asked the Paymaster General what are the numbers of people who have been unemployed for over 12 months: and what was the figure in May 1979.

On 11 July, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over 12 months was 1,327,000, 41 per cent. of the total. The corresponding number of unemployed registrants in April 1979 was 367,000.

Does the Minister accept that long-term unemployment is now the greatest problem facing our society—a problem that was scarcely noticeable under the Labour Government, but is major under the Tory Government? How does the hon. Gentleman think the two Cabinet Ministers will solve the problem when one Secretary of State for Employment could not?

The House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of long-term unemployment, which carries with it a sense of rejection and degradation and is a source of great concern to us all. It is for this reason that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has set in train a number of initiatives devised specifically to bring the long-term unemployment back into the purlieu of the employment service, to make known to them all the facilities that are available and to make fresh contact with them, whether by post or by inviting them into jobcentres. I hope that the increasing economic activity will help bring this intractable problem towards a solution.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one among the many reasons for the level of unemployment is the demographic changes taking place, and that the number of people seeking employment has gone up dramatically over the past few years, which did not happen 10 years ago? Does the he agree further that in the years to come those demographic changes will alter today's position and that to ignore this factor is to ignore one of the reasons for the present level of unemployment?

My hon. Friend is right. It is true that the number of jobs continues to go up and that we have increased it by 350,000. If the population of working age had stayed at the same levels, unemployment would now be in the 2 million range.

What steps are the Government taking to monitor and respond to the situation in constituencies such as mine where jobs are being destroyed at a pace and to an extent that would not have been imaginable in 1979? Does the hon. Gentleman deny that in 12 months' time the position in such areas will be a great deal worse than it is today?

It is true, regrettably, that there are parts of the United Kingdom where the old technologies are obsolete and were new businesses have not yet been established. However, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the national picture he will see that the number of vacancies is higher than it has ever been during the last decade.

Is the Minister aware that the special measures that the Government have made available to the long-term unemployed are so modest as in no way to approach what is needed to solve the problem? Will he undertake that his right hon. and noble Friend will come to Parliament with a scheme which will provide every long-term unemployed person with the opportunity of renewed work or at least work experience?

The House knows that we are already spending £2 billion of taxpayers' money on special employment and training measures, but it is hard to believe that permanent and lasting jobs could be created from this source after the tap of taxpayers' money had been cut off, or after, as would be the case if there were a Labour Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came scuttling back from the International Monetary Fund with his marching orders. Real jobs can be created only by increasing business and enterprise activity.

asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied that all those classified as unemployed are actively seeking work.

No, Sir. Latest estimates for 1984 show that nearly one third of those included in the unemployment count were either not actively seeking work or had a paid job during the week of the survey.

Has my hon. Friend seen the recent article by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)? Is it not scurrilous that he should attempt to "rubbish" statistics produced by an independent survey which were accurately and fairly presented by the Secretary of State for Employment in a an article in The Times?

I think that "scurrilous" is the word. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers is the labour force survey, which was carried out in no fewer than 57,000 homes. It is regarded both in and out of Whitehall as a nonpolitical, independent and widely-accepted source of statistical information. I find it interesting that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has used that survey to his advantage when referring to second jobs. The Labour party does not like good news. Last year Britain created more new jobs than the whole of Europe put together. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is particularly scornful of the estimated growth in the number of self-employed. The official estimate of an increase of 393,000 is based upon the same statistical inquiry, the labour force survey.

Is the Minister aware that in any "snapshot" of the unemployed we see that people do not look for work in a particular week because they are realistic and know that work is not available? Does he realise that the annual survey found that 870,000 workers were seeking work but that they were not included in the figures because they were not entitled to benefits? I hope that he will not mock the unemployed by emulating Jeffrey Archer and suggesting that they are workshy and malingerers. That is not true. Does the Minister not realise that in six years of Conservative government unemployment has risen consistently every year? Is he not ashamed of that fact?

