asked the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he uses in deciding to intervene personally in industrial disputes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy in regard to the rôle that should be played by his Department, as distinct from the CAS, in the settling of industrial disputes.

The Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which was established with the full support and co-operation of the CBI and TUC, now has the responsibility of providing assistance by way of conciliation or by other means to help avoid and resolve industrial disputes.

My Question was really about the personal intervention of the Minister or the Secretary of State. However, is my hon. Friend aware that the value of the interventions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is far too great to be dissipated by intervening in every piffling dispute, as recommended by Conservatives who do not understand industrial relations? Will my hon. Friend nevertheless consider intervening at a very early stage in all wage applications which go beyond the social contract?

I recognise that some circumstances could arise in which the intervention of my right hon. Friend might be required, or might be appropriate, but I believe that since the establishment of the CAS, this service is capable of dealing with all normal conciliation and arbitration functions. I would expect, therefore, that the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend would have to intervene would be very rare indeed.

Will the Minister seek to reconcile the spirited call to the Bakers' Union to settle under the guidelines of the social contract, made only yesterday by the Secretary of State for Employment, with the deafening silence of the Government on the much more serious road haulage dispute in Scotland and on the miners' ballot on the productivity proposals? Do the Government not appreciate that the authority of a Government can be of importance in explaining the social contract which they profess to support, and of much more importance than simply making speeches on this subject to the Labour Party conference and the TUC?

My right hon. Friend has certainly not confined himself to making speeches to the Labour Party conference on the issue of the social contract and has, on more than one occasion, expressed a view on a pay settlement. However, it is not appropriate that he or any other Minister should seek to judge on every settlement that is made. While a dispute is running there are times when it could be positively harmful for Ministers to intervene, when the CAS is seeking an end to the dispute.

Will my hon. Friend give more details of the rô1e that his Department or the CAS has taken with regard to the Scottish bus drivers' strike, or what rôle either intends to take?

The CAS seeks to meet both sides in this dispute, as in other disputes. Where the dispute is unofficial, as in the case to which my hon. Friend refers, it meets the official union to seek its views on what rôle can be played in bringing about a settlement.

What guidance does the Secretary of State give to the CAS when a dispute is referred to it? What procedure exists to ensure that he is kept in touch with the progress of the efforts of the CAS during a dispute? Above all, what steps would he take if it appeared that the intervention of the CAS was leading to a resolution of the dispute which conflicted with the terms of the social contract?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is the subject of another Question on the Order Paper. In the case of a dispute in which the CAS is involved, there is the normal report obtained for officials in the Department. That is made available to my right hon. Friend. If a dispute is likely to be resolved in a way which would bring about a breach of the social contract, that is always regarded as a matter between the two negotiating parties and not one for which any CAS conciliation officer is responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has formulated so far to refer collective agreements to the Industrial Arbitration Board in 1975 under the terms of the Equal Pay Act 1970.

I am writing to both sides of a number of negotiating bodies which still have discriminatory collective agreements, asking about their plans for implementation of the provisions of the Equal Pay Act. My right hon. Friend will consider possible references in the light of the replies received.

How many negotiating bodies are involved, and what action would my hon. Friend propose to take if the replies from those bodies were unsatisfactory?

I am writing to 52 negotiating bodies, on both sides. If the replies are not satisfactory—that is, if no signs of achieving equal pay by the end of 1975 are shown—my right hon. Friend will consider referring them to the Central Arbitration Committee of the CAS when it is set up on a statutory basis, with a view to getting the advice of that body about the agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is his policy that those who are not parties to the social contract should regard themselves bound by its provisions.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his broadcast to the nation on 14th October, our problems can be solved only by a partnership between the Government and all the people of this country, and there can be no opting out by individual groups from the responsibilities which face all of us.

Will the Minister confirm that he has obliquely suggested that the social contract is binding on everybody? If that is the case, will he tell the House what is the constitutional justification for basing a general policy of wage restraint upon a document which has been published by a single interest outside Parliament, which has never been submitted to Parliament, has never been approved by Parliament, and upon which Ministers are reluctant to comment in any detail in Parliament?

