§ Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if, in the light of the provisions of section 11(4) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, he will exercise his powers under section 12(b) of that Act and direct the commission to rescind its instructions to the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive that, in the particular case of Crown employees, individuals who contravene the provisions of the Health and 32W number of places available and throughput of trainees in 1977 at each of the skill-centres in the United Kingdom and the in-training wastage rates and employment placement rates, respectively, either for each centre or in total.
§ Mr. GoldingI am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the information requested is not obtainable other than at disproportionate cost, but the MSC has supplied the following details concerning skillcentres in Great Britain; skillcentres in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:
Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 are not to be prosecuted;
(2) if he is aware of the instructions issued by the Health and Safety Commission concerning the prosecution of individual Crown employees who contravene the various sections of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; and if he has given his approval to those instructions;
(3) how many persons have not been prosecuted for criminal offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 33W 1974 as a result of instructions given by the Health and Safety Commission that individual Crown employees are not to be prosecuted for contraventions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
§ Mr. John GrantThe chairman of the Health and Safety Commission informs me that the Commission has not issued such instructions. Under the Act the sanction of criminal prosecution cannot be used against the Crown as an employer, and for this reason the Health and Safety Executive gave an assurance in July 1975 to the staff side of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service that it will not prosecute an individual civil servant in substitution for action against his Department. It would only prosecute a Crown employee in circumstances where it would prosecute an individual employed person outside
Year Cash increase New minimum Percentage increase Remarks £ £ £ 1973 … 1.90 16.90 12.7 1974 (August) … 2.25 19.15 13.3 Maximum allowable under S.I. 1973/1785 para. 118. 1974 (December) … 4.40 23.55 23.0 Cost of living addition. 1975 … 3.45 27.00 14.6 1976 (29th July to 5th October) … 2.50 29.50 9.3 Top-up to maximum under Phase 1. 1976 (from 6th October) … 2.50 32.00 8.5 Phase 2. 1977 … 4.00 36.00 12.5 Phase 3. Since the proceedings of a wages council are confidential to the council, information on voting cannot be given.
§ Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the independent members of the Retail Furnishing and Allied Trades Wages Council, and how long each has served.
§ Mr. John GrantFollowing is the information:
Mr. W. Monaghan (Chairman) appointed January 1967.
Mr. A. D. Airth (Deputy Chairman) appointed October 1964.
Mrs. B. M. D. Smith appointed August 1972.
§ Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Employment if, before appointing persons as independent members of wages councils, he ascertains their level of income.
§ Mr. John GrantNo.
§ Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of
34Wthe Civil Service. Statistics are not available showing the number of occasions on which the Crown would have been prosecuted, although the Commission has quoted some examples to me.