asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now announce the actual date of publication of the Report of the Hunt Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why a period of eight to 10 weeks is to elapse between the Hunt Report being received by him and its being made available to hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the actual date of publication of the report of the Hunt Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what date he now proposes to publish the report of the Hunt Committee.

There has been no avoidable delay, and the Hunt Committee Report is expected to be published before the end of April.

As Government policy in Scotland has created an extraordinary anomaly in the small area in and around Edinburgh, will the Government take the urgent action which is necessary before even more distortion is caused?

The question of the Edinburgh area has been submitted to the Hunt Committee. We shall soon have for publication the views of the Hunt Committee, which can then be considered.

In view of the lengthy delay in setting up the Hunt Committee and now in the publication of its Report which has delayed action being taken in the grey areas, like Lancashire, and my part of Lancashire in particular, may we have an assurance that any necessary legislation on its recommendations will be implemented at the earliest possible moment, if not this Session, then early next Session?

I promise my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay in coming to conclusions on the Hunt Committee's report and taking what action may be necessary on it. But I must resist the suggestion that there has been delay either in setting up the Committee or in the Committee coming to conclusions. I also reject the suggestion that this has prevented us from carrying out many measures of great benefit to the North-West Region.

Would the right hon. Gentleman note that since the Hunt Committee made its investigation in Edinburgh there has been a very serious deterioration in the job situation there which could possibly even justify its going back and having a second look?

I do not accept that there has been such a radical change since the evidence was submitted to the Hunt Committee. It will have taken account of this possibility.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that he said some time ago that delay in publishing the Hunt Committee's report would not deter him in taking emergency action in any area where the unemployment position warranted it? Has his attention been drawn to the Thorne area in my constituency, where unemployment remains persistently at 11 per cent.?

I remember very well giving that assurance and, in particular, expressing our concern about the unemployment position in the winter of 1967–68. As things turned out, the unemployment situation generally in that winter was less serious than many people had predicted, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench. I am glad to say that there has been no general deterioration in the intermediate areas since.

In view of the great importance of having the utmost public discussion of the Hunt Committee's recommendations and the danger of its recommendations being overwhelmed by national interest in the Budget, would the right hon. Gentleman press for a more expeditious method of printing and follow the example of many municipal authorities which produce documents more quickly, if less elegantly, than the Government?

I will look at any reasonable suggestions for accelerating the printing process. But I am sure that there is nothing unusual in this length of time for a substantial report.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why the list of reasons in "The Task Ahead", on page 16, for the possible failure of devaluation includes failure to restrain adequately the rise in personal consumption; and why it was decided not to include failure to restrain adequately the rise in public consumption.

Our balance-of-payments objectives would be jeopardised if either personal or public consumption were inadequately restrained. Chapters 5 and 6 show clearly that public expenditure and consumption have already been severely restrained and will continue to be kept under close control.

Since we are told officially by the Postmaster-General that devaluation has failed, would the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is because of the failure to restrain public consumption? Would he give the House the figures for the increase in both public and private consumption over the last four years of the present Administration?

I cannot give those figures without notice. But the hon. Gentleman should be a little more accurate in interpreting the comments made by my right hon. Friend. He did not say that devaluation had failed. He suggested that there had been a certain disappointment at the speed with which the economy had responded to it. I would disagree with my right hon. Friend in terms of our export response, which has been very good.

Would my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that a study of the O.E.C.D. statistics shows clearly that the critical difference between this country and any other advanced industrial country is the percentage of our gross national product spent on personal consumption?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reminder. As a nation we spend, and have spent for many years, a very much greater part of our gross national product on personal consumption, and a successful strategy in switching resources to the balance of payments must mean some reduction in that proportion.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Question on the Order Paper has nothing at all to do with that point? If he cannot answer the supplementary questions so far put to him, may I put a more simple question to him? Is it or is it not true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a year ago in his Budget to reduce consumption, and did he or did he not succeed?

My right hon. Friend set out in his Budget of last year to reduce personal consumption. When it became apparent that the Budget had not had the effect that had been anticipated, he introduced further measures in November. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution on both occasions was to deny that it was necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will initiate an investigation into the effect of the investment grant differential and the Regional Employment Premium in creating employment in the Northern, Scottish and Welsh development areas.

A close watch is kept on the impact of all regional measures, although several of them, including those mentioned in the Question, have been in operation for a comparatively short time.

