asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the registered unemployed in the most recent figures available to his Department for the London Borough of Harrow were in the age groups under 25 years of age and over 55 years of age, respectively.

At 10th January, the latest date for which information is available, 22·5 per cent. of those registered as wholly unemployed in the area covered by the Harrow Employment Exchange were under 25 years of age and 36 per cent. were aged 55 years and over.

While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask, in view of the welcome trend of falling unemployment throughout the country, including the South-East, whether there will be additional measures by the Department's local offices to find employment for people in these two categories in view of the relative difficulties which they experience?

:Those under 25 or wholly unemployed were appreciably smaller in number in Harrow in January than in the South-East region and the country as a whole. On the other hand, Harrow's share of unemployment among those aged 55 and over was substantially greater than the regional and national share, largely because of premature retirements in two companies in the area early in 1971. I do not think the situation is too serious in Harrow, but of course our local offices give special attention to these two categories.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will institute discussions with a view to ensuring that all major wage claims are brought into effect on the same date each year, thus reducing the incentive for successive claims to leap frog each other and causing additional inflation.

This is primarily a matter for unions and employers. If the TUC and CBI were to raise this matter in the talks we are having with them we would certainly consider it.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that this could be considered by the Government. If a fixed date could be arranged—of course, on a voluntary basis—it could well make life easier for the trade unions, employers and Government alike, especially if the Office of Manpower Economics were to provide ample figures for them in advance of the fixed date.

I am not absolutely convinced that this would necessarily be a change for the better, but if it is raised by the unions and the CBI, the Government would not wish to stand in the way of its consideration.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he said is in direct contradiction to the advice which he has given to the Railways Board? In the railway industry, he is trying to extend the period beyond 1st May. He has asked the Board not to concede the agreement in the period of less than 15 days after the normal date, which has been chosen over the years, for the payment of the increase to the railwaymen—in other words, 1st May. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is now advising the railway industry to go beyond the normal 12-month period.

The hon. Gentleman has the facts wrong. I have not advised the Board to do anything. There is no change in the negotiating year in the railways in the proposals put forward by the Board, which were a modification of the original Jarratt award designed to suit the unions.

While realising that it is a somewhat difficult problem to get the trade unions to put in a claim on the same day, could not the right hon. Gentleman at least make a start by suggesting that the Railways Board should pay the increase on the same day as London Transport? This would at least be a beginning.

:It would also be helpful if the unions would accept the same percentage of annual increase as in respect of London Transport—in other words, under 12½ per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the latest analysed monthly figures of unemployed persons are persons within five years of the retirement age; and how their average period of unemployment compares with other age groups.

At 10th January, the latest date for which information is available, 14·6 per cent. of all males and females registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain were within five years of retirement ages. Their median duration of unemployment was between 26 and 39 weeks, compared with 9–13 weeks for all registered unemployed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he agree that, however many people are unemployed from one month to the next, the nature and causes of unemployment are for ever changing and that this is a particular problem for older people? Is he satisfied that the Department is doing enough research to find out whether there are any short-term solutions which can be found to particular problems in these age categories?

I am never satisfied that enough research is done on any of these subjects. At the same time, it is a fact that there is no disqualification on age grounds for people in this category which would prevent them from going to Government training centres or taking advantage of any other Government training facilities, including the IRU.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that vacancies in the hotel and catering industry are filled; and if he will make a statement.

Following consultations with the British Hotels and Restaurants Association improvements are being made in the arrangements for bringing vacancies to the notice of those who are unemployed and suitable for such work. When these improvements are completed, over 20 employment offices will have specialist sections dealing with skilled hotel and catering occupations.

I thank my hon. Friend warmly for that most encouraging answer. Nevertheless, is he aware that on 9th May his Department told me in a Written Answer that there were over 16,000 job vacancies in the industry, while at about the same time the British Hotel and Restaurants Association stated that there were over 98,000 vacancies? Does this not show the great need in this industry for recruitment to overcome the job snob attitudes of people towards work in it? Will he continue as he has started today by doing all he can to stress that the industry can offer secure employment to a very large number of people?

