asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Scotland.

Unemployment in Scotland is still too high. But the level continues to fall quite rapidly. The seasonally adjusted unemployment total is 40 per cent. less than in March last year.

This is a very encouraging trend, which we hope will continue, but can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the position regarding unfilled vacancies, which is usually a better guide to whether the economy is growing or contracting?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that there are about four times as many vacancies for adult males remaining unfilled in October of this year compared with last year.

Will not the Minister agree that there are certain areas of Scotland where the unemployment situation is extremely difficult? It appears that the Government's measures have not been successful in curing this problem. Will the Minister examine how many unfilled vacancies there are in those difficult areas, and examine particularly what part the North Sea oil industry could play in resolving their problems?

I entirely agree that unemployment is unevenly scattered in Scotland. In North Sea oil—excluding the 1,800 or so jobs on Clydeside which were created by Marathon and which are not included because that deals with things other than North Sea oil—about 5,600 jobs in oil exploration development already exist in Scotland. Projects announced so far are expected to produce a further 9,000 jobs over the next four or five years. In addition there will be substantial employment in the supplying firms, which will be more widely scattered than the others, and in the infrastructure investment in connection with all the developing activities.

Do not those facts confirm that there are regional variations in Scotland, as there are in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that these variations should be taken into account in the pay and prices policy?

I do not think that the pay and prices policy is a suitable vehicle to take account of regional variations of employment. The variations differ greatly in different parts of the country. They are sometimes extremely small, affecting small areas. It is a question of trying to create jobs in the right skills where people are available to fill them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the unemployment figures in Scotland are still higher than they were in June 1970, and will he note also that in Scotland we have many empty factories? In my own constituency there are six factories lying idle and doing nothing. Will he note particularly that many people from the construction industry, and especially from the steel industry, are still signing on with the Department of Employment? Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us his intentions for these people?

As regards steel, the plans of the British Steel Corporation are for the expansion of production in Scotland, although I accept that the old open-hearth steelmaking plants had to be closed in order to obtain a modern steel industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has established a special reconstruction team to make recommendations for improving the whole economic situation in the areas that will be affected by closures, and my own Department makes every effort, through its employment and training services—which are being greatly improved—to try to find suitable jobs for people who are signing on.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of school leavers currently out of work in the United Kingdom and in the South-East of England.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Scottish school leavers who left school at the last leaving date have been unable to find unemployment.

On 8th October there were 5,900 school leavers registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, including 624 in the London and South-East Region and 738 in Scotland. These statistics do not identify school leavers by term or year of leaving, but most would have left in the summer of this year.

Does not that rather low figure happily prove that the economy is expanding fast? Could my hon. Friend tell me what improvements are being made in the careers advice and training services to help all school leavers in all parts of the country to find suitable employment?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it reveals a useful trend. Improvements are being constantly made in the careers advice service for young people. Where young people as a whole are concerned I am glad that, besides school leavers, the number registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 22,308, compared with 68,213 in October last year, and unfilled vacancies for young people totalled 124,129 for this month compared with 47,786 a year ago.

Does the Minister agree that young people leaving school seem to be pushed into dead-end jobs? I can quote instances of youngsters of 16 or 17 years of age doing manual labouring jobs without any prospect of promotion and no career structure. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this difficult problem.

I sympathise with the hon. Member. This problem has not been overlooked, as he knows, particularly in the development areas, which often present this problem. Constant efforts are being made to try to prevent as many youngsters as possible from going into dead-end jobs. There has been a considerable improvement in Scotland in this connection. It is still not good enough relative to other parts of the country, but I take the hon. Member's point and we shall continue our efforts.

Can my hon. Friend say how far the improvement is due to the raising of the school leaving age?

It is difficult to estimate the direct effect of the school leaving age on the employment situation, but I am sure the House will agree that the main reason for reduced unemployment throughout this year has been the improvement in the economy and the consequential substantial increase in job opportunities, both for young people and for adults.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the very real difficulties encountered by school leavers seeking apprenticeships in building industry trade as a result of the spread of lump labour and labour-only contracting? Will he undertake to initiate talks with employers and trade unions in the building industry about this problem?

I should be willing to look at that matter. The hon. Member probably knows that the Construction Industry Training Board is still trying to get apprenticeships and training for young people. But I am prepared to consider what the hon. Gentleman says.

Is it not the fact that the hon. Gentleman has before him the corresponding figures for school leavers last year and this year, and therefore he can give the difference between the number of school leavers in the two periods and demonstrate the effect on the employment situation?

I do not have those figures immediately to hand, but, as I said, the position is improving and has been improving throughout the whole of this time. The trend in the hon. Member's area, as in other parts of the country, will continue in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to assist school leavers to find employment in the development areas.

Because of the raising of the school leaving age there have been fewer school leavers this year, and with the great improvement in job opportunities most of them have obtained employment without difficulty. This improvement has also been felt in the development areas. Careers officers of the youth employment service will continue to do all they can to help those still seeking work.

Will not the Minister accept that the wrong job for a school leaver may well scar his employment prospects for the rest of his life? Will the hon. Gentleman consider using some of the advance factories which we are told are empty in order to train some young people in work skills?

We are always open to useful suggestions, and I shall look at that. I agree that putting young persons into the wrong job may damage their future. As I said earlier, the difficulty is that there are some dead-end jobs. At least, more young people are now going into employment even in the development areas, and in Scotland the position has improved dramatically recently. Part of our job will be to try to get people into jobs with prospects, and one of the motivations behind the Manpower Services Commission, for whose establishment we provided earlier in this Session of Parliament, is aimed to that end.

, asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of registered unemployed and of notified vacancies in England at the latest available date.

Based on the provisional figures for October, there were 396,185 people registered unemployed and 443,941 notified vacancies.

I welcome the continuing drop in the unemployment figure, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the labour shortage in England, particularly in the South, may well prove a threat to the Government's growth policy? Therefore, does he think that the productivity pay arrangements in phase 3 are adequate? In particular, can he arrange that any settlements made under the three-month delay clause will be back-dated to the original agreement?

On the latter point, that is the case. Under any new efficiency payment scheme which may be introduced from 1st January, if approved by the Pay Board, the payment will be backdated to 1st January if after three months' operation it has achieved its objective.

On the question of the constraint to growth, the Director-General of the National Economic Development Office, after consultation with industry, told the National Economic Development Council on 8th October that, while the pace of expansion after a period of recession was causing recruitment difficulties in some skills and areas, there was every reason to believe that our labour resources, if fully and effectively utilised, were adequate to sustain a strong rate of expansion. I see no reason to dissent from that view.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the grave deterioration in the unemployment position on Merseyside compared with the national position and that in other development areas? What action does he propose to take about that, and when will the Government decide to create a special development area in Merseyside?

The question of special development areas, and so on, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The situation on Merseyside distorts, among other things, the figures for the North-West generally, and my Department is doing all that it can to see what can be done about employment and training on Merseyside. I accept that there is a difficulty there.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is difficult to get the balance right between taking jobs to areas where there is high unemployment and bringing workers to places where there is work, the situation in the South-East and in London is becoming serious? One ought now to be thinking in terms of getting workers to come here to work rather than merely creating jobs in other places. Will my right hon. Friend therefore ask the Government, under phase 3, to look at the London allowance, which is too low?

We have referred the question of the London allowance and its methodology to the Pay Board. To assist the mobility of labour further we have made improvements to the transfer scheme administered in my Department, and I gave details of these to the House on 18th October last.

Is the Minister aware that during the next few weeks there are likely to be more [...]dle machines and empty jobs because of the decision of Sir John Donaldson yesterday? Will the Minister tell us whether he intends to take any action to prevent industrial unrest because of that decision?

I do not think that it is for me to comment on a decision of the court, other than to say that the National Industrial Relations Court made it clear that the issue involved—which was a recognition issue—had been referred to the proper channels, namely, the Commission on Industrial Relations, and that both the employer and the employees had been under compulsion to refrain from taking industrial action meanwhile.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are under training in the construction industry in the Bolton travel-to-work area and the North-West area as a whole; and what were the comparative figures at the same date in 1970.

