asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to strengthen the rights of employment and prospects for women.

The Government are committed to the advancement of equal opportunities and my right hon. Friend will continue to do all that he can to fulfil that commitment in relation to the employment of women.

Is the Minister aware that the employment statistics issued today mask the fact that a growing number of women face unequal opportunities? Does not he accept that the evidence proves that our legislation which sought to attain equality for women, is failing? Is the Minister further aware that there is an underlying trend in clothing, textiles, offices and shops to eliminate employment for women? Does the hon. and learned Member realise that in my area of Huddersfield and Kirklees, two young girls are unemployed for every unemployed young man?

The importance of the contribution that women can make to the economy is very much in the Government's mind. I welcome the fact that the Manpower Services Commission is taking special steps to enlarge the number of opportunities open to women and to break clown any prejudice that may exist about the suitability of women for certain types of employment.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that good women in industry and commerce expect to get on as a result of their own abilities and that they do not expect special privileges from the State?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. However, the theme behind our equal opportunities legislation is that there should be not privileged opportunities, but equal opportunities.

Does not the Minister accept that the maternity clauses of the Employment Bill, the abolition of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, the Government's public expenditure cuts—which will squeeze nursery education and child-minding services—and the grim unemployment figures that were issued today, will lead to the devastation of employment for women? Is it not true that this woman-led Government is racist and sexist?

The hon. Gentleman's last observation spoiled his question. The purpose of the legislation, for which my Department is responsible, is to increase the number of opportunities that are available to women. We believe that that is very important.

Will not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not only our equal opportunities legislation that matters, but the way in which people behave? Would it not be a good idea for hon. Members to recognise that this House—with the exception of certain right hon. and hon. Ladies—is a glaring example of an area in which women are not fully represented?

I am certain that women do not expect privileges when it comes to selection for this House. We all value the contributions of those whom we have.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to establish a statutory national minimum wage.

No, Sir. The Government believe that pay is in general a matter best left for negotiation between employers and employees. Arrangements exist through the wages council machinery to set minimum rates of pay in industries where adequate arrangements for collective bargaining do not exist.

Following the publication of the latest earnings survey, which shows that 9 per cent. of male full-time manual workers earn less than £60 a week and that 66 per cent. of women full-time manual workers earn less than that figure, is it not clear that collective bargaining has failed to abolish the differential that exists between the earnings of men and women? Is it not scandalous that the Government are abolishing schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, and that they propose to make no progress towards introducing the only legislation that could help us, namely, provisions for a statutory minimum wage?

No. I think that the collective bargaining procedures cover most of the country. They are better developed here than in any other country, and in cases where they have not provided the right answers, wages councils have been a great help.

Would not a statutory minimum wage enormously increase unemployment among less qualified and poorer sections of the working population? If that is what the Opposition want why do they not stand up and say so?

It is certainly the case that the forecasts show that a statutory minimum wage of two-thirds the average wage could have the effect of increasing unemployment by up to 50,000.

Does the Secretary of State realise that much of the low pay in this country is in the public service? If he does not intend to introduce legislation for a national minimum wage, will he keep an open mind on this matter? In order to avoid a situation similar to that of the winter before last will he set up a working party to examine this?

I do not wish to set up any more working parties. We would be better off making up our own minds about these matters. I do not agree that there are many low-paid workers in the public sector. In fact, the public sector has done extremely well in the last few years, perhaps too well.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a national minimum wage would have the effect of pricing out of work the weakest sections of the community, particularly the unemployed young black people in my constituency?

My hon. Friend will be almost disappointed to hear that, very largely, I agree with what he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rise in unemployment since May 1979.

Between May 1979 and April 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 145,800.

Is it not a fact that Britain's unemployment will soon reach the 2 million mark, with ever-increasing pressures on the vulnerable regions and localities of the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman fight in the Cabinet against the monetarist policy, and for fundamental changes in policy on unemployment?

The so-called monetarist policies that we are following are exactly the same as those followed by the previous Government. We should always be careful before committing ourselves to forecasts about the level of unemployment because one forecast produced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggested that by the end of 1979 the previous Government would have reduced unemployment to 700,000.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the warnings given by the last Government during the winter of discontent that wage and salary increases substantially in excess of output will lead to rapidly rising unemployment?

I confirm that wholeheartedly. The more we can keep our increases in wages down, the better the prospects for the rate of inflation and for jobs. That is in no way inconsistent with the policy for controlling the growth of the money supply.