Since unemployment in the northern region is 73 per cent. higher, in Wales 37 per cent. higher and in Scotland 18 per cent. higher than in the autumn of 1965 when the National Plan was published, is not there room for doubt whether the expenditure of £260 million in so-called assistance to development areas is money well spent?

The logic of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is to suggest to me that we should be spending more in development areas, but I gather that that is not the conclusion which he has reached. The trend of the movement of industry into development areas has been very good, particularly taking into account that the last two years have not been a period of expansion and the exceptionally heavy run-down in the coal industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by how much he expects that the differential in unemployment between the development areas and the rest of the country will be reduced between the present time and 1972.

We expect a further relative improvement over the period to 1972, though our provisional assessment suggests that the progress will not be evenly spread over all the development areas.

Since it is perfectly clear that the Government have no idea what value for money they are getting from spending £260 million a year on so-called assistance to development areas, and since they were elected on a programme of bringing cost-effectiveness into government, should not they make some effort to find out what value for money they are getting?

There is a genuine difficulty in terms of the time for which these measures have been operating. The R.E.P. and the differential investment grant have been in operation, in terms of paying out, for less than two years, and it is not possible in so short a time to come to adequate conclusions about the effectiveness of these measures.

Can my right hon. Friend give to the House any figures which indicate a reduction in the differential in the unemployment rate during the last four or five years between development areas and the rest of the United Kingdom?

There has been some closing of the gap between the unemployment rate in the development areas as a whole and that in Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what contribution the assessments in "The Task Ahead" assumes of the growth of productivity from the growth of retraining facilities, particularly in the regions.

We attach great importance to retraining facilities, but it is not possible to quantify the precise contribution they make to the growth of productivity.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a large percentage of those unemployed in the North-East who worked in the old basic industries are classified as unskilled, and that a substantial expansion of retraining facilities is required to enable them to take their place confidently in the new industries which are badly needed? Will he say whether the growth of productivity over the next few years is closely identified with this factor?

The provision of retraining facilities for those who have been made redundant in the mines and other basic industries is vitally important and is one reason why the expansion of the Government training centres has been so rapid. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that whereas in the development areas in October, 1964, only 1,340 places were available, in February, 1969, there were 3,770 and within the next three years there should be a further increase to 5,700 places. Together with other manpower policies, retraining should make a major contribution to competitiveness and growth.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the Government economic assessment involves the development of increasing employment opportunities and the attraction of further industrial growth in the North-East Development Region.

Our discriminatory regional policy is concentrated on helping every development area to get an increasing number of new jobs. In 1968 we spent about £48 million on discriminatory assistance in the Northern Region. The economic assessment takes full account of the contribution we expect this expenditure to make to the growth of new employment in the region.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has excluded the possibility and desirability of creating more special development areas within the Northern Region, and what crucial contribution the Government are prepared to make to reduce the continuing heavy rate of unemployment there?

The Northern Region gains more from the policy of special development areas than any other region and is responding very adequately. In reply to the second part of the question, the Government are spending more on and getting better results from the development area policy than ever before in the industrial history of the country.

Did not the Labour Party promise full employment for everybody? Why are the Government allowing more than half-a-million people to remain permanently unemployed?

If when the Conservative Party were in power they had not funked the issue of the restructuring of industry, we should now be further ahead than we are.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's special development area policy.

The added incentives to industry, including the building of advance factories, are making themselves felt. The number of jobs in prospect in these areas is now some 23,000. Since November, 1967, 28 advance factories have been allocated and a further six bespoke factories have been authorised.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he bear in mind that there are many areas, including South Wales, where the level of unemployment is still totally unacceptable? Will he press for incentives to be given for bringing in industry, and will he bear in mind that the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards special development areas gives us no encouragement unless the job is done quickly?

We are very conscious of the needs of South Wales and, in particular, of those areas of South Wales which are part of special development areas, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the figures which I have given to him this afternoon suggest that the policy is having some effect.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that further progress, at least in Scotland, will depend largely on the investment programme of the Steel Corporation, and will he say what part his Department is playing in assessing the regional priorities of the various proposals, in particular the plans for oil terminals and steel works at present before the Corporation?

That is a different question, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to know, I am in close touch with the Minister of Power on the regional location of any new units in the steel industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the basis of his estimate that there will be an increase in employment in the public sector during the period covered by "The Task Ahead".

