asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will draw up, publish and execute an economic development plan for Wales aimed at reducing unemployment and outward emigration, raising economic activity rates and personal average income levels, and providing an economic infrastructure of roads and services that facilitate the balanced development of the Welsh economy.

No, Sir. The Government's economic regional and related policies, which are well known, are all aimed at achieving the objectives referred to by the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there will be considerable dismay in Wales at the fact that the Government not only do not have an economic plan but have no intention of preparing one? Is he aware that unemployment in Wales has risen from 3·2 per cent. in June 1974—the year the Government came to power—to more than 8·5 per cent. this year? Is he satisfied that in the absence of a plan the Government are having any impact on the economic problems of Wales?

There will be no such dismay. I received a report from the hon. Gentleman's party in March this year which was full of inaccuracies. I sought to rebuff them in a long and detailed reply. His party said there should be more emphasis on selective growth points, but did not disclose which parts of Wales should be written off—which is the other side of the coin. Plaid Cymru says there should be more investment in infrastructure and less on direct grants, yet I am chastised by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) for investing in prestige projects like the M4. I hope the hon. Member will tell his constituents in Gwynedd of the importance that I attach to building, in due course, the Bangor General Hospital and improving the A55.

Leaving aside the merits or demerits of such a plan, does the Secretary of State agree that the economic position in Wales is appalling and that he cannot gainsay the figures of increased unemployment? Does he recall that when the unemployment figures were far lower he and his colleagues, in opposition, regaled the House with a mass of questions and called the then Conservative Government heartless and ineffective? Is not the record of his own Government grotesquely worse?

Unemployment is a major problem throughout the United Kingdom; it is not confined to Wales. Our major priority is to conquer inflation, because that is the best guarantee of securing employment and greater investment. It would be much better if the hon. Member supported our efforts instead of walking on the other side like the proverbial Levite.

Is the Secretary of State not aware that we now have record unemployment and a record fall in industrial production? Is he aware that unemployment in Wales, which had improved notably in proportion to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, is now the worst outside Northern Ireland? Is he aware that, instead of making plans that have such disastrous consequences, he should get off the backs of individuals and allow them, through a system of incentive and reward, to get on with the job of reversing the disaster that he has caused?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about getting off the backs of individuals. He castigates the Government for the level of unemployment. I regard it as far too high and I want to use every possible means to bring it down. But while the hon. Gentleman attacks us for the level of unemployment, he then demands swingeing public expenditure cuts, which would make the position far worse.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total national subsidies and other direct aids to farmers in Wales outside EEC measures during the last year; what were the corresponding figures for the previous years; and if he will make a statement.

As the answer to this Question is fairly long and detailed, I shall arrange for a full reply to be included in the Official Report. The expenditure shown reflects the determinations made following the Annual Review of Agriculture 1975, although it is not possible in all cases to provide separate figures for Wales.

As a great deal of money comes from EEC funds, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the common agricultural policy? If not, what fundamental changes would he like

As I said in a speech at Aberystwyth only a fortnight ago, in which I expressed my disquiet, I am far from satisfied with the CAP. We need reforms that will ensure that we are able to place emphasis in the right places and carry out the proposals for agriculture in our White Paper. We also need to avoid building up the mountains and lakes of commodities that are not required by Europe.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, apart from the need for a major change in the CAP, the major bone of contention in my constituency is the nonsensical poultry marketing regulation of the Community? Will he take steps to ensure that we have an opportunity to vote on this matter in the House and to stop it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House, to whom, I understand, he will also be making representations.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the contribution made by Government measures to reduce the level of unemployment in Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the steps being taken to alleviate unemployment in Wales.

I am satisfied that Wales is benefiting substantially from the Government's measures, but I share the general concern about the present high level of unemployment.

I am glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman has something about which he is satisfied. Is he aware that the catastrophic level of unemployment in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom is due directly to his Government's policies since 1974, particularly the disastrous social contract? Will he now admit the errors of Government policy and make room for sufficient profits, so that there can be reinvestment to provide new jobs?

With the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of what happens outside the United Kingdom, he should not turn a blind eye to the high level of unemployment in other countries within and outside Europe. He should know about the general world depression. In Wales, we have created 3,000 jobs under the Job Creation Scheme, saved 5,500 jobs under the temporary employment subsidy, found jobs for 2,500 school leavers through the recruitment subsidy, provided 400 Community Industry places, provided £4 million for advance factories and £4 million for the construction industry. All this is in addition to help under the Industry Act, and we also have the Welsh Development Agency now in operation.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is concerned with the low level of profits, our problems will soon be at an end, because every commentator has suggested that over the next 12 months profits will make a remarkable rise, partly in consequence of the wage restraint policy co-operated in by the TUC and partly in consequence of other factors over which no Government have control? Will that factor alone, bring Wales the kind of job development that it needs, or does it still need major State intervention to bring the jobs to our people?

Obviously, increased profitability will be of help, but a general increase in world trade will be a major factor. I attach importance to the Welsh Development Agency as a means of being able to enter into joint ventures in various parts of Wales. I look forward to significant investment from the nationalised industries, too.

I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees that the present level of 74,000 unemployed—7·2 per cent. of the working population—is disgracefully high. Does he also agree that the measures taken to alleviate that unemployment are woefully inadequate? What does he propose to do about the school leavers and the teachers leaving training colleges at the end of this year? Has he got further training measures planned for them?

I am appalled at the hon. Gentleman's effrontery in putting forward his ideas at this juncture when he has voted time and again to cut public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman should seek the occasion to tell the House and Wales exactly where he would seek to cut public expenditure.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there are 110,000 fewer jobs for men today in Wales than there were 10 years ago? Is he further aware that the major reason is that Wales is governed by a huge unitary centralist bureaucratic State, which does not allow the Welsh people any control at all over their national affairs?

I should like to examine further the figure that the hon. Gentleman has given to the House. I hope that it is not one of those inaccurate figures that were paraded in the report that I had from Plaid Cymru in March. I should like to make it clear that total employment in manufacturing in Wales increased during the past decade at a time when the numbers employed in manufacturing in the United Kingdom as a whole declined substantially.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the levels of unemployment in the county of South Glamorgan and within the area of the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council.

The hon. Gentleman himself made representations to me last year; more recently I have had correspondence from the Barry Constituency Labour Party.

