asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department intends to take in the light of the document "Towards a Comprehensive Manpower Policy" put out by the Manpower Services Commission.

My Department will continue to collaborate closely with the Manpower Services Commission in developing longer-term manpower policies which support our economic and industrial strategies and which provide workers with the opportunities and services they need in order to lead a satisfying working life.

As it is estimated in the document itself that 1 million new jobs will need to be created between now and 1980, and as there are at present, on the most favourable estimate, only about 80,000 official training places, how can the right hon. Gentleman possibly be satisfied with the Government's efforts to date? Will he also kindly look at the experience of some of the other countries to which Labour Members are often pointing, such as Sweden and West Germany, to see how they do better, and whether there are some lessons for us?

There is no question of the Government being satisfied while we have the present appalling level of unemployment. We are studying not only the suggestions put forward in the report by the Manpower Services Commission—which, incidentally, supports the industrial strategy as a way of dealing effectively with unemployment—but also measures which have been effective in other countries. During the last recess I visited Norway, and I shall be making other visits to talk with Secretaries of State responsible for employment in other countries to see whether we have anything to learn from them, although our recent studies have shown that they may have something to learn from us as well.

Is my right hon. Friend paying particular attention to the problem of the training and employment of girls and women in industry? Is he aware that the decision of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to slash teacher training will, every year, block the way for about 40,000 girls aged 18 or 19 who might reasonably have expected on past experience to go into teacher training courses and will now have to look elsewhere?

I very much agree with the import of my hon. Friend's question, which suggests that this is a very serious training problem. The Training Services Agency has identified this as a high priority area, and through the agency we shall be working on ways of ensuring an increase of training facilities for girls.

Is it not true that the Manpower Services Commission, which is seeking to persuade others to join in the work experience scheme, is prevented, as was reported in The Times yesterday, by the action of Civil Service unions from participating in the scheme itself?

No. My understanding of the situation is that the Manpower Services Commission would like to see a much faster take-up of the work experience opportunities, but it is very satisfied with the quality of the schemes that have now been introduced. If I have any evidence whatsoever of any action on the part of Civil Service unions or any civil servants that would hinder the development of the work experience scheme, which I should like to see going ahead faster, I shall act on it right away.

What research is being done within the right hon. Gentleman's Department on the longer-term problems of finding jobs for school leavers? Will he confirm that some such work is being done in his Department?

Work is being done both in the Department and in the Manpower Services Commission to identify long-term problems of school leavers, in terms of both the demographic factor, which is operating against school leavers at present, and the underlying structural problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions have taken place between representatives of his Department and representatives of Sona Consultants Limited, new owners of the Moderna plant in West Yorkshire, who have declared its closure and the redundancy of its 332 employees.

Officials from my Department's regional office met representatives of Sona Consultants Ltd. on 15th December and were contacted by them on 18th January. The matters discussed on these occasions included the assistance available under the temporary employment subsidy scheme, the provisions of the Employment Protection Act relating to the handling of redundancies, the implications of the Redundancy Payments Act and the services available from the Employment Services Agency and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. In addition, officials of my Department arranged for ACAS to contact Sona Consultants to explain the requirements of the Contracts of Employment Act. I also met, together with Ministers of the Department of Industry, this morning, a very useful deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), which included Mr. Bowe from Sona Consultants.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if this closure occurs unemployment in the locality will increase to above 20 per cent.? Is he satisfied with the co-ordination of Government Departments in this matter, and does he agree that, as this area has borne the redundancy brunt of the wool textile scheme, there is a positive need for job creation in West Yorkshire to take account of the redundancies that have resulted directly from that scheme?

We cannot quantify precisely the levels of unemployment that would be reached, although I certainly agree that there would be a substantial increase in the level. Certainly my Department will do all it can to ensure, through the Manpower Services Commission, that job training is provided for those declared redundant.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

The number of persons registered as unemployed in Great Britain on 13th January was 1,390,218 or 6 per cent. of all employees.

This is an increase of 74,218 on the December estimate. When account is taken of seasonal factors, the level of unemployment, including school leavers, stood at 1,291,900, or 5·6 per cent.—an increase of 14,900 on the December seasonally adjusted estimate.

