asked the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has regarding the revival of sweatshop labour in London and elsewhere.

I am aware of the problem of small clothing factories housed in unsuitable premises in London and other cities. Inspectors of factories have been concerned about these poor conditions, and legal proceedings have been taken in a number of cases.

Will the Minister confirm that it is his belief that sweatshops are mushrooming in London's East End? Have checks been made in northern textile towns such as Bradford and Oldham? Is he aware that the law relating to safety and health regulations and the payment of tax and national insurance is being repeatedly flouted and that despite this there were only 10 prosecutions last year? Does he not agree that to have only five inspectors for 5,000 factories in inner London is grossly inadequate? What plans has he to increase the number tenfold?

The hon. Member has asked a number of questions. I do not agree that these places are mushrooming. Probably they have been slightly on the increase. The Factory Inspectorate is well aware of this, and one of the reasons why we convened joint consultations with local authorities was to see what further action could be taken. I have asked them to report back to me. So far this year the inspectorate has brought 29 successful prosecutions in the tailoring and garment-making industry. A further 11 are awaiting a court hearing. This is a difficult area. Many of these people are fly-by-nights operating for short periods. The inspectorate is well aware of the problem and where its responsibilities lie it does everything it possibly can.

May I press the hon. Gentleman on the question of inspection? Will he confirm the figures given by my hon. Friend and, if so, will he admit that this is totally inadequate in relation to the problem? Will he take urgent steps to increase the inspectorate to deal with this difficult problem?

I cannot exactly confirm the figures, because the number of inspectors varies and they are moved around for different duties. The right hon. Member knows more than anyone that factory inspectors have a wide range of duties, of which this is one. If they devoted a disproportionate amount of time to so-called sweatshops, which is probably the wrong designation, other important areas would be neglected. All these questions come into focus in the Robens proposals and we shall undoubtedly be debating these in the course of future legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take urgent steps to increase the labour force in the construction industry.

Although the principal responsibility should lie with the industry itself, the number of places available in construction trades under the Training Opportunities Scheme has been massively increased and we are still expanding our capacity.

Is the Minister of State not aware that unless even greater urgency is shown in dealing with this problem, unless there is effective and energetic action at an early date, all the proposals listed in the Government's various policy documents on housing and issued in the past year will turn out to be pious hopes and platitudes?

The hon. Gentleman can take that view if he likes. The facts are that the initiatives we have taken mean that the Training Opportunities Scheme now provides about a quarter of the intake of all skilled men in the industry and between 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the intake of bricklayers, which is pretty important. There is a limit to the extent to which the taxpayer can be asked to finance industry's needs.

While I recognise the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Rather Valley (Mr. Hardy) about the desperate situation in the construction industry, I thought that there was a degree of implied criticism of my hon. Friend. Is my hon. Friend in a position to give me the figures for apprenticeship training in 1970 as compared with today?

I do not have the 1970 figures, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in 1972 the figure was over 27,000 compared with over 20,000 in 1971. The fastest fall in apprenticeships was between 1968 and 1969.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that in most of the schools for apprentices a very high proportion of the young men come from direct labour departments that train their own apprentices, which private firms do not do? Will he attend to this matter?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point; I am sure that he is absolutely right. Probably one of the greatest discouragements to apprenticeship was the introduction of selective employment tax. I well remember saying so in the House, and certain hon. Members opposite who were concerned about this facet of training, in particular in the construction industry, were notably absent from the Division that followed.

Is it not possible to shorten apprenticeship courses?

Yes. That is one of the matters under consideration. At present apprenticeships last for four years, and a proposal by the Construction Industry Training Board to reduce it to three years is being considered by the industry. If it were adopted, depending on the timetable for introduction it would produce a significant short-term increase in the number of skilled workers, and the effect on productive capacity to which the workers already contribute as apprentices would be much less.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will initiate talks between himself, the TUC and industry and commerce to consider hours of work in the United Kingdom and the effect of long hours of work on the health and safety of employees and upon industrial relations.

I see no reason to initiate talks at present, but I am prepared to take account of any particular points the hon. Member has in mind.

That is a very unsatisfactory answer, bearing in mind all that we hear nowadays about stress at work. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that long hours of work have an adverse effect on the health and safety of employees and on their productivity? Would it not be as well if the hon. Gentleman took account of the opinions now being expressed on the question of stress? Bearing in mind that people in this country are working longer hours than people anywhere else in Europe, cannot the hon. Gentleman do something substantial about this problem and have talks with the TUC so that people in this country may earn a decent living wage for working reasonable hours?

