asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers wholly unemployed in June 1974; and what further steps he is taking to reduce the numbers wholly unemployed.

On 10th June 1974, 515,773 people were unemployed in Great Britain. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated his intention to introduce a second Budget to make such further adjustments as are necessary to keep up the level of employment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome the decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take action, but will he look particularly at problems of areas such as Cannock Chase district which are close to large conurbations and which in addition to having a high level of unemployment have a hidden level of unemployment in the increasing proportion of the population which has to travel to and from the conurbation to find work?

We take these matters into account. It is true that Cannock has a higher rate of unemployment than elsewhere, although if we take away miners who are unemployed, many of whom are disabled, we find that the rate in Cannock is as low as 2·7 per cent. The needs of people in that situation are taken into account in the training programme.

Does the hon. Gentleman still think that the unemployment figures are accurate? If so, how does he justify them in view of the shortages of labour which are being experienced in areas of unemployment above the national average?

I cannot say that the figures are absolutely accurate because some people are unemployed and do not register as such. There are some vacancies which are not notified to my Department. The figures I gave are the best available in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the statements by Mr. Buckton given in evidence at the Railways Staffs National Tribunal hearing concerning his union's 16 per cent. pay claim on 25th June, he remains satisfied with the operation of a voluntary social compact.

Mr. Buckton has made it clear that the TUC General Council's report on "Collective Bargaining and the Social Contract" issued on 26th June has his full support. I have talked with him on the subject and I am sure that some of the views he quite naturally expressed at the tribunal have been considerably misinterpreted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we greet his statement with considerable relief? Is he also aware that we congratulate him on the success of his policy in so far as the miners in their pay claim have not named a sum which could be called substantial? Will he say whether the social compact can stand many awards of the sort envisaged at Shell of 25 per cent. and more?

To deal with the last point first, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figure. In any case, so far as I understand the situation no settlement has been reached there. I think we should wait to see what the situation is. As for the relief expressed by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his supplementary question, I am not sure whether the nation can rejoice as his relief, but if he understands the situation better the whole country will be glad to hear it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to ensure full implementation of the Equal Pay Act 1970 by the appointed day.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress towards equal pay: and what action he is taking to ensure that the provisions of the Equal Pay Act are carried out.

My information suggests that a good deal of progress is being made but that there are some areas where it is certainly not satisfactory. I have had talks with the TUC on this subject and I am considering what more can be done to bring to the attention of employers, women and their trade unions the need to press forward in good time to achieve full compliance with the Act when it comes into operation on 29th December 1975. Employers should realise that if they have not yet done anything about equal pay they are leaving it very late and they run the risk of breaking the law.

I recognise the fact of the timetable and other difficulties experienced by the Government, but will my right hon. Friend accept that this particular claim probably is the oldest wage claim in the history of the trade union movement and that nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of its implementation by December 1975? Will he give an assurance that he will make it abundantly clear to the recalcitrant employers, and in some cases trade unions, that the full rigours of the 1970 enforcement provisions will be applied retrospectively as provided in that legislation?

If my hon. Friend looks at the speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this subject a few weeks ago, he will see that he spoke in the strongest terms on the matter and, indeed, in much the same terms as my hon. Friend has now used. The Department is greatly strengthening the resources that are applied to the work of trying to ensure that we proceed to prepare for implementation of the Act, we have strengthened the resources of investigation and report dealing with this matter and we are considering what further steps we can take in the form of publicity and the rest to deal with it. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must make absolutely sure that this old wage claim is met.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not share his complacency when he says that good progress has been made? Is he aware that full-time manual women workers get only 62 per cent. of the male wage and that full-time non-manual women workers get only 54 per cent. of the male wage? Is not that a poor position when we are only 18 months away from full implementation of the Equal Pay Act?

The Act provided that a statutory instrument could be laid to achieve the result desired by both my hon. Friend and the Government, but the power to use a statutory instrument was exhausted at the end of last year and because it was not used by the previous Government it is not available to us under the terms of the Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will speedily draw up and publish plans for redeployment of any workers who may be affected by reduction in arms spending, including the policies successfully adopted in 1945 to transfer workers from war work to peaceful industrial employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will draw up and publish plans for redeployment of any workers who may be affected by a reduction in defence spending and/or armaments production for export, to prevent unemployment.

