asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further representation he has received regarding the need for legislation to control private employment agencies.

My right hon. Friend has received occasional complaints from the general public about the activities of private employment agencies, some suggesting the need for further legislation. The General Secretary of the British Actors Equity Association has made similar representations.

Does the Minister accept that Government action to deal with the well-established anti-social malpractices of these agencies is long overdue? While it may be too much to hope for the present Government to abolish private employment agencies, will the Minister seriously consider giving the Department of Employment a monopoly in the placement of permanent jobs and leaving the agencies to look after the "temps"?

Arrangements for the control of private employment agencies exist in only a limited number of local authority areas. In general, the controls which exist date from 1921. As I think the hon. Gentleman, or another hon. Member, was told earlier, a review of this legislation is in progress. It is still too early to say whether this will lead to further legislation.

Surely it is better to improve the existing services than to bash private enterprise?

I think we had better wait and see what future action is needed until my right hon. Friend receives the report in the next few weeks.

Is the Minister aware that, although complaints to his Department are only occasional, the discontent caused by employment agencies is fairly widespread, particularly when applicants are placed in jobs abroad? I have recently had a complaint from two young girls in my constituency each of whom was charged £25 to be placed in a job in Germany which turned out to be nothing like the job described by the agency. The girls are victims of the employment agency.

The outcome of the investigations may show that there is a case for improving hours and matters of that sort, but there are difficult matters of definition. I think we had better wait and see what comes out of the inquiry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Employment Agencies Association, which represents the majority of employment agents, would be willing to see sensible legislation and has, I believe, made representations to his Department about this?

I will certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what notification of anticipated redundancies in the Homchurch area has been received; and what the figures are for the number of known redundancies that have already occurred this year.

Redundancies involving 270 workpeople are recorded by my Department as having been due to occur in the Homchurch area in the period up to and including 30th June. I have no information on the precise number who may be involved in future redundancies in the area.

My constituents will appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but is he aware of their anxiety at the proposed closure of the Plessey factory at Cranham? As there are still more people unemployed than there are vacancies in the area, will my hon. Friend give every assistance to his local office to find new jobs for my constituents as good as the ones they are losing?

Yes, Sir, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. The firm has undertaken to inform my Department as soon as the details and the number of the impending redundancies are known. We shall do everything we can to help. Myhon. Friend may be interested to know that the majority of those in his area who have been made redundant this year and who have sought my Department's help have been successful' in obtaining other employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the price of a pint of beer in public bars in June, 1970; and what is the price at the latest convenient date.

I regret that the average price of draught beer sold in public bars in June, 1970, is not available, but in July, 1970, it was about 26·5 old pence a pint, compared with about 13·0 new pence a pint in April, 1972. The average prices given relate to a variety of beers in differing proportions and make no allowance for variations in the original specific gravities of the same beers. They are therefore not strictly comparable.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such price rises are inflationary and, in view of the recent forecast of a dividend increase by Watney's of over 86 per cent. between 1971 and 1973, will he give an assurance that the Government will help to keep down these prices?

This is not a matter for me, except in so far as it is a constituent part of the Index of Retail Prices, but I understand that leading brewers subscribe to the CBI undertaking and are honouring it. The rise in price is to some extent a hangover from the Labour Government in so far as it was the National Board for Prices and Incomes which recommended price increases. The price increases were recommended to enable brewers to improve breweries and distribution, hence the more substantial profit margin.

Did not the National Board for Prices and Incomes make a thorough investigation of the subject and report that prices were moderate and reasonable? Is it not a fact that that board is likely to have been far more expert in these matters than is the hon.

My hon. Friend is not entirely correct in his interpretation of what was said by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, but I shall not be drawn further into considerations which are not my Department's responsibility.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time the general public were treated as adults and were told the specific gravities, so that people could make a fair comparison of what price increase has taken place?

The hon. Gentleman ought to table that Question to the responsible Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now announce his conclusions following consultations on the consultative document "Training for the Future".

