asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the extent of union acceptance of the Industrial Relations Act.

A number of trade unions are using the provisions of the Act and as a result have been able to gain important benefits for their members. I regret that most of the unions affiliated to the TUC have not so far been prepared to do so, though all of them, with the exception of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, are now willing to defend themselves before the National Industrial Relations Court.

Is there any truth in the allegation that the Act has led to a falling off in the use of conciliation? What specific proposals has my right hon. Friend received from the TUC for amending the Act?

No, there is no truth in the allegation that there has been a falling off in the use of my Department's conciliation facilities. In fact, the number of disputes in which we conciliate has been rising steadily and in 1972 it reached an all-time record. We have received no specific proposals as such from the TUC.

As the General Secretary of the TUC has said that if the Government are prepared to consider amendments to the Act put forward by the TUC that might become the basis for a discussion on the economy, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would be receptive to such an approach?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is willing to discuss any serious proposal for altering the Act. A number of proposals have been put forward publicly in the air but no proposals have been put forward as a basis for discussion.

How long will it be before some of the dimwits on the Opposition benches realise that when the Prime Minister has told the House time and again that he is prepared to discuss anything at all that the TUC wants to discuss, he is prepared to do so? How often must the Prime Minister repeat that assurance before unwilling hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side are prepared to believe it?

I do not think that is a question for me. I see some hope in the fact that Mr. Scanlon appears to be less adamant than he was before about the possiblity of amending the Act.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the recent report of the Commission on Industrial Relations, although couched quite properly in neutral language, confirms that the Government's expectations of the results arising from the Act have been completely unfulfilled? Now that it is universally recognised that the Act has been a disastrous failure, is it good enough for Ministers to say repeatedly that they will consider other people's suggestions for amendment? As the Government inflicted this damage on the country, is it not up to them to produce their proposals for amending the Act or, better still, for repealing it?

We have had a large number of statements from the unions saying that they do not like this shoe but they have not yet told us precisely where it pinches. That is probably the first step, which I hope we shall be able to discuss before long. The CIR made a factual report on the Act. One reason which the CIR noted for the shortcomings in the operation of the Act is that a large number of unions are not getting the advantages, for example, of the agency shops, and have not been able to do what the National Union of Bank Employees and the National Union of Seamen have done by using the Act to their advantage.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received calling for a review of the working of the Industrial Relations Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the state of his consideration of the future of the Industrial Relations Act.

As I have said on a number of occasisons, I am prepared to consider any constructive proposals for improving the operation of the Act. I have recently received suggestions from the National and Local Government Officers Association and the National Union of Bank Employees.

I note the Secretary of State's reply. Is he not fully aware that it is the view of millions of people that the Industrial Relations Act is now the greatest failure of all the supposed policies introduced by the present Government and that even the Government themselves are scared to implement the Act, as has been shown by recent disputes when they could have sought a ballot of workers involved but did not do so? Is it not the Minister's responsibility to announce his proposals on the Act and to seek a meeting with trade union representatives as quickly as possible?

I do not accept that the Act has in any way been of the order of failure described by the hon. Gentle- man, nor is it a fact that the Government have been in a position to use the emergency provisions and have not done so. In recent disputes, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he studies the wording of the relevant provisions, the Government were not in a position to use the emergency provision. A great deal of publicity has been focussed on a relatively small number of cases. The Industrial Relatitons Court has had a number of successes in which there has been little publicity. There have been 30 complaints about unfair industrial practices which were disposed of by the court by the end of January; 20 were withdrawn following a settlement and only 10 had to be decided by the court. It was never envisaged that the working of the Industrial Relations Act should be judged by the number of cases which came to the court.

It is not true to say, however, that the present state of the Industrial Relations Act is rather unsatisfactory to all concerned? 1 understand my right hon. Friend's point that he is awaiting suggestions from the trade unions, but could he assist the situation by at least drawing up a list of those aspects of the Act which are immutable and those which are negotiable and by suggesting that a meeting takes place between himself and the CBI and TUC on the basis of such a list?

I would not wish to follow a process which sought to lay down what was immutable in the Act. The only point which is immutable is a point which has been rejected by many trade unions, namely, that the whole of our industrial relations system should be operated within a framework of law. That is immutable. We are willing, as we have made plain, to discuss with the unions and the employers the whole operation of the Act with a view to improving it.