My Department is studying the employment implications of a revision of the defence programme including the need for the redeployment of workers. This work cannot be finalised until the defence review is completed in the autumn.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend consider following the experience of the American Government which required major arms firms to submit plans for diversification of their products if necessary? Will he plan to ensure that where arms production is cut it will be replaced in the same locality by alternative work of greater commercial value to the country?

I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. It is too early to be able to give specific instances of how unemployment, if it arose from arms reduction, would take place, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestions.

Can the hon. Gentleman gauge the scale of unemployment directly attributable to loss of orders due to the Government's attitude to some of our regular arms customers, and more especially the potential loss of custom from those who might have dealt with us but who now see that Britain cannot honour her contracts?

I think I explained on the last occasion when I answered Questions that I was not aware of any unemployment which arose as a decision of the Government. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is purely hypothetical.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side would welcome a reduction in the export of armaments as we do not understand the logic of a policy which arms people in all the different parts of the world without there being any guarantee about what will ultimately happen to those arms? Does he agree that any examination of the arms industry should take this into account? Will he ensure that workers in the armaments industry are fully reassured that any changes in policy will not be at their expense, that they will be fully consulted and that their expertise will be utilised in deciding on suitable redeployment?

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, matters of policy relating to the sale of arms are not matters for my Department. No doubt my hon. Friend's remarks in that respect will be noted. With reference to the second part of her supplementary question, it is too early to say, on the current defence review, what kind of cuts may take place but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be consultation between Departments, and I am sure that the views of workers and their representatives about problems of redeployment will be taken into account.

Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister and persuade him to go to dockyard constituencies and ensure that this time, instead of making speeches about expansion of the Royal Navy, he says what the Labour Party is really up to?

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to put a question to my right hon Friend the Prime Minister, if he wishes. As, however, we have in this country—despite the level of the unemployment figures—a considerable shortage of skilled labour and considerable civil objectives to fulfil I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the proposals which ultimately will be made by the Government on defence reduction.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he now expects to secure the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act before the end of July 1974.

I certainly hope so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Industrial Relations Act has been one of the longest running farces in parliamentary history? Does he further agree that millions of pounds have been spent on this lavish production, that hundreds of people have been engaged in chasing one another from confrontation to confrontation and that finally the ageing comic hero, like Falstaff, in the guise of the Leader of the Opposition has abandoned the stage saying that he never meant it after all?

My hon. Friend makes the farce so attractive that I am almost sorry it is going to end.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his confidence that the Act will be repealed by the end of July conflicts with his weekend statement that the opposition of the Liberal Party and Conservative Party together has made government virtually impossible and has made it inevitable that there should be an early General Election? Will the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what things in his Department have been made impossible by the activities of the Opposition?

One of the things made impossible was the restoration to the trade unions of the £10 million which the previous Government took from them. What I was referring to in my weekend remarks was the prospective abolition of the Pay Board. I hope that we shall have Liberal support in carrying through that operation. Perhaps the Liberals have changed their minds about this, as they did about the Industrial Relations Act.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will still be serious misgivings about the loss of the £10 million by the trade union movement, that this involves losses for pension funds, widows and educational trusts and that the Opposition seem intent on withholding this money? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this question will not be forgotten and that it will be resurrected at a later date?

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings on this matter. I certainly hope that we will be able to deal with this as soon as we have an assured majority for justice in this House of Commons.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how interesting we found his remarks just now that the £10 million repayment to the trade union movement was a cardinal point and one on which he presumably wishes to fight? Is he also aware that when he produces his new Bill, of which he is making such a cardinal feature, we will be very interested to hear his own personal explanation of it instead of the kind of general sermon which he preached on Second Reading?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to possess his soul, if that is what it is, in patience until tomorrow and Thursday, when we shall discuss these matters. As for the first part of his supplementary question about the £10 million, the protestation of the right hon. Gentleman and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends was that they never wanted to see the trade unions lose the money. Therefore, all that we were attempting to do was to carry out their good intentions, if their intentions were good.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that substantial sections of the 1971 Act are being reenacted by the legislation at present before Parliament and that the important questions before this House at the moment are the amendments needed to that legislation during the Report stage to make it broadly acceptable to the country?

The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill now before the House is incorrect, but we shall have a chance to debate that. The only substantial part of the 1971 Act which reappears in our Bill is that dealing with unfair dismissals, and that part was taken from the Bill of 1970 of the previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the actual number of job vacancies in the United Kingdom.