I hope it will be possible to announce my conclusions on the main issues before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the longer he takes to consider this matter carefully, the better the results are likely to be. A variety of opinions have been put forward on the serious problem of retraining. Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter which I sent to his Minister of State concerning one of my constituents, who is unable to get access to a training centre for retraining as a bricklayer when there is a desperate shortage of bricklayers in the area?

I have seen my hon. Friend's letter. There is a shortage of places in Government training centres and we have already taken crash action to provide another 3,000 training places, particularly in the more popular trades, largely by utilising unused industrial premises. On the main part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it is difficult to make a statement even on the main issues until a good deal more work is carried out on the detailed and rather complicated representations which have been made to us from over 1,000 different sources, particularly since, as hon. Members opposite know, there are one or two people we have still to see.

In the consultations following publication of this document, has the Secretary of State taken account of the critical statement made by informed opinion which is concerned with the training of school leavers? Before he publishes his findings, will he further consider the fact that the document excludes school leavers from specialist attention in industrial training?

The document follows previous practice by assuming that industrial training as opposed to vocational education is the responsibility of industry. When people take their first jobs it is the responsibility of the industry they enter to give them their training. I accept that there is a considerable need—as the Department has shown in what it has done—to deal with problems of redundancy among apprentices. There is a problem not only of retraining but also of ensuring that young people get the training they need for the jobs which are available.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for retraining were received in the first quarter of 1972; and what increase this represents over the same period in 1971.

A total of 35,490 compared with 17,340 in the first quarter of 1971—an increase of over 100 per cent.

While there appears to be a large increase, is it not plainly inadequate in view of the very large increase in unemployment which occurred in the same period? Will the Government show far more vigour in pressing ahead with retraining and also in ensuring that employers, whether in the public or private sector, maintain a helpful and encouraging attitude?

The number of training places available in Government training centres has already increased from about 10,000 to 11,000 since June, 1970, but the main expansion is still to come. It normally takes three years to establish new steps. Action has already been taken to implement expansion of training facilities announced in the document "Training for the Future". We aim to train 60,000 or 70,000 candidates a year by 1975 and 100,000 a year as soon as possible compared with just over 20,000 now.

Could my hon. Friend say what help is available to find new jobs for men after retraining?

The record in this respect has not been unsuccessful. Of those trained at Government training centres 66 per cent. of the total are placed within one month in their trades and 74 per cent. within three months.

Is the Minister aware that there are wide areas of the country with no retraining facilities whatever and that one of these is my area of North-West Wales, where unemployment is very high indeed? Will he take steps to establish a retraining centre in that area as a matter of urgency?

I have been looking at the case of the right hon. Member's constituency and I shall be writing to him about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in Nuneaton and Bed worth; and how this compares with the similar period in 1970 and 1971.

In the area covered by the Nuneaton and Bed worth employment exchanges, at June, 1972, the total number registered as unemployed was 2,600, including 626 workers who were temporarily stopped. The total for June, 1971, was 2,497, of whom 686 were temporarily stopped, and for June, 1970, it was 1,849, including 808 temporarily stopped.

Does not the Minister regard these as shocking figures, particularly when one bears in mind that they represent percentages which compare unfavourably with places which have development area status? With question marks hanging over almost every industry in the area, what can my constituents look forward to under the present Government?

The hon. Member's constituents can look forward to a better rate of employment because unemployment locally fell by 340 last month and at last the trend is in the right direction. The wholly unemployed rate for men in the Coventry travel-to-work area is now the same as that for the whole of the West Midlands. The hon. Gentleman's pessimism does nothing to assist his area.

Neither does the hon. Gentleman's optimism.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days have been lost through industrial disputes since 1st January, 1972.

A total of 14,401,000 working days was lost through industrial stoppages in the period 1st January, 1972, to 31st May, 1972.

