asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy with regard to making references to the National Industrial Relations Court.

I cannot do so in general terms since I need to consider all the circumstances of each particular situation.

The Minister has not used the Act for almost eight months. How will he get out of the dilemma of the Chrysler works when he knows that, if he uses the Act, matters will be made worse and that, at the same time, something must be done to settle the dispute? Would it not be better to scrap the Act altogether and return to our old system of industrial relations?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the power to intervene in an emergency, I have not used the Act because the circumstances have not arisen, nor does the Act give power to intervene in the Chrysler dispute.

Are not many unions depriving their members of benefit by not making use of the Act?

At least one union has gained considerably by using the Act. The use made of the Act by the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff, although it is not registered, has been of considerable benefit to its members in matters of recognition.

Is not the reason why the Minister has not invoked his emergency powers under the Act that it is recognised by both sides of industry that the use of these powers generally does far more harm than good?

I have invoked the emergency powers under the Act.

Once.

There has not been an occasion so to do since then.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the information available to him from international sources concerning the age distribution of unemployed workers in major European countries.

As the reply contains tables of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Minister aware that Sweden protects older workers who cannot regain employment through the right of regional labour board officers to require companies to take on more such workers where, according to the personnel returns, a firm is not taking its fair share? Will he seriously consider introducing such a desirable system in this country?

The view of successive Governments in this country has been that the older worker should not be regarded as a protected species but should be able to compete for work on his own merit.

Will my hon. Friend consider publishing these figures, so that they can be used as a national comparison, and also figures for the regions? Will he make regular statistics available to the House?

I will consider what my hon. Friend has said but I warn him that there are dangers in trying to make comparisons. The comparisons I have been able to obtain with European countries are not valid because our figures are not comparable with those of European countries which are based on the EEC Labour Force Survey.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage unemployed—seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers and adult students—in the Northern Region and Great Britain in April 1970 and April 1973.

In the Northern Region the unemployment percentages were 4·6 per cent. in April 1970 and 4·8 per cent. in April 1973. In Great Britain the figures were 2·5 per cent. in April 1970 and 2·7 per cent. in April 1973.

Do not these figures bear out with almost clinical precision the argument made repeatedly from the Opposition benches yesterday that there has been no relative improvement in the employment position in the Northern Region by comparison with the rest of the country? Does the Minister seriously believe that there will be an improvement within the life of this Parliament if the Government continue their present policies?

Yes, I think that there will be an improvement. The hon. Gentleman is unfair. The important thing is to reduce unemployment, in whatever part of the country. Unemployment in the Northern Region has fallen considerably. In March last year the seasonally adjusted rate was 6·3 per cent., compared with 4·7 per cent. now. On Tyneside, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency, unemployment has fallen by more than 5,000 in the last 12 months.

Will my hon. Friend take due note that in the Northern Region it is fully appreciated that six-and-a-half years of Labour stagnation of the economy with rapidly rising unemployment cannot be overcome overnight? Does he agree that job vacancies would be a much better yardstick, and will he give us an idea of them?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right; job vacancies are by far the best yardstick available. The number of vacancies has more than doubled in the past year, and there are two and a half times as many vacancies for male employees as there were in May 1972. There are now more than 5,000 more unfilled vacancies in the Northern Region than there were in April 1970 when the Labour Party was in power.

Will the Minister point out to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the inadequacy of maintenance allowances? More children in the South than in the North are remaining at school after reaching school leaving age. A great contribution would be made if the Secretary of State ensured that the maintenance allowances were sufficient to meet the needs of children who stay on longer at school.

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. While I do not necessarily accept what he says, I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received concerning his policy towards improving the employment prospects of disabled people; and what replies he has sent.

My right hon. Friend is in constant touch with individuals and organisations concerned with these matters, including the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled, on a wide variety of topics. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Member giving details of any particular representations he may have in mind, and of the replies that we have sent.

