asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to reduce the numbers of unemployed registered disabled people; and what further measures he proposes to take.

A campaign, launched by the Manpower Services Commission in 1977, encouraged employers to adopt positive policies on the employment of disabled people. A considerable range of new and improved measures have been and are being introduced and there has been a substantial and encouraging increase in placings of disabled people in work by disablement resettlement officers. The Commission will implement its announced plans to develop employment and training services for disabled people over the next five to 10 years and will undertake a national publicity campaign this autumn. Meanwhile, the quota scheme is under active review by the Commission.

I offer the Minister my warm congratulations on the scheme that he has outlined. The response of Ministers is important. Will the hon. Gentleman continue to persuade and press Ministers to implement the measures? If that fails, will he take firmer measures?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We are not complacent about the matter. Getting disabled people to work is still a major problem. However, there has been a break-through with the increase last year of more than 10 per cent, over 1977 in placings by disabled resettlement officers. That represents a drop of 9,000 unemployed disabled persons. The extension of the job release scheme will be beneficial and we shall keep up the pressure.

Is the Minister aware that the Civil Service, which plays an important role in the matter, is threatening to dismiss a blind constituent of mine who works for the Inland Revenue and who has passed all the necessary examinations? Is that not a poor example for the public sector to set the private sector?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am aware of the case and we have corresponded on the matter. Primarily, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, who has examined the matter carefully. It is a complex case and he has used his best endeavours to try to reach a satisfactory solution.

Will my hon. Friend contact employers in industrial areas—for example, St. Helens—and notify them of their responsibility to employ a certain percentage of disabled persons? Will he remind the employers that many disabled persons are highly trained and well worth the investment in employment?

I entirely agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. We are only too keen to ensure that disabled persons get equal opportunities in employment. All employers should be aware of their responsibilities. As I said earlier, the quota scheme is under active review and the Manpower Services Commission will be issuing a discussion document within about a month.

Will the Minister acknowledge that there is support in all parts of the House for positive policies to increase the employment of the disabled? There is a need for further information to be supplied to employers since there is a blockage—I am sure not as a result of ministerial or governmental action—in communication on the matter.

I do not believe that there is a blockage in communication. The plain facts are that some employers do not face up to their responsibilities. Following the review of the quota scheme and the publication of the discussion document, many of the options will be found to be well worth discussing and it is to be hoped that a better system will be achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will state his reasons for refusing a work permit for Mojas Radonjic from Yugoslavia to play for Sheffield Wednesday football club, while allowing other foreign footballers from outside the Common Market to play for other British clubs.

The application by Sheffield Wednesday for a work permit to employ Mojas Radonjic, a Yugoslav footballer, was refused because the player did not satisfy the conditions that I announced on 28 September 1978 for the issue of permits for overseas footballers. Permits are issued only for players of established international reputation who have a distinctive contribution to make to the national game. According to the club's application, Radonjic had never played for his country in a full international and therefore could not be regarded as having an international reputation.

How can a Labour Government support a policy that allows the rich clubs in the first and second division of the Football Leguea to buy whomsoever they like and discriminate against the poor clubs in the third and fourth divisions which are trying to do the same thing? Would it not be much fairer if the Government agreed a policy with the Football League and the players' union allowing one overseas player per club, irrespective of his ability? Will the Minister pursue talks along those lines?

I cannot promise talks along those lines. I understand my hon. Friend's concern for football in the city of Sheffield and sympathise with him. The whole work permit scheme is primarily based on skill criteria, but I expect that when the season ends we shall want to review the operation of the scheme and, if the Football League and the Professional Footballers' Association want a different scheme, we shall be interested to have their views.

Perhaps after the next election, the Under-Secretary could lend his services to Sheffield Wednesday. They could do with a bit of help.

That does not call for a reply, but perhaps I could take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for presenting the Player of the Year award to a member of my constituency team.

That is all right, as long as no one mentions Cardiff City. I now call Mr. Hugh Dykes.

Am I being called to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

No. The hon. Gentleman has question No. 3.

Order. I called the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to ask a supplementary question.

And I am not even a supporter of Cardiff City, Mr. Speaker. Do not similar considerations apply in the entertainment industry? If the Department were more flexible about the admittance of, say, one famous overseas entertainer, it would result in more employment for British actors and actresses in his show and more dollar earnings for Britain from tourism.

