. There has been recently a good deal of improvement in the short-time working in the wool industry, which is encouraging.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many new industrial disputes have been recorded for the months of February, March and April, 1971 as compared with the same period in 1970.

Official statistics relate to industrial disputes which result in stoppages of work. The provisional total of stoppages which began in the months of February, March and April, 1971 is 480, compared with 1,305 in the corresponding period in 1970.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these dramatic changes and this steep drop show that the Government's policies are beginning to affect the disease of wildcat strikes? Does my hon. Friend also agree that this happy situation is probably due to the influence of the Industrial Relations Bill, although it is not yet an Act?

I agree that the figures are greatly improved and, therefore, satisfactory to that extent. On the other hand, I prefer not to come to a conclusion on the strength of three months' records.

On the strength of that answer, is not the hon. Gentleman wise not to come to a conclusion? Is it not a fact that the number of days lost during the first quarter of this year was five times more than the days lost in the first quarter of the previous year under the Labour Government? Is not the Government putting forward a strange philosophy in suggesting that long strikes involving whole works, such as Ford, may be less damaging to the country than a series of unofficial strikes?

In this case, once again I am not willing to come down, on the basis of these few figures, to the question of cause and effect. Of course we acknowledge the information that the hon. Gentleman has given, but four-fifths of the days lost were due to the postal strike and the Ford Motor Co. strike, which had a very bad effect. The general picture in the country still indicates a disturbing state of industrial relations and that our Bill is still very much required.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce regulations to cover working conditions in amusement arcades and fairgrounds for seasonal workers at seaside and other resorts; and whether he is satisfied with the existing working conditions.

Any legislation in this field must await the Report of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work now sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Robens.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the details of the case which I sent to him show that the Amusement Caterers Association have almost washed their hands of this matter? Does this not show a most deplorable state of affairs which needs urgent Government attention?

I know that there is a problem and I am looking at it, but it would not be appropriate to introduce wages regulations for this type of seasonal work. I shall be writing to the hon. Gentleman about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to assist persons made redundant in the electricity supply industry to find employment.

My Department will do everything possible to assist anyone made redundant to find alternative employment. The specific steps will depend on the circumstances but, where appropriate, will include interviews by job teams for employment ends and special canvasses for vacancies.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will bring slight comfort to the many men who have loyally served the electricity supply industry and who are being forced into redundancy. Is he aware of the bitterness felt by these men who are being forced out of work when at the same time an increasing amount of contract labour is being introduced into the industry—labour that is often paid at much higher rates than are paid to men who have been loyal servants of the industry for many years? Are these men not justified in looking to the Government for alternative work?

These redundancies occur in comparatively small numbers, and at present there is a guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies during 1971. I do not think the problem is as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Central Electricity Generating Board does everything possible in this matter, that any redundancies are nearly always agreed and that none is forced?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Most redundancies have been caused by a productivity pay scheme which will make the industry more efficient.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of proposed redundancies is not small but involves some 10,000 men, which under no circumstances can be considered a small figure. Since many of these people have served the industry for many years and have given good service, they surely should expect to receive much greater consideration not only from their employers but also from the Government, who have been encouraging better productivity in the electricity supply industry?

I maintain that it is a comparatively small problem. In fact, between January and April this year there were 170 redundancies.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that this sort of atmosphere causes much anxiety among men who, as they grow older, should not be expected to face such a situation? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the machinery in the C.E.G.B. for consultation between management and men, and, indeed, the whole caboodle of what goes on in this sphere, works satisfactorily? It is surely important to give men who have given good service a feeling that their difficulties are appreciated, and surely the industry owes them fair treatment.

Yes, of course. The better the consultation, the better the industrial relations. But I am reasonably satisfied that the arrangements in this industry are good.