I do not think that my reply was unsatisfactory; I thought that it was sensitive. I said that I would take note of the hon. Gentleman's points, and I shall do so. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the working of long hours is a significant factor in causing accidents, although plainly excessively long hours may cause fatigue, which, I accept, could be a contributory factor in some circumstances. The main problem arises in situations in which people work in dusty atmospheres and other adverse environmental conditions where long hours of work result in a good deal more exposure to the hazards and require higher standards of environmental hygiene. My right hon. Friend is always ready to discuss these matters with the TUC.

Although the matter of safety and health is a cause for speed and pressure in the adoption of the proposals in the Robens Report, is it not remarkable that it should be said that the TUC, industry and the Government should get together in this matter? Is it not a matter for individual trade unions to discuss with individual industries? Does not the Question show a remarkable lack of confidence in the negotiating ability of the trade unions?

I shall not comment on that, except to say that I am sure that the trade unions should be paying great attention to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total of regional employment premiums paid to firms in the Northern Region in 1972.

The estimated payments made in respect of regional employment premium for the Northern Development Area in 1972 were £29 million.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Northern Region is dependent on this aid, that its withdrawal would be a disaster and that even the threat of withdrawal is harmful to the region?

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's premise. The evidence is that the effect of regional employment premium differs as between different regions and may well differ within a region. I recently visited the North-East, and it was clear that the problems of Tyneside are different from those of Teesside. On Teesside, the problem in the near future may well be shortages not only of special skills but of semi-skilled labour. Discussion with the unions and industry about the phasing out of REP should take account of such factors and the question of the most effective way of giving help, including training help, to the regions concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that experience shows that general expansion of the economy is far more effective than such means as regional employment premium in providing additional work? Furthermore, does not experience show that if the money were spent more selectively it might provide a good deal more help than it has done?

I agree. The most important aim is to maintain a continuous and steady rate of expansion. One factor which is a prerequisite of successful development in the Northern Region is confidence in the continued growth of the economy. Given that, there is a great deal to be said for applying central Government help in a more selective way, and in a way which Government policies have already begun to develop, in order to achieve the greatest possible effect.

Does not the Minister appreciate that certain large companies in the North-East, employing many men, would not have been viable in the last two or three years had they not received regional employment premium'? Is he aware that the evidence given to the Select Committee indicated that the withdrawal of regional employment premium might mean the loss of between 20,000 and 40,000 jobs? If some of those jobs are lost in the North-East, it will be a disaster. Will not the right hon. Gentleman review this decision?

No. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it clear that the phasing out of regional employment premium from the end of 1974 will be discussed. It was introduced in September 1967 for seven years. The evidence is that in the circumstances at that time and for a few years afterwards it was effective. However, during a phase when the economy is successfully expanding and massive investments are being made in parts of the Northern Development Area, it is not necessarily the most efficient way of spending equivalent sums of money.

Before coming to a decision, will my right hon. Friend kindly have an analysis made of the firms that, last year or this year, would have been in the red if it had not been for the regional employment premium? If I may say so with great respect, I have not committed myself because I want to know a great deal more about the matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have an analysis made. because it is no good putting small firms out of work—

Order. This is not committal time; it is Question Time.

I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend. The point of having discussions with industry on the phasing out of regional employment premiums is to provide the sort of information my hon. Friend is quite properly seeking

I thank my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications, in employment terms, for the special development areas on the phasing out of the regional employment premium in the light of the latest employment figures.

Discussions have been taking place with both sides of industry on the phasing out of the regional employment premium and it would be premature to make a statement until the outcome of these discussions has been considered. The possible effect on employment in these areas is one of the factors being taken into account.

In these discussions with the TUC and the CBI, will the Minister take into account that the Government are the only people who want to phase out REP? The TUC and the CBI, which are recent converts, want to continue REP. What must be done to persuade the Government to withdraw this silly proposal?

I do not accept that it is a silly proposal. The unemployment rate for Great Britain generally is 2·6 per cent. this year, compared with 3·7 per cent. in May 1972. In the special development areas unemployment is still too high, but it has fallen by 24·5 per cent. over the year and the percentage rate has dropped from 7·4 to 5·6. It is the expansion of the economy that is necessary for the development of the areas. The academic research which was undertaken indicated that the regional employment premium could have been responsible for the creation of between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs by 1970, but that was in the conditions which obtained in the years up to 1970. We are now dealing with the different situation of an expanding economy.

Has the Department any evidence that specific firms would leave the special development areas if REP were ended tomorrow? Is not it obvious that the Industry Act provides far more specific and relevant aid and far fewer indiscriminate handouts to industry?

