asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he hopes to reach his decision on financial aid to schemes specifically designed to help youth employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide additional help to prepare long-term unemployed young people for permanent employment; if he will make provision for extending the Community Industry Scheme; and what consideration he has given to limiting employment in the scheme to a period of two years or until a person attains the age of 19 years.

My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement within the next few days and I cannot anticipate what he might say.

Why cannot it be made now? This has been going for three months. In particular, what is being done for the long-term unemployed who are associated with the scheme?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and interest, but, as he probably appreciates, this was a pilot scheme and certain difficulties have arisen about long-term administration. We want to get it right. As I say, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement within the next few days. It was hoped to be able to do so today but that has not proved possible. We shall be making a statement very shortly.

Is my hon. Friend considering giving help to firms which have spare training capacity and could give engineering craft training for a full four years to unemployed schoolleavers?

We do help with training in assisted areas, and this matter is kept constantly under review. Again, I know my hon. Friend's interest in this subject and he may like to know that the National Youth Employment Council is doing an "in depth" study into the whole question of long-term employment for the less able young person. We are helping to service this inquiry and are giving it every facility.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that youth unemployment persists at a devastatingly high level and that the figures which were published this month show a worse trend? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, Questions have been on the Order Paper every month——

Scandalous!

—since July. After all these months of persistent questioning from both sides of the House we are promised a statement in a few days, but not now. The scheme has proved its worth beyond doubt, and there is widespread expectation that the Government will respond. Will not the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, in advance of the statement, that the Government will respond sympathetically, and bring hope to those who depend upon the scheme, which has been running so successfully?

The hon. Gentleman has held office and knows that it is impossible to anticipate an important statement. I appreciate the interest that has been shown in this pilot scheme, which has been extended from the end of last year until March. I can give an assurance that there will not be any redundancies for those who are currently affected by it.

Is the situation as depressing as has been indicated by the questions, or is there now a better trend in youth employment?

We mave to keep these things in proportion. In January 1973 the number of registered unemployed young people was 46,952. In January 1972 the number was 55,842. Those figures also answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). The number of vacancies has also improved and there are definite signs that 'the employment situation for young people is improving. We are not complacent about it. The Community Industry Scheme is very small, but is none the less an interesting experiment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a statement on the future structure of the youth employment service.

I expect to make an announcement very shortly.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern among youth employment and careers officers at the delays? In making this statement, will he make "very shortly" mean "very shortly"?

I am fully aware of the difficulties of the situation. The future structure of the service will be defined in the Employment and Training Bill, which, as the hon. Gentleman has heard, we shall place before the House at a very early date. I cannot give an undertaking on this point, but it may be accompanied by a White Paper or explanatory document which will set out the position clearly.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the many valuable services provided by local authority careers officers? Will he not accept that their confidence is hardly to be won when he publishes papers before consulting them?

We published a consultative document. We have consulted fully. This is what we have been doing. We have been considering, in consultation with education departments, the scope and nature of any service which local authorities may be required to provide and their relationship with the Manpower Services Commission which the Government propose to set up.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many extra vocational training places his Department expects to provide in the Midlands during the coming year.

At least 800 additional training places are planned in the Department's Midlands region during the next 12 months, including about 520 in Government training centres.

How does that compare with 1970, and what percentage of these trainees find jobs within three months of leaving training? Is the Minister aware of the dissatisfaction with some of the proposed changes in the Birmingham area?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the details of any cases involving dissatisfaction. In regard to what he said about a comparison with previous years, the number of GTC places has increased by 27 per cent. since January 1970, when there were 903 places—not an unsatisfactory record. There has been a vast improvement in the number of places at colleges and employers' establishments, which in the last year have increased to nearly 2,000, against only 26 places in 1970. About 88 per cent. of Government training centre trainees in the Midlands region are placed within three months of completing their course.

Why are there six Questions at the beginning of the Order Paper ail relating to industrial training? Why cannot the Minister answer them all together and, instead of giving lengthy statistics orally, publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Has there been any packing of the Order Paper?

