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

At 8 February, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,387,761. These figures are far too high. In order to reduce unemployment we have been reviewing our programme on special measures for 1979–80 and have reached decisions on some of the schemes. The Manpower Services Commission's youth opportunities programme will be expanded from 80,000 to 100,000—120,000 filled places, the community industry scheme for unemployed young people from 5,500 to 7,000 filled places and the specal temporary employment programme for the long-term unemployed from 25,000 to 30,000–35,000 filled places. We intend, subject to consultation with the TUC and CBI and the approval of the House, to replace the temporary employment subsidy, which closes for applications on 31 March, with a national scheme under the Employment Subsidies Act to support short-time working as an alternative to redundancies, which will operate until the proposed new statutory scheme is introduced. We also propose to introduce as soon as possible for the private sector an additional scheme under which a labour subsidy related to wage levels could be made available in some restructuring situations where the object is to preserve jobs which would otherwise dis appear. The job release scheme will continue in the year from 1 April.

Too long.

Order. I was informed that the answer was likely to be long. I hope that answers will be shorter on other questions.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am grateful for his statement, which was one-third of the length of some questions from the Conservative Benches? Will be also accept that there is a profound disagreement among a large section of Labour Members on our general policy on employment? Will be further accept that due to the Common Market dumping policy on special steels, there is a grave danger of many thousands of workers becoming unemployed? Will be discuss that with the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry? It is killing massive trades all over the country, and especially the special steels industry in Sheffield.

Order. I do not doubt the importance of the question, but if all questions are like that we shall not reach question No. 5.

I accept that there are differences among Labour Members over policies that affect employment. Fortunately, these do not include the special employment measures. I hope that the extensions that I have announced will be welcomed in the House as a whole. I shall continue discussions with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the policies that they are developing take full account of the consequences on employment.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the serious and deteriorating position of gross domestic fixed capital formation in the Northwest? In 1971 it was above the national average. It is now well below it. What steps did the Secretary of State take before setting up the important Inmos project in the North-West instead of Bristol, where it was not required?

The location of Inmos in Bristol affects only the pilot plant and development activities, and not manufacturing. All the development areas will have a high claim when considering where the products will be manufactured.

We are seeking to redress the capital formation in the North-West to some extent by industrial aid. For smaller firms, we are seeking to do this by small firm employment subsidy assistance.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the figures that he has given this afternoon cause deep concern to hon. Members on the Government Benches and that we remain dissatisfied with the Government's progress? Will be accept also that the alternatives of short-term employment and training for jobs that are not there are unsatisfactory? Is it not time that an entirely different strategy was employed to overcome unemployment?

The emphasis of special measures has changed very much from propping up temporary jobs to providing support for job expansion. I cannot agree that we are training people for jobs that are not there. One of the things that amazes me about the present recession is that at a time when more than 1 million people are unemployed there are still a considerable number of vacancies for skilled workers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it might have been convenient to the House if he had made his statement at the end of Question Time so that we could have questioned him more fully on his important announcement? Is he aware that it now the fifth anniversary—almost exactly—of the February 1974 election, which was fought on the basis of "Back to Work with Labour"? The number of unemployed was 800,000 fewer at that time than it is now. Is not the present figure of unemployed an absolute disgrace to the Labour Party, and does it not show the failure of Labour's economic policies over the whole five-year period?

No, I do not accept that at all. The level of unemployment reflects, in part, international economic difficulties. Within the framework of employment policies which are within the control of the Government, it is significant that we have found it possible to develop many more jobs than were developed under the previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the response of local authorities to the Manpower Services Commission's special temporary employment programme and youth opportunities programme schemes; and how many metropolitan district councils employ fewer participants than Walsall on these schemes.

In many parts of the country the response of local authorities has been magnificent but in others it has been more patchy. The MSC is unable to provide detailed information but I must say I have been very disappointed by the response from the Walsall metropolitan borough council, compared with the substantial efforts put in by voluntary bodies and private firms in the area.