In his future consideration of this problem, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that while South Glamorgan and the Vale of Glamorgan area are not, perhaps, as industrialised as one or two of the adjoining areas, nevertheless they have suffered recently and are disturbed by the potential losses of jobs in the steel industry, and that the workers in South Wales Ship Repairers are apprehensive about the vital damage which could be done to their industry if the nationalisation measure now before the House is enacted?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the new firms that have been attracted to the Cardiff travel-to-work area—Burroughs Machines Limited, Matsushita, and Radio Chemical Limited, to name only three. In addition, GKN and Rover-Triumph are among the firms with major investment schemes either planned or in hand, and Zimmer Ortho-paedic Limited, Waterton, has recently been allocated an advance factory.

As one out of every four school leavers this year in South Glamorgan is likely to be unemployed, would the Minister care to comment on the statement in his October 1974 election address that without jobs there is very little reason for young people to remain in Wales? Will he list all those companies that were coming to Wales under the previous Conservative Government? When is a company coming to the advance factory at Pentwyn?

I have approved the building of a factory there and the allocation of two other factories. One is at Barry.

I am concerned with the level of unemployment of school leavers throughout Wales. However, in this area the level of unemployment is substantially lower than the average for Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends next to pay an official visit to Carmarthen.

I have no present plans to pay an official visit.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next goes to Carmarthen, will he consult the railway-men and the public, who are equally apprehensive about the future of the Swansea - Carmarthen - Fishguard line, where 500 jobs are at stake, and have in the backs of their minds what happened in the 1960s, when Southern Wales was the most prosperous region in the whole of the British railway network, as it got 84 per cent. of its income from freight, and yet there were terrible closures of lines in those years?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own representations on this matter. He will recall, if he casts his mind back, that I, with my right hon. Friend, was the author of the policy to subsidise socially necessary railway lines. That was put in the Transport Act 1968. My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman opposed the whole of that legislation and voted against it.

If the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) is so concerned about job losses, as indeed we all are, will my right hon. and learned Friend ascertain from him why he voted against the Government on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Is it the case that, as we have always suspected, Plaid Cymru is nothing more than a platoon in the Leader of the Opposition's regiment?

I am sure that the voting record of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) and his hon. Friends will be remembered in Broughton, in Flintshire. That will, I think, serve to remind aircraft workers in North Wales of their attitude.

Will the Secretary of State make a point of going to Carmarthen and seeing for himself the appalling consequences of a new road programme falling further behind and the inexcusable delay in repairing culverts on the road further west, and recognise that this is an emergency situation, demanding emergency action?

And emergency public expenditure.

The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) should know the priority that I have given to expenditure on the M4 to improve communications to within 15 or 16 miles, or perhaps less, of Carmarthen. I paid an official visit to Carmarthen on 19th March. In addition, I regularly traverse that road every two or three weeks—perhaps more regularly than the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount to date of grants and loans, respectively, received in Wales from the EEC regional fund.

To date, grant commitments totalling £9·4 million have been made by the European Regional Development Fund in respect of projects in Wales. The fund does not make loans.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that detail. It indicates how much support Wales is receiving. Is my hon. Friend aware that it was anticipated that the EEC regional fund would be in addition to individual Governments' regional schemes? However, it does not appear as though that is the way that it is working out. Is my hon. Friend further aware that Mr. George Thomson, the Commissioner in charge of the EEC regional fund, has expressed concern at the way in which the fund is being operated by individual Governments? Will he look into that matter?

Yes. Grants for local authority infrastructure projects will be passed direct to the local authority concerned to reduce its borrowing requirement. Other receipts from the fund are used by the Government to make bigger overall regional programmes than would otherwise be possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that Wales has done well from the fund so far, with well over 16 per cent. of the total funds committed to the United Kingdom.

Is not that a pathetic sum compared with what the Government give in grants and aid to industry? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is due to Wales next year and the year after, in net terms?

I cannot at this stage say what the sum will be in the year ahead. However, I repeat that Wales has done well from the fund so far, with well over 16 per cent. of the total amount of grant.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce the date when the Development Board for Rural Wales will become operational.

We propose that the board should be constituted as soon as possible after the Bill at present before the House is enacted and should act in a shadow capacity until it commences to discharge its functions on 1st April 1977.

My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the Bill, which has been in another place, has not yet come before this House. Is my hon. come before this House. Is he aware of the publicity given last week to the threat by the official Opposition to prevent the Bill going to the Welsh Grand Committee? Will he comment on that matter and tell us whether he feels that would be helpful or detrimental to such a good measure?

I should tell my hon. Friend, who always keeps an eagle eye on rural and Mid-Wales, that the Government wish to make speedy progress. I hope that is also true of the other parties in this House, but I cannot answer for them. I am sure that good sense will prevail and that no one will wish to sabotage or frustrate this much-needed measure.

I should like to add my support for the Bill and say that my hon. Friends and I feel strongly that this legislation must be enacted this year. However, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in coming to a decision within the Welsh Office about the post of chairman of this new board, the intention is to follow the policy that has been followed since the Secretary of State came to office, of appointing well-known supporters of the Labour Party to prominent positions.

I must refute that mischievous interjection by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend, who is frequently impartial in his appointments, appointed the Lady Anglesey as Chairman of the Arts Council in Wales, and also appointed to the chairmanship of the Sports Council Mr. Harry Llewellyn, who is not noted for his firm support of the Labour Party. I must therefore refute the hon. Gentleman's inference.

Is the Minister in a position to say where the headquarters of the Development Board for Rural Wales will be? If not, will he say what representations he has received from councils or other bodies in Wales on this matter?

We have received representations. I know that this is an important matter to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot at this stage say where the headquarters will be. However, all representations will be very carefully considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amount of grant available to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin for 1976–77.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what financial allocation he proposes to make to preschool playgroups in Wales.

I am glad to inform the House that I have been able this year to increase grant aid to the playgroup movement by approximately 50 per cent. over last year's figures. Grant to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin is £36,200 as compared with £24,400 for last year and that to the Pre-School Playgroups Association is £18,000 as against £12,000 in 1975–76. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the work of both organisations.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement of the increased grant will be warmly welcomed in Wales? How many training and development officers are working in the movement? What increase has there been in the number of affiliated groups? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that a very warm tribute is due to the voluntary workers in the movement, without whom the movement would not be the success that it is?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to voluntary, unpaid workers, who are the backbone of this movement. I pay full tribute to them. My right hon. Friend will recollect that the grant to the Mudiad when I took office was £5,000. I have increased it substantially because I believe that it is a major way of ensuring that the language is given assistance where needed.