I am not aware of any difficulties in the entertainment industry. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, I should be grateful if he will raise it with me.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans next to have an official meeting with members of the Trades Union Congress to discuss employment problems.

I plan to meet members of the West Midlands TUC on 4 April.

I hope that the meeting will take place before then, but if it is even on 4 April will the right hon. Gentleman try to rehabilitate his flagging reputation—even though time is late—and press on the TUC the reasonable case for extending secret ballot procedures in unions for certain key issues where it is evident that the majority of union members would prefer such a procedure and its assurance of a private result? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion is not an anti-union move but, on the contrary, is a very pro-union suggestion?

I understood that the original question concerned my discussing employment problems with the TUC. In so far as employment is affected by the practices of unions in balloting on questions of disputes or the election of officers, it is primarily a matter for the individual union. I am satisfied that following the talks between the Government and the TUC, which led to the recent agreement, the advice issued by the TUC on this matter is sound and will be heeded by affiliated unions.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he be able to confirm that far more people are in employment today than was the case five years ago? Does he not think that the TUC will be far more appreciative of that achievement than of the job annihilation policies of the Conservative Party?

Our statistics do not enable us to say how many are in employment, but they certainly show that employment has been sustained remarkably well through a serious world trade recession and that in March 1978 there were virtually as many people in employment in this country as there were when we came into office in 1974. If one counts the number of people employed in the youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme, we have many more in employment today.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed many golden opportunities to increase incentives to work by reducing taxes? Is the Secretary of State proposing to have talks on those lines with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is in office long enough to do so?

One of the many factors figuring in the discussions between the Government and the economic committee of the TUC in reaching the annual assessment provided for in the agreement between us is the effect of taxation on employment. I am satisfied that recent tax changes have helped in that direction.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he inform union leaders of the number of jobs lost in the private sector and the fact that, in many cases, that is frustrating the work of the Government in their job creation policies? Does he not agree that the Opposition made their position clear last week when they cynically remarked, during a discussion about unemployment on Merseyside, that there were no workers on Merseyside?

It will not be necessary for me to remind the TUC, since it is being constantly reminded by member unions of the serious problems faced by their members as a result of decisions of firms to have massive redundancies and to close plants in developments areas. If no other factor spurred the TUC to bring about the sort of policies that can be developed under our joint agreement, that factor would do so.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that many will be deeply distressed by his complacent remarks about unemployment? Is he aware that the 800,000 extra people who are unemployed today, compared with the number who were unemployed when the Conservatives left office, will listen to his complacent remarks with grave cynicism and deep disquiet?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has misrepresented me. I have never been complacent about the problem of unemployment and I and my fellow Ministers in the Department have been exceedingly active in developing policies to assist the unemployed. The people of this country have more to fear from the sort of change of policy that some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues have been advocating.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment why an upper age limit for unfair dismissal claims was specified in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978; and if he will make a statement.

This provision was carried forward from the Industrial Relations Act 1971.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the recent House of Lords judgment in the case of Miss Nothman, there appears to be considerable concern about the lack of clarity about exactly at what age retirement should commence, bearing in mind that particular contracts exist for some individuals?

The Nothman case has caused much concern and confusion. We are studying it carefully. In the meantime, I understand that a person over the age of 60, in the case of women, or 65, in the case of men, cannot claim that he or she has been unfairly dismissed. However, if a person is dismissed when he or she is under the normal retirement age, he or she may have a case for unfair dismissal. We are looking at the matter very carefully.

Is the Minister aware that there may be widespread evasion of the unfair dismissal provisions, particularly by companies which let on that elderly people are unfit to do their work and redesignate them as being capable of only light work—when there is no light work available in the company? Is he aware that firms can thereby get round the unfair dismissal provisions?

Section 65 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides that if a person has passed the normal retirement age he or she can be fairly dismissed. However, where persons have not reached the normal retirement age and the sort of thing described by the hon. Gentleman occurs, there is a right to lodge a claim for unfair dismissal or redundancy, as the case may be.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce measures to protect individuals at work from abuse by trade union representatives of the power conferred on them in a closed shop.

No, Sir, but as I have said often in the House and as the joint statement says, closed shops should be conducted in a flexible and tolerant way.