The most up-to-date figures are for Government training facilities. The number of places in construction within six miles of Bolton has risen from 112 to 173 places since 1970, and in the North-West as a whole from 560 to 697 places. Occupancy rates are very high.

The latest information supplied by the Construction Industry Training Board relates to mid-1972, when 314 approved trainees were employed in the Bolton travel-to-work area and 10,785 in the North-West. These figures compare with 292 and 11,742, respectively, in October 1970.

Will my hon. Friend understand that I tabled this Question originally because of the serious shortage of building workers in the Bolton area? If he looks at today's Order Paper he will see expressions of the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the serious situation in the construction industry. In view of the poor figures which my hon. Friend gave us, may I ask whether the Government are doing enough to train more building workers?

I should be surprised if my hon. Friend really wanted convincing of that. In a period of expansion such as we are experiencing it is not surprising that there is some difficulty of recruitment, following as it does a period of depression which started in the building industry in 1969–70 when employers laid off their workers and did no more training.

If concern is expressed on the Order Paper, the answer is clear. The Government are providing and training one-quarter of the skilled craftsmen and about half the bricklayers entering the building industry. My hon. Friend will therefore realise that, whilst one is never satisfied, that is a prodigious effort.

Is the Minister aware that the industrial training boards of local education authorities have recommended increases in the standard of charges for construction training in colleges, of a kind that is causing concern to local authorities and employers? Is not this another aspect of the Government's failure to recognise that they are not doing sufficient in this sphere, particularly when local authorities are not building houses at all?

The hon. Gentleman raises a point which is largely not for me, and I take that into account. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is hard put to it to accuse the Government of failure in training people for the construction industry, not least as a result of the record of his own Government, which led to the present shortage of craftsmen in the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are being trained and retrained for the construction industry at the present moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many apprenticeships were entered into in the building industry during the last 12 months.

The most up-to-date figures are those for Government training. Under the Training Opportunities Scheme, 3,763 adults were receiving training in construction trades in September 1973 and an estimated total of 6,500 adults will complete courses in construction trades this year.

In the 12 months ending August 1973, 12,890 apprentices first registered under the National Joint Training Scheme of the National Joint Council for the Building Industry, and the latest figures of the Construction Industry Training Board, which relate to 1971–72, show that 114,191 people attended courses of all kinds approved by the hoard in that year.

I welcome that answer, but will my hon. Friend review the situation and produce further specific plans for a substantial increase in training facilities?

We are always looking for new ways of bringing about more training in the construction industry. To this end emergency schemes were started in April, and very good progress is being made.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the appalling housing position in the country, those are very depressing figures? Is he further aware that in many parts of the country youngsters can enter an apprenticeship only via a local authority building department because of the lump labour system, under which firms will not take youngsters into apprenticeship? Will he therefore tell the House what action he intends to take, because these firms are quite happy to make millions of pounds profit yet refuse to train the craftsmen of the future?

I should have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the figures I gave for first-year apprenticeships were those registered with the Building National Joint Council. There are other figures which are entirely different. The figures are not yet available for the electrical contracting or plumbing national joint councils. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his last question?

Will the lion. Gentleman make private companies which are quite happy to make millions of pounds profit from house building face their responsibilities and train the craftsmen of the future?

I have been very encouraged in recent months by the way in which employers and the CITB, which now commands much greater respect and confidence in industry, have been tackling the problem. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record and at the bulletins put out by the employers, he will see that a new and prodigious effort is being made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures are no cause for complacency and that the position in the construction industry is desperately serious? Contractors are refusing to tender for public work for fear of getting the job, with the result that they cannot even start it. Inevitably the situation is reflected in tender prices which the nation is having to pay.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which I share. I have illustrated the Government's prodigious part in this. But I am sure my hon. Friend is setting an example to employers by taking on a number of apprentices in his own firm, and I hope that his example will be widely followed.

Is it not true that the difficulty has arisen because of the extension of labour-only sub-contracting? Therefore, should not the Government encourage local authority building so that local authorities can do the work and, at the same time, ensure that there is an extension of training for apprentices?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has studied these matters, just as I have in the past, though for different reasons, that is mainly a matter for the Department of the Environment. What is said about the lump, namely, that it discourages apprenticeship, is not necessarily borne out by the facts. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for 1972 for the recruitment of apprentices, he will find that they are moving steadily upwards for the first time. Formerly there was a recession in apprenticeship which mainly flowed from the imposition of selective employment tax when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.

Does not the Minister frankly acknowledge that the growth of the lump in recent years has been a major factor which has aggravated the training crisis in the construction industry? Bearing in mind that his party inherited, when it came to office, a Bill which the Labour Government had drafted to deal with this problem, and that over three years have gone by in which the situation has become worse and there has been no Government action, may we expect a Government statement shortly and some proposals in the Queen's Speech next week?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have been involved in discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on these matters, and he is setting up a committee which is looking not only into this problem from both sides of industry but into specific problems regarding decasualisation raised by the Trades Union Congress.

This industry is the most inquired into in the country. Three or four years ago there was an inquiry under the chairmanship of Professor Phelps Brown. Have there not been enough inquiries, and is it not time that the Government brought forward urgent action on the matter?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend in another Department, but I agree that it has been a well inquired into industry in many respects. This committee is being set up from both sides of industry, and it will have a chance to investigate the matter. As regards the Phelps Brown inquiry, I know that the right hon. Gentleman had a Bill of his own on the matter in which I was much interested. I produced a rather better Bill and put it before the House myself. It would not necessarily be relevant today, but this is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage unemployment rate among the registered disabled in Scotland; how this compares with the overall Scottish rate; what were the comparable figures in 1970; and if he will provide similar statistics for England and Wales.

On 10th September 1973 in Scotland 13.6 per cent. of registered disabled people were unemployed whilst the overall unemployment rate was 4.1 per cent. The comparable figures for 1970 were 13.8 per cent. and 4.3 per cent. respectively. On 10th September 1973 in England and Wales 10.8 per cent. of registered disabled people were unemployed and the overall unemployment rate was 2.0 per cent. The comparable figures for 1970 were 11.1 per cent. and 2.3 per cent. respectively.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been very little improvement in the last three years? Is it not for him and his Department to take more forceful action against those firms which are, and have been, deliberately flouting the law for 25 years? At a time when the Government are castigating the trade unions for disobeying the law, is it not time that a levy was imposed on these firms if they have no certificate of exemption?

Throughout the United Kingdom the rate of unemployment among the registered disabled is now lower than at the same period three years ago. Moreover, in Scotland there has been an improvement in the rate of employment among disabled people relative to that of the able-bodied during those three years. I agree with the hon. Member that the position is unsatisfactory, and that is one of the reasons why we have had a study made on the subject and published a quota document. I do not think that a witch-hunt at this stage, before radical changes in the approach are made, would necessarily be right. The position is improving the whole time because we have instituted firmer inspections, and the total number of firms which are evading their responsibilities is coming down fairly dramatically.

The whole House will be disappointed in the decline shown by the figures on a national basis. Is not the remedy to educate employers that the disabled wish to live as normal a life as possible? That is the message to get home.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is an expert on the subject and he knows that, as far as possible, one must treat disabled people as normal, and that is what we in the Department of Employment seek to do. The process of education goes on the whole time, and it will be intensified as a result of the review which has just taken place.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it was as long ago as 23rd May that I pointed out to him in debate that 9,000 firms were in flagrant and deliberate breach of the law in respect of the quota? Every month since then I have asked the hon. Gentleman what he intends to do about it. It is not good enough, when Opposition Members ask the Government to enforce the law, to describe it as a witch-hunt. Will the Minister have another and more serious and responsible look at the matter?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to agree that, with the quota document now before us which proposes various alternatives of a radical nature, it would be wrong to embark on a whole series of new prosecutions at this juncture. Successive Governments have relied on persuasion rather than on coercion. As a result of these new proposals, more Draconian measures may well be proposed against employers.

