§ 6. Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the current level of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. FootI am naturally dissatisfied with the current level of unemployment. The figure is already much too high and the danger is that it will rise higher still for several months to come. Partly the trouble arises from the recession which has hit many countries besides our own. Our capacity to overcome the menace will depend on a combination of policies, not least and immediately upon our success in curbing inflation.
§ Mr. SkinnerWill my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the days of the Labour Party conference in 1966 when the country was suffering from relatively minor unemployment? Does he recall that he made a glorious speech attacking the possible increased unemployment that might arise from the economic package that was about to be launched at that 1171 time? Will he give a guarantee that he will not tolerate, in any economic package that is presented this afternoon or at any other time, provisions which set out deliberately to make the dole queues even longer?
§ Mr. FootMy hon. Friend will recall that my original reply is in exact conformity with what I said at that conference. I have just told him that the present level of unemployment is much too high, and I do not qualify that in any way. One of the purposes of any measures the Government put forward for dealing with the position is to try to curb increasing unemployment and then to bring down the unemployment figures themselves.
§ Mr. CormackIs it not a fact that, whatever the Chancellor says this afternoon or at any other time, unemployment is almost certain to rise in the coming months? Is it not a fact that unless the Chancellor takes firm action there will be the most dreadful rise this country has ever seen? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether there is to be a statement this afternoon?
§ Mr. FootThere is to be a statement this afternoon. I referred in my original reply to the future danger of increasing unemployment. I am not complacent about that matter. The present level of unemployment is much too high. There is a danger of its going higher still, and we have to take a whole series of measures to try to deal with that situation, including measures to deal with inflation.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkDoes my right hon. Friend accept that unemployment on Merseyside is already intolerably high, particularly among school leavers? What kind of selective action do the Government propose to take to alleviate unemployment in the area and to ensure that school leavers, who at present are leaving school with a prospect no better than the dole queue, do not become the future forgotten generation?
§ Mr. FootI fully appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has raised this question, coming as he does from Merseyside, where the unemployment situation is even worse than in most other parts of the country. Having been in Merseyside myself this weekend I am now even more aware of the strong feelings of my hon. 1172 Friends and others in the area about the situation.
The Government have already tried to assist by making Merseyside a special development area last autumn. They have also taken steps to increase considerably the number of advance factories that are to go to Merseyside. Measures for assisting school leavers, which would also apply to the rest of the country, must be considered further, and the measures concerned with the temporary employment subsidy, on which we shall be making an announcement, will be of further assistance. One of the good signs on Merseyside is what is happening in Liverpool Docks, where the situation has improved considerably. That can make a contribution to improving the general situation on Merseyside.
§ Mr. PriorIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that few Opposition Members will disagree with his original answer to the Question? The Opposition castigate the Government and the Minister for their failure to take earlier action to control inflation and their failure to deal at an earlier stage with the problems of school leavers, which will be especially marked in the next few months ahead. Two months ago the House debated that matter. It does not appear to have been followed by Government action.
§ Mr. FootWhen that matter was debated the Government gave a good answer to that point when the Opposition raised it. We are also seeing what further measures we can take to assist in the situation. As to the hon. Gentleman castigating the Government for what we did in the past, some of the measures taken by the Government last year, which are still having their effect, resulted in keeping our unemployment level below the levels of most other countries in Western Europe. The Opposition bitterly criticised some of those measures when they were taken. But I agree that no one can be complacent about the situation in any part of the country.
§ 8. Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present rate of unemployment as compared with a year ago.
§ 12. Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his 1173 latest estimates for the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. FootOn 9th June 1975 the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 3.7 per cent. compared with 2.3 per cent. on 10th June 1974.
§ Mr. MorrisonDoes the Secretary of State agree that one man's excessive wage rise is another man's lost job? Will he in future consult the vast majority of trade unionists who would prefer a reasonable wage settlement and secure employment?
§ Mr. FootI agree that excessive wage settlements, as they have sometimes been described, can contribute to the level of unemployment. However, taking the figures over the past year, it would be wrong to say that wage settlements are mainly responsible for unemployment. The main cause of the unemployment throughout the whole of this period has been the recession which has hit the whole Western world.
§ Mr. PardoeIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the measures which the Government will inevitably introduce will raise the levels of unemployment to much higher figures than those he has stated? Has he considered his personal responsibility for this situation? Does he recognise that unemployment will now be much higher as a result of the delay in bringing forward the tough measures which the economic situation necessitates? How far has he been responsible for those delays?
§ Mr. FootI do not accept any part of what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course I accept the responsibility. As long as I am in this job I must answer for figures, which are of a serious character, such as those I read out in answer to the Question. We should discuss the causes for those figures and deal with them. The hon. Gentleman has spoken as if the sole cause was a particular form of the wages policy. I do not agree with him about that.
§ Mr. MolloyIs my right hon. Friend aware of the phenomenon created in the Greater London area when the Conservative Party was in power, when factory undertakings were allowed to be sold and warehouses were allowed take their place, and when no endeavour was made by the Conservative Government to arrest that trend? That has contributed to 1174 unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment means of stopping the cancer started by the Conservative Government, which has increased unemployment in the Greater London area?
§ Mr. FootThere are some measures of that character. I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House, whatever differences of opinion they may have about the different cures for the problem, would agree that the nature of unemployment today is of a different character in many respects from that in years gone by—and especially because of the way in which the huge increase in oil costs has contributed to the unemployment situation in this and in other countries. We have been trying to ward off those difficulties in this country. In some respects we have been more successful than other countries, and in other respects we have not been so successful. But we must use a combination of measures to deal with the situation. The idea that a single panacea can deal with it is mistaken.