Is the Minister aware that nearly 6,000 jobs have been created or preserved by the Department of Employment's various schemes? Does he share my profound sense of disappointment that of the 1,000-plus places provided by voluntary organisations and local firms under the STEP and YOP schemes, Walsall council has responded with only 12 schemes employing 16 youngsters? It not this figure despicable and deplorable?

I share the disappointment and regret about the opposition that has come from both Conservative and independent ratepayer councillors to the schemes in Walsall.

Atkins asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to reduce the qualifying age for the job release scheme to 60 years.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to question no. 1. The matter of the qualifying age will be further considered.

In view of the large numbers of people involved, would not even a phased reduction of the age to 60 provide many thousands of jobs for younger people? Is it not a fact that there is an even more urgent need because of the rapid development of microcomputer technology?

This is a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem. Nevertheless, it entails additional resources and therefore must be looked at in the light of overall priorities. However, it is being considered further.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is some of the new thinking that many of our colleagues want? Is he aware that reducing the retirement age to 60, or perhaps even to 64, is the quickest and most effective way of reducing the unacceptably high level of unemployment? Will be persuade his colleagues to treat this as a matter of urgency?

My hon. Friend has widened the question to that of the overall retirement age, as opposed to the job release scheme. I have answered questions on that previously and pointed out the high cost of reducing the overall retirement age, which is primarily a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the nature and extent of the research that his Department has undertaken into the workings of the industrial tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has undertaken research into the representation of parties before industrial tribunals and has also made an analysis of unfair dismissal claims to industrial tribunals. It is hoped that this latter study will form a suitable article for the Department of Employment Gazette. Externally, we have commissioned work on remedies in unfair dismissal cases.

In view of the Government's commitment to open government, will the Minister say why the results of this research were not published when they first became available so that an informed public debate could take place before the recent changes were made in tribunal procedure?

I have said that the analysis of unfair dismissal claims will be published shortly in the form of an article in the Gazette. I believe that the hon. Member is referring to research into the representation of parties. That is still under consideration by the Department. However, I must point out that that research was commissioned by the previous Government and that it relates to 1973. One is entitled to question the credibility and the worth of publishing such information. None the less, I shall give it careful consideration.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that if one applicant to an industrial tribunal is unable to pay for legal representation the other side will not be allowed legal representation, in order to avoid any unfairness between the two parties?

I am not sure that we could contemplate debarring a party before a tribunal from being legally represented. I repeat that it is our aim that tribunals should be as informal as possible and as free from legalism as possible. I hope that those responsible for the tribunals and those who seek to appear before them will bear that in mind.

Does the Minister realise that many small employers are not taking on people whom they might have taken on and for whom they have work because of the consequences of the present operation of industrial tribunals? Will he take action to remedy problems caused for employers of this kind, and even more so for their potential employees?

Had the hon. and learned Member been in the House on Friday he would have heard that very matter debated fully and the repudiation of that argument from this Box. My Department has commissioned and carried out research on this matter which shows that the contrary is true.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment why a skilled craftsman in a trade in which there is a serious shortage should be offered a Government retraining course in another skilled trade.

I 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.

I 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?

I 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.

Is 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.

The answer to that is "Yes". However, as a representative craftsman, I could not say who had the higher status—the joiner or the bricklayer.

rose—

Mr. Mitchell.

On 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.

rose—

I cannot call the hon. Member once the Adjournment notice has been given.

But you called me, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rose on a point of order. I shall hear the hon. Member after questions.

On 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.

The 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.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the total numbers of adult male and female employees in both the manufacturing and services sectors who were laid-off temporarily in the recent industrial disputes and have not been reinstated, even where the relevant dispute has ceased.

No precise records are available, but it is believed that virtually all those who were temporarily laid off as a result of the transport disputes will have been recalled by their employers by now.