The situation is therefore still a matter of serious concern. A substantial fall in unemployment must depend, among other things, on an increase in the volume of world trade and of our share in it. The level of unemployment, however, would have undoubtedly been higher without the special measures introduced by the Government to mitigate its effects, which, at a rough estimate, are at present supporting about 220,000 jobs or training places. In addition, a substantial number of jobs is being supported through projects introduced by the present Administration under the Industry Act 1972.

We also recognise that unemployment is not solely a United Kingdom problem and have kept it before our EEC partners as a matter of the highest priority so that concerted action can be taken.

To what extent is it true to say that the Government have now been officially advised that unemployment may reach 2 million? In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, is this not a tragic situation, which both could and should have been avoided?

It certainly is a tragic situation. As to the possible rise in unemployment, so far as we can calculate the domestic factors affecting it, I should not expect to see a rise to 2 million. However, since this is partly the effect of a most serious world recession, there are clearly external factors on which the figures of unemployment at the end of this year, and even at the end of next year, will substantially depend.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the activities of the Government in trying to reduce unemployment, but is it not clear that the measures that have been proposed or even carried out by my right hon. Friend are totally insufficient and that what is needed is a public works programme, is cut in hours, no further cuts in public expenditure and a serious effort by the Government to begin to bring down unemployment? I said the other day that it is intolerable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] If Tory Members had the amount of unemployment in their constituencies that I have in mine, they would never allow this House to go on—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. I gave him a good run.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that public expenditure programmes can add considerably to the measures introduced by the Secretary of State for Industry and those which I and other Ministers in my Department have introduced in connection with the solution of unemployment, but I contend that the present Government have sustained as high a public expenditure programme as was possible in the run-in to the present recession. The extent to which it can be sustained or expanded in future will depend to no small extent on what international agreement we can reach. The ability to expand world trade is at least as much in the hands of those countries with balance of payments surpluses—if not more so—as it is in the hands of our present Government with a balance of payments deficit.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the announcement of those figures, if his own party were in opposition, would have this House in permanent uproar? What co-ordination was there between his Department and the Department of Education and Science before his right hon. Friend announced the rundown of teacher training colleges—such as the Rolleo College, Exmouth—in areas where these closures could double or even treble the local level of unemployment?

I certainly agree that had a Conservative Secretary of State for Employment been announcing such unemployment figures there would have been an uproar in the House; there is no doubt about that.

On the second question, about the coordination among Ministers in the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science, there has been a fair degree of co-ordination. I have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to discuss the part that the teacher training programme has to play in employment. There are still certain areas of teacher shortage in some specialist skills, and we are examining ways in which we may be able to deal with that problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deplorable and continuing levels of high unemployment are a clear indictment of our capitalist system, and that we are unlikely to see much lowering of these figures through increases in the United Kingdom's trade? Is it not now essential to turn our backs on the kind of capitalist policies advocated by Conservative Members and to turn to Socialist policies? Will my right hon. Friend give us, if he has it, some indication of the level of vacancies? I suggest that at the moment there are about 13 or 14 unemployed workers chasing each vacancy.

To take the last part of that question first, we have certainly been examining, over a period, the vacancies that occur. In some cases those vacancies even now reflect certain skill shortages. That is something that we have to deal with. So far as the capitalist system is involved in the present level of unemployment—I agree that it is, to a considerable degree—representatives of this Government and of other Governments meeting to examine the problems of recession will be talking about ways of interfering in that system in the interests of better employment prospects.

Is not talk of the possibility of 2 million unemployed a savage indictment not of capitalism but of this Government's policies? Will the Government now begin to come clean and make it absolutely clear that there is now no possibility of reaching the target of reducing unemployment to 700,000 by 1979? Is it not clear, too, that the road to the hell of high unemployment is paved with Socialist ministerial good intentions?

The hon. Gentleman is not very bright.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that the hon. Gentleman is not very bright. I think that he is bright enough to indict the employment situation on the actual figures, without speculating about a level of 2 million. But it is certainly not the case that unemployment in this country is due principally to domestic policies. It is clear from any objective examination of the unemployment increase throughout Europe in recent months that the overall world recession is a major factor in our unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the fact that of the former employees of British Railways dismissed for refusing to join a trade union, six had between 13 and 19 years' service, five between 29 and 39 years' service and two more than 39 years' service, he remains satisfied with the operation of the law relating to closed shops.

Yes, Sir.

