asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has received from the European Commission relating to youth unemployment.

Preliminary proposals were contained in the Commission communication on youth employment which has been deposited in Parliament. The Commission has been asked by the Council of Ministers to produce a firm proposal for a new category of aid under the Social Fund which will promote employment, especially of young workers.

What is the Government's view of the Commission recommendation that young people who at present are at work but are threatened with unemployment should be given leave of absence to undertake some kind of vocational preparation?

As I said, these are preliminary proposals. We shall have to look very carefully at the Commission's proposals when they come back in a more substantive form. I do not think that I can answer the hon. Gentleman by saying more than that at this stage.

Will the Minister accept that, although youth unemployment is a desperately sad problem, recent research shows that it is men in middle life with two or more children who are not only unemployed more often but unemployed for a longer period and have infinitely less chance of eventually getting a job, and that this aspect of affairs must never be neglected for any other?

The hon. Lady has touched on another very important issue. I do not think anybody should undermine what she has said. But obviously the Question deals specifically with youth employment. This is a crucial issue throughout the Community and one on which I think the whole House wishes to see firm action taken.

What initiatives is the Minister taking to promote structural changes in the EEC such as a shorter working week or earlier retirement? Does he agree that, if we are to help young people, it cannot be done by one country on its own because of the competitive implications?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. The possibility of a shorter working week, earlier retirement, and so on is, of course, under review by the Community as a whole as a consequence of the tripartite conference of Governments, trade unions and employers. One of the remits that flowed from that conference was to study this particular issue, and we shall be receiving a report on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about the problem of youth unemployment.

The Government's concern with the level of youth unemployment is shared by many sections of the community, and my right hon. Friend frequently receives representations from individuals and organisations, including trade unions, employers' associations and youth organisations.

Is the Minister aware that on 10th November in Scotland alone 9,435 youngsters had had no employment since leaving school? In view of this, can he give the House some information on the youth opportunities scheme, which has been spoken about but on which very little information has been given to the House? What funds have been allocated to the scheme, and when can youngsters expect to benefit from it.

I appreciate what the hon. Lady says about the gravity of the situation in Scotland, but the youth opportunities programme is weighted to take particular account of the levels of unemployment in an area. This should be of particular benefit to Scotland and to the area the hon. Member represents.

In view of the figures that the Secretary of State gave us earlier about the increasing size of the working population, may I ask what consideration the Department of Employment has given to the report by the Equal Opportunities Commission on retirement ages, and in particular to lowering the age at which men retire, so that we might make additional employment available to young people?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the job release scheme which has some bearing on the point he raises. Active consideration is now being given to the very subjects he has mentioned.

Is the Minister aware that, whereas youth unemployment generally under this Government has more than doubled, for young West Indians it has gone up almost sixfold? Would he agree that tackling that problem would do more to deal with the problems of the National Front than a propaganda television programme?

I would not agree that it will do more to tackle the problem. The way to deal with the National Front has been demonstrated very effectively in the past week. I certainly would not detract from that approach. Having said that, of course the right hon. Gentleman is correct in the difficulty he highlights. We are taking particular action to deal with the problem, not least through the inner cities programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he is taking to reduce unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's strategy for achieving full employment on a stable basis gives priority to the attack on inflation so that we can take full advantage of an expansion of world trade. The aim of the industrial strategy is to enable British industry to achieve its full share of world trade based on high productivity, high investment and well-chosen innovation.

My right hon. Friend must not assume that fiddling with some of these short-term, high-cost schemes will be more than marginally effective. What is needed is a change of strategy. There must be an attempt to get down unemployment by acknowledging that technology has reduced the number of jobs. There must be a growth in the public sector. It was hinted at by the Prime Minister at Question Time last week that we must go for shorter hours and earlier retirement, especially in heavy industry. We must also allow wages to rise in order to increase purchasing power and thereby increase the number of jobs.

I accept that a great many of the considerations which my hon. Friend raises are absolutely crucial to overcoming unemployment and developing a good employment policy in the longer run. But one cannot discount a range of special measures when one sees that among the more successful of them there are possibilities of saving more than 100,000 jobs.

Have the Government ever considered the possibility of introducing legislation making it compulsory to offer time off in lieu instead of overtime payments? If they did that, how many jobs do they think would be created?