That is true, and the Industry Act, unlike REP, does not give a subsidy to firms which have been in the region for the whole of their history, which have no intention of moving out and which have been doing very well.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, before allowing work permits for hotel staff in London, he will ensure that the employers of such staff provide accommodation for them in order to avoid further overstraining the limited supply of furnished accommodation in London.

No, Sir. Many employers of hotel staff already provide or assist in finding accommodation for their foreign workers.

Will my hon. Friend agree on reflection that this does not go far enough? Is he aware that men with work permits who are taken on by hotels often bring with them a great number of dependants who want to live in furnished accommodation, which is extremely short in central London? In my borough there are five such families in temporary accommodation which is provided for the homeless. Does not my hon. Friend agree on reflection that in this instance employers should pay the social cost of employing these people, including the cost of housing?

With respect to my hon. Friend, what he suggests would not have much bearing on the amount of furnished accommodation available. A high proportion of the staff of the hotels in central London will wish to live in the surrounding area, whether they are foreigners or British citizens. If hotel employers were obliged to find accommodation for their staff, no doubt they would seek it in the open market, and this would not alleviate the shortage. I know that my hon. Friend has great difficulty in his area and there has been in central London recently a burgeoning of hotels. I hope in due course that things will settle down.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people employed in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries at the latest available date; and how these figures compare with each of the previous five years.

It is provisionally estimated that there were 152,300 employees in employment in the industry in April 1973. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the comparable figures for earlier years.

That reply is a little difficult to interpret. Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country, including Southampton, there has been a drastic fall-off in the labour force in ship repairing over the last five or six years? Will he have urgent talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider what steps can be taken to remedy this situation?

I am aware of the fall-off in this respect. There are many reasons for it of which the hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters, will be aware. There is the trend towards very large vessels for which ship repairing facilities in the United Kingdom are not always adequate and the consequent reduction in the number of ships. There is the decline in the age of the United Kingdom merchant fleet with the consequent reduced need for repairs, and there are also many other factors.

Is the Minister aware that the withdrawal of REP would have a serious effect on employment in the ship building and ship repairing industry? Despite any assistance that may be available under the Industry Act, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the level of employment in ship repairing on Merseyside has fallen substantially over recent years and is making a serious contribution to the high level of unemployment which continues there? Will the Minister have words with the Secretary of State for trade and Industry with a view to Merseyside being declared a special development area?

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have noted the words of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the reasons—and I have given many of them—why there has been this decline in ship repairing. I cannot take it any further than that at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has yet decided on whether to change the quota system for the employment of disabled people.

No, Sir. The decision will be taken in the light of comments on the consultative document, which asks for considered views by the end of this year.

Does the Minister agree that, although the quota system is a relative failure, the interests of disabled people would be damaged if it were scrapped and they were thrown on the mercy of employers many of whom are prejudiced against them? Will the Minister assure the House that both the register and the quota system will be maintained until he can find a way of ensuring that all employers either provide jobs or pay an equivalent contribution?

Reference to grants and subsidies was included in the document at the specific instance of the hon. Gentleman, and we are grateful for his views. I assure him that the procedure will not be scrapped in advance of our decision. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole subject is in the melting pot in consequence of the consultative document. All the options are open, from stricter enforcement to other possible measures. We want to get the best possible deal for disabled people. We also want comments and criticisms from all sides—not merely from the House of Commons—and I am glad that we are getting them.

Will my hon. Friend consider in his deliberations on the Green Paper the possibility of extending the Queen's Award to Industry to an element in terms of the employment of the disabled? That would be a positive encouragement.

That is an interesting suggestion. We are open to suggestions, and I will consider what my hon. Friend says. We need extra incentives for employers to carry out their duties to disabled people, but we should not underestimate the value of the work done by the vast majority of employers. They do it with a clear conscience and willingly.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in contrast to the way in which the Government have treated the House in connection with the Robens Report, we shall expect an adequate opportunity to debate the consultative document before the Government reach firm conclusions.

The hon. Gentleman knows—we have had this out before—that it is not my responsibility to find time for a debate, but I will convey what he says to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will operate the quota system for foreign workers in order to assist the tourist and catering trades, in view of the labour shortage in holiday resorts.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations his Department has received about the effect of EEC membership on the availability of non-EEC nationals for employment in the hotel and catering industry in the United Kingdom; and if he would make a statement.