In his consultative document the Minister has now recognised our criticism of the existing scheme for helping disabled people, and I welcome that. Is he aware, however, that the best solution is to make all employers pay for a quota whether or not they employ disabled people so that the shoe is neatly placed under the foot? Instead of disabled people asking employers for work, employers would then be asking disabled people to work for them and those employers who would not give them work would properly be penalised.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the document is very fair concerning the quota and examines a wide variety of possibilities, including tougher enforcement and financial incentives to employers to employ disabled people. I do not rule out the suggestion which he makes, which can be another factor to be considered. The important thing is to get the right consensus as to what should be done and to make it more effective in terms of the employment of disabled people.

Could not more encouragement be given to local authorities to persuade them to increase the number of disabled people they employ?

Yes, Sir, and we are all the time endeavouring to make sure that public sources fulfil their quotas and employ as many disabled people as possible. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that unemployment among the disabled fell substantially during the last year, from 91,063 to 77,360. The figure is still too high, and the more we can encourage both public and private sources to take action in this respect the better.

The hon. Gentleman referred to tougher enforcement. In what year did the last prosecution of an employer under the 1944 Act take place?

The last one, speaking from memory, was some years ago—I think in the early 1960s or late 1950s. We have debated this matter in the Welsh Grand Committee. Successive Governments have taken the view that persuasion is better than coercion. It may be that public opinion now feels that there should be greater coercion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Hon. Members may take that view, but this has been spelt out conclusively in the quota document, and it is a matter for detailed consideration. There are those who believe that tougher penalties will not lead to the employment of more disabled people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage disabled people to seek employment is to introduce a disability income which would enable them to be independent even when they can only earn low wages? Since the employment of the disabled is only one aspect of the problem, does my hon. Friend agree to collaborate with the Department of Health and Social Security and to produce a Green Paper setting out the Government's whole policy for helping the disabled?

That is a little wide of my remit, but all these matters relating to the employment of the disabled are under consideration and we are in contact with the Department of Health and Social Security on matters in which our responsibilities involve disabled people.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the 1972 figure of about 9,000 firms in breach of the law by being below the quota without permission from his Department? Does he not feel that this is an intolerable situation? We waited a long time for the consultative documents and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of opinion-forming, but what are the other alternatives? What sort of timetable does he envisage, and what specific proposals has he to deal with the problem?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the law in this respect has been in operation for 30 years and one does not change it overnight. We have given a reasonable period for consultation and a number of opinions will be flowing in. I hope that by the end of the year we shall be able to form some conclusion on the quota system. This is tied up with the other aspect of the problems of the disabled. It is true that there are a number of firms which do not fulfil their quota obligations or get exemption permits, but there are difficulties in enforcement and sometimes difficulty in getting the right sort of disabled people into employment because they are not suitable for specific jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate his Department has made of the number of self-employed people not so recorded in the official statistics.

The main source of information about the numbers of employers and self-employed people is the Census of Population updated annually by a sample of national insurance cards. The total for June 1971, the latest available date, was 1,791,000. No other official estimates are made.

Is the Minister aware that the movements in the official figures of self-employed and unemployed do not correspond with the movements in the labour force as defined officially? One calculation is that there is an underestimate of the self-employed to the extent of 250,000 people. Is it not an unsatisfactory state of affairs that estimates of the numbers of the self-employed should have to depend on the census once every four years? What light is shed on the official figures in the construction industry by the experience of the issue of tax exemption certificates?

No statistical source is infallible. I am aware that some observers feel that official statistics are under-recorded, but as well as the Census of Population there is an annual undating which takes into account national insurance cards, and data have recently been provided to us by the Inland Revenue. This again should help our officials in estimating the number of self-employed more accurately, but it comes down to a question of the honesty of the individual when completing his census form. If an individual does not state that he is self-employed, it is sometimes difficult to trace the information.

During the Second Reading debate on the Labour-Only Sub-Contracting Bill which I introduced to deal with the lump—a Bill which unfortunately did not get through—the Minister said that the Government intended to institute an inquiry into self-employment in the building industry and its effects on the total situation. Can he say what steps the Government are now taking on this topic? Are they pursuing this matter, have they any plans to deal with it, and what do they intend to do about the situation—or has their action so far been merely a lot of words?

