asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers were involved in industrial disputes in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost because of industrial disputes in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many stoppages of work because of industrial dispute occurred in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many stoppages of work because of industrial dispute occurred in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

Provisional estimates show that 625 stoppages due to disputes began in the period January to April 1976 compared with 905 in the same period in 1975, that 249,800 workers were involved in all stoppages in progress in this period compared with 349,500 in the same period in 1975, and that 1,188,000 working days were lost compared with 2.106,000 in the same period in 1975.

Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that those figures are encouraging? Can he tell us how these figures compare with some of our industrial competitors?

International comparisons are difficult and can sometimes be misleading, but the general tendency in industrial countries is that they have an increasing number of days lost due to disputes, and our figures are considerably better than those of the United States of America, Canada, Australia and Italy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures represent a success for the policy of conciliation rather than confrontation? This takes us back to the level of stoppages in 1967 before successive Governments produced legalistic nonsense for binding the trade union movement. Does he also agree that, in order to retain the good will and support of the trade union movement, urgent action must be taken over the level of unemployment, including urgent consideration of matters like selective import controls, particularly in areas such as the textile industry, and more investment by the National Enterprise Board to create jobs?

I would say to my hon. Friend that certainly the number of days lost in this period are lower than at any time since 1968. As to the cause, I would agree with him to the extent that a very large measure of it is due to attempts at conciliation by the work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I would also say that it is partly due to pursuing industrial relations policies as well as our policy of consensus and co-operation rather than of confrontation and legal intervention. However, part of the overall relationship with the trade union movement must involve the other factors that my hon. Friend has raised. I would agree that they are most important.

Can the Secretary of State say whether the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is doing an industry-by-industry survey to see whether disputes procedures should be improved? There are many manufacturing industries in which improvements really ought to be made so that the procedure is used before there is a stoppage.

It is certainly within the scope of ACAS to look at procedures used for the conciliation of disputes within industry, and its general remit is to urge people to use their own procedures before coming to ACAS. My Department has recently published a record of the outcome of our inquiry into the level of strikes in this country, and on examining that I might take up the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in respect of ACAS to see whether there is a rôle for an industry-by-industry examination.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the answer he gave initially was very encouraging? Does he further agree that unemployment is a new and terrible discipline which is now descending upon a vast number of working people? Far more time and production is lost by unemployment than by all the strikes put together. Would my right hon. Friend accept that it really is time that something was done to prevent more and more massive unemployment from taking place?

Of course, one can enormously exaggerate the loss of production which results from strikes. Certainly much more production is lost by unemployment and much more is lost by industrial disease and injury as well. We have to tackle this question of unemployment irrespective of the industrial relations implications. Although there are improvements, some of the things which lead to unemployment can also lead to industrial disputes, and all of us would wish to see a reduction in industrial disputes as well as a great reduction in unemployment.

Is it not essential that the Secretary of State should compare the figures he has given this afternoon alongside the figures for unemployment during the same period? Does he not think that as unemployment rises strikes tend to fall? Can he tell the House what moral he draws from that?

I have certainly tried to make this comparison of the correlation between disputes and unemployment in respect of other periods of high unemployment, but there is no evidence of a comparable fall in industrial disputes. I have come to the conclusion that many things which have caused disputes are similar to the causes of unemployment, like strikes against attempts to bring about massive lay-offs and closures. I cannot accept that the number of disputes is in any way connected with the high level of unemployment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are most encouraging figures? Does he not think, however, that they are not just a flash in the pan but more of a long-term industrial strategy worked out between the Government and the unions?

I certainly do. They are not a flash in the pan even statistically, because the comparisons that we were making were with 1975, which was a year of low industrial dispute figures, particularly in the period of the year considered. As my hon. Friend has said, this owes much to the developing relationship which has improved industrial relations generally and made for greater national discussion of policies among the TUC, the Government and employers.

Would the Secretary of State agree that all who have helped to achieve this improvement in industrial relations—this substantial reduction in the number of strikes—deserve our commendation and congratulations? By "all" I mean both sides of industry and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Would he repudiate the over-simpliste interpretation which tends to praise trade unions when the number of strikes comes down but is not prepared to blame trade unions when the number of strikes goes up? Will he have another look at the correlation between the numbers of unemployed and the numbers of strikes, because my reading of numbers in the past is that there is some correlation?