It is not my intention, nor that of my colleagues, to mock the unemployed. However, we are sick to the back teeth of the Labour party's claim that it has a monopoly of compassion. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has the answer and that there is an easy solution to this problem, will he explain to the House in some detail why unemployment rose so dramatically when the Labour Government were in office?

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency 4,600 people are registered as unemployed and that 82 per cent. of companies report difficulty over recruiting skilled labour, including companies in the engineering industry? At the skillcentre, 24 places are available on engineering courses, but the average occupancy rate is only eight, and the course is therefore to be curtailed. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient is being done to draw to the attention of the registered unemployed the fact that there are great opportunities to retrain for jobs, which are available in large numbers?

My hon. Friend is correct. Vacancies notified to MSC jobcentres are only about one third of the true level. Employers are best placed to tackle the many possible causes of shortages by training and retraining. That is why we have adopted the adult training strategy which allows for national Government and local grants to help industry meet its skill requirements. We hope that employers in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country will take advantage of that assistance.

I add my congratulations to the Minister of State and the Paymaster General on their appointments, although I deplore the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment is in a non-elected place, from where he throws insults at the labour force by calling them work shy.

May I encourage the Paymaster General and the Secretary of State to set a precedent in their Department by giving us the real unemployment facts? Do they recognise that their labour force survey reveals that 870,000 people are available for work but not registered? That means that the official unemployment level is well over 4 million and between three and four times greater than that which the Conservative Government inherited in 1979.

On behalf of myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He was kinder than he thinks because he promoted me to Minister of State. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps a little late in referring to the fact that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is a non-elected Member, because Mr. Bickerstaff mentioned that at the Labour party conference. That was surprising, since he was elected for life by that famous British institution known as the block vote. The truth is that the statistical survey is accurate. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in that he referred only to the 870,000 people who are not claiming benefit but who are looking for and taking jobs. That point was made in the article that my right hon. and noble Friend wrote on 5 October. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that 940,000 people are claiming benefit but not looking for work.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one must look behind the statistics? Does he accept that the largest number of long-term unemployed are in the south-east, the area with the largest number of job vacancies? In the south-east, about 9,000 job vacancies have remained unfilled for two months or more, when 12 per cent. of CBI firms report that labour shortages are the reason for restricted output in the future. The MSC has identified 173 occupational areas with labour shortages. Is not one of the problems that unemployment benefit officers know who is unemployed but do not know where the jobs are, while the jobcentres know where the jobs are but do not know who is unemployed?

We are well aware of the difficulties caused by the fewer job opportunities in the north compared with the south. That is one of the principal reasons for a regional policy. As a northern Member, I am well aware of the difficulties. It is important to stress the adult training strategy and the many pluses and achievements which have resulted from the youth training scheme. That scheme is without doubt a success and is recognised as such by those who take advantage of it.

asked the Paymaster General how many claims have been made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 for compensation for byssinosis sufferers in the last year.

In the 12 months to 30 September 1985 there were 66 claims.

Is the Minister aware that that number would be increased considerably if he reconsidered the scheme and changed the rules? If he did that, many hundreds who deserve the compensation, including many in my constituency who are debarred from claiming the lump sum compensation because they once worked for a firm which is still in existence, would be given the chance to obtain it? Is he aware that traditionally in the textile industry people work for a number of firms?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence. We exchanged correspondence on this issue earlier in the year. The Act operates when the previous employer is still in business. It is important for people to make claims against previous employers who are still in business.

Is the Minister aware that it is all very well for him to give the number of applications, but that it would be interesting to know the number of rejections? Have not many applications been rejected, yet when the post mortems were carried out the applicants were found to be riddled with the disease? I want the Minister to investigate the problem and do something about it.

I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's point, and so can tell him that 2,534 cases have been approved and fewer than 500 rejected. More than £16 million has been paid to byssinosis sufferers since the Act came into force.

Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that some people might fall between two stools because they have worked for companies which have become defunct and companies which are still in existence, so that the buck is passed backwards and forwards?