No, Sir, I understand that that is not the situation, but these are mainly questions for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Discussions are taking place within the industry's national joint council and within the economic development committee for the building industry. I understand that the EDC's working party on employment problems yesterday considered a paper on this subject prepared by the National Economic Development Office. Progress is being made and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to further results.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in any amendment of the Industrial Relations Act, he will propose that employees as well as shareholders are members of their company and should be provided with the directors' report including a survey of the company's industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in any amendment of the Industrial Relations Act, he will propose making it mandatory for companies to report annually to their employees and shareholders about their implementation of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.

I have some sympathy with the thoughts underlying these suggestions as regards employees. I will certainly consider them in the course of our current study of worker participation. Suggestions regarding a company's obligations to its shareholders are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Would this not be a useful start towards a fuller programme of participation by employees in a company? Surely it is about time that at least a small step was taken in this direction so that employees may feel that they have as much say as the shareholders in their company.

Yes, I think that this is very much the thinking behind our commitment, not least at the European summit and in the proposals which we discussed in the Council of Ministers at Brussels the other day. It is important that steps should be taken in this direction, but it is equally important that the proposals should be properly discussed with those concerned. We should not necessarily slavishly follow the European pattern. We may decide on a pattern of development to suit our own particular needs.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when a registered union, such as the Steel Industry Management Association, approaches the NIRC for financial information about cost, profits and prices of plant in the steel industry, it will be given that information?

It would be improper for me to say one way or the other what will happen when anyone approaches a court.

Will my right hon. Friend take some action while discussing worker participation by encouraging firms to give this information freely, because many firms do not do so and could give it if my right hon. Friend reminded them forcibly that this is part of their job as decent employers?

This is very much part of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, and I hope that both sides of industry will do all they can to implement the code.

Will the right hon Gentleman confirm that the Government have on their agenda at least three possible ways, if they choose, of promoting the extension of worker participation? One is the possible amendment of the Industrial Relations Act. The second is the proposed new Companies Act. The third is the initiative emanating from the Commission in Brussels Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the Government's timetable of policy-making under those three heads? Are we likely to have a statement of Government policy before the Summer Recess, since it would be useful for the promotion of discussion throughout the country?

I agree, not least because of the demand for a European timetable, that it is necessary for ideas to be discussed quickly with those concerned and for the Government's position to be set out. This is a matter for consultation between the unions and employers. I should not like it to be thought that we were putting forward ideas without consultation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the legislation emanating from the Commission in Brussels is fairly far advanced and has been discussed in working papers of the European Assembly and its committees? In framing his policy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is co-ordination with those proposals so that there is no clash of interest between our legislation and that proposed by the Commission?

I take that point. However, the ideas put forward by the Commission are not wholly acceptable to sonic of the other countries involved in the Community. It is important to remember that we are discussing in general terms employee participation, and it must be recognised that this extends to white-collar and staff workers as well as to manual workers on the shop floor.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for legislation to deal with the Robens Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a statement on the Government's intentions for implementing the recommendations of the Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a statement on the Government's intentions for implementing the recommendations of the Robens Report on industrial safety.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a statement on the Government's intentions for implementing the proposals of the Robens Report on Health and Safety at Work.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made in this House by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on Monday 21st May.—[Vol. 857, c. 74–84.]

In view of the many points raised during the debate on the motion of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on this subject, may I ask whether we are to have an opportunity to discuss matters arising out of the consultations promised between the CBI and the TUC, especially as regards the Factories Inspectorate?

Any question of debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In any case it would be wise to wait until the House has had an opportunity to see the consultative proposals, which I hope will be available by about the end of the month.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already widespread dissatisfaction among trade unionists, doctors, lawyers and apparently even civil servants about the indication which the Under-Secretary gave that he accepts the central premise of voluntarism in health and safety arrangements embodied in the Robens Report? Before instituting legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of trying to ensure that comprehensive health and safety laws are stringently enforced, rather than merely accepting the despairing and superficial contents of the Robens Report?