Will the Secretary of State say whether we have just witnessed a change of Government policy? When the legislation was originally conceived and laid before the House, the former Secretary of State said that there were certain pillars of principle which were immovable in terms of negotiation. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he has changed that policy?

I was seeking to compress my right hon. Friend's remarks and to try to bring them within the one immutable thing which comprises a number of facets of the Act—namely, that the operation of the Act should be subject to the framework of the law. There are various aspects of the Act which, because of that consideration, can be altered only marginally or in ways which would not violate that principle.

Is it not time that the Industrial Relations Act ceased to be a political football, at least in this House? It is within the recollection of many hon. Members that very similar legislation was thought to be necessary by the Labour Government, which is some confirmation that there is an economic need for something on those lines? Has not the time come when the Opposition should encourage the trade unions to accept my right hon. Friend's invitation to meet him instead of putting obstacles in the way for narrow party political propaganda reasons?

My hon. Friend is right to say that there is now developing a fair measure of acceptance that something of the nature of the Industrial Relations Act is necessary. That has been a movement by some unions which until now have been saying that there is no room for the framework of law in the conduct of industiral relations. At last we have received even from the most extreme opponents of the Act a realisation that successful industrial relations can be conducted only within the framework of the law.

Is it not clear that from 1906 onwards we had a framework of law which helped us to have better industrial relations than most industrial countries and that when the present Government departed from that framework they were going against the advice of the Donovan Commission and of practically all informed opinion on this subject?

The right hon. Gentleman tends to take up a somewhat contradictory position. He and his colleagues, when in government, found it necessary to change the legislation and brought forward measures, which they subsequently dropped, which contained penal clauses which are not within the framework of the Industrial Relations Act. He has also been insistent that we should consult before bringing forward suggestions. The Government have said that they will do that. In bringing forward suggestions for the alteration of the Act we will consult and take note of any responsible views and opinions which may be put forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment in which years since 1950 average industrial earnings have risen by more than 8 per cent.

The regular October surveys show that average weekly earnings of men manual workers aged 21 years and over in manufacturing industry rose by more than 8 per cent. in the 12-month periods ending in October 1951, 1955, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972.

Does not that make nonsense of the allegations which are repeated frequently by the Labour Party that there has been a fall in living standards under the present Government?

It most certainly shows that. From the reply which I have just given, it can be deduced that a serious wage explosion was developing during the latter months of the Labour administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the ratio of registered unemployed adult males to notified vacancies for adult males in Scotland; and what is the corresponding figure for Great Britain.

Based on the provisional figures for April, the ratio for Scotland was 91:1 and for Great Britain, 3·3:1. As the hon. Member will know, notified vacancies do not measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those statistics highlight the tragic inequality which exists between Scotland and some of the more prosperous parts of England in terms of jobs and employment? Further, does he agree as regards Scotland that he should ignore the prophets who are advocating that we should now deflate the economy? Does he agree that instead of having discussions about phasing out the regional employment premium, he should be thinking of new and more radical and direct measures to try to give Scotland and other deprived regions a greater share of the present industrial expansion?

The Industry Act is a direct measure to help difficult areas such as Scotland. We must remember that the trend of unemployment was upward during Labour's period of office. In March 1966 the seasonally-adjusted figure for Scotland was 53,500 and the rate was 2·4 per cent. In June 1970 the seasonally-adjusted figure was 87,500 and the rate was 4 per cent. The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in Scotland has fallen from 6·6 per cent. a year ago to 4·9 per cent. this month. That is a decrease of 26 per cent. The trend is very much in the right direction.

What has been the actual increase in the number of unfilled vacancies over the last year?

Again, there is a very good position. The number of vacancies for men remaining unfilled in April was up by almost 300 per cent. compared with over a year ago.

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

Based on the provisional figures for 9th April there were 576,327 people unemployed in England and Wales and 324,595 unfilled vacancies. The vacancy figure relates only to notified vacancies remaining unfilled and, as my hon. Friend will know, does not measure the total unsatisfied demand for labour.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply, which is indicative of the success of the Government's policies. What were the comparable figures a year ago?

