asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider instituting a review of the work of the industrial training boards.

I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that they see no immediate need to institute a review of the work of the industrial training boards.

Does the Minister accept that there is widespread doubt about the validity of some of these boards' training work? In view of the size of the administrative costs—more than £6½ million in the last year for which we have records—will he ask the Training Services Agency to review urgently the question whether the boards provide the best value in the important area of training?

I do not agree that there are widespread doubts. I think there is a recognition that the boards have made a significant contribution to the quality and quantity of industrial training since the inception following the 1964 Act.

Does the Minister accept that there is an urgent need to look into the activities of the Engineering Industry Training Board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Hugh Scanlon, which has recently arbitrarily dismissed members and abolished the Foundry Industry Training Committee, under circumstances that require urgent investigation?

I pay tribute to the enthusiasm and vigour Mr. Scanlon has brought to the work of the Board. He has made and is making an outstanding contribution. Press reports that the hon. Member may have read this morning have been most misleading. There has been a long-standing difficulty between the Committee and the Board with problems about scope and constitution and the Committee's desire to be reconstituted as a training board in its own right. These are matters which are not necessarily linked to the chairmanship of the Board and they are being inquired into by the Manpower Services Commission.

Must it not remain a basic principle of levy grants that the cost of training is shared throughout the industry and not paid just by those who do training?

The hon. Member takes a keen interest in these matters. If he has not read the recent consultative document published by the Training Services Agency on vocational preparation, I urge him to do so. It has some radical proposals in respect of levy grants, and the matter is under review.

Will my hon. Friend realise that the Opposition, in their attempts to denigrate the boards, are trying to make them seem less worth while than they really are? Does he recognise that people moving from one sphere of employment to another require these boards, and that I hope he will continue the programme?

My hon. Friend will know that the boards are primarily concerned with training rather than retraining. The criticisms that we have heard today are not widely reflected, even on the Benches opposite. I am sure the Opposition Front Bench would be ready to pay tribute to the valuable work done by the boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance or advice he has given either the National Enterprise Board or British Leyland to achieve the improvements in productivity and industrial relations which the Prime Minister declared would be necessary before further sums of public money could be advanced to the company.

I am confident that both management and the trade unions in British Leyland fully recognise the improvements that need to be made, and are committed to their achievement. The current unofficial strikes are, however, putting the future of the company and the employment it provides at risk, have already resulted in the lay-off of many other employees, and can only damage the company's competitive position both in this country and overseas. I earnestly hope that the strikers will now quickly return to work, as instructed by their union.

I congratulate my old opponent on his recent appointment, but will he please answer my Question? What advice or assistance has he given to the NEB or the company to improve industrial relations and efficiency? Have the Government set any bench marks which must be met before further tranches of public money are made available?

The position of the Government has been made very clear to the company and the NEB. It was included in the agreement on which the money was provided for British Leyland. The Government will look to see that improvements in productivity and efficiency are made before more money is committed to the firm.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is immense concern in my constituency and in all constituencies where British Leyland workers five that the company is in such an appalling situation? Why is morale so low, and why are Ministers, the Government and the NEB doing nothing about it?

It is not the case that nothing is being done. A considerable improvement has been made in the position of the company. The unions have worked with the company in achieving that improvement. New consultative machinery has been set up. The recent strikes have been most worrying and damaging, but we must not allow them to blind us to the progress that has been made, nor should we allow them to lead us to the conclusion that if Government money is provided it will solve all the problems of a company at a stroke. A number of long-term changes have to be worked out in the company. I am concerned that they should be made and that as much progress as possible can be achieved.

I join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his promotion. Will he continue the efforts that he and his predecessor have made to try to bring about a satisfactory industrial relations situation in British Leyland? Will he remind the Opposition that at this moment the President of the AUEW is in London talking to British Leyland workers and trying to find a solution to the problems? It is not helpful for the Opposition to be critical about the present situation when so much is being done by the trade union movement.

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I confirm what he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I talked to the President of the AUEW this morning. In a few minutes, if he is not doing so already, he will be talking to those most directly involved with a view to bringing about a conclusion to the dispute and a return to work as rapidly as possible.

I add my congratulations to the new Secretary of State on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to answer Questions. We hope that he will do better than his predecessor. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall support all efforts to end this damaging dispute? Is he aware that there is great public disquiet that public money continues to be put into the company despite the sad history of industrial disputes?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I shall be very proud if I can achieve half as much as my predecessor in bringing about a proper liaison between the Government and trade unions in the interests of the economy and the country. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance of support towards ending a damaging dispute. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that to generalise, as one or two of his hon. Friends are in danger of doing, on a specific dispute, and to suggest that it will wreck the company, will not necessarily aid the situation at a time when crucial talks are taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the level of employment in London.