The bulk of the expected increase is in the health and education services and is due to the rising proportions of children and old people in the population and to the need to improve the quality of the services.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the demand for these services is expected to rise, and is he prepared to review the figures in the light of an increase in public spending and not be put off by hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Yes, Sir. We naturally ignore the propaganda points from the Opposition, bearing in mind that our prior purpose is to look after the real needs of society, both the young and the old.

Is it the intention of the Government to maintain an average of half-a-million unemployed?

I do not see how that arises from this Question, but of course it is not our intention. Our intention is to return to full employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the Government's reply to the North-West Economic Planning Council's Report, Strategy II, will be published; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the reply he has now given to the North-West Economic Planning Council on the proposals in Strategy II.

The Government's reply to the Council's Report was published on 19th March. Copies have been sent to all M.P.s in the region and are available in the Library.

While I am encouraged by the evidence in that Report and the efforts of my right hon. Friend to promote long-term planning between the various planning authorities, in the case of local authorities what steps is he taking to ensure the continuity of this long-term planning when the time comes for a number of existing local authorities to disappear in the reorganisation of local government?

As my hon. Friend knows, some ad hoc arrangements have been made between existing authorities in the North-West which, in a sense, anticipate the reorganisation of local government. That apart, I think we must await the publication of the Maud Report before going further in that direction.

Much play was made in Strategy II and in the Government's reply of population growth. Is he aware that the endemic problem from which we have suffered in North-East Lancashire over the years is the direct opposite, namely, population drift? Is he satisfied that this drift is now declining, and will he concentrate on bringing new industry into the area to ensure that the population stays there?

My hon. Friend knows that the facts about population movement and growth in the North-West region are a bit more complicated than he has suggested. First, there is considerable growth in population, and this is combined in some parts of the region—especially in North-East Lancashire with which my hon. Friend is closely associated—with a decline in population. We want to devise a strategy which takes account of the needs of new housing at the location of additional population, and, at the some time, looks after those areas which are suffering population decline.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of disappointment at the tone of his reply to Strategy II, particularly the airy-fairy nature of the promises made to North-East Lancashire? Is he aware, in particular, that it is not good enough to say that the Government accept the case for a new road link between the M6 and the Calder Valley, because what the people of North-East Lancashire are entitled to expect, surely, is that, before the new town comes into existence, that new road link will be there?

The timing of road building is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. However, I am not aware that there is disappointment in the North-West Region with the reply which we have given.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he proposes to take to increase the rate of employment growth in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, which is expected to decline further, as outlined in paragraph 24, chapter 9, Regional Strategy and Prospects, of "The Task Ahead."

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking to ameliorate economic conditions in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, in view of the statement, about its slow employment growth in paragraph 34 of chapter 9, entitled Regional Strategy and Prospects, in "The Task Ahead."

The Government are considering what measures are necessary and practicable, bearing in mind also the needs of other areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most bland and depressing statement in "The Task Ahead"? In view of the fact that it will be some two months before the Hunt Committee's Report is published, which will no doubt confirm what is the task ahead, surely the Government should not be "considering". They should be taking action to prevent the sort of trend which they admit is happening now.

The Hunt Committee has considered the claims of many areas for special assistance. It is important that consideration should be given to the Committee's findings as a whole.

Would my hon. Friend agree that it is very important to locate new centres of administration and research in this area? Will he protest strenuously to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about placing the headquarters of the open university in the South-East, when it might have formed an important cultural and growth centre in another region?

The Government's dispersal policy has been of great benefit to a number of areas in the country, and I assure my hon. Friend that the needs of the area to which he refers will be con- sidered in the future, in conjunction with many others.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Yorkshire and Humberside Region is too large? There are too many pockets of unemployment, like that in Mexborough, which has a level of over 6 per cent. Will he do something about it quickly and not await publication and discussion of the Hunt Report?

I am conscious of the problem which my hon. Friend raises, and we are considering particularly the situation and prospects in the coalfield area.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what representations he has recently received from local authority organisations in Yorkshire about the economic future of the Region; and what reply he has sent.

The West Riding of Yorkshire Urban District Councils Association has urged that South Yorkshire should be designated as a development area. It was informed by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade that its views would be taken fully into account in the Government's review of the recommendations of the Hunt Committee.

I thank my hon Friend for that reply. Has he had any representations from a consortium of local authorities, known as the 44 Group? If he has, what reply has he sent to it?