As regards figures and the Mudiad, the number of groups has increased from 130 in 1973 to about 250. There will be an increase in full-time training and development officers from the equivalent of two and a half to four.

The announcement of an increased grant is certainly welcomed on the Welsh National Bench as well, but does not the Minister accept that this, in effect, is conscience money, which makes up for the capital cuts in the statutory nursery programme in Wales? Indeed, as the percentage of teacher unemployment in Wales is likely to be about four out of five, with only one in five students at the training colleges in Wales likely to get a job, would it not be better to increase provision in the statutory set-up?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well the background against which we seek to allocate the totality of money available to us within the limitations of those resources. However, to describe this money as conscience money is ridiculous. I embarked upon this policy of giving aid where it was needed to give the backing of an organisation structure to a wholly voluntary movement as soon as I took office.

I join the tributes to my right hon. and learned Friend on this policy, which in any case has long been regarded as a very enlightened policy in education. However, does he not agree that this small gleam of hope highlights the sombre background in the general education picture in Wales of the position of potential teachers and of local authorities which have to impose the savage cuts that they now envisage?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to pinpoint the welcome with which this kind of grant will be received. Certainly in the deprived areas it will increase the possibility of giving help where it is needed—in those very areas that can benefit enormously from it. I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of "savage" cuts.

I welcome the Secretary of State's decision which is, I believe, in line with the White Paper produced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, "Education—A Framework for Expansion." However, does this decision have a bearing on the plight of those nursery assistants trained at Bangor Technical College by Gwynedd County Council who are facing their year end at the college with no prospect of work, although work in the nursery sector was promised to them?

This is a matter for local education authorities. We announced last year a total of money available for nursery education. It is for the LEAs to decide what part of that they should take up.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the reform of the local government structure in Wales.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales.

Is the Minister aware that that is a most alarming reply? Is he not aware of the deep concern that has been aroused by recent policy statements by the Welsh Council of Labour and others about the abolition of county councils and that this is seen as merely a front to introducing the Welsh Assembly?

What comes to my mind immediately is that the hon. Gentleman's party—when he was not a Member of the House, I hasten to add— put forward proposals for the reformed local government structure with which we are now lumbered. There is strong criticism throughout Wales of the cost and inefficiency of the system for which Opposition Members voted.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that his reply will be received with considerable disappointment throughout Wales, particularly by the Executive of the Welsh Labour Party, which presently is distributing a memorandum emphasising the need for consideration to be given to local government reform? Is the Minister not aware that at its conference the Welsh Labour Party again put forward a resolution to that effect. Will he bear in mind that it is the unfortunate intention of the Government to put forward a Bill on devolution in the next Session and will he note that unless local government reform is dealt with in some manner and unless there is an indication of how it is to be dealt with before the Bill comes to the House, it will be inevitable that it is regarded as a Bill bringing in excessive bureaucracy and over-government throughout the Principality?

I cannot anticipate the contents of the Bill, but we shall bear in mind the comments of my hon. Friends and others. The Government are not deaf to the point of view of the Labour Party in Wales, and we shall consider carefully what it and other organisations in Wales propose.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best interests of the children and youth of Wales would not be served by organising education on a district council level, as it is far too small to do the job effectively? If that is the case, it seems irresponsible to suggest that local government can be reformed by abolishing the county tier.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important detail, but further thought must be given to the structure of local government in the Principality. We do not want another unsatisfactory reorganisation, as was that of our predecessors.

Is my hon. Friend aware that without a major and radical reform of local government, in whatever form, before we have devolution—whatever form it takes, and whatever one thinks of the necessity or efficacy of devolution—we shall end with an unintelligible system of government in Wales that will generate only resentment against the whole democratic process by which we elect people to govern us, at local, national or Welsh level?

It is this deep respect for the democratic processes, which I know my hon. Friend shares with me, that has impelled the Government to put before the House their proposals on devolution. What matters most is that any changes should be seen to be workable and efficient and be welcome to the majority in Wales.

Is there not a point of view, which has not been expressed and which I think is valid, that what local government probably requires more than anything else in Wales—and, indeed, in England, too—is time to settle down without further interference from Governments?

I do not think that the Government's devolution proposals can be construed as interference. There are many points of view on this issue. The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has made his opinion clear, but the Government have their view and will proceed by consulting further along the way about the proposals in their Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Government support for local authority mortgages and loans for house purchase and improvement in Wales.

The Government continue to support local authority lending for house purchase and improvement. The lending in Wales which it was necessary to suspend temporarily last June has been resumed from 1st April 1976, in accordance with allocations notified in March and totalling £12·7 million in 1976–77. Local authorities have been asked to give priority to lending for improvement, especially in housing action areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, welcome as are some of those comments, the amounts allocated or permitted are somewhat lower than those that the people of Wales and local authorities feel to be necessary to do the job of improvement on the scale that we need in the Principality? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the procedure whereby mortgage applicants are referred to commercial building societies, and the response that people are getting from building societies, especially with regard to older properties? Or are people being stranded without the kind of finance that they need to buy homes in Wales?

This is the first opportunity that we have had to welcome the resumption of lending for council house building. I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in council house building starts, and I can tell him that they were 140 per cent. up last year, compared with the year before, and that this year the news about starts is equally good. Local authority lending in 1976–77 is, pro rata at least, slightly higher than that in England, but I agree that the present level is not as high as we should like.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amount spent on housing policy in Wales has to be seen in the context of the deepening housing crisis, where one home in seven is unfit? Does he also accept that, although the resumption in lending is to be welcomed, the allocation, under Section 105, to the district councils in Wales falls short of what is necessary? However many new starts there are, the situation will worsen in years to come unless we have a crash improvement programme.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman accepts that our starts programme is magnificent compared with the paltry record of the Conservative Government. With regard to his other remarks, I remind him that allocations totalling £2 million were made available to housing authorities for lending for improvements out of the funds released by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1975 and March 1976, for the alleviation of unemployment in the construction industry. That is one example of the Government's regard for housing as a prime factor in their policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the Welsh Development Agency to publish an interim report on the economic condition of Wales.

