asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people within the United Kingdom have currently been unemployed for more than one year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed have been on the dole for at least 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

The number of people in Great Britain unemployed for more than 12 months at 12th January was 333,917. In Northern Ireland the latest information is for December, when there were 16,716 unemployed for more than a year. Most of these were in receipt of benefit.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The lights have been turned off. May we call for candles?

The lights have come on again. I have never known anyone more effective.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his reply represents a substantial increase in the number of long-term unemployed? Does he agree that something like four out of 10 of these people are married men with dependent children? Will he arrange for extensive interviews to take place with all the long-term unemployed in order to ensure that there is as much information about them as possible? Will he organise crash programmes in training and retraining to ensure that these people are given priority in securing good employment?

Certainly, I confirm that there has been a very considerable increase in long-term unemployment. That is mainly among unemployed men, one-third of whom are over 55 years of age. We have appointed a number of special employment needs advisers, who are inquiring into the particular needs of the long-term unemployed, particularly with a view to retraining.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be much better to look at this problem of the unemployed on a more permanent long-term basis than by piecemeal measures in relation to creating specific jobs over shorter periods? Will he hover a little nearer to the Tribune Group's "Alternative Strategy", which would enable us to resolve the unemployment problem, otherwise we shall be in serious difficulties when we go to the people at election time?

I am convinced that we need both a long-term and a short-term strategy. We need a long-term strategy to deal with the underlying economic and employment problems and a short-term strategy to deal with special features, including the additional 170,000 people a year who will be coming forward in the next four or five years.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even accepting that the overall responsibility for the unemployment problem rests with the Labour Party, is it not rather odd to take two Questions in succession from that side of the House?

Order. I shall be very kind to the hon. Member and say that it is normal practice. I will not say any more.

Does the Secretary of State know how many longer-term unemployed have already had the benefit of Manpower Services Commission or Training Services Agency courses? The MSC seems to have an insatiable appetite for resources, but there are grave doubts about the evaluation of the effectiveness of its schemes.

I have no precise figures on the numbers of longer-term unemployed who have been affected by these schemes. But, of the 25,000 places that have been provided through the temporary employment subsidy programme, we are giving preference to those over 25 who have been unemployed for longer than 12 months and to those between 19 and 25 who have been unemployed for six months.

Is the Minister aware that in Northern Ireland, in such areas as West Belfast, Strabane, Newry and the city of Derry, the figure of male unemployed ranges between 27 and 47 per cent.? Is he further aware that many of those male unemployed have never had a job since they left school and that they are now married and trying to rear families? Will he exert some pressure on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to try to remedy this situation?

I have worked in close coordination with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, particularly in recent months when certain measures which aid the whole of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland, were thought to be under threat from the EEC. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring that the special measures which we have introduced and which are particularly applicable to Northern Ireland can be run there and that they will be fully funded.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these appalling figures represent an increase of 150 per cent, since the Labour Government took office? Can he deny that the number of unemployed in a period of six months or more is even worse proportionately—three times as bad as in the period when Labour came to office on the slogan "Back to work with Labour"? Has he no shame over this pathetic performance, and can he offer no hope to the over-55s and the young people who will be searching for jobs later this year?

No, I cannot confirm those figures, but I can confirm that there has been a fall in total unemployment over each month in the last six-months period—that is to say, over five months seasonally adjusted. The increase in long-term unemployment owes a great deal to the increased numbers of people coming forward on to the labour market. The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the position in 1972 when the Conservatives were in office and when there were fewer people in employment than there are now and when the economic conditions in the country were less difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are now unemployed.

At 9th March, 1,398,986 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.

Is not 1,398,986 an absolutely disgraceful figure, which not only means tragedy for those who want to work and cannot do so but is highly expensive to everybody else as taxpayers, because the social security scheme cannot possibly pay for so many unemployed people? When will the Government resign and give somebody else a chance to have a go?