As we have made clear, the social contract is not an agreement solely between politicians and trade unions. It was a concept, and had a programme of implications, spelt out clearly in the manifestoes with which we fought two General Elections this year, and upon which we were returned on both occasions—on the second occasion by a majority.

Surely the Minister will agree that he has not answered my hon. Friend's question. His colleagues at the Labour Party conference have made it absolutely clear that the social contract is the central point of the Government's economic policy. Therefore, it is not good enough that something which is the central point of the Government's economic policy should be negotiated between the Government and only one section of the community. By what possible right does the Minister expect the rest of the country to provide the kind of backing needed for this contract if he will not negotiate with them on a par with his own trade union movement?

The hon. Gentleman refers to only one aspect of the social contract. The social contract has many aspects which require Government administration and legislation, as well as those which rely on voluntary policies. Those matters which require legislation are submitted to the House and those which require voluntary action are discussed with the appropriate bodies outside the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next hopes to meet groups in industry who are concerned with the social contract.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to meet those groups who are parties to the social contract; and, if so, when.

I am regularly in touch with people in industry who are concerned with one aspect or another of the social contract.

When my right hon. Friend meets these people again will he confirm that the concept of the social contract is not just about wages, but that part of the social contract is the Labour Government's commitment to change the nature and character of this society? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet review their contribution to the social contract and perhaps speed up some of the policies, such as those dealing with the wealth tax and the National Enterprise Board?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the social contract covers a much wider aspect than questions of wage negotiations. It covers all the matters to which my hon. Friend referred and many others besides. We are this afternoon proceeding with a Bill which is directly designed to assist the social contract. I agree with my hon. Friend that the sooner the other measures are brought forward the better.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that it would be useful for him to meet those involved in the bakery industry who are part of the social contract and who are, presumably, useful people? Does he also agree that unless he does this there will be further difficulties over bread?

As I told the House yesterday, the Conciliation and Arbitration Service that we have set up is in touch with the parties, and in that situation I do not think that it would be sensible for me to intervene directly. That also applies to some of the other questions raised. What I want to secure is the earliest possible settlement of the dispute, and the way in which the Conciliation and Arbitration Service is going about it offers the best hope for that.

If, as reported, the hospital consultants get a £2,000-a-year increase—to be announced shortly— would it also be in accordance with the social contract for the bakers to get £40 a week?

As my hon. Friend, quite contrary to his normal custom, has based his question on an hypothesis, it is difficult for me to answer it, but he must not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.

Will the Secretary of State say whether there has ever been a breach of the social contract in any settlement so far, and on what occasion anyone has been reproved for a breach of the social contract, which is becoming very wide, rather like the Holy Roman Empire, and like a sublime piece of mysticism and nonsense?

I do not know whether it is profitable to pursue the matter by going into a discussion on the matter of resemblances with the Holy Roman Empire and the other suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman might make. I thought that he was rather in favour of the Holy Roman Empire, and that he thought that it was still in existence. Perhaps he intended the comparison to be highly flattering. There have been occasions when flagrant breaches of the social contract have occurred. I have drawn attention to them, and that is desirable in certain circumstances.

Will the Secretary of State remind his hon. Friend who asked the question that those parts of the social contract to which he alluded are not a social contract but a Socialist contract, and that that needs to be made abundantly plain? The part of the social contract which is now of vital interest to the nation as a whole is that part which relates to some restriction of wage increases, so that the country can beat inflation. It is on that side that we shall give the right hon. Gentleman every support, and on that side that he seems to be singularly ineffective.

I know that there is only a particular part of the social contract, as represented by hon. Members on the Opposition side, that they support. That is why they were so incapable of dealing with national problems. National problems are much wider than questions of wage negotiations, important though those wage negotiations are. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has been writing to The Times to try to discover the facts of the matter. He would do much better to put Questions in the House. He will then get the answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Service intervened during the dispute at the Scottish factories of Rolls-Royce 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department took to prevent the industrial action which preceded the recent wage increase at Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.