No, Sir. This is not an appropriate task for the agency.

Would not the agency, instead of publishing glossy brochures on derelict land clearance carried out before it was set up, be better engaged in reporting on the 25 empty Government factories in Wales, the 73,500 out of work and the sharpest fall in industrial production of any country in the West, and saying what it proposes to do about that?

If the hon. Gentleman thought that that was a task for the Welsh Development Agency, he might have seen fit to put down an amendment in Committee. He never thought that at the time.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider it better for the agency to publish an interim report on its activities during this period and show what assistance it gave and what co-operation it had from private industry?

That is a much more important matter, and I am confident that when the agency has been in operation for a year and makes its report it will have a great deal to show for its activities.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in Committee on the Welsh Development Agency Bill I put down an amendment to that effect, and therefore may be justified in asking how he can expect the agency to get a coherent strategy together when it is acting in a vacuum and does not have an economic plan? Not only did it not have one in the past; it does not have one for the future. The agency is playing blind man's buff, and this will not provide an answer to a serious economic problem.

The agency would be playing blind man's buff if it were to rely on the kind of report submitted to me by the hon. Gentleman's party. That report was riddled with inaccuracies, and Economic Situation I have shown it to be false.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has received the comments of the National Enterprise Board on the performance of British Leyland in the 12 months following the then Prime Minister's undertaking given to the House in May 1975.

The National Enterprise Board has reported to my right hon. Friend on the performance of British Leyland since September 1975, and he is considering its comments.

The hon. Gentleman will surely recall the Prime Minister's undertaking that these comments should be made available to the House. When will they be made available?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that certain of these comments have regard to matters of commercial confidentiality, but we hope to put the main points of the submission before the House, together with our consideration of them, before the recess.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the continually churlish attitude of the Opposition, who would have let British Leyland go to the wall? Will he also comment on the performance of British workpeople at British Leyland in converting a considerable deficit into a profit within 12 months?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments have been noted by many of us in this House who represent motor car manufacturing constituencies. As he says, the Conservative Party must make up its mind whether it wants a British car industry. To judge from its performance so far, it does not seem to want one.

What attitude are the Government taking towards the capital investment proposals of British Leyland with regard to the more expensive part of its range, in view of the Government's activities in the Finance Bill, designed to ensure that British Leyland has no domestic market for them?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have regard to the statement made by my hon. Friend in Committee last Thursday. These matters are still being considered. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, it is a matter of co-ordinating micro- and macroeconomic strategy.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he is reviewing the arrangements for incremental increases in Civil Service pay in the light of the new 4½ per cent. pay agreement.

In his statement to the House on 5th May 1976 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that the rules that applied during the period of the £6 limit, including those governing the general position on increments, would continue to apply. The arrangements that will be applied to the Civil Service will be as required by the policy and will therefore be exactly the same as those applying to all other groups with established incremental systems in both the public and private sectors.

Would it not be helpful to the House if the Minister were more clear and said whether, in the coming year, civil servants will receive annual increments on top of the pay limit increase? If they do, is it not the case that a senior executive officer in Whitehall, for example, will get about £8 a week more, as opposed to the £4 a week pay increase limit? Is this not grossly unfair, and does it not account for part of the rise in the non-industrial Civil Service at the present time?

I do not accept that the payment of increments for civil servants, or, indeed, workers and staff in the private sector, is unfair in any way. Civil servants are being treated no better and no worse than are any other sections of the working community, in either the public or the private sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one further example of the way in which the Civil Service is being sniped at by members of the Opposition? A further example appeared in The Sunday Times yesterday, in respect of their pension rights. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that no changes in the pension rights for civil servants will be introduced without the fullest consultation with the Civil Service unions? Is my hon. Friend aware that if he opens this Pandora's Box all sorts of difficulties may pop out if pensions are to be linked with pay, because the Government may want to switch back when pay starts rising at a rapid rate again?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall resist any temptation to open any Pandora's Box as far as Civil Service pensions are concerned. I can give him an assurance that my right hon. and noble Friend and myself are conscious of the need to consult the staff side on this vital and crucial issue.

Will the Minister now answer the question that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) put to him? Is there any truth in the leak, contained in yesterday's Sunday Times, to the effect that he and his legal advisers are anxiously looking for any means, short of repealing the Pensions Increase Act 1971, by which they could reduce the enormous cost, of well over £100 million, of implementing index-linked pension increases for public servants this December?

As the hon. Gentleman already knows, and as I have said in the House, of course the Government are examining the situation in respect of the inflation-proofing of civil servants' pensions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally 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 opportunity.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the number of special advisers currently employed by the Government; and what is the total annual cost of their salaries.

Twenty four special advisers are currently employed by the Government, at a total annual cost of £160,000.

Will the Minister accept the congratulations of the House that the number of special advisers has been reduced from the figure of 29 in January, and their salaries from the figure of £196,000 in January? Secondly, will he tell the House, in view of the astonishing remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office on Saturday, whether he is satisfied that none of the leaks to which my hon. Friend has referred came from those special advisers?

It is lamentable that assertions and allegations of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred should be made in anticipation of the inquiry that is currently proceeding under Sir Douglas Allen, Head of the Home Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman has tabled over 30 Questions on special advisers in recent months. In addition, he has asked a host of supplementary questions, and on 23rd March we had an Adjournment debate initiated by the same hon. Gentleman in respect of special advisers. With the greatest of respect, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman. without infringing any of his parliamentary rights and responsibilities, to bring this squalid campaign against special advisers to an end so that they can get on with the job and make the contribution that the Fulton Committee recognised that they can do.

As well as giving details of the salaries obtained by the special advisers, will my hon. Friend give an indication of the number of part-time advisers employed by the previous Government who were employed by private enterprise and who were getting finance for some sort of advice that they gave to the previous Government?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that point. As he well knows—because I answered a Question of his some weeks ago on this matter—when one looks into figures and the amount of money spent by the previous Administration on business advisers one finds that it was far in excess of any money spent by this Government on special advisers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite the attempt to intimidate me, I beg to give notice that I shall seek, for the second time, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the co-ordination provided by his Department with regard to the total numbers employed and the total cost of the various public bodies for which his Ministers are responsible.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that his Department is apparently unable to answer global questions of that kind? Is he further aware that this is a situation which must be rectified, in view of the fact that there are no fewer than 2 million people employed by these public bodies? The Minister is responsible for 304 public bodies, at an estimated annual cost to public funds of £2½ billion.

