asked the Secretary of State for Employment what redundancies have been notified that are due to take place in the Westhouses area of the Bolsover constituency in the first week of October 1973.

None, Sir. I understand, however, that British Rail is considering closing the West-houses motive power depot. Staff have been notified informally, but as formal joint consultation has not yet commenced any speculation about redundancies would be premature at this stage.

I hope that they remain premature right through until after 1st October. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is an area which has been decimated by temporary closures over the past eight years and that the Blackwell Rural District Council has been painstaking in its efforts to introduce new industries into the area, to service which the depot will be needed? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the East Midlands Planning Council and his right hon. Friends concerned to see to it that this closure is averted?

I should like to look at what the hon. Gentleman says. He probably knows that these are not direct matters for me. I emphasise that no final decisison has yet been made to close the depot. But with the continuing buildup of new industry in the area and the increase in notified vacancies, the prospects for alternative employment are reasonable if it should close.

Is it not one of the best ways of promoting employment for the area concerned to have a reputation for good labour relations and a lack of militancy? Might it not be the case that the activities of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the Clay Cross Council are detrimental in that respect?

The hon. Gentleman should get his geography right. It is not in my constituency.

Good labour relations are always helpful to any district.

Silly idiot.

To answer the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), is the Under-Secretary aware that it is well to point out that when local government elections are held in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) there is an 80 per cent. turn-out? A lot of us would like to be able to say the same.

That hardly arises on this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to encourage the employment of men in the age group 55 to 65 years.

The current modernisation and extension of the employment and training services provided by my Department should be of benefit to older workers, as to others; the same is true of the Government's measures to expand the economy and stimulate employment generally.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many men and women of mature age outside the assisted areas who feel that they have been thrown on the scrap-heap simply because employers seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with age?

Successive Governments have taken the view that the interests of older workers are best served by encouraging employers to consider them on their merits rather than by protective legislation. It is encouraging that there has been a fall in this category of unemployment in the past 12 months.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities have superannuation schemes with upper age limits of 50 or 51? Is there anything that he can do to encourage them to take into their employment men over that age?

That is not a matter for my Department. However, I am certain that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be noted.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his estimate of the effect on unemployment on rigs and drilling platforms in the North Sea of the proposed tax changes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what co-operation exists between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the monitoring of jobs that are likely to arise as the result of the development of projects attached to North Sea oil.

The proposed tax changes are unlikely to have any significant effect on the level of employment on rigs and drilling platforms. My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are represented on the North Sea Oil Committee of the Scottish Economic Planning Board which co-ordinates information about all aspects of North Sea oil developments.

In the co-ordination of activity, will the Minister pay regard to the fact that many of the highly skilled technologists on these rigs come from outside the United Kingdom? What steps has his Department taken to ensure that the companies employing the technologists recruit United Kingdom workers and at the same time ensure that they pay taxes in the United Kingdom?

It is not possible to ensure that people who are not resident in the United Kingdom, whether they are British or non-British subjects, pay tax in the United Kingdom. As to the skills developing on the rigs and in the ancillary work connected with them, more and more British residents will be employed in these jobs. The number of jobs which these developers are providing in Scotland is increasing rapidly.

Has my right hon. Friend any record of the number of jobs that this new industry has produced, and what are the prospects for the future?

We must remember that so far this work is purely exploratory. There is no oil yet flowing from the North Sea. A total of 3,600 development and exploration jobs has so far been created, including jobs on rigs. Projects which are firm and which have been announced are expected to produce another 8,600 jobs over the next four years, and there will be more projects which are still under consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a need to update information about North Sea oil jobs available now—not jobs projected for the future? Is he further aware of the great anxiety in Scotland about the loss of jobs in the older-established energy industries? The rate of loss of jobs is greater than the gain in new jobs. Will the Minister tell us about jobs that are coming to the fore now?

I have just done so. The situation is changing rapidly. On 21st February I said that there were 3,000 jobs currently created and there would be about 8,500 over the next four years. The present figures are about 700 higher, and that gives an indication of the speed with which the situation is developing and how many more jobs are being created. We must remember the great investment that has been made in the coal mining industry to preserve jobs in the older energy industries.