Is it not shameful that employees of a nationalised industry, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to the industry, should be dismissed for refusing to join a trade union? Should not the founders of the trade union movement and the Government be deeply ashamed of the new tyranny that is building up in that movement, whereby it is a precondition of employment that a person should join a trade union?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that, somehow, there should be different rules for the conduct of industrial relations as between the public and the private sectors. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions that these are matters—this was the situation prior to the Industrial Relations Act—where the parties themselves are responsible for the way in which they are conducted.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what causes annoyance to many trade union members are the free riders who are prepared to take advantage of all the benefits that are received from trade unions without paying contributions towards their upkeep?

That is an important factor to which Opposition Members must have regard.

Is it not the case that at least one of the employees of British Rail—namely, Mr. Webster, a constituent of mine—would have to sign what would be an untrue declaration in order to join the appropriate union? Is it not the case that he would have to sign a declaration to the effect that he approves of the aims and objectives of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association? Does the hon. Gentleman justify a rule that permits such a man to be thrown out of work after 16 years when he acts on grounds of conscience?

The hon. Gentleman talks of grounds of conscience—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will permit me, I shall answer. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act makes specific provision for a person to go before an industrial tribunal where his dismissal is related to his objection to joining a union on the grounds of having religious conviction. However, we have debated in the House the wide scope of a provision such as the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. What we have done is to restore the law to the position that obtained before the disastrous Industrial Relations Act.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is never any sign of conscience on the part of such people when it comes to taking the wages that have been negotiated by other people? Does he agree that they never think of paying money to get those wages negotiated, and that that is the fundamental and real reason that they take the free ride?

There is much in what my hon. Friend says.

Is it not naïve for the Minister to suggest that there is no extra influence that he can bring to bear on nationalised industries? Does he believe that the present policy being pursued by British Rail is a proper one for them to pursue?

I say again that it would be quite wrong for the Government or anyone else to seek to lay down a way of conducting industrial relations in the public sector which differs from the way in which industrial relations are conducted in the private sector. Clearly we must have universal rules for the game. We have withdrawn the statutory obstacles that the Industrial Relations Act introduced, with disastrous consequences in the case of Mr. Goad. If the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) were here, I am sure that he would acknowledge that it is quite wrong to believe that the taking of statutory powers such as is suggested could have other than disastrous consequences, as in the case of the Industrial Relations Act, and be other than detrimental and harmful to industrial relations. I repeat that it is our policy to leave these matters to the good judgment and sense of the parties involved.

is it not a fact that doctors, lawyers and all the other professions are in a closed shop? [Interruption.] Oh, yes, they are. Why is it that about 3 million people in two or three unions are constantly being attacked because one or two of them expect to get all the benefits but are not prepared to make any contributions? What about the doctors?

I shall not comment on the doctors or on any other profession. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members will gear their mouths to their brains they may learn something. When it introduced its Industrial Relations Act even the Conservative Party had to recognise that the closed shop was essential to the conduct of industrial relations in some sectors of industry and commerce. Therefore, in its Industrial Relations Act it made special provision for some groups to be treated separately and in a discriminatory fashion. Very often it was the professional groups that were given a shield and protection by the Industrial Relations Act, in a way that was denied to the majority of the industrial work force.

In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action is being taken against those employers who have been found to have underpaid workers following investigations made by officers of his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take as a result of the revelations by the Wages Inspectorate about employers under-paying certain categories of low-paid workers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure that not less than minimum statutory wages are paid to workers in employment covered by wages council settlements.

Employers found to have underpaid workers are required to pay any arrears calculated to be due to the workers concerned and prosecutions are considered in appropriate cases. I am considering the extent to which further blitzes will take place this year. I have examined prosecution policy carefully and while in general I believe it is right I am asking the Wages Inspectorate to arrange inspection priorities so that follow-up visits are made to employers found to be under-paying wages. I also propose to discuss problems of enforcement with chairmen of wages councils and both sides of industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread appreciation of the action of the Inspectorate in pursuing those employers who have consistently underpaid their work force? Does he agree that a few prosecutions might well encourage employers who do not pay enough to honour their wage agreements? Does he anticipate that he will receive support from Opposition Members who are apparently so enthusiastic about law and order?

First, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Wages Inspectorate. I pay tribute to its co-operation and hard work during the present campaign. It is only fair to point out that the policies that we are pursuing have been pursued by successive Governments. Perhaps the difference is that we are really trying to make them stick. Although we prosecute, I must tell my hon. Friend that there are difficulties, especially in obtaining witnesses. For example, a number of serious cases of underpayment involving substantial numbers of workers in the catering industry have recently been discovered, but despite its best efforts the Inspectorate has been unable to obtain witnesses who are prepared to give evidence in court.

In view of recent revelations by the Low Pay Unit and by newspapers such as the Daily Record, about the plight of low-paid workers, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) in urging the Minister to prosecute more employers. Although I agree that the best way for workers to ensure a fair wage is by joining a good trade union, may I ask my hon. Friend to investigate claims in yesterday's Scotsman that about 20,000 of Scotland's lowest paid workers have lost about £2 million over the past year because Scrooge-type employers are too mean to agree to the amalgamation of the Scottish and English wages councils, which would help to get rid of some of the unfair regional disparities?

I think that my initial answer indicated that we are taking further action, which should lead to additional prosecutions where they are justified. As for the distinction between England and Scotland, we are considering in certain cases the possibility of the amalgamation of wages councils, but I must point out that they are independent bodies and not subject to Government control in respect of the rates that they set.

Does this not reveal a scrounging attitude among certain employers over their labour, and are they not imposing on the good nature of employees in the absence of strong labour organisations?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have condemned this situation on past occasions. I have outlined action that we intend to take, which we hope will deal with the problem.

Is the Minister aware of the Craik case, reported in the Daily Mail last week? Will not enforcement of a minimum wage policy lead to the unemployment of many thousands of people, and will it not also cause the closure of many small firms? What is the sense in that?

The gentleman concerned in the case to which reference is made seemed to be inviting some subsequent action. It would not be proper for me to comment on the details of the case, except to say that if somebody throws down the gauntlet he should not be surprised if it is picked up.

On the general point, the hon. Gentleman should make up his mind whether he agrees with a statutory minimum wage—a policy supported by successive Governments. If he believes that there should be a different policy he should say so, and get the support of his hon. Friends.

May I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far, which has helped individual constituents of mine, who are most thankful to the Government? Is not the whole wages council set-up so archaic and complicated that the vast majority of employees do not know what the minimum wage is? Is it not time for a major reform and for the introduction of some understandable, sensible wages legislation?

There are several points involved in that supplementary question. The Employment Protection Act has had a considerable effect on the overall situation. I appreciate that there are difficulties in understanding some wages council orders. I have taken some action, which I hope will bear fruit and achieve some simplification. I think that that is all I can say now about this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what numbers the Government's special measures have reduced unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what numbers the Government's special measures have reduced unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what numbers the Government's special measures have reduced unemployment.

With permission, I shall answer Questions 6, 7 and 8 together.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will find that the three Questions that are to be taken together are in completely similar form and that there are a further three Questions that contain exactly the same wording. Is it not an abuse of Question Time when six Questions are tabled in exactly the same words?

We usually take points of order after Question Time.

Then I shall raise the matter then.

I would add that I cannot interpret the moving of the spirit among hon. Members.

It is a fiddle.

At present the Government's special measures are supporting over 220,000 jobs or training places, and unemployment would be higher by that number but for the measures.

Will the Minister confirm in rather clearer language the fact that after two and a half years of Socialist Government unemployment has risen from 700,000 to 1,700,000? What action does he intend to take—other than to resign?

The rise in unemployment to which the hon. Gentleman refers caused us to introduce measures that have provided 220,000 jobs and training places. These measures will have to be developed, and are being re-examined so that we may meet the challenge posed by this serious problem. We shall seek to resolve these problems in more constructive ways than the methods indicated in the Opposition's criticism. We shall continue in office and seek to solve the problem.

Does the Minister accept that many of us agreed with his earlier comments about the shortage of skilled workers, particularly in city areas? Does he think that some of the immense sums now being used to create short-term and almost false employment would be much better used to help the small businesses that are being severely hit in urban areas?

I accept that there is a special problem in relating training to skilled shortages, but the situation sometimes cannot be foreseen. That is why we have included many special measures of support for apprenticeships in industry. We have sustained about 45,000 apprenticeships and have maintained the level of skill training as a normal incidence of activity throughout the period of recession. We are also developing, through our Training Opportunities Scheme, a further 80,000 training places per year. That is a measure of the importance that we attach to the problem.