The rapid fall in unemployment during the past year and the continued rise in the level of unfilled notified vacancies over an even longer period are clear indications of the success of the Government's measures to stimulate demand. There has been a substantial reduction in unemployment over the past year. A sustained and continuing drop in unemployment has been achieved this year, despite many predictions made by Labour Members.

The unemployment rate in Wales is much higher than the national average. What steps are being taken to provide alternative employment speedily for the people who will be made redundant in the steel industry, bearing in mind the paltry number of jobs which have been realised under the Industry Act?

There will obviously be regional imbalances in employment for some time, but the general trend has been and continues to be very encouraging. There are problems in Wales, but the Industry Act has helped. We have set up various task forces to help deal with the problem of steel redundancies. The trend continues to be in the right direction and I hope that it will be maintained.

Is it not a fact that in some parts of the country, including assisted areas like North-East Lancashire, far from unemployment being the problem, the problem is of some firms being starved for labour and crying out for it? Many Labour Members have talked today about unemployment in Scotland. Has my hon. Friend any useful suggestions on how we can get some of the Scotsmen concerned to come down to North-East Lancashire? We will give them a reasonable welcome.

The Department of Employment has done a great deal in the past three years to encourage mobility of labour to different parts of the country. This is increasing all the time. It is a matter of individual choice. It is a little premature to talk about overall shortages of labour, but the Government's expanded training scheme and improved employment facilities are helping towards the proper redeployment of Labour.

The Minister boasts of the Government's success in having brought the unemployment figures for England and Wales down from what they were a year ago to 576,000-odd. Is he aware that that total is 50,000 higher than it was for the whole of Great Britain when his Government took office?

Yes, Sir, but what the hon. Gentleman does not tell the House is that the graph shows a consistent rise from the time the Labour Government were in power. Certainly it continued upwards when we took office, but now it is coming down dramatically, something which did not happen during the hon. Gentleman's time in office.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many wage settlements known to the Department have been made within the £1 plus 4 per cent. prescribed for stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy; and how many people are covered by them.

One hundred and seven settlements involving some 2·9 million workers are apparently within the limits of £1 per week plus 4 per cent. plus any additional increases permissible under stage 2 of the policy. But the application of the stage 2 limits is a matter for the Pay Board and the figures given are subject to the views of the board.

Surely this matter is too important to leave the figures to the views of the Pay Board. Cannot we have the full figures published and made widely known? In view of the obvious acceptance of stage 2 by a large number of workers, does my right hon. Friend care to comment on today's strike?

The fact that the figures must come from the Pay Board derives from the fact that Parliament has given the Pay Board the responsibility of ensuring that the code is implemented. Therefore prior notification, and notification of settlements already reached, according to the size of the firm concerned, is made to the Pay Board. The Pay Board, as the House will know, will make a quarterly report which will be available to the House and which will be available for discussion. I think my hon. Friend can take these figures as being as accurate as is possible to get.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in consultations on stage 3 of the counter-inflationary policy, he will seek to ensure that provision is made for accelerating progress towards the implementation of equal pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider referring problems that arise over implementation of equal pay to the Pay Board.

The January White Paper on stage 2 of the counter-inflation programme re-emphasised the Government's commitment to secure implementation of the Equal Pay Act by 29th December 1975, as the Act requires, and this will be reflected in our proposals for stage 3. The Office of Manpower Economics reported in August 1972 on progress towards equal pay and the problems being encountered, and my right hon. Friend is currently considering what further arrangements should be made to keep the position under review.

I am glad to hear that. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that in 1971 women's earnings as a percentage of men's average hourly earnings were, in the United Kingdom, only 59 per cent. while in France, Italy and West Germany they varied from 70 per cent. to 77 per cent? Does he agree that the sooner the British women can earn the same share as a Eurowoman, the better?

I do not think I need comment on my hon. Friend's supplementary question except to agree with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects his review of the quota scheme for the employment of disabled people to be completed.

My Department will publish a consultative document on the future of the quota scheme later this month.

What is the cause of the delay? Is not it such an important matter that it should be done as speedily as possible?

There is no delay. There has been, as my hon. Friend probably knows, a thorough review of all the disablement services provided by the Department of Employment. This is a very important and deeply-thought-out document. It has taken time to prepare but it will be published very shortly. I think my hon. Friend will find that it has within it some very interesting reading.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear his own answer in mind when we discuss the provisions of the Employment and Training Bill in Committee?

