asked the Secretary of State for Employment what effect he estimates the Confederation of British Industry initiative has had on the level of prices in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

I regret that it is not possible to estimate the effect of the C.B.I. initiative on its own. However, I have no doubt that it has contributed significantly to the slowing down in the rate of increase in the cost of living since 22nd June, 1971.

Does not the Minister realise that the cost of living in London is much higher than it is in any other part of the country, and that house prices, land prices and rents are particularly high? Will he suggest to his right hon. Friend a special London allowance for old-age pensioners to alleviate the hardship caused by this high cost of living?

I appreciate the sentiments behind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it would be extremely difficult to do. As he probably knows, a committee has been sitting to consider the subject of a regional price index, and the results of that committee are now being considered.

In view of what my hon. Friend has said about the rate of price increases slowing down, would it not be useful for the T.U.C. to start a wages initiative following the C.B.I. prices initiative?

Again that sounds a good idea, and if it were as successful as the C.B.I. initiative has been it would be of great advantage to the country. One has to realise that Government policy, for instance, on purchase tax and S.E.T., has had a good deal to do with the way in which the rate of rise in prices has dropped, as also has the moderation in wage increases.

Will the Minister accept from me that his reply will convince few of my constituents in North St. Pancras, where the cost of housing has risen at an astronomical rate in the past few months? Is he aware that a house which a few years ago would have been difficult to get rid of at £2,500 was recently advertised for £30,000? How can he say that this initiative has had any real effect on the cost of living and prices generally in central London?

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the price of houses is a worrying factor, but the Question was about the general rise in prices and I think my answer adequately deals with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the latest unemployment figures published by his Department.

I have already made it abundantly clear that I regard the level of unemployment as unacceptably high and that it is the Government's first priority to reduce it as swiftly as possible.

Would not "deplorable" be a better description? Does not the Secretary of State realise that cuts in public expenditure must contribute to unemployment and that, if public expenditure were increased to reverse the present downward trend of public authority house-building and to remove the restriction on secondary school improvements, some measure of relief would be given to the large number of unemployed building workers?

The hon. Gentleman is on a very bad wicket when he talks about school-building, which has been extended considerably since the present Government came to power.

Absolute rubbish!

The hard fact with which we all have to grapple is that within the space of only one year British industry is producing slightly more output with 400,000 fewer people. There is little doubt that the main cause forcing British industry to that dramatic and sudden economy of labour was the wage explosion which started in 1969.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are a substantial number of vacancies in certain areas of the public service, such as the police force, the fire service and public transport undertakings? Would it not be appropriate to suggest that suitably qualified unemployed people should apply for these vacancies, thereby taking advantage of an admittedly difficult situation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that, even in this time of heavy unemployment, a surprising number of vacancies are not being filled. Through my Department's offices I intend to see that as much as possible is done, and perhaps more than has been done in the past, to get unemployed people into the vacancies which exist.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Cabinet has given any consideration to the 12-point programme outlined by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opopsition in his speech on unemployment recently? If so, do the Government intend to carry it out?

Long before the Leader of the Opposition put forward his rather bitsy and piecey 12-point programme, we announced that the whole question of regional policy was under fundamental review. But, more important, whereas we have put an enormous boost into the purchasing power of the economy in the last 18 months, in the whole of the six years of the Labour Government they were concerned with taking it out.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take to reduce the level of unemployment in the constituency of Stirling and Falkirk Burghs.

I am confident that the extensive measures taken by the Government to stimulate the economy of the country as a whole, and of the development areas in particular, will, when they have had a chance to bite, lead to an improvement in the unemployment situation in the Stirling and Falkirk Burghs.

Is the Minister aware that his confidence is certainly not shared by my constituents in the Stirling and Falkirk Burghs? Does he accept that the level of unemployment in my constituency is at an all-time high and that officials in his Department, realistically in my view, are forecasting that the position will get much worse before there is any light at the end of the tunnel? Does he also accept that tragically contained within those figures are youngsters who have never had jobs and who are now 17 and 18 years of age?

No one is attempting to disguise that the situation is other than bad, but it is not entirely bleak. The average in the hon. Gentleman's constituency area is below that for Scotland, which is admittedly very high. Job opportunities are coming along. In the next four years about 1,259 new jobs will be available. A new factory of Gestetner Limited is to open shortly and will give employment to 70 people, and probably many more by the end of the year. The massive measures which the Government have taken to help Scotland will assuredly help the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of unemployed males in Great Britain who are registered at employment exchanges in development areas; and what was the corresponding figure in January, 1970.

Out of all males registered as unemployed in Great Britain, at January, 1972, and January, 1970, the proportions registered in the development areas were 33·7 and 35·5 per cent., respectively.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that those figures, which reflect a high national level of unemployment, cannot be interpreted as indicating that the regional problem has diminished? In fact, the only true measure of unemployment in development areas is the absolute rate of unemployment. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that there is a crying need for a new initiative from the Government on regional policy? Furthermore, will he bear in mind that the percentage of unemployed in Scotland has increased and that to that extent we have a particular Scottish problem?

Certainly the regional disparity remains as it was before. The figures show that it has fallen a little, but, on the whole, I agree that it remains. As for the need for further stimulus, an immense and powerful stimulus has been given in a variety of ways and in a variety of programmes. This will work its way through the economy and will help.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many British workers were assisted in the second half of last year in taking up employment with West German firms as a result of vacancies circulated by employment exchanges in this country.