As the House knows, a certain number of representations have been made, but no reply will be sent until we have considered the Hunt Report. The 44 Group is to be congratulated on the work which it has done in helping to co-ordinate the aims of local authorities, and on its collective effort in assisting economic planning councils in their work.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why the projected deficit on Government overseas expenditure, both current, invisibles, and capital, is £90 million greater at 1964 prices, in view of the fact that the target surplus on the balance of payments in "The Task Ahead" is larger than in the National Plan.

Unfortunately the hon. Member has misread Table 3.1 in the Economic Assessment, which shows Government overseas expenditure at current, not constant, prices.

May I ask whether the surplus which has been budgeted has altered since the publication of this Green Paper?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in his assessment of the supply of labour in chapter 7 of "The Task Ahead" what estimate he has made of the ability of agriculture to continue the release of workers at the present rate.

It is considered that manpower in the industry will continue to fall and output per head continue to rise at much the same rate as in recent years. This is consistent with the growth in output implied in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 12th November, 1968.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Report of the "Little Neddy" on agriculture said that the rate of outflow of workers from agriculture ought to be halved if the agricultural expansion programme were to be realised? Does he accept that, or has he abandoned the expansion programme for agriculture, as the latest Price Review seems to indicate?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, those assumptions about manpower were based on an import-saving increase of £220 million, whereas our programme is based on an import saving, over the period to 1972, of £160 million. Therefore, our manpower assumptions are consistent with our output assumptions. I might add that the Price Review is an extremely generous one. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is better than 12 out of the 13 produced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their 13th was before a General Election.

Order. Questions and Answers are getting too long.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what representations he has received from the Northwest Economic Planning Council regarding the implications for the Merseyside employment situation of the decision to cease placing contracts for nuclear submarines, and for their re-fitting, at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend wrote to the Chairman of the North-West Planning Council as he indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 28th February. They have considered the matter and we have their views. I know there is some disappointment on Merseyside, but I am quite satisfied that if only one yard can be economically employed in the future, then the choice of Barrow has merit on regional planning grounds.

Will my hon. Friend indicate to the House what the views of the Planning Council are? Will he not agree that it is rather baffling to tell the Council something which the Government have decided a year earlier? In view of the need for a little forward planning rather than posthumous planning, would it not be a good idea to ask it to comment on the scope for nuclear propulsion work for mercantile vessels on the Mersey?

I observe that my hon. Friend has some doubt about the wisdom of the decision. It is not seen as a threat in the future to the economy of Merseyside in the way that he suggests. I am satisfied that nothing would have been gained by drawing the information to the attention of the Council at an earlier stage.

What part have the relative employment situations on Merseyside and Barrow played in coming to the decision that the submarine should be built at Barrow?

That is one of the factors taken into account in arriving at the situation. It is a fact that Barrow is more vulnerable than Merseyside because of its comparative geographical isolation.

In view of the employment situation, is my hon. Friend aware that many Merseyside-based shipping companies place orders for new ships with yards as far apart as Hong Kong, Rotterdam and Japan? Could not more influence be brought to bear on them to place their orders with Cammell Laird, which is on their doorstep?

I accept my hon. Friend's comment. It is highly desirable that attention should be paid to this important factor.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects the aim of a £500 million surplus on the balance of payments to be achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the policy outlined in the new economic planning document is based on a change from balance of payments deficit to a surplus of £500 million; and when this will be achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the aim of economic policy, namely, the conversion of the balance of payments deficit into an annual surplus of £500 million, will be obtained.

The first priority of economic policy is to convert the balance of payments deficit into a substantial surplus of the order of £500 million as soon as possible. The speed at which it will be achieved will depend not only on the Government's action but on many other factors, including the joint efforts of both sides of industry in switching the necessary resources into the balance of payments.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he did not even begin to answer the Question? However, his reply is welcome to the extent that it may indicate that the Government are at last learning some modesty about their ability to forecast events. Does the Minister realise that public reaction to his Department and to the Government generally is a mixture of disdain and disregard as each forecast is falsified and each promise is broken?

It would be a mistake to attempt to give a precise date for this particular surplus, because there are so many factors involving the whole nation, and in particular both sides of industry, in the achievement of the substantial surplus that we need.

If one of the factors which will bring it about is the efforts made by management and labour, why are the Government showing such appalling delays and complacency in bringing forward the legislation on labour relations which they said was urgent and important?