At 5th June 1974 my Department knew of 340,173 job vacancies notified to employment offices in the United Kingdom and 113,765 job vacancies which had been notified to careers offices. I have no reliable information on the number of vacancies outstanding which had not been notified.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he has just given are totally inaccurate and unreliable since they do not indicate the number of job vacancies that exist in the United Kingdom? His Department knows only of between 20 and 25 per cent. of vacancies whereas there are at present between 1½ million and 2 million vacancies, with probably 100,000 or fewer people looking for jobs. Is not this one of the main causes of the economic predicament in which we find ourselves? Will the hon. Gentleman take measures to save the taxpayer's money in printing figures which are not only useless but also dangerous?

I find that an extraordinary contribution. The figures which I gave are figures of vacancies notified to the Department. Obviously I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for vacancies which are not notified to the Department. However, we recently carried out a study of 34 companies. It showed that 32 per cent. of vacancies had been notified to the Department. But that is too small a segment to give an overall picture. There are vacancies outside those notified to employment offices.

Would not it be in the national interest to have a proper review of the unemployment figures and their accuracy? Is not that a matter which we could take out of the realm of party politics and on which a proper review could be done which might give a very different picture of the total number of people unemployed?

I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Other countries have tried. I give one example. Canada recently conducted a survey to measure the total of outstanding vacancies and also to look at unemployment apart from those registered. It was an expensive operation both in money and in employers' time. It is not considered that such a survey to get more accurate figures than the ones I have given would be justified.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider taking steps to extend the protection available to workers faced with redundancy.

My right hon. Friend will be publishing a consultative document on an Employment Protection Bill. This will include proposals on the protection available to workers who are made redundant.

Before that, as a first step, will the hon. Gentleman consider lifting his blocking reserve on the EEC directive on redundancy in order that workers throughout Western Europe may benefit from its provisions?

Question No. 13 on the Order Paper deals with that subject. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to answer it when we reach it.

Does my hon. Friend intend to give any consideration to the plight of workers employed by firms which go bankrupt, who at present get no proper cover? Will he undertake to ensure that consideration is given to this problem in any future action that is taken to provide proper redundancy payments?

Yes. I have recently written to my hon. Friend, and I can confirm that consideration will be given to that proposal.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the consultative document to which he has referred will be published before we rise for the Summer Recess?

No, I cannot give that assurance. I can only say that it will be published later this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many nurses and teachers have obtained employment through his Department in the last six months.

The figures are 2,813 and 50 respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both nurses and teachers have been caused a great deal of anger and annoyance over the past three years and that the present demonstrations that they are making are the result of this massive frustration? Will he do all in his power to ease their annoyance and frustration so that more teachers and nurses can be recruited to do the admirable work which our society needs?

My hon. Friend's supplementary question does not arise strictly out of his Question. The House will recognise, however, that my right hon. Friend has set up two general reviews—one into teachers' pay and the other into nurses' pay. I do not know that we have had a Government in recent memory who have taken such urgent and quick action over the problems of these two professions.

Does not my hon. Friend feel that, instead of nurses and teachers obtaining employment, they will leave their employment if the Government insist on implementing the deplorable Pay Board report and refusing to give local weighting to nurses and teachers working in places like Watford, where 50 yards away in the town hall people get that local allowance? Is the Government's motto to be "The Pay Board, right or wrong"?

In answering questions on this matter last week my right hon. Friend did not give any impression that negotiators were rigidly constrained by the Pay Board report and he said that as soon as possible they would not be rigidly constrained by a statutory incomes policy. The report affords valuable guidance that there is evidence of the higher cost of living in London. If payments were made over and above these costs it would mean a transfer of resources from other parts of the country to the capital.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list those projects which benefited from the grants received by the United Kingdom under the EEC Social Fund in 1973; and if he will make a statement regarding actual and potential grants in 1974.

The following schemes in Great Britain received financial assistance from the European Social Fund in 1973: training of unemployed workers in the assisted areas; other Government expenditure on training; transfer of workers from and within the assisted areas; training and resettlement of workers leaving agriculture; training of workers in or leaving textiles; training of disabled persons; industrial rehabilitation of disabled persons. Similar schemes in Northern Ireland also received assistance from the fund.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the sum which the United Kingdom received from the fund in 1973 amounted to £24 million? Is it not also a fact that applications which have been made in respect of this year fall below that figure, despite the fact that the size of the fund for the Community as a whole has been increased? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Secretary of State has not given any directive that we should go slow in our applications to the fund because of any views that he may hold about the EEC?