Is the Minister aware that a group of people suffering from emphysema or chronic bronchitis may not obtain full recognition under the 1979 Act? Is there not a case for reviewing the Act to ensure that those people are treated fairly?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the part that he has played in the implementation of the Act. We intend to extend the range of the Act, but I cannot offer much progress on his other points.

asked the Paymaster General how many people are currently employed in the United Kingdom; and how many were in employment in May 1979.

asked the Paymaster General how many people were in employment in May 1979; and how many are in employment now.

In June 1985 there were 24,245,000 people in employment in the United Kingdom. In June 1979 there were 25,375,000.

Does the Minister agree that the figures are grim, and that if translated into inner city areas are horrific? Is he aware that 20,000 jobs have been lost in one area of my constituency in recent years, that there is 60 per cent. male unemployment, and that the last steel manufacturing mill closed only two weeks ago?

Does the Minister not think that it is the height of hypocrisy to give those people hope when it is the design and deliberate policy of the Government to create unemployment?

I am glad to say that the figures on employment have been quite encouraging since the spring of 1983. On the best objective estimates, 677,000 new jobs have been created in the British economy since then. Obviously, we must do everything possible to speed up the process of creating new jobs now that we have sustained growth in the economy.

I know that there is bad news in the inner cities, which is why the city action teams are concentrating on coordinating the vast amount of Government money being put into those areas. There is also good news in Manchester with the development of the exhibition centre at Manchester Central station, which will create a great deal of new, permanent employment in the city.

Is it not true that in the main those in new employment since June 1983 are part-time workers? [Interruption.] I remind Conservative Members that they are the last people who should speak about part-time employment, because most of them are engaged it it. [Interruption.] There are about 300—[Interruption.].

Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right as anyone to speak.

I do not need any lessons from the moonlighters on the Conservative Benches.

Is the Minister aware that the Northern Bus Company has stated during the past few days that, because of the Government's Transport Bill, 25 per cent. of its employees will be made redundant—either compulsorily or voluntarily? Are the Government concerned only with propping up the casino economy—banks that go into default and financial institutions? Have they not attacked the industrial base every week of every year that they have been in office?

I notice that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has just taken his place. If he had been here sooner, instead of engaging in some part-time occupation, his earlier question could have been answered.

A substantial proportion of the new jobs being created are part time and self employed. That reflects the social change that has been taking place for many years, and which will continue to be reflected as we create employment in a modern economy.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not committed to social change. He prefers traditional industry with traditional organisation inside that industry. We are creating an economy in which more people will he employed in service industries, which is the pattern of other developed economies. I am sorry that that does not fit the hon. Gentleman's political preconceptions.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend remember a speech made in 1978 by a former Labour Minister, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), in which he said that he could accurately predict the levels of unemployment as they are now, that they would be due entirely to demographic factors and that it would be wrong for anyone to blame them on either a Labour or a Conservative Government? What has changed since then—the facts of the real world, or the fact that Labour Members no longer live in the real world?

The Government have a duty to create the conditions in which more employment can be created, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong for Labour Members to change their view simply because they are in opposition. It is equally wrong for them to propose policies based on arbitrary figures plucked out of the air about the number of people who would be employed if they were in office and to promise glibly, as the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) does, a return to full employment, when he knows that many of the conditions required to achieve that are beyond the control of the Government.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend point out, amid the constant cries of bad news from the Opposition, the good news that Wrighton is developing its factory in Coventry and that International Harvester is reopening in Sheffield, an area of high unemployment? It is not all bad news.

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is right to point out that in the present economic situation one can select good and bad news. We have sustained growth in the economy, rising output, record-breaking investment and new employment being created. The task of everyone is to maintain that progress and speed up the development of new jobs.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that mainly women are being forced into part-time jobs which are badly paid and have bad conditions? for example, many of them lack holidays and other entitlements. Does he also agree, as he referred to training for full-time employment, that his Department would do well to change the rules back and allow married women to take part in the community programme?

