asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has increased since May 1979.

Between May 1979 and July 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 299,900. The figure is provisional.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he includes school leavers, as he ought to, he will find that the number is nearly 600,000, which is the highest total since the 1930s? Nobody knows when it will end. Does the Secretary of State also realise that if he wants to avoid going down in history as the man who led Britain into mass unemployment he must either use his political muscle to get some change in Government policy, or have the grace and honour to resign?

On a day of very serious unemployment figures the country will expect more from the House than just a brawl. The figures are bound to cause deep concern, particularly among school leavers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the school-leaver programme by about 50,000. The loss of many jobs can be avoided only if excessive pay deals are matched by increased productivity, and if we do not price ourselves out of markets, both at home and overseas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of unemployment is distressing to all hon. Members and that the true answers are likely to be those rehearsed in 1975, and in other years, by the present Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Does he agree that we must reduce inflation and ensure that pay increases are in line with increases in productivity?

I think that the whole House knows that spending our way out of the recession is an option that no longer exists. Experience of the past 15 years shows that each recession has started with unemployment at a higher level. We start this recession with about 700,000 more unemployed than existed at the beginning of the previous recession.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the figures announced today represent a 2 per cent increase in the North-West, and that much of that increase has occurred among textile workers, who are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country? How does he square a low-paid industry and rising unemployment with the Chancellor's belief that low wages mean more employment, which is what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated? If the country expects more than a brawl this afternoon, what can the right hon. Gentleman offer it?

The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that one of the great problems with Britain in recent years—including, unfortunately, the textile industry—is that our competitive position has declined. We are 50 per cent. less competitive as a nation in the things that we produce and have to sell than we were three years ago, and 70 per cent. of that is due to the fact that our wages have increased faster than productivity. There is no escape for anyone in the House or in the country who believes anything else.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that among the main reasons for these appalling figures are the lack of competitiveness and productivity in British industry, and that the present situation is just as much, if not more, the responsibility of the previous Administration as it is of the Government?

All of us in this House, particularly those of us who have been here for a number of years, must accept our share of the blame for what has happened. I suggest that this afternoon we conduct our affairs in that manner.

Is not the tragedy of today's unemployment figures the inevitable outcome of the dogmatic and doctrinaire policies which the Government have been pursuing over the past 14 months? It is no answer to tell the House of Commons that mass unemployment is the crude remedy for keeping wages under control. The Secretary of State professes to be very sorry about the situation, but the bleeding heart which he has displayed today will not provide the jobs for the people whom the Government's policies have thrown out of work.

The right hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the unemployed—[Hon. Members "What has the Secretary of State done?"]—when he pretends that the problem can be put right simply by Government spending and changes in policy. To produce a few extra jobs now at the expense of prolonging our industrial weakness and producing fewer real soundly based jobs in the future is no help to the country or to the unemployed. Nor is it any help to this country for the right hon. Gentleman to throw accusations such as that across the Floor of the House when his record in government, whether he likes it or not, was no better than ours.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that it is the responsibility of the Government—any Government, no matter what their ideology—to take some responsibility for the appalling figures that have been announced today? When will he use his minority voice in the Cabinet to ensure that these policies are changed?

Of course it is the Government's responsibility, and I am prepared to accept that responsibility. However, I am also prepared to say to the country that I believe that this problem goes back further than 15 months. It probably goes back 15 or 20 years, and Labour Members know that as well as we do.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of employment vacancies not registered at job centres; and what further proposals he has for reducing the proportion.

The latest estimate I have of the proportion of employment vacancies not notified to the public employment service is based on a survey carried out by the Manpower Services Commission in 1977. The survey showed that over the period 7 April to 8 July 1977 about 34 per cent. of all vacancies were notified to the public employment service. The proportion of vacancies notified in areas served by jobcentres was about 42 per cent. compared with 30 per cent. in areas served by employment offices. Any increase in this proportion must depend on voluntary co-operation between local employers, jobcentres and employment offices, and I welcome efforts made by the MSC and hon. Members to encourage this.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that informed reply. Because of the importance of matching people to vacancies, will he personally supervise a continuing campaign to get many more employers to register vacancies—[Hon. Members: "What vacancies?"]—at jobcentres and other employment agencies? Do the statutory undertakers register their vacancies at jobcentres?

