asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will give the latest figures for unemployment in England and Wales.

On 12th February there were 597,415 people unemployed in England and Wales and the rate of unemployment was 2·9 per cent. The figures are provisional.

Is not this improvement an illustration of the success of the Government's policies and should it not make us even more aware of the danger in which the country stands at the moment? Would not all the achievements of the past three years be set at nought by ill-considered action on the part of the few over the next few weeks?

It shows that the Government's policies are being successful in increasing employment. There are signs that investment too is increasing. The more stable our economy and the more successful we are in controlling inflation, the more likely this is to continue.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone welcomes any reduction in unemployment without any reservations? Will he answer two points? Does he agree that the figures announced last week no longer include over 11,000 temporarily stopped, so that a complete comparison with older figures should take this into account? Will he state firmly that a figure of 750,000 unemployed for the country as a whole is still intolerably high? Ought it not to remain the priority of the Government to take new measures to bring that figure down?

I certainly acknowledge the point the right hon. Gentleman has made about the temporarily stopped. That has been made clear in the presentation of the figures. The trend of unemployment as shown by the three-monthly moving averages is still significantly downwards and the fall in unemployment is the greatest at this time of the year since the war.

Is enough being done to help the mobility of labour so that people can move farther afield for their jobs if they so wish?

My hon. Friend has a valid point. The Government have stepped up the range of assistance provided for meeting the expenses of people living away from home and those incurred in household removal. About 13,440 people took advantage of these measures in the last nine months of 1972 as compared with 6,180 in the equivalent period of 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage unemployment has increased in the city of Leicester since June 1970.

Between June 1970 and February this year the unemployment rate for Leicester rose from 1·2 per cent. to 2·2 per cent., an increase of 1·0 percentage points. This takes no account of the seasonal factors involved.

Taking into account all the factors, has not the unemployment rate in the Leicester area doubled during this period? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous hardship caused by unemployment in a previously very prosperous city?

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman over-eggs the pudding. Unemployment in Leicester has fallen by more than 800 in the past year, it has fallen by 350 in the past month and the rate now is well below the national average rate. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will now underline this good news for his constituents, as he was eager to underline the temporary rise in unemployment towards the end of 1971.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures are highly satisfactory—

Absolute rubbish.

—when one takes into account the recent influx of immigrant workers into Leicester with which Leicester is coping?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that sensible comment. The Uganda Resettlement Board's figures show that about 2,200 people have gone to Leicester of whom about 350 are registered as unemployed. The city has done an excellent job in accommodating them and getting them employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure of wholly unemployed in the West Midlands and in Walsall respectively; and what action he proposes to reduce these numbers.

On 12th February there were 3,381 people unemployed in the Walsall travel-to-work area and 61,577 in the West Midlands Region. The figures are provisional.

Although that improvement is welcome, are not these figures still very serious? In regard to Walsall, what assessment has been made of the effects of the closure of the Tube Investments factory? As for the West Midlands as a whole, is the Minister aware that the high interest rates which are now being charged by banks are a severe disincentive to many small industries to engage in the industrial reinvestment on which future employment will depend? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about that?

In regard to Tube Investments, we shall be prepared to do all we can to help those who may be displaced. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, however, he paints far too gloomy a picture. The position in the West Midlands at the moment is very encouraging. There has been a fall of 10 per cent. in unemployment since last month. Over the past year the fall was 26,600, which represents a reduction of 30 per cent.—a considerable achievement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the neighbouring constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth the unemployment rate has considerably decreased?

Yes, Sir. This reflects the general decline which has been going on and shows that the Government's measures are working, and working very well.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that there are adequate employment facilities in the Norwich area for the disabled.

The unemployment rate for the registered disabled people in the area is significantly lower than the national rate and is now lower than at any time during the last four years. I welcome this trend, although there is always room for further improvement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a satisfactory state of affairs? Has not this situation been revolutionised recently by the fact that more severely disabled people are more readily employed since Remploy negotiated a deal with a local firm? Will he also agree that there are several not so badly disabled persons who cannot get jobs? Does he further agree that if all employers took their share these too might find employment?

That is true and, like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work done by Remploy. We are never satisfied that sufficient employers take the right number of disabled people and we work all the time to encourage them to take their share.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Fellowship of Workers for the Disabled and Handicapped recently presented a petition to Downing Street? Is he further aware that the gravamen of its case was that employers were not taking their proper quota of disabled people—people who can contribute to the wealth of the country? Will he look at this?