Since such an appalling figure will be added to the staggering total of 34 million days lost through industrial disputes in the last two years, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is still no improvement in his Government's claim to be able to improve industrial relations? Can he give an assurance that he has made clear to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the importance of using today's meeting with the TUC not to dictate or to use bullying tactics but genuinely to try to find an understanding so that there can be an improvement—or is this country, because of the pigheadedness of the Government, to see further major disputes such as those we have so far seen this year?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday made clear the Government's position. He also made it clear that understandings are necessarily a two-way affair. This is a very high figure of which three-quarters, or 10·8 million days, is due to the national coal mining stoppage. It is also true to say that in the last year there has been a marked reduction in the number of occasions when a breakdown in industrial relations has resulted in industrial action.

Can my right hon. Friend say roughly how many of the disputes have been stimulated by the Labour Party?

Not without notice. But even the most superficial observation would indicate that the attitude of the Labour Party in opposition is, if possible, noticeably less helpful than when it was in power.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 384 disputes in which his Department's conciliation officers were called in in the first five months of this year concerned wages issues; and what were the comparative figures for 1971, 1970 and 1969, respectively.

Thirty-two per cent. of all requests for conciliation in the first five months of 1972 concerned wages issues. The comparable figures are 29 per cent. for 1971 and 39 per cent. for 1970. I regret that similar figures are not available for 1969.

Is it not the case that many of the issues which have gone to conciliation in the last year or so have arisen from redundancies, which we expect at a time of chronic unemployment, and that on wages issues there is complete loss of faith in the Government because of their interference with the conciliation services? Is it not time that the Department of Employment stopped issuing misleading figures which purport to show that conciliation is now more popular?

What the hon. Gentleman says is not borne out by the facts, because there is an increase in the figures I have just given regarding wages issues. It is clear that there is continuing confidence in the conciliation services. This is shown by the fact that 64 per cent. of conciliation cases undertaken in 1971 were at the request of unions and a further 11 per cent. were at the joint request of unions and employers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now carry out a review of the workings of the Industrial Relations Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will specify what he has learnt as a result of the working of the Industrial Relations Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the working of the Industrial Relations Act; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the working of the Industrial Relations Act, in the light of the latest developments in the docks dispute; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has now had with the Trades Union Congress on the operation of the Industrial Relations Act.

It is much too early to judge the long-term effects of the Act after only four months. But there are already plenty of individual workers who have benefited from its provisions; managements in consultations with unions are already improving their policies and practices in the light of the Act and the code of practice. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the operation of the Act with the TUC on 26th April and we shall be doing so again later today.

When is the Act supposed to start working? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of working days lost per month is four times what it was before the Act was passed? In view of the great distress to the public caused by the number of days lost, is it not apparent that the right hon. Gentleman has created a Frankenstein which he can no longer control?

The hon. Gentleman has produced a fallacious argument. What he is referring to are the extra working days lost caused by the miners' strike. There have in fact been fewer strikes than before.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government could not judge the long-term effects of the Act they should never have passed it in the first place? Is he aware, further, that the only people who will benefit from it are our overseas competitors, because the Act has made an already difficult situation worse? Since the Act will be repealed sooner or later by a Labour Government, why does not the right hon. Gentleman repeal it sooner and claim some credit for it?

I do not accept that the Act makes matters more difficult. Naturally in estimating the future of the Act I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we expect it to be wholly beneficial to the country and to the unions. But it is asking too much to judge the long-term results on the basis of four months' performance.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sheer waste of time in the present situation to discuss this Act and its effects, since it is there in any event? Should not we be better employed in trying to get agreement on a proper prices and incomes policy, which would be of advantage to the £ in present circumstances?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that the Government hope to get full co-operation from the TUC and the CBI with a view to improving the machinery of negotiation and conciliation. I do not know whether it is worth discussing the Act, but certainly it will remain on the Statute Book.

Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he had learnt something from the Act, though he did not specify what. From his replies today one can only conclude that in educational parlance he is a very late developer. In the interests of good industrial relations, will the right hon. Gentleman add to his nomenclature not only wage and salary norms but profit norms? Will he stop treating people who work by hand and brain to create the nation's wealth as being outside the British community, and in the interests of the nation as a whole will he suspend this ridiculous Act?