No, Sir.

At least that is of some comfort, because we can find agreement on that. Will the hon. Gentleman consider most carefully not so much the present level of unemployment in London—although it is at an historic high—but the level of jobs in London, which has been on a long decline for some years, especially in the manufacturing sector? Will he examine regional policies to ascertain what can be done to arrest the decline?

I have considered these matters. There has been a decline of about 500,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. That has been partially compensated by an increase in jobs in the service industries. However, we are concerned about the mismatch between what people want to do and the jobs that are available. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed a recent relaxation in the issuing of industrial development certificates that allows for slightly larger developments to take place without an IDC. That policy allows for a renewal of obsolete factories on a speculative basis.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of firms have been moving out of London—a movement that has had an effect on the training of skilled manpower? Will he give an assurance that there will be no let-up in industrial training for the youth of London?

Yes, I can give that assurance. The problem in London is normally an acute shortage of manpower. The way to match the demand for jobs and job opportunities, which I am confident will become available, is by way of training.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an answer to a Question from me revealed that in the Greater London area unemployment has increased by 159 per cent, in the past two years? Is he further aware that much of that increase in unemployment stems from the policies of the Government and of local government, which have deterred small firms and moved them away from the area? Unless the hon. Gentleman wants Greater London to become a sort of concentration camp of Government bureaucrats and head office administrators, what on earth is he going to do? What pressures will he bring to bear on the GLC?

I have already indicated that there has been a relaxation of IDC policy. That relaxation will have assisted smaller firms to remain in London. Secondly, I must re-emphasise that normally there is an acute shortage of manpower in London. In 1974 there were 3·4 unemployed unskilled workers for every unskilled vacancy, which was perhaps the lowest figure in the country. When we consider the increase in unemployment in the South-East generally we must bear in mind, and take some comfort from the fact, that it is not only the development areas that have taken the worst brunt of the rise in unemployment.

I shall risk appearing to agree with the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Will my hon. Friend have a special look at the problems in and around West London, including my constituency, to ascertain what special measures may be required? Over the past year there have been many examples of a deteriorating situation, which must be of concern to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

I have similar problems in my own borough—the borough of Lambeth. I am prepared to examine the special difficulties that my hon. Friend has in mind in any part of London where there is an unemployment black spot.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report statistics for the last quarter on the relative rates of unemployment in each London borough.

I regret that this information is not available. Rates of unemployment can be calculated only for the whole of Greater London.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the rates of unemployment change dramatically from one London borough to another? Is he prepared to consider calling a London conference involving representatives of the GLC, the London boroughs, trade unionists and employers to make a proper assessment of the problem and to contribute to its solution?

I cannot undertake an exercise of that magnitude without discussion with my colleagues. It is true that there are pockets of difficult employment problems in London. I have always expressed a willingness to discuss these matters with representatives of the GLC and others and I shall continue to do so.

Does the Minister agree that the unemployment rate in London has risen drastically during the last two years, through unrestrained pay increases and unrestrained Government spending? Would not a reversal of those two policies help to bring down unemployment?

Unemployment in London has risen from 2 per cent, to 3·7 per cent. Of course, policies that restrain the rate of inflation will help, not only in London but throughout the rest of the country, to under-write employment security.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the TUC concerning the lowering of the retirement age for men employed in the heavy engineering industry.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are thousands of men over 60 in the heavy engineering industry who are doing jobs beyond their physical capacity, thus causing breakdowns in health, early retirements, and sometimes early deaths? Will the Government devise a scheme to enable men over 60 years of age to retire before the normal retiring age of 65, on full pension, subject to medical control and examination?

I must tell my hon. Friend that early retirement on the State pension is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Apart from that, the age of retirement for various groups of workers is usually a matter for negotiation in the firms or industries to which they belong. I have not received any representations from trade unions on this matter.

As many employees over 60 who are made redundant are unlikely to get other jobs, what would be the difference in cost between such persons drawing unemployment pay or social security benefit, on the one hand, and retirement pay, on the other, at the age of 60 or above?

On the hon. Gentleman's premise, I think that the difference would be fairly small. I have considered this problem. It is not an easy matter, by any means. It is primarily a matter for another Department. It is not easy to devise a scheme that does not have economically damaging side effects.

Will my hon. Friend at least consult the Secretary of State for Social Services to ascertain whether some scheme can be evolved which will mean that people who are over 60 and unfit will be entitled to retire early?