It is certainly the case that the figure represents a great deal of individual tragedy and frustration, and it is a national tragedy and frustration as well. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, though, that this country is coping with the problem at the moment somewhat better than a large number of our EEC partners are doing. Unemployment in the EEC rose by 8·4 per cent, between February 1977 and February 1978. In this country unemployment increased by 6·1 per cent., in Italy it increased by 21 per cent., in Belgium by 13·8 per cent, and in Denmark by 19·7 per cent. Therefore, some of the measures that we have been taking in this country have fended off some of those individual problems and part of the national tragedy that we are talking about.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us believe that the time for at least partial reflation of the economy has now arrived? Does he accept that it is our hope that the Budget will reveal that? Does he further accept that many of us have sat here and listened to the Conservative Party resisting every measure that we have put forward to try to put our people back into work and that it has resisted public expenditure, wanted much larger cuts and is the party of unemployment and would increase unemployment?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have heard the Tory Party make attacks on all sorts of public expenditure which I believe to be essential in the interests of employment as well as being necessary for the maintenance of the standard of our public services. I hope that Tory Members will be listening to a statement to be made from the Dispatch Box next week which will give some indication of the Government's desire to see some economic expansion as well.

Against the background of these figures and the frightening predictions of the Cambridge group of economists, is it not all the more ridiculous that the Government are continuing to cut back on public expenditure and have set their face against measures such as the establishment of a special oil fund? When can we expect from the Government a less hypocritical attitude towards the working people of Scotland?

I do not accept that the Government are continuing to cut back on public expenditure. The way in which we use the oil revenue is open to discussion in this House because of actions taken by this Government. When we came to office, the oil was not owned by the British people. The British people did not have the interest in it that they now have. They have this interest largely as a result of actions taken by this Government. I hope that the hon. Lady, while joining in the debate to the full and expressing her views on behalf of those whom she represents, will recognise that it has taken political action by this Government to make this debate possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now overwhelming evidence that the greater the investment in manufacturing industry and the higher the level of output, the smaller the subsequent labour force? Does he recognise the necessity of turning to the public sector—education, housing hospital services and so on—to provide increased employment?

I accept that there is a long-term, ongoing problem as a result of increasing capital intensity in manufacturing industry. I believe, however, that in the short run we need so much investment in British industry that the investment itself will create work. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join with me in seeking to ensure that the wealth produced by that new capital will provide the means of funding a considerable number of service jobs, including public service jobs.

Does not the figure of 8·4 per cent, stick in the right hon. Gentleman's throat? Is not that statistic as selective as the same figure which was used by the Chancellor in October 1974? When the Secretary of State boasts of the jobs that he has saved, why does he not itemise the jobs that have been lost as a result of the burdens of increased taxation and unnecessary legislation placed on industry by his Government?

The 8·4 per cent, figure is from the European Economic Community. It is not mine. I am doing my utmost, as I hope all hon. Members are, to ensure that Britain's contribution will be towards reducing that figure. As for the taxation and employment measures, I suggest that some of the employment measures that the Government have introduced have improved our industrial relations and have, therefore, been beneficial.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of the work force currently registered as unemployed.

At 9th March, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 6·0 per cent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a substantial contribution to the solution of this problem could be made by the expansion of small businesses? In that connection may I ask him to reconsider his decision not to extend the small firms employment subsidy to all areas of the country? Second, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake to amend the Employment Protection Act so as to get the Government off the back of small businesses and reduce the amount of pointless form-filling?

I certainly agree that small businesses can make a considerable contribution towards the solution of the problem of unemployment. That is one of the reasons why I announced in the House the extension of the small firms employment subsidy to all assisted areas when it had been confined simply to special development areas. That is also the reason why I announced the extension of the subsidy to firms employing up to 200 persons rather than up to 50 persons, as had been the case previously. As for any decisions on the Employment Protection Act, I suggest that if small firms offer poorer standards of employment protection than large firms they may have difficulty in recruiting the best possible employees, and that would be no great advantage to small firms. I also suggest that small firms can set very good standards of employment protection and that those who suggest that they are incapable of doing so are not very good advocates of the cause of small firms.