Every encouragement should be given to employers, and I shall see what else can be done to register any vacancies at jobcentres. My hon. Friend will know that the number of vacancies in the economy at any time is about three times the number that is notified to job-centres. That shows that a good deal more can be done in this direction.

What message would the right hon. Gentleman send to the 597 platers and about 400 riggers in the Tyneside travel-to-work area, for whom in March there were three and nil registered vacancies respectively? What hope does he hold out for them and the other one in four males in my riverside wards who are currently unemployed?

While recognising how serious the position is, particularly in places such as Newcastle, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, in the long run, the only way in which we can help places such as Newcastle, where there is high unemployment, is by getting more real jobs into the economy. That means getting Britain more competitive than it has been in the past 20 years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this question raises a paradox, because while there is a serious unemployment situation, the reason why many vacancies are not advertised at job-centres is that the skills are not available, and the employers know it? Will he do more to encourage people to be trained for particular tasks for which there are vacancies, especially to enable younger people to gain experience in the skills for which there are jobs?

We ought to do everything that we can to make certain that the opportunities that are available in one area are transmitted to other jobcentres so that that information can be conveyed to such people. That we are seeking to do.

As there are now nearly 1,900,000 people unemployed, and as there are likely to be 2 million next month, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister, who went to Wales on Saturday and told people to leave home to find jobs? Where in Britain can they find those jobs?

No one is underestimating the problem of finding jobs. This situation has been with us now for a number of years—[Hon. Members: "No".]—and will remain with us for a number of years unless we tackle the basic problem in an old and at present decaying economy. We must do a great deal more if we are to get it right.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest level of unemployment in the city of Leicester; and by what percentage it has increased since the same date in 1979.

At 10 July the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Leicester employment office was 14,084, an increase of 19.4 per cent. since July 1979.

Is the Minister aware that these are the worst figures since 1932? Is he aware that the Government are destroying the prosperity of cities such as Leicester throughout the country, which depend upon traditional industries such as hosiery, knitwear and footwear? Will he take steps to help all those cities that are suffering from these intolerable levels of unemployment, which demoralise their people, both young and old?

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is also aware that these figures reflect the 178 per cent. increase in unemployment in his own city, which took place under the previous Government. If he does not like percentages, it represents 6,801 people. Of course we recognise that cities such as Leicester, which is part of the East Midlands have suffered considerably because of changes in the hosiery and knitwear industries. Schemes in the East Midlands have already cost £ 1.6 million in subsidising 99 projects. The simple fact is that that has not helped the hosiery industry. As my right hon. Friend said, the only thing that will help the hosiery and knitwear industries is if they produce the right products at the right price and market them effectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main causes of increasing unemployment in the Leicester area is the big increase in imports from unfairly competitive areas? Will he undertake to meet a deputation from the Leicester area, perhaps in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, so that these points can be put to him carefully, to ensure that the position is fully appreciated?

I am prepared to join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade who, I think, is the best person to see, on the question of unfair trading, dumping and import controls. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we shall act quickly and firmly on proven cases of dumping. We shall also act in cases of mis-labelling and similar types of cheating within the international market. Import controls, however, involve many problems. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the textile, hosiery and knitwear industries export £ 2,000 million worth of goods a year, and they could be affected by import controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are registered as unemployed at the Birmingham Soho Road employment office; and what percentage of that figure is constituted by ethnic minorities.

At 8 May, the latest date for which unemployment figures for ethnic minority group workers are available, the number of people registered as unemployed in the Handsworth employment office area was 4,729 of which 43.3 per cent were of ethnic minority origin.

The Minister will be aware that this figure represents a substantial proportion of the local population on the dole in that area. Will he, with his right hon. and hon. Friends, undertake to introduce immediate policies designed to create jobs and employment opportunities in the centres of our big cities, especially to take in those who are disadvantaged in many respects, other than job opportunities, in the ethnic minorities?

Yes. We take this matter seriously. One has to put this figure against the actual number in the ethnic minorities living in the community. The most reliable figure that I can obtain for the Handsworth area is that the ethnic minorities represent about 50 per cent. of the population. One has to judge the figures against that.