Do the Government understand that the situation in the Northern region is deteriorating dramatically and there are fewer and fewer vacancies with more and more unemployed people and redundancies every week? Does it need a national disaster to make the Government change their policy?

The position in the North, and particularly the North-East, is serious. However, one of the strange things is that there are still vacancies in that part of the world for a number of jobs, such as work on the railways. I hope that the hon. Member will do all that he can to see that such vacancies are filled.

Does the Secretary of State accept that unemployment is increasing very rapidly in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the North of England? In the absence of any positive efforts by the Government to do something about this is he aware that there is a prevailing view that this Government were elected by the South for the benefit of the South?

I absolutely reject that view. As the former Prime Minister said, we are no longer in a position where we can print our way out of unemployment. The sooner we recognise that fact, the better.

Is it not a fact that unemployment doubled in the five years of the last Labour Government and did that not demonstrate that Socialist remedies for this evil simply do not work? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the only hope for those on the dole is a revival of the private sector, based on incentive and opportunity?

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition have no remedies. Unemployment more than doubled under them. As a result we started this recession with double the amount of unemployment with which we started the last.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what measures he has taken since last May to reduce unemployment?

I have supported Government policies.

Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman has no more confidence in Government economic and industrial policies than we have? Is it not about time he started to stand up and fight for the unemployed instead of allowing the drift towards the 2 million unemployed mark by next winter?

When it comes to fighting, I need no lessons from the right hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with measures currently in hand to encourage the employment of those suffering from a mental or physical handicap.

This is an area in which none of us are satisfied. That is why I am fully behind the Manpower Services Commission's "Fit for Work" campaign—which relates specifically to mental and physical handicap—and its review of the existing quota provisions to see how best to protect employment opportunities for disabled people in the future.

I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. Is it not a matter of great concern that, despite all efforts of successive Governments, the level of long-term unemployment among the disabled remains obstinately high? Is it not appropriate, therefore, that there should be a major initiative in this area?

The "Fit for Work" campaign is a major initiative in this direction. We now have 356 applications for awards under this scheme which will be made by the end of the year. Because the scheme is successful, the overall rate of unemployment for disabled people has fallen by 5·7 per cent. since February 1978.

Does not the Minister accept that at a time of escalating general unemployment it is that much more difficult for the handicapped to get work and to retain it? In these circumstances should there not be a call for more ATCs and sheltered workshops instead of cutting back on this type of provision?

For many disabled people the chance is not for employment in a sheltered workshop, but in the mainstream of employment. For that reason we have made no changes whatever in the services for disabled people.

Does the Minister realise that the chances of the physically disabled gaining employment are reducing day by day? Is it not time for a programme for the disabled that is parallel to the youth opportunities programme?

We already have many agencies doing this. We have the job introduction schemes, special aids to employment, adaptations for premises and equipment, and assistance with fares to work. On many of these things we have not yet been able to spend the budget that we are allowed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this weekend I attended the conference of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, when strong views were expressed about the increasing difficulties of its members in finding jobs? Will he arrange to consult that organisation and hear its views?

I am always prepared, as is my right hon. Friend, to consult anybody on problems of the disabled.

Surely the Minister recognises that at a time of steeply rising unemployment, the disadvantaged groups, particularly the disabled, are hit disproportionately. Is it not time that the Government stopped wringing their hands and saying that they do their best to protect the disabled while at the same time cutting back in some areas, for example, rehabilitation centres? Will they not consider introducing new measures, or at least extending existing measures?

I hope that we shall continue to support all the measures that have proved successful. As already announced, the figures for unemployed disabled people have dropped from 147,404 in February 1978 to 138,996 in February 1980. That is not enough, but it is still a move in the right direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom; and how many are under 25 years of age.

At 10 April, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,522,921. An age analysis of this figure is not yet available, but about one in three are under 25.

Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit that the Government have finally abandoned even the pretence of attacking unemployment and are instead attacking the victims of unemployment by reducing their job opportunities and their benefits? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that one in three of the unemployed are young people under 25 years of age. In view of the fact that this number is likely to increase to even more alarming proportions, so that thousands—possibly over a million—young people will be unemployed and roaming the streets, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will finally abandon their strategy of using unemployment as an economic weapon?

The Government are not using unemployment as an economic weapon. The effect of the policies that the Government are adopting are more likely to lead to sustained employment than the sort of measures taken by the previous Government.