It is not customary to reveal all the contacts made by me or my Department with the parties concerned during an industrial dispute. The assistance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service was not sought in this case and the service did not judge that its intervention would be helpful.

Does the Secretary of State think that it was fair or honest of him to hurl abuse at the management of Rolls-Royce over the breach of the social contract to which it was not a party, yet not offer a word of rebuke to those who, by a militant strike, forced the management to breach the social contract?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was misinformed about any comments that I made on the matter. Perhaps that was due to the fact that he took at face value the headlines that appeared—for example those in The Guardian. I did not hurl any abuse at the head of the Chairman of Rolls-Royce on the matter. What happened was that when the settlement was made and when questions were put to my Department that afternoon about whether we considered it to be within the social contract, my Department, with my authority, issued a statement saying that it believed that it was not in accordance with the social contract, and my Department was quite right in saying so. That was authorised by me. That was a criticism of the settlement altogether and not of one part of it. But it was sensationalised, particularly in The Guardian, and then Sir Kenneth Keith rushed in with some extremely ill-advised comments, in my view, and misrepresented the situation as it had occurred over the previous days. I noted that the hon. Gentleman proposed to put down a Private Notice Question on the Monday, so we could have dealt with the matter. I am sorry to say that he did not go forward with that proposal.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while most of us regret some of the aspects of the settlement in Scotland, the strictures of the Opposition would be taken more seriously if there were occasionally a word of acknowledgment from them on the responsible negotiations that are going on in Rolls-Royce (1971) as a whole, particularly at Derby, where the work force are negotiating not only in the spirit of the social contract but with an eye to the investment in the firm of their own skills and their life's work?

I fully understand—and I fully understood during the negotiations that took place over Rolls-Royce—the difficulties which faced the management. These were very great difficulties, which the management had to contend with in deciding what course to adopt. It is also a fact that in Scotland, however, the proposals for a settlement were outside the social contract, particularly on the question of the 12-months' rule, and therefore when a settlement was made we thought it right to make the comment we did, particularly in view of the discussions we had had previously. I do not think that the Chairman of Rolls-Royce had any right to complain about what was said by my Department. What the newspapers may have said is something different.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the affair of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and the pay award which went outside the social contract is the sort of case which might be appropriate for the special alternative methods for dealing with rogue employers mentioned by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection yesterday? Will the right hon. Gentleman further indicate what sort of measures the Government have in mind?

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to this matter yesterday, and I thought that she underlined afresh how tentative was any proposal for dealing with the matter in this way. I think that has been made clear now in our statement. We have also made clear that we would not consider introducing such a proposal in any form without consultations with the TUC and the CBI, and that stands. I believe this is a very important factor in the situation.

In view of the recent agreement reached in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend give an opinion on whether the pay of Rolls-Royce employees in my constituency at East Kilbride and Blantyre is now on a par with their equivalents in England?

I should certainly be careful before I made that comparison, without making all the other comparisons, because it could be misleading. I know that it is often said that in Scotland pay lags behind pay in England, but there are notable cases when the reverse is the case. I believe, therefore, that it would be much wiser for me, in response to my hon. Friend's invitation, to discuss this in a more general way. I shall be quite happy for the Department to publish, if my hon. Friend wished, some comparisons between wage rates in Scotland and England. I do not believe that that would bear out altogether his suggestion of Scotland's lagging behind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action is being taken to improve work satisfaction and the quality of working life.

A tripartite steering group on job satisfaction consisting of representatives of Government, the TUC and CBI was set up in 1973 and this group now meets under my chairmanship. It has initiated a job satisfaction research programme on job design and work organisation.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but does he accept that the introduction of automated processes in factories is soul destroying and, apart from other problems associated with factory work, has a terribly demoralising effect on ordinary normal intelligent human beings? Will he therefore speed up the work of the committee, and may we have some action upon it?