I am sure my hon. Friend is right. We are doing all we can to encourage both the trade and others to view this in a rather different light and to get more people to enter the industry. But we must be honest and admit that many people do not find this work particularly attractive. A leading hotelier told me so last week. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend says, there are great opportunities and there is very good security of employment in the industry.

When they go around, could these same officers of the Department ask about the implementation of the fire regulations? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the South of Scotland fire services are acutely worried about the number of hotels which have failed to register? This is a problem.

That is rather wide of the original Question and is not my responsibility. But I share the concern of the hon. Gentleman and I will draw what he said to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made of the number of jobs in Great Britain likely to be created as a result of the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil within the next five years.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs he estimates will arise in Great Britain over the next five years from the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil.

While it is not possible to make a precise estimate, activities connected with the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil are likely to provide a substantial and increasing number of jobs.

My hon. Friend has not given a particularly illuminating answer. The number of rigs to be employed in the North Sea area in 1973 or 1974 is likely to be three times the number there now. Would it not be a good idea to have a complete computer analysis of the repercussions of this new industry upon tertiary and secondary industries in this area? Would not my hon. Friend agree that by proper planning methods many more jobs could become available?

I should like to study what my hon. Friend said. Undoubtedly, if the various projects of which my Department is aware materialise, they are likely to provide over 4,000 additional jobs and to produce great opportunities. But it would be wrong to over-sell the developments taking place. On the other hand, these can be of real benefit, particularly to an area such as Scotland.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the successful working of gas and oil reserves could bring about a large-scale advantage to this country's economy? However difficult it may be, can he give any idea of how many jobs this will bring to Scotland? It would help us to halt the depopulation there.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomes this development. It is very difficult to be precise. I quoted the figure of over 4,000 jobs and I hope there will be many more. It could well be so, but much more detailed study is required over a period before we can approach this matter with any precision.

:While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply and recognising all the efforts which are being made, may I ask him to bear in mind that we have very high levels of unemployment and that everything seems a bit too "scatty"? The situation needs to be stated with much more precision so that we can know in which directions to bring pressure to bear on Ministers to get on with the jobs with which we want them to get on. I am very annoyed with all this "scattiness".

It is always very difficult to please my hon. Friend because she is so assiduous in promoting the cause of the North East, but I assure her that there is a great deal of precision in my Department's approach to employment. Indeed, the improvements which have already taken place are good evidence of the precision being applied.

When will the Government stop calling this "North Sea gas and oil", because these deposits go right round the North Sea to the west coast of Scotland, stretching into the Irish Sea? When also will the Government come to a conclusion about the benefit which these developments should have on Scotland and stop anybody—and I do not care from where they come—from stealing this valuable asset from the Scottish people?

I do not think that I should start crossing swords with the hon. Gentleman about the merits of Scotland. I did not coin the phrase "North Sea oil and gas". It is in general use. Indeed, he should address his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome this development because, not only for Scotland but for the country as a whole, there are very real benefits from it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department is able to give to trades unions wishing to train union officials and members in the operation of the Industrial Relations Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in the discharge of his responsibilities for promoting good industrial relations, he will arrange for his Department to make available training facilities for union officials.

A course for shop stewards and union officials is available under my Department's "training within industry" scheme.

:Is there not an urgent need for more courses for trade unionists on the workings of the Industrial Relations Act? Would this not help to improve industrial relations and to make it clear that the Act works to the advantage of trade union members and to the public interest as a whole? Would it not also be useful if some hon. Members opposite could attend some of these courses and therefore give less misleading advice to their trade union colleagues?

:As my hon. Friend says, there are a number of courses which hon. Members opposite could most usefully attend. A number of courses of the type which my hon. Friend has in mind are available, and they are worked out with the full knowledge and approval of the unions concerned. Union approval is always secured before a course is presented. A revised course is being prepared at present in consultation with the Commission on Industrial Relations, the major unions concerned and the industrial training boards. The initial courses for shop stewards were well received but the unions are increasingly making their own arrangements.

Is it not a fact that the architect of the Act was the Solicitor-General, who used all his ingenuity to frame a loaded question which was, nevertheless, rejected by a majority of six to one in the ballot during the rail dispute, and is it not clear, therefore, that the union leaders know their men and the Act better than the Government do?