The hotel and catering industry already receives a special quota of 5,000 permits for overseas workers. My right hon. Friend has the needs of the industry in mind and will keep the administration of this quota under review. The subject of EEC membership has arisen in discussions between the industry and officials of my Department. There has been no effect on the availability of non-EEC nationals to work in hotels and catering in the United Kingdom.

I understand that it is Government policy to reduce the number of 5,000 who are available to the hotel and catering industry. Does he think that this policy is wise in view of the current shortage of labour in the resorts and the dearth of suitable people for training?

Progress is being made on training. Later in the year consideration will be given to the changes in quota for 1974, and the labour supply position will be taken into account. At the same time the method of allocation will be reconsidered to strike as fair a balance as possible between the needs of employers who have recruited foreign workers in the past and those who have not. We are keeping the situation under review.

Does the hon. Gentleman feel it advisable to reduce this quota, or does he feel that it would be preferable to abolish it altogether, so that the hotel and catering industry will then have to face up to the fact that to attract staff it will have to pay adequate wages?

No, Sir. What we are trying to do and I know that the trade unions have views on this matter—is to strike a happy medium. As The Times recently said, the main problem now facing the industry is that it is failing to attract British workers even when unemployment is high. The industry is now beginning to realise this. It is doing something about it and we are trying to help. We must not have too large a quota, but it would be disastrous if we cut off the supply entirely and harmed the tourist industry.

While declaring an interest in the hotel industry, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that hardship is being caused particularly in those regions of the country where we are unduly dependent on tourism, and that regional economies can be in danger if employment of the traditional type is not brought forward? Since under the EEC provisions manufacturing industries have a system of transitional arrangements, should not the service industries enjoy similar transitional arrangements?

Now that we are members of the EEC, there is nothing to prevent EEC workers from coming here and working without permits in this country in the hotel and catering industry. The answer does not necessarily lie with other foreign workers coming in from the EEC area or from non-EEC countries. I very much agree with the Chief Executive of the British Hotels and Restaurants Association who recently said that the only way to overcome the situation is by an all-out campaign to get over to careers masters, parents and young people what employment in the industry involves. The industry is on the upgrade and is playing an increasingly important role in the life of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are engaged in the operation of the Industrial Relations Act; and what has been the total cost to date.

The latest available figures are for the period up to 1st April 1973. At that date about 340 people were engaged in the operation of the Industrial Relations Act, and the total cost had been of the order of £2¼ million. The largest single component of the cost is the additional work of the industrial tribunals.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his figures show that it is costing more to administer the Industrial Relations Act, in terms of both staff and finance, than it is to man the Prime Minister's boat—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—"Land of hope and glory"—

Order. We cannot have that sort of thing at Question Time. Please ask a question.

Will the Minister accept that if local councils can be surcharged for refusing to raise rents, surely this is a case for a Government surcharge?

The figures I have given cover the extra staff required by the Industrial Relations Act in the National Industrial Relations Court, in the Registry of Trade Unions and Employers Associations, in the industrial tribunals, in the Industrial Arbitration Board, in the Commission on Industrial Relations and within my own Department. This is a total of some 337 people, of whom 133 have been engaged in hearing the 12,000 appeals made by work-people to the industrial tribunals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however small this number may be and whatever it may cost, by comparison with the large number destructively occupied in ensuring that the industrial system does not work at all the number is a mere bagatelle?

What my hon. Friend says underlines the point that the court and the Industrial Relations Act cannot be judged simply by the number of times people have recourse to the court. Apart from the 12,000 cases which have been dealt with, there have been a considerable number where the court and the tribunals have been instrumental in achieving settlement between workpeople and employers without bringing matters to court. This is one of the most valuable contributions they have made.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further advisory leaflets about industrial noise have been issued by his Department since the publication of the code of practice.

Since publication of the code, the Department has issued a technical data note on noise in weaving sheds and a television filler on the use of ear protectors. Further publications are being prepared, and in particular the Noise Sub-Committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee is working on a further code on machinery noise.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but does he not agree that the voluntary nature of these leaflets is no substitute for legislation to control noise in industry and to introduce ear protectors? When will such legislation be brought forward?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of noise control. I regard the reduction of industrial noise as a matter of great importance. I am asking the Noise Sub-Committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee to study and report on the problems involved in framing practical and effective noise legislation.

In view of the fact that a court case has recently gone against the employers involving employers' liability in a case of deafness, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter should now be made a scheduled complaint in industry? Will he do something about bringing in a system of medical coverage so that audiograms can be regularly taken to enable the Government to have the background knowledge against which legislation can be drafted?