However, the number of employers who are below quota and do not have permits from my Department has decreased from 14,648 in May 1971 to 8,225 in May 1973, which is the latest figure. I hope that the figure is still going down and that, with the new approach which has been instituted by the present administration, the situation will be much better regularised.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will undertake a review of the employment difficulties facing the physically and mentally handicapped; and whether he will make a statement.

My Department is currently undertaking such a review and is publishing a series of documents as a basis for consultation with my National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled, and the many others concerned with these problems, on how the present arrangements for helping disabled people to get and keep suitable jobs can be improved.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that in that review the Government are not only examining the importance of compelling employers to fulfil their quotas, but are looking at all the environmental considerations and problems confronting the physically and mentally handicapped and the blind in modern industry? Is he examining ways of strengthening, in terms of both staff and resources, the specialist sections of his Department and examining the feasibility of extending the number of sheltered workshops for the handicapped where these would be appropriate?

The first document was published in July last year on the resettlement service, and a series of trials have been put in hand to test, among other things, ways of improving vocational assessment facilities for disabled people. There are plans to improve the disablement resettlement officer service which we are discussing with the national advisory council. A second consultative document on the quota scheme was published in May this year. We are to publish a third document on sheltered employment in December, and a fourth and last document on industrial rehabilitation and vocational training early next year. This should enable a full range of consultations and review on the lines the hon. Member suggested to be completed by early summer.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in reply to an earlier Question on this very problem the Minister gave the impression that, because the law is being reconsidered, now is the wrong time to be talking of enforcing it? If that is a valid argument and the Industrial Relations Act is being reconsidered, will the Government now take a similar view in relation to the Con-Mech dispute?

I listened to my hon. Friend's answer, and I do not think he suggested that it was the wrong time to enforce the law. We are enforcing the law. What I have to accept is that if all the people who should have a given quota of disabled were to have that total, the number would exceed the total number of disabled. It is, therefore, possible for people quite genuinely not to have suitable work for disabled people. There is a second problem, that quite a number of disabled people are employed and are not of their own choice registered as such. The Government do not wish to put pressure on employers who are employing unregistered disabled people to force those people to register in order to fulfil their quota when the disabled people may not wish to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has now received the report of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee on the problems involved in framing practical and effective noise legislation; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a progress report on the control of noise in factories, following the statement he made before the recess.

The Noise Sub-Committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee has started work on possible forms of noise legislation and hopes to complete its detailed study in the first half of next year. In the meantime, industry continues to show an encouraging response to the code of practice we published.

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the Government intend to bring forward legislation to deal with noise under the terms of the Robens Report or whether it will be brought forward separately?

The sub-committee is carrying out its work according to our proposals for legislation on safety and health, and the expectation is that early legislation will be forthcoming. Our proposals envisage the establishment of a safety and health commission, and it is likely that the sub-committee's report will be one of the first and most important items on the agenda of the new commission—that is, of course, if it is approved by Parliament.

Meanwhile, before new legislation is introduced, there is a problem of noise in factories. Can my hon. Friend tell us what his inspectors are doing about it?

Yes, Sir. It is a real problem, and that is why the Government have instituted a further specialised inquiry. The Factory Inspectorate has reported an increased awareness on the part of both management and workers of the need to take action to reduce noise exposure, so the message is beginning to get home, and, as with disablement, it is education which counts to a large degree.

In the meantime, will the Minister appreciate that this is a serious medical problem and that he ought to be ensuring that the present laws against noise are enforced, particularly on our roads, where heavy lorries create a tremendous problem in this respect?

At present, lorries and roads are not the responsibility of my Department. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the experienced medical men and scientists taking part in the inquiry are making a valuable contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what studies he proposes to commission to investigate the adequate utilisation of skilled craftsmen in the building and construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

Manpower utilisation in the construction industry is already under study by the Building Research Centre and by the relevant economic development committees. I do not propose additional studies by my Department.

I am grateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware that because of lump labour the London borough of Islington—and this applies to many other London boroughs—is unable to get contractors to undertake work? When will the Government introduce legislation to abolish lump labour?

I have already dealt with this issue. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment, and my right hon. and learned Friend is setting up a committee to inquire into this whole practice.

As the problem is one of a shortage of skilled labour, can my hon. Friend say whether any progress has been made in the talks to streamline the period of apprenticeship in the construction industry?

Yes, Sir. As I understand it, discussions are still taking place between both sides of industry to bring the period of certain apprenticeships down from four years to three. I understand that progress is being made, and this will be very welcome indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of wholly-unemployed men in the Manchester travel-to-work area in June 1970; and what is the number at the latest available date.

In June 1970 there were 13,593 males unemployed in the area. The provisional figure for October this year is 15,640. The figures are not adjusted to take account of seasonal factors.

Does not the Minister regard it as an appalling indictment of the present administration that Manchester, which was a prosperous city with below-average unemployment when the Government came to power, now has unemployment well above the national average? In those circumstances, how can he possibly justify the Government's supine acceptance of the European Commission's exclusion of Manchester from European regional aid?

The latter point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not a matter for me. He ought to sink some of his prejudices and give credit where credit is due. The unemployment rate in the Manchester travel-to-work area has fallen from 28,700 in October of last year to 17,400 in October of this year. Although the figures for June 1970 were only marginally lower than they are today, the important difference is that there are now more male jobs per registrant than there were in June 1970.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that using figures of unfilled vacancies between June 1970 and October 1973 provides the true key to the unemployment situation in the area?

I do not think that I have readily to hand the figures for 1970. Notified vacancies in the area for October of this year totalled 10,978, which is two-and-a-half times the figure for last year, and that figure was also up on June 1970. I shall let my hon. Friend have the actual figure.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will undertake a review of sick pay schemes for manual workers.

No, Sir. I do not think that any good purposes would be served by undertaking such a review.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that almost all professional workers receive payment from their employers when they are ill, but that the majority of manual workers do not receive any such pay? Since the incidence of sickness is about three or four times as great among manual workers as among non-manual workers, is it not the case that where the need is greatest it is being least met? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about it? Will he at least get to know the facts?

It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that a 1970 survey showed that fewer manual workers were in receipt of such benefits. There has not been a Government survey since then, but other surveys show that the number is increasing. However, it is better that my Department should be encouraging sick pay schemes rather than reviewing them. That is being done in various ways through the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, to which attention is being drawn all over the country, and through the work of manpower advisers who draw the situation to the attention of the firms.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what conclusions he has reached about the EEC draft directive concerning employee and shareholder representation on the boards of companies.

I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Green Paper on Employee Participation.

Is it not the case that the power of top management in private industry, and the highly privileged and self-perpetuating existence which they often lead, is something which, in today's climate of opinion, is more and more being called into question? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we need supervisory boards of the kind contained in this proposal in order to manage the managers and make them more responsible to all those who have a stake in any particular firm?

The hon. Gentleman has taken the matter slightly wider than employee participation by involving the fiduciary obligation of directors of boards to shareholders and their obligation to employees. Those matters will be covered partly in the proposals to be put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend on company law, and they will also be discussed in some detail in the Green Paper on Employee Participation. I do not think that the two-tier board is necessarily the only system of remedying the type of situation which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most important way to advance worker participation is to strengthen the trade union movement and extend the scope of collective bargaining, and that we shall not be in favour of the importation of a system of works councils which is divorced from trade union structure and which would have the effect of separating the worker from his trade union?

If the right hon. Gentleman had paid close attention to the proceedings at Blackpool, he would have realised that I made it plain that I did not regard the importation of methods lock, stock and barrel from other countries as being wholly suitable for this country. I also made it plain that, to be effective, any form of employee participation must be based upon the great body of consultation and negotiation which has been built up in the course of our industrial relations history.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 16th October.—[Vol. 861, c. 22–4]

Following the Foreign Secretary's remarks last week about consultation with regard to the Middle East war, which does not appear to have finished, can the Prime Minister tell us what consultations he has had with the Commonwealth countries?