One reason why the increased rate of employment is not reducing the total of unemployed is that many more women are entering the labour market. It is a perfectly desirable consequence of social changes that they should be doing that, but it follows that many of them are actively looking for part-time work. They are jobs that people require and that are of value to the economy, so there is no point in dismissing part-time employment.

The answer to the hon. Lady's question about the community programme is that, in my view, it is right that the programme should concentrate on the needs of the long-term unemployed. The first aim of the community programme must be to make it easier for those people to get themselves back into the world of employment. Other aims must be subordinate to that.

As the biggest single source of new employment is likely to be self employment, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider changing the rules to allow the status of self employment as of right rather than as a privilege surrendered by the Treasury?

About one tenth of the work force is self employed, the highest figure for 60 years. From an examination of international examples and the experience of good advanced economies elsewhere, one can expect that proportion to increase. At the same time, we must not have abuse of the status of self employment for tax and insurance purposes. Having said that, it is good news that we have just reduced the national insurance contribution for the self employed, thus reducing a burden on them when they create their own businesses and provide employment for others.

asked the Paymaster General what information he has as to the numbers of unions that have now undertaken the balloting of their members on the political fund following recent legislation.

According to press reports, 19 trade unions have recently completed political fund review ballots.

Will the Government be congratulating union members, including members of the Minister's union, the TGWU, on the way in which they voted—by such overwhelming majorities—to retain their political funds? Is the Minister aware that one of the many reasons why union members have voted in that way is the unfairness of the law in that companies which donate for political purposes do not need to have political ballots? When will the Government ensure that companies must have political funds and conduct ballots if they wish to contribute to the Tory party?.

The hon. Gentleman is one of those who have tried to explain during the passage of various pieces of legislation how difficult it would be for unions to have ballots. The ballot held by the Transport and General Workers Union has shown that instead of having about 30,000 members contracted out. 120.000 voted against the political levy. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman should join me in making it plain to others —the 100,000—how they and many others can contract out.

Having sat through the proceedings on the Trade Union Bill in Committee, when the intention to ballot trade unions on the political levy was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition, does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Opposition should now be crowing over some kind if victory? The victory is for the arguments advanced by the Government, to the effect that trade union members should be given a proper chance to make their views clear.

My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that if the ballots had taken place a year ago, the results may have been very different. It is clear also that if ballots are held again in nine or 10 years' time, the results may be different. If that were not so, there would be no reason for the Opposition to say that they will take away the right of union members to review every 10 years whether to have a political levy. If the Opposition were not frightened of trade union members, they would not want to alter the provisions that are set out in the Act.

The Minister is always proudly proclaiming that he is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. As he believes that ballots provide a chance of giving trade union members the right to control their unions, will he tell us whether he participated in the ballot that was held by the TGWU, and give us his views?

My views are well known. I contributed to the political levy for years. As the Government have made plain, if we want democratic elections we must allow people to decide for themselves which way they will vote.

Did the hon. Gentleman vote?

I have given the same answer on all the ballot issues and I shall continue to maintain it, however much, and irrespective of the way in which people shout at union branch meetings. Secret ballots are designed to be just that.

asked the Paymaster General how many young people are currently unemployed.

On 11 July 1985, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18 years in the United Kingdom was 177,600.

Will the Minister concede that it is a diabolical scandal when such figures are presented to the House? Has he read the survey prepared by Marplan, which states categorically that three out of four of those interviewed took the view tht the Government do not care two hoots about unemployment and creating jobs for the unemployed? Is he aware that the survey reveals that many of those who are on the youth training scheme regard it a a cheap form of employment? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who, is, of course, a member of the Cabinet, to flex his muscles and get the Government's policy changed in order to get young people back to work as quickly as possible?

