§ 6. Mr. Crouchasked the Secretary of State for Employment why a skilled craftsman in a trade in which there is a 231 serious shortage should be offered a Government retraining course in another skilled trade.
§ Mr. GoldingI am informed by the Manpower Services Commission—MSC—that the aims of the training opportunities scheme—TOPS—were established in 1972 in "Training for the Future". This proposed that TOPS should be open to, among others, people who wished to change their occupations, perhaps because they had not had the chance to acquire a skill after completing other full time education, or they wanted to make a career change. The aim of TOPS remains the same as it was before 1974.
§ Mr. CrouchI accept the advantages and high ideals of TOPS and the work of the Manpower Services Commission. Does the Minister agree, however, that it is a waste of taxpayers' money to offer retraining as a bricklayer to a joiner when there is already a shortage of joiners? Will the Minister accept that industry could be thrown into confusion if it were to lose craftsmen who go off to train in another craft?
§ Mr. GoldingI presumed that this issue had been settled by the last Conservative Government. If a joiner has decided to pack in his trade it makes more sense to train him as a bricklayer than to allow him to leave and go into an unskilled occupation.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisIs it not right that if a skilled miner wishes to throw up his job at £50 to £80 a week and train to be a company director at £200 to £300 a week he should be allowed to progress upwards? Obviously, even the tax-free perks would be more than he earns in the mine.
§ Mr. GoldingThe answer to that is "Yes". However, as a representative craftsman, I could not say who had the higher status—the joiner or the bricklayer.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Mitchell.
§ Mr. CrouchOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot call the hon. Member once the Adjournment notice has been given.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rose on a point of order. I shall hear the hon. Member after questions.
§ Later—
Mr. R. C. MitchellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer you back to question No. 6 on the Order Paper. When you called me to ask a supplementary question the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rose to his feet and made the ritual statement about being dissatisfied with the answer to the question and gave notice that he would seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment. You then said, Mr. Speaker, that because he had done that you could not call me to ask a supplementary question.
This matter must be within your discretion, because if it were not any hon. Member could rise quickly after he had heard the reply to his supplementary question and block any further supplementary questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is quite right. From time to time, hon. Members have done exactly what he has said. I recall an occasion on which I had been called to ask a supplementary question and the Member who asked the original question gave notice that he would seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I could not pursue my question I am in line, therefore, with long established precedent in this House.