Yes. Certainly I look forward to discussing the matter with the hon. Gentleman on the right occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes have taken place in 1973 to the latest available date; and what are the figures for 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the number of working days lost through industrial disputes this year up to the latest available date, compared with the same period for 1972.

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

Will my hon. Friend estimate what effect today's silly strike will have on the figures for lost days of work for this year?

Quite clearly I cannot estimate what effect today's silly strike, as my hon. Friend calls it, will have. I can tell him that the number of work days lost this year, to which hon. Members attach the greatest importance, shows a percentage decrease in 1973 in the first quarter over the 1972 first quarter of 82 per cent.

Will the Minister set alongside the table the number of working days lost during the first two and a half years of his Government compared with the number of working days lost during the first two and a half years of the previous Government?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should table a Question about that. No doubt he will. As he is interested in the number of working days lost, he must remember that the increase did not start in 1970 but began in 1968. While it is true that the number has increased by 400 per cent., perhaps he should remember that rather over half that increase took place in 1968–70 and rather under half from 1970–72.

My hon. Friend's figures relating to the number of working days lost show that the rate this year is one-fifth of what it was last year. Is not that evidence of the success of the Governments' handling of industrial relations? Does it not show that the majority of people, including the majority of trade unionists, are fed up with the use of the strike as the first rather than the last resort?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It would have been interesting, had there been a ballot of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to see whether Labour Members approved of the strike taking place today.

From 1926 to 1972 the coal industry figures were always left out of the statistics. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's reply would be like if he took the coal industry's strike out of last year's figures and compared them with this year's figures in the way that was formerly done.

The figures have been given on previous occasions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, no doubt he will table a Question to that effect.

When the next set of figures of lost working days is published, will my hon. Friend point out how many of those days lost are due to strikes which have been approved and backed by the official Opposition?

It is always rather difficult to determine whether strikes are being backed by the official Opposition. It is just as difficult, looking at the attendance here this afternoon, to see whether today's strike has been approved and backed by the official Opposition.

Would it not be a fair description of questions on this topic from Conservative back benchers and previous exercises during Question Time to say that they are engaged in a double-edged propaganda exercise under which, if strikes increase, they blame the unions, and if they decrease they claim credit for the Government? As for today's events, have not the Government the unique distinction of being the first Government in modern times to carry out a policy so outrageously unfair as to provoke the kind of action which is taking place today?

I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am not concerned with propaganda. The right hon. Gentleman should find out whether his own friends are backing the strike today, and he might also look at the vote of the National Executive of the Labour Party in which it was possible to abstain.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies for skilled building trade workers existed at the latest available date.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies for skilled building trade workers exist in the South Hampshire area including Southampton and Portsmouth.

I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an occupational analysis of vacancies for men in the construction industry, both nationally and in South Hampshire. The totals are, respectively, 24, 111 and 709.

Since the shortage is serious and seems likely to continue, will the hon. Gentleman urgently ensure that training facilities are properly and fully utilised? Does he agree that the existence of the lump is an aggravation since it discourages apprenticeship? Will he deal with that problem?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says on the latter point, and the matter is under consideration. As regards training, we have significantly increased the number of training places for construction skills in Government training centres. The total rose from 2,940 a year ago to 3,470 in March 1973. We must do everything possible to fill them because there are regional imbalances in vacancies in the construction industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation in the construction industry in terms of labour is so critical that any new project can be staffed only as a result of poaching and that such poaching is being carried out at a rate far in excess of any figures being dealt with in the counter-inflation policy? Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation demands an urgent crash programme of training for a period of years to bring forward apprentices to cope with the situation?

These are matters which we have to have under consideration. Ministers in my Department and also Ministers in the Department of the Environment are studying means of stepping up the supply of skilled construction labour. It is important that there should be adequate numbers of people to fill the expansion that is now taking place in the building industry.

Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the second part of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy)? Is he aware that the practice of the lump is responsible for the serious shortage of skilled building workers because it discourages training? Could he say more on this point?

No, I cannot at present, but it is a matter which requires consideration. It will be debated shortly on a Bill sponsored by an Opposition Member, and this may provide an opportunity for the matter to be ventilated.

What is the present average weekly take-home pay of these workers?