It is precisely because we regard those who work by hand and brain as being wholly within the community that we think that their associations should, like others in the community, operate within the framework of the law.

Is it not as illogical to suggest that the Industrial Relations Act is the cause of poor industrial relations, as the Labour Party does, as to suggest that the divorce reform legislation which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced is the cause of unhappy marriages?

My hon. Friend has produced rather an apt simile. Certainly it is the intention of the Industrial Relations Act that recourse to the courts should be a matter of last resort and not first resort, and, as in domestic life, conciliation is appropriate in industrial relations.

If the right hon. Gentleman states that he is not in a position to report on the success or otherwise of the Industrial Relations Act since it has operated for only four months, God help us when he gives a 12-month report on it, assuming that it remains in force. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about improved industrial relations, is he aware that in the engineering industry there is no negotiating machinery at the moment and that that situation has been brought about in many cases by the engineering employers supporting the Government's approach, especially on the status quo? What will the right hon. Gentleman do if the law is brought into the engineering industry through the Industrial Relations Court? He is in for a lot of trouble if that happens.

The dispute in the engineering industry is a matter between the unions. It has nothing to do with the Act. I repeat that it is impossible to judge the long-term effects of the Industrial Relations Act after four months. As one of its main purposes is to change attitudes over a period of time, I have no doubt that, judging from the considerable change in attitude among management and unions so far produced, it will be wholly successful.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of rank and file trade unionists regard the Act as fair, especially those who have sought and obtained justice from it as a result of making claims about unfair dismissal and other unfair practices?

I have no doubt that many trade unionists regard the Act as being very fair, especially to the individual. I remind hon. Members that those who criticise the Act did not have much time for Donovan, either.

In view of the appalling figures announced today that over 14 million days have been lost in industrial disputes, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the best contribution he can make to improving industrial relations is to assure the TUC that he will put the Act into cold storage?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is an almost wholly irrelevant remark. Of the 14 million days lost, 10 million were lost in the coal strike before the Act was in operation.

After yesterday's debate, is my right hon. Friend clear whether it is the policy of the Opposition now to amend the Industrial Relations Act or to repeal it? To put it mildly, was not there a startling difference between the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and that of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who wound up yesterday's debate for the Opposition?

One's view about whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, assuming they were ever to come to office, would repeal or amend the Act depends upon whether one listened to the first speech yesterday or the last but one.

I resist the temptation to comment on that schoolboy debating point. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the main dangers to which we referred in yesterday' debate was that of the country being plunged into a national docks strike by accident? Is not that danger strengthened by the news today that the Midland Cold Storage Company has taken action against seven shop stewards, some of whom were concerned in the Chobham Farm dispute? If the right hon. Gentleman will not repeal the Act, will he not at least make a public appeal to dock employers to stop playing the fool and to keep these cases out of court while talks are going on between the unions and representatives of the employers to try to solve the real problems in the docks?

I agree that while the Aldington-Jones Committee is working very hard to solve the real problems in the docks, the greatest possible restraint should be used. I apply that to both sides—unions and employers. A great deal of restraint is required if the temperature is to be kept down in these difficult times. But I do not regard this as a one-sided responsibility. As for the specific case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I understand there may be a hearing tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will pay an official visit to the North-West Region.

I have no such plans at present.

Does the Secretary of State know that 7,000 engineering workers were recently locked out by Ferranti for a considerable period and that engineering firms in the North-West which met the legitimate wage claims of engineering workers have been expelled from the Engineering Employers Association? Does he not think that he should assist the Prime Minister in his belated wooing of the trade unions by going to the North-West and having a word with these employers about their inflammatory conduct towards industrial relations?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the inflammatory conduct of the employers. I am aware of the disputes in the North-West. The hon. Gentleman appears to be criticising the employers for showing the same solidarity in these matters for which he would no doubt praise the unions.