It is extraordinary to hear from the other side of the House complaints about, as they allege, delay on our part to do things which the did nothing about in all those years that they were in power.

What is the point of producing a complicated economic planning document of this kind when the Government do not even know when they will achieve their first objective of producing a surplus of £500 million? When will they wake up from the dream world in which they live?

The purpose of the economic assessment is to give industry as reasonably good an assessment of the next five years as we possibly can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that industry would be highly sceptical of any Government attempting to forecast precisely the particular order of magnitude of a surplus in any year.

Would it not be better to say that we shall not achieve a £500 million surplus, that we do not need to achieve it—nor do we need to achieve the figure of £700 million which the Opposition have quoted as their target—but that we prefer to go for a more realistic target of £200 million which is within our sights and which would give us the opportunity of a much higher rate of growth than would otherwise be possible?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's judgment that this is not a necessary surplus for us to obtain. Nor do I accept his pessimism that the attainment of such a surplus is beyond the capacity of this nation.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why "The Task Ahead", uses a different definition in Table 6.1 for the claims on resources for achieving the balance of payments target from the definition used in the comparable Table 1.1 of the National Plan; and if he will give comparable figures on both bases together with the actual change between 1964 and 1967.

The actual changes between 1964 and 1967, on both bases, are set out in a table to be circulated in the Official Report. It was decided to reduce the sub-divisions of

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in view of the fact that the period 1967 to 1972 covers three phases for the pattern of the use of resources in relation to the investment in table 6.1 to avoid unnecessary detail and to give more scope for variation in the light of the consultations with industry and, for these reasons, projections to 1972 on the National Plan basis are not given. The exclusion of investment income from the balance of trade in goods and services arises from the use of G.D.P. instead of G.N.P. as a measure of national output.

Do not these figures show that, if like were compared with like, the task of improving the balance of payments is very much greater now than in 1964? Is this not a damning indictment of the Government's economic policy?

No, Sir. If like were compared with like, in 1964 we inherited a ramshackle economy with out-of-date industry. We now have a better industrial base on which to found our expansion, and devaluation has given us a competitive edge abroad.

No, Sir. "The Task Ahead" is concerned with the changes that have to take place in the use of resources between now and 1972, but it does not attempt to predict the precise timing of their achievement. This will depend in large measure on the success by all concerned in improving the balance of payments.

Does not the presentation confuse past performance with present plans and future forecasts, and is not this designed to conceal the true size of the problem?

Not to anyone who knows his way around an economic document.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will publish a revised Check-list for Action appropriate to the new planning document.

One of the principal aims of the consultations described in Chapter 10 of "The Task Ahead" will be to identify the action which should be taken to improve economic performance.

When the right hon. Gentleman draws up his list, will he put very high on it a reduction in the amount of distraction and interference which both private and public industry is having to endure from the present Government?

That is an odd comment, because the dialogue which we shall be having with industry over the planning document will, or could well, lead to proposals from industry requesting the Government to do certain things which the hon. Gentleman may interpret as interference but which others might interpret as very useful intervention.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the net outflow of population each year from the Northern Region, Scotland and Wales, respectively, from 1969 to 1972.

None, Sir. It is very difficult to forecast to what extent the success of intensified regional policy measures will lead to reduced migration from these regions, as well as lower unemployment and higher activity rates.

But does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the National Plan stated that a review was being set up to forecast the trends in population movements? What has happened to that review? May we be told what evidence it gives on this matter?

I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the policy, and the fructification of the policy concerning regional assistance, is intended to produce over the next few years a more even spread of employment opportunities which will in time lead to major reductions in net migration from the less prosperous regions. I should require notice of the other aspect of the hon. Member's question.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that Government assistance to development areas has already been the means of saving many valuable communities from disintegrating, particularly the mining valleys of South Wales which have been acutely affected by pit closures?

Yes. I should point out to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the stability of any structure depends entirely on the strength of its foundations—in regional and development area terms—a problem so long neglected by the Opposition when they were in power. The Government are now reinforcing the foundations and building an entirely new fabric in those areas where Government assistance is badly needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what criteria he bases the policy outlined in the new economic planning document of making a reduction in the present level of unemployment consequential upon an improvement in the balance of payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the reduction in unemployment which the new planning document allows from its present level between now and 1972 on the basic case.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent it is the policy of the Government that there should be a connection between the balance of payments position and the level of unemployment.