As much of the work on the oil rigs is highly skilled, what stimulus is my right hon. Friend giving to encourage the training of British nationals in this work?

Firms engaged in North Sea oil activities benefit from training grants to expanding firms in assisted areas, which are £15 per man and £12 per woman per week.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment among the registered disabled in Scotland; what was the comparable figure in each of the previous three years; and what progress has been made towards ensuring that firms comply with the law in the employment of such persons.

On 12th February there were 9,738 registered disabled people unemployed in Scotland. This compares with 11,264 in February 1972, 9,724 in February 1971 and 8,640 in February 1970. My Department continues to take all reasonable measures to ensure that employers fulfil their statutory obligations.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures are far too high? What is the figure expressed as a percentage compared with the percentage of able-bodied people who are unemployed? Will he ask each firm that is not complying with the law to give specific reasons why it should not conform?

Yes, Sir, the figure is too high but it has improved. The percentage total of unemployment among registered disabled persons is 13·4 per cent. We are reviewing all our specialised services for the disabled, and I am glad to announce that we shall shortly publish a consultative document on the quota scheme which goes into the question how much employers should be pressurised or whether we should adhere to the previous method of acting by persuasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let us have his views when he has read the consultative document.

Apart from the review of specialised services, which is much appreciated, is there not almost a failure to advertise the need for firms to take up the quota of 3 per cent. registered disabled? Would not such advertisement bring mounting pressure from the public on firms to do the right thing?

Yes, Sir, there is something in that, but because of the extra efforts made by my Department in the last two years more and more employers are becoming aware of their obligations. This whole issue is dealt with in the consultative document and hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it fascinating reading.

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

I am glad to say that the employment position for the disabled people in the area has improved significantly over the last year and that the number of unemployed registered disabled people has fallen from 509 in March 1972 to 451 on 12th March 1973. There is of course room for further improvement and my Department will continue to make all possible efforts to place those affected in suitable work.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am receiving an increasing number of letters from disabled people in the Southampton area complaining that they are finding great difficulty in obtaining employment? Is he satisfied that firms in the area are taking up their full quota of disabled people?

At the last count 33·9 per cent. of employers in the area with a quota obligation were fulfilling it. That compares unfavourably with the national figure of 42·2 per cent. I inquired whether there were any special reasons, and I understand that there are not. We do all we can. I mentioned in reply to an earlier question, before the hon. Member entered the Chamber, that we are considering this matter. We will publish a consultative document about the quota system. I hope that that will bring about improvements when a final decision is made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the survey carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security the percentage of disabled in the South West was the highest in the country? Can he say whether there is any expansion in the vocational training facilities in my area?

Yes, I am aware of the figures that my hon. Friend quotes. Vocational training facilities in the area are being considerably expanded. The Southampton Government training centre was expanded last year by 116 places to a total of 387. A further 40 places will be added shortly. In addition, a centre with 148 places is due to be opened in Portsmouth in the near future. Improvements are taking place, but I am well aware of the difficulties in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms were prosecuted by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Factories during 1972.

During 1972 1,527 firms were prosecuted under the Factories Act and other legislation administered by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate.

Why were there not more? Are not many industrialists getting away with outrageous malpractices merely because there are not enough factory inspectors to go round? When will the Factory Inspectorate be big enough to do the job properly?

The hon. Gentleman is drawing a totally unwarranted conclusion from the figures I have given. In 1968 there were 928 prosecutions; in 1969, 1,050; in 1970, 1,185; in 1971, 1,315 and in 1972, 1,527. Prosecutions are taken when they appear to be necessary. There are other factors to be taken into account, and there are also other methods of ensuring that the law is complied with and that proper precautions are taken.

Will my right hon. Friend say when action will be taken on the Robens Report?

Yes, I hope very soon to be in a position to give the House more details on this. The Government have accepted the principle of the Robens Report, which underlines what I have just said. While recognising the need to keep a statutory backing of the health and safety regulations, it emphasised strongly the need for the co-operation of management and workpeople in protecting people at work by prevention as well as by prosecution.