If my right hon. Friend comes to the North-West, will he try to find time to visit Bolton to meet the industrial development officer who, poor man, has had to cancel his holidays this fortnight because he was busy dealing with industrial inquiries following the new regional industrial policies of the Government?

I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend that the new assisted area grants are providing efficacious.

If the right hon. Gentleman goes to the North-West, will he try to see the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board? If he is serious about the docks dispute, will he ask how many registered dock labourers are members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board? Would not this be an ideal initiation on his part as we have never had a worker who has been chairman of the board?

I am well aware of the difficulties on Merseyside and the troubles there have been. I prefer to leave the entire docks issue to the Aldington-Jones Committee, which is doing some very serious work. I do not think it would help if I were to make any particular comments on it.

Would my right hon. Friend care to give the House the greatly improved employment figures for the North-West region in the last few months?

Total unemployment in the North-West fell by about 5,000 from 141,000-odd to 136,000. The number of those wholly unemployed fell by nearly 8,250 in the same period. What is hopeful in this situation is that the fall in the wholly unemployed was nearly twice that of the total unemployed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, according to the figures just issued by his Department, the number of men actually unemployed for more than eight weeks has increased over the last two years by three times and the number of women by four times? In view of these appalling figures, will he visit my constituency and subsequently recommend to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that a special development area should be created on Merseyside?

I will certainly see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is made fully aware of the right hon. Gentleman's representation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set up an inquiry to ascertain how widespread is the practice of employers terminating the employment of employees on the completion of their apprenticeship.

No, Sir. My information is that this practice does not exist on any significant scale.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disgracefully complacent answer? Will he reconsider the decision not to set up an inquiry, because instances are coming to light where, because of the shortening of the length of apprenticeships, apprentices are still in the process of continuing their technical college education when their employment is being terminated by their employers? The situation is serious. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the decision not to set up an inquiry.

If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind I shall be glad to study them. However, we have no evidence that there is widespread activity of that kind. Indeed, a number of firms with training schools make a practice of training more apprentices than they need, which helps firms without training facilities to obtain trained craftsmen.

Does my hon. Friend agree that serious problems arise from time to time when firms close down, because apprentices who have not quite completed their apprenticeships are at risk of losing two to three years of part-served apprenticeships? Does the Department take special steps to find opportunities for these lads to finish their apprenticeships?

Yes. Every help is given in that kind of situation. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, we shall be glad to do what we can to help.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Coat bridge and Airdrie and North Lanark shire he will find a number of apprentices who, within the last year, have been laid off and find it utterly impossible to get alternative employment to complete their apprenticeships? Is it not time that he did something about this situation?

I hope the situation will be improved by the general downward trend in unemployment. It is a fact that firms faced with general redundancy normally make very strong efforts to retain apprentices who are in course of training.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment in which regions of the United Kingdom the tourist industry employs more people than the coal, steel or shipbuilding industries.

I regret that the information is not available. My Department's employment estimates are analysed according to the Standard Industrial Classification, which does not provide a separate classification for the tourist industry.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that those of us who have spent some time working in the industry will find that answer not altogether surprising as it indicates the lack of priority which successive Governments have given to it? Is he aware of the considerable opportunities for employment, particularly for young people, in the tourist industry? Will he do his best to emphasise that there are these opportunities in an industry with a future which offers security of employment?

I am aware of the good work my hon. Friend does on behalf of the tourist industry. The Government accept that it is of front-rank importance to the country's economy. The Department is doing everything possible to encourage more people, particularly young people, to go into the hotels and catering industry and the various other parts of the tourist industry. However, it is difficult to classify tourism by itself because hotels, catering, entertainment and other jobs have a different type of approach to this whole problem. I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of effort is being made by the Department of Trade and Industry to assist the industry.

While accepting the great importance of the tourist industry in terms of revenue and jobs, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that because of its seasonal nature it is no substitute for jobs giving permanent employment in manufacturing industry in areas of high unemployment like Wales and Scotland?

I go some way with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but we are not talking purely of temporary work. There is a great future for tourism in this country which offers work on a permanent basis. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from living in London, tourism now seems to span more than simply the summer months.