It may well be that there is some merit in the suggestion that there should be greater co-ordination, but greater co-ordination involves more civil servants, and if this is the line and tackle on which the hon. Gentleman puts his case, let him say so clearly.

Can the Minister tell us how many of these public bodies were established by the previous Conservative Government? Will he confirm that there are a considerable number not least regional health authorities and regional water authorities, which sucked in a considerable number of civil servants to whom the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues opposite are now objecting?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the period of the last Administration there was no reluctance to establish public bodies.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all I was saying was that, in respect of the Civil Service Department, one of his responsibilities should be to add up the numbers available from other Whitehall Departments?

The Civil Service has no difficulty adding up the numbers in that regard.

Perhaps— [Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should be heard in silence.

Perhaps I should start by apologising to the House for an extremely bad cold. This was one reason I did not start earlier and try to drown the noise. I dare say that some of the remarks I shall make later will generate a certain degree of noise, because I wish to say one of two fairly tough and rough things about the Government's attitude.

Today we are debating the very serious employment situation which faces young people, though I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to concentrate entirely on young people at a time when there is so much unemployment generally throughout the economy. If it is our intention today specifically to concentrate on the section of society which is, say, under 24 or 25, that is not to be taken as any ground for suggesting that we are not mindful of the problems of the older generation. I want to make that crystal clear from the start.

The problems of unemployment generally are those of macro-economics, and the remedies which we have been suggesting to cure unemployment amongst young people are concerned with microeconomics. We have to look at the macro-economic side first, to look at the level of unemployment, and to look at the number of jobs available in the pipeline.

The precise figures since we last debated this subject have changed, as I shall show. In the United Kingdom there are at present—these are the latest figures—1¼ million unemployed, including 37,739 school leavers, and there are vacancies for 120,600. In May 1975 at the time of our last debate there were 814,000 unemployed and 160,000 vacancies.

The month before that last debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer was smugly asserting that unemployment in Britain was coming under control, that our record was much better than that of many other countries, and that because we had taken action earlier than most we were in a stronger position than most. At that time, the unemployment figure stood at 721,000. It is now 1·25 million, so we can see what has happened to the Chancellor's target.

As forecast after forecast and target after target have been cast aside, the Government have looked for other scapegoats. We have had a number of those other scapegoats in the past few weeks. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have told the House that the people who are to blame for the present high inflation and high unemployment are the Conservatives because when they were in Government they allowed the money supply to get out of hand.

Those of us on this side who had to withstand some of the insults delivered to us by the Labour Opposition in 1972 and 1973 will have a rather different version of that story. I never remember a time when we were in Government when we were told by spokesmen for the Labour Opposition, from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor downwards, that public expenditure was too high, that the creation of jobs was too high, that the stimulation applied to the economy would result in too many jobs too quickly. The whole weight of the then Opposition's attack can be stated in the question—"What are the Government doing to create jobs?"

If I am any judge of these matters, I would still say that on balance the fault of increasing the money supply too fast was a good fault compared with the policy which is now being pursued and which has been pursued by the Labour Government, of using unemployment as an economic weapon and allowing the number of unemployed to get as high as it is today. I do not want to hear any more hypocrisy from Labour Members to the effect that it is the Tories who like to use unemployment as a weapon whereas the Labour Party is always trying to keep unemployment down.

Let us look at the matter from another angle. If the Conservative Government were to blame for the present rate of inflation, and therefore the present high levels of unemployment, because of the policies we pursued in 1972–73, which is the gist of what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been saying recently, it is extraordinary that they fought the October 1974 election on a very different basis.

On 26th September 1974 the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said at Bury:

"Price rises in the shops are slowing down … all those results point in the same direction—to a significant reduction in the speed of price increases."

He said in October:

"Unemployment … is beginning to fall; the balance of payments shows a substantial improvement; the pace of inflation and price rises is moderating … but now we are being inundated with gloom and doom from the Conservative leadership."

That is what the then Prime Minister said in September and October 1974.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had more to say:

"We have in fact succeeded in doing very well on our own this year—I have cut the inflation rate I inherited by half and cut the deficit on our balance of payments by half."

Less than two years after that, when things are so much worse and the unemployment figures are so high, Ministers have the nerve to accuse us of being the people who caused inflation and unemployment. Let us nail that one straight away and perhaps we can then begin to get down to a serious discussion of where the problems lie and what has caused them. The cause has been Socialist policies and Socialist measures over the past two years—more than two years now—and the failure of the social contract. We all know that that is correct.

If I can just end this list of quotations from speeches by Ministers or ex-Ministers, the then Prime Minister made a great speech at Bury just before the election in October 1974 in which he attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and myself for our attitude towards public expenditure and our warnings that if inflation were not brought under control there would be high unemployment. The Prime Minister of the day, in words very typical of him, ended up by saying:

"Unemployment demonstrates the difference between our two parties."

I doubt whether at that time he thought that his words would be turned round and used against him in the way they ought to be used today. Unemployment demonstrates the difference between our two parties. Unemployment now stands at 1·25 million.

Under the Conservatives unemployment never reached 1 million. During the period of Conservative Government from 1951 to 1964 there were only three occasions when unemployment reached 500,000. Turning to the record of the Socialist Government, between 1964 and 1970 unemployment was rarely below 500,000. Let us kill the myth about unemployment once and for all.

It is against that background of what we believe has been a totally misguided policy in the running of the economy that we come to this serious problem of youth unemployment. There are no panaceas, no easy ways around this problem. The one thing we can do is to recognise that this is a situation that is not with us just for one or perhaps two years. It is a problem which we must get used to living with, and we must try to deal with it rationally in a way we have not had to do since the war.