One hundred and six British workers are known to have accepted offers of employment made by German employers through the British and German employment services during the second half of 1971.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I should like to ask, first, when he expects a reverse flow of these 106 workers; secondly, whether reciprocal arrangements exist between West Germany and this country for the movement of workers; and, thirdly, when he envisages a flow of German workers into Britain.

There are already signs of a slowing-up in the number of workers wishing to go to Germany, and there are indications of some who have gone wishing to come back. The numbers who have gone because they were unemployed are comparatively small as there are considerable language difficulties.

Regarding German workers who will come here, presumably under the Common Market arrangements when we become members of the E.E.C., it is impossible to give exact forecasts; but, as has been stated several times already, we do not anticipate that, certainly in the initial years, there will be much movement of labour between the countries.

rose—

Order. I feel a certain difficulty today. Most of the Questions relate to unemployment. I think that it would therefore be better if I go through the Order Paper fairly quickly and not allow many supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will except the proposed metropolitan districts from his proposals to give to education authorities powers to provide a careers guidance and placing service.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these education authority areas bear no relation to travel-to-work areas or to areas for career opportunity? Would it not be advisable for schools to deal direct with the Department of Employment? Will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend on this matter?

We believe that, on the whole, there is advantage in local education authorities continuing to run their own service. If they are to do that, the area on which that service has to be based should be the local education authority area, whatever that may be. I think that is certain.

We considered carefully the alternative possibility of the whole thing being done by my Department. However, we must recognise that the education authorities have built up very great expertise. They are dedicated to this work and I believe that, on balance, it is right to leave it with them. Whether it should be mandatory on them is, as I said in our publication People and Jobs, a matter for further consideration and consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he had with the National Youth Employment Council and the Institute of Careers Officers before issuing the booklet entitled People and Jobs.

Both the National Youth Employment Council and the Institute of Careers Officers set out in detail their views on the future structure of the Youth Employment Service and these were carefully reviewed before People and Jobs was issued.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet in the Youth Employment Service and amongst many career teachers in schools about certain sections of the document People and Jobs? Will he assure me that he has not closed his mind to the matter and that any further representations that these or other bodies may make will be carefully considered before further legislation is brought before the House?

Indeed I will. It may interest the hon. Gentleman and the House to know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is meeting representatives of the Institute of Careers Officers on 14th February.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes have recently been made in the employment service for disabled or handicapped people; and what further changes he proposes to make.

The measures I announced last year have been actively pursued. The initiatives taken by Rotary International the Round Table and the Junior Chamber of Commerce, combined with the strengthening of the Disablement Resettlement Officer Service and increased inspections of employers' records under the quota scheme, enabled over 60,000 jobs to be found last year, in spite of the generally difficult situation.

We are now examining the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts to consider what changes are necessary.

I welcome the action which the Government have so far taken. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the review of services for the disabled is being pressed ahead with urgency and that, when the review is complete, he will ensure full publicity for its recommendations so that no opportunity of employment for the disabled is lost?

We shall certainly consider publicity for any new provisions. Particular attention is being paid to the effect of the provisions made under the Act, such as industrial rehabilitation, vocational training and sheltered employment, for securing the satisfactory resettlement of disabled people. We are also looking into the quota provisions to see whether they succeed or fail in getting employment opportunities for disabled people. We intend to keep up the initiatives which we have started in this sphere.

is the Minister aware that the greatest contribution which he can make to getting employment for disabled people is to persuade employers to accept the quota of 3 per cent. for disabled people? Half of Britain's employers are not fulfilling their quotas. Will the Minister try to do something about it?

We are very conscious of this problem. That is one of the reasons why we are having a special look at it. We take every opportunity to persuade employers to engage the disabled. There are difficulties. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are some spheres of activity which are not suitable for certain types of disabled people. In addition, many of the disabled are quite old. However, we shall certainly pursue this point.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the total number of women unemployed, whether registered or not.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the numbers of women who are made unemployed and do not register at the labour exchange.

There were 127,566 women registered as unemployed on 10th January. It is not possible to estimate the number of women who do not register. Further information about the total number of persons seeking work will, however, come from the 1971 Census of Population. Preliminary results are not expected for a few months.

I have a great respect for the Minister, but is he aware that that answer was vacuous? By the time the census figures are announced they will be out of date. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Minister estimating the number of women unemployed. What does he propose to do to improve the employment prospects of women as part of the Chancellor's campaign in the so called war on unemployment?

As the hon. Member probably knows, there is no accepted way of defining or measuring the number of people unregistered and unemployed. But certainly the employment services of my Department are available equally to men and women. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a lack of employment opportunities for women as compared with men. On the contrary, for every 100 men registered as unemployed in Great Britain last month there were 8·7 unfilled notified vacancies. The corresponding figure of vacancies for women was 45·6, so there are still plenty of opportunities available for women workers.

Why is it not possible to have figures for unemployed women who do not register? Surely it would be a simple matter to take the number of women who were paying industrial injuries contributions 12 months ago and compare it with those contributing today? Would not that show a drop in the numbers, of women who have jobs?

The matter is not as simple as that. It sounds simple on the face of it, but many women want to work only part-time or on a temporary basis, and many often want to work only locally. If they become redundant and they have domestic responsibilities, they wait at home until other local employment appears. It is difficult to identify the total number of women who are unemployed but unregistered.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers in the last month; and if he will make a statement.