The figure for awards during 1973 was £19·83 million. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a full list of applications for 1974 because changes were recently made in decisions about schemes qualifying for help for migrants and disabled people. This should extend the area of applications which can be made to the Commission for help from the fund. For instance, I hope that it would include applications for assistance towards the expenses of the Race Relations Board, our race relations advisers, the Community Relations Commission and certain rehabilitation schemes for the disabled.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits from the social and regional funds of the EEC are minimal compared with the huge adverse effect of the common agricultural policy with all its acute social effects as well?

Perhaps I may give a mathematical answer. The amount that we receive from the European Social Fund is very small compared with the payments which are made to the common agricultural fund.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these facilities and advantages are almost unknown among workers and trade unionists in Britain? Will he do his utmost to bring to their notice the many advantages that could accrue to them if they made use of the facilities available to them?

The payments which come from the European Social Fund are repayments of amounts expended by this Government on schemes conducted in the United Kingdom. It would be claiming too much to say that the European Social Fund made a significant difference to the facilities that we provide in this country. However, it provides a useful contribution in meeting half the costs of the schemes that we undertake.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment why a reserve was placed on the EEC directive on redundancy.

I explained at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 10th June that the Government were undertaking a fundamental review of industrial relations legislation. In the light of this the Council decided to postpone discussion of the draft directive until its next meeting.

In the light of that reply and the reply on the previous Question, particularly the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), is it not obvious that the Government intend to smother all the positive aspects of the Common Market and to keep them from the people of this country?

That suggestion is quite ludicrous. I explained to the Council of Ministers, and I do not apologise for this, that there were certain proposals which I thought it better to discuss with people in this country—the trade unions and employers—before coming to any decision at Luxembourg. That was no part of any renegotiation stance. It was the right attitude to adopt: to talk about these matters here first and later to make decisions at Luxembourg.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment prospects for the West Midlands Region.

Currently there is a strong demand for labour in the region and it is the Government's policy to do all they can to maintain employment at a high level.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in a region where one-quarter of the industrial work force is employed in the car industry the announcement by British Leyland that it is encountering difficulties and has doubts about the future has met with disquiet? May I ask, therefore, what his Department and the Secretary of State may be urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in terms of economic changes that may remove the causes of those doubts?

I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say. I hope it is reassuring to my hon. Friend that unemployment in the West Midlands is 1·9 per cent., which is less than in Great Britain as a whole. I understand his concern about job prospects at British Leyland. However, in the West Midlands there is a particularly strong demand for skilled engineering workers, and expansion plans already begun for Rover, Triumph and Jaguar at Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull are expected to continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will find this information reassuring.

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his optimistic statement with the collapse in consumer spending revealed in the first part of the year and with the dismal state of hire-purchase figures? Surely these are much more revealing than his hon. Friend's question and his rather sanguine reply.

I do not think I was making either optimistic or pessimistic forecasts. I was simply giving the House the facts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the North Staffordshire area of the West Midlands Region there will be a catastrophic increase in unemployment if the Shelton steelworks are allowed to close? While recognising the demarcation problems between Ministers, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will undertake to consult the Secretary of State for Industry about the Shelton steelworks as unemployment would be a grave problem for North Staffordshire if the works were allowed to close?

There are always consultions between the Department responsible for the steel industry and my Department about the consequences of redundancies. I have seen some of the effects of this problem. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has announced arrangements for consultation with Members of Parliament and trade unionists about the effects of closures. We shall certainly do all we can to assist.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable apprehension about the future in the Birmingham and West Midlands area where it is felt that already the area is too dependent on the motor car industry, where a substantial fall in the demand for manufactured goods is foreseen, where there is a shortage of liquidity on the part of manufacturers, made worse by Government measures, and where it is felt that the situation would be made much worse if the Government adopted a harder line in directing industrial development out of the West Midlands? Therefore, will he confirm that there is no question whatever of the Government adopting any policy to move any future industrial development out of the West Midlands?