My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement soon. A great deal more thought has to be given to work satisfaction before automated processes are introduced. We shall treat the matter as being serious and urgent.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this is not a matter simply of looking at job satisfaction in factories but of considering the whole wider aspect of job satisfaction?

The steering group is looking at work satisfaction as it affects not only factory work but clerical work and other occupations, because they can be just as boring as an automated job.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the response to the new promotional campaign for the Equal Pay Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement about publicity for the Equal Pay Act 1970 to ensure its implementation by 29th December 1975.

We started a publicity campaign on equal pay in the Press on 11th November to make those employer who have not made progress aware of the need to do so. We want all employers to realise that if they employ both men and women the Equal Pay Act may well affect them. Subsequently the campaign will tell employees of their rights. It is too soon to assess the full response to the first phase of the campaign but the initial inquiry rate has been encouraging.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the 8 million working women in this country are looking to him and his Department to see that the Equal Pay Act becomes reality next year? May I urge him not to be put off by the screaming ninnies of the CBI who, by the look of today's Press, are trying to castrate his proposals for maternity leave in the Employment Protection Bill before they are even introduced in the House?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the seriousness of his question. I naturally read the excellent article in Tribune which he contributed on the subject, as I hope the rest of the House has done. While we would contest some of the figures in that article we do not think that an earnings report is necessarily the best way to make calculations. We agree with many of the points he stressed and we are certainly determined to do everything we can to make both employers and workers aware of the responsibilities and possibilities of the Equal Pay Act. We are determined to carry through the publicity campaign and we are even more determined to ensure that by the end of next year everyone is aware of the law as it will then stand, and that that law shall be obeyed.

There are many other discriminations against working women, quite apart from the inequalities of pay. One of those is the provision at the moment whereby a pregnant employee can be dismissed and is not liable to protection under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Employment Protection Bill will strengthen what the discussion document has said both on maternity leave and on the specific point about making dismissal on grounds of pregnancy unfair?

I hope that we shall have a full discussion on these questions when the Employment Protection Bill comes before us. The proposals which we have so far included in that Bill are only a beginning. We do not claim that they are anything more than that. When we discuss the Bill my hon. Friend and others will be able to see what we propose and to consider whether improvements can be made and what arguments they would like to put in reply to those which were advanced to me by the CBI last night.

When is the right hon. Gentleman to introduce the Bill? Ever since the Government took office he has been telling us, in Committee on the trade union Bill and in the House and elsewhere, that he will produce the Bill and that it will do all these marvellous things. We read in the Press only today that some provisions may be delayed for years and others for months, yet it never comes before us. When will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill?

The hon. Member should not be so impatient. I am glad that he is anxious to see us progress with measures from my Department. Already one good Bill from my Department is coming before the House this afternoon. I hope that the House will have the other Bill before Christmas. That is what we would like, but it may be that it will not come until after Christmas. We shall hasten ahead with it as fast as we can. It will be a big Bill, because it comprises a huge number of measures which have been piling up for years and on which action should have been taken long ago.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Bill on equal opportunities will be before the House in a very few weeks? Unless it is, it cannot get through the House before the end of the Session. If it does not do so, the Equal Pay Act will be that much less effective.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and so do the Government. This is one of the occasions when we agree with him. We want to see the Bill on the statute book this Session. That is the full determination of the Government.

On the road to anti-discrimination, does the right hon. Gentleman think that a wife has the right to know her husband's income? At present she cannot necessarily find out from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department. This is a serious question. Will the Minister take it seriously, and agree that as a husband can know his wife's income, the wife should know her husband's?

A moment ago I was answering a question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Lady is now asking me to answer a question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It appears that the House wishes me to take over the whole Government, but I fear that there is no prospect of that immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is proposing to take to prevent employees being made redundant at very short notice.

The Government intend to introduce the Employment Protection Bill early in the new year, if not earlier. This will require employers to consult the trade unions concerned before redundancies are announced and to notify my Department well before they take effect.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Employers need to be made aware of the Bill, because in my constituency we have had one or two cases of instant redundancy, which are most worrying to the trade unions and many others of us.