I met national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers on 21st January, 1972. I have nothing to add to the statement about that meeting which I made on 24th January.—[Vol. 829, c. 968.]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the strike is still on'? It was a week last Monday that he last came to the House and made a statement on the issue. When will he meet again the miners' officials and the National Coal Board in order to take a fresh look at this matter so that a settlement can be negotiated honourably? Is he aware for instance, that 6 million days have already been lost and that we shall have massive power cuts next week? Is it not time that the Secretary of State and his Government stopped taking the rôle of bully and started taking the rôle of peacemaker?

The hon. Gentleman's last words do nothing to contribute to a solution. I assure him that I am ready and anxious for a suitable opportunity to meet both sides, with a reasonable opportunity of bringing about a conciliated settlement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not take the initiative?"] But unless and until there is some indication that conciliation can lead to success, I have to take the view which all my predecessors, of all parties, have taken: that one can do more harm than good by calling in the parties when the gap is so big and when there is no chance of bridging it.

Do not lean on the National Coal Board.

Will my right hon. Friend very much bear in mind the vital importance of timing in all matters relating to industrial relations and negotiations?

Yes. I must once again say that I am not leaning on the National Coal Board. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in power, the Coal Board and all other employers were being leant on by a specific statutory incomes policy which set limits to the offers they could make and arbitrators were also instructed to keep to those limits.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that even at its most rigorous, with the exception of the six-months' freeze, the Labour Government's policy always provided for exceptional treatment for exceptional cases? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing public disquiet at the Government's inactivity? Are the Government doing anything to facilitate a settlement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with every day that passes attitudes harden, positions become more deeply entrenched and the costs of an eventual settlement are escalating'? Is it not time that the Government took a helpful and constructive initiative that takes into account the very widespread public sympathy for the miners and recognises, too, the exceptional nature of their case?

If the hon. Member believes that his Government's policy took account of special ases—[Interruption.]—as far as the miners were concerned, while his Government were in power miners' earnings fell from being above the national average to being below it. That was the result of a policy of special cases. We have to face the fact that if we want to improve the position of those who are worse off, the rest of us must be prepared to accept a little less ourselves. That is a statement from the previous Government's White Paper, published only six months before the General Election. When the party opposite, when the Trade Union Congress and when individual union leaders come forward with a firm commitment and statement of policy of that kind, it may be possible to make special cases.

Mr. Fidler, next Question.

On a point of order. This is the first opportunity that we have had, Mr. Speaker, to question the Secretary of State for Employment on this very important situation. As we are miners' Members of Parliament who are responsible to some extent for thousands of miners being unemployed, we are entitled, I suggest—[Interruption.] Yes we are. We are responsible; but the real responsibility is on the Government Front Bench. We are entitled to voice an opinion in the House today when we have the opportunity of questioning the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. His statement today takes the prize for complacency.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Twenty of my constituents are in court today about a matter of intimidation, I should say, about this strike, with orders coming from the Department. I also should like the opportunity of questioning the Secretary of State. I have tried to put down Private Notice Questions and have been refused. It is time that we had the chance of questioning the right hon. Gentleman further on this matter.

With regard to the point of order, the Chair is in a very difficult position when it is trying to make progress and to call as many Members as possible. The time taken on the particular Question was rather longer than usual because of the length of supplementary questions and answers. But I must establish that Question Time cannot be an opportunity for debate. Other ways should be found for debating these matters.

Further to that point of order. I have just had the disturbing news, Mr. Speaker, which reinforces my argument, that one of the miners' pickets has been killed on duty today. Therefore, it is worth while extending Question Time at this moment.

If the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) wishes to put a supplementary question on that point, he may do so now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State aware that the present attitude that has been taken by his Department is not only doing the mining industry a great deal of harm but is turning the men even closer together in a willingness to fight and to go all out not for a settlement, which could have been honourably arrived at previously, but for either all or nothing? It is time that the Secretary of State, instead of waffling across to us and lecturing us, got his finger out and did something about it.

May I first say to the House that I, of course, do not know any more than the House does about the tragic event to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I am sure that we would all wish to express our very deep sympathy.

That is not good enough. Why not do something about it?

I assure the House again that I will not lose any hopeful opportunity for conciliation. But the House really must leave the timing of these matters, for better or worse, with the Minister who occupies my position. My predecessor on one occasion waited as long as 11 weeks before she believed it was right to intervene. No Minister in my position takes any joy in waiting one day longer than necessary. But to intervene and then to fail in conciliation can have very serious results.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 100,000 unfilled vacancies in the hotel and catering industry have now been filled; and what plans he has for retraining unemployed persons with no previous experience in that industry to fill these vacancies as a contribution to the utilisation of those at present unemployed.

During 1971, 168,000 adults were placed in hotel and catering occupations by employment exchanges. On 1st December, 1971, unfilled vacancies in these occupations notified to these offices totalled approximately 7,500. Training facilities provided by the Government are being expanded and courses in a range of relevant skills are in operation or planned in Government training centres, colleges of further education and with employers.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information and welcome the proposals in the "Training for the Future" document issued by his Department. Is he aware of the statistical information I received yesterday from the Director of the British Hotels and Restaurants Association indicating that the hotel and catering industry, which employs 414,000 people in hotels, 285,000 in restaurants and 450,000 in catering, including industrial catering, had a shortfall of 8 per cent. of the total at the last count? That represents 93,000 vacancies, two-thirds of which are unskilled or semiskilled. Bearing that in mind, will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure a reassessment of job opportunities to replace the term "servile" by "service"? Will he undertake a drive to get people into the industry so that they can take advantage of the employment opportunities?