As somebody who is deeply interested in training matters, I am grateful that at least on the Conservative benches there is great interest in the improving trend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if there is dissatisfaction in Birmingham about industrial retraining facilities it is simply due to the fact that not enough places are available? What guarantee can he give that an increased number of places will be made available in the very near future?

Three new GTCs are planned—one in North-East Birmingham, a second in the Wolverhampton area, and a third elsewhere. There are six centres in existence and there are now more than 3,100 training places in GTCs, colleges and employers' establishments.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the decision in 1962 by the Conservative administration to cut training facilities in an effort to reduce public expenditure was one of the biggest blunders they made?

Whatever may have happened in 1962, I regard the Conservative record on this topic as very good in comparison with Labour's record.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Government training centres serve the West Midlands area.

There are four Government training centres in the West Midlands economic planning region, and two more are planned by 1975.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he consider siting a new GTC at Tamworth, which is a developing area? At present our nearest centres are at Nottingham and Handsworth.

I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says and I will go into the situation very carefully.

Is the Minister not aware that against the massive industrial restructuring which will take place in the West Midlands in the next five or 10 years, the figure he has given is still somewhat pathetic? Will he do something within his Department to plan a further development of training centres? Will he consider placing one in the Black Country, so that it will be available for those who will have to be retrained when closures and redundancies occur in that part of the world?

I have already given indications of what will happen in the very near future in terms of new Government training centres in that area. While I am never satisfied with what one can do, I believe that there has been a great improvement. In fact, there has been an increase of 69 per cent. in the number of Government training centres since 1970 when there were only 389 places.

To what extent is the demand for training places being maintained in the Midlands and in the country in general?

The demand is still there, and in particular trades it is considerable. In certain trades there are waiting lists. We are watching the situation and doing all we can to stimulate places in those areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the high level of unemployment in the West Midlands that creates the need for these centres, not only in Tamworth but in almost every area in the West Midlands? What provision is he making to ensure that the young person of 18 of the lowest ability can obtain employment and not be written off for life, as is now happening?

We undertake in assisted areas a kind of semi-skilled training. On the point about vocational training, those in the category mentioned by the hon. Gentleman do not at this time come within that scheme. It is thought right that in the first instance employers should take the responsibility for training these people and should not be discouraged in any way from fulfilling that responsibility. There are exceptions, and they include the disabled.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many extra vocational training places his Department expects to provide during the next 12 months.

My Department expects to provide about 9,000 additional vocational training places during the next 12 months, including over 3,000 in Government training centres.

Is there any indication that the increased amount of training is helping to reconcile severe unemployment with severe shortages of labour in certain industries, particularly in places like Bolton? Furthermore, is the amount of training having any effect on that strange statistic known as the female activity rate?

The object is to try to cure those bottlenecks in the economy which have caused rather more general destruction to the economy in the past. It is also aimed at affording opportunity to those who, for one reason or another, at an earlier stage in their lives have missed those opportunities. It is to facilitate people who want to change their jobs during their working lives and to give encouragement to married women who, having reared their children, wish to go back to work.

Too long.

I am sorry it the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) thinks my answer too long. I regard this matter as important. On the question of vocational training, I can tell the House that there are now about 4,000 women under this sort of training, compared with just over 300 in 1970.

Is the Minister aware that much more remains to be done, especially in the London area, where in Brixton alone the number of unemployed has increased by 55 per cent. since 1962? The figures are quite shocking.

I have been aware for some time of the problems of vocational training in London and I am having a special effort made in that context.

Is the Minister aware that I am very much in favour of vocational training? Does he give any consideration to the types of job for which people have to be trained? Can he assure the House that as regards Lanarkshire especially he will provide the necessary people for the jobs which have not yet come to us?

We are always reviewing the courses in specific areas to see whether they meet the needs of industry and the needs of those who wish to be trained.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure of unemployment for Birmingham.

On 8th January there were 23,827 people unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area and the rate of unemployment was 3·7 per cent. The figures are provisional.

is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disgraceful reply, coming as it does one month after he told me, in a similar answer on an earlier occasion, that I was being too gloomy about unemployment in Birmingham? Is he further aware that over the past month unemployment rose by over 700 and among that total there are still 1,000 boys and girls in Birmingham who have yet to start their first jobs?