Does my right hon. Friend reflect on the increasing number of unemployed people who were formerly in work making things that are now being made abroad and imported into this country without let or hindrance? Does he reflect on the fact that there is a traditional and historic Tory remedy to correct this situation?

I reflect on a number of Tory remedies to correct what my hon. Friend speaks about. If my hon. Friend is talking about import controls, he should address his remarks to the Secretary of State for Trade.

While many hon. Members do not believe that short term measures are necessarily the answer to all our problems and feel that there is no substitute for a real job, may I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind, in future deliberations with his colleagues, that some of us were disappointed by his decision to scrap the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme? This decision will hit particularly hard some young people who are unemployed in the difficult regions. Will he consider these measures once again?

The number of people being aided in one way or another by Government measures is 401,000. That does not reduce the number on the unemployment register by 401,000. The registrable effect is somewhere in the region of 192,000. This shows that the Government are giving considerable aid, through a whole range of policies, to try to help with the unemployment problem.

Will my right hon. Friend consider gradually extending the Manpower Services Commission youth opportunities programme into a system of national community service, whereby young people would have the opportunity to work, socially and environmentally, within the community and possibly in a cadet form of national service? This would bring together people from different backgrounds and, perhaps, solve some of the problems exhibited in Bristol not long ago.

It would be very expensive. My hon. Friend must recognise that a considerable increase in public expenditure would be involved. In the meantime, we have increased the youth opportunities programme by 25 per cent. this year compared with last year. The more that we can divert the effort of the youth opportunities programme into social work, home insulation work, and so on—and that is beginning to take place—the better for the whole community.

The right hon. Gentleman refutes the charge that the Government are using unemployment as an economic weapon, but will he recall that when the House debated employment and training a month ago he confirmed to me that the Government were relying entirely on unemployment as a means of getting down the level of wage settlements?

I certainly never said that. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly putting words into my mouth. The financial and monetary policy operated by the Government is precisely the same as that operated by the previous Government. I remember well Mr. Jenkins of The Guardian accusing the previous Government at the time of using unemployment as an economic weapon. The Government resisted it at the time as I do now.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Preston travel-to-work area.

On 10 April, the provisional unemployment rate in the Preston travel-to-work area was 6·8 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while this figure is not acceptable, it is not as high as it was under the previous Labour Government? Will he recognise the efforts of the Preston borough council, the Central Lancashire Development Corporation, the county council and his own Department in trying to retrieve the position by encouraging more investment in private industry?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Preston is typical of many areas that are necessarily going through structural change but approaching it in an imaginative and co-operative fashion. That is the best way of solving the problem of unemployment.

Will not the Minister confirm that the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) has misrepresented the position and that unemployment is now higher in the Preston travel-to-work area than it has been for 10 years?

When I answered the main question I was talking about Preston as a whole and not its halves.

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

I have never disguised from the House my view that a rise in unemployment was inevitable. But forecasts of future unemployment levels specifying particular levels are notoriously unreliable.

In view of the fact that it has been announced today that there are over 1½ million unemployed—the highest April figure since the end of the war—and that unemployment has increased by 145,000 under this Government, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a ministerial broadcast and to withdraw the Saatchi and Saatchi poster which said that Labour is not working? What is proved is that this Government's policies are not working. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are forecasts of 2½ million unemployed by next year if present Government policies are continued?

One thing of which we and the country are certain is that Labour Party policy did not work. In 10 months, under the previous Government, unemployment exceeded 1½ million, having more than doubled since they came into office. The previous Government forecast that there would be 700,000 unemployed by the end of 1979. In fact there were 1·3 million or so.

To what extent does my hon. Friend think that we are increasingly faced with a structural unemployment problem? Even if the economy comes back on to a successful course of expansion we shall still have difficulty, without special schemes, in providing enough jobs for those seeking work because the number seeking work is increasing.

Yes, I believe that there is a structural problem. There will be difficult problems resulting from the increase in the number of young people coming into work in the next few years, the return of more women to the labour market and the effects of increasing technology, particularly microtechnology. I expect that we shall have to keep a number of schemes going. We may need to improve or increase these schemes. We must see how we get on.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in some areas where structural change is occurring unemployment is ris- ing and showing no signs of recovery? In Batley—in my constituency—unemployment is now 13 per cent. among men. Is he aware that in a town of 1,200 unemployed there are only 64 vacancies? Will he consult his colleagues in the Departments of Industry and Trade to consider particular aid for areas such as textile areas, to make sure that alternative jobs are provided as quickly as possible?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There are difficult problems in particular areas. Structural change in those areas is not proving easy to solve and has not done so for a number of years. I shall take a look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I must hasten to add that I cannot promise him any quick solution.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the wide difference between levels of unemployment in the North and the South of the country make it imperative that people should be able to move house more easily? What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to impress upon the Secretary of State for the Environment that this is necessary?