These are matters which have a bearing on possible legislation. The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I understand that he has received and is now studying a report on the subject from his Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

One of the firm and unambiguous recommendations of the Robens Committee was that there should be basic legislation on noise control included in the Bill which the Government are proposing to bring forward next Session and that there should be a specialised branch of a unified inspectorate to deal with the question of noise. Since the consultative document is completely silent on this matter, and in view of the Minister's comments today, does this mean that the Government have dropped that Robens proposal?

No, Sir. What I said was that I am asking an expert advisory committee to look into the whole question with a view to framing practical and effective noise legislation. The hon. Gentleman will know that one does not just rush into these things without adequate consultation with those concerned. These are difficult and complex measures. We are moving on this matter—as opposed to what happened under the Labour Government, which did not move at all on this subject. What we are doing ties in effectively with the Robens proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the maximum penalty for breach of the safety provisions of the Construction Regulations 1961 resulting in the death of workpeople.

A fine of £300. The Government have recently issued proposals for legislation on safety and health at work that suggest substantially higher penalties.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in the case of a collapse of a bridge over the M4 last year, resulting in the death of three men, for which the firm concerned admitted responsibility the total fine was £150? Is not it clear that the recommendations which the Government propose to bring forward are urgent? Will the hon. Gentleman be placing legislation before the House in the immediate future?

It would be improper for me to comment on the judicial decision in a specific case. But I agree that the present penalties are unsatisfactory, and that is one of the reasons why we are proposing to tackle them. Where an offence is tried on indictment, we propose an unlimited fine. It will be open to factory inspectors to seek trial on indictment if it is considered that the offence warrants it. Here again we are making good progress.

Are there not already powers to prohibit work until conditions are safe, and should not these powers be used more frequently?

Again this is a matter of judgment. It happens from time to time. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the factory inspectors will have very much wider powers over enforcement under the proposed legislation on Robens, if the House approves it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that penalties for offences of this kind, like those in the Factories Act, are ludicrous? Is he aware, for example, that the loss of a finger due to the absence of a guard recently incurred the ludicrous penalty of £50? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to very stiff fines, we must have the equivalent in industry of what we have in road safety, namely disqualification, and that drastic measures are needed if employers are to fall into line?

I said that the present penalties were unsatisfactory. That is why these proposals are being brought forward. Any further sanctions are matters for debate when the proposals for new penalties come forward. They can be examined at the right time and place.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he can give the number of people who were made redundant by Ranco Motors Limited, Tannochside, Glasgow, who are still not in employment.

According to the latest information available to my Department, four men and 35 women of the 445 workpeople who became redundant as a result of the closure of Ranco Motors Limited are still registered as unemployed.

The Minister will have got these figures from the Lanarkshire area, and I am sure he will agree that they do not take into account the number still unemployed in the Glasgow area. Is he aware that unemployment in Lanarkshire is still 5·5 per cent. and that, on that basis, it will be difficult for the people concerned to find other work which is suitable? Will the hon. Gentleman take up the matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because this factory moved from my constituency to another development area, getting all the Government grants? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do something about it, will the hon. Gentleman get his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to do something about it?

I read the hon. Gentleman's exchanges with my hon. Friend yesterday at Question Time, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman had adequate answers from my hon. Friend. I am concerned about the work aspect of the redundancies. Of the four men who are unemployed, two are registered disabled. I admit that there will be some difficulty in placing them. Most of the 35 women are married and want work in close proximity to their homes. I understand that there is a good chance of all of them being redeployed by the end of the summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will state the percentage increase in expenditure of cleaning the offices of his Department since July 1963.

The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Why does the hon. Gentleman always give that answer when he is asked about the statistics of lady office cleaners in his Department or any other? Is he aware that there is a growing feeling that the way in which these ladies are employed by contractors as sweated labour is a national disgrace'? Will he set up a committee of inquiry to discover the statistics and to prove once and for all that the Government have made great savings by employing ladies at low wages and by taking advantage of contractors who now supply the labour instead of these ladies being directly employed?

I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question in full. The difficulty is that the records for 1963 and 1964 of salary payments made were unfortunately destroyed in October 1965 by the Labour administration. In any event the hon. Gentleman is misguided if he believes that this is wrong and seeks to blame the present administration for the movement towards contract cleaning. It was the Labour administration again, following devaluation in 1968, which effectively converted the bulk of cleaning of Government offices to a contract basis. One-third of the total area of Government offices was cleaned under contract in 1967 and two-thirds in October 1970. As for an inquiry, it is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide whether an inquiry into the Fair Wages Resolution would be appropriate.