It is significant that at the TUC conference last week, when Mr. Alan Fisher made a notable speech in which he said that the Government's target of 600,000 unemployed by 1978 was farcical, he was warmly applauded. The TUC and the country realise that the problem is far deeper and far less susceptible to easy answers than the Government have up to now realised. Last August unemployed school leavers totalled 150,000. By the end of the year they were still at the level of 32,000. Today, because of the Easter school leavers and some early school leavers coming on to the employment market, the figure is back to 37,000. That figure in itself conceals a large number of people who, perhaps, took a job during the summer, kept it for a few weeks and then lost it, probably on the basis of last in, first out.

My local newspaper said on Saturday:

"Only one teenager in six finds a job. At the end of last week 309 youngsters who left school three weeks ago were registered for work with the careers office in Lowestoft —and there was only one job for every six of them on the list of vacancies."

I dare say that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House can verify that they have the same position in their own constituencies. It is a grim situation. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) who has just grunted, will say—bearing in mind what he has always said in the past—that it is a good deal worse in his constituency.

rose—

No, I will not give way to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). He did not grunt.

We need a proper strategy and we must recognise that the problem is particularly acute among young people. If we are not careful we shall create a generation of disillusioned and disaffected young people. We can reap a bitter harvest for years to come from that. How many hon. Members now, looking back over the past 20 or 30 years, would deny that many of our industrial relations problems of today arise from the unemployment of the 1920s and 1930s? We could be storing up enormous industrial problems for ourselves if we do not get to the roots of this problem.

These are not only industrial problems. They are social problems too. Another speech at the TUC conference last week by Lawrence Daly made this point quite clearly. The article written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) last week did the same. Racial tensions will mount among the parents of unemployed whites, resentful of young coloured people who might get jobs, and unemployed immigrants who feel that they have been discriminated against. As Lawrence Daly pointed out, they can easily tell each other apart. There are considerable dangers in the present problems of youth unemployment.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that in calling in aid the remarks of Lawrence Daly he is seeking the help of someone who is a profound and convinced Socialist, who would advance Socialist remedies aimed at solving the problems of young constituents. Lawrence Daly would not place much reliance upon capitalism. The right hon. Gentleman is opposed to public expenditure and social arrangements. Under capitalism it is certain that these young people would not enjoy full employment.

They may stand a much better chance under a free enterprise system than they stand at the moment. The Labour Party seems to be shy about understanding that we have a Socialist Government.

No.

I do not wish to enter into a dialectical argument between the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) and the Government Front Bench. Certainly we have a Government dedicated to Socialist principles. They have allowed, indeed created, levels of unemployment such as we have not experienced since the war. It is no good people complaining that what is required is further Socialism and further public expenditure.

Some Socialism.

There are enormous deficits at the moment. The Government are borrowing one pound in every five and the situation gets worse. It is perhaps a great shame that the Labour Party did not listen to us earlier. Had it done so it might not have created the levels of unemployment from which we are now suffering.

If we had listened to the right hon. Gentleman and his party we would have closed down Chrysler, Alfred Herbert and British Leyland. In addition, we would now be instituting swingeing cuts in public expenditure. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how his party's policies of virtually closing down the British motor car industry and the machine tool industry, as well as making massive cuts in public expenditure, would help the unemployed, young people in particular?

I will try to explain, in simple terms, a fact which the hon. Gentleman has never taken on board. This is precisely the argument that the Labour Party was using in the election in October 1974 and that the Chancellor was using in his Budget Speech in 1975. It was said that if the Government carried out those measures unemployment would be created. What has happened to unemployment since? Where has the hon. Gentleman been in the past few years while the number of unemployed has doubled? Has he not realised that it is the very level of public expenditure which is creating unemployment? Does he realise that if the Government had adopted a policy of curbing public expenditure we might be in a much stronger position today? I spoke in the debate on British Leyland on behalf of the official Opposition. We never said that we would close down British Leyland overnight. That is not the right industrial solution. I believe very strongly that British Leyland would work and function much better if it were split into a number of smaller groups.

Most recent analyses of young unemployed people among racial minorities suggest that there is higher unemployment among coloured children and young people than there is among the population as a whole. What we need and what I believe we should have, is more up-to-date statistics on this matter. It is a terrible commentary that the latest statistics about the numbers of young coloured unemployed relate to February 1975. I hope that the Government, who have not published the relevant statistics since 1974, will start publishing them again.

On the very sensitive matter of unemployment among the races in this country, which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly raised, will he take this opportunity, without making a party political point, to denounce racialists and to declare the abhorrence of and opposition of his party and himself to the advantage being taken of the current economic crisis and the way in which simple-minded people have seen it as an important racial platform? That would greatly assist the conduct of the debate.

Plainly the hon. Gentleman was not in the House on Thursday afternoon when my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) did precisely that. I confirm everything that my right hon. Friend said then. There can be no place in Britain for two categories of citizen. All citizens in Britain must be equal under the law and must have an equal opportunity to obtain the jobs available. I make that abundantly plain and, in doing so, I am sure that I am supported by every one of my hon. Friends. When the hon. Gentleman rises to speak, I become suspicious that he thinks that he may be able to divide my party, otherwise he would not do so.

I have said that we must consider the problems of unemployment, particularly among young people, in a much longer-term perspective. There are many reasons for believing that the situation in industry is changing quite rapidly. We know that there is a good deal of over manning in industry. We know that public expediture will be cut which will, therefore, increase unemployment. We know that industry cannot absorb the total number of unemployed people. Many industries should decline and release efforts for new fields of activity. There is a polarisation between big and small firms: big firms are needed in some areas, small firms are needed to supply the big firms with innovatory ideas and to perform the tasks which cannot be carried out economically by the big firms. Job patterns are changing as we move into the new post-industrial society.

The answer to unemployment, therefore, is not short term, not within the existing industrial structure, not in continued, dead-end, or temporary, or non-jobs, not in forcing quotas of unemployed on firms which need to trim their labour forces, and not only in big or established industries.

Therefore, the answer to unemployment must be sought in a whole series of new initiatives. We must identify what one might terms new hole-in-the-market enterprises. We must develop small groups or co-operatives. We must have concious training for new and growth industries. We must have a loosening from existing unions, crafts and other compartments to make this possible. We have to teach people to look after themselves rather than always giving them a subsidy to do so. We must teach people to fish rather than simply give them fish to eat.