We cannot make employers aware of the contents of the Bill before we make the information known to the House, but it may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that we envisage that any employer who lays off 10 or more workers in any one establishment, to be dismissed within a period of 30 days, will be required to give 60 days' notice, and any employer proposing to lay off 100 or more workers in any one establishment to be dismissed within a period of 90 days, will be required to give 90 days' notice. Whether or not that is enacted will be a matter for the House. We seek to impress on employers the importance of giving good advance notice and entering into negotiations with trade unions on the matter of redundancies.

Is it true that the Bill is in draft form? If so, how much discussion has there been so far with employers' organisations?

Some parts of the Bill are in draft form, but there are other parts on which the discussion of the consultative document is not completed. We have asked employers and others interested in the Bill to make their submissions. Most of this has been done, and discussions continue on certain parts which are controversial.

Is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom—28 per cent., or 653,000—acceptable or unacceptable? If it is unacceptable, does my hon. Friend think that the trade union movement would be justified in advising its members to adopt a no-redundancy policy?

The present level of unemployment is not acceptable. I hope that the employment situation will never be acceptable to a Labour Government until all those who are genuinely seeking work can obtain proper and appropriate employment. What we are seeking to do in the Bill is to enable trade unions, in protecting the interests of their members, to have a right to the information and to receive notification which will enable them to decide whether they should adopt a no-redundancy policy or negotiate for other terms in the event of some of their members being laid off.

Has the Minister any evidence that some employers are holding back on making people redundant because of the cash shortage and their failure to have the resources to make redundancy payments? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government have no plans for dealing with continued major breaches of the social contract on the wages front the redundancies we see now will be minimal compared with the massive redundancies that may follow runaway wage inflation?

We have no evidence in the Department that employers are deferring decisions to make people redundant on the grounds which the hon. Gentleman has stated. We agree that if there were to be a failure of the social contract it would have implications of massive redundancy as well as many other great disadvantages for the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if a decision has been taken on the siting of the office of the Health and Safety Commission.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has asked the commission to study thoroughly the question of the ultimate location of its headquarters and to advise him as soon as it is able to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that only the siting of the commission in the city of Sheffield, for which the city is peculiarly well suited, will remove from local authorities elsewhere in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region a sense of total neglect at the hands not only of Hardman but of those who have subsequently taken decisions on the dispersal of Government jobs?

I well understand my hon. Friend's views about the need to disperse Government work to Yorkshire and Humberside. With regard to the location of the commission, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the need to consult the commission, which was only recently established. The attractions of the city of Sheffield will not be overlooked when we make the decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish the recent report issued by the Factory Inspectorate under the Factories Act 1961 made by it following the fire at Courtaulds Red Scar Mill, Preston.

There was a fire at Red Scar Mill, Preston, in July 1973, but no report on this occurrence has been prepared recently.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet in the plant about the use of CS₂ and H₂S gases? Tests from time to time have tended to indicate that all is not as well as it might be. Is my hon. Friend aware of local concern about the fumes emanating from the factory? As the management is aware of the report, should not those employed in the plant also be aware of it?

I am aware of the concern that has been expressed about carbon disulphide and hydrogen sulphide fumes at the plant, and their emission. The letter that has gone to the occupier refers to that matter, amongst a number of other things. It is a comprehensive letter, covering many points. I mentioned that the inspectorate has had discussions not only with the management but with the trade unions and their representatives at the plant. The Health and Safety at Work Act provides for a more ready flow of information to work people, and that will become operative in the new year.

rose——

Order. I am sorry that I cannot call more hon. Members for supplementary questions. We have dealt with only 14 Questions in nearly 35 minutes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the total flow of all vacancies is now estimated to be reported to his Department; and upon what basis this estimate is made.