I have considered a number of possibilities in that area, but I would far rather see employers and trade unions working out their own alternatives to the present high levels of overtime working and means of employing more people. If there were to be an agreement on a CBI-TUC basis about statutory limitations, I think that the whole House would want to consider it.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the American measure on job tax credits, which was introduced by Congress this year? It seems to have the advantage of encouraging increases in small and medium-size firms, extra jobs, extra productivity and extra marketing.

That measure is one of almost bewildering complexity to a Minister studying it on this side of the Atlantic. If, fully grasping its significance and possibilities of application in this country, I see certain advantages in it, I shall bring the matter to the notice of my colleagues. At the moment, I cannot see any way of applying such a measure with advantage here.

Is not the Secretary of State somewhat fed up at being made the fall guy for the Government's failure to reduce unemployment? Will he look again at the way in which incentives to industry are given? Many of these incentives are being given to highly capital-intensive projects which produce few jobs and, indeed, often lead to a contraction of jobs. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to review this matter?

I do not see myself as a Government fall guy. I think that most hon. Members and most people concerned about employment throughout the country realise that employment measures effected by the Government are determined in part by Treasury decisions, trade and industry decisions and by the Department of Employment. I see it as my job and that of other Ministers in the Department of Employment to ensure that the employment implications of the policies of all other Departments are taken into account, including those of the Department of Industry.

Is it not a national scandal that there will be about 750,000 more people unemployed this Christmastime than at the first Christmastime when the Labour Government came to power? Is it not essential that more encouragement be given to small businesses, which hold out the best hope of providing extra jobs? Further, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if subsidies are given to declining industries, the profitable and efficient industries will have to meet the bill and face resultant difficulty?

I certainly agree that encouragement to small firms and industries to increase the number of jobs is desirable. A number of such measures are being implemented now. When, however, the hon. Gentleman talks about the tragedy of the level of unemployment, I hope he will also acknowledge that many more people will be in employment this Christmas than there were in the less severe economic conditions of 1972. In fact, there will be over 400,000 more employed this Christmas season, which shows that some of the measures that we have introduced to sustain and increase employment have had a considerable effect.

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

At 10th November, 1,437,963 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain, or 6·2 per cent. of all employees. This was the third successive month in which unemployment had fallen, mainly as a result of reductions in the unemployment of school leavers.

Do not these figures continue to reveal an extremely worrying situation and suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to show that we are in any way moving from what remains a deep recession? How much credibility does the Secretary of State attach to suggestions that the underlying trend of unemployment may still be rising?

On the evidence now available, we cannot say that there is not a trend towards rising unemployment in a number of sectors of our economy. But we can say that the overall effect of measures now being applied has resulted in an increase in the numbers employed. The degree to which this high unemployment rate follows from the higher rate of school leaving now taking place is one of the main reasons why we have determined to double the provision for unemployed people between 16 and 18 years of age by next autumn.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the temporary employment subsidy has done a great deal to reduce unemployment? Will he tell those in the European Commission who are opposed to this subsidy to take a running jump into the wine lake, and remind those in the Conservative Party who are opposed to the subsidy that it is safeguarding the jobs of at least 80,000 workers in the textile industry? What will happen to the subsidy in future? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on this matter before Christmas, as this is most important in particular to the textile industry?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a promise to use exactly the terms that he used to our EEC partners, but I can assure him that we shall attempt to achieve exactly the same effect. I agree that the temporary employment subsidy, probably more than any other single measure that we have introduced, has reduced redundancies by about one-third of what they might otherwise have been.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, unless there is a successful outcome to the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, tens of thousands of additional textile workers will be put out of work? Taking up the matter put to him by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what alternatives to TES his Department is considering?

This is a good example of the extent to which employment is the joint responsibility of my Department and other Departments—in this case the Department of Trade. I am anxious about this matter and am working in co- operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on the renegotiation of the MFA. In the meantime, irrespective of that, we are reviewing the operation of TES along with a number of other major measures which have been extended to March. I shall have to come back to the blouse with the outcome of that review.

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

At 10th November, 1,437,963 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The past three months have shown a fall in the number of unemployed, mainly as a result of school leavers finding jobs. The December figures will, I believe, show a further fall.