It is disgraceful of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government do not care two hoots about youth unemployment. That is a ridiculous assertion. Earlier in the year, with the publication of the White Paper on education and training, the Government stated they hoped that unemployment among young people under 18 years of age would become a thing of the past. The hon. Gentleman seeks to rubbish the YTS. He forgets that the scheme was put forward by the MSC, and that the TUC, which is an effective and strong member of the MSC, supports it. He tries to rubbish the YTS, but 84 per cent. of trainees are satisfied and find the scheme to be valuable. The hon. Gentleman should be rather more careful in what he says.

My hon. Friend will know that the chairman of the British Tourist Authority has said that if the Government are prepared to put up £5 million for the promotion of tourism, he believes that he can raise a further £10 million from private industry. That £15 million would generally generate £200 million worth of new business, which would be worth about 10,000 new jobs, many of which would go to young people. Would my hon. Friend be prepared to support such a scheme?

I am aware that Mr. Duncan Bluck, the chairman of the British Tourist Authority, has said what my hon. Friend has attributed to him.. I have had the pleasure of meeting him, and in the near future I shall have the opportunity again of meeting him and members of his board. I shall examine what he says in great detail. I hope the House will welcome the fact that tourism is now the responsibility of the Department of Employment and that there is a clear recognition not only of the wealth creation, but the employment potential, of tourism.

Does the hon. Gentleman really care about unemployed young people? Will the Government use this occasion to dissociate themselves from the statement by Jeffrey Archer on the well-known radio programme "The World This Weekend", when he insulted all young people? Will the Government also dissociate themselves from the remarks of Lord Young, who said that there was no relationship between levels of 60 and 80 per cent. of black young people unemployment in our inner-city areas and recent urban disturbances? If the Government do not use this opportunity to do something, they are no more that a bunch of Pinocchios manipulated from somewhere else.

Before the hon. Gentleman is carried away with his own rhetoric, let me assure him that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has gone to enormous lengths to show that the Government, and this Department in particular, are extremely concerned about the level of unemployment. We have said that time and again.

The hon. Gentleman referred to an interview of Jeffrey Archer on Radio 4. I heard that programme, and I have read the transcript. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is distorting what was said by Mr. Archer. He actually said, "I am not saying there are not groups who are not genuinely in need.".

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many places where there are jobs, as in my constituency, there is a shortage of housing? What can he do to help young people to find accommodation in a situation like that?

It is part of the trading strategy to which I referred when answering an earlier question. We should encourage employers, wherever possible, either to bus people into work or to look favourably on housing.

asked the Paymaster General how many representations he has received about his announcement on the future of wages councils.

We have received 64 representations on the future of wages councils since my right hon. Friend's announcement on 17 July.

Is it not a disgrace that, of the 94 nations which are signatories to the ILO convention, the United Kingdom should be the first nation to renounce it? Is it not criminal that the Government, at a time when they have accepted the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body which has awarded judges, admirals and generals massive pay increases of up to 47 per cent., should be attacking those at the bottom of the wages scale? To get those in high salaried positions to work harder the Government gave them massive salary increases, but those on low salaries are to have their wages cut in order to make them work harder.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. Our reason for proposing reform is that we think that this particularly Edwardian method of fixing wages is nowadays reducing the job prospects of many young people. For that reason, we are quite sure that a simplified system will still give protection, where it is required, but will make it easier for young people to find jobs in the trades covered. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, first, on remembering to be here, and, secondly, on remembering what his question was about.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the main there is nothing wrong with wages councils? However, in one area, to which he has already referred, something must be done about their ability to fix young people's wages at too high a level. If my right hon. and learned Friend can deal with that, he can keep the wages councils and still provide more jobs for young people within the limits of the labour market and wages.

As my right hon. Friend announced in July, that is broadly the Government's intention. It appears that wages councils have fixed the pay for younger workers at too high a level in relation to adult workers in the trades covered by the councils. Therefore, the councils are unintentionally reducing the number of jobs that could be offered to young people. We intend to act to do something about that.