There was an increase. but that is expected at this time of the year whatever the conditions. I still think that the hon. Gentleman is being gloomy, because between January 1972 and this month unemployment fell by nearly a fifth in the Birmingham travel-to-work area, largely through a reduction in male unemployment. Notified vacancies for the same period are 90 per cent. higher than they were. This is a fairly good and improving position.

Does the Minister agree that although the figure is of concern it is a welcome drop compared with the figure of 28,500 or 4·4 per cent. unemployed in Birmingham 13 months ago? Will he also look at a problem that is causing increasing concern in the area, namely, the level of unemployment among young coloured people? Will he give this matter his personal attention, because it has serious social consequences?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are not complacent in any way about the figure; it is still too high, but the trend is in the right direction. The problem of young coloured workers does not apply only to Birmingham, but is a problem in other areas. We are looking at the problem and there are no easy solutions, but I hope that through the Department and other agencies we shall be able to improve the situation in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of working days lost through industrial action, including all forms of strikes and stoppages, during 1972 as compared with the four preceding years; and what is the percentum increase in 1972, compared with 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.

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

Will not my right hon. Friend lift the corner of the carpet and confess the position as it truly is, namely, that the 1972 figures were the worst in our industrial history, notably on account of the coal mining strike and because a greater number of days were lost in 1972 than in any single calendar year on record? Will not my right hon. Friend confess that fact to the House?

What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true——

That is the point.

Comparing 1972 with 1968 the figures of days lost are up by 400 per cent. About half of that increase took place between 1968 and 1970 and rather under half took place between between 1970 and 1972.

While allowing for those figures, will not the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the Industrial Relations Act is the basis of many of the problems which exist in British industry, that the Government have got the confrontation that they have sought, and that the counter-inflation measure now going through this House will only make the position worse? In consequence, will not he now drop the Industrial Relations Act and get back to real consultation and collective bargaining upon which relations between the trade union movement and the employers are based?

The great majority of strikes have nothing at all to do with the Industrial Relations Act. Indeed, 90 per cent. of them take place over pay. Of the days lost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) pointed out, about 45 per cent. were due to the coal mining stoppage, and about two-thirds of the total affected coal miners, building workers and dock workers.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the actual number of strikes was very much down last year?

Yes. The number of stoppages beginning in a year and the number in progress in a year went down consistently from 1970 to 1972.

Do not the figures confirm two facts—first, that the failure of this Government in industrial relations is greater than that of any other post-war Government and, secondly, that year by year since this Government have been in office the situation has got steadily worse? Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that this has nothing to do with the Industrial Relations Act and with the Government's confrontation policies? If the right hon. Gentleman persists in that view, to what does he attribute this sad decline in industrial relations under his Government?

The figures do not bear out what the right hon. Gentleman says. Comparing the years between 1968 and 1970, for example, the number of stoppages starting in those years rose by 64 per cent. The number of stoppages starting between 1970 and 1972 fell by 36 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Twister."] I am not twisting the figures. The number of stoppages in progress in the period from 1968 to 1970 fell by 20 per cent. From 1970 to 1972 they fell by 4·8 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of days lost in industrial dispute in 1972; and what was the last year in which this total of days lost was previously reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through strikes during 1972.

The provisional total of working days lost in 1972 was 23·9 million. This total was last exceeded in 1926.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are surprised at that? We thought that it was the highest number since Wat Tyler and the peasants' rebellion? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the figures are likely to be on Budget day this year, when the civil servants come out on strike? Is not it about time that we decided to amend this absolutely ridiculous Act?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Industrial Relations Act, it has nothing to do with it. The number of days lost were, as I have said, largely due to the coal mining strike and to the building workers' and the dock workers' disputes, all of which were strikes about pay and conditions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many strikes are organised not by responsible trade union leaders but by small groups of militants behind the scenes? Why is it that the Opposition will not occasionally acknowledge this, instead of helping the militants?