Is it not time that the Government acted on the recommendations of the Cambridge School of Economics, which has called for import controls together with a massive increase in investment over the next 10 years? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that without measures of this kind we cannot significantly reduce unemployment?

I agree that we need considerable investment. Great support has been given by the Government to investment in industry. We have to be selective in our approach to import controls since we, as much as any other country, stand to benefit from an increase in world trade.

Does the right hon. Gentleman have any figure available giving the amount of overtime now worked? Can he let the House know how many job equivalents are involved in overtime and whether it is now more or less than the current number of unemployed?

The Liberals do not do any overtime.

The last departmental estimate, based on a partial count, showed that about 16 million hours of overtime were worked in manufacturing industry in a week and about 40 million hours of overtime were worked overall. It is difficult to turn those into job equivalents because in some cases they covered essential overtime and in some cases they could be turned into normal working week arrangements by reorganisation in the places where the overtime was worked.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that sufficient funds are currently available for the sponsorship of all motor mechanic apprenticeships proposed by garage proprietors in the West Midlands.

I am satisfied that there are sufficient funds available to the Road Transport Industry Training Board for the sponsorship of all motor mechanic apprenticeships proposed by garage proprietors in the West Midlands. Of course, it is a matter for the board to determine what grant it should make, over and above the Manpower Services Commission's key training grants which are available to all employers and other grants which are paid to employers who pay the levy and train to approved standards.

I must confess some surprise at my hon. Friend's answer in regard to the West Midlands since the facts as he relates them are not borne out. However, notwithstanding the increase in funds granted to the Road Transport Industry Training Board, will he bear in mind that there is considerable disappointment among employers such as garage proprietors who have made decisions about taking on apprentices in the Birmingham area only to discover later that the informal rationing system of funds used by the training board has meant that they have not had the financial support which they expected and that this in turn is leading to uncertainty in the employment of young people for training?

I understand the disappointment of both the employers and the apprentices concerned, but I wish to make it clear that I referred to the fact that funds were available to the board. The board has the money to deal with this problem and the board has the responsibility in this regard.

The board may have the funds in the West Midlands, but what does the Minister intend to do about the muddle in my area whereby employers who were promised by the training board premium grants for apprentices in the Bristol area are receiving them whereas those who were promised them in the Gloucester area are not receiving them?

This is a question for the board, but the distinction is that whereas the board solicited apprenticeships throughout the country, it was only in one area that it actually promised them.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs saved by the Government's employment schemes in the past year to the latest available date.

The total number of people assisted by all the employment and training measures is currently about 320,000. In the last 12 months temporary employment subsidy, designed specifically to save jobs, has done so for 185,000 people. It is also estimated that about 118,000 jobs, including 37,700 in the last year, should be safeguarded where assistance has been offered up to 31st January 1978 under Section 7 of the 1972 Industry Act, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Although the present schemes are warmly welcomed, particularly so far as they help young people, does my hon. Friend agree that middle-aged people who are out of work for any period of time can face a lifetime of unemployment? Therefore, will he consider a special scheme to assist middle-aged people as well as continuing the present admirable efforts to help young people?

The training opportunities programme is aimed in that direction, and we want to encourage as many people as possible to attend the Hanley skill-centre and other skillcentres throughout the country. The new special temporary employment programme is aimed at the 19-year-old group and the older people, particularly the long-term unemployed.

I welcome some of the schemes which have been introduced, but why cannot the Government make it more worth while for some of the young people to join the Armed Services?

I do not think that that matter arises from the original Question. I must emphasise that our problem is to make certain that there is regular employment of all sorts for young people.

I welcome the Government's measures aimed at creating jobs. Has my hon. Friend noticed the report of the Pay Research Unit at Ruskin College, which pointed out that possibly one-third of a million jobs have been lost through the underspending of planned public expenditure? Does it make sense for his Department to be creating Jobs when other public bodies are losing them?