I understand that some such arrangement is at present available, but that sort of question must be addressed primarily to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to enable men employed in his Department to retire on pension at the same age as women.

All officers employed by my Department are covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme or similar schemes, which do not differentiate for pension purposes between men and women.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if that same excellent principle were applied throughout the employment areas and not merely in the Civil Service, about 750,000 jobs would become available, because older people would leave them and younger people would be able to take their places?

It does not necessarily follow that because retirement is encouraged young people will take the place of those who have retired. Secondly, it is a matter of great expense if it is done by way of the State pension scheme. Thirdly, if it is an occupational pension scheme, it is a matter for negotiation, not direction.

Does the Minister agree that in view of the greater life expectancy of women, especially married women, there is a case for arranging for the retirement of women at the same age as men, and not earlier?

It is undeniable that there are discrepancies and discrimination in the arrangements as between men and women, but in terms of the State pension scheme that is not a matter for which I have to answer; it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the cost of an immediate reduction of the pension age of men to 60 may be prohibitive there is an overwhelming case for a Government scheme to reduce the pensionable age of men to 60 over a period of 10 years? Does he accept that there may also be a case for the selective introduction of retirement at 60 in certain areas now?

A case can be made out for selective treatment. It has been done in the past, usually by selective redundancy schemes in the docks and elsewhere rather than by means of a retirement scheme.

Does the Minister know how many of today's unemployed are over the age of 60?

I cannot give the number without notice, but it is true that unemployment is disproportionately high in the over-55 age group. Not so long ago we were looking at the resources of skilled manpower and trying to fill places by bringing extra manpower into the market. The House voted for a relaxation in the retirement earnings rule, so that people could go back to work. It is not right to seek a short-term solution to the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new jobs have been created and existing jobs saved in Norfolk to date as a direct result of the Government's specific measures over the past six months to alleviate unemployment.

Up to the end of March, 35 jobs have been created in Norfolk as a result of the Manpower Services Commission's job creation programme. Under the schemes administered directly by my Department, 465 jobs in the area have been saved under the temporary employment subsidy scheme and 143 school leavers assisted under the recruitment subsidy scheme.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that, as these figures show, the Government's measures do not really help to solve the employment problems of towns and villages in scattered country areas where small businesses are facing hard times and where there is often no alternative employment, especially for men? Is he also aware that there is great concern in the building industry in Norfolk that there will be much higher unemployment in a few months' time because of the lack of contracts in the pipeline, especially for industrial and commercial building? Will the Minister therefore consider the possibility of urging a redefinition of intermediate and development areas which may help to solve these problems?

I recognise that there are problems of employment in Norfolk, particularly in the rural areas. The Development Commission has a remit to help the small areas affected by depopulation and the other problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I ought to remind him that the unemployment rate in Norfolk at present is 5·8 per cent., which is only a little above the national average. I could not in any way suggest that resources should be diverted from areas which have much greater problems to an area whose unemployment rate is only slightly above national average.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if British nationals are entitled to draw unemployment benefit in the Republic of Ireland.

The Social Security Act 1975 does not permit any person to receive British unemployment benefit in respect of a period during which he is in the Republic of Ireland. Under EEC rules an unemployed British national who goes to the Republic of Ireland in order to seek employment there, may, in certain circumstances, be provided with unemployment benefit by the Republic, at cost to Great Britain, for a period not exceeding three months.

Is it not a disgrace that on the other side of the coin literally hundreds of people can come from the Republic of Ireland to this country and draw large sums in employment benefit? Will the Minister undertake to have this law changed as quickly as possible?

The hon. Gentleman, whose comments I have seen in the Press and heard on radio, seems completely to misunderstand the position. In order to qualify for unemployment benefit, the applicant must first satisfy the contribution conditions; he must sign on at least weekly, and he must be available immediately for work. I have put a letter in the post to the hon. Gentleman so as to dispel some of the ideas that are, perhaps, leading him into this anti-Irish vendetta.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment prospects of those school leavers currently unemployed in obtaining jobs before the end of the year.

It is too early for firm predictions, but there has been a recent increase in the number of jobs available for young people and I hope that this trend will continue. However, there is no cause for complacency, and the Government's anti-unemployment measures are kept under continuous review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, welcome and important as the Government's measures have been, there are still too many school leavers unemployed? There are nearly 2,500 unemployed on Mersey side and 251 in Kirkby, in my constituency. In many ways the damage to their confidence and morale is even more destructive than that which applies to adult workers. Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will take action now to ensure that those school children who leave school this summer will find employment?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend that unemployment for young people and school leavers is particularly corrosive. That is why the Government have paid so much attention to matters such as the expansion of training, the job creation scheme—geared particularly for young people—community industry, which is operating, I think, in my hon. Friend's constituency, and the recruitment subsidy for school leavers. These matters will be kept under review. It looks as though there are signs of improvement in the situation, but we shall keep the matter under constant review.