The attitude of the Opposition and their delight in the effect of national stoppages is unfortunate. I repeat: this has nothing to do with the Industrial Relations Act or with the Government's industrial relations policy. But the number of days lost last year exceeded the numbers in previous years due to a relatively small number of disputes over pay.

When the right hon. Gentleman's Government were advocating industrial relations legislation, it was on the proposition that it would reduce the number of days lost by strikes in industry? Would he now care to indulge in a little enterprise in this matter—it might even be termed "collective bargaining"—by offering to rescind the whole Act in exchange for an undertaking from the trade unions to look a little more pleasantly at the possibility of cooperation in present policies?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have made it plain in our consultations and in this House that we are ready at any time to consider serious proposals for improving the working of the Industrial Relations Act. We are prepared to consider any complaints about the way in which it impinges upon trade unions and their members. Those unions which have used the Act have found it of advantage to their members. If the unions do not use the facilities under the Act they cannot take advantage of it.

Do the figures which my right hon. Friend has given include the number of days lost in the recent dispute affecting the building industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those who were forced to come out on strike did so because of intimidation and not out of desire?

It is true that the building strike was exacerbated by forms of industrial action which have been deplored by the trade union movement and by both sides of the House.

In view of the fact that the miners' strike has been referred to as being one of the main causes of the numbers being so high, is the Secretary of State aware that that dispute was caused by the incompetence of the Government and the arrogance of the Prime Minister in not judging the situation as it ought to have been judged? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Prime Minister had judged it aright there would not have been one ton of coal or one day's work lost?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if one of our freedoms is the right to strike, which can be misused, an equal freedom is the right to resist strikes, and that if there were more resistance perhaps there would be fewer strikes?

The Industrial Relations Act specifically protects the right of work-people to strike, but it also protects the right of people to get to work if they wish to do so.

Following the question about the miners' strike by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that either the Wilberforce Report was completely wrong in its conclusions or the Government were fundamentally wrong in the attitude that they took to that strike? It would be more honest of Ministers to look back on that period and to admit that they made appalling mistakes which cost the country dearly.

I do not accept that the Industrial Relations Act is the cause of any mess in which the country may be as a result of industrial disputes or action. Neither do I accept that the proposition initially put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is necessarily correct. Indeed, even if it were, I do not accept that it necessarily justifies the degree of industrial action or the methods of picketing used in the miners' strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints of alleged unfair dismissal, under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 have been made to industrial tribunals since 28th February 1972; and of those where inquiries have been completed, how many complaints have been upheld.

In the period from 28th February to 29th December 1972 the industrial tribunals referred 6,863 complaints of alleged unfair dismissal to conciliation officers of my Department. Of these, 1,153 were settled by conciliation and 1,857 were withdrawn.

I thank my hon. Friend for the figures. Does he agree that the rights of the individual are now far better protected against unfair dismissal? If so, does he think that it would be a good thing for trade unions to encourage any of their members who feel that they have a grievance to go to the industrial tribunals instead of opting out of all responsibility?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If hon. Members opposite cannot bring themselves to realise the efficacy of the rest of the Act, they might acknowledge that this is of great help to individuals. I am sure that they will respond to my hon. Friend's plea that they should encourage their trade union friends to co-operate in making this process work and in helping complainants to put their cases.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this part of the Act, which was originally drafted by the Labour Government, is the only part which is of any use whatsoever, and that during the industrial relations battle in this House the Opposition in no way opposed this part of the legislation but felt that in order to get full co-operation it was absolutely essential that all the other parts of it be totally withdrawn by the Government?

I have listened to this "old hat" from the hon. Gentleman for a very long time. I do not agree with what he said about the rest of the Act. When the Labour Government produced proposals on this matter the maximum compensation which would have been awardable was infinitely less than that which is now awardable under our legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the terms of reference of the working group to study the characteristics of the unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the report of the working group to study the characteristics of the unemployed will be published and, if so, when.