That does not arise on this Question, but there are strong feelings about it and the hon. Member knows that we are currently considering this matter. There are no ready answers but we are endeavouring to find a solution.

Although we are all grateful for the better employment opportunities now available for disabled people in the eastern counties, may I ask my hon. Friend to say something about what is being done to provide training facilities for disabled people, particularly in East Anglia?

Not without notice. Norwich has no industrial rehabilitation unit but vocational training is available. Training facilities for the disabled have improved in East Anglia and elsewhere. Again, this is a subject which we have constantly under review. If we can provide extra facilities we will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of vacancies notified to him that exist in industries in Scotland involved directly and indirectly in energy production; and what was the rate of contraction in these industries during 1972 and to the nearest available date in 1973.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers of notified vacancies remaining unfilled in certain industries involved in energy production, together with certain information about the reduction in numbers employed in some of these industries during 1972.

Does the Minister accept that the House will want to study the figures when they are available, especially in relation to the location of the vacancies? Does he agree that the number of vacancies revealed should bear some relation to any policy decision that the Government will want to make about the exploitation of our indigenous energy resources?

Of course one takes account what the hon. Gentleman says; it is obviously a factor. In January there were 123 notified unfilled vacancies in these industries in Scotland compared with 65 in 1972. During the past year the number of vacancies in all industries has more than doubled.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the projects organised under the aupices of Community Industry in the Blyth constituency, the Northern Region and other areas of the country; and if he will make a statement.

Altogether Community Industry has undertaken 197 projects including 86 in Northern Region and one in the Blyth constituency. I recently announced the Government's decision to increase the support for the Community Industry Scheme.

Is the Minister aware that this is a welcome development and that even further expansion is needed—not that we are ungrateful for the increased support that has been made available? Will he consider linking this scheme with the Government training centres? If the excellent training facilities given by Community Industry are passed on to the Government training centres this will help to combat youth unemployment in the region, which is one of our main problems.

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall be happy to look at his suggestion. The scheme was never seen as a means of combating unemployment, important as that is. The scheme is a means of assisting individual young people with special employment problems. It is doing good work, and the increase is generous and realistic. I am glad that the increased support has been welcomed by those who have organised the scheme, including the director who has written in favourable terms to my right hon. Friend.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on increasing the support to enable Community Industry to provide more than three times its existing number of places. Will he undertake to look sympathetically at any request that might come from the organisers of Community Industry if it is able to provide work opportunities for even more than the 2,000 places already provided?

Yes, Sir. This matter will be kept constantly under review. We shall see how it goes. The initial scheme was a pilot one, we are satisfied that it is working well and this is a further expansion. We shall certainly look at it again in due course. In addition we shall look at the areas which have expressed interest in the scheme and are prepared to undertake it. About 40 local authorities have recently been in touch with us about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of working days lost through industrial disputes in the five years 1st January 1965 to 31st December 1969 and the number of days so lost in 1972.

The figures are 19·6 million and 23·9 million respectively.

Does not that huge, fivefold increase suggest that the Conservative promise of a sovereign remedy in 1970 has proved to be merely an aggravation of a problem which the Conservative Party grossly distorted in the period up to 1970?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 1972 figures have been distorted by stoppages in the coal, building and docks industries. The number of stoppages has been accepted by successive Governments as being an equally important indicator, and the annual average number of stoppages in the two complete years of the present Government is slightly less than the average annual number of stoppages over the five complete years of the previous Labour Government.

Was not 1972 the worst year in terms of days lost through strikes since 1926? Is not that hardly surprising in view of the fact that 1926 was the last occasion before 1972 when we had to decide who governed the country—Parliament or the trade unions?

If my hon. Friend is saying that in 1926 and in 1972 we suffered coal strikes, that is certainly so, but the strikes in the building and docks industries contributed to the exceptional difficulties in 1972.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the number of strikes was as significant as the number of days lost. Is he aware that his predecessor stressed repeatedly to the House that it was of much greater significance that the number of strikes should be reduced? Contrary to the presentation which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House, in 1972 the number of disputes was greater than the average for the whole of the period of the Labour Government and significantly higher than in four of the years of the Labour Government.