Notwithstanding the Government's acceptance of the principle of the Robens Report, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition have some reservations? Will he assure the House that before the Government commit themselves to proposals we shall have an opportunity to discuss the principles and philosophy of the report?

Two questions are involved. There is the question of organisation and there is the question of the methods that that organisation will use. It is on the second that consultation with employers and unions is most essential. Part of the Robens concept is that the methods of ensuring safety and health at work will in the first instance be applied through a body on which unions and employers are represented, and that is why consultation is so important.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make an offer to conciliate in the dispute between Empire Pools, Blackpool, and the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers.

My Department's officials have offered on several occasions to assist in the present dispute but the company considers that no useful purpose would be served by a meeting at this stage.

Is the Minister aware that the mainspring of the firm's attitude-following a decision on a meeting with his conciliation officer and an agreement to recognise the union—is that the firm discovered a difference of £6 per week between its rates and the rates paid to comparable grades by its competitors, Littlewoods and others? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that there is considerable local concern and that the Lord Mayor of Blackpool has intervened because of the likely effect on trade union conferences in the town? Will he try to get the firm to keep to the recognition agreement that it has concluded with the union?

I understand the local concern but, while officials can be of help by way of negotiation, there is no statutory power to impose conciliation upon parties. Although from the Government's point of view, as has always been made clear, reference to the National Industrial Relations Court is a matter of last resort, this is a classic case in which the union itself could have gone to the NIRC had it been a registered union but, unfortunately, it is an unregistered union.

Is the Minister aware that this dispute presents an excellent opportunity for the Government to put into practice the Prime Minister's pronouncement that he believes in the trade union movement and wants to be conciliatory to it? The employers are being very obstinate. Would not this be an excellent opportunity for the Government to put a little pressure on them? Does the Minister realise that it is a question not purely of wages but of recognition, and will he bring pressure to bear on the employers?

I do not wish to comment on the merits of the dispute except to say that it is a pity that this case could not have been taken to the NIRC by the union. Unfortunately the union disbarred itself by being an unregistered union. I hope that the parties will consider afresh the whole possibility of joint talks under the Department's chairmanship.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of youths under 18 years of age unemployed in the North East at the latest available date.

Two thousand four hundred and twenty-six boys under 18 were registered as unemployed on 12th March.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has given me only half the figure? What about the number of girls who were unemployed? Does he agree that the percentage reduction is very small by comparison with the general fall in unemployment? Is not that disturbing?

In recent months there has been a steady improvement for all young people in the North East. On 12th March 4,252 young people under 18— that is, 2,426 boys and 1,826 girls—were registered as unemployed. The number has fallen from 15,000 since August 1972 and includes a fall of 700 over the past month. The situation in the North East is not good but it is improving.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the take-up in the Northern Region of the greatly improved incentives to incoming industry is way ahead of that of any other area? Does he appreciate that there is now much greater hope for unemployed young people, male or female, than there ever was during Labour's six and a half years in office?

My hon. Friend always approaches these matters sensibly and realistically. That is the position. However much the Opposition may pretend otherwise, it is a fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action his conciliation machinery has taken to secure a settlement of the pay dispute involving hospital ancillary workers.

The wage increase offered is at the limit allowable in stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy, and the unions concerned have been urged to put their case to the Pay Board which is being asked to report on anomalies created by the standstill by 15th September. In these circumstances there is no scope for conciliation.

Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman changed his policy of masterly inactivity in disputes of this kind? Is it not time he used all the initiative his Department may have, especially in this case when a very hard-pressed section of the community will be able to cease its dispute immediately if its request for a provisional inquiry, as put forward by the BMA, is met? Will he not move on this?

The suggestion of the BMA was for an inquiry whether by the Pay Board or other methods. As has been made clear to the unions concerned, the Pay Board is operational and will be formally so very shortly. The union can put its case to the board immediately. The hon. Gentleman refers to the conciliation power of my Department. Since the offer made by the employers is at the limit allowable under stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy, there is clearly no room for further conciliation.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that one result of the present dispute has been to show up the anomalies in the wage structure within the industry? Will he confirm that the Pay Board is in a position to make recommendations not only on wage rates but also on wage structure?