Full employment is a major aim of the Government's policy. The size and speed of the reduction in unemployment cannot be exactly predicted since it depends on progress with the balance of payments, achieving a better balance of regional employment and on such factors as success in retraining and redeploying workers.

Is the Government's current economic strategy designed to secure an increase or a reduction in the present unemployment rate? Can the Minister say, in particular, whether the economic strategy takes into account the securing of trade union reform legislation within the next 12 months?

The hon. Gentleman has already been told the timetable for the Measures on industrial relations—[Interruption.] It is for someone else to answer that Question, not for me.

On the hon. Gentleman's main point, the basic case put forward in the planning document, which he will see if he reads it carefully, is wholly consistent with a decline in unemployment in the period of the assessment.

Can the Minister answer the Question which I put down? Is there, in the Government's view, a direct link between the level of unemployment and the balance of payments position?

It is an extraordinarily simple Question for the hon. Gentleman.

Answer.

I will. I should have thought that it was self-evident, even to the dimmest intelligence, that a nation has to earn its living and that, if it cannot earn its living by its ordinary trade and other transactions, in a country like ours, employment will inevitably suffer.

The right hon. Gentleman knows the anxiety in the House about the unemployment figures. Does he recall the statement of the Prime Minister on 20th July, 1966, that the upper limit might be of the order of 2 per cent.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for about 21 months the figure has been above 2 per cent.? Does he see any prospect of it dropping below that?

Yes, Sir. As the economic assessment makes clear, we assume that there will be a decrease in unemployment over the period of the assessment. What we have not attempted to do is to give a time path of this change because it crucially depends on the two factors which I mentioned earlier, success with the balance of payments and success in our regional policies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic strategy is now proving beneficial to Scotland? Is he further aware that in 1963, when the Opposition were the Government, there were 136,000 unemployed people in Scotland, whereas the figure is now 80,000? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the trade unions will play their part in carrying out the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", provided that managements measure up to their responsibilities?

I thank my hon. Friend for his very useful contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why, in view of the increase in the scale of the discriminatory financial assistance to development areas since 1965, which the new planning document, "The Task Ahead", underlines, the only estimate made of additional jobs created in development areas relates to jobs deriving from the use of the industrial development certificate procedure.

The only specific statistics relating to the growth of employment opportunities in development areas are those relating to I.D.C. applications. These do not, however, reflect the full impact of development area incentives, and the assessment in "The Task Ahead" does take account of the other ways in which such incentives are expected to lead to increased employment in development areas.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that vast sums of money are being spent on other incentives? Is it not utterly wrong that these large sums of money should be spent without his being able to make any assessment of the benefits which are derived from the regional employment premium?

The only measures which have a distinct job relationship are those taken under the I.D.C. policy and under the Local Employment Acts. I discount the hon. Gentleman's comment that we are not getting value for money. I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent development areas will be in complete agreement with me when I say that industry in those areas is being very well diversified as a result of the policies now in train, to the advantage of the areas concerned.

I assure my hon. Friend that people in the development areas welcome the work being done by the Government to stimulate the economy in those areas. Nevertheless, would my hon. Friend accept, looking back at the unemployment figures for February of this year and last year, that while there has been a reduction in unemployment in the non-development areas, unemployment has risen marginally in the development areas? Does not this show that we should be doing more rather than less?

The suggestion that we should be doing more is one which will meet with general approbation, especially on this side of the House, but I ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the discussions on the Hunt Report.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how 35,000 jobs net have been lost during the last four years in Scotland, whereas there was a net gain of 30,000 jobs in the previous four years, a question which the Prime Minister was unable to answer last week?

Jobs are being generated at a faster rate in Scotland than at any time in the history of Conservative Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give his estimate of the extent to which annual growth is restricted for each £100 million of surplus on balance of payments, taking into account the various assumptions in the document, "The Task Ahead."

No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the Answer which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, gave to my hon. Friend on 13th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 333–4.]

Is it not a fact that we could aim for a higher rate of growth with a target of £200 million surplus on the balance of payments than with one of £500 million, which in any event could not be maintained for any consistent period, and should not we tell the I.M.F. that that is precisely what we propose to do?

I do not dispute that the balance of payments restraint is an important restraint on economic growth, but I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need a surplus of only £200 million in the years ahead. I think that we need a considerably more ambitious surplus than that.

To assist his hon. Friend's proposal, will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Postmaster-General to address the I.M.F. and to explain his ideas?