There is a contradiction in what the hon. Gentleman has said. The West Midlands area is very much reliant upon engineering. Diversification is one of the objects of Government policy. Although it is not a matter for my Department, I know of no immediate proposals for the moving out of industry. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Industry is considering an application from the British Leyland Motor Corporation for an industrial development certificate.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide, free of charge, expert assistance to those employers who have been required to furnish information in a questionnaire entitled Survey of Labour Costs, 1973.

Employers who encounter any difficulties in completing such statistical returns are invited in the covering letter which accompanies the questionnaire, to seek help from my Department.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the high cost to small businesses of assembling all the information which is requested in the questionnaire? Is he aware that much of the information is already given to the Treasury? Is he further aware that the questionnaire contains no fewer than 72 questions? It is wholly unreasonable for a firm to have to collect all the information. I am aware that this practice has been going on for a long time, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take steps to ensure that in future these quesionnaires are severely limited to the minimum possible requirements?

This survey is being conducted at the request of the European Economic Community. All the information which is being collected is required by the Community. Therefore, it may be in the hands of this House and the people of this country to decide whether this cost will continue to be borne by employers.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the bulk of the information demanded is not about the EEC. Is he also aware that the collecting and collating of information can be a tremendous burden on small firms which do not have large clerical staffs? Will he try to cut down the necessity for some of these questions?

I assure the hon. Lady that I am not anxious to heap unnecessary work upon any firms. I appreciate that difficulties may be created in providing the information. That is why my Department, on request, gives advice through specialist staff by explanation and clarifi cation on how to complete the questionnaires. However, we cannot send staff to the firms to do the work for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in establishing the social contract.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress of the social compact between the Government and the trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress made regarding the social compact between the Government and the Trades Union Congress.

Some good progress has been made. Much the most important development in this field has been the publication of the TUC General Council's report on "Collective Bargaining and the Social Contract", published on 26th June, which I believe provides a constructive framework for pay negotiations after the compulsory pay controls are abolished.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel on reflection, however, that the broadcast he made during the weekend about the social contract was unforgivable and unjustifiably complacent? Does he accept that even those of us who wish him success in the venture upon which he has embarked are nevertheless fearful of the effects of a failure? In view of the catastrophic inflationary effects if he does not succeed in achieving the social contract, will the right hon. Gentleman say what contingency plans he and the Government have in mind?

No one who heard what I said on Sunday could have described it as complacent. My first sentence was that no one in his senses could doubt the seriousness of the situation that the Government had to face. I said that right at the beginning. What I also said was that the situation was not worse today than it was at the end of February and the beginning of March. Indeed, in many respects it is much better—the whole House will agree about that—because at that time we were involved in an industrial smash-up which was the worst since the 1920s or the 1930s. Of course, the situation has improved.

Does the Secretary of State realise that there are some hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at least, who will wish the social contract success and wish him well in his task while maintaining a certain scepticism about the likelihood of success? Does he accept that no one in this country, either wage earner or salary earner, can expect more than compensation for the increase in the cost of living over the next 12 months at least? Does he really believe that the social contract will be sufficiently binding to ensure that? What teeth will he put into it to ensure that it will work?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sceptical enthusiasm, if that was what it was, or enthusiastic scepticism. I am not quite sure which way round we should have it. But we cannot guarantee that it will be successful. We believe, however, that the statutory system was an almighty failure. Therefore, we are setting out on a different system. We shall discuss the new system in the House next week. The Pay Board order is being laid today. Assuming that the Prices Bill receives Royal Assent today, the order will be laid and we shall discuss the matter next week. This refers to the social contract. The abolition of statutory controls is an essential part of the social contract.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement of policy issued by the TUC is very good reading? Does he support the conclusion that priorities should be given to negotiating agreements which would have beneficial effects upon efficiency, reform the pay structure and improve job security to complement the action that has been taken by Mr. Len Murray, the General Secretary, and the TUC General Council in delivering their side of the contract?

I certainly agree with my lion. Friend. The whole country owes a debt to Mr. Len Murray for the way in which he has spoken on these matters both at trade union conferences and elsewhere, and I hope that we shall have support from it. Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right to draw the attention of the House to that special feature in the statement of the TUC. The matter raised in the previous question by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was already referred to in that document. I invite the House to read the whole document and to study it in detail.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the activities of National Health Service employees at Charing Cross Hospital fit in with the social contract?

The argument that they were having was not concerned with pay questions or questions directly concerned with the social contract. That matter, therefore, does not arise.