The terms of reference of the Pay Board, which will be formally published as soon as the board is formally constituted, make it quite plain that it is within its remit to consider anomalies and relativities both as between different industries and within any given industry. My hon. Friend's point is fully covered.

Is it not quite plain that as a result of the Government's policies the standard of living of these people—some of the lowest-paid in the country—will be worse 12 months from now?

No, Sir.

Reverting to my right hon. Friend's answer about anomalies and things, may I ask whether that means that women will be paid the same as men?

No.

This is very important. I would like to know. May I also ask my right hon. Friend, whose policy; support, whether it is in the national interest—I am not now making a party political point—that people such as the hospital workers should be so low-paid? Ought not action to be taken before this kind of situation arises? I wish that all parties in Government would consider this angle, because we do not want our people to be underpaid.

This is the whole purpose of the Pay Board and of referring to it not only the National Health Service ancillary workers but also other groups which have put forward precisely the same argument. As for the point my hon. Friend makes about pay for women, in addition to the £1·80 per week now available to women workers in the National Health Service there is a further offer of 80p per week as a step towards equal pay in equal steps of one-third between now and 1975. It is not possible to consider the position of one group of low-paid workers except in the way which is laid down for the Pay Board. We must then consider the anomalies and relativities arising initially out of stages 1 and 2 and the further terms of reference. Then we must go, by the end of the year, into the other anomalies.

In view of the Minister's appalling intransigence over these disputes involving many low-paid workers, may I ask why he allowed the recent settlement in the newspaper industry to stand? Can he tell us the result of his investigations into that dispute?

It was settled under the same terms as a number of other settlements, as far as I recollect. If the hon. Gentleman wants more details he had better put down a Question about it. There have been 30 settlements within the stage 2 terms covering about 370,000 workers.

Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman correctly, that the Pay Board would not be required to report until September? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was reported on the one o'clock news today as having said that implementation would be in December? Is not this an intolerable and unacceptable length of time for these low-paid workers to have to wait for justice? If the right hon. Gentleman is so sure that the Pay Board can resolve the dilemma, why is he being so stiff-necked about an alternative form of inquiry?

The alternative form of inquiry is not compatible with the exercise that is the whole function of an independent Pay Board. The Pay Board has been asked to report as soon as possible and in any case not later than 15th September. This is to enable all its findings, including those concerning other low-paid groups of workers, to be considered by the Government, and I hope by the unions, when framing policies for stage 3 of the counter-inflation programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of jobs lost in each of the last five years as a result of the introduction of automotive and mechanically-controlled machines.

I regret that this information does not exist.

Is the Minister aware that Government sources indicate that in the last five to seven years about 2 million jobs have disappeared largely because of new capital technology? If we are ever to return again to full employment, is it not quite clear that we will need a massive planned expansion of non-productive services on a scale far beyond anything that the Government have so far envisaged?

I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures. We know that he nearly always has figures which nobody can find anywhere else.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recent studies in the United States have indicated that by the turn of the century all the work necessary to be done in the North American continent can be performed by 2 per cent. of the population? If those studies are even half correct, the social consequences for other advanced industrial nations are very severe. Can my hon. Friend say whether any long-term research is being carried out by his Department into this problem?

I can tell my hon. Friend that records are available. They were started on 1st June 1972 because of the interest in redundancies due to technological change. The records suggest that jobs lost by way of technological change come very low on the list.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the trends of unemployment in the Hartlepool exchange area.

Unemployment in Hartlepool has been and still is too high, but the situation improved significantly over the past year.

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's answer is abundantly clear and correct. The last part is stupid and irresponsible. Will he bear in mind that by 1975—that is, two years from now— a further 2,800 jobs will be lost in the town due to the closure of the steelworks? Two years following that a further 1,700 jobs will be lost. The present unemployment is over 3,000. The hon. Gentleman's thinking in the House is utter nonsense. Will he not do something about it?

The "utter nonsense" is the figures which are officially compiled. Unemployment amongst men and boys in Hartlepool has fallen by over 1,000 in the past year, from 3,590 to 2,480. The rate has fallen from 10·4 per cent. in March 1972 to 7·4 per cent. this March. We have never pretended that the position in Hartlepool was anything other than serious. We know perfectly well that the steel closures will present a considerable problem. That is why we set up a task force to prepare proposals for comprehensive economic and social measures to deal with the rundown.