I have given my views on the question of correlation, which I stand by, but this is not a matter for praise or blame of trade unions. I am ready to acknowledge that employers as well as unions were prepared to refer matters to ACAS in advance of ACAS being established as an independent statutory body. However, in the particular areas in which special responsibilities have been laid on ACAS there were some references by unions, some jointly by unions and employers and some by employers alone. But it is fair to say in defence of the general view of some of my hon. Friends as to the rôle of the trade unions that more came forward from the unions alone than from the other two sources put together.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when the weekly wage of £80 was fixed as the maximum to be taken into account for assessing redundancy payments; and what that figure would now represent if calculated at current prices.

The limit of £80 was fixed by Order made on 31st July 1974 and became effective for dismissals occurring on or after 28th August 1974. It is estimated that approximately £112 would have been required in April 1976 to purchase goods valued at £80 in August 1974.

As presumably at the time that this level was fixed it was deemed to be fair and therefore, by implication, it is not fair today, why has no review taken place? When will a review take place?

A review will take place during 1977 under the Employment Protection Act. The original figure was such as to include all but the top 3 per cent. of those receiving pay, excluding overtime. The present £80 does that except for the top 10 per cent. We believe that the time is not yet ripe for a review.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total of unemployed people in West Yorkshire whose last employment was in the textile industry.

At 13th May the total was 4,569.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the most part, this tragic toll of unemployed men and women are victims of unfair competition by foreign textile industries? Would he further agree that there is little point in applying sticking plaster to an industry which is bleeding to death? Will he therefore make representations to the Secretary of State for Industry asking for urgent and extensive import controls to be introduced? Secondly, will he take specific measures to assist the textile industries, which are suffering from additional problems of decline, since ways of boosting employment are urgently needed in these areas, which are suffering very badly?

My hon. Friend knows that the present coverage of import restraints for the textile industry as a whole has never been wider. I think he also knows the Government's views about the difficulties of widespread and non-selective controls and the fears of retaliation. However, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry. I think that my hon. Friend is to meet the Minister of State at that Department in the near future to discuss these matters.

Has the Minister made an estimate for national unemployment in the coming months and years? If so, will he share it with the House and the country?

I do not think that that arises on this Question.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the situation in the cotton and allied fibres industry in the North-West is at least as bad as that in West Yorkshire and that in industries employing a large number of women the unemployment figures tend to be understated? Will he take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) about import controls, particularly the point that, although we have wide and all-embracing controls, they are so high that they make no damned difference?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the North-West, but I have already answered the question about import controls. Despite what my hon. Friend says, I should not have thought it was true to say that they are having no effect at all. I think that they are having a substantial effect.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all the people involved in the industry—employers and unions—believe that the present import controls, although they have been extended, still fall far short of being adequate to deal with the problem and that when they are imposed they are far too little and far too late to be effective? The stuff is already here before action is taken.

I cannot add to what I have said, except to repeat that I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what has been said today.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will ensure that exemption for small businesses from training board levies moves in line with the movement of wages in those industries in which the exemption is based upon the total of wages paid annually.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that this factor is always taken into account where the exemption level for small businesses is based on the total of emoluments paid. It is not, however, the only factor influencing the level of exemption.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that between 1974 and 1975 levy exemption was raised by 17·3 per cent. but that in the same period wages rose by 25·5 per cent., so that there is a substantial lag? Will he draw that factor to the attention of the Manpower Services Commission? Secondly, what are the other factors to which he has referred?

I will draw the attention of the Commission to the facts that the hon. Gentleman draws to our notice. The other factors include the extent of the training needs in the particular industries, the ability of the training boards to provide service to small businesses and the cost effectiveness of providing a service to small firms.

Does not the ability to provide services vary vastly from one area to another? Could the less good areas be brought up to the standard of the best?

We hope to achieve a uniform standard throughout the United Kingdom, but certainly this is a matter which the Manpower Services Commission and the training boards will take into account.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that small businesses have been clobbered in a variety of ways by actions of the present Government and that some easement in this area would be very helpful?

The Government leaves it to the industrial training boards and the Manpower Services Commission to work out the needs of particular industries. That policy will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve job prospects for school leavers during 1976.

The Government have already taken a large number of measures, including the job creation programme, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, additional resources for training, Community Industry and the careers service to deal with unemployment among school leavers and other young people. These measures are under review, especially in the light of yesterday's debate on youth unemployment.

Will the Minister confirm that this country is currently short of certain vital industrial skills and is likely to remain so? Will he consider publishing a list of those skills with a view to allowing employers who took on and trained school leavers to approve standards to recover the cost of that training in full?

This question will be discussed in the consultative document, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday, will be published shortly for consultation.