The architect was not the Solicitor-General but the court, but in any case it is true to say that these facilities for trade unions have been available for about 10 years and that quite a number of shop stewards and union officials have taken advantage of them. It seems to me a great pity that many more did not do so. I suppose that one could say that that shows a lack of responsibility by some of those concerned in not having taken advantage of the opportunities which were offered.

:Will my hon. Friend see what can be done particularly to encourage shop stewards to take the courses to which he has referred, and can he give any indication how many shop stewards have already taken such courses?

Of course we shall give every possible support to this. In the last 10 years 700 shop stewards have taken the union job relations courses and nearly 50 union officials have been trained to present the course.

Have the hon. Gentleman or his Department approached the TUC to ask whether it might perhaps organise some courses on industrial relations which Ministers and some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite could attend?

I have no doubt that there would be great advantage in cross-fertilisation, and I am sure that note will be taken of what the hon. Member said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the railway workers' dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the position in the current rail dispute; and if he will make a statement.

:Representatives of the British Railways Board and the three railway unions met this morning and agreed to adjourn to a further meeting at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.

:May we expect a statement tomorrow from the Minister after the conclusion of those deliberations? Is he not aware that there is very great anxiety in all parts of the country, not only within the ambit of the railway dispute itself but also over the whole general range of industry, whether we are not being deadlocked and bogged down by the tendentious conditions of the Industrial Relations Act?

I think there is danger—and the whole House will see it—of being bogged down by the refusal of the unions to adopt any form of compromise, and it has been manifest through the whole process of these negotiations. The purpose of this meeting is clearly to try to reach some form of settlement. I do not think it would be wise for me to comment—indeed, I cannot: I do not know what transpired—till after we know what takes place at the meeting tomorrow, when we shall know what the situation is.

Does not the Secretary of State recall that when the Government applied for the rail ballot order the Solicitor-General told the court that he had reason to doubt support among railwaymen for continued industrial action? Now that the decisive result of the ballot has made nonsense of that assertion has not the Secretary of State a duty to the House and to the country to explain what were the reasons why the Government took that line?

I had very good and sound reasons for believing that at varying stages of the negotiations a number of railway men and a number of people would have been happy to see a settlement at a reasonable and moderate figure, and I have reason to believe that the whole country regarded the award by Mr. Jarratt as a reasonable and moderate figure. I am only sorry that the railway union leaders did not see this. They have now received the support of a great mass of their membership. I would not for one moment doubt their right to take industrial action, only the wisdom of so doing.

:The Secretary of State must do better than that. He says he has good reasons for believing that the railway men did not support the union leaders. It has now been proved that he had no such reasons. Although the Act is phrased in such a way that he does not have to produce evidence to the court for that assertion, does he not realise that he still has a responsibility to this House on a matter as important as this to explain what those reasons were? We are entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know, what they were.

I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be able to arrange, if they so wish, a debate through the usual channels. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] I will not at this stage be drawn any further into the merits of the dispute which has not yet been settled and which the parties are still discussing.

:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You must distinctly have heard me ask whether we may expect a statement tomorrow at the end of the deliberations.

Order. The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the number of jobs which have been lost in Scotland since 1st January, 1971.

:The precise information is not available, but between December, 1970, and September, 1971, the latest date for which a provisional estimate is available, the number of employees in employment in Scotland decreased by 26,000.

:The Minister must be aware that that figure represents a staggering state of injustice and demoralisation, when there are a large number of additional redundancies which have been recently announced in Scotland. Bearing in mind that many of these are in nationalised industries, does he not think that it would be sensible to impose a freeze on all redundancies in nationalised industries till the problem has been alleviated?

I am as much concerned as is the hon. Member about the high level of unemployment in Scotland, and we have always said that it is unacceptable, but I think that it is encouraging that there was a fall of some 16,000 in the May unemployed figure and that that is an indication that our measures are in fact working.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government's economic policy for Scotland has as much chance as a snowball in hell of getting unemployment below 100,000 this year or next year? Will he come clean and tell the country the truth that this is in fact the case?