Too long.

The Hartlepools has been made a special development area. Assistance is now available under the Industry Act. No Government could be doing more for an area which has suffered under difficulty for a very long time, including the time of the last Labour Government. It is irresponsible and stupid of the hon. Member to make statements like that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in respect of 1954, 1964, 1969 and 1971 an analysis of the method of settlement of disputes as published in respect of 1933 and 1943.

The collection of data for this analysis was discontinued in 1945.

Is it not regrettable that the Government have discontinued the collection of statistics about the way in which disputes are settled? Did not all the information at one time available show that the vast majority of disputes were settled by direct negotiations between the parties concerned? Is it not the case that it is only the Government's intervention at the moment which is preventing the settlement of a number of disputes including, for example, that of the hospital workers? Therefore, the Government are directly responsible for the maintenance of these disputes.

I do not accept for one moment what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not believe that he accepts it in his heart either. If he wants to blame Governments for having discontinued these figures, he had better turn on his right hon. and hon. Friends. They made no attempt to reintroduce the collection of these figures. What the hon. Gentleman says about the majority of disputes being settled by direct negotiations between the parties concerned is, of course, true. A relatively small proportion of them reach the stage of conciliation or arbitration.

Does my hon. Friend keep records of the number of cases handled by his conciliation officers? If so, what is the number of cases handled by them? Is it increasing or decreasing?

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest, as some hon. Members opposite sometimes do, that there has been any loss of faith in the conciliation service. In 1972 officials conciliated in 716 disputes, of which 150 involved stoppages of work, compared with 650, including 166 stoppages, in 1971. On the evidence, there is very great confidence in the conciliation service.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the dispute involving boilermakers at the Spencer Works, Llanwern, Newport, Monmouthshire.

About 300 members of the Boilermakers' Union employed at the British Steel Corporation's Spencer Works have been on unofficial strike since 6th February following the dismissal of a shop steward over an incident involving a foreman. Some 3,000 other workers have now been laid off as a result.

Does the Minister appreciate that the strike resulted from a minor incident and that several thousand people have now been put out of work? Does he not feel that the British Steel Corporation is adopting a rather intransigent attitude by insisting on sanctions against the man concerned before submitting the case to an independent arbitration? Will the Minister, in view of the serious social consequences involved, institute an inquiry into the dispute so that the full facts can be ascertained and the men can get back to work?

I do not think that an inquiry would be helpful in the present circumstances. For that course to be taken there has to be a basis for a return to work, and that would need to be found first.

As the Minister has said, the dispute involves only one man, and thousands of men are now out of work as a result. Will he tell us what is the objection to the proposition that I put forward, following my hon. Friend, that the man, whatever the merits or demerits of his offence, should be allowed to return to work without prejudice to an immediate disciplinary inquiry? That would entirely cut the ground from under those who wish to strike—from the 275 men who are on strike—and thousands of men could then get back to work. The disciplinary inquiry could be held immediately, and the verdict would have to be accepted. None of us knows the facts. Is not this a case where, for the sake of one man, it should be possible to allow him to return to work, provided an immediate disciplinary inquiry is held?

As I understand it, the BSC is prepared to go to arbitration provided that there is a full return to work and the dismissed shop steward remains suspended without pay. The union officials would agree to go to arbitration and to return to work provided that the shop steward was taken back or suspended on full pay. I would not want to comment further on that. If we can achieve something by conciliation, that is always open, but I do not think we can go further than that today.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment which projects for which his Department is responsible are being considered for location in Peterlee New Town.

My right hon. Friend is considering setting up a job centre separate from the present employment exchange.

That at least is more encouragement than the information I am usually given when I raise matters affecting the new town in my constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although Peterlee is the most attractive and best-designed new town in the country, with a dedicated staff and board, it is still attracting less employment than any other new town? Will he do something about this, particularly in view of the fact that there has been a pit closure in recent months? Finally, does he agree that the most immediate and the most important way of doing something about it is to transfer a Government Department or agency? Would not his Department show an example by doing that?

