asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the procedures and cost of paying arrears of unemployment benefit.

I am satisfied that procedures for paying unemployment benefit which become due for past periods meet the requirements of social security regulations, and that the costs of making such payments are not generally excessive, although the procedure is sometimes necessarily less than perfect when very small balances remain to be paid to the claimant.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents who returned from England had arrears of unemployment benefit amounting to 3p forwarded to him from an English employment exchange? Does he agree that the cost of purchasing paper, preparing it, issuing it and posting it by Giro is much more than 3p? Should we not adopt a more acceptable and economic practice for the payment of small sums of benefit?

We would have been in a serious situation if a Scot had left England with the English owing him 3p. We are bound under the regulations to make the payment, although the circumstances under which this particular payment was made certainly deserve consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number and percentage of unemployed in the Greater London travel-towork area in June 1973 and in June 1977; and how many of these were school-leavers in each case.

At June 1973, 54,055 people were registered as unemployed in the Greater London area and the unemployment rate was 1·4 per cent. The corresponding figures for June 1977 were 157,011 and 4 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that the dramatic change in the figures in the last four years is deeply depressing, particularly to Londoners? Does it not indicate that the Government's regional policies are now quite cock-eyed? Why cannot the Minister ease the policy on industrial development certificates much further and abolish office development permits? What will the Government do to encourage small firms to take up unemployed workers?

I agree that it is depressing, but I do not draw the same conclusions as the hon. Gentleman about regional policy. In terms of youth unemployment generally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which will be of considerable benefit to young people in London and in the rest of the country. But the unemployment rate in London is far below the average level throughout the country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the idea exists that jobs in London have been lost in large numbers to other parts of the country. particularly to the depressed areas, that idea is entirely false? The problem of unemployment is general. Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of unemployment in London or elsewhere—we care as much about unemployment in London as in other parts of the country—will be resolved only by radical measures for the whole economy, and not by attempting to win votes out of the slow drift of jobs from London to other areas?

I accept what my hon. Friend said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced a number of measures which should be of particular benefit to the inner city areas.

Will the hon. Gentleman take particular account of representations from the Community Service Volunteers that the schemes for the 16 to 18-yearolds, which we welcome, should be adapted to include an element of older people, to achieve a better balance to the proposals? That suggestion has much to commend it.

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend who deals with these matters.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the figures for Scotland were anything like the figures for London there would be jubilation in the streets and people would be extremely pleased?

That is obviously so. It follows from what I said earlier.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the number of fatal accidents on farms in Great Britain compares with similar figures for the previous two years.

The number of fatal accidents on farms in Great Britain in 1976 was 108 compared with 101 in 1975 and 104 in 1974.

Does the Minister agree that the figure for accidents resulting from tractors overturning is most disturbing? Is it true that only three of the 23 tractors involved were fitted with safety cabs? Will the Minister consider whether the law, which I appreciate alters in August, will be sufficient in that it will not relate to the self-employed, bearing in mind that 16 of these cases involved self-employed farmers?

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is correct on those facts. I share the view expressed recently by the director of agricultural safety for the Health and Safety Executive that these figures are tragically and unacceptably high. The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he said about safety cabs. In three of the accidents safety cabs were fitted, but the occupants were not in the cabs at the time. If they had been, perhaps there would not have been the fatalities. When the law is changed it will make an appreciable difference to this situation. The hon. Gentleman's final point about the self-employed was carefully considered by the Health and Safety Executive when it was making the regulations.

How many personnel in the Health and Safety Executive are responsible for safety on farms? How does that figure compare with the numbers concerned with farm safety in the Ministry of Agriculture when it had responsibility for that subject?

It is difficult to give precise figures. I would prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman with them. Some of the agricultural inspectors who were working part-time are now working full-time, and that makes a complete breakdown difficult. However, the Executive has been strengthened as a result of the reorganisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his forecasts for employment prospects in the North-West for the first six months of 1978.

Employment prospects in the North-West, as in other parts of the country, will largely depend upon developments in the general economic situation. I cannot therefore give an accurate forecast of future levels of employment.

I appreciate the difficulties of answering such a question but does my hon. Friend's reply indicate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pressing in the Cabinet for a reflation of the economy in order to overcome our unemployment problems?

The Government are doing all they can to avoid the present high level of unemployment.