In view of the peak figure of lay-offs, which was nearly 250,000, and the figure of 85,000 only a week ago, which was the result of unofficial or quasi-official trade union action, is the Minister satisfied that union leaders will have sufficient control over their militant members who have taken unofficial action and caused people to be unemployed, solely through trade union action?

I am sure that the whole House regrets unofficial trade union action, and I am also sure that it wishes trade union members to observe the policies that are laid down by their national executives and leaders. But, of course, trade unions are not armies and trade union general secretaries are not colonels in command of a regiment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of school leavers unemployed (a) on Merseyside, (b) in Kirkby and (c) in Ormskirk at the latest available date.

At 8 February, the provisional numbers of unemployed school leavers in the Merseyside special development area and in the employment office areas of Kirkby and Ormskirk were 4,551, 368 and five respectively.

Does my hon. Friend accept that those figures are extremely disturbing and give cause for great concern, particularly since employment opportunities for school leavers on Merseyside are contracting rather than expanding? What initatives are the Government taking to deal with this problem? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will use his influence to ensure that the Knowsley local authority becomes part of the pilot scheme experiment for paying school leavers to stay on at school?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that last assurance, but I have made four visits to Merseyside since 17 November because I am worried about the situation there. We are expanding community industry on Merseyside considerably and have increased the number of places by 250 in Liverpool, by 125 in Knowsley and by 40 in St, Helens. We have changed the rules for the funding of YOP workshops and have introduced new travel allowances. I would test Mr. Speaker's patience if I were to outline all the changes that we have made this week to respond to the needs of Merseyside.

Has my hon. Friend paid regard to the proposals put forward by the local economic enterprise unit on Merseyside? What is his view about the prospects of that providing long-term employment for young people?

This matter will be considered at the next inner city partnership committee meeting in Liverpool.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers are affected by wage settlements agreed within the 5 per cent. guidelines; and what proportion of these will still be earning less than £60 per week after the settlements take effect.

Up to mid-February, about 850,000 employees covered by major settlements notified to my Department have had pay increases within the Government's guidelines—some having benefited from the provisions which allow increases of over 5 per cent. in certain circumstances, such as low pay or self-financing productivity schemes. Information with which to answer the second half of he question is not available.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite the £3·50 limit, the low-paid are still faring quite badly under this phase of pay policy, as indeed they have done under every phase of pay policy, with the possible exception of the £6 provision, and as they did under the free-for-all? Will the Government make the elimination of low pay one of their top priorities, through the introduction of either a statutory minimum wage or agreed targets with the TUC, to eliminate this scandal?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, one of the major problems of operating pay policy in this round has been that it was not based on an agreement with the TUC. I hope that in discussions with the TUC we shall be able to define a low-pay priority much more clearly. Within the present round there is an initial provision for low pay, namely, exempting certain wage increases from the 5 per cent. limitation. To that has been added the £3·50 underpin. Those advantages might be wiped out if higher paid groups go for much bigger settlements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the goal of the elimination of low pay is wholly unrealistic and that the best way in which the Government can help the low-paid is by getting a firmer control of inflation than they have at present?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind if we come to another vote which has as much effect upon inflation and pay settlements as the sanctions vote had. I believe that policies can be pursued that are of considerable advantage to the low-paid. Indeed, the £30 low pay target, which the Government agreed with the TUC in 1974–75, was such a policy.

What is the use of the figure of £44·50 in paragraph 17 of last year's White Paper as a minimum wage when, in answer to a recent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), the Minister qualified it by stating that the £44·50 applied only to higher grades of the low-paid?

I do not understand what is meant by "higher grades of low-paid" against the definition of £44·50. My understanding of the £44·50 is that it applies to all those working a normal working week.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he takes to ascertain the number of unfilled jobs; and in what categories he lists them.