It is estimated that about 25 per cent. of the total flow of vacancies are notified to the Employment Service Agency or to the careers offices of local education authorities. The calculation is very approximate and is made by relating the number of vacancies notified in each financial year to the number of changes of employment collected by the Inland Revenue.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the unemployment and vacancy figures as at present published are totally misleading?

I do not agree that they are totally misleading. The registered unemployed figure is the most reliable that can be obtained as an indication of unemployment. We have never pretended that the notified vacancies figure describes the total demand for labour. That has always been made clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish the guidelines issued to officials of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

My right hon. Friend wrote to the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service on its inception setting out the Government's concept of the rôle of the service until such time as it is established on a statutory basis. The Employment Protection Bill will contain proposals to establish the statutory basis of the service.

Will the Minister now answer the question which he dodged when it was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)? Are the officials acting with the approval of the Secretary of State when they arrange for employers such as the Scottish hauliers to reach settlements that the Secretary of State now denounces as in breach of the social contract?

I did not dodge the question that was put by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). There was a similar Question on the Order Paper, which I am answering now. My right hon. Friend does not give instructions to the CAS on individual disputes. The only guidance that he has given to the CAS on its rôle was that which he stated in the letter which he sent to the chairman on the establishment of the service, concerning which a Press notice was issued on 10th September. In the view of Ministers of the Department of Employment it is important that the CAS should be seen to be acting independently. It would be totally inappropriate for my right hon. Friend to issue instructions to the CAS on how it should handle individual disputes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of paramount importance that the CAS has independence and that it is seen to have it, particularly in view of the disastrous consequences for arbitration when the previous Conservative Government had responsibility for running these matters?

I believe that confidence in the Conciliation and Arbitration Service would be ruined if it were seen that a Minister was instructing it on how it should tackle its job. The fact that the service is operating so sucessfully is in no small measure due to its being able to act independently.

Does the Minister agree that it is vital that settlements reached as a result of the actions of the CAS do not conflict with the Government's fundamental economic policy, namely, the social contract? If he agrees with that, what steps is he taking to ensure that there is no such conflict?

Settlements which are reached with the aid of CAS are not solely the responsibility of the CAS. If there is no disposition on the part of the parties to settle, neither the CAS nor any other organisation will be able to bring about a settlement. Such actions as are appropriate for the Government to take to secure compliance with the social contract are matters which should be done openly and not through secret instructions through the CAS.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make available training facilities for unemployed girl school leavers in Scotland.

I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that the main responsibility for the training of school leavers rests with industry and the education services. The demand for training among girl school leavers in Scotland does not suggest that there is a need for additional training facilities at the present time. The Training Services Agency already provides short industrial courses for young people and has introduced experimental courses for those who need help to develop their capacity and potential.

Is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of young girls who will leave school in North Lanarkshire at Christmas will have little prospect of employment, and that there are no training facilities for them? Coatbridge has one of the finest training establishments in the country and it is considerably under-occupied. Does my hon. Friend think that some training should be given to these school leavers, rather than have them idling their young lives away?

The position in North Lanarkshire is substantially better than it was at the start of the year. In January, 305 girls registered as unemployed. That figure has now been reduced to 182. There are training facilities available. There are, for example, the wider opportunities courses that have been mounted in certain areas, including Scotland, with the aim of helping young people. Unfortunately, we have not received any applications from girls for such courses. My hon. Friend will also bear in mind that the primary responsibility for seeking employment for school leavers rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of short-time working in the footwear industry.

The number of operatives working on short-time during the week ending 14th September 1974 was 14,400, or 20·5 per cent. of all operatives. That does not include administrative, technical and clerical staff. I do not have any later information on numbers but recent reports have come in from a few regions of lower activity in some consumer-oriented sectors, including footwear.

In view of those figures does the Minister realise the great problems being presented to the British footwear industry, especially by increasing imports from Eastern Europe? Will he and his colleagues take urgent steps to show that they do not regard the footwear industry as expendable, and that they are more concerned about employment in this country than in Poland and Czechoslovakia?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about his constituents' employment. The import of foreign footwear is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.