The working group will make detailed and objective studies of the characteristics of the unemployed and will also consider what extra information can be obtained to improve our understanding of these characteristics. I will arrange for any results of general interest to be published, but I do not think it advisable to set a time limit to this important work.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell us more about this working group? Does it consist only of civil servants? Are they all from his Department? What provision has been made for hon. Members and other people to give evidence to this working group?

The main burden of the work will fall on officials of Government Departments—my Department, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys. The work will be largely technical, but it will cover a wide range. The criteria to be considered will include all the usual questions—age, sex, duration of current spell of unemployment, time in last job, the reasons for leaving the last job, the occupation, past spells of unemployment, whether a person is in receipt of an occupational pension, and many other matters too numerous to go into at this moment. As I said, it will be largely technical, but it will be extremely valuable in the longer term. We shall be pleased to hear from any hon. Member who would care to contact us. preferably in writing, because the group wishes to see us, and I will arrange it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that this group will look into the special problems of the unemployed in seaside towns, particularly with regard to seasonal unemployment and opportunities for young people?

Yes. This is an important point. I will certainly call its attention to the problem of seaside workers. The list that I gave includes occupational pensions, age groups, and so on. This applies particularly to areas like Scarborough and Whitby. I hope the group will be very thorough in its investigations.

Will this survey cover those without work who live on unearned incomes, or is it to be confined only to those who are registered unemployed?

It will be confined primarily to those who are registered unemployed. We are also looking generally at the whole problem of those who are unemployed but who may not necessarily be registered for various reasons. Primarily it will be those who are on the register, because their need is obviously the greatest.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to introduce legislation to set up the Manpower Services Commission.

As soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, I hope that it will be sooner than possible, because this commission is so important to our manpower resources and to his future plans for dealing with redundancy and unemployment problems in the country today.

I fully accept the importance of the Manpower Services Commission. I intend to set it up as soon as possible after the necessary legislation has been passed through Parliament. I hope to publish the Bill in a month or two.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the situation now appertaining in the knitwear industry—I can speak only for the Mansfield hosiery mills—as we are possibly on the verge of the first racial strike to take place in this country, with a view to asking the Home Secretary to turn over certain of his powers to the commission?

The Manpower Services Commission will not be concerned. initially at any rate, with that sort of problem. I am aware of the difficulties. The House will be aware that there was a difficult situation in another part of the country not long ago. Fortunately, it was resolved by an inquiry which was set up and dealt with it very speedily.

When the Commission is fully established will it be the direct employer of the staff at the employment centres, the GTCs, the ITBs, and so on. or will they be employed and paid by the Department?

We are now discussing this matter with the staff side. Their position and status are fully secure and, whichever way round the actual detail is worked, it will be worked out in agreement with the staff side concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations his Department has had with other interested bodies on the recommendations made in the Commission on Industrial Relations report on industrial relations training.

Discussions have already started with the education Departments and the Commission on Industrial Relations. A meeting with senior officials of industrial training boards has been arranged for mid-February and approaches are being made to other principal bodies concerned.

I do not think that I fully heard the reply from my hon. Friend because of the noise. However, will he give an assurance that, whatever changes are made in the methods of industrial training, industrial relations training will not be shut out?

No; indeed, my hon. Friend was not able to hear the whole reply. What I said—this meets his concern, which I fully understand—was that there would be a meeting between senior officials and industrial training boards in mid-February to discuss these very subjects.

Would not the Minister agree that it would be a good thing for his right hon. Friend to take a short, sharp crash course in industrial relations training, which might prevent his taking such arbitrary action as forbidding the management of the British gas industry to negotiate with the unions without any legislative power to do so? It cannot be denied that this decision has clearly caused the present disruption in the gas industry.

That is rather a different question. My right hon. Friend did not in fact forbid anyone. But in regard to courses on industrial relations training, I hope that there are some who will look at the motes in their own eyes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has received from industrial boards to exclude more small firms from the payment of levy.

A number of industrial training boards have submitted their intial proposals and others are expected to do so in the next few weeks. These proposals are being considered by my Department and will in some cases require further discussion with boards.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. As very small firms have already been exempted from the levy, will he consider exempting all small firms, pursuant to the recommendations of the Bolton Report? Will he also define exactly what a small firm is, in terms of numbers of employees or turnover?