Recruiting is very much the responsibility of the industry, which is a thriving growth industry. My Department will certainly co-operate as much as it can and we are already doing so in training. The best co-operation we could receive from the employers is the registration of more of their vacancies. We have 7,500 vacancies registered, but from what my hon. Friend says it is obvious that many have not been registered.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the restyled Professional and Executive Register envisaged in the report "People and Jobs" to be in operation.

January, 1973, is the target date for the introduction of the restyled service.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information and I am glad to hear that the Department is keeping to programme. Unhappily, older people form a large proportion of those in the professional and executive groups who are out of work. Have the Government any steps in mind that might be helpful to those older people?

The date I have given is a calculation. Between now and then we shall be speeding up the process as far as possible. My Department gives priority to older people if it can, but these matters must be judged on their merits and the person in question must be able to do the job before he is recommended.

Short asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to reduce the unemployment amongst young people, including school-leavers, in Wolverhampton, especially those who have been unemployed since leaving school last summer.

The great majority of the summer term school-leavers in Wolverhampton have now found jobs. In January there were 301 unemployed young people, including 68 school-leavers. Careers officers are doing all they can to find work for them and the Government's economic measures should improve job opportunities.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the West Midlands for over 25 years the unemployment level has been below 1 per cent. but that now over 100 young people who left school last summer have not yet been able to find a job? The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well when the next lot of school-leavers will be looking for jobs. Is it not time he shook himself out of his complacent attitude and did something specific for the young jobless, who will be turning to other kinds of activities less acceptable to society if they are unemployed for much longer?

Far from being complacent, the Department has done reasonably well in assisting the placing of school-leavers in the area. Despite the decline in industrial activity, less than 3 per cent. of the 2,000 or so summer term school-leavers are still registered as unemployed. I know the situation is not good in Wolverhampton, but as a Midlands Member myself I am confident that in due course the prosperity of the area will be maintained and improved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for increasing cooperation between industry, industrial training boards and the employment and education services at national and local level.

The Government's plans for the future of industrial training—"Training for the Future—A Plan for Discussion"—were published on 1st February. The booklet includes positive proposals to strengthen co-operation between industry, the training boards and the employment and education services through the establishment of a National Training Agency.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he make special efforts to see that in the extra year at school every effort is made to give school-leavers an intimation of the sort of life they will lead, so that there is less unemployment among school-leavers?

I am not sure that that is exactly what my hon. Friend asked his Question about. I think that the National Training Agency which we are establishing is about the best answer we can have on the question of co-operation.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the consultative document. Is he aware that the proposal in it to phase out the training levies and grants has been greeted with dismay by many people who follow these matters closely? Is the proposal regarded as a firm Government decision or as something that may be withdrawn in the light of discussions the Government will hold with interested parties?

My right hon. Friend made it clear the other day that that is part of the consultative part of the document and is open for consultation. But he also made it clear that the proposal is not viewed with dismay by many of the training boards, because several of the more experienced boards were already going in that direction. When the right hon. Gentleman studies the matter, he will find that to be so.

What is it about the employment service that makes it impossible to hive it off and join with the proposed National Training Agency in a national labour market board?

That may happen in years to come but we are not in a position to do it yet. Before such a step could be taken, we should have to separate the payment of benefits from the employment services, and we are nowhere near doing that yet. Therefore, we are talking about quite a long time ahead.

Are the Government likely shortly to announce details of improved financial incentives for workers seeking retraining?

That was announced last August. A person being retrained receives about £5 more than unemployment benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further effects rising unemployment has had on industrial training; and if he will make a statement.

Applications under my Department's Vocational Training Scheme have doubled during the last six months due to an increased demand from unemployed workers. There is evidence that training provided by employers decreased in 1971 as compared with 1970.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply must be very disheartening? Is he aware, further, that because of his Government's policy of deliberately creating mass unemployment there is a deleterious effect on all those involved in industrial training, since they believe that it is producing not technicians craftsmen and scientific workers but more and more young men and women to go on the dole?

The hon. Gentleman has indulged in a pack of rubbish. It is a travesty of everything that has happened to suggest that the change in unemployment is due to the deliberate policy of this Government. The hard fact is that we are getting slightly more output with 400,000 fewer people. That is the great difficulty. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I find it very satisfactory that, in these circumstances, the number of applications for Government training schemes has doubled. Many people ask me what is the good of having training because no one will want it, but twice as many people appear to want it.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the ritual tirade from the benches opposite and on recognising that this matter is very much more complex than the Opposition ever care to admit. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, further, on his decision to visit Germany. Recognising the woefully inadequate manpower planning policies that my right hon. Friend inherited from his predecessor, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he accepts that in Germany he will be able to study the German Government's plan for creating 19 million new jobs in the next 10 years with which to combat what they recognise to be the problem of technological change?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to assure him that we regard the need to improve our employment services in every way as being extremely important if we are to maintain full employment in the future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Maintain?"] It is an area of policy in which we in this country have fallen behind, and we must now catch up.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have always been a great advocate of industrial training and have said so in this House many times. Is he aware that in Lanarkshire we have 9ç8 of the insurable population unemployed? Will he ensure the House that to assist Lanarkshire and Scotland there will be another training centre in the area? Can he assure us, further, that when men are trained there will be jobs for them? This is vitally important.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to commit me to saying precisely where new training centres are to be. However, I can assure him that Scotland will not get any less than its proper share of the big expansion that we have in mind.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are becoming more and more sick of the complacent nature of his replies on our employment troubles? Is not the Government's failure to deal with the unemployment problem underlined by the appalling forecast by the C.B.I. today that manufacturing industry is not likely to increase its labour force between now and May and that, within that period, many large firms may reduce their labour forces even further? Does not that indicate that the inadequacy of the Government's policies is even worse than we have assumed?