Will the Secretary of State accept that that fall was not reflected in the Scottish figures? In a broader context, will he not agree that we simply cannot go on like this and that the figures he has given today for the number of unemployed and the number coming on to the labour market suggest that some new approach must be found? Does he not feel that it would be worth while for the Government to produce a Green Paper on the cost of the various options of early retirement, more training, shorter working weeks and so on and lead a national debate on the whole issue of where we are going in relation to employment?

We do not need a debate. Just get it done.

Certainly the falls which have taken place over the past couple of months are not such as to reduce in any way the urgency of introducing the new measures on which we have already decided and of giving further consideration to the measures which, as I have indicated, are under review. I hope that it would not need a Green Paper or any other proposal on the part of the Government to bring about a debate on unemployment. My impression, gained in going round the country over the past year, is that a whole range of interested parties are engaging in such a debate and are coming forward with proposals as to how the situation might be improved.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present high levels of unemployment are the result of the failure of the free market economy? Does he not accept that history teaches us that, if we are to find the jobs in the future, we cannot look to the free market economy to find them? Will the Government now take steps to produce a Socialist plan to provide employment? Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that capitalism is not any more attractive even if it is dressed up in a kilt or a tartan Plaid?

I had come to roughly the same conclusions as my hon. Friend before we entered the present recession, but in the course of the past 12 months I have been called upon by Members in all parts of this House for greater Government intervention. Therefore, whatever they say about the free market economy, I think that they must suspend some of their judgments for the period of this recession. I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that in Scotland the special measures have already aided 94,000 workers.

Is it not a fact that unemployment has gone up not only in Scotland but also in the North-West, in the North and in Wales during the past month? Is not the underlying trend at the moment upwards rather than downwards? How can the right hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friends when the best hope of getting genuine job opportunities for the future lies within the private sector, and particularly the small business sector?

But the private sector is taking Government aid on an enormous scale, so presumably the private sector believes that the operation of a free market economy unfettered by any form of Government aid or intervention is not the right course for it to take at this juncture.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about recent developments between his Department and other parties involved in seeking to resolve the industrial dispute at Grunwick.

The issue of trade union recognition which underlies this dispute will fall to be determined in the light of the House of Lords decision about the validity of the recommendation by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in March. Meaningful discussion of the other issues involved in this case have been made impossible by the attitude of the company.

Is it not a tragedy that this case has set back the whole concept of conciliation and across-the-table conferences? Is there any way in which we can in future avoid a confrontation when it is possible, by conciliation and arbitration, to have a peaceful settlement?

It would be wrong if this wholly deplorable incident were to detract attention from the success which ACAS has had in applying the statutory procedures for recognition. It has been successful in nearly 400 cases. On this specific issue, we want to hear the decision of the House of Lords and to consider whether, in the light of that, it may be necessary to look again at the statutory procedures.

Is not the position that, Mr. Ward having accepted three out of the four recommendations of the Scar-man inquiry—in other words, all but the matter of reinstatement—the dispute is now effectively over from his point of view, and it now remains for the trade unions to recognise that fact?

I am bound to point out that Mr. Ward has refused to accept the crucially important first recommendation of the Scarman Committee.

Why should he?

I am bound to say, too, that had Mr. Ward shown a greater respect and a greater recognition of the statutory procedures and institutions set up by this House, this unhappy sequence of events might never have occurred.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is now the average wage settlement under phase 3.

As I have previously explained to the hon. Member, my Department monitors major settlements in terms of their compliance with the Government's pay policy, not their average level. The earnings outturn is reflected in due course, along with other factors, in the monthly index of average earnings. The latest figure, for September, shows a total rise of 1 per cent. since July.

How far does that answer coincide with the dualised statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that settlements should be at 6 per cent., giving rise to increases of 10 per cent.? Is not 10 per cent. now the norm for settlements?

My answer, if reflected throughout the year, would coincide almost exactly with the initial statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it does not give us that sort of indication, because it covers the period of stage 2 as well as some post-stage 2 settlements.

What machinery has the Secretary of State set up for testing the validity of productivity deals which are agreed under phase 3?