I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He knows that the transfer of Government Departments—a matter on which he has been making assiduous representations— is not one for me. The response to the training facilities in the area is fairly poor from Peterlee, which gives us some concern. Anything that the hon. Gentleman can do to encourage his constituents to take up the opportunities which are there would be appreciated.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to bring the new occupational classification system CODOT to the attention of employers.

Every available opportunity is being taken to publicise CODOT, in addition to publicity through the usual media, particularly the Press and specialist journals. My Department's officers have also contacted a wider selection of employers personally or by mail.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, but is it not true that more publicity could still be given to this scheme which, although small, is eminently worth while?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and for that reason I am grateful to him for his Question, which I am sure will help to publicise the project. He may be interested to know that his own classification under CODOT is 001.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation he has had with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on improvements in training in industrial relations.

Consultations are taking place at official level between my Department and the CBI and TUC.

Have there been any consultations with the TUC on the CIR Report on industrial relations training?

The discussions with the TUC, with the education department, were concerned principally with how the TUC saw shop steward training developing in future. They were not, for reasons which the House will understand, specifically upon the CIR Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of strikes in the motor vehicle and engineering industries lasting less than four days during 1970 and during the whole of 1972.

The official series of statistics excludes stoppages lasting less than one day, unless the total number of days lost exceeds 100. In 1970 stoppages included in the official series which lasted not more than three days numbered 211 in motor manufacturing and 423 in engineering. Comparable statistics are not yet available for 1972 and I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course.

Notwithstanding the failure of the Department to produce figures which should be available, can my hon. Friend give any indication of the trend in the numbers of short-term wildcat strikes since the change of Government in 1970?

These figures should be available by the end of next month. As for my hon. Friend's other question, 1971 was a considerable improvement on 1970 as regards short-term stoppages. There were little more than halt the previous number of stoppages in these industries in that year. The number of workers involved also fell substantially, as did the number of working days lost.

Is not the Minister talking utter and complete rubbish? What has happened is precisely what the Government were warned about, that if they brought in such legislation as the Industrial Relations Act all that we would get were bigger and better strikes, for which the Government would be responsible.

The hon. Gentleman is an expert on talking rubbish. He clearly has not listened to the reply. He came into the House with his supplementary question presumably written down or at any rate well noted mentally and he did not change it in the light of my answer, which showed a considerable improvement.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Lord Chancellor on 10th March at Margate on parliamentary authority represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Lord Chancellor at Margate on 10th March on parliamentary democracy represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord Chancellor on individual freedom at Margate on 10th March represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord Chancellor on liberty under the law on 10th March at Margate represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir. The concept of liberty under law, which was the theme of my noble and learned Friend's speech, is an essential element in the Government's policies.

But is the Prime Minister aware that in his speech about parliamentary democracy the Lord Chancellor implied that property speculators were partly responsible for undermining the system? What does the right hon. Gentleman himself think about property speculators, especially today, when he is being used in The Times to advertise the multi-million-pound Heathrow Hotel, next to Mick Jagger? Why is he concerned about this matter? Is it because he is being used to help property speculation or because he is put next to Mick Jagger?

First, the hon. Gentleman has completely misread my noble and learned Friend's speech—

No, I have read it all.

I did not say that the hon. Gentleman had not read it. I said that he had misread it, and that is now apparent. As for the advertisement in The Times, I am not annoyed; I am just slightly surprised that apparently a reputable paper should have put in an advertisement of that kind.

In his speech the Lord Chancellor quoted Disraeli's remark that, if we wished parliamentary democracy to continue, we had to have party government. While many people are happy to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a latter-day Disraeli, will he agree that, if we are to encourage moderate trade unionists to stand up for what they believe to be right, they must get a lead from the Government, and that they are now getting that lead?

I would not wish to enter into an argument about historical analogies. On my hon. Friend's other point about moderate trade unionists, this is a matter for them. The Government, in their tripartite talks, showed that they were prepared to discuss anything at any time with them, and this remains our attitude. But the decisions of trade unions and trade unionists must continue to be for them to take.