The problem of the Middle East was discussed by the Heads of Government in the conference in Ottawa, and in our communiqué we made it plain that we wanted to see a peaceful settlement in accordance with Resolution 242 of the Security Council which has now been reaffirmed by the Security Council's recent resolution. During the conflict we have as a Government kept in touch with other Commonwealth Governments in capitals and in New York.

Is it not significant that the right hon. Gentleman's answer did not include any reference to Britain's membership of the EEC? Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth, regrettably, is disintegrating because of the right hon. Gentleman's insistence on membership of the EEC in preference to Commonwealth interests?

No, Sir, not in the least. My reply did not include any reference to the EEC because the Question was about the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. In my speech the other day I said that, as a result of the recent conference in Ottawa, I believed that the Commonwealth as a whole was in a stronger position than before.

asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on devolution.

As I told my hon. Friend on 24th May, the Government's intention is that further proposals on devolution will be prepared in the light of the report of the Commission on the Constitution and of local government reform. The commission's report will be published on 31st October and I shall make a statement to the House on that day about the Government's proposals for handling it.—[Vol. 857, c 663–4.]

That is good news. Does the Prime Minister realise that those, like myself, who support the proposals for a Scottish Assembly hope that there will be a full opportunity to debate the report when it is published?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The report is a major work which has taken the commission many years to compile, and I am sure that right hon and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want time to consider it carefully.

Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will publish not only the report but definitive proposals by the Government in the light of the report, or does he propose to leave a period for general discussion and consultation? If he is to publish definitive proposals, will a White Paper be issued containing them so that the House may see them as well as the commission's report?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should make it quite plain. I said that I would make a statement in the House on the day of publication about the Government's proposals for handling the report. We have had the report for only a very short time and we are publishing it as quickly as possible. It will not be possible at that stage for the Government to give their views on the very large number of proposals in the report.

As the report is of great interest throughout Wales, will my right hon. Friend ensure that no final decision is reached about Wales without the fullest opportunity for debate and discussion by Welsh Members of Parliament?

No final conclusion will be reached on any aspect of the report until there has been every opportunity for the House to study and debate it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the commission some years ago undertook a survey of public opinion in Wales which showed that over 60 per cent. of people were in favour of a directly-elected Council for Wales? Will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance, before any proposals are put forward by the Government, that full weight will be given to this significant fact?

We shall give full consideration to all the views expressed on the report. Before I enter into any particular aspect of it such as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, we ought to see what the commission's recommendations are and the evidence which it heard.

Would not it be a happy thing to have a parliament for those whom Shakespeare described as "the mere English"?

It may be that in the course of its investigations the Royal Commission has stumbled over the English.

Has the Prime Minister set aside the pledge he gave in the first Queen's Speech after the last election when he stated that the Government would bring proposals before the House in respect of Scottish devolution? Are we to understand that the Government will not give us any indication of what they propose this side of the next election?

Not in the least, and I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could have drawn that conclusion from anything I have said. I said that the House would want adequate time to consider these important proposals and so would the Government. The Government would wish to take account of the views expressed in the House before they made their own proposals. That has not changed in any way, and nothing that I have said today has altered it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an expert on world-wide weather conditions to the Central Policy Review Staff.

No, Sir. Such advice is available from the Meteorological Office.

Does that mean that the Prime Minister will no longer blame unusual climatic conditions, such as snow in Siberia, sun in Africa and rain in Manchester, for the astronomical rise in food prices? Shall we hear him at the next General Election declaring loudly to Leicester housewives "We intend to cut prices at a stroke, weather permitting"?

I might well be able to give a fuller explanation than the hon. Gentleman has given. Of course, he is right—it was a lack of snow on the Steppes which brought about the poor harvest in the Soviet Union and in China, it was floods in the major soya bean producing area which affected feeding stuffs and it was frosts in Brazil which affected coffee plants. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman has not realised that many of our problems with animal feeding stuffs are due to the drop in fish meal supplies following a sudden change in the direction of the warm current off Peru.

Must it not always be borne in mind that, in the lamentable and unlikely event of the hon. Member's party becoming the Government, no weather expert will be necessary because we shall know that we shall all be soaked all the time?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security in the provision of social services for discharged prisoners.

Yes, Sir. The Departments are working closely together in a review of the arrangements for discharged prisoners.

Is my right on. Friend aware that the present discharge grant for prisoners has not been adjusted since 1964 and that it is quite inadequate for prisoners who have to obtain accommodation in London and other major cities? Is he aware that many discharged prisoners, contrary to what the Home Office believes, cannot find accommodation without making a down payment, and cannot get social security benefit without first having an accommodation address? Should not our whole social security system be designed to help discharged prisoners to adjust to the world rather than place on them all the pressures that lead to their going straight back to prison?

I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It is not entirely true that the grant has not been reviewed since 1964, because an additional grant of £4 has been introduced to help a discharged prisoner find accommodation. What is happening now is that the Home Office and the Supplementary Benefits Commission are carrying out an urgent review jointly to see what fresh arrangements should be made. As regards the problem of accommodation, there are 1,700 places in 166 hostels which receive Government grants towards their running costs for this purpose, and the number of places is now increasing at the rate of 260 a year. In the year ended 31st March 1972, which is the latest date for which we have overall figures, the average occupancy was only 74 per cent., and it is thought to have been somewhat lower since then There may be explanations for this, but the number of places in hostels for discharged prisoners is being increased.

When will the review be completed? This matter should be settled shortly. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, even the grant of £4 is not the whole of the story because, if a prisoner on relief has more than £5, £1 is knocked off for every £1 above £5? The situation should be changed rapidly.

The Departments will complete this review as quickly as possible, because the problems are now realised.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, while this country has often been much preoccupied with penal reform, the after-care of discharged prisoners has often been uninspired and unimaginative in the extreme?

I think that there may be some truth in that. As I have said, the Departments are now reviewing the whole question, and we shall do our best to see that matters are improved.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Handsworth.

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

I recognise that extra resources have been poured into inner city areas, including part of my constituency, but does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is need for a special Minister with sole responsibility to coordinate the funds in those areas and help tackle their severe and special housing, education and local health and social services problems?

Yes, Sir; I have given the Home Secretary special responsibility for the co-ordination of work on help for areas of urban deprivation, so there is now a very senior member of the Cabinet who is responsible for the co-ordination for which my hon. Friend asks. As regards the environment, the total approach for which my hon. Friend has asked is being carried out in the study of six town and inner city centres, and Birmingham is one of these.

Does the Prime Minister realise that we can never tackle problems of urban deprivation when we have the worst housing figures for a decade?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation. In fact, this Government have designed their housing policy in order particularly to help the deprived areas.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the National Chamber of Trade to join him in his consultations with the CBI and TUC on the Government's counter-inflation policy.

The National Chamber of Trade is a member of the Retail Consortium which has played a full part in the consultations on the counter-inflation policy.

Yes, but will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Retail Consortium consists mainly of large firms whereas chambers of trade consist of small shopkeepers who are more directly in touch with the housewives who know what it is to try to meet the rise in the cost of living? Could there not be direct negotiations with the chambers of trade?

The chambers of trade always let us know their views, but I think they have found that their membership of the group that came to see us, dealing with the whole of the retail area, was satisfactory.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the operation of the Industrial Relations Act and the court decision yesterday regarding the AEUW, under which, in a simple matter of trade union recognition, affecting 33 employees, a major trade union is being persecuted by the Industrial Relations Court? The simple justice of trade union recognition in this country does not need the Industrial Relations Court. Has the right hon. Gentleman read Sir John Donaldson's one-sided statement on his judgment? Will the Prime Minister inform the TUC that the Government have now decided to drop the Act, because it could lead to real industrial trouble this winter arising out of cases such as Con-Mech?

I have always told the TUC delegation whenever it has had talks with us that it can raise any matter it wishes, and that I am prepared to discuss amendments to the Industrial Relations Act. We have not had any specific amendments or proposals for amendments put to us by either the TUC or, I think, the CBI in any of our talks. That remains the position. We are perfectly prepared to consider amendments to the Act.