It makes sense for any Government Department to provide opportunities for the unemployed.

Is the Minister aware that what the Government give with one hand they take away twice with the other, as we have seen with our great coal and steel industries? Is he further aware that the withdrawal of the regional employment premium alone cost 10,000 jobs in Wales?

When the regional employment premium was withdrawn, the temporary employment subsidy was continued. In our view, that subsidy has been far more effective in fighting the battle of unemployment than was REP.

Would it not help if we stopped talking about saving jobs? Are not these measures, although useful, merely a means of holding on to jobs which will be lost shortly unless the Government get the economy right?

I agree that the Government have to get the economy right, and that is what the Government's industrial strategy is all about, but the Question related to the saving of jobs. If Conservative Members had asked a Question about the creation of jobs, I could have talked in even greater numbers than I am now doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the development of structural unemployment, what consideration is being given to methods of employment subsidy on a long-term basis.

For the present, we prefer to keep employment subsidy schemes subject to periodic review as being designed primarily to support jobs during the recession.

As well as consideration of the question of faster economic growth, which we hope will be stimulated in next week's Budget, does my hon. Friend agree that an employment subsidy and the introduction of a phased working week and reduced working hours are complementary in solving the long-term problem of unemployment? Will he examine the proposals advanced by the TUC's economic review for 1978?

We shall certainly study the TUC's proposals and the economic review with great care. I hope that my hon. Friend, in rightly expressing concern about the development of structural unemployment, will not overlook the fact that in the past five years the labour force has grown by one million and that during that period half a million extra jobs have been created.

Is not the subsidisation of employment on a long-term basis a contradiction in terms?

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that successive Governments have been subsidising employment over a long period of time with such measures as, for example, Section 7 of the Industry Act and similar legislation which preceded it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the Birmingham travel-to-work area.

At 9th March, 39,843 people were registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It shows a reduction in unemployment in Birmingham of about 3,000 in the last three months. Will he tell the House how many jobs in Birmingham at present are being saved by the Government by the use of the very measures that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) wants to stop immediately as false subsidies?

Yes. Our special employment measures have helped well over 9,000 people in the Birmingham area and will be further developed by the new youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme. The temporary employment subsidy has helped nearly 5,500 people. There is clear evidence that the Government have recognised the particular problems of the Birmingham area.

Does the Minister fully realise that a new, frightening unemployment situation has developed in Birmingham particularly affecting the young and those over the age of 50? The recent loss of 600 jobs at the Typhoo Tea factory highlights the contradiction between the Government's regional policy and their inner city area policy. Will the Minister undertake to ensure to review that contradiction and put it right, because it should not be allowed to continue?

No, I do not think that there is a contradiction here. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government should put right what he terms a contradiction. It would be interesting to know how he suggests that we should put it right and what sort of intervention he is asking for.

Can my hon. Friend estimate the number of jobs saved in Birmingham, Walsall and the West Midlands by the Government's commitment to British Leyland—not those directly employed, but the thousands of people in my constituency who are dependent upon British Leyland?

The figures in that respect speak for themselves.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the basis for the calculation of £19·50 to be paid weekly free of tax to those taking advantage of the youth opportunities scheme.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the weekly allowance of £19·50 paid to those taking advantage of the youth opportunities programme was calculated after careful consideration of current levels of supplementary and unemployment benefit, of allowances payable under existing schemes and of normal remuneration levels for young people in employment.

Does the Minister really think that a tax-free benefit of that order is the best introduction to working life for young people? Does he understand the feeling of outrage of pensioners receiving £17·90 a week who have earned and contributed to that?

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should be criticising the allowances for being too high. There is a need for a proper balance to ensure that, on the one hand, the allowance is large enough to provide incentive to young people drawing benefits but not so high, on the other hand, that it acts as a disincentive for young people to take up normal employment or to continue or resume full-time education.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this very welcome measure will be a positive step in finding employment for young people? However, will he be careful to co-ordinate his attitudes with the Department of Education and Science to make sure that amounts of money are available to ensure that people receive adequate training at the same time?