Does the reply also mean that the Secretary of State is pressing in the Cabinet for increased profitability for companies in the North-West and for a better incentive for their managers?

The Government want profitable industry to thrive in the North-West as in other parts of the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I sent correspondence to his right hon. Friend this morning about the threat of his Department to withdraw the temporary employment subsidy from the J. Glassberg company? Is he further aware that if that takes place there will be 100 per cent. redundancies in the company in St. Helens? In view of that, what action is my right hon. Friend prepared to take to avoid such a high level of redundancies?

I give an undertaking to my hon. Friend that I shall look at this case as a matter of urgency.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the temporary employment subsidy has made a substantial contribution in helping to keep down unemployment in the North-West in the last few months? Does he also agree, however, that delay in paying TES after an investigation can create a severe crisis for companies in the North-West? Is my hon. Friend aware that that delay at the moment is approximately nine weeks?

The delay in the granting of or deciding on TES is disturbing not only to the company but to the workers who are threatened with impending redundancy. I undertake to look carefully at the position in the North-West to try to reduce that period.

Will my hon. Friend press upon the Secretary of State for Industry the need for Merseyside in particular to get its fair share—no more—of new companies and industries which are looking for locations in the United Kingdom?

Youth unemployment on Merseyside is very grave. My right hon. and hon. Friends will do what they can to assist Merseyside to overcome this problem.

Will not the single most important factor in helping to keep unemployment to a reasonable level this winter be keeping wage settlements from going too high? What efforts are the Government making to impress upon the nation the need for moderation in wage claims this winter?

The right hon. Gentleman knows the efforts that the Government have made in the last two years to persuade people of the importance of reducing the level of inflation, and they will continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he is taking to increase employment and training opportunities for school leavers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of employment prospects for those leaving school this summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further plans he has to improve youth employment prospects.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on youth unemployment.

It is too early to make reliable predictions about the employment prospects for the 564,000 young people expected to leave school to seek employment this summer. In the normal course the placing of summer leavers spreads over several months and assessments of residual problems of unemployment cannot be made until about October. However, some encouragement can be drawn from the fact that those who left school at Easter appear to have fared better than expected. Of an estimated 69,000 seeking jobs, over 80 per cent. have entered employment or training.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how the proposals that he outlined on 29th June will be implemented in rural areas that suffer from both high youth unemployment and significant youth migration? In spite of the envisaged five-year time scale for this programme, can the Minister give any real hope to the youth of rural areas such as Cornwall, which has suffered an unemployment figure of 12 per cent. for the last 12 months?

I appreciate that there has been a problem in rural areas and I have studied the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where, due to the sparse spread of population, it has been difficult to operate some of our special youth employment measures. I welcome the fact that it has been possible to start work experience schemes and to provide about 90 places in that area.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the amount of employment provided for school leavers by the retail trade, and will he therefore prevail upon the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection not to limit retailers' profit margins so stringently that they are obliged to reduce job opportunities for young people?

I appreciate that the retail trade provides a number of jobs for young people, but the recent changes in the prices policy have allowed for proper profit margins in that area. It is possible for work experience schemes to give particular help to firms that are prepared to assist, in this period of difficulty, those young people who are unemployed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that only 348 school leavers were unemployed in Wales in July 1973, compared with 11,577 in July 1976? Is he aware that that represents an increase of about 3,000 per cent.? Is it not abundantly clear, therefore, that Government measures are totally inadequate?

In the years that the hon. Gentleman compared there were different school-leaving dates, so he is not comparing like with like. If he wants to compare dates for the purpose of testing the effectiveness of the Government's measures I suggest that he looks at the number of unemployed school leavers last July or August, compared with the situation in March of this year. If he does so, he will see that there has been a substantial drop.

I do not wish to be as dramatic as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that last month there were 896 more unemployed in Gwent, which is against the national trend and before school leavers come on to the labour market? As Newport provides so many job opportunities for the rest of Gwent, will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State for Industry to make it a development area?

I assure my hon. Friend that I work in close co-operation with Ministers of Industry to get the most effective combination of employment and industrial measures. I shall look particularly at the problems of Gwent to which he has referred.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the employment situation in Scotland generally is reaching a critical stage? Does he agree that the suggested time scale of September 1978 for the new scheme is quite insufficient to match the urgency of the situation? Is he aware that more and more young people in Scotland are coming to the conclusion that because of the failure of the existing Government to do anything for them in their own country, the only solution for them is independence and a Scottish Government who will look after their interests?