Will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with these bodies the abolition of the earnings rule in areas of high over-employment, as 100 extra workers in factories in North-East Essex would mean £1 million of extra exports a year?

The matter of the earnings rule has been raised indirectly, so to speak, not as a major item, in the talks. This is a matter that the Government certainly can examine.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have not dared to use the Industrial Relations Act, which is now a dead Act since the disastrous failure of its use in the rail strike, on major issues—for example, last spring with the National Health Service employees, the gas workers and many others—and yet it is continuing to poison industrial relations? Does he not feel that, whatever amendments may or may not have been put forward—the amendment that we and the TUC would put forward would be a simple one-clause Bill—in the grave situation facing the country, both as a result of internal Government policy and now outside threats to the economy, it would be an act of leadership on his part to give notice either that the Act is to be repealed or, as we have often urged, that it is to be put on ice?

It will certainly not be repealed. I have said that we will consider amendments. A very large part of the Act is being operated the whole time by both employers and trade unionists, I believe to their great satisfaction.

On the particular matter that has been raised today, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also like to urge that a union should observe the decisions of the court according to the law passed by Parliament. It is a very simple issue indeed. Methods of conciliation are available both to employers and to unions through the court, and I suggest that they be used.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Northern area we have had some really marvellous decisions by the Industrial Relations Court? I hope that there will be no attempt to destroy the basic fabric of the Act.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the basic freedoms in this country is the recognition of trade unions where employees desire that recognition? No law should be manipulated in such a way as it has been against the union to which both my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and I belong to mulct it of great fines. The judge himself, who has been particularly unimaginative in this matter, has suggested that there ought to be amendment of the Act. I suggest that we had better start on it now.

The right hon. Gentleman has used phrases about a judge of the court upon which I do not propose to comment. I have always understood that judges in this country are not criticised in Parliament, except on a substantive resolution.

I have already said that a very large part of the Act is being fully operated. I could not possibly accept an accusation that it has been manipulated against a union.

First I want to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for raising this matter at this stage, because I appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members want to get on to the main business of the House, which is the Maplin Development Bill.

The motion deals with the business of the House and relates immediately to the question of Private Business. We have had assurances from successive Leaders of the House, particularly the present Leader of the House, that Private Business would be brought forward for seven o'clock on the day allocated to it. The Leader of the House recently gave an assurance that such would apply unless exceptional circumstances prohibited the rule applying.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the nature of the Private Business that we are putting back from seven o'clock to 10 o'clock.

It will be later than that.

My hon. Friend suggests that it might be later than that. It could well be later than that.

Looking at this and the later suspension motion, I am not sure whether it is specifically clear to the House—it certainly is not specifically clear to me—that if consideration of Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill goes beyond 10 o'clock Private Business will have to wait until after 10 o'clock. However, the rule of the House has been that unless there are exceptional circumstances Private Business would come on at seven o'clock.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. If the consideration of Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill is concluded before seven o'clock, other business will come on until seven o'clock and then the Private Business, to which he has referred, will come on at that time. If consideration of Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill is not completed until after seven o'clock, the Private Business, in which he is interested, will come on immediately after the Bill is completed.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Does he imagine for a moment that a controversial issue such as the Maplin Development Bill will be completed by seven o'clock? I do not believe that it will.

The motion allows the Maplin Development Bill to continue until 10 o'clock. I believe that it is extremely unlikely that consideration of Lords amendments to that Bill will be completed before 10 o'clock, because of the intensity of feeling about that Bill by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Therefore, we have a situation in which Private Business is again to he pushed to one side, even though there is considerable controversy on both sides of the House. If the Leader of the House refers to the debate that took place on 4th July he will see that there was great controversy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke against the Ashdown Forest Bill.

It would be bad enough if a specific item of Private Business were being pushed to one side, but we are doing something more than that. Therefore, it is important, particularly from the point of view of back-bench Members, that we should be very careful about the way in which the Government exercise their privileges.

I appreciate that it would be out of order for me at this point to go into the full extent of the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, looking at that motion we see that we are not dealing with the specific issue of a Private Bill; we are seeking to accommodate its sponsors. We are doing nothing other than accommodating the sponsors of the Bill. We gave notice to the Government at the time—it is in the debate—that when this Bill came back to the House we would fight it to ensure that it did not get on to the statute book.

One of the reasons why this motion appeared on the Order Paper is that the Government knew that if the Bill came up for discussion this week—as it has to do—it would fall. What the Government are doing is compounding an offence. They are saying that they will use the procedures of this House to push Private Bills from seven o'clock to 10 o'clock, against the assurances that have been given by the Leader of the House, and they are proposing to do a wangle on behalf of the sponsors so that they will not have to bring it back in the normal way next Session.

Why is it that although there is controversy about the Bill and hon. Members on both sides of the House are opposed to it, the Government seek to overload the Order Paper? if one looks at today's Order Paper, one sees how it is becoming impossible for this House to give consideration to many issues that are coming before it. I should like to give one example of that. I see in the later Notice of Motion that the Government Trading Funds Bill will be dealt with after the Ashdown Forest Bill. But the Government Trading Funds Bill is today in the other place for Report and remaining stages, so that this House will not know about any amendments to that Bill until it comes back to us at some time in the early hours of the morning.

The reason I am raising this matter today and using a procedural motion to deal with it, is that the Order Paper is being overloaded with business which is not given consideration by this House. In many instances, we are in great danger of losing our democratic nature. If a Government, irrespective of their political complexion, can manœuvre the Order Paper and push item after item on to it so that the House never has the opportunity of debating them, what difference will there be between this House and a Parliament in some of the countries which have been described as being behind the Iron Curtain, or the House of Representatives or Congress in the United States of America?

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone) rose—

No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a speech on this matter. I am not making a party point and I am not arguing about a particular Government. I am arguing that back benchers must be careful about how far they allow the Executive to overload the business of the House and deny them an opportunity of discussing issues.

I am very incensed about this matter and object strongly to the method that is being used in relation to that Bill. To make matters worse, this is just a procedural device to save the promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill. I am not arguing about this Private Bill, which may be a good Bill or it may be a bad Bill. I am arguing against the procedural device and, unless the Leader of the House is prepared to withdraw this motion, I am prepared to ask any hon. Member on either side of the House to join me in protesting against this kind of procedure and dividing the House on it.

3.43 p.m.

I start by seeking information and it is not clear to me whether I need guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, or from the Leader of the House. As I read the motion, it states that the Ashdown Forest Bill will come on after the Maplin Development Bill is finished. As I read the Notice of Motion in the name of the Prime Minister, it does not suspend Standing Order No. 1 in respect of the Private Business, the Ashdown Forest Bill, if the Maplin business should run until 10 o'clock. On the other hand, that may be implicit even without this motion. The point on which I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is this: if the motion in the name of the Prime Minister is passed but the Maplin Development Bill debate is still running at 10 o'clock, will the business on the Ashdown Forest Bill, which is referred to on the front of the Order Paper, then fall in the absence of a resolution suspending Standing Order No. 1. or could we suddenly find ourselves reaching the Ashdown Forest Bill at two o'clock in the morning with all the remaining Government orders on Northern Ireland, the Powers of Criminal Courts Bill, the regulations on Legal Aid and Advice and, eventually, the Landscaping of New Palace Yard at four, five, six, seven or eight o'clock in the morning?

I think it is for the Leader of the House to elucidate his own motion, not for me.

3.45 p.m.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) for raising this matter, because had he not done so, I would have sought to raise it on a point of order.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Government Trading Funds Bill. Some of us in this House have a concern for that Bill, because it seeks to alter the terms of trade of the Ordnance Survey, Her Majesty's Shipyards and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. That Bill has had a somewhat curious history, but the point is that no notice was given last Thursday that this Bill would be discussed in this House this week. It did not appear in the Order Paper of the House, nor does it appear today among the 21 items which we have on the Order Paper, and it is shown in the Business Motion to be taken at 10 o'clock. Therefore, unless hon. Members read what is usually a technical motion they would not know that it is before the House today, nor would the general public, who have an interest in this Bill, have an opportunity of getting in touch with their Members to make representations or to discuss amendments which have been made.