Has not the case of the West Yorkshire dyer, Mr. Thompson, demonstrated once again the total inadequacy of such protection for the individual worker as may exist either at law or in the union rule book? How much longer is the Minister prepared to see individual workers treated in that way?

I have expressed publicly my concern about the way that Mr. Thompson has been treated. It is intolerable, but the case proves the wisdom of the machinery that has been set up. The case has been referred to the independent review committee under Lord Wedderburn. I understand that in the meantime the threatened expulsion from the union has been suspended.

Does my hon. Friend agree that closed shops can be introduced only with the consent of both trade unions and employers? Is it not true that many employers seek such agreements for their own convenience? Have not the Conservatives demonstrated their total opposition to trade union membership by their attitude to the Grunwick dispute?

I do not think that the House will want to go back over the saga of Grunwick. If the Opposition wants a debate, I am sure that we would welcome it. My hon. Friend is right about the mutual benefits that stem from a closed shop agreement. A recent study carried out for the Social Science Research Council at Warwick university indicates that many employers find benefits from a closed shop and have a positive interest in entering into such agreements.

Will the Minister of State tell the House what changes have occurred in the operation of the closed shop since the agreement of 14 February? Will he say, in particular, whether the Government propose to ask British Rail to reinstate the 43 workers who were dismissed, many of them after a lifetime of service, for the sole presumed offence of their unwillingness to join a trade union?

As I have told the hon. Gentleman and the House before, the British Rail case is, I understand, being submitted as a test case to the European Commission for Human Rights. It would be unwise for me to comment on a matter that is, in effect, sub judice. On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, it was pleasing that the TUC reinforced what I have often said in the House about the need to practise a closed shop in a flexible and tolerant way. The joint statement also includes what I have said in the House about persuading people of the merits and benefits of trade union membership and the obligations rather than using other methods to coerce people into membership.

Will my hon. Friend consider introducing measures to protect workers who seek to join a trade union and are dismissed by employers for seeking to do so? Will he encourage workers to join their appropriate trade union as the best way of maintaining their living standards and improving their working conditions?

The policy of the Government in industrial relations, as we have repeatedly said, is a system based on collective bargaining conducted by strong trade unions. We believe in encouraging people to join trade unions. Equally, we believe in encouraging employers to allow people to join trade unions and not to penalise them for doing so, as we have seen in some cases. We wish to encourage employers to recognise trade unions. There is little benefit in being a member of a trade union if employers refuse to recognise that union.

Can the Minister of State give a single example of a closed shop which is being operated more flexibly as a result of the concordat? Does he not appreciate that the case of Mr. Thompson in West Yorkshire shows that some safeguards at law are required? In my constituency there is the case of Arthur Dungate, who was sacked by the Hounslow borough council two days after the concordat was agreed and yet no action has been taken to operate that closed shop more flexibly. What on earth is the concordat worth in relation to closed shop flexibility?

The hon. Gentleman might let me have details of the specific case to which he refers. He must not keep shaking and nodding his head. I am merely asking him to let me have the details.

The Minister has them.

If the hon. Gentleman says that I have them, I must say I have not seen them. I will certainly look at the case he mentions. I have already commented on the Thompson case. I understand that the expulsion has been suspended pending further consideration by the independent review body. That illustrates that the machinery is working effectively. I am convinced that the atmosphere has been changed, as illustrated by the recent declaration of SLADE on its recruitment tactics. I was able to make a statement in the House a week last Friday to show that SLADE, since the concordat, has responded in a positive and constructive way.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to question No. 5, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), the Minister of State, Department of Employment referred to my constituent Mr. Joe Thompson and suggested that he was no longer expelled from his union. I am sure that the Secretary of State would in no way wish to deceive the House but the facts of the case are that Mr. Thompson is still expelled from his union. His case has been heard by the Industrial Relations Court once, by his union executive once and he has now been told to go back to the IRC. May I ask the Minister of State through you, Mr. Speaker, to take note of this and to join me in making representations to try to resolve this matter?

I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order, and it will have been heard.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Trades Union Congress about the conditions of service of casual workers in the newspaper industry.

None, Sir.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is wrong that a small section of the work force should be treated entirely differently by the Inland Revenue from the rest of the population? Will he get the TUC leaders to condemn this practice, which is contrary to the interests of the vast majority of its members?