I appreciate that in certain areas of Scotland there is a special problem for young peole who are seeking work. I cannot agree that the time scale that I have set for the special measures to be introduced is unreasonable. It is bringing about an enormous increase in the number of places. We arc attempting to cater for over 300,000 a year. It would be impracticable to expand from our present level of places to that number in a shorter time and still achieve the quality of training and work experience that the House rightly expects the Department to provide for young people.

Is not the real truth of the matter that the Opposition in 1975, after we had had the "phoney" referendum and they were sure that that was in the bag, declared that the Government should control the money supply? Is it not the case that they then said that they should cut public expenditure by about £5,000 million? Is it not a fact that the Labour Government trailed behind the Tory proposals and then carried them out in bits and pieces, the result being that the hurnbugs and hypocrites on the Opposition Benches are now complaining about—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is stated in "Erskine May" that moderation is the characteristic of parliamentary language.

I was being moderate, Mr. Speaker, for me.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He was being moderate for him, but I like language to be moderate by parliamentary standards.

Will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the fact that while one of the proposals, namely, the temporary employment subsidy, is being used by the Government to try to offset unemployment, according to The Sunday Times there has been abuse by employers, including Arnold Weinstock, who have been making applications for the subsidy when no jobs are being declared redundant?

Whether or not my hon. Friend's language was moderate by parliamentary standards, I agree with the position of the Opposition that he described, which coincides with my own impression. Whether events were placed in that order by coincidence or design is a matter of opinion. I should be loath to concede that abuse of the temporary employment subsidy represents other than a very small number of untypical cases. If there are any known cases of abuse, they will be pursued and eliminated by officers in my Department. If allegations of abuse were to lead to a substantial curtailment of the temporary employment programme, or even a slowing down of the processing of applications, I believe that that would militate against the objectives that I know I share with my hon. Friend.

Are not the epithets of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) more suitably applied to the Government, who fought and won an election on the slogan "Back to work with Labour" and who have seen unemployment rise from 600,000 to 1½ million since then?

The suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the positions taken by the Opposition are accurate. The calls for substantial cuts in public expenditure came from the Opposition two years in advance of any application to the International Monetary Fund. Even taking into account the considerable borrowing from the IMF, we have maintained public expenditure programmes in a way that has had proper regard for the employment implications.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress being made in finding a mediated solution to the industrial dispute affecting Grunwick Limited; and if he will make a statement.

As I told the House in a statement on 30th June, I have appointed a court of inquiry into this dispute. The inquiry is now under way.

I appreciate that we cannot go into the intrinsic merits of the dispute now, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the philosophy of large numbers involved in the huge demonstration yesterday was wholly out of place, irresponsible, and bound to inflame the situation, making it much worse than it would have been otherwise? Will he prevail upon the TUC to consider having a proper debate on picketing at its conference in September? Would it not be a good idea to think through the idea of a code of conduct, and preferably to think of having a specific ratio of pickets to the number of employees at any industrial site?

There is another Question on the Order Paper specifically relating to picketing. What was out of place yesterday, and what is condemned by the Government, the TUC and APEX, was the violence that was demonstrated, which I believe is untypical. It was carried out by a very small and unrepresentative minority. Although it will be necessary to examine its implications for the law on picketing, I do not think we should do anything to suggest that what happened outside Grunwick's yesterday is in any way representative of the way in which industrial disputes are generally conducted in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although many people in the Labour Party have no sympathy whatever with Grunwick's, they regard the sort of picketing that has been taking place there as intimidation, as a threat to freedom and as almost inevitably creating the violence that took place?

Cross the Floor.

Is it not time that the Government put their authority behind an appeal to members of trade unions not to take part in that sort of picketing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that violence is inevitable if that sort of picketing is carried out?

Join John Gorst.