The sale of council houses will do more to help the problem than any other single factor. Subsidies to aid mobility and cause movement to those parts of the country where jobs are available were ineffective in producing the answer. The right answer involves a combination of sensible regional policies and an improvement in the general level of the economy, which could be achieved if we consumed more of the goods that we produce at home.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of school leavers currently unemployed in the North-West, Merseyside. Ormskirk and Kirkby, respectively.

At 10 April the provisional numbers of school leavers aged under 18 registered as unemployed in the areas specified were:

Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of those disgraceful figures? Does he accept that thousands of school leavers in the North-West face an extremely bleak and unhappy future as a direct result of the Government's economic policies? Does he accept, in spite of what his right hon. Friend said earlier about the youth opportunities programme, that unemployment is extremely expensive in terms of human resources? Will he therefore urge a massive increase in the youth opportunities programme?

I am not ashamed of what we are trying to do in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I take the matter seriously. We must examine what we are doing and I visit the area regularly. I shall examine any proposals that the hon. Gentleman cares to make to support the scheme, for which he is asking that increased expenditure should be incurred. I should welcome his support in encouraging people to take part in the scheme to enable us to spend the money available. In the Merseyside area only 55 per cent. of the places are taken up. The problem does not involve money or places. People must be encouraged to use the scheme. I never fail to praise the good things that I see. I never suggest that Merseyside is an outcast area—and that is more helpful than anything else.

Is the Minister aware of the Index training scheme which takes young people direct from school into training, in full co-operation with local firms and the local authority? Will the Government give us their blessing and support the scheme? Is he aware that if the Government did that we could train youngsters direct from school to take up permanent jobs at the end of the training?

I welcome the Index scheme as a good initiative. The only problem is that it is a two-year scheme and therefore does not fit the rules of either the youth opportunities programme or the STEP scheme. I encourage such moves. We are examining ways in which such schemes might be encouraged.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the likely value of compensation claims which may be made under the terms of the Employment Bill by trade unionists to their employers who are unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of their union and who are dismissed by their employer as a result.

Such a claim would be on the ground of unfair dismissal. If it succeeds, the maximum compensation that can now be awarded is £16,090; but it is calculated by reference to the loss shown in each case to have resulted or to be likely to result from the dismissal.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that £16,000 can never compensate a man who has given loyal service to his firm and who has done nothing more than cross swords with his union? Does he agree that such a figure is totally insufficient to compensate a man who merely wishes to continue working and drawing a wage from his firm?

The basis for compensation for unfair dismissal is divided into a basic award, a compensation award and an additional award which is based on the loss that results from the action complained of. We shall keep the matter under review. In 1978, when the limits were £14,770, fewer than 3 per cent. of awards were in excess of £3,000 and the median award was £375.

Should not the Minister be more concerned about the people in the steel industry who were declared redundant before the strike began and who worked their notice during the strike? Is he aware that, even when their notice expired, they were refused unemployment benefit? Is that not a reprehensible way for the Department to behave?

The provisions for such cases were decided under a statue passed by the last Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what replies he has received to his consultative document containing proposals for legislation to restrict blacking.

We received comments from over 60 organisations and very many individuals. Our revised proposals are contained in a new clause to the Employment Bill which we published before Easter and which was considered by this House last week.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take account of the fears expressed by component makers in the motor industry about whether firms in a contractual relationship with a customer who is in dispute should be allowed to recover damages if they suffer loss through being involved in that dispute, of which they form no part?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will have noticed from our debate last week that the action taken against the supplier to whom he refers in his illustration must have, as its sole or principal purpose, the prevention or disruption of the supply of goods or services to the employer with whom the dispute is being conducted. It must also be capable of achieving, or likely to achieve, that result. That is a clearer and tighter restriction than that proposed in the working paper.

Has the Minister any proposals to deal with lock-outs? If not, why not, in view of the damage being done to the country?

The new clause applies to lock-outs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when next he plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 24 April.

How many young unemployed people will be offered training by the Manpower Services Commission in order to assist in the Government's new scheme to help old people insulate their homes?

It is too early to say how many people are likely to be helped by the initiative. Officials are examining how the scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, might be implemented.