No, I do not accept the hon. Member's pessimism. There is too much talking down in that way on these occasions. We must welcome progress where it is shown. We have certainly made an improvement in Scotland, and there is the further indication of an increase of over one thousand unfilled vacancies in Scotland. This is the right trend, and it shows that we are on the right lines.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what notification he has received of likely redundancies in the steel industry in 1972; in what areas; and what numbers are involved.

As the reply comprises a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

:The right hon. Gentleman has me at some disadvantage since I have to wait for that table of figures, but I wonder whether he can assure the House that there is good liaison between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, because he may be aware that, as a consequence of the steel target pronounced by his right hon. Friend, many thousands of jobs in the steel industry will be placed in jeopardy.

We are in communication with both the Department of Trade and Industry and the British Steel Corporation with regard to redundancies. The British Steel Corporation's social policy unit co-operates with my Department both at national and at local levels to give all possible assistance to British steel employees facing redundancies.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the improvements which we have seen in the employment situation in Scotland, there is real concern that there has been in nationalised industries, particularly steel, a movement of administrative jobs away from Scotland, despite the provisions of the nationalisation Act that they should be spread around the country? Would he consider meeting the chiefs of the nationalised industries with a view to ensuring that Scotland gets a fair share of administrative jobs?

:I am not quite sure whether that particular technique is necessary, but it is important to see that administrative jobs are decentralised, and, as far as possible, decentralised fairly, and I am very willing to accept the claims of Scotland in this respect.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that closing of the Shotton steel works would mean that Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire would be turned into a distressed area, and will he do all in his power to ensure that those works are kept open?

:The question of which steel works are kept open is a matter not for me but for the British Steel Corporation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that where there are redundancies my Department does its best to see that those concerned are found employment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment who will have access to the names and addresses of workers collected by his Department for the Commission on Industrial Relations for ballot purposes.

I understand from the Commission on Industrial Relations that arrangements are being made to destroy its copies of the lists of names and addresses of railway workers collected for purposes of the recent ballot. The unions and Railways Board have been informed of these arrangements. Lists held by my Departmental officers have already been destroyed.

Is it not a fact that these names and addresses were collected by the Minister's Department without a court order from the National Industrial Relations Court, without consulting the unions and without all of the Board of the CIR even knowing about it? Is it not also a fact that this was done to coerce the railway unions? As not all the staff involved in the handling of the recent ballot are covered by the Official Secrets Act, how can the Minister give the guarantee which he has given?

I already answered the hon. Gentleman on this matter on 9th May. As far as the CIR was concerned and the compilation of this list, I would not disagree with its view that it was sensible contingency planning. The compilation of the list of employees is a matter for the management of British Railways. Access during the ballot was confined to members of the CIR staff directly concerned with the ballot arangements, trained staff working under their supervision, and observers from the Railways Board and the unions checking entitlement to vote. Only the CIR staff I have mentioned and 16 Departmental staff engaged in counting votes saw the papers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the carrying out of this ballot was farcical? Does he know that in my constituency we have a Swinton and also a Wath, that there are plenty of Swintons and Waths throughout the country but that no other identifying name or town was attached to the letters, not even the word "Yorkshire?" Is he aware that many ballot papers went astray and that many of my constituents were unable to vote, which made a farce of the whole thing?

There are bound to be areas of this kind. I have been given information about the case in Swinton.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend the Industrial Relations Act to eliminate the requirement for compulsory ballots to be held.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that the result of the ballot was not only a resounding vote of confidence by the railway men in their union leadership but also a demonstration of their utter contempt for his bumbling brand of bravado which has bedevilled this dispute throughout? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of that and in view of the waste of time and public money that this ballot involved, that the best contribution he could make to industrial peace would be to shut himself off in a siding somewhere?

The ballot fulfilled its purpose in showing clearly that industrial action in this case was not being taken except with the agreement of the majority of the workpeople concerned, who were willing to take industrial action, despite the inconvenience to the country and damage to the economy, to obtain a wage settlement on which they had insisted from the beginning of the negotiations, rather than to accept the arbitrated award.