I do not accept that violence is inevitable in a large-scale demonstration. If the calls of the TUC and APEX had been heeded by all those who took part in the demonstration, there would have been no violence. However, I accept fully that the violence that took place outside Grunwick's both yesterday and on a previous occasion is of such a serious nature that it requires a reexamination of the law on picketing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not good enough for the Government merely to condemn violence? What they have to do is condemn the number of people picketing. At the same time, they should have condemned the demonstrations that took place yesterday, which anyone except a Government as naïve as this one could not possibly have believed would lead to violence in itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman now firmly state that he is against the numbers picketing, that the numbers should be reduced now to no more than the numbers that were present before the violence started, some weeks ago, and that all other picketing and other demonstrations should be called off while the court of inquiry is sitting?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that before a Minister can issue edicts about the numbers picketing, a change in the law, which must be approved by the House, is required.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are in a position to offer advice, and perhaps to set an example.

The Government have offered considerable advice. I have been involved in talks with the leaders of the union and the TUC about this matter. If the advice offered by those leaders of the TUC and the union and myself had been accepted, there would not have been the violent action that took place yesterday.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that outside the Grunwick factory there is a clear distinction between the numbers that the police have agreed with the union should be on picket duty and those involved in the demonstration who have nothing to do with the genuine, straightforward picketing that is going on? Does he further accept that even when there are as many as 1,000 people in the Cooper Road area, the vast majority are pursuing the aim of trying to make an impact upon an intransigent situation without any violence what so-ever? Will he there fore address himself to the question that if the basic problem is to be solved the symptoms should be removed, and that the rulings on law and order should be applied to Mr. Ward, who should accept them and not quibble and incur further delays?

I very much hope that Mr. Ward and the management of Grun- wick will accept rulings on law and order. I say that bearing in mind particularly the announcement made by the Lord Chief Justice in the High Court today, indicating that the view of that court is that the ACAS recommendation that Grunwick should recognise the clerical union, APEX, should be upheld.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the law of picketing.

There are difficulties in operating the law on picketing which were recognised by the House when the present law was debated during the passage of the Employment Protection Bill. However, I intend to consult those principally concerned to see whether improvements in the law can be proposed.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if any changes in the law are to be made they must incorporate two vital principles—first, that it should not be possible for huge numbers of people to abuse the purpose of the law by assembling in numbers far in excess of what is needed to communicate or to persuade, and, secondly, that no one other than the police should be permitted to stop people going about their lawful business?

I find it hard to draw a clear distinction of principle on the basis of one or two additional people. If the law is to be precise on this matter, as I believe it may well have to be, we shall have to measure the advantages of limiting numbers against the proper extension of the right to picket, and form a view on whether it should include, with or with -out the aid of the police, the right to require a vehicle to stop at a picket line.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members will not support any panic measures to restrict the right of trade unionists to picket peacefully, as laid down in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act? Will he understand that those of us who have visited the Grunwick site know full well that peaceful picketing cannot take place, because a driver employed by the firm drives a bus recklessly through the gates? Will he now call on the Opposition spokesman on employment to say that he believes in law and order and supports the decision of the High Court that APEX should be the bargaining agent for these workers?

It is up to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to decide whether to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. I make it clear to the House that there is no intention on the part of the Government to introduce panic measures. I intend to consult in a proper manner those concerned with the issue of picketing and of maintaining the right of people peacefully to picket and to communicate, because there is at present a contradiction in the law, in that it is not possible to marry a right to drive a vehicle unimpeded down a road with the right peacefully to communicate on a picket line with anybody whose action may be interfering with or affecting the prosecution of a dispute.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's legislation in this Parliament has extended the law on the right to picket beyond what was reasonable and necessary, despite the warnings given to them by the Opposition? Will he reconsider that legislation with a view to bringing sense and good order back into the whole situation?

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in his recollection of the Employment Protection Act. The Government's proposed change in the law on picketing was contained in Clause 99 of the original Bill. That was rejected by the House. The limitation on picketing which took place between 1906 and 1971 was introduced in the Industrial Relations Act. The essential difference was that that legislation took away the right to picket outside the residence of the owner of a factory. The basic right to picket outside a factory has existed since 1906.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in Committee on the Employment Protection Bill a number of Labour Back Benchers made an honest and determined attempt to clarify the law on picketing? Does he further recall that we received no support whatsoever from the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) or any other Tory on that Committee? At least we tried to determine the law on picketing without any support. Therefore, it is hypocritical of the Opposition now to demand that the law be clarified.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

I certainly confirm what my hon. Friend said. The proposal to limit the numbers of pickets came from my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. A similar proposal was put forward when the matter was brought to the Floor of the House on Report. I hope that in the light of what has since taken place the House will again carefully, coolly and calmly reconsider the proposal that was before it at that time and perhaps take a different view upon it.