Will the Minister explain to the chairman of the MSC, now that unemployment has shot over the 1½ million mark, that we should be expanding skillcentres and training opportunities to provide skilled workers where there are shortages, rather than closing down skill-centres? Will he arrange to examine the arbitrary limits of 26 weeks or 12 weeks which do not help to give opportunities to the unemployed?

I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's final question. The chairman of the MSC assures me that as a result of the review of skillcentres, on which a decision is to be made today, more places overall will be available to provide better training in areas where that is most required.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in his review of the future of the Clegg Commission.

The Government continue to keep the work of the commission under review.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In Heaven's name why? How many more reports do we have to have from this dangerous old loony before the Government realise the damage that he is doing to employment and services throughout the public sector?

My hon. Friend asks why we keep the commission going. It has a number of outstanding references which must be completed. After that we shall reconsider whether to keep the commission going.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about a matter near to the heart of Professor Clegg? Will he tell us why the university teachers had been promised a conclusion to their investigation by 1 October this year but have suddenly been told that it will not now be ready until mid-1981?

I shall need to have notice of that particular point but I see no reason why the results of the investigation should not be ready before the middle of 1981. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Is my right Friend aware that Professor Clegg, effort on the professions supplementary to medicine throws a great deal of doubt upon the intellectual ability of that commission to find comparability? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that as a result it puts great prejudice on the Whitley Council which should be handling these matters?

I feel sorry for the professor. When he produces a report that keeps down the level of wage settlements he is criticised. When he produces a report that increases the level of wage settlements he is also criticised. He is obviously in the position not unknown to some other people. He cannot win.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take time in the House, now, to repudiate the offensive language used by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? After all, the Government are continuing with the Clegg commission, they rely on its recommendations and as far as we know they have supported those recommendations. Is it not also a question of good manners?

This is the second time my hon. Friend has referred to Professor Clegg in his rather unflattering way. On the last occasion I repudiated his reference. Professor Clegg has a difficult job to do and I do not think that he wishes to go on doing it. That is another reason perhaps, why we should reconsider the future of the commission. I would like to thank Professor Clegg for the hard work that he has done.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

At 10 April the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,522,921.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures he has announced today are further proof that the Tory Party election manifesto was a tissue of lies? Is he also aware that fear is increasing in many regions of the country over the rising tide of unemployment? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Employment, exerted himself in Cabinet and made it clear to his colleagues that their policies will lead this country into further disaster?

No, Sir. We never in any way misled the country as to the likely difficulties of getting down the level of unemployment. That was in stark contrast to the Labour manifesto, and slogan of 1974 which was "Back to Work with Labour". Their policy resulted in a doubling of the employment figures.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he intends to urge upon his Cabinet colleagues the taking of steps that will prevent the undermining of the industrial base of this country? When will my right hon. Friend make representations that will bring about some action from the Government in order to provide fair competition for the textile industry which is now suffering at least one mill closure every week? That is something which I am not prepared to tolerate any longer.

The textile industry, along with a number of other industries is going through a difficult period of recession. However, I do not believe that, as a nation, we shall get out of our difficulties by controlling imports at a time when Britain's paramount need is to export more goods and to export them more competitively.

In view of the speech made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the weekend—and underlined in a radio programme at Sunday lunchtime—which clearly indicates that the right hon. Gentleman is not happy with Government policy, even though he is a non-interventionist, will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is doing, in discussion with the Prime Minister to change Government policy? If Government policies are not to be changed when will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends get rid of the Prime Minister?

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will choose an oportunity of questioning my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that not only do we have to take account of the effect of the increase in the money supply but that we also have to recognise that trading and human factors also contribute. That is something that the Government take very much to heart.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the professional and executive register.

Following a full review of professional and executive recruitment by the Manpower Services Commission my right hon. Friend has agreed to the MSC's proposal that a specialist public employment service should continue to be provided at the professional and executive levels. PER will therefore remain as a fee-charging service, but changes in operating methods are to be made which will enable significant financial and staff savings to be achieved. The MSC will monitor the restyled service closely and will make a further full review by September 1981.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that most of the people who work on the professional and executive register will be pleased to know that a decision has been made but that they also will be worried about the continuing indications that their service will be further reviewed. Will the Minister confirm that their jobs are secure?

I can confirm that a review has taken place and that we are trying new and more effective methods of operating PER. If the staff of PER operate those methods effectively their jobs will remain secure.