A count is made each month of those vacancies notified to employment offices and careers offices which remain unfilled on the day of the count. Analyses by industry are made quarterly, and for vacancies at employment offices quarterly analyses by occupation are compiled.

Why is no account taken of vacancies advertised in the press or notified to private employment agencies? Is the Minister satisfied with the figure of vacancies derived on the basis that he suggests? How does he explain not referring people on the employment register to such vacancies, and how does he justify their continuing to receive benefit if vacancies are available?

The figures relate to vacancies notified to the offices to which my answer refers.

There are other vacancies as well.

In no sense are we saying that they are the total vacancies. If conservative Members are suggesting that we should force employers to notify vacancies to the Government, please let them say so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the high rates of unemployment in some areas, there is a considerable shortage of skilled labour? Is he further aware that one of the main reasons for this is the restriction on the mobility of labour caused by the housing situation? Will he hold consultations quickly with the local authority associations to try to derive some method whereby people can move from one area to another in order to fill vacancies arising from the shortage of skilled labour?

This serious problem has been with us for a long time. The Department of the Environment has discussed this matter with the local authorities. But I must point out that over the last few years too few council houses have been built by Tory local authorities.

Does the Undersecretary of State agree that many unskilled vacancies relate to lower-paid jobs? Does he recognise the link between this question and the previous question from the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden)? That link is called the poverty trap. What steps are the Government taking to eliminate the poverty trap so that it pays people to go to work in the lower-paid jobs?

It has been my experience that the most difficult job vacancies to fill are those which require high technical and craft qualifications. The hon. Gentleman's assumption is quite wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the shortage of skilled engineering workers; and what steps he is currently taking to increase retraining facilities for men and women at present unemployed who would wish to undertake this form of employment.

Shortages of skilled engineering workers occur in particular locations and in relation to particular occupations and are more severe than one would expect with current levels of unemployment. The Manpower Services Commission is currently discussing with the Engineering Industry Training Board its proposals for dealing with future skill shortages as part of the Commission's programme of action—" Training for Skills ". The Commission is also increasing the provision of engineering training facilities as an aid to assist unemployed persons by providing for additional classes in engineering occupations in the new skillcentres which are being developed under the skillcentre expansion programme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite all the training and retraining facilities that have been provided, there are many unfilled vacancies for centre lathe turners, electricians, fitters and many other skilled engineering workers, even in areas where unemployment is high? In my own area, which is certainly not a high unemployment area, 60 such vacancies exist. In those circumstances, is not there a need to step up the training process so that people get the opportunity to equip themselves to do the jobs for which vacancies exist?

I share that view, and that is one of the reasons why I have been in touch with the chairmen of all the industrial training boards to ask them to provide estimates of how far they could ensure that their schemes would meet the future needs of industries. We are trying to match Government provision to that in a way that will provide opportunities for a number of unemployed people to acquire skills.

Is not the shortage made worse by the fact that in some areas there is a shortage of instructors in skillcentres and that when a person has completed a course some trade unions will not recognise it? What do the Government intend to do about those problems?

The latter problem is diminishing. The participation of trade unions in the various industrial training boards and the direct participation of the TUC in the Manpower Services Commission have done much to overcome that difficulty. Part of the problem of skilled people being able to obtain jobs lies in the question of transferability. Workers have skills in areas where they are not in demand. As a supplement to our industrial strategy, we are, through the MSC, providing an additional £500 to that normally paid under the employment transfer scheme to people who will move to fill a long-standing vacancy in one of the five sector working party industries that we have chosen to aid in pursuit of the industrial strategy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is nonsense for anyone to talk in general terms about the closed shop affecting employment prospects? Is that fact not exemplified most clearly in the legal fraternity, where the number of lawyers is increasing, both in—

Order. I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is on the question that was not called.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time taken by the Central Arbitration Committee to determine a claim under section 11 of the Employment Protection Act.

Claims under section 11 are not made to the Central Arbitration Committee.