My hon. Friend mentioned amendments. One has already been made during the Committee stage in another place to delete the Ordnance Survey from the Bill, and I understand that other amendments are likely to be made at about this time. Unless we get an opportunity to read the report of that debate and learn what those amendments are, it will be quite impossible to take this item as the eleventh or twelfth item on the Order Paper today. Furthermore, no due notice would have been given. The Government have acted in this way on another occasion. I came into this House at 12 o'clock one Friday morning and found that a motion concerning the car park had appeared on the Order Paper at nine o'clock, and had gone through on the nod at 11 o'clock.

In view of the generally unsatisfactory nature of the notice to the general public and to hon. Members, I hope the Lord President of the Council will assure us that whilst the Sittings Motion gives an opportunity to discuss the Bill tonight, it will not in fact be discussed today but will be discussed either on Wednesday or Thursday. I hope we can have that assurance now. It is a distinct issue from that of the crowding of the Order Paper and the matter of Ashdown Forest. It is a matter of notice to this House and to the general public. It is also a matter of what is democratically right and proper in this House of Commons.

3.51 p.m.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) on raising this matter. I entirely share the fears expressed by both my hon. Friends.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West said that this was an attempt by the business managers in the Government to manoeuvre the Order Paper and its contents. It is a little more serious than that. In my view, it is a deliberate attempt by the business managers to manoeuvre and, if I may say so with repect, abuse the Standing Orders of this House—Standing Orders which are designed, among many other things, to protect the right of individual Members of this House to raise matters on behalf of their constituents and to ensure on behalf of their constituents that matters coming before the House of Commons are properly considered and debated.

I regret that when we have Business Motions of this nature there is this continued attempt to get them accepted on the nod, without debate. We have this afternoon a repetition of what I describe as this evil practice. The Leader of the House is not just a member of the Government. He is the Leader of this House of Commons, with a responsibility to all hon. Members of this House, irrespective of the side on which they may sit or the views which they may wish to express. The attempt is made to get a very complex Business Motion through on the nod without any explanation.

The Leader of the House of Commons intervened and tried to explain the situation in a few words. That is not good enough. One of his hon. Friends has the same difficulty as I have in understanding what all this means. If I may develop the point which the hon. Gentleman made, what is the position if one takes the Business Motion and the other motion on the Order Paper which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton? As I understand it—I may be wrong, and this is why the Leader of the House should explain it and perhaps save time—it means that we shall first take the Maplin Development [ Money ] (No. 2) Resolution. I assume that that will go through virtually on the nod. I am not certain. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to debate it. Indeed, I may have a few well chosen words to say. I cannot be certain that it will go through on the nod.

I believe that when that has been dealt with, we shall deal with the Lords amendments to the Maplin Development Bill. I am convinced that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will want to debate at some length and in some detail some of those Lords amendments because the Maplin Development Bill fundamentally affects not just constituencies in the South-East of England but constituencies throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I take it that those two matters will be debated.

Then, under the terms of the Business Motion, if those proceedings, by some miracle, are concluded before seven o'clock, we shall debate the Second Reading of the Powers of Criminal Courts Bill [Lords] until seven o'clock; and then at seven o'clock, provided that the two Maplin Bills have been completed, which is unlikely, we shall move on to consideration of the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

That motion does precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West said: it is a direct intervention by a Business Motion on the side of promoters of private legislation. That is a most serious issue for this House.

When that is done, as I understand the motion, we shall then come to the House of Commons (Services) Committee Report on the Landscaping of New Palace Yard, over the car park which is being built there.

Then, if one looks at the Business Motion for 10 o'clock, it would seem that with today's business we can also take the Government Trading Funds Bill should any amendments be sent to this House from another place. I assume that all the other matters on the Order Paper will then fall because of expiration of time.

My interpretation of the Order Paper may or may not be correct. It may be that these few minutes which I have occupied in trying to clear my mind of the possible consequences of these motions would have been quite unnecessary if the Leader of the House had moved the motion in a normal manner and had explained its meaning to us. This is a serious situation. This goes far beyond the normal sort of debate on important issues. This is fundamental to the effective democratic working of the House of Commons.

The point that my hon. Friend made about overloading the Order Paper is certainly valid. Not only have we the 10 items already set out on the Order Paper; on top of that we have the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, making 11 items which have been set down by the Government business managers. If to that we add the Government Trading Funds Bill, that makes 12 items which have been put down for debate today. I cannot understand why the Order Paper is so overcrowded today and why we have this unfortunate episode.

The Leader of the House has the responsibility to explain the technicalities of the motion. Another duty of the Leader of the House is to explain why he, as the Leader of all the Members of this House, believes it is necessary to put down a motion of this nature, which, whatever the technical wording may mean, certainly means that the Government are giving facilities for a piece of private legislation in preference to Government business. We need an explanation why the exception is being made. It is no part of the Government's responsibility to make these facilities available to outside interests in the way in which they are making them available today.

There will be considerable public amazement at the Government's attempt to force through all this business today. I find great difficulty in understanding why there should be a necessity at the fag end of the Session to get all this business galloping through in the last few days. After all, we have just returned from a long summer Recess, and at the end of this week we shall be going off on a short recess while we wait for the new Session to open. One day of the summer Recess could have gone a long way towards dealing with many of the motions on the Order Paper.

Like most hon. Members, I greatly welcome the opportunity the long summer Recess gives hon. Members to perform their parliamentary duties in their constituencies. I dare say that at least one or two hon. Members use the Recess for a long summer holiday, but I am not one of them. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides use it to carry out their duty of keeping themselves informed of public opinion, of meeting constituents, of running campaigns of enlightenment in their constituencies. Far from being a holiday, the summer Recess is often the time of the most arduous part of a Member of Parliament's duties. Therefore, I should be loth to tell the Government unnecessarily that that period should be compressed, because the summer Recess is an important part of the total parliamentary democratic process.

But, when one looks at today's Order Paper and tries to cast one's mind ahead to the next two days of the Session, one's mind boggles at the amount of business the Government will try to force through on the nod. Whatever arrangements may or may not have been made between the usual channels, some hon. Members may be so outraged at this blatant attempt to frustrate the rights of individual hon. Members that they take it upon them selves to ensure that democracy works and that things are properly debated even at this late stage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) shakes his head. I am sure that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will develop his own views.

We should not allow Parliament to be ridden over roughshsod in this manner. The Standing Orders contain provisions for the protection of individual Members and adequate provisions for the progress of private legislation.

On another occasion when the same issue had to be raised as a matter of fundamental principle, irrespective of the inconvenience and the delay it caused to important debates that were to follow on that day, the Leader of the House said: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government are prepared to honour the undertaking that I gave in answer to a Written Question from my right hon. Friend last November. It is the general rule that we should take private business at 7 o'clock and not put it off until 10 o'clock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 1326.] That is a pretty solid undertaking. The Leader of the House should have moved the motion and explained the exceptional reasons that led him to allow it to appear on the Order Paper.

Following upon what has happened today and on that occasion back in June, there may well be a case for a complete review of the whole position of private legislation.

Thai is the whole point.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is in such agreement.

In the 1971–72 Session such a proposal in respect of the time for private legislation and the manner in which it should be taken was considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. My right hon. Friend and the Patronage Secretary jointly put a proposal to the Committee, a body of distinguished parliamentarians of great experience, knowledge and understanding of the careful balance that must be struck between the right of the Government to get their legislation and the right of individual hon. Members to exercise their democratic duty to ensure that all legislation is adequately debated and that objectionable legislation is opposed with great enthusiasm and energy. In its wisdom, the Committee came down against the two Chief Whips of the major parties.