I cannot answer that question without notice. Because of shortages of labour in some areas, take-home pay is very high indeed. In other regions take-home pay is comparatively modest. This causes difficulties in terms of transferring construction workers from one region to another.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action the Factory Inspectorate is taking about the accident at the Willenhall factory of David Worrall and Company Limited on 2nd April 1973, when one woman was killed and another seriously injured when a rack collapsed.

The Factory Inspectorate is investigating this accident very thoroughly and has given the firm advice on safe storage. Other action, including legal proceedings, is being considered.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that this tragic accident draws attention to the squalid and dangerous nineteenth-century conditions in many Black Country factories? What are he and his Department doing to improve those conditions, which require urgent attention?

We keep under constant review the activities of the Factory Inspectorate to try to improve and make them more efficient. There are now 671 factory inspectors, which is I think a record. As an experiment we are trying to approach inspection on a more selective basis to have more thorough and in-depth investigations. This was the recommendation of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work. There is a problem with small factories—I do not think they are all squalid—where it is sometimes difficult to get round as often as to the larger factories. We have not overlooked this matter. We are currently trying to find better ways of tackling the problem.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is now eight months since we had the report of the Robens Committee, which sat for two years considering industrial health and safety? I have constantly pressed the Minister for action or for an opportunity to debate the Committee's proposals in this House. So far I have met with a negative response. Is it not obvious that people are being killed and maimed while the Government are doing nothing? Is not this a powerful argument for getting the Robens Report implemented as quickly as possible?

It is a gross exaggeration to say that people are being killed and maimed while the Government are doing nothing. They are doing a great deal through the Factory Inspectorate. I appreciate the anxiety about the Robens Report. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on this matter shortly. The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of a debate is not for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has made an estimate of the number of redundancies expected in the steel industry in South Yorkshire as a result of the implementation of the White Paper on the future of the steel industry, Command Paper No. 5226.

The final position may well be affected by redeployment and the creation of new jobs and it is therefore not possible at this stage to make an estimate of the number of workpeople likely to become redundant.

Meanwhile the trade unions involved are entertaining the worst possible fears about the number of redundancies. While such an assessment is being produced, will the Minister satisfy himself about retraining facilities and alternative job opportunities? Does he agree that the British Steel Corporation should be invited to accept a formal commitment, as at Ebbw Vale, for job replacement where it has been exclusively responsible for job loss?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. The last part of his question is not for me. Retraining is important. There are 303 training places available in 18 trades at the Sheffield Government training centre, including 64 in the new annex which was opened towards the end of last month. There are 289 places available in neighbouring colleges of further education and 112 "limited skill" places in employers' establishments. These are almost entirely in spare capacity at BSC establishments. I think that the hon. Gentleman can be reassured about retraining.

Is the Minister aware that in the Manchester area, where unemployment has almost doubled in the last two and three-quarter years, the closure of Irlam will hit the unemployment situation like a bombshell and will spread throughout the whole Manchester area? All that we have been given is one advance factory the size of a shed. Will the Minister and his colleagues do something to provide jobs in an area which will suffer extremely badly?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I can hardly answer a question about Manchester when I am dealing with one about South Yorkshire. However, I have no doubt that what he has said will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment which organisations are eligible to use his Department's local offices for meetings out of normal working hours.

My Department has discretion to extend the use of its premises for occasional meetings of non-official organisations which have a strong affinity with the work of the Department. There is no list of such organisations.

As this facility came to my knowledge only by chance, I feel that it is not known widely enough by bodies which can use the Department's local offices. I suggest that, with the increasing difficulty of finding such accommodation and with increasing charges, it would be a good idea if more publicity were given to this facility. I suggest as a start that notices should be put up in the Department's offices advertising this facility. At the same time, may I ask my hon. Friend to let us know the charges?

My hon. Friend is clearly the best advertisement for this facility. I notice that the Keighley employment exchange is used by the Keighley Trades Council and the Keighley branch of the Law Society, so it is not unknown in that area. I understand that charges are made for the attendants who may be necessary, and so on. I should like to look at my hon. Friend's proposition about further publicity. She may have a point there.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a bi-monthly information sheet showing, for the Northern Region, which industrial and service categories added to their labour forces; by how many; in which redundancies were declared; and how many.