The number of stoppages in 1972 was very much lower than the number in 1970, and the average annual number of stoppages in the five years of Labour government was slightly more than the average annual number of stoppages in the two complete years of Tory government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he can now say when he expects to publish the Employment and Training Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans to introduce legislation to implement Government proposals on training.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he can now give an approximate date when he expects to publish the Employment and Training Bill.

The Bill will be presented this week.

I am delighted to hear that. The consultative document was published a long time ago and the situation has become embarrassing to a number of us who are involved in training. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for getting rid of the embarrassment.

I apologise for having embarrassed my hon. Friend and I am glad to be able to relieve her of her embarrassment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable concern in the youth employment service at the delay in introducing the Bill? Will responsibility for youth employment be with local education authorities or with the Government, and what implications will the Bill have on the Bill dealing with local government finance? Who will pay?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the White Paper or other explanatory document which it is intended to publish at about the same time as the Bill and which will explain how the youth employment service is to be treated. The object is to allow young people to retain the facility of using the full employment services while maintaining the local authority special services for young people and school leavers.

Will my right hon. Friend say in advance whether the object of the Bill is to provide more adequate training courses for school leavers than the present skills appreciation courses which are inadequate to their needs?

This will become clearer on publication of the Bill. The basic purpose of the Bill is to set up a Manpower Services Commission to operate the training services agency and in due course the employment services agency. It is primarily a Bill to deal not with the levels of training but rather with the methods.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in presenting the Bill has created a regrettable element of uncertainty for the future of those training establishments? Does he realise that it has not been possible to plan instructions, especially for first-year apprentices? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter urgent attention in the legislative programme ahead?

I am aware that there have been uncertainties in some areas as a result of the length of time required for consultations in trying to prepare the Bill. It is a fairly considerable departure. A new effort is being made, with the help, advice and approval of both sides of industry, to set up a manpower services commission representative of industry to control the training services agency and the employment services agency. It is not a minor measure. It has been necessary to think it right through to the end before proceeding with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has now been made in consultations on the Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work; and whether he can say when he proposes to introduce legislation.

We have obtained general reactions from nearly 100 non-Government organisations; discussion of particular aspects is continuing both within and outside Government. My right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation in the 1973–74 Session.

I was hoping that my hon. Friend would say it was to be next week. Is he aware that the report was presented about nine months ago and that there has been ample opportunity to consult the hundred different organisations? Will my hon. Friend indicate where the shoe is pinching? Is it on the unified inspectorate or on the voluntary approach?

The proposals are very wide-ranging and raise a number of complicated issues. In undertaking a measure of comprehensive reform of this type it is essential to get the basic decisions right. As I have said, my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation next Session. I think that that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Where there are existing regulations, for example the building regulations, is it proposed that they should continue in force or are the Government discussing the idea of unifying regulations of this type in general regulations throughout industry?

A whole range of regulations is being discussed from the point of view of unification. The object is to promote a more self-regulating system of health and safety at work. This has to be worked out in consultation, and it is very important to get the right advice from those concerned. It is important to have a strong back-up of powerful sanctions. Provided we have those, I believe that no one need worry that the new regulations will not do better than the old ones.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the division between the duties of factory inspectors and those of alkali inspectors and say whether the division makes the job of controlling emissions more difficult?

There is a very distinct division at the moment. It is far from clear in the public mind on occasions which authority is responsible. It is one of the difficulties to which the Robens Report drew attention and one that the Government are currently considering. It is a matter of some importance.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that every measure put forward by the Labour Government for two years was resisted by the then Opposition because, it was said, we were waiting for Robens? Are we now to wait two years for Macmillan, as appears to be the case? May we have an assurance that before the Government commit themselves to any final policy on this matter they will include this House in their consultations?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. It is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But how right we were to resist legislation proposed by the Labour Government in view of Robens. The report is extremely comprehensive. The fact that there is a delay of a Session is not unrealistic in the circumstances. This will be a major piece of legislation and we have to get it right if it is to be effective.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, taking the cost of living index at 100 on 18th June 1970, what has been the percentage increase since, based on the General Index of Retail Prices.

The General Index of Retail Prices rose by 22·4 per cent. between 16th June 1970 and 16th January 1973.

is not that answer a savage indictment of a Government which won the General Election on a promise to cut prices "at a stroke"? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in areas of high unemployment and low wages such as Lincoln, Dundee and Chester-le-Street, people's standard of living has been eroded at a far faster rate than in many other areas?