At paragraph 8 of its report the Committee said: The loss of opportunities to debate delegated legislation has led to a breakdown in that part of the process of legislation, —we can all say, "Hear, hear" to that— and Your Committee are accordingly concerned to safeguard proceedings on private legislation. They recommend that there should be no change in the time at which the House has at present an opportunity to debate business which, although on occasion of apparently minor importance, is often of national significance. Because of the breakdown of the right of the House to debate such legislation at a reasonable time, not at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning, the Select Committee decided against the two right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the office of Chief Whip of the major parties.

In view of the Select Committee Report and the undertaking by the Leader of the House in June, it is a bit much when they—I exclude my right hon. Friend, because on this occasion he is not guilty of complicity in the matter; by "they" I mean the Government busines managers—try to slip through on the nod this sort of thing, contrary to all the undertakings and the sound findings of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) who chaired the Select Committee.

If the House, the two Chief Whips or any other hon. Members wish to change the rules of the House, they should do it openly by a proper motion on the Order Paper at the beginning of the Session asking for the authority to change the Standing Orders, so that we may properly debate it.

I hope that my hon. Friends who are now discussing which of them is to be successful in catching your eye are taking due note of my few remaining words about the Business Motion. If we wish to change the rules, let it be done openly, above board and with proper debate. If private legislation is to be properly debated and is to continue to be a proper and fairly substantial part of Parliament's business, it will have to come on in normal parliamentary time between 3.30 p.m. and 10 o'clock and not be shuffled off until the late evening and even the early hours of the morning.

If that is the value put upon Private Business we had better stop taking it. If to find the time means that we reduce the opportunities for hon. Members to do their duty in their constituencies, so be it; it will have to be part of the price we pay. I hope the Leader of the House will state clearly why he, the protector of the rights of all hon. Members, considers it right that the Government should give special facilities to the promoters of the Ashdown Forest Bill. Perhaps he will explain, too, why he considers it right that this House should be required. perhaps in the early hours of the morning, to discuss Lords amendments to the Government Trading Funds Bill and why this imposition should be put upon the democratic process of Parliament.

I hope, when he has explained, that he will agree to withdraw the Business Motion and will seek the support of the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to do so. Let the Ashdown Forest Bill stand or fall in this Session on its merits. We should not try to shuffle it over into the next Session of Parliament. If these assurances are not given, I can promise my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West that I will stand as a Teller with him and divide the House on the motion. It is a motion that all hon. Members should seek to oppose because it strikes at the very roots of parliamentary democracy.

4.14 p.m.

I find the concern expressed on the Labour benches for parliamentary democracy most interesting. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say how often in the last three years a similar motion to carry over a Bill until the next Session has been permitted. So far as I recall, this is not the first time.

On the Government Trading Funds Bill—the point was raised by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)—I was a member of the Standing Committee which met on 3rd July. It commenced at 10.30 p.m. and ceased at 10.32 p.m. and of the seven members of the Opposition entitled to be present only three were in fact present; none said a word and the business was concluded. Indeed, had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), no word would have been uttered. The only words spoken were his vote of thanks to a member of the Chairman's panel for taking the Chair. I cannot help feeling that the House is being led slightly astray on this issue.

I can understand the points raised by the hon. Members for Gloucestershire. West (Mr. Loughlin) and Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). But, again, I suggest that they are perhaps taking the House along a slightly different path from that which it ought to follow. We are discussing in their case a precedent which is not a precedent. The Government Trading Funds Bill had, if I recall correctly, a Second Reading Committee and a Committee stage at which members of the Opposition did not appear to wish to participate.

The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) is correct in what he says about the Committee stage of the Bill. There was no Committee discussion and the Second Reading Committee was not printed. We did not know of its existence. The Bill is highly controversial to members of the public. On Report there was a lengthy debate. Therefore, if there is a failure, it is a failure of scrutiny by all hon. Members. I and some of my hon. Friends caught it in time and we scrutinised this controversial Bill. The hon. Member for Hampstead is perhaps slightly mistaken.

The hon. Member's explanation puts an interesting complexion on the matter but it does not change the situation. I did not see the hon. Member for Acton as a member of the Committee. His hon. Friends had an opportunity of making their points. The Bill does not change policy. It seeks only to change the accounting methods.

Rubbish.

That appeared to be the situation. In any case, my right hon. Friend has done again in the Business Motion what has been done in the past under both Governments and under previous Leaders of the House. I am sure the hon. Member will be much happier taking 14 minutes of the time of the Services Committee than taking the time of the House.

4.18 p.m.

I shall not take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) in his complaint at the way in which the Govern- ment are handling the Trading Funds Bill. It may seem a trivial matter to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) but it affects several hundred of my constituents who work at the Ordnance Survey at Southampton. It may be unimportant for him but for them it is not, and it is disgraceful that we should be asked to deal with amendments from the other place when the other place is only this afternoon taking the Report and remaining stages of the Bill. We are being asked to accept Lords amendments that we have not seen and without having had an opportunity to read the proceedings of the debate in the other place.

The Government are treating the House with contempt, and there is no reason why they cannot postpone the Bill until tomorrow. If they did that, we could have printed amendments. An amendment was moved by my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Shackleton, in Committee in the other place, which fundamentally affects the future of the Ordnance Survey and which will have to be considered by this House. He moved the deletion of a part of the Bill and we have no idea whether the Government intend to try to reinstate that part on Report today. I appeal to the Government to let us consider the Bill tomorrow so that we may have something before us to discuss. I urge them not to dismiss it as a triviality. It affects large numbers of our constituents.

4.20 p.m.

The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) has done a severe disservice to the House. He should recognise that responsibility for the Government Trading Funds Bill is not that of some Committee but is the responsibility of the whole House. If he had been present on the night it was debated by the House he would know how deep and far-reaching were the fears and doubts of some hon. Members.

I wish to make two points in support of my hon. Friends the Members for Acton (Mr. Spearing) and Southampton, lichen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell). It is a bad principle for democracy and for considered parliamentary debate that we should be asked in the small hours to deal with Lords amendments which have been made in the other place on the same day and about which we know nothing until literally the eleventh hour. I ask the Leader of the House, for this if for no other reason, to reconsider the situation. There is a great deal of contempt among the public, rightly or wrongly, for what goes on in Parliament. This is the way to add fuel to the flames.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, said that the interests of several hundred of his constituents were at stake. I, together with some other hon. Members, represent several thousand constituents whose interests are at stake through this Bill. To say it is a trivial Bill and of no significance is a misleading statement. It is a Bill with great potential for the future in terms of the power it gives those in control of the employment of people to alter, for example, the activities of the Naval Dockyards by Order in Council and to change the whole working environment and pattern of priorities laid down for the work of those Government institutions.

Where there are thousands of industrial and non-industrial civil servants affected by such legislation—people directly employed by the Government—there is a double responsibility upon this House to look seriously, soberly and responsibly at the implications of proposed legislation. Even at this stage I ask the Leader of the House to assure us that he will find some way to enable us properly to consider what has gone on in another place so that we may have a sensible and informed discussion tomorrow or Thursday.

4.23 p.m.

I am a little amused at what has been taking place this afternoon in that I can well understand this Government at any rate doing what they are doing with the Order Paper. It does not surprise me. It was this Government which introduced, without a mandate, all the measures we have been debating in the past three years. My mind goes back to the Industrial Relations Act—

Order. I have allowed considerable latitude but we cannot re-debate that.

It does not surprise me that I am the first one to be pulled up.

It may be because the hon. Member is the first person to go too wide.

It may be because of some other reason. I listened closely to what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said. He covered a wide area indeed and there was not a bat from your eyelid, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is analogous to the argument. I find it embarrassing at times to hear hon. Members complaining about the arrangements with the Order Paper when we all know that the rule of thumb for this Government—it might have been applied by others, I do not know—is, "We will do as much as we can get away with."

When the discussion arose in the past few days my guess is that the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary got their heads together and said, "We have got a busy time. We have all of these Lords amendments to deal with, there are several other minor matters. How much can we pile on? Hon. Members will want to get away. There is another short break from Thursday onwards, returning on the Tuesday. How much can we get away with?" That is how this place operates.