Is it not the task of this House to make it clear, arising from the ballot, precisely what the position means? Is it not a fact that it means in this case that there is proof of the bona fides of the leaders of the unions to talk for their members, which is helpful and good? Is it not also a fact, however, that that in no way alters the basic situation, which is that a settlement must be based on fairness and on a sum which the railways can pay and which is fair to the general public? Is not that the real basis behind the ballot?

I would not disagree at all with my hon. Friend about that. Perhaps the House would like to reflect on how happy it would be if we could have polls of an equally high percentage in other elections, in local government for one and in respect of union leadership for another.

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about the railway men having voted for further industrial action, may I ask him whether he is unaware that the real issue centres on the question which was asked in the ballot, a question which was compiled by himself with the collusion of the National Industrial Relations Court—with the result that the only answer that the railway-men could give was the one that in fact they gave? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman simply to agree that the vote of the railway men was one of overwhelming confidence in their leadership?

:The hon. Gentleman must not get his facts wrong. My Department and I suggested, as we do under the Act, a form of words for the question, but the actual form of words was changed and the question was made by the Court. It asked the people concerned whether, in the light of the most recent offer, they wished to take industrial action. They gave the clear answer, "Yes, we do".

On a point of order. Is it not unparliamentary for it to be suggested in this House that a court of law has acted in collusion, to the detriment of the nation?

Order. Hon. Members should be careful in the terms they use when referring to a court of law.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures for unemployment in the Leicester area and by what percentage these exceed the figures for June, 1970.

On 8th May, 5,308 people were registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Leicester Employment Exchange. This was 68·5 per cent. more than in June, 1970.

:Is the Minister unaware that even if there has been a reduction—if there has, it is long overdue—in the level of unemployment in this area, the figure which he has given is shocking? Does he recognise that this level of unemployment is causing especial concern in an area which, until now, has enjoyed a low level of unemployment?

The position is not satisfactory. On the other hand, the current rate of 2·6 per cent. is well below the 3·1per cent. for the East Midlands and 3·8 per cent. for the country as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a feeling of cautious optimism among employers in the area that the economy is now on the upturn and that Leicester will benefit from this.

:While the whole country is thoroughly dissatisfied with te levels of unemployment in certain areas, may I ask my hon. Friend to see whether we can have more realistic monthly figures showing where the beginnings of a shortage of labour are appearing, thus enabling the unemployed to be given guidance on where they may obtain employment or otherwise be retrained for the sort of vacancies that are likely to exist?

:These matters are always under review and, with our new proposals to make the various services more efficient, we hope that the figures of unemployment will be even more realistic than they are at present. The important thing is that we are now beginning to make progress. I was chided a couple of months ago when I said that in terms of unemployment we were turning the corner. I still believe that we are turning the corner on unemployment.

In view of the dissatisfaction which prevails throughout the country about the high levels of unemployment and the fact that industrial relations are at the very lowest ebb, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider recommending the Prime Minister to appoint a joint committee of this House to find ways and means of abating the problem of unemployment and overcoming the difficult industrial relations prob- lems that exist? Is he aware that the future of this nation could be in jeopardy if something drastic is not done before long?

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. One does not necessarily solve problems by appointing committees. In any event, that suggestion is rather wide of the original Question, which was about Leicester. The important point to remember is that in Leicester and elsewhere things are improving.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the services provided by his Department to help find work for the disabled: and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that my Department provides effective services for helping disabled people find work. But, as I told the hon. Member on 17th May, these services have recently been reviewed internally and I shall soon be consulting the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled and other bodies concerned on whether any changes are necessary.

:How can the Minister be satisfied with a national scandal? Does he realise that the unemployment rate for registered disabled people is now 15 per cent. and that no less than 58 per cent. of all British employers are failing to fulfil their quota of 3 per cent. disabled employees? Does the Minister know that no fewer than 14,000 of these employers are breaking the law if they are failing to fulfil their quota and to taking on new workers? Will he prosecute these employers with the same vigour as he prosecutes trade unions when they break the law? Will he not talk about persuasion, since for the last 10 years successive Governments have talked about persuasion and employers are taking no notice of it?