Yes, I gave my hon. Friend the assurance that in the development of those measures and in their application we are working in the closest liaison with the Manpower Services Commission and with the Department of Education and Science. I stress that the youth opportunities programme is primarily one of work preparation and work experience and is aimed at providing young people with experience of work and with an understanding of the work environment and is a preparation to help them to enter full-time employment.

Will the Minister watch the effect of this programme on places in further education? Secondly, is he aware that a young man taking up agriculture is currently on a wage of £25·80, which after deductions leaves him with £21·58 per week? This is £2·08 more than the youth opportunities programme would pay, and the employer would be £3·10 better off for creating a new job than he would be if he paid his part of the contribution himself. Is this not a very bad way to treat an industry?

Let me emphasise again that the purpose of the youth opportunities programme is not to provide young people as cheap labour for anyone but to to provide them with work preparation and work experience. Part of the application of the scheme will be that young people will not be on a sustained task for long periods.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one implication of paying this £19 under the programme, which is very welcome, is that the Government must do something about education maintenance allowances for young people who very often sit at a desk next to some of these youngsters on the youth opportunities programme and who decide to stay in education but receive no maintenance allowance or grant?

I understand the strength of feeling about education maintenance allowances, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science rather than for the Department of Employment.

As the youth opportunities programme depends on an adequate number of supervisors and instructors to assist in the courses that are offered, can the Minister say what is the current shortage of instructors and supervisors, particularly in skillcentres, and what is being done to overcome this by September, when we are assured that all these schemes will be fully operational?

The youth opportunities programme has only just got under way. It is a little early to say what the staffing shortfalls may be. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing with the youth opportunities programme and its staffing needs the undoubted shortages that there are of instructors in the Government's skillcentres. One of the problems is pay. We are anxious about this and are doing what we can to remedy the shortage.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will raise with the International Labour Organisation the question of recognition by the ILO of the Association of Freed Trade Union Workers in the USSR.

I understand that the International Labour Office is already examining the matter in the light of the ILO's constitutional obligations and responsibilities. We await the outcome of that study.

When members of this asociation have been confined to mental hospitals, although they are perfectly sane, simply because they have urged the official trade unions to investigate abuses by the State of labour regulations, is it not time that the ILO should at least investigate the real nature of Soviet trade unions?

We certainly would not want to condone the misuse of psychiatric treatment or anything of that kind, because it is clearly an abuse or human rights. We think that we should await the outcome of the initial inquiries by the ILO.

Would my hon. Friend accept that many on the the Labour side of the House are concerned that workers in the Soviet Union who want to create free trade unions should be allowed to do so? On the other hand, is it not equally true that Tory Members in particular have never shown their support for the existence of free trade unions in Spain, Portgual, Greece, Turkey or any other country? Is it not true that they are hypocritical in their attitude and are climbing on to a bandwagon? There is a real problem in which they have never shown an interest before.

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. I am not convinced by the record of the Tory Party on the question of free trade unionism in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs he expects to be created in United Kingdom manufacturing industry in the calendar year 1979 and the calendar year 1980.

The Government's policies seek to bring about an eventual expansion of jobs sufficient to reduce unemployment and meet the needs of the extra workers expected to join the labour force over the next few years. When they will succeed depends on a variety of factors only partly within Government control, and I therefore see little point in trying to produce estimates of this kind.

Is it not the case that one such estimate has already been produced? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently state that he saw 2 million new jobs being created over the next few years as a result of the Government's industrial strategy? Does the Minister agree with that or does he think that that forecast is unrealistic and crude election-mongering, as was the Chancellor's statement during the October 1974 General Election about an 8·4 per cent, rate of inflation?

The hon. Gentleman ought to read what the Chancellor said and not what the newspapers suggested he might have said. I dealt with this same point fully on 31st January in reply to a Question from the hon. Gentleman. I will refresh his memory as to what the Chancellor said. I quoted then what the Chancellor had said in Glasgow on 27th January. He was referring to the work of the 40 sector working parties and their analysis of the problems. He said:

"Although"—

Reading.