Taxation of casual workers, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Rather than condemn the group of workers concerned, will my right hon. Friend agree that there are serious problems affecting those who work on a casual basis in the newspaper industry Would he refer to the latest developments at The Times? Is he prepared to make any statement? One of the elements in that dispute is the casual worker. My right hon. Friend has played a great part in trying to bring the two sides together.

Over the years, inquiries into casual working in a number of industries, including the docks and construction industries as well as newspapers, have shown that it has frequently led to malpractices and industrial relations difficulties. In the case of The Times newspaper where the casual working practices were only one of a great many difficulties, I understand that negotiations are going ahead effectively. I hope to see that paper back in publication very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average waiting time that Scunthorpe and Glanford borough councils have to wait for replies from the Health and Safety Executive when they request their observations on planning applications.

The average time that Scunthorpe and Glanford borough councils have had to wait for replies from the Health and Safety Executive when they have requested its observations on planning applications is five to six weeks.

Is not the Minister aware that there is a real problem where local authorities, under the statute, have to consider planning applications within a certain time? On the other hand, by statute, they have to consider all points appertaining to the question. There have been cases, particularly involving Glanford borough council, which, I understand, reached ill-advised decisions in regard to storage of butane at Flixborough. That may have been done illegally because the council had not got the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive in front of it, as required by statute. On the other hand, it has to consider the matter within a certain time. What advice can the Minister give? What will he do about this situation?

This is a real problem. The Health and Safety Executive cannot be expected to make appraisals at the drop of a hat. It takes time. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the difficulties and, if necessary, discuss the matter with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the unemployment figures to fall in the United Kingdom and Scotland, respectively; and, if he will make a statement.

Any forecast of employment and unemployment is subject to error. However, the Government will continue to take all steps to create more jobs for the increasing number of people wanting work.

Does my hon. Friend realise how much the special employment measures he has boldly initiated are appreciated? These measures have kept hundreds of thousands off the dole. Until an upturn takes place in world trade, could not these measures be extended much more ambitiously in view of the positive assistance they give to employment prospects in the United Kingdom?

I believe that the short-time working compensation scheme will do that. The Short-time Working Compensation Bill, which I hope will receive the approval of the House, will be of great assistance, as will the proposed restructuring scheme for firms.

Will the Minister say whether he expects to see some improvement in real economic jobs in the economy? How far, in any estimates that his Department has drawn up, has he taken account of the need greatly to improve productivity?

I am glad to say that the last unemployment figures showed a reduction. More importantly, in many of our cities, the number of vacancies being notified is greater this year than last. That is a cause of some encouragement.

Will the Department consider the unemployment problems of the steel industry? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Ford Motor Company at Dagenham is now using 71 per cent, imported steel? At the same time, thousands of our steel workers are unemployed and many more works are threatened with closure. Is it not time that this socialist interventionist Government did something about this situation?

The practical problems of the steel industry are a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. My Department is concerned to do all that it can for redundant steel workers and areas hit by steel closures.

Does not the Minister agree that our present unemployment problems are made worse by his Government's so-called temporary national insurance surcharge which is, in fact, a job tax? Many people are concerned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will increase that surcharge in the Budget and that this will mean increased unemployment.

The answer to the first part of the question is "No". The answer to the second part of the question is "I would not know".

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to meet the chairman of the Standing Commission on Pay Comparability.

I met Professor Clegg yesterday.

Is the Secretary of State able to report progress in the work of the Commission, or is it another Government stalling device? Why is it not yet possible to indicate the groups which qualify by their preconditions for reference?

Progress has already been reported to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend made a statement on 7 March on the general role of the Commission. Local authority manual workers, National Health Service ancillaries, ambulance men and university manual workers have been offered comparability studies. The local authority manual workers have settled their outstanding claim, as have the hospital ancillaries, and they may now proceed to their comparability study.

Will my right hon. Friend guide the comparability group to study the hypocrisy of Opposition Members who call for low wages when they are lining their pockets with parliamentary adviserships and directorships as fast as their greedy fingers can get hold of them? Will he encourage the group to carry out a comparability study of the work of some Opposition Members, with their directorships, and the useful work that is carried out by others such as hospital porters, ancillary workers and those who work in local government, and expose the hypocrisy of Opposition Members' utterances day after day and week after week?