In view of the great amount of unemployment among young people and the availability of excellent courses in polytechnics and technical colleges, may I ask my hon. Friend why he does not encourage more young people through his careers officers to go into this industry? Will he have another look at the Catering Wages Act to see whether it is satisfactory?

We are conscious of this matter and are making efforts in this direction. There have been consultations with the hotel and catering industry. Colleges of further education and employers, encouraged by my Department, are making provision for people to be trained. About 700 men and women are being trained annually at present, and by the end of the year the number could be about 1,400.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of the Equal Pay Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards the full implementation of the Equal Pay Act, 1970; and if he will make a statement.

The evidence suggests that there has been a considerable degree of progress towards equal pay across a wide section of the economy, but a study to quantify this has been undertaken.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that it is the intention of the Government to implement this Act as widely and as swiftly as possible? Would he utterly repute the absurd and mischievous assertion of the General Secretary of the Clerical & Administrative Workers Union that the Government have little or no interest in equal pay and that he would not be a bit surprised if the Government were to try quietly to bury the Act?

If any such statement has been made by anybody I utterly refute it because, as I understand it, progress towards implementation of equal pay by 1975 is agreed on both sides of the House.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see the timetable for the achievement of equal pay kept to—and there is some evidence that at the present rate of progress it will not be—will he use his powers under the 1970 Act to introduce an order for an intermediate stage, so that by the end of 1973 women's rates will be at least 90 per cent, of the equivalent men's rates?

I am aware of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act to which the hon. Lady is referring. To supplement the information that is available the Office of Manpower Economics was asked to undertake a study of equal pay and its first report, which should be published shortly, deals with the extent of the progress in implementing the Act and the problems being encountered. The report should be of help to employers and trade unions in implementing the Act and should show some of the other factors involved in progress towards implementation. I think we had better await the report before we make any further move on this front.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that millions of women are being exploited because of the failure of the Government to implement the Act? Will he consider holding a special conference with employers and trade unionists to try to speed up its implementation, which is badly dragging behind?

I do not think there is any evidence whatsoever that in this matter women are being exploited on a wide scale. If they are, either the report to which I have referred will reveal it or, if not, a departmental inquiry into possible discrimination in this matter will certainly show it.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's announcement about an inquiry so that we may ascertain the facts. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a widespread feeling of disquiet about the rate of progress towards equal pay. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, will the hon. Gentleman make an early declaration of his intent to introduce an order to ensure that we make rapid progress, because that would concentrate the minds of employers and of trade unionists wonderfully towards securing the objectives which I am sure we all share?

Common sense dictates that we wait until we have seen the report to which I have referred. After that there will have to be consultations with the TUC, the CBI and other interested parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of notified vacancies to people registered as wholly unemployed in Sunderland at the latest available date.

In the area covered by the Sunderland and South-wick employment exchanges, at June, 1972, the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled to every hundred people registered as wholly unemployed was 3·9.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that represents a serious position in Sunderland where there are 30 people after every job? That position has obtained for years and it demands more direct Government intervention to see that something is done about this chronic unemployment.

I recognise that unemployment in Wearside is much too high. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the rate has fallen from 8·7 per cent. in April to 7·8 per cent. in May, and down again to 7·5 per cent. in June. That represents a much more rapid improvement than in the national figures, and while unemployment has fallen the number of vacancies notified has risen by nearly 40 per cent. compared with June of last year and has doubled for men.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that Sunderland is still in a serious situation. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for other Departments, but will he encourage the Government to do more about the dispersal of offices to the Northern Region, which could include Sunderland and Washington? Will he, for example, encourage his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to allow the building of three schools to go ahead, which could provide much-needed employment for building workers, and will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction who is refusing to allow the direct works department to build houses for sale?

That seems to be rather a miscellany of questions for a miscellany of other Departments. I recognise the seriousness of the problem, and I have no doubt whatsoever that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be listened to in other quarters.