Of course I am reading. I am quoting the Chancellor's speech to the hon. Gentleman.

Order. That is all right as long as the Minister does not read the whole speech. Please keep it as brief as possible.

I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor said:

"Although in these sectors employment overall is not likely to increase dramatically from such improvements in productivity, the balance of payments benefit they generate should enable the Government to run the economy at a level of demand sufficient to produce between ½ million and 1 million additional jobs".

Can my hon. Friend tell us about one matter that is vital to the manufacturing industry, namely, the efforts being made to get more apprentices, especially in the engineering and tool-making industries, because a lack of apprentices would be a big drawback to the expansion of manufacturing industry later?

My hon. Friend and the House will be pleased to know that we have been able to sustain the number of young people in apprenticeships in the engineering industry over the last three years and that there are now more people in such apprenticeships than when we came to office in 1974 and compared with most of the period when the Conservatives were in power. This is almost entirely due to the support given by the Government to the Engineering Industry Training Board.

Do the Government still believe that between 500,000 and 1 million new jobs can be created in the next few years, and when do they think that a start will be made on their creation?

I have quoted to the House the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A start has been made. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but the current level of unemployment is below that officially recorded in March 1972, when it was 1½ million. There are also 500,000 more people in employment now than there were five years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the North-West; and if he will make a statement.

At 9th March, 205,428 people were registered as unemployed in the North-West Region. We estimate that our special measures have so far helped over 164,000 people in the North-West. It is hoped that full advantage will be taken of the extension of the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme, and that full support will be given by trade unions and employers to the special temporary employment programme and the youth opportunities programme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are more school leavers unemployed in the North-West than in any other region except Scotland? What do the Government propose to do about it?

We have imposed an obligation on the Manpower Services Commission to make sure that every youngster who left school this Easter or who leaves in the summer is given an opportunity by next Easter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has given are alarming? Does he not feel that the time has come when special development area status should be extended to more areas in the North-West than enjoy it at present?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. We certainly regard the figures as alarming, and that is why we have taken measures that are particularly helpful to the North-West, such as the new Multi-Fibre Arrangement, the short-time working scheme and the successful renegotiation of the temporary employment subsidy with the Common Market.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the appalling unemployment situation in the North-West has become much worse as a result of the declining trend and low absolute value of renewed capital investment relative to every other region in the United Kingdom? How will the policies to which he has referred bring about a situation where this will be changed?

The relationship between investment and employment is very complex, as those in the North-West can confirm. Our belief is that the £400 million that has been given to the North-West in regional financial assistance over the past five years has been very helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies were reported in his Department in the last three months in (a) Merseyside and (b) Kirkby.

In the three months to 28th February 1978, 126 proposed redundancies were notified on Merseyside under Section 100 of the Employment Protection Act covering 10,477 employees; six of the notifications were in Kirkby, covering 1,534 employees. We expect that many of the notifications will be withdrawn.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the redundancies that have been announced in Kirkby and on Merseyside will have a terrible effect on the job opportunities in the area and that these are precisely die sort of jobs that we cannot afford to lose on Merseyside? Can he give an assurance that the Government will take all possible steps to prevent these redundancies occurring and go further and accept that, if we are adequately to deal with the problems of areas such as Merseyside, a totally new initiative on regional policy is called for?

Great attention must be paid by the Government to Merseyside, because there is a need to recreate confidence there and there is also an important job to do in creating confidence in Merseyside among those outside Merseyside.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that there should be a co-ordination of various Government Departments in relation to Merseyside? Can he indicate whether the discussions that I and my hon. Friends from Merseyside have had with the Secretary of State for Industry are bearing fruit in relation to that co-ordination? Can we have positive proposals to deal with the serious situation that has developed in the last month or so?

There is very close consultation, particularly on the Liverpool partnership committee, and I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that Departments will combine to deal with the current dreadful problem on Merseyside.