It indicates that the measures to expand and boost economic growth should have been started long before June, 1970.

Can my right hon. Friend indicate what proportion of those who receive training at Government training centres get jobs soon after they leave the centres?

Last year about 80 per cent. got jobs within the first month. That was a little lower than the year before but it was still satisfactorily high. It is worth bringing out the point that, even today, well-trained people have much better employment opportunities than others.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the provision of more training facilities in Wales will be looked at with interest? Is he aware, further, that what would receive a warmer welcome is more employment? Knowing that the flow of industry has been reduced to a mere trickle, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the Principality has a better share of employment opportunities? The time for platitudes is long past. What the 56,000 jobless in Wales want is a policy which gives them work.

The amount of money that we have pumped into the economy to boost demand in the past year is not a platitude. It is a hard reality. The growth is coming. What has happened, though, is that for various reasons industry has suddenly increased productivity enormously to the point where we are producing the same amount with many fewer people.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction workers were placed in employment by his Department during the last 12 months; and what proportion these represent of the vacancies for construction workers notified during the same period.

The precise information is not available but for the occupations most closely associated with the construction industry the number of men placed in employment by employment exchanges during the 12 months ended 1st December, 1971, was 152,858. Expressed as a percentage of all vacancies for men in these occupations notified to my Department the figure was 71·5.

Is it not likely that in the coming months the construction industry will be one of those in which there will be shortages in certain skills and trades? Does not that underline the value and urgency of the Government's retraining proposals?

Yes, Sir, it certainly does. As the economy picks up, those shortages will be accentuated. Not all vacancies are notified to my Department, alas. We believe there are far more in the construction industry than are revealed by the current figures. As stated in "People and Jobs" we are doing quite a lot to try to improve the notification of vacancies to the Department.

Is the Minister aware that if the Government decided to increase investment in public sector housing starts, so that 100,000 more starts were undertaken this year, there could be a reduction of at least two-thirds in the total number of unemployed in the building industry in the coming 12 months?

The hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister, knows that is not a question for me. However, if he refers to the present Government's record on housing so far, he will see that it bears very favourable comparison with that of the previous Administration.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements to attend the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in April, 1972.

I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister accept the element of regret that I detect in that reply? Will he accept, further, that a major topic at the conference is likely to be the failure of the recently negotiated international monetary package to solve the problems of international trade and the needs of the developing countries?

I appreciate the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is not customary for Heads of Government to attend U.N.C.T.A.D. conferences. I attended the first one as Secretary of State. The second one, during the term of office of the party opposite, was attended by the President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be representing this country at Ministerial level at the forthcoming conference.

As for the main topics of discussion, certainly those aspects of the present monetary situation which affect the developing world will be very much under examination. The purpose of the last Washington conference of the Group of Ten was not specifically to deal with the problems of the developing world but to get an arrangement amongst the major industrial countries on their parities. At the same time those countries undertook the obligation to work for the reform of the international monetary system.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the disturbing indications that the world may be heading for another international monetary crisis? Will he use all his influence to try to persuade other Governments not to deal with this by raising tariffs and getting back into a trade war?

That is our own approach and we shall use our influence to that end. The point that my hon. Friend raises is not directly a matter for the next U.N.C.T.A.D. conference.

Following the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not agree that any period of stability following the December Washington agreement on parities shows signs of being peculiarly short-lived? What plans have the Goverment to deal with the menacing situation which is developing?

Will the Prime Minister also bear in mind the growing concern throughout the developing world that monetary questions are settled too much by a small group of developed countries without the voices of developing countries being heard?

I appreciate the validity of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes in the latter part of his supplementary question. It is true that feelings amongst the developing world are quite strong on this matter. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman knows from experience the difficulty of getting agreement between even the Group of Ten on major questions, especially at a time of difficulty in international monetary relations. To have a much larger group which included the developing world to deal with these specific problems would produce difficulties that one could hardly hope to overcome. But as to the long-term problems I agree that the interests of the developing countries must be taken into account. I think that many would like to see them fully represented in discussions.

Will the Prime Minister answer the question concerning parities?

I would not like to comment on that today. It is possible to draw conclusions, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, but it is after all only a short time ago that many were arguing that the level of parities fixed was too high to produce a stable situation. Now the argument is exactly the reverse and there are dangers in it.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for taking the chair at the National Economic Development Council.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 9th November to a Question from the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert).—[Vol. 825, c. 126.]

As the Prime Minister has been so maladroit in his handling of the unemployment situation, is he now prepared to accept the O.E.C.D. view that the Government's policies are unlikely to have any rapid impact on the level of unemployment? Is he aware that that view was supported by the C.B.I. today? Could he ask the National Economic Development Council to take account of the serious implications of the O.E.C.D. view?