That is the way in which we should examine the running of the present schemes and how we can best improve them. The strategy for young people has been to concentrate on Community Industry, on the job creation programme, on further aid for industrial training and on certain subsidies to employers to take on or retain labour. I wish to consider each of those in turn.

First, the Community Industry scheme has done an extremely good job. I do not regard it as an important element in relieving unemployment so much as meeting a long-term continuing need to help the under-privileged in certain areas. It is right that it should concentrate on the low intelligence groups, on those who are not likely even to get a job given the best employment prospects, and on certain big cities where there are particular problems, especially among the coloured communities.

Last year Community Industry was expanded to 4,000 places. I think that it is almost up to that number now. I should have thought that the time had come when we could advance and the scheme could take on an extra 2,000 places. I suggest that those places should be confined to inner city areas, especially those with young West Indians and Asians. I believe that Community Industry would be prepared to advance that far. I hope that, if it does, we shall bear in mind that there is a tendency and danger in British society that when we advance from something which had a small beginning it starts to become bureaucratic. From what I have seen, there are signs of Community Industry developing its own bureaucracy, which would ruin most of its objectives and the enthusiasm which has been shown for the scheme. I therefore suggest that we should carry on with Community Industry which is now in a position to take up another 2,000 places. We all pay warm tribute to the work which Community Industry has done.

I come to the question of the job creation programme. Funds have been committed until September 1977 and therefore we are considering it in a rather longer time scale than we were a few months ago. A good many weaknesses have been shown up in the programme, and I dare say that that is inevitable with any new scheme. There are, however, weaknesses which we are now in a position to remedy. The scheme is far too expensive. I see no reason for paying wages of up to £56 a week for job creation. That is an unnecessary waste of Government money and it means that a lot of money is being spent on only a few people.

Secondly, the jobs are too short lived. Many last for only three months and the employees are then back on the dole queue.

Thirdly, there is a totally insufficient training element in the jobs provided. We should be considering jobs under the scheme which provide a maximum of training for people who would not ordinarily undergo a skilled training programme. Much more should be done to make training an integral part of a basic job. The TUC has put forward some suggestions on this matter which should be carefully considered.

Another fault is that we have depended far too much on local authorities. They have taken up the bulk of the schemes because they have been in a position to expand, but unfortunately, on the whole, the jobs they have provided tended to be of no use or benefit to the people involved. One suspects that local government may have used the job creation programme to do work which it wanted to do but which might otherwise have come out of the rates or the rate support grant.

I would prefer to see much more effort going into the private sector. Here, we are up against the problem that so far the private sector has not been allowed to take on people under the programme where there was any opportunity of making a profit. I believe that to be wrong. It would be far better to allow profits to be made out of job creation. In any case, the Government would get 52 per cent. back of what they put in. Let us, therefore, have some schemes run by private enterprise where profits can be made and jobs provided. If the Government are worried by the availability of profits, and whether this would be the correct use of public money, I suggest that they could write into any of these schemes a requirement for basic training, including perhaps attendance for further education for a specified period. I believe that private industry would be able to build on the money thus used.

The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that public money should be invested in the private sector in places where a profit might be made. Surely, if the public, through the State, can recognise where there is an opportunity for making a profit, the private sector itself should be able to recognise that fact. If, recognising that opportunity, the private sector asked the public to finance it, all the public would be doing would be financing a private profit-making exercise through what, in effect, would be cheap labour.

A number of ventures which might not perhaps be terribly profitable or remunerative could be undertaken and would be useful to the company and society but they will not he carried out unless there is some special incentive. What are we interested in achieving with the job creation programme? I thought that it was designed to create jobs. If we are interested in creating jobs, we should surely allow the private sector and free enterprise a greater opportunity of taking up these jobs. It might provide the sort of jobs which young people actually want. Many of the job creation schemes in the early days of the programme—now improving—were dead-end jobs with no possibility of those concerned enjoying them or feeling that they were doing useful work.

Too many of the jobs created were dead-end. They reminded me sometimes of the sort of "bob-a-job" work one gives during Boy Scout week. They were not satisfactory to those doing them and of not much use to society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Describe them."] My hon. Friends will give plenty of examples in the debate, but I will point out just a handful. I am not sure that washing graffiti off walls or planting trees on motorways or clearing up beaches are among the most positive jobs that we can find for young people. Indeed, many of them have been an insult to young people, and we should be able to do considerably better. We certainly will not do better if we confine the programme solely to the local government sector, which is where most of the money and most of the resources have gone so far. Hon. Members opposite must get away from the narrow approach they have adopted. Again, because the jobs have been based so largely on local government, they have got bogged down in bureaucratic processes. All this needs going through.

Someone wrote to me today:

"It is ludicrous to run temporary work and training schemes which actually tend to encourage young people into dead ends:

"local government cannot expand, but that is where most temporary work experience is being offered;

"the voluntary sector can hardly expand much, and yet that is where nearly all the rest is being based;

"manufacturing industry must expand, and yet in most cases it is artificially kept away from the young people who, in any future expansion of the economy, will form one of its most valuable potential assets."

That sums up the position well. The job creation programme is not working as well as we should like it to work, and a training element must come into it much more. We welcome the fact that the Government have, quite rightly, made more funds available to the Manpower Services Commission to expand training, both last year and again this year. But we must warn them that it is no good taking out apprenticeships if the jobs are not to be there at the end of the apprenticeship period.

I have seen a circular from the Construction Industry Training Board, which has trained apprentices and is looking for places for them but cannot as yet find them. We would like to know how widespread the problem is becoming. I believe that the TUC's recommendation to set up work experience training schemes—three days in industry, two days of further education and the payment of unemployment benefit plus £5—is a proposal that we should support. It is a more realistic concept than the idea of £56 a job for a job creation scheme, which is being put about in some places. There is, for example, the sort of scheme at the Jordanhill College at Strathclyde for unemployed school teachers. These things can make a contribution.

I have never been particularly impressed by the temporary employment subsidy. I do not know how many jobs it has saved. A number of firms have taken it up, but I wonder how many would have been saved in any case. I am not certain that the subsidy should be continued.

We always argued during the passage of the Employment Protection Act that it would mitigate against the employment of women and young people and result in firms being prepared to work more overtime and at weekends rather than take on extra people and thus incur more obligations. That is particularly true of small businesses which could take on more labour if they felt that they would not be putting a millstone around their necks in doing so. That is why we felt that there should be an exclusion clause for small businesses and why we believe that the Government would have been wiser to bring in the Act over a much more prolonged period, thereby avoiding the situation building up of employers not taking on extra labour.