Is the Minister not aware that unemployment among black youths is the greatest social problem facing Handsworth and the adjacent borough of Sandwell? His reply is complacent. to say the least. The National Front is again rearing its ugly head in an attempt to stir up racial problems in the area. The hon. Gentleman should consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see what action the Government can take to solve the problem. At present, the Government appear to be contributing to it.

I reject the charge of complacency. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear where we stand on the question of ethnic minorities within the community. The report on Handsworth, in terms of criminal acts and vandalism, was produced in 1977, during the period of the hon. Gentleman's own Government. I did not see any great action following that report.

A month ago, before today's appalling unemployment figures were announced, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he would be taking new initiatives in this area. What has he been doing for the last month? Sleeping? Where are these new initiatives? What is he doing about the points raised with him by the Commission for Racial Equality on what is probably the most potentially explosive social issue arising over unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman should know that instant solutions are not the answer. We met the Commission for Racial Equality and we are considering the paper that it put before us. It is essential that any schemes that are introduced are not racially orientated, but are available for all people.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received the review of industrial training arrangements from the Manpower Services Commission.

I understand that the Manpower Services Commission has today decided to publish next week the report of the review body on the working of the Employment and Training Act so far as it relates to the arrangements for the promotion of training for employment in industry and commerce.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standard of industrial training leaves a great deal to be desired? Will he ensure that the proposals in the review are implemented speedily?

We need to have consultations on the proposals in the review, which I hope will take place during the summer. I agree with my hon. Friend that training in this country leaves a lot to be desired. This covers young people, the whole apprenticeship system, the retraining of the unemployed and the up-training of people in work. We must ensure that when we get out of this recession we have enough skilled people to enable us to expand.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the industrial training boards have the powers and the funds to carry on the training of apprentices made redundant by firms that close during the recession?

Three of the main boards—the engineering industry training board, the road transport industry training board and also, I think, the construction industry training board—have ample funds which they can use to continue the training of apprentices whose apprenticeships are interrupted by redundancy. In addition, the Government are increasing the number of apprentices whom they are helping to 25,000 this year. I shall be giving further details in answer to a later question.

Does the Secretary of State realise that unemployment in Scotland is twice that in South-East England, and 50 per cent. above that for the United Kingdom as a whole? While retraining is important—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to ask his question.

People in Scotland will draw their conclusions from the ill-mannered observations such as those that have just been made by the Labour Party, showing its sensitivity and guilt.—[Interruption.]

Order. I remind the House that provocative questions help no one. Questions on the issue will be welcomed.

Does the Secretary of State realise that economic solutions are necessary? It is for the Government to come forward with those solutions, including the reflation of the economy of Scotland. Otherwise, the Government and their predecessors will be damned as having no interest in the Scottish people.

I recognise the seriousness of the position in Scotland. I recognise too, that we have to put forward economic solutions. That is why it is no good simply pumping more money into the economy to add to the rate of inflation and, two years later, to add to the rate of unemployment. We have been down that course for too long. It simply will not work.

Will my right hon. Friend initiate early discussions with the TUC and the CBI to improve the flexibility of training arrangements, as that might lead to an extension of the number of places available?

The TUC and the CBI are, of course, represented on the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that in the autumn there will be an opportunity for a discussion in NEDC on the whole subject of training. Everyone recognises that it is unsatisfactory at the moment More needs to be done, and money needs to be spent in a more cost-effective way. That is what I am determined to see.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will find it difficult to reconcile his professed concern at the Dispatch Box over the level and quality of training with the savage cuts that he has made in the money available for apprentice awards and the savage cuts in the training opportunities programme, which has been cut back from 99,000 in 1978 to 60,000 next year? Is it not the case that these cuts, like those in the job release scheme, in community industry, and in the special temporary employment programme have all contributed significantly to the disastrous unemployment figures?

The cuts were in the proposed expenditure of the last Government, which they were never able to implement. They would never have done so. On the question of TOPS, the main cuts have been in clerical and commercial courses. Courses in computer and technical grades have been increased. The right hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure for the Northen region.

At 10 July the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Northern region was 157,198.

Does the Minister appreciate that that means that for every two people out of work in the Northern region in May 1979 there are now three people out of work? Will the Government refrain from their Pontius Pilate act and start announcing new initiatives? If they cannot do that, will they move over and let someone else do the job?