Will the Minister explain why the BBC's staff claim was treated with such exceptional speed, particularly in the light of the damaging effect of that settlement on the Government's pay policy?

Section 11, to which the question refers, deals with recognition claims by trade unions under the Employment Protection Act. I fail to see what that has to do with the BBC.

Surely the Minister must be aware that there was a mistake in the printing of the question. I certainly understood that it referred to schedule 11 and I thought that a mistake had been made, particularly since the question included a reference to the Central Arbitration Committee. Does the Minister have any information about claims under Schedule 11? If so, will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) and indicate how many claims are collusive?

It is interesting that the question has been in the form on which it appears on the Order Paper for two weeks. Surely that is adequate time for it to have been corrected. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) knows that the House has laid down repeatedly that Ministers ought to answer the questions that are asked and not the questions that they think hon. Members meant to ask.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons, who are now unemployed, were receiving wages of £45 or less when they were in work; and what percentage this represents of the total unemployed.

I regret that this information is not available, but some information will become available in due course from a survey of unemployed claimants being conducted by the Department of Health and Social Security.

Despite that very unhelpful answer, does the Minister agree that a married man earning £45 a week, who has two children, is much better off when he is unemployed? What do the Minister and the Government intend to do to give some incentive to people in that position to go back into employment?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman has been reading the recent article in The Daily Telegraph by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). I am glad to see him nodding in confirmation. Regrettable as are wages at that level, we shall certainly not seek to redress them in the way suggested in that article, namely, by increasing VAT and reducing public expenditure on a dramatic scale.

Is my hon. Friend aware that not one of the wages council settlements, which have so far covered 1·4 million workers, has reached the figure of £45 a week? What action does his Department intend to take to improve wages council settlements?

The wages councils are independent bodies and we have given them a freedom that they did not previously enjoy to fix their own wages. It must be borne in mind that the councils fix statutory minima, which may not, in some cases, reflect the real level of incomes earnings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we knew how many people are getting less than £45 a week, in view of the myths spread not only by the Opposition but by the Government Front Bench that some workers get massive amounts over that £45, amounting in some cases to a total of £70 a week? Is my hon. Friend aware that such underpaid workers are bitterly angry that such statements should emanate from the Government?

I have said that the unemployed, who comprise the group referred to in the question, are the subject of a survey being carried out by the DHSS. Of those in employment, I understand that less than 3 per cent. of men and 30 per cent. of women—a regrettable proportion—earn less than £45 a week.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what amendments he plans to introduce to the Employment Protection Act in order to encourage small companies to increase their work force.

None. I do not believe that amendment of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act would encourage small companies to increase their work force.

The Government are well aware of the importance of small firms to the national economy and have been actively encouraging their growth by a series of measures since 1974. My own Department operates the small firms employment subsidy which encourages the creation of extra jobs in this sector.

Has the Secretary of State woken up to the fact that the House, by a majority of 122 votes, gave a Second Reading on Friday to the Employment Opportunities (Small Businesses) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) In the dying days of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman, as an act of death-bed repentance, bring in amendments to existing legislation to encourage small companies to take on extra labour?

I listened to part of Friday's debate and heard one Conservative Member say that civilised practices were required for dealing with cases of unfair dismissal, but I did not hear an argument that that should not apply to employees of small firms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was announced only this week that a small firm in my constituency is about to close, not because of the Employment Protection Act but because of regulations of the European Economic Community which will put 230 workers out of work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an aspect which apparently does not seem to interest Conservative Members or, sufficiently, a number of Labour Members?

My right hon. Friends and I are very concerned about any Community measures that may cut down employment in this country—as some clearly may. It is unfair to suggest, as some Conservative Members do, that small employers are particularly at risk. An employer of 50 people has a very small chance of being affected more than once every 10 years by any claim of an employee under the Employment Protection Act, let alone under the unfair dismissal provisions.