We can certainly ask the National Economic Development Council to take account of these views, and others which are published from time to time. The Council has been discussing particular subjects; in January it was industrial investment and yesterday it was manpower resources and the Bolton Report on small firms. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the O.E.C.D. report in full because some of the summaries which have appeared certainly do not represent the views expressed in that report. In particular the report comments that Her Majesty's Government's policies form a consistent strategy for dealing with the entire group' of economic problems.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Birmingham on 17th January, 1972, on regional policy represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Birmingham on 17th January on the economy represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on 17th January, 1972, on economic matters represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend emphasised that, to take full advantage of economic growth and entry into the Community, industry should invest now in modern equipment, to improve competitiveness and increase capacity. He also explained the essential part that regional policies would continue to play in the overall management of the economy.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread criticism from the C.B.I. and the Industrial Policy Group on the one hand and the trade unions on the other hand of the Government's current regional policy, including in some instances the use of industrial development certificates? Will he say what is the virtue in sticking rigidly to an outmoded regional policy when almost the whole country has been reduced to the needs of a development area?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can quote the views of the C.B.I. and the Industrial Policy Group in the same breath because the members of the C.B.I. dissociated themselves from the views of the Industrial Policy Group. On the question of I.D.C. policy, it is well known that there is always a conflict of interest between those who believe that to get what industry is available into the development areas the I.D.C. policy should be absolutely rigid and those who believe that it should be flexible, because there are areas such as the West Midlands conurbation and the North-West which have to replace industry that is fast becoming obsolescent. Obviously, to achieve a balance must be a question of judgment by the Ministers concerned.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State managed to make a speech on growth and investment which, remarkably, had no reference to unemployment? Would the Prime Minister care to confirm his promise—the 1972 one—that it is the Government's policy still to maintain full employment? Will he consider taking action to deal with unemployment and investment by considering, for example, a temporary investment incentive, preferably investment grants but some other method if he prefers it, to deal with the crucial problem of new investment in the next 12 months?

The C.B.I. forecast showed that the outlook in the returns that it has received is much more optimistic than it has been, probably for the last two and a half years. This is an encouraging aspect of the survey. I would have thought that the whole purpose of my right hon. Friend's speech was to urge investment and thus to get growth, which is also a means of reducing unemployment.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is absolutely nothing in the Secretary of State's speech that will encourage a reduction of unemployment in the West Midlands? In view of that, will he give serious and urgent consideration to the proposals I have put to him on behalf of every facet of economic life in the City of Birmingham—proposals which would produce projects that would help in the reduction of unemployment in the city?

The hon. Gentleman sent me a letter, which arrived on Tuesday afternoon, putting forward various proposals and giving me details of the group which had worked them out. This letter is now being examined by Government Departments to see which of these proposals can be implemented.

May I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the North-East for the endeavours he makes to help our area? Can he let us know when we are to get an answer about the grants for old industries which want to expand? Is he aware that even if the grants are smaller than those given to incoming industries, we still need an answer urgently? Thank you very much for the effort you have made on our behalf.

I am gratified to have my hon. Friend's appreciation and I will endeavour to let her have the answer she requests as soon as possible.

Is the Prime Minister aware that with a bit more of this kind of help the whole area will be utterly desolate? Is he further aware that the comments of his hon. Friend do not represent the views of the people in the area?

I do not know what good the hon. Gentleman thinks he is doing for the North-East by using extravagant language of that kind which bears no relation to the truth. If he wants industry to go to the North-East he had better stop talking about a desolate area.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now take action to ensure that, as a practice of his Administration, all Ministers give the same priority to replying to letters from Opposition Members of Parliament as they do to replying to those from Members of their own party.

Replies to letters from all hon. Members are sent as quickly as possible, and there is no discrimination between hon. Members of different parties as implied by the Question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction on this side of the House about the length of time taken by some Ministers to reply to letters? Can he give us an assurance that there is equal dissatisfaction on the back benches opposite?

As I have said, if an hon. Gentleman has any particular instance about which he wishes to complain, the Ministers in the responsible Departments will certainly examine it at once. I have found general agreement in the House that with a very heavy burden of correspondence Departments do endeavour to answer letters as quickly as possible. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's particular complaint is but if he has a specific matter which he wants me to investigate I will do so. The only letter from him I have been able to find in recent weeks is one which he wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Services on 13th January, to which he received a reply on the 21st.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a couple of weeks ago I wrote him my first letter of this Parliament about the McMahon Treaty and British nuclear policy and that I had an answer in 48 hours which was unequivocal, objective, accurate and in every way commendable?

I well recall the letter which my hon. Friend sent me. I must say that to achieve that standard it is not possible to reply in 24 hours—it does require 48.

On the subject of Ministerial behaviour, will the Prime Minister remind his colleagues of the polite convention by which a Minister visiting a Member's constituency notifies the Member concerned beforehand? Will the right hon. Gentleman in particular draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

This is a longstanding convention which we wish to uphold to the utmost. We all know there are occasions when unfortunately, because of pressure of business, a private office slips up in giving notification. It is certainly not intentional and if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so I will look into this matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now dismiss the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

No, Sir.

Are we to take it from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman endorses the Secretary of State's petty-minded and vindictive interference with Manchester Corporation, which wishes to provide free hot drinks to children who receive free school dinners because they can no longer have milk? The Secretary of State has stepped in and forbidden this. Will the right hon. Gentleman now promise that he will preavent his right hon. Friend from meddling in Manchester's new plan to give these children these hot drinks at the charge of 1p per week?