Since the Lord Chancellor made the point that effective action by Governments is sometimes necessary to protect freedom, will the Government now ratify and implement the international convention on human rights? Since he also emphasised the need for a Government lead in creating a climate of opinion, what public events have the Government in mind this year to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The hon. and learned Member knows the position about the ratification of the human rights convention, but the present Government have certainly done as much as their predecessors to maintain human rights. In those spheres where we have been under challenge—for example, in Northern Ireland—the Government have clearly shown their determination to ensure that human rights are protected.

asked the Prime Minister if he will raise the topic of a Commonwealth organisation for the exploitation of energy resources at the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

I have no plans to raise this matter.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider that answer? Does he not agree that, in view of the threatened world energy shortage, energy policy is of unique importance? Does he not also agree that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference would be an admirable forum to bring together the needs of the developing and developed nations on world energy problems?

I would not question the hon. Gentleman's statement about the vital importance of this matter, and I am aware that he has made a contribution to the subject by the publication of his own pamphlet. The matter may come up in the general discussion at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference on economic affairs and international affairs generally, but I do not think that the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is the right body to make decisions about energy policy or to implement them. It was in that sense that I was answering the Question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are in an energy crisis? Is not the Government's action over the coal industry right in giving the mining industry a future if the miners match the courage which they have shown during this last week with restraint? Is not this an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to pay tribute to the courage of the miners in Yorkshire for what they have done in the last week?

I have already paid my tribute publicly to the miners concerned. On the subject of coal, the Government are trying to achieve a balanced energy policy which is concerned not only with the immediate situation but also with longer-term developments, whether in the oil industry or the requirement for coal or in the future that we foresee for nuclear power.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office in the matter of security precautions in controlling entry into the United Kingdom from Eire and Northern Ireland, respectively.

Yes, Sir.

Would my right hon. Friend care to hazard a guess at how much longer the people of Great Britain will tolerate in Northern Ireland on the one hand the conspiracy of silence which shields these brutal murderers— whose identities must be know to hundreds of their fellow citizens—and on the other hand the obduracy of some of those who so quaintly call themselves loyalists?

On the first part of the question, we all recognise the power of intimidation which has been exercised in certain part of Northern Ireland, particularly perhaps recently in Belfast. But we also welcome the fact that more and more information is coming forward to the security forces and that advantage is being taken of this. This is shown by the number of arrests which have been made in recent weeks and also in the collections which have been made of arms and explosives. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question involving what he called the obduracy of those who call themselves loyalists, I would have thought that last Saturday's meeting, which was on such a small scale, gives us encouragement to believe that moderate opinion— and a great deal of Northern Irish opinion —is in support of the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I believe that those proposals will receive more and more support.

While accepting the need and the Government's desire for necessary security precautions in this country, may I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that such precautions are not carried out to such an extent that they are an infringement of civil liberties of individuals—as witness the case of 10 persons detained in Ealing police station? Could he state under what security regulations they were denied access to lawyers, visitors and priests and kept for four days in conditions in which, save for a blanket, all 10 were stark naked?

It is essential that all precautions should be taken in security matters, but there is no intention of impinging on civil liberties. If there is any accusation on those lines, it is a matter for the courts to deal with.

Order. I must remind the House that we shall this week have a two-day debate on Northern Ireland.

asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of his administration on visits to the Republic of South Africa by Cabinet Ministers.

We welcome them. These visits, on a suitable occasion, provide contact which is better than boycott as a means to promote change.

Does the Prime Minis-tea" appreciate that any such ministerial visits are seen by the South African Government as giving tacit approval to their system of apartheid? Does he not understand that there is a widespread belief throughout the world, particularly following the release of recent figures, that it is British investment which is keeping apartheid going in Africa? Will he do something to stress to Cabinet Ministers the importance of not visiting South Africa and being seen to keep their system going?

No, Sir. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's view. It has been the policy of Ministers in successive Governments to visit other countries when they are in disagreement—and in serious disagreement—with policies pursued by Governments in those countries. We have often been pressed by the Opposition to make visits of this kind. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) made a visit to the Republic in the autumn of last year? If so, what is the difference?