I thought that this Question might not be unconnected with by-electioneering, which would be better done on the hustings than in this House. However, I recall that a member of the Labour Cabinet at the time of the last election has told us that, seeing the growing shadows of things to come, his right hon. and hon. Friends ran away from rising prices.

Can my hon. Friend say what has been the rise in the level of earnings over the period referred to in the Question?

The increase in earnings over that period was 34 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for the latest estimate proportion of job his Department.

Accurate information about total job vacancies is not available. The best estimate is that about 25 per cent. of total annual job changes are being notified to my Department's employment services.

Does not that suggest that there are more than 800,000 jobs now available nationally and that in the South-East alone there are 400,000 vacancies for 139,000 unemployed people? Will my hon. Friend comment on that and on the growing number of acute shortages in a number of trades, especially certain skills? Does not that suggest that there is need now for greater priority to be given to retraining than to general Government measures to reduce the level of unemployment?

There is a great need for retraining. We have recognised this and tried to supplement it. There are big regional imbalances of labour shortage. It is a problem that we have always recognised and tried to tackle. It is a question of matching, and I hope and believe that the modernisation of the employment service now being undertaken will result in a better supply of vacancies coming through as a result of more sophisticated matching. Again these matters are not achieved overnight, but progress is being made.

Surely the problem of attendance at retraining centres on the rates of pay being paid to those undergoing retraining, quite apart from the cost of travelling to training centres, is a great deterrent. When will the hon. Gentleman look at these two specific problems?

We look continually at the costs involved. I remind the hon. Gentleman that those who are training receive about £5 over and above unemployment benefit. I am glad that there has been a resurgence of applicants for training throughout the country. One of the big difficulties spotlighted by this Question is that there are often a large number of vacancies in some parts of the country but considerable unemployment in other parts and it is difficult to match the two. We are doing what we can about it.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the demand for retraining? Is it increasing? Are there long waiting lists?

There is a considerable demand and, as my hon. Friend will recall from his days at the Department, there are quite long waiting lists. Again this is a matter that we are trying to iron out so that people's enthusiasm is not diminished and that they can get to a training centre within a reasonable period of time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us take his point about the regional imbalances? Is not the answer that whereas in the North, especially in Glasgow, there are 10 boys running after one job, in London and the South-East there are two jobs for every unemployed boy? What does he intend to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is this disparity. The Government have done a tremendous amount by their regional policies and their introduction of extra industry in these difficult areas. Considerable progress has been made but it takes time, as we said when we came to office and we faced a high and rising rate of unemployment. We are tackling this, and the unemployment figures generally are coming down substantially.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with trade unions regarding the terms and conditions of employment of workers on oil rigs and production platforms on the North Sea.

My Department has not received any requests from trade unions for such discussions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet among trade unionists, particularly in Scotland, about the difficulties of obtaining adequate conditions for many of those employed on production drilling rigs? Will he undertake to discuss with the companies concerned how trade unions can get the opportunity of ensuring membership of trade unions of the people undertaking work on these production platforms?

My Department's manpower advisers are always ready to discuss problems of industrial relations, particularly if they are brought to their attention. Trade union recognition and attendant problems are matters primarily for the employees, trade unions and employers concerned. However, if they wish to get together and want advice we are only too ready to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the approximate state of indebtedness of the Construction Industry Training Board at 1st February 1973.

On 1st February 1973 £2,144,000 was outstanding against the loan of £8 million made by the Department to the board following an early repayment of £3 million in January 1973. I am pleased to say that the outstanding amount has been repaid since then and the debt is now cleared.

I welcome that improvement in the cash flow, as forecast in the annual accounts. Is not this training board unique among industrial training boards in that the auditors found it necessary in the last annual accounts to point out that no allowance had been made for the grant due to be paid out of levy income? Will my hon. Friend instruct the board for the year ended 31st March 1973 to make clear the amount of grant which is due to be paid out of the levy income that is collected?

My hon. Friend is incorrect in thinking that there is anything unusual about the way the accounts have been audited. He is assuming that grants to be paid out following the end of the board's financial year have to be funded from a levy already collected. This is not so. They are funded from a subsequent levy. My hon. Friend will find that the system is similar with other boards—from recollection, the Chemical Industry Training Board, the Petroleum Industry Training Board and the Ceramics Industry Training Board.