I do not accept that the Robens Report was either despairing or superficial. Nor do I believe that prevention is necessarily worse than cure. Nor do I accept that the enforcement procedures that we are proposing have fewer teeth than the ones now there. Under the arrangements that we put forward the inspectors will be able to secure more rapid improvements by using improvement notices or the possibility of closing down operations in cases of acute danger. We intend to provide stiffer financial penalties for offenders. There is no question of substituting codes of practice for regulations. There will be a considerable area where statutory requirements are clearly needed, and these will be retained and strengthened if necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the CBI and the TUC are not the only bodies in industry which can make a valuable contribution? In drafting the legislation, will he avoid the twin pitfalls of a narrow base and selective application?

Yes. It is important to recognise that there are a number of other people involved, not least because of the Robens Report, in which one of the main objects of unification was to avoid the confusion that the general public has had in dealing with dangers to health and safety not only for people at work but for those surrounding places of work as a result of activities carried on in factories and other establishments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to look at the Adjournment debate on the sweat-shop activities in greater London, in which he will discover reference made to the paucity of inspectors which allows the growth of sweat shops with increasing danger to life and limb of those working in them?

I will look at that debate again. The number of factories inspectors which may be required in the future is one of the major questions that the commission will have to deal with when it is established.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to follow the Robens recommendation about the need for a statutory obligation on employers to consult their workpeople? Does he agree that the shop floor has a great deal to contribute in this matter? Will he consider setting up some form of statutory factory safety committees?

I will consider that. It is important to recognise that the Government have accepted one of the major points in the Robens Report, that it is essential to involve workpeople in conditions about safety and health at work. I agree that the consultations which my hon. Friend suggests should be undertaken.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has put his finger on one of the central anxieties arising from the statement on 21st May by the Under-Secretary of State? I refer, of course, to the problems arising from expanding the scope of legislation to cover all those in employ- ment and the public who are at risk as well without a commitment to increase the size of the inspectorate. This is bound to impose on the inspectorate an intolerably increased burden which will be borne satisfactorily only if the inspectorate is expanded or by introducing a system of worker safety representatives such as that advocated by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

I do not deny the value of what Opposition Members have put fonward. But the hon. Gentleman has mistaken the point, which is that the authority should be centralised. This is achieved by bringing under the aegis of one central authority the existing inspectorate—factories, mines and alkali. No extra work will be put on the organisation. It is simply a matter of getting its work organised more coherently. There will be some savings. There will be a greater capacity and ability in terms of centralised research and so on and a greater capacity to consult and to share expertise.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment amongst under-18s in Birmingham.

Five hundred and seventy-one young people were registered as unemployed in Birmingham on 14th May.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure is much less than it was last year? Large numbers—[Interruption.] It is nevertheless far too high. Is he aware that a growing number of school leavers are having to spend long periods unemployed before finding employment? What action does he propose to take to ensure that school leavers go straight into jobs and do not spend three or four months serving apprenticeships in the dole queue?

That is exactly the kind of action that the Government have been taking. Employment prospects for young people in the Birmingham area are good. There is no denying that. I have quoted the figure of 571 young people unemployed, but there are now 3,103 vacancies for them, which represents 2,000 more than a year ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in his consultations on the recommendations of the Robens Report on Health and Safety at Work, special attention will be paid to the increasing fire risk in factories through use of inflammable materials.

The proposals for legislation on health and safety at work, about which my right hon. Friend will shortly be consulting interested organisations, will include provisions concerning control of fire risks arising from the use of flammable materials.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while consultations are of importance, the risks are present now? What action does he intend to take while consultations proceed to reduce the amount of inflammable materials used and to reduce the hazards?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that new regulations on this subject will come into force later this month. For the first time there will be a major code of regulations dealing with the storage, handling and use of dangerously flammable liquids and gases. It is estimated that in all about 200,000 premises will be covered. This is a useful step in the interim before the implementation of the Robens proposals.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, by announcing in answer to his hon. Friend that new regulations are necessary to control fire hazards, he destroys one of the central presumptions of the Robens Report—namely, that we need less regulation? Is not his answer a condemnation of the present self-regulatory system?

No, I do not accept that. No one has ever pretended that under the Robens recommendations there will not be regulations. It is a question of better self-policing and rational use of forces. The regulations that I have mentioned will be harmonised with the other regulations which will be taken into account if and when the Robens proposals become law.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the ratio of people registered as unemployed to notified unfilled vacancies in each region; and how this position compares with the same period a year ago.