I realise that the figures are bad. As the hon. Member knows, I answered his Adjournment debate on this matter, and I have visited the North-East frequently. Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that the employment service department placed 92,447 people in jobs. The Northern region gets more regional aid, in both absolute and per capita terms, than either Scotland or Wales.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the Northern region believe that the greatest hope for increasing employment is for the Government to adhere to their anti-inflationary policies?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. There is no question but that inflation is the real job killer that puts the manufacturing sector in the Northern Region, as well as elsewhere, out of competition in world terms. That is why the jobs have gone from shipbuilding.

Is the Minister aware that last Friday 3,000 boys and girls left school in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne? Is he also aware that 14 vacancies are recorded in the careers office? What crumb of comfort can he offer to the other 2,986 boys and girls? How can they increase their productivity?

The crumb of comfort is the expansion of the youth opportunities programme. One of the reasons why the numbers of vacancies are falling is that those employers who are taking part in the youth opportunities programme and offering work experience are no longer advertising vacancies.

Will the Minister tell his colleagues in the Department of Industry that these figures include big increases in rural areas of the North-East, from which development area status has been taken away? Will that removal of development area status be reviewed in the light of the high unemployment figures in areas such as rural Northumberland?

The regional changes are designed to concentrate aid in the very areas that the hon. Member has mentioned. Changes have always been subject to review before being finally implemented.

Despite the well-known difficulties in the North-East, is there not a need for competitiveness? Is that not well illustrated by the efforts of British Shipbuilders in getting out and selling abroad and thereby managing to achieve orders equal to the hoped-for base load of 45 ships three months ahead of time?

We are talking about the Northern region, not just Newcastle. I could add to the record of the shipbuilders that of Carreras-Rothman, which is building a second factory and expanding in the Northern region, British Nuclear Fuels, Spillers in Cumbria and Findus in Newcastle. In spite of all the difficulties, things are moving.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to issue the code of practice on picketing and the closed shop.

My right hon. Friend expects to publish consultative drafts of these codes as soon as the Employment Bill receives the Royal Assent. After consultations he intends to seek Parliament's approval for the codes as soon as it reassembles after the Summer Recess and to issue the approved codes as soon as possible thereafter.

Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what process of consultation he intends to undertake, and with what parties, before the introduction of the codes?

My right hon. Friend intends to follow the process of consultation that he followed on the working paper on which the Bill is based. He will consult bodies such as ACAS, the CBI, the TUC and all bodies representing the police. We hope that as many people and organisations as possible will advise us on these codes.

Is the Minister aware that if a code of practice appears to the work force to be patently biased, and if it is backed by the powers of law and order, that will quickly bring the powers of law and order into disrepute with the ordinary person who is trying to operate successful relationships with management?

Of course if a code practice appears to be patently biased people will not pay much attention to it. We are determined that the codes will not be biased but will provide greatly needed guidance about the conducting of picket lines. Picket lines with mass pickets are intimidatory.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Central region of Scotland employees have had two ballots on the closed shop? In the first one, all the employees who were balloted rejected the closed shop. The union leaders and the Socialist council did not like that so they held another ballot, concentrating on the NALGO members only. The second ballot also rejected the closed shop. Will the code of practice stop that kind of gerrymandering, with one ballot after another until the unions get the result that they want? Will that not put even more people in the dole queues because they do not want to join a union?

I am well aware of the ballots to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am glad that the second attempt, which restricted the ballot to existing members of the trade union only, was rejected by the members of that union. We have, in another place, amended the Employment Bill to prevent that stratagem of taking the ballot only from the members of the trade union. We shall consider very carefully the provisions in the codes of practice.

Why is the Minister worried about the closed shop? If the present rate of unemployment continues all the workshops will be closed anyway.

The Government worry about the closed shop because they dislike it as a particular illustration of the dangers of infringing personal liberty—[Hon. Members: "What about the right to work?"]

Order. Hon. Members must listen to the reply.

In that context the Government share the concern of large numbers of trade union members.

Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the people who are destroying liberty are himself and his colleagues in the Government, who are destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs? [Interruption.]

Order. This only wastes Question Time.

I believe that Parliament's proper concern for unemployment and for jobs should extend beyond the unemployed to those who have jobs to go to and only need to be allowed to get to them. [Hon. Members "Out, out."]