:This is a difficult matter. Successive Administrations have taken the view that widespread prosecution of employers in what, apart from isolated cases, are technical infringements may well jeopardise the important good will of the majority of employers in trying to help the disabled. It is a matter that we have under review. It was spotlighted by an internal inquiry, and my right hon. Friend and I are giving urgent attention to it at present.

:As the percentage of registered disabled unemployed seems to be rising, what have the Government done in the last year, over and above what they were doing in the previous year, to improve the situation?

:My hon. Friend is right, but the percentage has risen in proportion to the general increase in unemployment. There is always a three-month lag in the disablement figures and I hope that the next figures will show a far more favourable position. We have mounted a number of initiatives, which we have talked about before in the House. One which is important is a reinvigoration by our officers of the inspection of registers to encourage more firms to take on disabled people. This is having some impact. I hope that as time passes it will have an even greater impact.

:The hon. Gentleman talks about jeopardising the good will of employers. Does not he realise that a statutory obligation has been imposed on employers by Parliament, an obligation which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has pointed out, is being widely ignored? The quota system has become a farce. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that rather than wait for a review—the review to which he referred—he has the possibility of immediate action which would meet with the full support of the House? It would be warmly welcomed if he would instruct his disablement resettlement officers either to insist on employers implementing their statutory obligations under the Act or to prosecute offending employers.

:Again this matter is not as simple as it sounds. In effect, undertaking prosecutions may not provide extra jobs for the disabled. That is what we are trying to achieve. Even if all those who are registered as disabled persons and are unemployed at present were placed in employment, there would still be insufficient for all firms to satisfy their quota obligations. I do not think that there is a widespread ignoring of those provisions. There is a great deal of good will but, as we know, so often many firms have not the right sort of employment for disabled persons.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to assist young school leavers in Wolverhampton in obtaining jobs and to provide them with training for employment when they leave school in July.

About 2,000 young people will be leaving school next July in Wolverhampton and careers officers are doing all they can to help them find jobs. It is as yet too early to say what special action, if any, to provide additional training opportunities will be necessary.

Is the hon. Gentleman, despite his complacency, aware that in addition to the 2,000 school leavers in July, we have 273 school leavers who are still looking for jobs, and 73 of them left school last year and have never had a job? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman put this complacency on one side and did something to help young people in the West Midlands who are looking for jobs and who look in vain to the Government for help?

:It is particularly encouraging that unemployment among young people other than school leavers has fallen since April and, indeed, the position is very much better. The main problem is not with school leavers but with the placing of the less-qualified 16-to-17-year-olds who have had one or more jobs and who are unemployed. This problem is being studied by a working party of the National Youth Employment Council. There has already today been a suggestion of too much talking down. I hope that the hon. Lady will not disparage too much the improvement which has been made among school leavers, because unemployment among school leavers in her area fell by nearly 60 per cent. between April and May.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current unemployment rate in the Oldham area.

At 8th May the rate of unemployment in the Oldham and Chadderton, Failsworth and Saddleworth travel-to-work area was 4·7 per cent.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that job losses in the North-West over the last year have averaged about 1,250 a week and have been at a higher level than that of any other part of the United Kingdom? Is he also aware that public investment has been running at a very much lower level than is justified by the unemployment figures and that there is a desperate need to decentralise office employment in particular to the North-West? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to secure this objective?

:As the hon. Gentleman knows, his last point is not a matter for me, but I will certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point. The numbers of wholly unemployed in that travel-to-work area have fallen over the past months and, indeed, Oldham is included, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the recent major expansion of the intermediate areas. The position is far brighter for Oldham than perhaps the hon. Gentleman makes out.

:Is the Minister aware that once again a very serious position faces the textile industry because of the Government's action regarding entry to the EEC? Many employers who welcomed this move have changed their minds since they have found that 30,000 jobs in the textile industry are in jeopardy in the North-West because cotton yarn is regarded as a raw material? Will the Minister have discussions with his right hon. Friend about this matter and try to give some protection to the textile industry and to the jobs in the Oldham area?

I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not accept his premise about entry to the EEC. I believe that for the country as a whole this will do enormous good.