Is not one of the problems that, because of the growth of labour-only subcontracting, there has been failure to collect the levy from about one-third of those involved in the industry? This is an absolute scandal. Should not part of the Government's policy be to tackle this question to overcome the problem, for example, of future apprentices coming into the industry?

All these matters are taken into consideration. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's particular interest in the matter which, as he said in the House recently, follows my interest. We must take all these matters into account, but they are not, as he knows, easy problems to tackle.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a critical shortage of skilled labour in the construction industry, particularly in the stress areas? Is he also aware that as a result of that shortage labour is costing a considerable amount? May I ask him not to countenance any attempt to discourage a massive increase in training for skilled tradesmen in the construction industry?

The answer is an emphatic "Yes, I agree."

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any further approaches from the Trades Union Congress with regard to reviewing the law of picketing and drawing up a code of picketing practice.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the TUC and the unions in membership are prepared to co-operate in ensuring that there shall not be intimidation on the picket line?

Mr. Victor Feather, the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has made it perfectly plain that he is against all forms of violence and intimidation on the picket line and the joining of the picket line by unauthorised persons. I am prepared to consider any suggestions which the TUC may care to make on the subject. I think that a voluntary code of practice issued with the authority of the TUC could be very useful.

As we have a unique situation today with many thousands of civil servants on strike for the first time in our history, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Civil Service unions today? Perhaps they could give him some idea of how this matter could be resolved and also discuss their wage problems.

Such evidence as I have seen of the picketing which has been going on today shows that it has been entirely peaceful.

My right hon. Friend said that he had not received any representations from the TUC. Has he received any representations to expedite the review of picketing which the Government are carrying out?

We are considering a review of the law. The major problem is not so much the adequacy of the law, particularly the criminal law—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in a speech at Dulwich on the 13th of this month, the ordinary criminal law is not suspended on the picket line, and I do not think that has been disputed—as the question of enforcement. We are considering whether anything can be done to explain the law more clearly to those concerned.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would assist him in any discussions with the TUC if he put forward a code of practice for Prime Ministers when we recall that on 13th August 1966 his right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister said:

"The power to break agreements already made is particularly objectionable, and is in sharp contrast to the policies followed by the Conservative Government in the past"?

What the hon. Gentleman has read out is totally irrelevant to the Question. I am perfectly certain that neither he nor any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House would in any way wish to suggest that the trade union movement as a whole approved of violence, intimidation or breach of the criminal law on picketing.

In view of all that is happening in this respect, could not the Government forgo their normal fundamental philosophy and think in terms of nationalising the trade union movement?

That would give rise to some interesting problems and considerations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, to his knowledge, there is no complaint against picketing in the gas dispute or in any other current dispute? Is it not important that we get this matter in perspective: that whereas on the one hand we would all condemn the rare occasions on which violence or intimidation was used, on the other hand we should all condemn those members of the Conservative Party who use it as an excuse for union bashing?

I think that the greater part of that supplementary question by the right hon. Gentleman was less that generous. There is genuine concern not only among right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House but in the country as a whole, not least among trade unionists, at some manifestations in the past of violence and intimidation which we cannot deny have taken place. I am happy to confirm that, as far as I am aware, in the current gas industry dispute there has been no question of anything of that sort.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the number of school leavers who were granted apprenticeships in the engineering industry in Scotland in the years 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 to the latest available date.

In Scotland in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 respectively, 2,061, 1,863, 1,500 and 1.344 young people under 18 entered apprenticeships in the enginering industry as their first jobs on leaving full-time education. Figures for January 1973 are not yet available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of apprentices entering the engineering industry has shown a marked depreciation? Is he also aware that some very large companies in Scotland have not employed apprentices for over three years? Are the Government prepared to carry out an inquiry and, if my information is correct, try to encourage these industrialists to employ young people as apprentices?

I made an inquiry about a particular large firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency within the last few days. It is true that it has not been taking on apprentices but the apprentice school is still open. The engineering industry was particularly affected by the decline in economic and industrial activity in latter years. As a result, there has been a sharp fall in the number of apprentices. We have taken action in other spheres, notably in sharing with the industrial training boards the costs of apprenticeship places and so on, to contribute towards the maintenance of an adequate future supply of trained craftsmen. There are other methods which apply particularly to Scotland as an assisted area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry in an effort to increase apprenticeships for school leavers.