Regional estimates of the numbers of employees in employment analysed by industry are available only in respect of June each year, but my Department is currently conducting nine experiments into the possibility of improving, at local level, the collection and dissemination of labour market intelligence of the kind suggested.

Is the Minister aware that at the moment many local newspapers are doing a better job of recording job losses and gains than his Department?

I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Experiments are now being carried out into the feasibility of getting better labour market intelligence in travel-to-work areas. Hartlepool is the target of this experiment in the hon. Gentleman's area. We will see how it goes, evaluate it and consider whether it is worth extending and repeating elsewhere.

Is it not a fact that the provisions of the Industry Act are not coming up to expectations for the Northern Region as there have been only two allocations since its enactment? Would it not be better if the Department or the Minister gave greater publicity to and took more action under the Act to try to improve matters in the Northern Region?

That is undoubtedly a question for another Department, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I understand that an inquiry is being made into the subject and that it is expected to report quickly. However, the hon. Gentleman should put down his question to the Department of Trade and Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of registered female unemployment in the burghs of Greenock and Port Glasgow at the latest convenient date; what are the comparable Scottish and United Kingdom percentages; and what proposals his Department has to deal with this situation.

On 9th April the unemployment rate for females in the area covered by the Greenock and Port Glasgow employment exchanges was 7·1 per cent. For Scotland and the United Kingdom the rates were 3·2 per cent. and 1·5 per cent. respectively. The figures are provisional. Officers of my Department will continue to do all they can to help unemployed people to find new jobs.

Does the Minister realise that the area has a female unemployment rate four times the United Kingdom average and twice the Scottish average? Although we have done a great deal to attract jobs in manufacturing industry, what we do not have is clerical work. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends might consider that point when they discuss the Hardman Report.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Female unemployment in his area is not a new problem. Between April 1966 and April 1970 the female unemployment rate rose from 3·1 per cent. to 6·3 per cent. It would be wrong to suggest that Greenock's unemployment problems will be solved very easily or quickly, but the continued expansion now going on through the improvement in the national economy and the substantial assistance given under the Industry Act will help areas like the hon. Gentleman's which are admittedly difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in the number of workers in the wool textile industry in the West Riding between June 1970 and the most recent convenient date.

Between June 1970 and June 1971, the latest available date, the numbers decreased by about 15,000.

Does not the large fall in the work force in an industry so heavily concentrated in the West Riding show how susceptible labour is in that area when there is a slump in the wool textile industry? Many of the men and women concerned have been made redundant in more than one mill. When the industry is booming, can the Minister introduce a proper redundancy scheme based on service within the industry, as in the case of the docks and coal mines, and not based on the firm?

The Wool Textile Industry Economic Development Committee is putting to the Government certain proposals, which are under consideration, for the modernisation of the industry, including the items the hon. Gentleman mentions National estimates indicate that since June 1971 the rate of fall in employment in the industry has been appreciably lower than it was before. Wool textile activity generally has increased substantially over the past six months, so there are encouraging signs.

The demand for experienced operatives has been considerable in recent months, and on the distributive side of the trade the demand has been described as hectic by the manager of the Bradford employment exchange. When my hon. Friend considers the Hardman Report, will he ensure that public sector jobs are encouraged in the West Riding, because there is a need for them to broaden the base of our economy?

Yes, Sir. These are not directly matters for me, but I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made at Avie-more on 8th April 1973 by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the functions of his office represents the views of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Would the Prime Minister care to tell the House what his right hon. Friend meant by saying that he was perhaps over-exposed north of the border? Does he think that his right hon. Friend is catering adequately for land use, with particular reference to North Sea oil developments? How does his right hon. Friend justify the appointments he has made to various public boards in Scotland and ensure that the individuals concerned do not use their public knowledge for private gain after they leave the jobs?

My right hon. Friend was explaining to his audience in that speech the very wide responsibilities that the Secretary of State for Scotland has, at the same time making the point that certain responsibilities—particularly foreign affairs, defence and major economic matters—remain here at Westminster and are questions for the Cabinet.

Does the Prime Minister think that there would be a case for transferring ministerial responsibility for the regional development offices in Scotland to the Scottish Office, because Scottish Office Ministers are presumed to have a greater detailed knowledge of the economic needs of Scotland than have the itinerant missionaries from the South, with the best will in the world?