When my hon. Friend reviews job prospects for school leavers, will he ask the Home Secretary why many police authorities have discontinued police cadet training? Would he agree that the money spent on police cadet training is money well spent? It is good training for a good job and is in the best interests of the nation.

I will draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

In view of the high level of unemployment in the West Midlands, particularly among school leavers, why are the Government trying to stop firms from going to the West Midlands?

My understanding is that the Government have relaxed the industrial development certificate provisions and that this relaxation has been most helpful in the West Midlands.

Is my hon. Friend in a position to respond to the question which I put to the Secretary of State last night? Will he undertake to set in train discussions between his own Department and the Department of Education and Science, or between the Training Services Agency and the local education authorities, so that TSA resources can be put at the disposal of local education authorities to enable them to provide vocational courses for young people? If this were done, it would also take up the slack in the employment of teachers.

Before I came into the Chamber this afternoon I had the pleasure of reading in Hansard my hon. Friend's remarks of last night. I also noted the categorical assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. This is a matter which is being studied.

Although the Government survived last night's vote, we heard this morning that 122,905 school leavers are unemployed. There are many hon. Members on all sides of the House who are not prepared to sit back and watch young people's hopes and ambitions being frustrated. What are the Government going to do?

We dealt with this matter very fully in the debate yesterday. We gave categorical assurances that the Government would deal with the problem as urgently as possible.

When?

Does the Minister accept that today's figures are very alarming? Seasonally-adjusted figures for the number of vacancies notified, which cover young people and others, indicate a very serious trend. Will the Government look at these figures with a greater sense of urgency and a greater sense of concern?

There could be no greater concern than that which is felt on this Bench at the figures published this morning. One of the additional problems is the fact that the school leaving date was brought forward and employers have not yet adjusted to this in their recruitment measures.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs are at present available which would be suitable for school leavers.

27,719 unfilled vacancies were held by careers offices on 4th June. These include many which would be suitable for school leavers, but it is expected that some employers will not notify vacancies specifically for school leavers until later this summer.

Is the Minister aware that that answer—and, indeed, all the others he has given this afternoon—will give absolutely no hope to the unemployed school leavers? Is he further aware that the best way to help them would be to abandon the Price Code, thus allowing employers to take on school leavers while at the same time seeing a return on their investment?

I think that it will be some encouragement—although the situation is still bad—that the number of unfilled vacancies has increased from 24,476 in April to 27,719 in June. The Government believe that a wide range of measures is needed, such as have been pursued in the past 12 months, to deal with this pressing problem.

Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Secretary of State for Social Services as a matter of urgency with a view to looking at the training and employment of school leavers in the professions supplementary to medicine? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a grave shortage of speech therapists, physiotherapists and many other categories, and that we could do with a full long-term programme in order to fill those vacancies?

The Government will certainly look at the point made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to extend the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to students in schools, universities and other institutions of further and higher education.

I am advised by the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that schools, universities and other institutions of further and higher education are already covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The interests of students are taken into account by provisions of the Act intended to protect the health and safety of other people who may be affected by the activities of an undertaking.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not really satisfactory to cover the interests of students indirectly? It would be much fairer if the Act was extended to cover students directly. It is an anomalous situation that young people of the same age, who are handling the same substances and the same equipment, can be covered directly or indirectly according to whether they are technicians or students. Will my hon. Friend consider this matter, and discuss it with the National Union of Teachers and the National Union of students?

I take the point. The Health and Safety Commission has directed the Health and Safety Executive to study the conditions of work in schools, colleges and universities. We should await the report before making any preliminary judgments.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that the opportunities for retraining of persons resident in rural areas are sufficiently adaptable to take account of the inherent geographical problems and specific job requirements in country districts.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the Training Opportunities Scheme—TOPS—offers a wide scope of training to people in rural areas through the variety of its courses, the adaptability of its training to local needs, and its network of training establishments.

I am grateful to the Minister. Has he considered the concept of a mobile training and retraining unit, particularly in rural areas, offering a limited number of courses based on existing facilities such as local authority or educational workshops? This could be an extension of the evening-class concept in certain trades, crafts and skills.

I have not considered this matter, but it seems to be a useful and constructive suggestion. However, I see all sorts of difficulties in the way of it. Nevertheless, I shall draw it to the attention of the Training Services Agency.

Will the Minister accept that there are great difficulties for young people living in rural areas? They want to travel to the towns and cities to get jobs, but the bus services in rural areas do not allow them to go to distant places. Will the hon. Gentleman draw this to the attention of his right hon. Friend, or will he at least arrange for a subsidy for these young people's travelling expenses?