The Bolton Committee defined a small firm in a manufacturing industry as one with up to 200 employees. I think that that is well known. As for criteria concerning exemptions, we recognise—and probably the whole House recognises—that the definition of a small firm can be something quite different in each industry. That is why it is right to have discussions with the boards about their con-consideration as to what constitutes a small firm.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the best results of the Industrial Training Act is the large number of small firms which have come into active training for the first time in the form of group training schemes, partly because of the levy rebate system, and that if he exempts too many small firms he will do great damage to training opportunities in this country? Will he not move too far down this road?

I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, it is taken into consideration. What lie says is true, but, equally, there are those small firms which probably should not be within the scope of these boards and exempted. Also, we have to take into account the amount of bureaucracy involved. What we are trying to do is to achieve a balance between good training and removing some of the bureaucracy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of adults unemployed, seasonally adjusted, during the last three months; and how this compares with the same period in each of the past six years.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of adult vacancies, seasonally adjusted, during the last three months; and how this compares with the same period in each of the past six years.

Between October 1972 and January 1973 the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment fell by 61,000, whilst the corresponding level of unfilled vacancies notified for adults rose by 35,800. I will publish the comparable figures for earlier years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does my hon. Friend realise that this is very good news and indicates the success of the Government's policy? Does he appreciate that hon. Members on the Opposition benches are disappointed at good news because they base their policies on hate and envy and when we get good news it makes them look "proper Charlies"?

Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The position is improving considerably. It is underlined by the lack of Questions on this subject tabled for today by hon. Members of the Opposition.

The Under-Secretary says that the position is improving. Will he tell me when it will have improved enough for him to be able to define what I would call an acceptable level of unemployment?

No, I think that it would be wrong to try to define acceptable levels of unemployment. We have always said that if the figure was too high we would take steps immediately to bring it down. The successes of the Government's policy are absolutely apparent today from the figures I have given.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit of Mururoa Atoll.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister disapprove of the French nuclear tests?

The position of the British Government, like their predecessor, is well known on the question of nuclear tests in the air. We wish all countries to sign the partial test ban treaty which will prevent tests in the air, and we voted for the resolution during the last Assembly of the United Nations to this effect.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that a British Crown Colony, namely, Pitcairn Island, is in the direct area of these nuclear tests and is already suffering from serious fall-out difficulties, which apparently have been rejected for attention by the British Government and the only resident plenipotentiary that we have on the island? Will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to the needs of the Pitcairn Islanders?

The Government's attention has been constantly addressed to the needs of the Pitcairn Islanders. The Commissioner for Pitcairn has visited the island each year and, as my hon. Friend knows, a Royal Air Force team has been on Pitcairn specifically to see whether there was any evidence of health hazard as a result of these tests, and the team carried out radiological surveys there. This is the arrangement we have carried out each time we have had notification of any tests. I must tell my hon. Friend—I hope that he will not create unnecessary alarm—that the RAF team has not found evidence of the damage to which he refers.

Is it not the case that at one time previous British Governments, with the full support of both sides of the House, protested against nuclear tests when conducted by the Russian Government? Will not the Prime Minister summon up the courage and national dignity to protest with equal force against the test being carried out by the French Government?

What we did as a result of the Russian tests was to negotiate with the United States in 1963 for the partial test ban treaty. The then Conservative Government played a very prominent part in getting that treaty and urging other countries to sign it. That is still our position. We reinforced it by our vote for the resolution aft the United Nations at the last Assembly.

If the right hon. Gentleman does not make any public protests about this, will he say whether, in his regular private exchanges with the President of France, he has expressed the opinion of the British Government?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that were I to make public what took place in a private exchange it would no longer be a private exchange.

There are many precedents under both the right hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen find this question a laughing matter. There are many precedents under successive Governments on this subject. Will the right hon. Gentle- man say whether he has made any protest?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect me—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—to make public any of the contents of any private discussions, any more than he himself did when he was Prime Minister.