The productivity proposals which come forward along with certain wage claims are examined on a case-by-case basis to see whether they achieve the basic aim of being self-financing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent unemployment figures for Alnwick and Amble, respectively.

At 10th November, the numbers of people registered as unemployed in the Alnwick and Amble employment office areas were 675 and 330, respectively.

Is the Minister aware how difficult it is to tackle these high rates—14 per cent. in the case of Amble—when just down the road there is an area enjoying all the benefits of special development area status? Does he know, for example, that one local firm recently moved into the special development area in order to get those benefits? Will he consider the possibility of extending the small firms employment subsidy to ordinary development areas, where it could be of great assistance?

I appreciate the problem. Of course, the area has development area status and there are some advantages to be gained from that. The question of special development area status is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The small firms employment subsidy is to be reviewed, and I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the increase in the national work force that is anticipated over the next 15 years.

If present trends continue, there may be an increase of about 2.2 million in the labour force in Great Britain between 1977 and 1991, the latest year for which I have projections. The figure is subject to various uncertainties, in particular in respect of the number of married women likely to be seeking work; they are projected to increase by about 1·25 million over the period.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a staggering figure and that over 2 million super-imposed on an unemployed labour force of 1½ million surely calls for a change of strategy? At this stage, should we not consider increased public spending, sabbatical years for ordinary working people, extended education opportunities and a whole range of options which should be introduced as soon as possible?

Certainly it is a very challenging figure, starting from the position of the present high level of unemployment. I agree that it carries with it an obligation to study all the factors which my hon. Friend mentioned. But I hope he agrees that this Government have not been reluctant to increase public expenditure as soon as we have the means of doing so. As soon as we have the income to enable us to do that successfully, I am certain that that will be one of the factors in the solution.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has asked sponsoring Departments to ensure that sector working parties provide projections of jobs that may be available by each activity, and that when he receives that information he will make it available to the House?

I can confirm that I have asked the sponsoring Ministers concerned to provide us with the information arising from sector working party studies. That will enable us to make an accurate manpower analysis of the outcome of carrying through the recommendations of those working parties. I shall certainly examine the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to see how the information can best be made available to the House.

Given these remarkable figures, on what side does my right hon. Friend find himself about the use of public revenue from North Sea oil and gas? Does he favour early repayment of debt and tax reliefs, or does he favour Government action directly to create new jobs in manufacturing industry?

Given these figures and the existing experience, I find myself only on one side of every argument about how to deploy available resources, and that is in favour of the way which will increase the number of jobs and reduce the number of unemployed.

How are new jobs in manufacturing industry to be created?

In a number of ways. One is by supporting the investment programmes necessary to carry out the recommendations of the sector working parties. Another is an improvement in our own trade policies in the United Kingdom. Yet another is to use our influence as a country within the EEC and wider world forums to bring about an increase in the general level of world trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the rôle of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in recognition agreements.

A number of individuals and organisations have written to me over the past few months about recognition and the rôle of ACAS. They have expressed a variety of views.

Has not the time now come for the establishment of published criteria against which the desirability of recognition can be measured?

I am sure that ACAS works to criteria, which are referred to in the statute and which take into account such factors as the effectiveness of the organisation seeking recognition and the effect that that recognition might have on industrial relations in the company concerned.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the work of ACAS? For instance, is he aware of the problem at the Leyland factory at Speke, where men have now been laid off for a considerable number of weeks and where no attempt has apparently been made by management to resolve the problems? Will my hon. Friend consider seeing whether ACAS can assist?

If I understand the position correctly, the problem to which my hon. Friend referred was not one of recognition, which is what the Question specifically refers to. In general, I am indeed satisfied with the working of ACAS. Its services are available at the request of the parties in that district.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made and what projects are being examined in relation to job creation schemes in the London borough of Ealing.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that to date grants totalling £90,721 have been allocated under the job creation programme to four projects in the London borough of Ealing, creating 41 temporary jobs. A further application for a project to create six jobs is currently under consideration.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he please confirm that the making of submissions for job creation schemes is not limited to local authorities, trade unions and employers' organisations but that anyone who has any ideas may make submissions to the Department? Can he also say whether he is having discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about helping to attract industry to the London borough of Ealing?