The Scottish Office has its own development department, which has always played a vital part in the planning of development in Scotland. When I was Secretary of State for Regional Development in 1963 I examined, and I examined again when I became Prime Minister, whether we should transfer the Department of Trade and Industry responsibility to the Scottish Office. I think that the general conclusion of all Governments has been that that would be only to the loss of Scotland, because the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has the responsibility gives it a much wider area over which it can operate, to the advantage of Scotland.

Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is presiding over a far greater expansion and boom in the Scottish economy than his predecessor did?

That is true. One of the very important developments is the development of North-East Scotland. This will be of immense importance to the whole nation, as well as to Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to join future discussions with the CBI and TUC on counter-inflationary policy.

The Association of British Chambers of Commerce took part in the consultations on stage 2, and will certainly be invited in due course to take part in similar consultations on stage 3.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, just as there are workers who are not affiliated to the TUC, so there are many firms which are not members of the CBI? Are not chambers of commerce more representative of the 1¼ million small firms which are of tremendous importance to the economy?

It is because chambers of commerce have an important membership and a considerable part in representing small firms that they were consulted in full detail over stage 2. But one of the points that chambers of commerce have made in correspondence with me is that they also represent a considerable number of large firms. They do not wish it to be thought that their only interests are in the very small trader.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it would help all these organisations and the country at large if he now made a statement that he was prepared to abandon his inflationary policies, which have increased rates, rents and the prices of food, clothing and petrol, and saying decisively that he has made a serious error, that his Government have contributed most to the inflationary spiral and that they will do their best to reverse this policy? After all, they have reversed almost everything else that was contained in their election manifesto. Why not reverse this one as well?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he had any points which had merit, I should willingly consider them. But when the hon. Gentleman makes wide-ranging statements containing no element of truth, I find it difficult to accept what he says.

I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for his reply to the Question, which I also consider will be very helpful in the future. May I take this opportunity to suggest to my right hon. Friend that, in order to have stability in areas, we are anxiously awaiting publication of the Booz-Allen Report on shipbuilding? Can my right hon. Friend do something about that?

My hon. Friend's interest in the Booz-Allen Report is well known. At the moment I cannot give a specific date for action. We shall take it as soon as possible.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the diamond jubilee convention of the Food Manufacturers' Federation on 2nd April 1973 represented Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that on that occasion the Minister refused to comment on the prediction by the president of the federation that the prices of a number of basic foods would rise between 10 and 30 per cent. over the next year? Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that today's protest against the Government's policies has as much to do with food prices as it has to do with wages? Will the Prime Minister at least concede that the massive increases in food prices which have taken place have nothing to do with increases in wages, and will he assure the House that the Government will look again at the possibility of subsidising key foods as part of their strategy against inflation?

As the present estimate is that 85 per cent. of all trade unionists are at work today and that out of a work force of 23 million all but 1·5 million are at work today, the hon. Gentleman's allegation hardly seems to be substantiated.

Instead of making squalid party political points, will the Prime Minister address himself to the very serious matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about food prices? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Lord Watkinson, who was an undistinguished member of a previous Tory Government—

Distinguished.

—nevertheless has indicated that it might be advisable for the Government to consider threshold agreements with the trade unions as part of phase 3 of their prices and incomes policy? Will the Prime Minister give the matter serious thought?

Not only have we given it serious thought but in the first Chequers proposals put to the TUC and the CBI, and published, threshold agreements were a specific offer to both. The proposal was £2 across the board leading to £2·60 on earnings plus threshold agreements at 6 per cent. It is fair to say that neither the TUC nor the CBI showed any great interest in threshold agreements. But we are perfectly prepared to discuss them with both sides in stage 3. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that it is not a party interest but a national interest that the great majority of workers today have failed to follow the Opposition's advice to come out on a political strike.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) suggested that we might subsidise food. Is that possible without rationing?

In certain strictly controlled ways, such as those that we used during the past year in the case of sugar and potatoes, it has been possible to help in this respect. If it is suggested that it is possible to do it in the case of items like meat or cereals where there are world shortages at the moment, obviously the consequences of rationing would be likely to ensue.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment on regional development proposals.

Yes, Sir.