The Confederation of British Industry has been fully consulted about the plans for the future of industrial training, including apprenticeship training, which were announced by my right hon. Friend on 8th August and 22nd November 1972. It is also represented on the National Youth Employment Council which keeps opportunities for school leavers under regular review.

Notwithstanding that reply, is not the Minister aware that, despite repeated promises in the House, the opportunities for young people to enter apprenticeships continue to decrease? Is he further aware that in London, for instance, we now have one of the highest weekly redundancy figures for any region of the country and a continuous decrease in apprenticeship opportunities? When will he discuss with hon. Members constructive opportunities for young people to enter worthwhile apprenticeships?

I should have thought that there would be a good deal of opportunity to do that with the introduction of the Bill which my right hon. Friend announced today—and I am very glad that he did. As for London, 27·9 per cent. of boys entering employment in 1972 went into apprenticeship as against 38·7 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole. The level, however, is counterbalanced by a higher entry of clerical employment and employment of other kinds with planned training.

In his talks with the CBI and the TUC, what discussions has my hon. Friend had about increasing the opportunities for girls in apprenticeships, since the position at the moment is very bad?

The number of girls entering apprenticeships has increased steadily from 16,000 in 1970 to 18,000 in 1972. So that is a rather better story.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will initiate action to encourage building employers in the Manchester area to recruit more indentured apprentices.

The recruitment of building apprentices is primarily a matter for the employers, in co-operation with the Construction Industry Training Board. My Department is at present meeting half the cost of the construction board scheme for initial training of boys unable to secure apprenticeships immediately, and also makes grants to building employers in the Manchester area who take on more apprentices.

Is the Minister of State aware that many young boys in my constituency want to pursue careers in the building industry but feel that private builders and employers are letting down young people by encouraging lump labour, so that the requisite number of indentured apprentices is simply not available? Will he do something about this?

We have already discussed to some extent today the question of lump labour and the difficulties involved in dealing with it. I understand that the Construction Industry Training, Board is considering the possibility of introducing a scheme on a larger scale to encourage building employers to take on more apprentices. I very much welcome that.

Will the Minister congratulate the Manchester Corporation direct works department on its commitment to 500 building trade indentured apprentices? Will he urge private employers to have as large a proportion of apprentices to other workers as the direct works department has?

I hope that everyone concerned will try to increase the number of apprentices. What I know is that the building industry in Manchester and the country as a whole is recovering from the low levels of 1971, which followed the depression in which the party opposite left the building industry.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative local government conference on 10th February on the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Saturday 10th February to the Conservative local government conference at Westminster on the subject of rates.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made on 10th February to the Conservative local government conference in London on the economy.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative local government conference on 10th February on the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech he made on 10th February 1973 to the Conservative local government conference on the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative local government conference in London on 10th February on the economy.

I did so on 12th February, Sir.

Since in that speech the Prime Minister said, in his own words, that he wanted the lower-paid to be helped more than those at the top of the scale, why is he cutting back the gasmen to an extra £2·25 a week when, in a month, he will award to those on his own pay level an extra £6 a week in surtax reductions, an extra £5 a week in phase 2 and an extra £3·50 a week in reduced tax on unearned income? Why do people like him need six times the increase of the gasmen?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the arrangements for phase 2. These were confirmed in detail yesterday in the Green Paper. As for the changes in taxation, they were dealt with in the last Budget.

When my right hon. Friend made that speech, he referred to the rates. In any discussions that he has on rates, will lie remember that we must not cloud the responsibilities of local councillors to their electors? Has he seen a report in last night's Bolton Evening News which shows that the Bolton rate is going up by the highest figure for 10 years under Labour control, whereas Tory councillors are even now keeping things on an even keel?

It is desirable that ratepayers should see the extent to which their rating assessment is being changed as a result of revaluation and the allocation of the actual rate poundage as between different items, for most of which local authorities are responsible, and no doubt they will compare one local authority with another.

When the Prime Minister talked to the local government conference about monitoring public spending, why did he not point out that he himself was having a £40,000 heated indoor swimming pool built at Chequers? Is not that a luxury item? What is the Prime Minister's new slogan—"Come bathe with me and beat the freeze"?