How does the Minister explain the sizeable number of unfilled jobs in deprived city and urban areas despite the high unemployment figures recorded in those areas? Does that not illustrate a crazy system, and are not the right hon. Gentleman's special measures ineffective to deal with the problem in an urban sense?

If I were to answer that supplementary question fully, I should require an hour-long speech to do so. There are myriad reasons for so many unfilled vacancies, and a governmental committee is now examining the special problems of urban areas. Among the reasons are the wages paid for some of the jobs that are vacant and transport problems involving travel to some of the jobs that are unfilled. The problem also embraces special skill requirements in certain jobs and the fact that jobs sometimes occur in areas that are a long way from those places where unemployment is highest. In my constituency there are vacancies for 200 skilled men, and even with the aid of our employment transfer subsidy scheme we shall have difficulty in filling those vacancies. There are a vast number of reasons for the present situation. The problem will continue to be given priority.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it had not been for the temporary employment subsidy, a large proportion of the textile and footwear industries in the North-West would have disappeared? Is he also aware that the unions in that area are concerned about the continuation of the subsidy? When will he make a statement to the effect that the subsidy will continue beyond the present termination day?

I am aware of the vast number of jobs that now depend on the payment of the temporary employment subsidy, and of the concern of the unions. For these reasons I used part of the additional money allocated following the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, concerning the arrangements with the IMF, to continue the temporary employment subsidy scheme until April. Between now and then we are examining that scheme and others to determine whether they should be continued or whether alternative measures are needed to deal with the problem.

Does not the Minister agree that many of the jobs created do not include a real element of training, especially those provided by local authorities? What is the Manpower Services Commission doing to improve the training element in those new jobs?

The work experience scheme is specifically related to training and the Manpower Services Commission examines the training requirements of every scheme. Over a period of time the job creation scheme in respect of training has gradually been improved and many of the better schemes now contain a very good training element. The fact that the MSC approves schemes usually reflects the need for youth employment in an area. We prefer schemes containing a higher training element to be sponsored.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many who have benefited from the Government's special measures will note the persistent demands by the Opposition for further savage cuts in public expenditure? Will he estimate the numbers that will have to be added to dole queues before those hon. Gentlemen are satisfied?

It is beyond my capabilities to judge what would satisfy the Opposition in terms of public expenditure cuts, or where they would draw the limits. I know that they would draw the line in a different place from that indicated by my hon. Friends in the recent defence debate. I believe that the measures introduced by my Department should receive overwhelming support in all parts of the House, since they will have benefits in regions where this would not otherwise be possible and will sustain employment much more effectively than with other forms of public expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his policy toward the operation of the closed shop in industry.

As we have said before on many occasions, the Government's policy is one of neutrality, and that policy is reflected in current legislation.

Does it square with the Minister's idea of social justice that Mr. Clifford Darbyshire should be sacked by his trade union for criticising the output of his fellow workers, making it virtually impossible for him ever to get another job? Is the Labour idea of the sanction against free speech perpetual unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman is scarcely qualified to lecture me on social justice. He should know that in the case to which he referred the company itself has said that the reasons given in the Press and reflected in his remarks are not the reasons for the dismissal at all.

Is the Minister aware that his attitude of neutrality on this issue is unacceptable from a Government who should, in a democracy, be committed to individual freedom? Is he aware that the attitude of neutrality towards enforcement of the closed shop is about as unacceptable to us as the attitude of neutrality towards Nazism.

The abandonment of that neutrality could only lead down the disastrous path of the Industrial Relations Act. Opposition Members seem incapable of learning from the most bitter experience. The Industrial Relations Act led to the loss of 24 million working days' production in 1972, yet hon. Members opposite want us to return to that sort of situation. It seems that they have learned nothing from having had their fingers burned then.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied in pursuance of his industrial relations policy that employers accept the need to recognise trade unions.

I think that most employers now accept the need to give serious consideration to the recognition of independent trade unions to which their employees belong. I hope that recent legislation, in particular the recognition provisions of the Employment Protection Act, will encourage the extension of effective collective bargaining into areas from which independent trade unions have hitherto been excluded.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in certain cities Trust Houses Forte is depriving the people working in its hotels of the opportunity of becoming members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and that one of the directors of the company is none other than the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), the Shadow Employment Minister, who is trying to woo the trade unions to his side and is urging Conservatives to join trade unions? Is it not time that the Department of Employment saw to it that decent wages were paid to these people and that they were allowed the opportunity to join trade unions? In the meantime, should not Ministers and officials of the Department black the Trust Houses Forte hotels?