On my hon. Friend's first point, there is no restriction concerning applications. Indeed, I know that the Manpower Services Commission would welcome further applications from organisations within the London borough of Ealing for job creation projects. I shall certainly raise my hon. Friend's further point with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates are available for the numbers employed as homeworkers and their rates of pay; what additional steps he is taking to assist those workers; and if he will make a statement.

No reliable estimates are available. Homeworkers within the scope of a wages council must receive not less than the statutory minimum rate laid down by the council. I am awaiting the report of ACAS on two wages councils in which substantial homeworking is found. In the light of that, the Government will consider what further steps should be taken.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one recent survey suggested that there were up to half a million people at one time involved in homeworking and that about four-fifths of these were paid less than 30p an hour? In view of the scale of exploitation in this sector, could he not at least give the House some idea of the Government's thinking on steps which could be taken in this direction?

It would be wrong for me to seek to pre-empt the inquiries being carried out by ACAS, but, of course, apart from the ACAS references, there is the question of registration. The Health and Safety Executive has published a consultation document, has received comments on it and, I understand, is likely to issue revised proposals in the near future. This should be helpful in identifying homeworkers and their employers. I think that we should await both the ACAS reports and the further initiative from the Health and Safety Executive.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly wage for manual workers; and if he is satisfied with the method of calculation of this average.

The latest New Earnings Survey shows that at April 1977 the average earnings of manual workers, working full time, who were aged 18 and over and whose pay was not affected by absence, was £70 for males, £43·70 for females and £65·80 for males and females combined. I am satisfied with the method of calculation.

Is the Minister aware that statistics can mean all things to all men and that some employers would like to know whether these statistics include overtime? Is he also aware that the statistics have been causing considerable problems in wage negotiations and have led to inflationary wage claims?

The figures are of average weekly earnings.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that between two-thirds and three-quarters of manual workers receive less than the average? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer quotes average wages in talking about tax rebates it means nothing to the rest of the population because the majority of people earn less than the average, if only because the salaries of company chairmen on £1,000 a week are included in the calculation of the average.

The figures I have given to the House are of the earnings of manual workers. I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to answer questions about tax, but I confirm his assumption that rather more than half receive less than the average.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to visit Brussels to meet his opposite numbers in the other EEC member States.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit Brussels. I expect to attend when the Council of Ministers (Social Affairs) and the Standing Committee on Employment next meet, but no dates have yet been fixed.

I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not going to Brussels soon. The hon. Gentleman referred just now to building up world trade in order to try to counteract unemployment in the Western world. Would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State when he next goes to a social affairs meeting, to discuss the Social Fund, its inadequate size and the need to build it up, so that more money can be given to the United Kingdom by way of anti-unemployment assistance and, specifically, aid for young unemployed people and vocational training?

I might say that my right hon. Friend is going to Paris this week for the OECD discussions, and he will have an opportunity there to talk to his colleagues from other countries. The whole matter is in safe hands, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have suggested already that there should be an increase in the resources of the Social Fund for the purposes he has outlined.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the European Commission is currently investigating the temporary employment subsidy because it believes that it is contrary to the rules of fair competition under the Treaty of Rome? Does he agree that, if that subsidy were to be struck down by the Commission, it would be a sad day for working people in this country because it is by far the most effective form of job protection produced by this Government?

My right hon. Friend has already answered this question. However, informal discussions are going on. I think that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made very clear the importance which they place upon the temporary employment subsidy. If any action were taken which undermined the effectiveness or the basic purpose of that subsidy, we should be gravely concerned. I hope that that will not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men, women, and youths were registered as unemployed at the Mex-borough and Wombwell employment exchanges, respectively, at the latest available date; and how these figures compare with those in the years 1975 and 1976.

At 10th November, 1,318 males and 667 females in the Mexborough area and 523 males and 241 females in the Wombwell area were registered as unemployed. The corresponding figures for November 1975 were 1,139 males and 524 females at Mexborough, and 491 males and 126 females at Wombwell. Information for November 1976 is not available because of industrial action by some staff in the Department of Employment group. Separate figures are not available for youths.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that those figures prove that there is a tremendous shortage of suitable jobs in this part of South Yorkshire? Will he have some serious discussions with the Secretary of State for Industry to ensure that more jobs come into the area? Will he also have discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment to try to persuade him to give his blessing to the South Yorkshire Navigation scheme, which is bound to bring jobs and activity to this part of South Yorkshire?