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct the Manpower Services Commission to make use of surplus places in training establishments for short courses of instruction for unemployed school leavers where such courses leads to the employment of such young persons; and if he will make a statement.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission—[Interruption.] May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

Order. I remind hon. Members that we must protect our parliamentary traditions. [Interruption.] In all circumstances we should protect our parliamentary traditions. The Minister should be heard.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that substantial use is already made of surplus places in training establishments for short training courses under the youth opportunities programme. I hope that it will be possible to do more.

Does the Secretary of State realise that thousands of school leavers in Scotland who have never had a job are applying for short courses of instruction and are being turned down on the ground that the Manpower Services Commission does not have the resources to train them? Is the Secretary of State further aware that the evidence shows that 70 out of each 100 who are trained find jobs? Is it not about time that he ended this outrageous state of affairs by investing in the most important capital of all—human capital?

We have increased the youth opportunities programme this year by 50,000 places. If more needs to be done, we shall do more. The increase will involve a large element of training including, for most young people who are unable to get a job and therefore have one of the programmes available, at least one day a week in training in further education colleges or training establishments.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that every effort is made by the Manpower Services Commission to ensure a 100 per cent. take-up of the expanding youth opportunities programme? Will he also ensure that the quality of the programme is improved, particularly in relation to work experience on employer's premises?

Yes. The Manpower Services Commission has learnt a great deal in the last two years about how to improve its schemes, their quality, and the length of time that young people are involved in them. It is aware of the need for the second guarantee, which is that people who are unemployed for a year or more have a chance to take part in a further scheme. We are looking to see whether there are other ways in which we can improve the schemes for young people, and whether we can improve the content of the schemes.

As nearly 2 million people are unemployed and the CBI has predicted that up to 3 million will be unemployed in the next two or three years, is it not obvious that the only hope for our young people is for the Government to stop blaming other people, face their responsibilities and change their disastrous economic policies, in order to create real jobs that will last?

Did the hon. Gentleman read what the CBI said? If he had he would have noted that it said that 2,500,000 could be unemployed if we continued to pay ourselves more than we earn and become less competitive?

Will my right hon. Friend begin discussions with the trade unions to try to persuade them to change their nineteenth century attitude to people who have been trained or retrained in skill-centres, but who they refuse to accept as skilled men?

In most cases there is good co-operation with the trade unions in the use of people from skillcentres. In some cases that is not so. Generally, in training, work experience and employment we shall need all the co-operation that we can get, even from the Opposition, in the next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the inner London area compared with one year ago.

For inner London, taken as the employment office areas in the Inner London Education Authority area, the numbers registered as unemployed at July 1980 and July 1979 were 89,682 and 73,208, respectively. The July 1980 figure is provisional.

Is the Minister aware that in the South-East as a whole, according to the figures published today, unemployment is 30 per cent. above the figure for last year and that unemployment among school leavers is 55 per cent. above last year's figure? Does he accept that behind the figures there is the reality of a generation of young people who have been rejected by this society?

I do not accept that the reality is that society has rejected these young people. I accept that we must deal with an enormous bulge in the birth rate in the next four to five years. We cannot expand industrial production to match the birth rate. That is why we have expanded the youth opportunities programme and the training programmes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, even though the increase in unemployment in London is distressing, young people in London are better placed than many people in the Midlands and the North? Since unemployment is likely to take up a large part of Prime Minister's Question Time, would it not serve the House if the Leader of the Opposition came in at the end of Prime Minister's Questions, rather than at the beginning?

I support what my hon. Friend says. In London there are 29,062 vacancies advertised in jobcentres, and that represents only one-third of the vacancies.

Do Ministers realise that they may have succeeded beyond all expectations in creating one nation—one nation that is now undivided by the misery of mass unemployment? Is he aware that that extends to London and the South-East? Is he aware also that in Islington unemployment is 16 per cent. up on last month and that more than 9,000 people are registered as unemployed? When will the Secretary of State stop posing as the "Mr. Clean" of the Cabinet and realise that if he is to cleanse himself he must publicly dissociate himself from the Government's policies and quit the Cabinet?

Nobody underestimates the seriousness of the unemployment figures. One would think, from the figures given, that we had forgotten that 22 million people are still in work.