It never surprises me at all that this Government should, in their steamroller fashion, do what they have done the whole of the time I have been here. I was on the Housing Finance Bill in Committee. I saw that guillotined. We saw the Industrial Relations Bill guillotined. We were dragged into the Common Market without proper debate and now we get all high and mighty about the Ashdown Forest Bill. I am not surprised, but there is a lesson in this for the Labour Party. This is why I have spoken today. If we cannot learn lessons from what this lot have done during the course of the past three years and remember them when we get the opportunity to act on behalf of the working class, we do not deserve to be in government.

4.26 p.m.

Two separate points arise. The first, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), has to do with the other place considering amendments at this moment. That must be, and I am sure will be, looked at by the Leader of the House. The idea that those amendments wil come here tonight to be confirmed by this House gives rise to the anxiety my hon. Friend expressed. I suspect he may know that the amendments concerned are favourable to his point of view but that, of course, is nothing to do with the relevant facts of the argument. I suggest that on that point the House could perhaps consider such amendments tomorrow evening.

The other matter which has been raised, that of the time of the House being interrupted by opposed Private Business, is a hardy annual. I have been Government Chief Whip and I must say there is nothing more frustrating—I am glad that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is listening—for a Government trying to find time for their own business than to have to move away from it at the sacrosanct hour of seven o'clock until 10 o'clock to allow time for Private Business. This is often in the middle of an Opposition Supply Day. As Opposition Chief Whip I have had to give up half a Supply Day.

In spite of the views of the Procedure Committee, which are not necessarily right, I believe that the time is long overdue, recognising all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) about the importance of Private Business, for an arrangement to be reached whereby a day will be set aside, preferably a Friday, for this kind of business to be dealt with once a month. The House must understand clearly that whoever is in Government, under our present procedures, they have, quite rightly, to find 29 days for the Opposition. I think there should be more, but I do not press that. A Government must find time for the sort of interruptions we are talking about here. There is also time to be found for Private Members—quite rightly. Within all of that the Government have to arrange a schedule for their own business.

It would be humbug if I said it was unusual for there to be a conglomeration of business at the end of a Parliament's life. I have had it. It may be that it could have been sorted out differently if Parliament had sat for much longer than might have been wished. I am always interested to hear hon. Members saying how willing they are to come back here. I am glad to see them at any time.

Some of them mean it.

That cap is to be worn only by those whom it fits.

Why not name them?

I am not doing that. I have a good reputation for not naming anyone.

I understand the reasons for this motion. Although there were no usual channels discussions on it, I understood that it was the hope and prayer of the Government—and they can only do a bit of praying on these matters—that because many of the amendments affecting the Maplin Bill were favourable to those opposed to the scheme the discussion on the amendments would be disposed of by seven o'clock and the way would be clear for the debate on opposed Private Business. That was my impression, but in the light of these discussions I do not know when the amendments affecting the Maplin Bill will be concluded. If there is a Division, I shall not vote against the Government. I say quite frankly, as the Opposition Chief Whip, that I understand how this came about and I wish the Procedure Committee would look at it again. We cannot go on with this question of Private Business constantly coming up in this way. There should be a separate day for it.

4.29 p.m.

I thank the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for what he said. May I respond to the hon. Members for Acton (Mr. Spearing), Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and Southampton, lichen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) who raised the subject of the Government Trading Funds Bill. It is true that these are amendments conceding points made following representations to us in another place. For all that, in view of what has been said, we will put off consideration of these amendments until tomorrow.

I am determined that we should not get into a muddle over a debate late at night on the future of New Palace Yard. If this is to go late at night, which I think might happen in view of the debate we have had, I will withdraw the motion and put it down for next Session. The only point about getting it through was that there was some question about the ordering of materials. Those placing the orders will have to wait until the House has considered this at the proper time of day.

This is an important matter. I wish to respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who I believe gets more like Brian Clough every day. He can take that as a compliment, or in whatever way he wishes. I turn to the other two related points, first the motion which would enable the Maplin business to be disposed of before we move on to the Private Bill. This was done entirely for the convenience of the House because it would have been a nonsense to have interrupted the Maplin business, for perhaps a quarter of an hour, or half an hour, in the course of the debate purely because we had to take a Private Bill.

As the Opposition Chief Whip said, we thought that the Lords amendments to the Maplin Bill would not take very long and we put this motion down as a precautionary measure. I still advise the House to allow the motion to stand. We will take the Ashdown Forest Bill motion immediately after we have finished the Maplin debate, at whatever time that is. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was designed to help hon. Members in all parts of the House and to make for a reasonable debate.

I note what the Opposition Chief Whip said about time set down for Private Business, but I gave the House the undertaking that we would continue with Private Business at 7 p.m. except under very exceptional circumstances, and this could have been one of those circumstances today.

Regarding the motion to carry the Bill over from this Session, I remind the House that we have already moved three such motions this Session and so the precedents for which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) asked are there for all to see. They are the Zetland County Council Bill, the Harwich Harbour Bill and the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill.

The present position regarding the Ashdown Forest Bill is that it has completed its Committee stage and awaits consideration on Report, and then Third Reading. These Bills cost a lot of time and money and I do not think the House does itself much good by making the promoters go to the expense of reintroducing such a Bill in the next Session. It is possible that the House would do itself far more harm than good and that the procedure which we are now adopting, of allowing these Bills to go over, is the right and responsible one to take. This procedure will in no way prevent the House from reaching a decision on this Bill next Session. It merely saves money and the inconvenience of having to start all over again.

Has my right hon. Friend not grasped the point that the Committee which examined the Bill wanted to amend it in an important respect but that because of the way in which the Bill was drafted it cannot be so amended? Therefore, if the corrective action is to be taken, it can be taken only in one of two ways—either by the Bill being withdrawn or by it failing to pass into legislation. It has to he reintroduced de novo to encompass the corrections which the Committee wanted to put into the Bill. This Government motion attempts completely to frustrate what the Committee which examined the Bill was trying to achieve.

In that case the Bill will go forward to the next Session and will be defeated, presumably, because it does not do what it should do. Then it will be up to the promoters to reintroduce it. If the promoters have made a fundamental mistake in the way in which they wish the Bill to be enacted, that is a matter for them. It is not a matter of principle whether the Government, acting in a position of neutrality, should allow the Bill to be carried over to the next Session. I admit that I did not have the information which my hon. Friend mentioned, but it does not alter the principle of the matter. My hon. Friend has made his point but it does not alter the principle of allowing the Bill to go forward to the next Session.

The Leader of the House has made a generous concession to the promoters of private legislation in that he has made it clear that it is Government policy to facilitate the carrying over of private legislation because it is expensive to promoters. Will he extend the same generous facility to individual hon. Members who promote Private Members' legislation, which is also expensive and time-consuming, and so put all on the same par as outside vested interests by moving suspension motions on Private Members' legislation?

The hon. Gentleman is becoming more ingenious every moment. He will not expect me to give him an answer on that today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Vested interest."] There is no question of vested interest in this. The House will accept that I have gone a long way to try to meet the points raised. I hope that we can now conclude this debate and get on with the business which was set down. We have had a reasonable debate on this question, although I recognise that not every hon. Member will be satisfied by what I have said. I cannot answer my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) completely, except to say that I have before me a full report of the discussions on the Ashdown Forest Bill and I do not see in that report the major objection which he raised.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Almost an hour ago I asked Mr. Speaker whether if the Government motion which we are now debating were passed, and should the Maplin Development Bill run to 10 o'clock—and that would be less than 25 minutes per amendment, which seems quite possible—since Standing Order No. 1 and Standing Order No. 3 are quite categoric and do not exempt Private Bills, and since the Government motion does not suspend Standing Order No. 1 in favour of the Ashdown Forest Bill, it means that the Notice of Motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means fails if it is not reached by 10

o'clock. Your predecessor in the Chair, who was Mr. Speaker, suggested that I should put this question to the Leader of the House instead of to him. The Leader of the House is now about to sit down, and if he does not answer this point we shall not know the position.