The figures show a considerable improvement in all regions.

The latest figures show the dramatic success of the Government's economic policy. But should they not also be read as a serious warning that rapid and sustained growth in our economy will be maintained only if we get more mobility of labour? Will my hon. Friend tell us what he will do to ensure that more people are encouraged to move to jobs as well as providing more jobs where they are needed?

My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. As he knows, the Government provide assistance towards the expenses of those living away from home and towards the costs of household removal under the Employment Transfer Scheme. The rates of grants and allowances are currently under review and we hope to make an announcement when the review is complete. We are also considering what more can be done to encourage the mobility of labour. It is not always easy, because some people are reluctant to move to different areas. However, we pay constant attention to this matter in an endeavour to try to ease the situation. I am glad that there has been this uniform fall in unemployment throughout the various regions, and there are signs that mobility is improving.

When the hon. Gentleman circulates his figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I ask him to include the ratios for 1970? Will he also stop congratulating the Government on having produced 1 million unemployed and on having gradually reduced that number?

We are a long way from the 1 million unemployed. In a large number of regions, including the one I mentioned in a previous answer, there are now more vacancies available than during the time of the Labour Government. The ratio of numbers unemployed to unfilled vacancies has moved from 4·5:1 a year ago to 1·5:1 at the present time. That is a considerable achievement and improvement by anybody's standards.

May I ask my hon. Friend to repeat the very good figures for the Northern Region so that we can then, I hope, impress on the Opposition the improvements that we are making, because they do not seem to have the brains to understand what is happening?

One would wish that there were a little more enthusiasm from the Opposition for the improvements that are taking place, particularly in difficult areas like the North. The May ratio of people unemployed to unfilled vacancies in the North now 3·5:1 compared with 10·2:1 a year ago.

Will the hon. Gentleman, during his period of self-congratulation, admit that the so-called increased prosperity appears to have left Liverpool behind, because the level of unemployment on Merseyside at the moment is running at 7 per cent., which means that male unemployment is even higher? Precisely what do the Government intend to do to help an area like Merseyside? Are they prepared to make it a special development area to help it to overcome its serious problems?

Stop striking.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of development area status is not for me, but I take note of what he said. We have never disguised the fact that there are particular black spots where unemployment is high. The overall picture for the regions—this is one of the guides by which we have to judge the situation—is extremely good. I mention this because it includes the hon. Gentleman's area. For the first time in three years there are more vacancies than unemployed boys and girls in every region of the country. Progress is being made overall. Unemployment is coming down and attention is being given to the difficult black spots which admittedly exist in certain areas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the published figures of notified unfilled vacancies are probably far lower than the actual numbers? Will he consider carrying out a small piece of research in different regions to investigate the genuineness of the figures which are presented?

I will certainly consider that suggestion. We are always anxious to do anything we can to improve the accuracy of the information that we provide. My hon. Friend is right. I am referring only to notified vacancies to employment exchanges throughout the country. We all know that there are many other jobs which, alas, are not notified to us but are available for unemployed people.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the kind of smug statements that we have been hearing from the Conservative benches on this serious social problem do not reflect any credit on them at all? Is not the position that, whereas there is a welcome improvement compared with the appalling totals of 12 or 18 months ago, the figure of over 620,000 unemployed is higher than at any time in the 25 years from the end of the war until 1970? This is a disgraceful position. The figure is still intolerably high and requires a totally new policy from the Government.

There is no smugness and no complacency on these benches concerning unemployment. However, we are entitled to ask for credit for what we have done during the past three years to help to cure a difficult unemployment situation which was growing very strongly during the time of the Labour Government. The figures are still coming down. They have come down dramatically this year and are beginning to compare favourably with the position in the early part of 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many grants have been paid to workers in development and intermediate areas in each region under the Employment Transfer Scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many grants have been made under the Employment Transfer Scheme to the latest available date.