It is true that there are difficulties in rural areas where the population is too scattered to provide skill-centres, and there is a difficulty in travelling to the nearest town in which there is a college of further education. Lodging allowances and travelling allowances are available under the scheme to help these people, but I believe that there is some difficulty in the fact that adequate information is not always generally available.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of unemployed and the percentage rate in the West Midlands and in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, at the latest available date; and how he expects the situation to develop in each of these areas.

On 10th June 1976 the total number unemployed and the percentage rate of unemployment in the West Midlands was 127,148–5·6 per cent.; in England, 1,060,721–5·4 per cent.; in Scotland, 144,134–6·7 per cent.; in Wales, 73,796–7·2 per cent.; and in Northern Ireland 53,954–10·4 per cent.

Are not these the worst figures since before the war? For all their talk, the Government have failed. To what extent has the protection of jobs in Wales and Scotland worsened the employment position in England?

These are extremely bad figures; there is no denying that. I take the view that the development area policies of successive Governments have resulted in unemployment in Wales and Scotland in relation to other parts of the country being lower at this time than during any other slump. The recent measures that we introduced to alleviate unemployment were not confined to the development areas in recognition of the fact that there was an inordinately high level in other places.

Referring to the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), with unemployment in the West Midlands being above the national average, as it has been for some time, may I ask whether we may have a categorical assurance from my right hon. Friend that relaxation of industrial development certificate policy in the West Midlands will continue as industrial recovery gets under way and that firms which want to expand in the West Midlands will be able to do so?

I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has pursued this matter with me both from his constituency and in the House. I have looked into it most carefully. It is not the case, however, that jobs in the West Midlands are being hampered by the IDC policy. The situation is being helped now by greater flexibility. I am sorry to say that the causes of high unemployment in the West Midlands are to be found elsewhere and in areas which are possibly more difficult to deal with than the IDC policy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unfortunate that the figures should be produced on the day on which he has to answer Questions on the subject? The figure for Scotland, which is quite appalling, will be inflated in 10 days' time by 65,000 school leavers, who, if they do not obtain jobs, will increase our rate to about 10 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which the Secretary of State for Scotland ducked in his reply to the debate last night? Will he tell those school leavers just what chance they have of getting a job in present circumstances?

On the timing of Questions, obviously I would have preferred a little longer to study the figures. I have, however, examined the position in Scotland against the current figures, and I have found that our manpower measures as of now are producing only about 18,000 jobs in Scotland. There is obviously a long way to go yet on the take-up of these measures.

The IDC policy as such is not responsible for the level of unemployment in the West Midlands or anywhere else. The responsibility lies with the fact that our policies do not match up to the immediate needs of the situation. Will my right hon. Friend indicate to the House what measures the Government intend to take rather than give platitudes in dealing with this crisis?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's analysis of the situation. In light of the figures I have announced, one is justified in saying that the measures taken to deal with the problem are not sufficient. Nevertheless, the West Midlands area has benefited not only from the Job Creation Scheme, the temporary employment subsidy and the school leavers' recruitment subsidy, for which I am responsible to this House, but from measures taken by the Secretary of State for Industry to support the machine tool industry and the vehicle building industry. I contend, therefore, that against the worst economic recession the country has known since the 1930s we must go on to seek to develop more effective measures and a more effective policy. It is not the case, however, that we have not attempted to deal with the unemployment problem outside development areas.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Government's devolution proposals will increase competition for scarce jobs between one part of Britain and another? Will he explain how those proposals and policies will improve job prospects throughout the United Kingdom?

I must concede that I have been unable to make such an effective appreciation of the devolution proposals. However, I cannot on the evidence before me see how the proposals can aid the overall employment situation or the situation in individual countries within the United Kingdom to which they apply. They will, of course, raise the problem of how far individual national agencies dealing with economic measures can work effectively as opposed to a system in which some of the measures and policies are worked out in a co-ordinated manner on a United Kingdom basis.

Will my right hon. Friend indicate how the figures compare with those of France and Germany?

I cannot give the exact figures, but on the last comparison which I made the situation in those countries was comparable to ours, although in the case of France our position was slightly better.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no evidence that under any Government, when an industrial development certificate is refused for a relatively small firm, the firm is likely to expand in a development area? Is he aware that it simply does not expand? Therefore, while I welcome the more flexible policy that the Secretary of State announced, I should like to know why on earth the Government tightened the policy when they came to office.