In view of the paramount need to eliminate regional economic disparities across Europe and in view of the failure of all Governments so far to reverse the centripetal pull to the central golden triangle, will the Prime Minister ask the three Secretaries of State to assess the effect of the Channel Tunnel upon the Welsh and Scottish economies, not in absolute terms but relative to its effect on the South-East, and to couple that with an assessment of proposals to improve direct sea and air communications between the peripheral regions of Europe?

Both the hon. Gentleman's points are of great importance for regional policies. Obviously a study has been made of the impact of the Channel Tunnel on the South East, and from time to time the airlines themselves as well as Government Departments have made studies of ways to improve air communications from the different parts of the country. Those who come from the North East will know that specific action has been taken there as well as in the South West and the North West. But certainly I shall see whether it is possible to provide information to help the hon. Gentleman on his two specific points.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that in Scotland the immense investment represented by Maplin, the Channel Tunnel and various other developments in the South East are considered to be the complete opposite of regional development policies in the United Kingdom?

I cannot agree about that. The fact that we are developing rapidly for example in Scotland and the North East does not mean that we should not also develop communications in the South East to enable them to be more economic if the expenditure is shown to do so. It is not contradictory. In any case, on many occasions when I have had discussions with the Scottish Council and other bodies they have emphasised the need for better direct communications not only with the South East but direct to Scandinavia and Northern Germany. That is the right approach to produce better communications for Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with regard to the export of live animals.

Yes, Sir.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread anxiety about the export of live animals, especially for slaughter, and that there is confusion about which Department of the Government is responsible for policy. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the Community regulations which would prevent an all-carcase trade, and that Her Majesty's Government will continue to press our European partners to operate strictly the Balfour Assurances?

We have already pressed our partners in the Community, as well as other countries, to operate the Balfour Assurances to the full. We shall continue to do so. Where it has been found that these assurances are not being carried out, Government Departments have taken action to prevent the export of live animals to the country concerned. We have also requested a discussion on the whole question of welfare arrangements and improved welfare for animals throughout the Community. Overall this is probably the most important step that we can take to get the Community to agree a policy about the export of live animals.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is utter repugnance in the country about this trade, regardless of political affiliation and regardless of our membership of the European Community, and that the consciences of many people have been aroused by Press revelations about the suffering of these animals, typified by the recent feature article in the News of the World? Will the Prime Minister ensure that everything possible is done to end a trade which many people find abhorrent?

I am aware of abhorrence felt about such cases as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman and the article in the News of the World on 18th March about a specific country. As I have said, Government Departments take action where they find that these assurances are not being carried out. It would not be justifiable to take action as regards a country where all the undertakings are being observed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.

Since evidence has been sent to the Ministry about violations of the Balfour Assurances in relation to cattle, when will a suspension of licences for cattle be promulgated in view of the fact that this has already been done with sheep?

Observations have been sent to the Department about certain cases involving cattle. These cases are being investigated. When the conclusions are known, a decision will be taken as to whether action to suspend exports to the country concerned is necessary.

If we cannot persuade the Community on this matter, since it is perfectly simple to slaughter these animals here why not do so and abandon altogether this miserable trade?

I do not think it is justifiable, when a country wishes to import live cattle and is observing the undertakings, for us to affect our exports in this way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is very complicated at the moment? For instance, there are now allegations about ponies and horses being exported for slaughter again because the price which was arranged is now apparently too low. This is where we all came in. Could not my right hon. Friend institute an inquiry into what is going on?

What is important is that inquiries should be made into any instances which are brought to our notice. I can assure the House that, wherever that happens, the inquiries are made and action follows.

Despite what the Prime Minister has said, is he not aware that millions of people are appalled at what is happening in animal welfare— everything from the export of live animals to blood sports—and at the fact that there does not appear to be sufficient Government action? Is it possible to consider having one Minister with responsibility in this field?

I do not think that it is necessary to have only one Minister responsible. The two Departments, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry, have their clear powers. Surely the proof of this is that action has been taken wherever it has been found that the Balfour Assurances have not been observed.

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain his earlier reply? How does it adversely affect our exports if we slaughter here and send the carcases abroad, rather than the live animals?

Simply because in many countries the markets want to buy the animals live. If that is so, they would go to other markets if they could, rather than buy carcases. But I do not understand the argument that, when we are satisfied that the assurances are carried out, as they are in this country when we import live animals from Ireland, we should make a change.