Is the Secretary of State not aware that any small employer can take on an employee temporarily through an employment agency, although it will cost him more? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements so that employers can take on workers permanently?

Because the House decided that there should be certain statutory protections for permanent employees, and most people choose to work for an employer on a permanent basis. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating that a general temporary employment condition should be attached to the overwhelming majority of employees of small firms, I must say that I profoundly disagree with him. Most small employers have a high regard for their employees and want to treat them on the basis of permanent employment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the six months' probationary period embodied in the Act should be sufficient for small firms and that the Tories' proposals would create a section of second-class workers? Is not the basis of the questioning by the Tories the right for some of their friends to dismiss employees unfairly? Would not that reflect badly on a large number of small firms?

I agree that the onus is entirely on those who argue that there should be special, lesser terms of protection for those in small firms, to show why we should have lower standards in one group as opposed to another. Our whole aim in the Department has been to assist small employers in the working of this legislation and in expanding their labour force.

Will the Secretary of State accept that while there may be disputes about the effect of the Employment Protection Act on small firms, the research that has taken place shows that there is some impact on them? If that is so, in view of the present serious employment situation should not the Secretary of State keep a much more open mind about amendments to the Act to prevent this occurring?

Of course this legislation has an impact on small firms, just as it does on large ones. But it does not follow that we should in any way modify or amend the legislation. The majority of employers are complying with this legislation, without difficulty, to the advantage of a number of their employees.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many awards have been notified to him by the Central Arbitration Committee since April 1977.

Since 1 April 1977 the Central Arbitration Committee has made a total of 1,216 awards in relation to all the matters within its jurisdiction, including voluntary arbitration. The only awards of which my right hon. Friend is formally notified are those relating to the fair wages resolution; he has been informed of 411 such awards since April 1977.

Does not the record show that the Government's policy of arbitration and conciliation is much to be preferred to the Tories' proposals for confrontation? Rather than seek to water down the Employment Protection Act, when we have won the general election will my hon. Friend seek to strengthen it?

I could not help being struck, during the exchanges of a few minutes ago between the Opposition and my right hon. Friend, by the contrast between that and the attempts that were made last year to amend the Employment Protection Act, which the Opposition frustrated. The general tenor of my hon. Friend's question is absolutely right.

Will the Minister of State explain why the Central Arbitration Committee was able to deal so quickly with the BBC staff claim, especially as that settlement was so damaging to the Government's pay policy?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that was explained in the House. He should table a question if that is what he wants to know.

Surely the Minister cannot duck away from this issue, which is his concern. Will he answer the question posed by my hon. Friend? Will he say how many of the claims settled under schedule 11 by the Central Arbitration Committee are collusive and are a way of getting round the pay policy? Will he confirm that schedule 11 claims have nothing to do with solving the problems of the low-paid—as the Minister said when this legislation was going through Parliament—which are being used by other unions to press demands which they could not achieve in other ways?

The hon. Gentleman should realise—I understand some of his hon. Friends not doing so—that schedule 11 is an extension of the existing terms and conditions of section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959. It is disgraceful of the hon. Gentleman to seek to smear the Central Arbitration Committee in the way that he has by suggesting that the cases with which it deals are on the basis of collusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of days lost in strike action in 1978; and what was the comparable figure for 1972.

It is provisionally estimated that 9·3 million working days were lost in industrial stoppages in 1978, compared with about 23·9 million in 1972.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange to have these figures put on every placard in the country, preferably by Saatchi and Saatchi, to point out how much better it is to have the current policies of the Government, which we have had for the past five years, than the policies which the right hon. Lady wishes to bring in but which resulted in 250 per cent. more strikes?

I doubt whether that would be a proper use of my departmental budget. In any case, I hope that my hon. Friend will not want us to pick up the tactics of certain members of the Opposition of trying to give publicity to certain limited, highly unrepresentative statistics.