Does the Minister accept that there is still an insufficient level of understanding between those in education and those in industry of what it is reasonable to require of each other in preparing young people for employment? Has the Minister any steps in mind to improve the situation?

It is quite right to say that far too many young people are leaving school without very high educational qualifications. There is a great lack of vocational training for about 300,000 children who leave school each year. The Government intend to make a statement shortly about new arrangements for vocational preparation for these young people.

Will my hon. Friend recognise, however, that much of the problem lies with his own Department? That is for the simple reason that the number of apprenticeships in skilled training is now decreasing yearly and is running at an all-time low record, because the other side of his Department, for good reasons, is now training adult men for skills that are normally provided by apprentice training organised by employers. Employers now recognise that it is far cheaper to take someone from an adult training centre rather than themselves providing facilities for education and the skill training of young people.

I do not agree that there is a contradiction there. The number of training places has been increased considerably, in terms of both apprenticeship and skillcentre training. One of the problems that we face frequently is not a surplus but a shortage of skilled craftsmen. We are right to continue the thrust on both fronts.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current unemployment levels.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

The fall in unemployment and the increased number of vacancies in March were encouraging, though the level of unemployment is still very high, and the battle against unemployment must continue. There are signs, however, that the world economy is emerging from recession. But the reduction of unemployment in the long term depends upon defeating inflation and improving our competitive performance in world trade.

I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. Does he really think that his Government have honoured their election manifestos in the matter of reducing unemployment? Will he say when he thinks that the level of unemployment will be reduced to the figure of below 600,000, which was the present Government's inheritance from their Conservative predecessors?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. As to honouring our election manifestos, the action that the Government have taken has resulted in unemployment in Britain being at a lower level than that of most comparable countries, and we have done that starting from a much worse balance of trade position than that of most other countries. I am not prepared to give a forecast of the time of achieving a drop in unemployment, but I am prepared to give an assurance that I shall, with those other Ministers primarily concerned in this matter, work to achieve a drop in the figure as swiftly as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me how I shall explain to the unemployed in Birmingham why there is a motion on the Order Paper today which would grant the Leader of the Opposition and four Opposition Whips a £14-a-week salary increase, when one receives over £8,500, which should be frozen, and when all this is during the period of the £6-a-week limit, which was supposed to decrease unemployment?

It seems that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Employment, on being translated to another position, has put down a motion that causes considerable embarrassment to his late Department. I shall have to take the matter up directly with him.

I take my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his well-merited elevation to the position of Secretary of State. Will he take this opportunity to condemn practices that increase unemployment? In particular, will he condemn the practice of Imperial Metal Industries, which is the company which owns Sir W. H. Bailey and Company Limited and which is closing down that factory in Glasgow so that it can transfer work to Manchester?

I certainly deplore transferring work from development areas. I regret to say that the example that the hon. Gentleman has given is not the only one of which I am aware. I am looking into the matter. However, I hope that trade unions will take full advantage of their rights under the Employment Protection Act to consult on the question of redundancy. This, coupled with the increase of temporary employment subsidies, is one of the measures to avoid closures of factories at this stage.

Does the Secretary of State accept that even his modest optimism about the prospects does not bear much relation to the situation in the building industry? This is causing increasing difficulty to supplying firms, such as Crittalls, in my constituency. Given that the public sector clearly will not come to the rescue, will the Secretary of State ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change his attitude towards tax relief on commercial and farm buildings?

Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment are keenly aware of the effect of their policies on employment levels in the building industry. It is one of the matters that we are considering within our overall strategy. I do not believe that the best way to tackle unemployment in the construction industry is by taxation measures.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the long-term employment problems in the regions is caused by the failure of regional policy? Does he further agree that the present policy is far too indiscriminate, with 45 per cent, of the country designated as assisted areas? Does he not think that there is a need for more direct assistance? What pressures have his Department put on the Department of Industry for a thorough review of regional policy?

When there are high levels of unemployment in practically every region in the country—higher than we would wish—it is difficult to argue for greater discrimination. In our examination of unemployment levels in the regions we have found that regional policies have achieved a measure of success, and that the percentage increase in the regions during the present slump is not as high as in previous slumps.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the anticipated increase in the available labour force by 1981.