I am certain that the workers whose claims have been referred to the Commission are doing useful and valuable work. I hope that they will benefit from a fair comparison with others doing similar work and making a similar effort in other sections of our economy. I do not want to interrupt the good work of the Commission with a review of the practices to which my hon. Friend has referred because I do not think that they are of such value to the community.

How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that answer to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) with the attitude that the Government are now adopting towards the Civil Service, which has had a long-established tradition of pay research? Pay research is now being denied to the Civil Service at a time when the Commission on Pay Comparability is about to give comparability to other groups. Is he not aware of the strongly held view in the Civil Service that the Government are breaching the undertakings that they gave? Civil Servants ask how anyone can have confidence in a Government comparability exercise when the Pay Research Unit has been treated in such a cavalier fashion.

I am keenly aware of the importance that Civil Service negotiators attach to the PRU system. That is why I believe that the Government are right to give an undertaking to the Civil Service that the outcome of the present PRU exercise will be fully implemented and that the matter which is now for negotiation is the staging by which that is obtained.

Surely the Civil Service was under the impression that it had been given an undertaking that would be implemented from 1 April. Why is it that the Government have not made plain in advance their views on when implementation would take place?

I do not understand how such an understanding could have arisen. It has been made clear from the outset to the review bodies, the Commission, the PRU and the Civil Service that the staging of the findings was a matter of Government responsibility and was to be negotiated with the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with the Trades Union Congress the effect on trade union and labour relations of the practice of extending industrial disputes beyond the immediate parties concerned.

The conduct of industrial disputes is covered in detail in one of the three guides attached to the joint statement issued by the TUC and the Government. I have no plans for any further discussions on this subject at present.

Do the Government intend to do anything tangible about this practice in view of the great damage that is done to innocent third parties, to the national economy and to the reputation of the trade union movement?

I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he has in mind what has been described as secondary picketing, that was the subject of a lengthy statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on 25 January, in which he explained in detail the legal limitations that already exist on such action.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seeking to achieve the reform of trade unions by consent is about as hopeless as trying to reduce crime by consent of the criminal?

That is an interesting comment, which I am sure will be carefully noted by many. The implication is that the trade union movement will be subjected to reform that will be thrust upon it if the Conservative Party ever gets the chance to do so.

Does my hon. Friend understand that all the questions coming from the Tory Party have no sincerity? If the Tory Party can see anything that it can use to fan the flames of any industrial dispute, it will take that opportunity. If it can cause any form of confrontation between the Government, employers and workers, it will do it. When it has achieved that industrial unrest, it talks about the irresponsibility of trade unions. It does not mind how much it damages Great Britain as long as it feels that it has helped its political cause.

Order. I have been tolerant today because I sense an atmosphere in the House. However, hon. Members must ask questions.

The short answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes". I think that everybody will now recognise that the Conservative Party is sustaining a well-orchestrated, politically motivated campaign of abuse and hatred of the trade unions which will only exacerbate bad industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent consultations he has had with the International Labour Organisation about its investigation into the treatment of the Association of Free Trade Unions in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The investigation is still proceeding. The ILO's governing body, which considered the matter on 1st March 1979, was not satisfied by the USSR's general denial of the allegations concerning freedom of association in the Soviet Union and decided to press for observations or detailed information on the specific complaints.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Soviet Union will seek by every means to drag its feet on this investigation as the full facts will clearly show that in the Soviet Union the trade union movement is merely another arm of the police state? Will he therefore encourage the ILO to pursue its investigations? Will he draw the existing facts, which have already been revealed, to the attention of leading members of the Labour Party who show such admiration for the Soviet way of life?

My recollection is that the Labour Party Executive has strongly supported the investigation. I do not think that it needs its attention drawn to these matters by me. The hon. Gentleman talks about the Soviet Union dragging its feet. We have to observe the due process of the ILO. I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman and to the House before. We are behind the ILO investigation and the Soviet Union is clearly in the dock.

If my hon. Friend discusses with the ILO conditions of work in the USSR, will he draw its attention to the awful conditions of exiles such as Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, as evidenced so dramatically on television last night? Will he inform it that Labour Members who are concerned with good relations with the USSR find it difficult when it behaves in that way towards its own workers?