Has the Prime Minister had any discussions lately with the South African Government about security of shipping in the Indian Ocean, particularly with regard to tankers around the South African coastline, which is very important to this country?

We have not recently had any discussions with the South African Government about this matter but, as the House knows, we have said we will carry out our undertakings under the Simonstown agreement.

Given the Government's views on the visits of Cabinet Ministers to South Africa, does the Prime Minister think it right that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science should have shrugged aside the harassment of student leaders in South Africa when it has been condemned by the vice-chancellors of the universities? Was not this a chance for the Secretary of State to have spoken firmly on the matter?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was on a visit concerned with scientific matters, and in many instances it is right that a Minister should not comment on the internal affairs of other countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the West had ostracised Russia at the end of the Second World War, we would probably by now have had a third world war? Does he not agree that the more visits made by Ministers and by members of the public to all countries the better, and that such visits are an excellent thing?

Yes, Sir, that is my view. I suppose historically many people might say that if a different approach had been made directly after the Russian Revolution in 1917, the history of the 1920s and 1930s and all that followed might have been very different.

If the Prime Minister feels that he can do nothing to preserve the good name of this country by giving advice to Cabinet Ministers visiting South Africa, can he at least do something immediately to deal with the British firms engaged in large-scale exploitation of South African labour? When will the Government do something about this situation?

Members of the Cabinet act quite properly in these matters, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science acted perfectly properly in South Africa. On the question of British firms, it has already been made public on many occasions and in this House that the Department of Trade and Industry advises British businessmen of their rights and obligations in South Africa and their opportunities to improve the conditions of those who work there. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his enthusiasm for this cause is being unfair to many British firms which have deliberately taken action to improve the conditions of workers in South Africa.

If the Prime Minister thinks that I have been unfair to any British firm in this respect, will he undertake to publish in Hansard the replies which each firm has given to inquiries directed to firms by the Department of Trade and Industry?

What I said was that the Department of Trade and Industry had informed all these firms of their ability to improve conditions for workers in South Africa. The Department has not directed inquiries to firms; it has informed firms of these matters. This information is freely made available to the British firms in South Africa. This is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry and it has quite rightly carried it out.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to South Africa.

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

But bearing in mind what the Prime Minister has just said about not boycotting South Africa, bearing in mind the theory consistently advanced by the Conservative Government that British involvement in South Africa would be a way of undermining apartheid, and also bearing in mind recent disclosures in The Guardian and other newspapers that this is blatantly untrue and that investment in South Africa means investment in apartheid, will he reconsider his plans not to visit South Africa? Will he visit South Africa and test for himself the theory that British investment in that country upholds and supports the apartheid régime?

No, Sir. But I welcome the decisions announced by British firms which invest in South Africa to take further action themselves to deal with these matters.

Would it not be a good idea if the Opposition could make up their minds whether they want more or fewer Cabinet Ministers to go to South Africa?

That difficult question should be put to the Opposition.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is widespread concern, which is not confined to one side of the House of Commons, about the recent disclosures in The Guardian? Why on earth will not the Government accept that people would very much like to know precisely the facts about British firms in South Africa and how they treat their African labourers? Why does not the Prime Minister therefore use the machinery of this House to institute some kind of inquiry into the ways in which our firms are carrying on in South Africa?

Because he does not give a damn.

The hon. Gentleman, who usually interjects from a seated position, is quite wrong about this matter. There is concern in this country about the conditions of those who work in South Africa. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is himself casting doubt on the report in The Guardian by suggesting that somebody had better be sent there to find out whether this is the true situation. If the House of Commons wants one of its Committees to go there, it is for the House to arrange, not for the Government. What the Government do, through their Departments, is to inform all British firms of what they can do to improve conditions in South Africa.

In view of what appeared to be the rather helpful remarks by the Prime Minister in answer to that last question, may I ask whether he will now therefore take the necessary steps to put down a motion on the Order Paper to give a Select Committee of the House locus standi to inquire into this question? Surely that was what he meant. Will he now go ahead with it?

The affairs of Committees of this House are under their own jurisdiction, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well. If one of the Committees of this House deems it right and appropriate to investigate these matters, it is for that Committee to take the necessary action.