The Trustees of the Chequers Trust accepted a present, which involved no public expenditure, in order to commemorate the two visits of President Nixon to Chequers—once under my predecessor and once when I was there —and his meeting with the Queen.

On the subject of incomes policy mentioned in his speech, has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Glasgow Herald of 26th February of a meeting of gasmen addressed by the Leader of the Opposition at which he said that the gasmen were not breaking the law and could depend on Labour's backing? Does not this show that the so-called peace plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is simply a twice-weekly charade in this House?

I read the report by the political correspondent of the Glasgow Herald. I have no means of judging its accuracy. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has. He said, I see:

"Both in its content and its total impact, Mr. Wilson's speech was inflammatory and not designed to placate."

When the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Civil Service staff side in 1966, deploring the Labour Government's wage control policies, he no doubt wrote sincerely, but in the light of his own experience would he not agree that that letter was unwise?

No. Perhaps I can draw attention, not only for the House but for all civil servants and for people outside, to the letter which was sent to the staff side which I have already quoted once in the House and which was designed to deal specifically with an occasion of this kind. I can read it again. It says:

"Subject to any requirements of an overriding national policy of general application the Government intends to continue to reacts and implement settlements on the basis of surveys by the pay research unit."

Is it not clear that everybody in the country, or almost everybody, recognises the danger of inflation? Would my right hon. Friend agree that it appears that the Labour Party either has capitulated or is about to capitulate totally to the wishes of the militant trade unions and that this can do nothing whatever to cure inflation?

I do not believe that a policy which says that the whole of the price structure should be controlled and that there should be absolutely no control of wages is a viable policy. What is more, the trade union leaders themselves know that it is not a viable policy.

Since the Prime Minister invited me to intervene, if he will read all the reports of that speech—[Interruption.]—including that in The Times, he will see that I spoke entirely within the terms of the letter which I wrote to him and which he so foolishly rejected. Reverting, however, to the speech which was the subject of the Question, which was the Prime Minister's speech, can the right hon. Gentleman now vary the answer he gave me before Christmas about interest rates? In view of the almost weekly leapfrogging between clearing bank base rates and the interbank market dealings, against the background of a £4,000 million Government borrowing requirement and a demoralised gilt-edged market, in view of the inevitable consequences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long.")—for mortgage rates, which Conservative Members made so much of in the last election, will he now vary that answer and take interest rates in control?

As I told the right hon. Gentleman before, we take the same view as his administration: that interest rates are part of the means of securing an expansion or otherwise of the economy. If interest rates are to be used in that manner, obviously they cannot be controlled. What we have done is to deal with this under the allowances when people are calculating their costs, and I believe that to be the right approach. But if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that his speech, to which allusion has been made, was entirely in the terms of the letter lie wrote to me, it is strange that the conclusion should have been drawn that

"unwittingly he undermined his own peacemaking role by characterising it as nothing more than a trap".

It was not a trap, although the right hon. Gentleman has created one for himself on that basis. But on the question of interest rates, does not the Prime Minister realise that, while any Government must be free to use purposive interest rates and other monetary policy, since the setting up of this free market in the City for interest rates the Government can now no longer control interest rates? They are out of their control. There is no bank rate and because of the £4,000 million Government borrowing requirement and the gilt-edged market, is it not a fact that there is no monetary policy at all—except one of steadily rising interest rates which are inflationary?

I cannot possibly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He must have misunderstood the position. There never was a control of interest rates concerning money rates in this country under his administration. Obviously interest rates are interlocking with the demand for money and the demand created by overseas interest rates as well. I remember the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Prime Minister, on many occasions delivering a lecture on this matter to the House.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Londonderry, Northern Ireland.

I have at present no plans for a further visit to Londonderry.

If the Prime Minister visits Northern Ireland, and particularly Londonderry, will he make a speech in which he makes a clear distinction between industrial action in this country and terrorist action in Northern Ireland or from whichever quarter it comes? In that regard will he repudiate the statement by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Penrith on Sunday and tell the House clearly whether or not that speech represented Government policy?

What my right hon. Friend was saying in his speech was a very straightforward point: that his responsibility in Northern Ireland was to try to prevent people from being oppressed by force. It is the responsibility of the Government to protect the weak members of the community, such as the aged and the lower-paid—[Interruption.]—who are being harmed by industrial action.