The Employment Transfer Scheme was introduced on 5th April 1972 and by 31st March 1973 18,557 people had been paid grants under the scheme. Of these, 14,954 movements originated in assisted areas—5,511 in Scotland, 3,001 in Northern Region, 2,706 in North Western Region, 1,490 in Yorkshire and Humberside Region, 1,365 in Wales, 659 in South Western Region and 222 in Midlands Region.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the scheme is doing what it was intended to do? Will he give further consideration to publicity for the scheme in view of the valuable alleviation of hardship which can flow from it?

I will certainly consider whether publicity could and should be given to the scheme itself. As for whether it is having the intended effect, I would only say that when we improved the scheme last year we hoped to double the number of Government-assisted transfers to around 16,000 in the first year. As it happens, the number of people helped has exceeded our expectations by the considerable figure I gave.

Will my hon. Friend give particularly careful attention to the position of younger workers, especially those just leaving school, who need help to move to an area with a wider range of possibilities, since in their own areas there may be vacancies in toto but not a very wide range of possibilities? Would not help with supervised hostels and the rest assist considerably here?

I take my hon. Friend's first point. As for help with supervised hostels and so on, one has to strike a balance between care and over-paternalism. It is true that the Department of the Environment has powers under the Housing Finance Act 1972 to pay grants to housing authorities and housing associations towards the cost of providing hostels of approved standards. That should be a help in what my hon. Friend has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a new edition of the Industrial Relations Handbook.

I am considering whether a new edition should be undertaken.

Is it not a dismal commentary on the state of industrial relations under the present Government that, whereas 10 years ago there was sufficient consensus for his Department to produce a non-controversial book on how to solve our industrial relations problems, since the passage of the Industrial Relations Act that has proved pretty well impossible.

It is no commentary of that kind whatever. The present book is of historical interest and contains a summary of the Fair Wages Act. [Laughter.] If it is of historical interest, a fact which seems to cause some mirth among Labour Members, and if there is to be a revision, perhaps we should consider including in that revision a short chapter on the rather fugitive and short-lived history of "In Place of Strife".

Will my hon. Friend seriously consider publishing again the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, possibly in a shortened form, and making it free? This is something that should have much wider circulation than it has at present, and at 15p it is rather expensive although it is well worth it.

I do not know about 15p, but, of course, the guide to the Industrial Relations Act is free. The Code of Industrial Relations Practice is freely available. We can consider the possibility of producing a shortened version, if that is possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the quota scheme for the employment of disabled people, arising from the consultative document published by his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he anticipates that he will announce a decision on the future of the quota system for disabled persons.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment made a statement about the consultative document on the quota scheme in answer to a Question on 22nd May.—[Vol. 857, c. 39–40.] This explained the purpose of the document and made clear that I shall not make up my mind about the future of the quota scheme until I have had the opportunity to consider the views of my National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled and the many other organisations and individuals concerned. I hope that the Government will be in a position to take a decision on this—within the wider context of my Department's review of all its policies and services for disabled people—in the course of 1974.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the consultative document contains some very controversial matter, particularly the implied suggestion that the quota scheme might be abolished? While he is making up his mind what action to take, will he take steps to ensure that the present law is enforced and that employers take their quotas under the existing scheme?

I am well aware that the proposals in the consultative document are controversial, and the document makes it plain that there are disadvantages in all the proposals put forward. This indeed is why we are having this degree of consultation on it, including consultation with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled. As to what can be done meanwhile, there are some firms which could well be in breach of the law since they have not received permits to engage people other than disabled and are presumably engaging them.

Does not the best form of help for disabled people lie in retraining? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Government are doing enough in retraining the disabled and others as well?

My hon. Friend will know that we are producing a further paper, first of all on sheltered employment and second on industrial rehabilitation and vocational training, which we hope to put to the National Advisory Council early in 1974.

The Government have been persistent in their demand that people in industry must obey the law. The right hon. Gentleman has been told today that there are 9,000 firms in breach of the law since, without permission from his Department, they are not operating the quota scheme. Will he now give us a straight answer as to what he and his Department will do about these 9,000 law-breakers?

The hon. Member says that they are law-breakers, but that is a presumption and not a fact. There are 9,000 firms that do not have permits from my Department to employ people other than those who are registered——

Then they are breaking the law.

Not necessarily; they may not have taken on people.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.