§ Mr. EyreI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
to examine the need for the Government to review their policies bearing upon and worsening unemployment in the United Kingdom.In my submission the matter is specific in that Government figures published today show that the number of hard-core unemployed in the United Kingdom, adjusted on a seasonal basis, excluding school leavers and adult students, rose by 56,386 to 1,077,726—in excess of a million for the first time since the Second World War. When temporarily stopped workers are included, the final figure becomes even higher at 1,204,398. This month's unemployment total is 521,982 up on October of last year, when the Government undertook to restore and sustain full employment.The matter is clearly of considerable importance since much productive effort is lost to the economy. Furthermore, the social consequences of persistent un employment which is developing in all the large urban and industrial areas of the country—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. When the hon. Member is making his application, he must not make the sort of general speech he would make if the application were granted.
§ Mr. EyreI should emphasise in making this application that the vast 482 metropolitan areas of the West Midlands, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, and South and West Yorkshire, as well as Strathclyde and London, are particularly affected by the situation. The social consequences are causing great concern.
All the official figures given, including the fall in the number of notified vacancies by 11,461 this month to 131,969, show that the trend in unemployment throughout the United Kingdom is still sharply upwards. I submit that these figures and the disturbing human consequences underlying them support and justify the urgency of immediate consideration by this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member gave me due notice of his intention to make this application, and I have listened carefully to what he has had to say. My decision must not be construed by anyone as implying that I do not realise the importance of this problem. As a Merseyside Member, I know it full well. But it is a continuing problem, one which should certainly be debated in this House on repeated occasions but it is not one for which Standing Order No. 9 was drafted or intended. My answer—it is a procedural one and no more—must therefore be "No".