I come to the whole question of the Government's priorities. Let us look at them. We were due to have an increase of 5p in the price of school meals this autumn. They already cost £350 million a year in subsidy. One-tenth of the schools budget goes on school meals. The 5p increase in price this autumn would have saved £35 million. I believe that 15,000 teachers will be coming out of the training colleges this summer who will be unable to get jobs in teaching. The cost of employing them is estimated at £33·75 million—in other words, we are putting a higher priority as a nation on keeping down the price of school meals by 5p when they are already highly subsidised than on the employment of 15,000 young school teachers who have spent three years at least in training. What about the priorities of Socialism there? It is a disgraceful situation.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting and valid point, but would it not be more effective if he pointed out that the whole of the £33 million could be found if we got rid of a greater anomaly—just one multi-rôle combat aircraft?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to leave this country defenceless, I hope he will tell his constituents just that. We know what the left-wing of the Labour Party is all about. It does not happen to be the voice of this side of the House, nor is it the voice of 90 per cent. of the population. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will go round peddling this sort of stuff in their constituencies. They will then reap the whirlwind they deserve.

On the question of priorities, what possible justification can there be for holding down the price of school meals this autumn when we could at the same time save 15,000 jobs, thereby helping the schools and finding employment for young school teachers who have been properly trained? All I am saying to the Government is that I believe that their priorities are totally wrong and mad in relation to this aspect of our society.

A much longer look needs to be taken at the problems of youth unemployment. We shall not solve this or any of our unemployment problems quickly. We have to prepare a proper scheme and a proper concerted action for the next five ward for the next five years.

I see none of these things happening. I see a job creation programme which was set up in a great hurry when the Government suddenly realised, about this time last year, that they were getting into trouble. I see a temporary employment scheme which was also set up in an enormous hurry. I see none of the long-range thinking that will be required. We need a new positive approach and concerted and effective leadership. It ought to be the responsibility of a Minister who should be put in charge of all this work, with a special function, so that his Department can get on to producing proper concerted action for the next five years.

We know that these are not short-term problems and that these suggestions in themselves cannot solve the problems before us. We know that there have to be major changes also in the running of the economy. We have to make it more attractive and rewarding for new investment. That means changes in the Price Code. It means a different attitude towards profits. It means giving confidence to industry to invest and expand.

We have also to switch resources from the public sector to the private sector. The British economy is a mixed economy. Now that over 60 per cent. of our resources are going to the Government, it is in danger of becoming a totally Socialist economy. We shall have only ourselves to blame if unemployment is with us at a much higher level than is necessary—a much higher level than if we had a free enterprise economy working within a mixed economy.

The problems of Britain are that we have too much Socialism, too much bureaucracy and too much waste in public expenditure. What hon. Gentlemen opposite never seem to grasp is that when the Government spend money they always do it badly. There are enough examples to show what is going on. What we need is a return to a free enterprise economy, and for the Government to spend less. Then we shall be able to hold out much greater hope for young people and there will be greater hope for the country as a whole.

I first thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and his hon. Friends for providing the House with this occasion for debating the subject of employment opportunities for young people. It is rather over a year since we last debated the subject, which is one of deep concern to me and to my Department. I therefore particular welcome this chance to report to the House and to debate in the House some of the measures which the Government have introduced since then.

In the last 12 months the unemployment situation for young people, including school leavers, has remained serious, although over the last year there has been a marked deterioration in the employment situation for all sections of the working population. Last summer we experienced record levels of unemployment among young people, and the figures so far this year, compared month for month, are even higher than last year. These figures need to be seen against a background of some half a million young people leaving school in the last 12 months in the middle of a world economic recession.

Obviously I have no intention of minimising the seriousness of this situation in any way. It was bad enough when the right hon. Gentleman raised the matter last year. It remains bad, and the immediate job prospects for young people are not very promising. These are harsh and unpleasant facts—especially for a Labour Government—but no purpose is served by failing to confront them.

But a lot else has happened since the right hon. Gentleman and I last debated this matter. Recognising the seriousness of the situation, last year the Government took a number of special measures, some of which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. These measure are unprecedented in their nature and scale, and in our view they amount to a formidable battery of weapons with which to attack the scourge of unemployment among young people.

The Government have done a lot to help young people over the last year. They have, for example, made available sums of money for additional training for young people at a time when public money is probably more scarce than it has ever been. Let me make it clear that I disagree completely with the analysis which says that if there were a cut in public expenditure the job prospects for young people would be improved. All our evidence points in a contrary direction to that.

The Government have also introduced the recruitment subsidy for school leavers and the job creation programme, which have provided thousands of jobs for young people who might otherwise have been unemployed. I want later to say something specific about that and to answer some of the criticisms made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many jobs for schools leavers the job creation programme has created?

I shall come to that and deal with the figures. At the moment I am giving a broad indication of the range of measures taken.

It is true that the situation for young people remains bad in that particular area, but our contention is that it would have been very much worse but for the action we have taken. In fact, in August 1975 there were 190,000 unemployed youths in Great Britain. In May of this year the figure was down to 67,000. I would not for one moment suggest that 67,000 is an acceptable level, but there is no denying that that is a very considerable drop, and part of it was brought about by the special measures introduced by the Government.

Is it not true that in order to get that figure down to 67,000 the category had to be recategorised?

There are some slight differences in the way in which it is made up, but I do not accept that the figure is in any way unrepresentative. I have checked very carefully the basis of the statistics. The only change in the method of collecting statistics which could affect that figure relates to the recording of adult students. The figure I am quoting is for young people up to 18 who are recorded in the careers offices and the unemployment offices. I believe, therefore, that it gives the best broad guide to the number of unemployed youth in relation to the subject we are discussing, which is job opportunities for the school leaver.

As this year's school leavers begin to come on to the labour market, we have a good opportunity to assess how effective the measures have been and whether they are likely to be adequate for a further 12 months.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, perhaps in error, that we were discussing today job opportunities for the school leaver, but according to my Order Paper we are discussing job opportunities for young people, and that includes those who left school perhaps a year or two ago. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to cut them out.