Almost certainly, many of the employees will be within the scope of wages councils. My hon. Friend will have heard what the Under-Secretary of State had to say about the measures being taken on that front. The rôle played by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is for him to answer to and not for me. If what my hon. Friend has said is correct—and I have no doubt that it is—

And St. John-Stevas, as well.

—I hope that they will bring their influence to bear and make their actions in the company consistent with what they have said in this House about the need for strong trade unions.

Does the Minister appreciate that recognition of unions by employers does not require an employer to make an agreement that existing employees shall be sacked if they will not join a union? Does he agree that British Rail employees sacked in these circumstances would not have been sacked if they had been working for other nationalised industries, because most of those industries would not make that agreement?

The hon. Gentleman must be incapable of understanding plain language. I have explained this matter several times in the last half hour. I have made it clear that what has happened in British Rail is that the closed shop that existed before the Industrial Relations Act has been reactivated.

In view of the disputes arising in large factories and other concerns over the question of safety regulations, in pursuing his industrial relations policy when is my hon. Friend going to introduce the health and safety regulations? Does he not feel that they will make a contribution to better industrial relations?

Presumably my right hon. Friend is referring to the regulations providing for the appointment of work-people's safety representatives and safety committees. I am glad to say that the Government have approved the commission's proposals and that the regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, to come into operation on 1st October 1978.

Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is as wrong in the charges he made earlier as he is so often on other occasions? If we can turn to more serious matters, will the Minister direct his attention to the method by which the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service carries out its survey of the wishes and desires of employees when recognition is at issue, because there is growing criticism about the fairness and reasonableness of the methods employed?

I totally refute what the hon. Gentleman said about the fairness with which the ACAS is conducting inquiries in Section 11 cases. None of those criticisms has come to me directly, and I know of no reason why they should be considered. The way in which the ACAS is carrying out its duties is reflected in the enormous improvement in industrial relations over the past year.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 1st February.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with the Leader of the House about the Scotland and Wales Bill? If he does, will he arrange for a statement to be made afterwards clarifying the Government's position on the question of representation of Wales and Scotland in this House?

The question of the representation of Scotland and Wales in this House is not related to the Scotland and Wales Bill. It can be settled only by this House, and, in accordance with precedent, would be settled only following a Speaker's Conference. I have no doubt that some hon. Members might want to use arguments deriving from the passage of the Scotland and Wales Bill to support such a change, but that would be an entirely separate matter.

As one of the Prime Minister's engagements on Tuesdays is to answer Questions in this House, will he take the opportunity to resolve an apparent inconsistency between his statement on the Bullock Report and the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade? Will he say whether, in his view, he has an obligation under the social contract, regardless of consultation, to legislate for the central proposal of the Bullock Report, which is to put trade union nominees on to company boards?

The obligation that the Government entered into with the people at the last General Election was to introduce a measure of industrial democracy. That we shall do, and, as we have already said, we shall enter into those discussions, as might be expected, on the basis of the majority report of Bullock. [Interruption.] There would be a great deal of complaint if one normally entered discussions on the basis of a minority report. There will now be a period of consultation, and the Government's legislative proposals will in due course be laid before the House. There is no conflict between anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has said and what I have said on this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman's proposals are not for industrial democracy but for industrial apartheid. Has he decided to exclude the right of non-trade union members either to choose who goes on the board or to be chosen to go on the board themselves?

When the right hon. Lady refers to what she calls "the right hon. Gentleman's proposals", it shows clearly that she has neither read nor understood what has been said so far. If she disagrees, perhaps she will tell me why. The only proposals so far have come from the Bullock Committee in the form of a majority report and a minority report. The Government have said that they will enter into consultations on the basis of the majority report. When we have had those consultations, we shall bring forward our legislative proposals. I hope that the right hon. Lady can understand that it is a perfectly simple proposition. With regard to her particular phrases, I would welcome it if on some occasions she would condemn apartheid in the country where it really occurs.

But the Secretary of State for Trade has said that he is consulting on the basis of the minority report as well. Is that so, or is it not?