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends to my hon. Friend's remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will direct the Wages Inspectorate to alter present policy of not prosecuting employers who break the law by paying workers less than the statutory minimum wage fixed by wages councils, in the light of the widespread flouting of the law which has been revealed by the Inspectorate and the need to protect workers against this offence.

Seven prosecutions have taken place this year and others are in the course of preparation. I believe that the present policy of not prosecuting first offenders unless the offence is flagrant, but always considering prosecution in the case of other offenders, is right.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the policy of not prosecuting first offenders who underpay their workers contrasts strangely with the very severe prosecution policy of the Secretary of State for Social Services in the case of people who overclaim social security? Does he also accept that it contrasts strangely with the very vigorous efforts made by the Government to prevent employers overpaying, as they think, on non-statutory wages policy? Why is this law not vigorously enforced?

I shall not go into comparisons. I believe that the policy we are pursuing in terms of the Wages Inspectorate is the correct one. On the final point my hon. Friend raised, there is a 10 per cent. guideline and there is no special provision within that guideline for the low paid. What we shall do in the future is another question. I have expresed my views fairly clearly. Perhaps my hon. Friend will share them in due course.

Are not the Government in an even bigger muddle than usual? They prosecute people for paying too little and penalise people for paying too much. What are they trying to do?

The right hon. Gentleman, as he does most of the time on these matters, has lost his way and does not understand the situation. We would like to know when he will clarify the catalogue of contradictions that forms the Opposition's policy and, in particular, when the Leader of the Opposition will clarify their policy.

Does not my hon. Friend accept that there is genuine worry over the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and also over the failure to prosecute those who do not employ their quota of disabled people? Will he also accept that prosecution on its own is useless, as has been shown under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, because the courts will not impose severe penalties on those who are convicted?

I agree with the last point that my hon. and learned Friend has made. It is up to the courts to take a tougher line in many of those cases. On the matter of the disabled quota, we have introduced a positive policy which is based primarily on persuasion, not coercion. We must give that policy an opportunity to work through before we look at other methods.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements are made by his Department for monitoring cases where employees are dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and if he will make a statement.

No special arrangements are made by my Department for monitoring such cases.

Ought there not to be such procedures? Are not the Government deeply concerned about occasions when people who have given a lifetime of service to an industry are dismissed without compensation? Is not monitoring required so that the Government may judge the effect of their own legislation?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government ought to impose a statutory obligation upon employers, I am not sure whether that would find sympathy in any part of the House. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, we do not impose such obligations upon employers. I understand the latter point he has raised, and I would make a plea for closed shops to be operated in the tolerant and flexible way they were operated before the Industrial Relations Act made this such a contentious issue.

Would my hon. Friend be prepared to monitor cases in the Post Office, where people can be dismissed without pay, in circumstances in which they find it difficult to claim unemployment benefit, because of unsubstantiated allegations about passing documents to third persons without any clearance—documents that are of no security significance at all?

I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will send details to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry we shall look carefully into the matter.

Is the Minister aware that we can understand his eagerness to shuffle this matter on to the employers, but does he not agree that the Government are employers? What is the Government's policy towards dismissing people who commit the unforgiveable sin of failing to join, or being excluded from, a trade union?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should adopt double standards, as practised by some—one standard for people in the public sector and another for those in the private sector. We are not prepared to do that. I remind the hon. Gentleman, in case he has overlooked it, that the Church of England has come to share the view of the Government on the issue of the closed shop.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that unemployment in the United Kingdom will fall during 1978 as a result of the published details of the Government's industrial strategy.

No estimates of the overall effects on employment of the industrial strategy have yet been produced or published. Sector working parties are considering the employment implications in their own sectors, and a report will be made to the National Economic Development Council shortly.

My Question referred specifically to published details of the Government's industrial strategy, not to vague aspirations for the future. Will the Minister tell us precisely what aspect of the Government's industrial strategy in the past year has led to specific job creation?

I do not think I can answer the Question in those terms. None the less, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that his view is shared by other Opposition Members—for pointing out that we require a more planned economy.