Ms. Clare Short.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Order. Ms. Clare Short.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit, on the basis of the consultation on his document, that the overwhelming majority of people oppose the Government's policy of weakening and undermining the wages councils? What is his evidence for the Government's amazing suggestion that the only way in which jobs can be created is by cutting the wages of the poorest workers? Today the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that young people who earn £40 or £50 a week are earning too much. Will he comment on the research commissioned by the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers from the department of applied economics at Cambridge university, which demonstrates that the only bit of research evidence that the Government had to support their case was fabricated and ill-informed? That research was published this week, and we should like the Government to comment on it.

Not for the first time economists at Cambridge university are disagreeing among themselves. A number of their studies have come to varying conclusions. A few moments ago I thought that there was agreement on both sides of the House that we should strive to increase employment and improve employment prospects. The moment the Government move to remove unnecessary regulations in the wages market and an outmoded method of fixing young workers' pay and to set out the details of all terms and conditions for workers in certain industries, the Opposition object and defend past practices. We are convinced that the changes we are making will increase job opportunities for many people in the industries affected.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the reason why 50 per cent. of young people in Germany go into apprenticeships and only 5 per cent. of young people in Britain do so is that in this country young people have been effectively priced out of jobs by trade unions, supported by wages councils wage rates?

If we do not break the practices that are developing in some industries, whereby inexperienced school leavers move almost immediately to adult wage rates based on national negotiations, we shall merely ensure that youth unemployment is too high. It is for that reason that the Government are acting with respect to wages councils and other matters.

asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with Manpower Services Commission procedures for monitoring youth training scheme managing agencies.

Yes, Sir. By the end of July this year nearly every current programme under the youth training scheme had been monitored.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of that information, we continue to receive reports that many of the schemes are still used as a source of cheap labour and that the quality of the training is not up to the standards that we should expect to enable young people to move from a training scheme to a job?

Seventy five per cent. of the schemes to which I referred in my substantive answer meet all the required standards of YTS. Those that do not—which fall down on relatively minor points—can be put right within the life of the programme. On several occasions the Opposition, not least the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who talks about slave labour markets, have said that this is a cheap form of labour. The right hon. Gentleman wants in this country the sort of society that would breed that kind of slave labour. The money that is made available is an allowance. It is not meant to be a wage.

As my hon. Friend is anxious to encourage unemployed people to set up businesses on their own account, will he inform the House of the success of the enterprise allowance scheme? Why do the Opposition rubbish a good scheme and fail to recognise one when they see it?

Whenever they can, the Opposition try to rubbish the enterprise allowance scheme. This scheme has been an enormous success. During the past two years 100,000 businesses have been set up under the scheme. Three out of four of those businesses have succeeded. The cost per job is £2,600, which compares favourably with similar schemes.

asked the Paymaster General what steps he is taking to assist small areas of particularly high unemployment.

The Government have recently set up city action teams to cover each inner city partnership area to co-ordinate and improve the impact of the very substantial Government assistance already available in these areas. We are reviewing the way in which Government resources might be better targeted to give the most effective assistance there and in other localities of particularly high unemployment.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the artificial travel-to-work areas hide pockets of huge unemployment — often unemployment of more than 50 per cent.? Will he at least extend to those small areas the meagre assistance that is given to assisted areas? The travel-to-work areas are hidden because of the way in which the system operates.

I agree that the incidence of unemployment varies between travel-to-work areas. They are defined as travel-to-work areas because it is usually possible to move about in a city to find work. It is impossible to break cities down into little self-contained labour markets as a way of otherwise defining the figures. I agree that there are other areas outside the partnership areas where we need to examine particular problems. I do not agree that assistance in the partnership areas is meagre. It amounts to £670 million across all Government programmes.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would assist areas of very high unemployment, such as Erdington and Sparkbrook in Birmingham and elsewhere, if Labour local authorities did not make big rate increases like Birmingham's increase of 43 per cent.?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One finds repeatedly that those who speak most vociferously locally about the lack of new employment going to their cities are councilors who are raising their rates and making their cities unattractive for any kind of new business, and small businesses in particular.