Projections, on the basis of certain assumptions, were published in my Department's Gazette for December last year and indicated a possible increase in the labour force, excluding students, between 1976 and 1981 of about 750,000, about one-third of whom are men and two-thirds women.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are formidable and that the prospect of absorbing such numbers into manufacturing industry is remote? Is not the answer to turn to the public sector to provide useful and sensible employment for such people?

I agree that it is a large number of people to absorb into employment, but one cannot necessarily relate the increase in the number of people in the labour force to those who choose to be registered for employment. Proposals to cut public expenditure as severely as is suggested by the Opposition are bound to have an effect on employment.

Does the Minister accept that the significant factor is not just the number by which the labour force has increased but the possible decrease in employment in existing industries? Does his Department undertake routine surveys of the projections of declining industries to see how they affect potential future employment

Projections of this kind are published from time to time in the Department of Employment Gazette but, of course, they are always subject to wide margins of error.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many people on the Government Benches think that, in the interests of further and fuller employment, at least a partial reflation of the economy and selective import controls are needed? We see the crocodile tears shed by the Opposition on the question of unemployment, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Draconic cuts which they would like in public expenditure would be bound to lead to massive unemployment?

I accept my hon. Friend's last assumption. But import controls and reflation are matters primarily for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One guarantee of future employment and prosperity is that we should be competitive, reliable and efficient; those factors also have a part to play.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he proposes any new measures to bring down the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

The Government have introduced a number of measures to bring down the level of unemployment, the latest of which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th April.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that when there can be no general reflation, we must rely on selective assistance? Will he consider introducing a selective recruitment scheme under which, in areas in which unemployment is above the national average, cash payments can be paid to employers if they take on extra labour?

I undertake to examine that suggestion. We have introduced a number of measures that are selective between different groups of employers—for example, the recruitment subsidy. I do not believe that measures of this kind can of themselves provide a total solution. At best, they will affect total employment by less than 250,000. For a total solution we must look to competition in industry and Treasury and trading policies, as well as those matters affecting my Department.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we could abolish unemployment completely by offering the unemployed the chance to do community work in return for unemployment benefit? Does he agree that the job creation programme tackles the problems of only a small minority of the unemployed? Is it not the case that if he took up my suggestion we could cut the rate of unemployment at a stroke?

I only wish that we could abolish unemployment at a stroke. There may be a wider rôle for the type of measure suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We are considering the possible scope for further job creation and community industry measures.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of the Opposition to talk of unemployment in this way, because it is their capitalist system which has failed and which is producing unemployment? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real solution is to apply Socialist remedies, including direct investment by the National Enterprise Board, control of the banks, and selective import controls?

The crisis in the capitalist system has a major bearing on the level of unemployment in any mixed economy, including our own. Although the control of imports is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade, it is one in which I have a deep interest because of its direct effects on employment, and therefore I am committed continually to discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the full-blooded Socialist measures advocated by his hon. Friends below the gangway are damaging and make worse the prospects for the future? Would it not be better if the Government gave realistic estimates of future unemployment, rather than the rosy forecasts that they have made?

I want to be as generous as I can to the hon. Gentleman, but his proposition is hypothetical. We have never yet tried full-blooded Socialist measures in this country, but we can be certain that our mixed economy does not protect or guarantee full employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit the banana wharf at Barry Docks to discuss the dock work dispute.

No, Sir. The independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is the appropriate body to give such assistance as may be required by the parties concerned in industrial disputes.

If the Secretary of State will not go to Barry, will he have a word with Mr. Jack Jones and ask him to explain to the banana seven why they have lost their jobs to the dockers, and why the Government are insisting on introducing a Bill to make sure that sort of thing goes on to a much greater extent in the future?

The hon. Gentleman, who serves on the Dock Work Regulation Bill Committee, is aware that the Bill will introduce, in respect of what is defined as dock work, a test that is different from that which applied in the Barry case. That is one of the reasons why we are introducing the Bill—to ensure that difficulties such as those at Barry do not arise again.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has either been deliberately misleading the House and the Dock Work Regulation Bill Committee or he is badly misinformed? The fact is that our members at Barry—members of the Transport and General Workers' Union—accept that the Bill and the existing scheme have nothing to do with the situation at Barry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Geest Industries Limited has made a statement to the union which confirms the statements that I made—

Order. Time for Questions to the Prime Minister is now being taken.

I am aware of the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Transport and General Workers' Union was very conscious at national level of the problem created by the determination shown at Barry, and went to considerable lengths in negotiation to try to safeguard the employment position of those displaced by the decision.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.