I agree to the extent that one cannot conduct an IDC policy in isolation and one cannot expect that when a firm is refused an IDC for one location it will automatically move to another area which is aided. The decision to tighten up was taken in conjunction with other measures of special help to development areas. One of the actions we have taken, recognising the problem now, is to permit the replacement of factories which have fallen out of use in some of those areas, including the West Midlands, and we believe that this can be of much more assistance than the IDC policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will regard these figures as extremely grave? Is he aware that, whereas the figures in other countries are now improving, our figures are getting worse? Does that not reinforce the need for a change in economic policy, although not the change indicated by the Secretary of State? Does he accept that the best way to get industry moving and to reduce the unemployment figures will be to change economic policy so that the Government are seen to be supporting private industry and private investment, in which case the country could feel confidence enough to invest, which it is not doing now? Is he aware that when we get the investment we shall get the jobs?

Since the Government are advocating a change of industrial strategy and economic policy I must, of course, agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a need for change. As for the comparisons with other countries, it is true that they are improving their position. Some of them have a great deal of room for improvement compared with Britain. In Belgium, for example, the seasonally-adjusted figure is 8·6 per cent. In Canada it is 7·4 per cent. and in the United States it is 7·3 per cent. I agree that the French figure has fallen, but against these considerations is the fact that there was a substantial increase in Government expenditure here to deal with the problems, particularly of employment. We believe that to be justified and we believe that it has held our figures at a lower level than those in many comparable industrial countries through a year of deep economic depression.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further plans he has for expanding training opportunities in industry.

In February my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that an extra £55 million would be made available this year to provide additional training. I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that financial support for up to 35,000 training places for new entrants in 1976–77—including over 26,000 extra places—has already been offered to industrial training boards. The MSC and the Government jointly will shortly be publishing a consultative document putting forward, without commitment, a possible scheme of collective funding for initial training in transferable skills in selected occupations.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that it is now an observable fact that in each succeeding business cycle the level of unemployment increases? Therefore, is it not now necessary to place industrial training in the absolute forefront of our industrial life? Will my hon. Friend observe the success which the Swedes have had in maintaining a low level of unemployment through industrial training, and will he seriously consider imposing a substantial general training levy on all firms?

My hon. Friend was correct in his opening reference to a discernible tendency towards higher unemployment. I think he recognises that the Government have indicated their commitment to an expansion of training by the significant extra sums of money they have made available for the purpose and the large increase in the number of skillcentre places available, in addition to the extra that we have provided for industry itself. Certainly there is a benefit in looking, as we have done, at the range of labour market policies which have been used in Sweden. The Swedes have applied not merely training but a whole range of policies.

In country towns which have industry but which are often quite a long way from retraining facilities, should we not encourage local authorities, local business men and local education interests to get together with industry to "do their own thing" much more in retraining unemployed people?

The hon. Gentleman will know that in respect of local government itself there is a local government training board run by the local authorities. I think that the arrangements that the Government have through the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency are sufficiently flexible to allow them to take into account the need of particular localities and the views and contribution that individual employers and authorities can make. But certainly what the hon. Gentleman has said deserves reflection.

Bearing in mind the deplorable record of British industry with regard to day release, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that, as the profitability of manufacturing industry increases, the record of day release of trainees will also improve?

Certainly, I think we would welcome any increase in facilities for day release, but my hon. Friend will realise that this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees have been dismissed for refusing to join a trade union since 1st January 1976; and whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act so far as the closed shop is involved.

The information requested in the first part of the Question is not available. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes".

But does not the Minister think that he ought to obtain that information? Ought not the Government to take steps to protect the livelihood of those individuals, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to an industry and who are now being dismissed for no other reason than that they wish to exercise their right of free conscience?

The Government have no power to obtain the information that the hon. Member seeks. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government should take that power.

Will my hon. Friend agree that in the history of the growth of the trade union movement there have been many thousands of trade unionists who have lost their jobs for daring to join a trade union? Will he also agree that it should now be the task of the House and of people on all sides to encourage all working people to join their appropriate union?

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that there has been a long record of victimisation and blacklisting of people for their trade union activities. I hope that the House will join my hon. Friend in encouraging members of trade unions.

Will the Minister join with decent people in condemning the sacking of those who have served a lifetime in an industry and not been members of a trade union? Is it not intolerable that the closed shop should be used in this way to sack that sort of person?

I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House ought first to appreciate that what the Government have done is to restore the legal position to what it was in 1970, before the Conservative Government introduced their disastrous Industrial Relations Act, with all the evil consequences and damage which flowed from that.

I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.