The Secretary of State is wholly misrepresenting the position. Is he aware that on 20th June 1974, in Standing Committee, I moved an amendment to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill that would have given the Secretary of State power to make regulations governing the numbers of pickets and the circumstances of picketing, along the lines suggested by the then Secretary of State for Employment, the present Leader of the House, who, in a footnote to a statement that he made to the House in March, said that it was the Government's intention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—to limit the numbers of pickets.

Order. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have tended to make their questions longer. Will the hon. Gentleman conclude his question?

I have concluded it, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly recall the proceedings on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. Originally I was asked by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) about changes in the law on picketing. I have described accurately to the House when those changes took place. There was no basic change in the law on picketing in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many industries in the public sector operate a closed shop; and what representations he has received from the employees in the public sector about the closed shop.

The information is not available. We do not monitor the establishment or operation of closed shop agreements in either the public or private sectors. Only in isolated cases does an employee writing to my Department about the closed shop indicate in which industry he works.

Is it not the case that as the public sector extends and as the closed shop in the public sector extends the right to work in the public sector depends increasingly on the possession of a union card? Can the Under-Secretary of State really say that the Government are prepared to remain neutral as we move towards a closed-shop Britain?

I am sorry that the Minister of State is not here to continue his regular exchanges with the hon. Member. I do not share the hon. Member's view. The Government maintain their position of neutrality on this subject. I suggest to the hon. Member that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of his supplementary question he might like to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on discussions within the EEC about a directive on safety signs at work.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member For Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Mr. Carmichael) last Tuesday, agreement was reached at a meeting on 28th June of the EEC Council of Ministers (Social Affairs) on a directive dealing with the harmonisation of safety information, or safety signs, at work. It will apply to all industries apart from coal mining. Regulations will need to be made by 1st January 1979 to come into effect by 1st January 1981.

I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a limit to the efficiency of pictorial signs? Does he further accept that the safety of the work force is the most important feature and that there should be some use of words on the safety at work signs?

I share my hon. Friend's view, and I think that he will find that the signs, when they are fully implemented, make a considerable improvement to the health and safety of people throughout the country.

Is not the opposite true? Are not some of these signs quite dreadful? What is the cost to industry of the whole proposition? If a firm never employs any foreigners is it necessary for that firm to have the signs?

The question of the cost to industry was raised when we debated the matter. It is impossible to give a specific cost. Since the hon. Member referred to a matter that we have debated I must remind him that three aspects were raised. First, we achieved exemption for the coal milling industry. The second aspect was the controversial running man sign. We got that deleted. It is now optional. The third aspect was the implementation date. We got an extension from the Commission and then, when I proposed it to the Council of Ministers, we achieved a further extension of the date. The arrangements are now satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how many the numbers of unemployed have reduced as a result of the job creation programme.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that it is estimated that job creation programme projects are currently providing approximately 40,000 jobs for people who would otherwise have been unemployed. It is estimated that about 115,000 unemployed people have so far been helped and that by the end of the programme this figure will have risen to 190,000.

Does the Under-Secretary of State accept that the job creation programme is creating non-jobs and is seen as a cynical attempt to disguise the level of unemployment? When will the Government get down to providing the permanent training and education that these people need?

Having visited many of the towns in Great Britain and having talked to many of the youngsters who are involved in the programme I have found that they think it is very valuable. It has been a great help as an alternative to unemployment. The Government have put forward proposals for a comprehensive youth opportunities scheme. We look forward to improvements. We believe the job creation programme to be of value.

I accept what the Minister said about job creation schemes and our experience of them, but does he agree that consideration should be given to innovation? Will he consider responding to the paper submitted by the Liverpool Economic Development Unit, which has approached the Department about changes in the attitude towards job creation?

Yes. Following representations from Liverpool we have agreed that more than 12 months should be allowed for areas such as Liverpool. We have also agreed that there should be training workshops.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that the monthly unemployment statistics are distorted? Are there not really over 2 million unemployed, because the job creation programme and the eight other special measures which cost about £800 million are simply siphoning off 500,000 people from the monthly unemployment statistics?

It is a question not of siphoning off but of giving useful alternatives to unemployment to young people and adults who welcome them.