Would it not be the wish of my right hon. Friend that the news media throughout the world, instead of broadcasting wild and false allegations about the security forces which are doing a noble task in Northern Ireland, should expose the murderous terrorism of the IRA and its cowardly callousness, which was sadly demonstrated at the weekend when a 10-year-old boy was murdered while playing in the garden at the back of his home on the Creggan Estate in Londonderry? [Interruption.] This is not a matter for jokes from the Opposition. The young boy accidently triggered off a landmine which had been deliberately placed there by members of the IRA who are totally indifferent to human life.

Very full accounts of this terrible incident have appeared in the Press and the House will agree that it was a deplorable incident The Provisional IRA has now acknowledged responsibility for it. What is also deplorable is that the IRA is now attempting to blame the Army for not defusing the bomb before it blew up the young lad when in fact the bomb was intended to blow up the Army. The whole House will agree about the terrible nature of the incident.

In view of what the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has said in his supplementary question about the terrible incident in Londonderry, was it not a mistake to equate the action of terrorists with the action of people going about their business of industrial action?

I must correct the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend was not equating terrorists with—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he was."] I would ask the House to read the text of the speech which my right hon. Friend—

It looks jolly like it.

The hon. Gentleman says it looks jolly like it but perhaps he will read the full text and he will see that this is not the case. What my right hon. Friend was saying was that whereas he had responsibilities to see that people were protected in Northern Ireland, so it was also necessary to deal with inflation in order to protect those who suffer from it.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the private possession of firearms in Northern Ireland.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State has indicated that he is considering asking for new powers? Does he not think that the right hon. Gentleman could best demonstrate his good intentions by showing to the people on the Unionist side henceforth that they will be treated exactly the same as people on the anti-Unionist side, and that this is nowhere more urgent than in the private possession of firearms? Will he therefore urge upon his right hon. Friend the need for the revocation of all licences, their issue on the most selective basis, mandatory sentences for those in illegal possession and, finally, impartial spot checks?

My right hon. Friend has been ensuring that both sides are treated alike. It cannot have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend was violently criticised from the Protestant quarter for the firm and stern action which he and the GOC has taken. In fairness to him, that should be acknowledged. My right hon. Friend has already told the House that he will be taking further action about the control of arms. It will be taken under urgent procedure by Order in Council and will be taken in the near future.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me, or can the Secretary of State for the Home Department tell him, whether the firearm which Miss Mary McGuire, a defector from the Provisional IRA, has told the Press she has carried and continues to carry is licensed?

Without notice I could not answer my hon. Friend's question. I shall endeavour to write to him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out a bit further his reference to the Secretary of State's intentions about action under an Order in Council, which I do not believe is fully understood by the House?

The Order in Council, which my right hon. Friend will present, will include powers to require that hand guns licensed for personal protection should be brought in for ballistic or any other necessary test. It will also include powers to revoke licences in certain circumstances and to restrict further the numbers of licensed firearm dealers. I think that this will cover quite a considerable amount of the ground which the Leader of the Opposition has often emphasised in the past.

While we accept what the Prime Minister has said although we do not regard it as going far enough, may I point out to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and also to him that half the trouble that arose in Northern Ireland was because moderate men were not listened to when they voiced legitimate grievances about the situation in Northern Ireland and, therefore, the situation was driven into the hands of the extremists? Would it not be a good idea if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, instead of drawing parallels from the situation in Northern Ireland and trying to equate British trade unionists with that situation, looked more carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland and said "This is what can happen if moderate and reasonable men with reasonable ideas for the future well-being of their country are not listened to"?

I have already explained my right hon. Friend's speech. The whole House respected my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the way in which he listened to the moderate men. On my last visit to Northern Ireland I was criticised for flatly refusing to meet those whom I regarded as extremists.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the London borough of Waltham Forest.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer is a disappointment to me because I had hoped that if he had visited that borough he would have spoken to the leaders of the Labour-controlled council to ask them why their rates are soaring while those of the Tory GLC are held down, and also to make the point to them that they should not come as supplicants for Government money while they refuse to take notice of the Government's request that they should sell council houses to tenants who wish to buy them?

I think that my hon. Friend has made his point admirably without my paying a visit to his constituency. I support his view that local authorities should sell council houses and I can confirm that more and more local authorities have been doing so during the past year.