The Manchester issue was a legal one and not a question of a policy decision by the Secretary of State. The legal advice which was received was that it was necessary for a local authority in those circumstances to make some charge.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the grateful thanks of thousands of people throughout the country for all she has done in regard to primary schools—surely the first priority in education?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but the record of my right hon. Friend, in providing the largest ever building programme for replacing old primary schools, is a major achievement in education. At the same time, to have had the biggest ever building programme for polytechnics and other institutions of further education, to have seen through the raising of the school-leaving age, which the party opposite abandoned, to have commissioned a major inquiry into teacher training and to have improved staffing standards are remarkable achievements in the 18 months that my right hon. Friend has been in office.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement, which will appear in a number of places in a letter tomorrow, that the Government would set the local authorities free to take their own decisions with the constant, monotonous decisions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reject local authority reorganisation schemes? Is he aware that last week the Secretary of State rejected a very important part of Worcestershire's scheme and a very important part of Surrey's scheme?

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, a responsibility is placed on the Secretary of State to examine schemes in the light of the criteria set down and to make a judgment upon them. That is a statutory responsibility placed upon her. At least she has not tried to bully local authorities to accept one scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State's decision with regard to Whyteleafe School, retaining it as a grammar school, has pleased many parents in my constituency in East Surrey? Is he further aware that the decision to retain some grammar schools is in line with our promise to retain parental choice, which we on this side treat as of great importance?

Yes, Sir, we have always emphasised that the views of parents as well as those of teachers and local authorities should be taken into account.

Replying to the first question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), the Prime Minister said that this was a purely legal matter, implying that if there were no legal difficulties the Secretary of State would not take this view. Is he aware that she introduced last year one of the filthiest Bills that we have ever had in this House, to prevent local authorities from providing milk? If she could introduce that Bill to prevent them, could she not now introduce a Bill to do as my hon. Friend suggested?

I am glad to see that the support and backing for the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is still as good as ever. My right hon. Friend was asked to give the best advice possible, under the existing law, on the action proposed by the local authority—[Interruption.] Therefore, so far as it affects the local authority, she was bound to advise what the present position is: that some charge must be made by the local authority. The local authority can subsidise at the same time, but some charge has to be made by it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question? If the right hon. Lady could introduce that Bill last year to prevent councils supplying milk, why could she not clarify the law in this matter by introducing a Bill to enable them to do it?

Because we do not propose to change the responsibilities of local authorities in this way. We do not believe that they should have the power to dispense in this way without any charge at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"] If the right hon. Gentleman had thought otherwise, presumably he would have changed the law himself. As it is, when we introduced the Education (Milk) Act we allowed a supply of free milk for every primary child up to the age of seven and for older children who needed it on medical grounds. The right hon. Gentleman abolished it for secondary education without any exemptions of any kind.

I wish to raise a point of order concerning the transfer from the Prime Minister to the Secretary of State for Employment of my Question No. 27. I understand that it is not a matter for the Chair that the Prime Minister decides to transfer 90 per cent. of his Questions, but my concern on this matter is at the form that the Question takes.

The Question that I asked concerned the possible unemployment of 500 of my constituents because of the closure of a factory and a letter sent by the shop convenor to the Prime Minister. In the form in which the Question now appears on the Paper, I am guilty of a terminological inexactitude, because it says that a letter was sent by my constituent to the Secretary of State for Employment, when in fact it was sent to the Prime Minister.

Will you give a direction, Mr. Speaker, that, when Questions are transferred, the sense of the Question is retained, so that one is not guilty therefore of making a statement which is obviously untrue?

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is not really a matter for the Chair, but I will certainly consider what he has said.

On a point of order. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, during Question Time, one of my hon. Friends announced that a miner had been killed on picket duty. We were charged with showing a certain amount of emotion on hearing that news, but I think that the House will understand why there is no need to apologise for that. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Before we leave for our constituencies this weekend, would it be possible for a Minister to make a statement describing what happened and telling us why a situation like this should arise?

Second, it has been drawn to our attention that pickets have been arrested and held in custody overnight without opportunity of bail. Some of them have been handcuffed. Might this not be related to the situation—

For unlawful picketing.

Shut up.

When people are killed, the hon. Member cannot understand the emotion aroused.

I hope that a Minister will give an explanation so that, when we go to our constituencies, we will know the facts, since the miners' representatives always try to take a responsible attitude to such depressing events.

I have already had notice from an hon. Member of his wish to ask a Private Notice Question tomorrow on this matter. I will of course decide on that and take into account all the factors in the situation.

Further to that point of order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1932 there was a tragic explosion at the Bentley Colliery and that on the very same day a statement was made in the House by the responsible Minister about the occurrence? He did not go into how and why it happened. He simply expressed the sympathy of the House and said that a public inquiry would be held.

I rise on a point of order to seek your guidance, Sir. Should not the Government follow that 1932 precedent in view of the fact that today's tragedy is equal to that of 1932? [Interruption.] I agree that the circumstances are different, but this man was undertaking legal picketing in the strict sense of the word. In my constituency during the last week 13 men have been arrested, handcuffed and put in line—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker, and not the ignorant Members on the Government benches.

I am speaking as a compassionate hon. Member for the Opposition and a representative of the miners' group. I should have thought that even the ignorant element on the benches opposite would be prepared to listen to me on this occasion—[Interruption.] This is no laughing matter. We are talking about a man's life. A man is dead and he leaves behind six children. This could be the start of another Ulster in the Yorkshire coalfield.

I warn the Government here and now that if there is not an immediate statement from the responsible Minister, I shall go back to my constituency tonight and advocate violence [HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] A man has lost his life today in tragic circumstances—[Interruption.] I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker—

rose—

Order. I appreciate the strong feelings that are held on this matter. I have indicated that I have had notice from an hon. Member that he wishes to ask a Private Notice Question about this matter tomorrow at 11 o'clock. It would not be in accordance with precedent if I were now to announce my decision on that, but I assure the hon. Member that I shall take careful account of what has been said.