The Government's consultations are on the basis of the majority report. I have received a letter from the CBI in which it indicates that it will want to put forward certain proposals to me. It may well want to discuss the minority report. We shall, of course, be ready to discuss the minority report and, indeed, any other ideas that may come forward. That is what consultation is about.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to call on the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and tell him that the Government have decided to bring in the early implementation of the safety representative provisions after all? Does my right hon. Friend agree that any serious extension of industrial democracy also depends on the implementation of these regulations?

It is not often that I can give an answer that satisfies my hon. Friend, but in case she was not present earlier I can tell her that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment announced that the Government will bring forward the health and safety regulations forthwith to be implemented on 1st October 1978. Of course, if voluntary arrangements are made earlier that will be so much the better. There is nothing to prevent that from happening, once the regulations are on the statute book. With regard to the connection with industrial democracy, I also agree with my hon. Friend that this is part of industrial democracy and should be seen as such.

asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Industry.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 20th January.

With phase 3 of the Pay Code now being discussed, does the Prime Minister agree that higher wages can be financed only out of higher production? With the latest available production index at 102·6, compared with 103·3 in February 1974, during the so-called three-day working week recession—about which Labour Members complained so bitterly—will the right hon. Gentleman say how high he will put that on the list of the Secretary of State's biographical notes when, in due course, the Prime Minister fires him later this summer?

I shall take the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As he probably knows, manufacturing industry production is already starting to move up slowly. I entirely agree that until we have got a higher level of production we cannot do many of the things that we wish to do, including increasing public expenditure on necessary things like housing and health.

What is important is that we should not resume a higher level of production if it will mean higher inflation. That is the problem with which the Chancellor and others are wrestling at the moment. That is why the Government's efforts are bent on export-led growth. I am glad to be able to tell the House that our exports in 1976 were 12 per cent. higher in volume in the last quarter than the average in 1975.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that industrial production will increase when accidents decrease? As Question No. 21, in my name, was not reached, will he confirm that it was a slip of the tongue when he said, earlier, that the reactivation of the health and safety provisions will take place in 1978? Did my right hon. Friend not mean 1977?

No, it was not a slip of the tongue. I said 1978 and I meant 1978.

My right hon. Friend must be joking.

I am not joking at all. I promise my hon. Friend that I do not joke about these matters. The matter has been carefully discussed, and the regulations will be laid immediately. They will come into legal force on 1st October 1978, but it will be for employers and trade unions, if they wish—and a number will wish to do so—to introduce them earlier. My understanding is that they will want to get on with it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the abolition of the regional employment premium, without notice and consultation, is causing repercussions within Scottish industry and is affecting jobs? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the premium has been retained in Northern Ireland and why these changes are made without either planning agreements or any other sort of consultation?

These matters have been debated on previous occasions and I have nothing to add to what has been said before. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, nor is there much evidence, that this is having a profound effect on industry. In many cases we must be able to make changes from time to time in order to ensure that the level and direction of Government support is applied where it gives greatest benefit. The regional employment premium was a very successful medium about 10 years ago, but had begun to outlive its usefulness because the amount of the premium was so small in relation to wages.

By contrast, some of the instruments that our predecessors provided and some that we are providing are enabling us to direct assistance where it is really needed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is by far the better way of doing it.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the great virtue of the regional employment premium was that it discriminated in favour of those parts of the country with chronic, deep and long-term weaknesses in industrial terms? Both the CBI and the TUC have made representations to the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends asking for a reversal of this policy so that we can encourage a shake-out of industry in order to provide new jobs for people who have been waiting for them for decades.

Yes, but the nature and type of unemployment has changed since REP was introduced about 12 years ago. Some of our large cities, including the inner cities—as I have seen for myself—have problems that are equal to those in the development areas. It is for this reason that we must keep up to date in the way in which we use Government assistance.

How does the Prime Minister explain the scandalous fact that since March 1975 industrial production in two out of every three months under a Socialist Government has been lower than during the three-day working week at the time of the miners' strike? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman changed some of his Socialist priorities?

I can only say that after careful study I can see nothing better than the policy that we are following in order to try to overcome inflation and increase exports. In their secret hearts Members of the Opposition know that.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the current dispute at the BBC, where the Executive Committee of the NUJ has tried to impose a strike on the unwilling majority of NUJ members who are affiliated to the TUC? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that the opportunity of a ballot be offered to workers, be it on the question of trade union membership or the closed shop? Will he take this matter up with the TUC and see if it will agree to include in future, as a recommendation to the member unions, the right to ballot on all these questions?