I did not see the television programme that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. I should have to check to ascertain whether it was relevant to the ILO's functions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have become unemployed in the West Midlands since February 1974 as compared with other regions.

Between February 1974 and March 1979 the number of people registered as unemployed in the West Midlands region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers increased by 74,600, compared with an increase of 666,700 in the other regions.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with that state of affairs in the West Midlands? Why is he excluding school leavers? Will he be able to redeem his right hon. Friend's promise to provide jobs for all school leavers by May?

I am pleased to say that Birmingham and Coventry, two of the cities most hit by school-leaver unemployment, have discovered this week that it is almost certain that the Government commitment will be met. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be delighted about that. Although they will be far from satisfied, I am sure that they will be delighted that the level of unemployment has fallen in the West Midlands in the past year and that the number of vacancies has increased substantially.

Without wishing to minimise the problem, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that had it not been for Government assistance to British Leyland, Chrysler, Alfred Herbert, Meriden and other industrial schemes, the figures would have been considerably higher?

Had it not been for the assistance given by the Government to the West Midlands there would have been an industrial desert in many of our cities. Not only the assistance to Chrysler, British Leyland and Alfred Herbert, but also the temporary employment subsidy, the youth opportunities programme and now the short-time working compensation scheme will be helpful to the West Midlands.

Does the Minister agree that there has been far too much steering of industry away from the West Midlands by the Government? I refer to firms such as IDC which were affected in Stafford, which is in my constituency. There has been a general attitude in the West Midlands of not helping sufficiently except for experiments such as at Meriden and British Leyland, which are not proving successful.

I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his opposition to the creation of a pit in his constituency, which would create jobs, and note that 43,000 jobs were created as a result of industrial development certificates in the West Midlands in recent years since Labour came to power.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures in Birmingham and the West Midlands.

At 8 March, the provisional numbers of people registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area and in the West Midlands region were 41,441 and 122,882 respectively.

Will my hon. Friend say how greater those figures would have been if the industrial assistance presently provided by the Government by way of subsidy schemes were removed—the removal of which assistance is Opposition policy? Will he give an estimate of what the further job loss will be if all the large companies such as IMI, Dunlop and GEC have to pay all their deferred tax, which is industrial assistance and which concession will be removed by the Tory Opposition if they form a Government? What will be the unemployment figures in the West Midlands if those courses of action are followed?

The figures in Birmingham alone would be astronomic. Through Department of Employment measures 19,000 people have been helped. In the West Midlands the figure is 95,000. The consequences not only for British Leyland, Chrysler and Alfred Herbert but for all the components firms throughout the West Midlands would be dramatic and catastrophic were it not for the way in which the Government intervened to save jobs.

Does the Minister agree that the unemployment figures are disgraceful for what is the workshop of England? Why do the Government still send work away from the Midlands, which has the best work force in England, to other regions where the labour record is not so good?

As a native of Birmingham I appreciate the problems faced by the West Midlands. The Government created the inner city partnership in Birmingham, which has tackled the problem for the first time. The Government gave massive assistance to the engineering industry, which helped it to recover from the decline that occurred under the previous Administration.

Will the Minister confirm that more than 100 firms in the West Midlands region have received direct Government aid since 1974? Will he give an undertaking that he will arrange to have published in the Official Report a detailed account of that financial assistance, together with the number of jobs being protected and preserved in each case, so that the education of the Opposition may be improved and so that the people will know what is at stake in the next election?

The statistics of trade legislation prevents us from naming the individual firms. The workers in factories whose jobs have been saved know that that occurred as a result of Government intervention. They will take note of that fact.

Does the Minister recognise that some jobs that could be made available are not being offered because of Government action such as the Employment Protection Act, and that representations were made to his right hon. Friend on this point only last week?

I read the report of the British Institute of Management with great interest. It regards the views of the Opposition on this point as a non-sense. The effects of the Employment Protection Act have been completely overstated by the Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will postpone the date on which the unemployment benefit office at Knottingley, West Yorkshire, is due to be reduced to part-time operation.

Yes, Sir.

I thank my hon. Friend for this stay of execution for the unemployment benefit office at Knottingley, where 535 members of the public called in the last week for which figures were available. Will he meet me soon so that we may have a full discussion on the future of this office before any further decisions are reached?

Certainly. I shall be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any others whom he may wish to bring to talk about this situation.