With humility and sadness I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the person concerned in this incident was a resident of my constituency, may I be permitted immediately to express profound shock and sorrow at what has happened and sympathy for the widow and six children? May I underline—

Order. I quite understand the hon. Member's feelings, but the time to make such comments will be tomorrow, if I allow the Private Notice Question to be asked. Mr. Roy Jenkins. Business Question.

Further to the point of order that has been raised with you, Mr. Speaker, and with very great respect, may I remind you that it is not impossible for an hon. Member to give notice of a Private Notice Question if need be weeks ahead? In this case the hon. Member gave you notice that he wished to raise this matter and has thereby pre-empted any other hon. Member's opportunity to raise what is an urgent matter immediately.

I gave you notice shortly after 2.30 p.m. that I wished to raise this matter, and it was not until the 2.30 news that this information came out. I therefore know personally that no hon. Member could have given you notice of his desire to ask a Private Notice Question before I gave you such notice—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh over this, but it is not a laughing matter.

I heard of this on the 2.30 news. I came straight to the House and spoke to you in the Chair. I said that I wanted to raise the issue today and not tomorrow. Tomorrow may be too late. The miners are extremely upset and worried over this. There could be ructions in the country tonight—[Interruption.]—and it is not good enough to allow this matter to stand over until tomorrow, because it should and could be discussed today.

The subject which we are to discuss later is betting and gambling. Is that more important than the loss of a miner's life? I therefore urge you to consider allowing this matter to be raised today rather than tomorrow.

rose—

Order. Mr. Roy Jenkins, Business Question.

Further to the point of order that has been raised with you, Mr. Speaker—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am on a point of order. Before asking the Business Question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether you had noticed that the Secretary of State for Employment was in his place? I thought he looked as if he might be prepared to make a statement. It might help if he were able to say something on this subject.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House at Question Time that he was probably better informed on this tragic incident than any other right hon. or hon. Member, might it not be in the national interest if he now made a brief statement on the subject?

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As those who were present will recall, when the news of this tragedy was mentioned at Question Time by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) I immediately expressed the sympathy of the whole House. The first news I had of it was from that hon. Member and I have been trying to obtain information about the incident since then.

The information I have been able to obtain so far is very scanty. The news appeared on the tape at 2.50 p.m. I did not have an opportunity to hear the 2.30 news, which apparently the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) heard. All I know so far is that the accident happened at the Keadby Power Station near Scunthorpe and that the name of the miner who has been so tragically killed was Mr. Fred Matthews, who was one of about 50 members of the union from Bentley who were on 24-hour picket duty at this power station.

As to the nature of the accident, all I know at present is that he was run over by an articulated lorry. I have not so far been able to discover any further information. I have, therefore, given the House all the information that is at present available to me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to exacerbate an already very difficult situation, but I, too, have a very large number of constituents who are miners and who are on continuous picket duty. May I take this opportunity to point out that an already difficult situation has been made more difficult by this tragic accident? [Interruption.] I am raising this point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—because I do not want to see any further disorder in any of the streets of Britain.

Would it not be desirable for you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, to request the Secretary of State for Employment to come to the House at, say, 7.30 p.m. to make a statement on this subject and, more important, to make a statement on the miners' strike—[Interruption.]—given that at three o'clock this afternoon the Chairman of the National Coal Board said, "It is necessary for quick intervention by a third party to help end this dispute." There can be only one third party, and that is the Government.

rose—

Order. Mr. Roy Jenkins.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House might be able to assist. It is clear that the House would like to receive a statement on this matter at the earliest possible opportunity and at the same time would like to afford the responsible Minister—[Interruption.]—Hon. Gentlemen opposite should accept that this is a very serious matter—sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary information.

In my respectful submission, there are precedents for Ministers making such statements. I think most recently of the statement on a very different matter, relating to gold, when at a very late hour the Minister intervened to make a statement. There are procedural ways—for example, an application can be made to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment Debate—which would enable such a statement to be made. It would he helpful if the Leader of the House would indicate that, within the rules of order, it would be his intention that such a statement should be made at the earliest possible opportunity.

rose—

Order. I think we must conclude this discussion. What the right hon. Member has said will be noted. I have given a hint of what my likely course of action will be tomorrow, by which time there should have been adequate time for the matter to have been investigated. Mr. Roy Jenkins—Business Question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not my wish to try to inflame the situation. I listened very intently to what the Secretary of State for Employment said. It seemed to me that he read out most of the contents of what appeared on the tape, which I read a short time ago. I hope there was nothing he is trying to hide, inasmuch as there were two statements on that tape which the Minister has not disclosed, namely, one—[Interruption.]

Order. This cannot possibly be a point of order. Mr. Roy Jenkins.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You yourself have pointed out that a Private Notice Question may be answered tomorrow. The Leader of the Liberal Party has made a suggestion that we might have a statement later tonight. As he has made a suggestion, may I make a suggestion, which I think would be in order? It is that, with your approval, the Government, if they are so minded, could move the Adjournment of the House and scrap today's business, which no one particularly wants. Betting, gambling and gaming are not the most important things. The Government could show that they are really seized of this situation and ask permission to move the Adjournment of the House so that we could have a debate on the whole subject of what may be a very serious situation, and we could have that debate tonight, not tomorrow.

Order. That seems very much a question on business. Mr. Roy Jenkins.