I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not want to give a reply this afternoon. With regard to the dispute between the BBC and the journalists, I believe that I am right in saying that this has now gone to ACAS. If so, ACAS should be allowed to arbitrate or conciliate on the matter, as seems to be necessary.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC will he tell it that he prefers the views of his own Secretary of State, who, after all, is accountable to this House, and who seems to be veering towards the minority report, rather than the views of Mr. Len Murray, who does not even seem to speak for the TUC now?

It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman allowed us to begin the process of consultation. If we were to announce our decisions forthwith there would be an awful howl from the Opposition. What we are doing is to announce the basis on which we shall consult. In due course, if the House will give us the time and the opportunity, we shall come forward with our proposals.

May I make a helpful suggestion to the Prime Minister? When he next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the proposition that wage settlements in the major public sector industries should all be arrived at on one day—in other words, synchronised—to avoid the damage done by the leapfrogging of wage settlements?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that he heard what the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said. For myself, I can see great practical difficulties, however desirable this might be in theory. If we could work towards it, I should want to encourage it, but I do not think that it is likely to happen in next year's wage round.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he discuss his recent welcome statements about the redevelopment of our inner cities? Is he aware that it would be possible to redevelop a great deal of East End dockland without disadvantage to the development areas and without increasing Government expenditure, simply by moving some of the development capital from the South-East into the East London area and away from the new towns? Is he aware, further, that if he answers this question and it is published in the local Stratford Express, it will be printed in Milton Keynes?

That is a great temptation to answer it. But we had a very useful discussion on this matter last weekend at the local government conference of the Labour Party. There is growing concern about the problem of our inner cities. I repeat what I have said already. As soon as resources become available, this is one of the priority problems that we must tackle. But we have to make resources available. The Government find themselves under considerable pressure from a great many sides to reduce public expenditure. That is what we have done. But we must deal with this problem as soon as we can.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is about Questions, and I raise it in an endeavour to assist the Chair. As so often happens, Questions to the Prime Minister today have been concerned with what he does on a certain day or with a meeting with the TUC but, in fact, have covered a whole series of subjects hardly related to the original Questions. Would you consider referring this difficulty to the Sessional Procedure Committee so that we might make more sense of the types of Question which are put to the Prime Minister?

The matter has already been referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, and I am sure that what the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said will have been noted.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed from today's Order Paper that the second item of business concerns an Import Duties Order which increases the import duties on certain foods. A number of hon. Members will want to vote against it, obviously, because we do not want the cost of food to be increased. I also notice that, at the commencement of Public Business, the House is to deal with another Statutory Instrument under Standing Order No. 73A, whereas the Import Duties Order is not to be taken until after debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill which, as rumour has it, may be in the early or not so early hours of the morning.

Could you advise me whether it would be possible for the Leader of the House to withdraw the Import Duties Order which is due for consideration at that time and to put it down again tomorrow in order to take it at the commencement of Public Business? It seems to be an extreme example of masochism to take it at the time of night proposed at present.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. However ingenious it may be, the procedure suggested by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) would be inconvenient since I understand that the Prayer in respect of that Order would be out of time tomorrow.

May I also draw to your attention the fact that, when discussions took place on a similar matter on 22nd March 1973, as reported in column 689 of Hansard, the then Leader of the House said that when instruments or documents went upstairs under Standing Order No. 73A they would be voted on forthwith at the commencement of Public Business at half-past three? As far as I am aware, that practice has never been followed, to the detriment of Back Benchers of this House. I ask that, if it is possible, this matter be looked at by you with a possible reference to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the risk of appearing to enter any dispute between the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—I should not wish to do that—I do not believe that the previous statement by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), when he was Leader of the House, was really a precedent in the matter. What we have done is to put down this motion to try to meet the wishes of my hon. Friends. I agree that we have to try to deal with these matters in a better way in the future. But we have sought to give the House the opportunity to vote for which we were asked.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quite apart from the precedents, is not it very inconvenient for everyone if a Division on an important matter of taxation has to take place at three or four o'clock in the morning?

The House has heard the Lord President. All that I can say is that the placing of business on the Order Paper is not a matter for me. I am quite sure that everyone will be here at the appropriate time.