Unemployed Persons

HC Deb 01 August 1978 vol 955 cc233-8

3. Mr. Rifkind

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when the figure for the total number of unemployed was last over 1½ million.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)

The figure for the total number of unemployed was last over 1½ million at September 1977.

Mr. Rifkind

Does the Secretary of State believe that it is just an extraordinary coincidence that every Labour Government since the 1920s have experienced a substantial growth in unemployment during their tenure of office? Given that these periods of Labour Government have not always coincided with world recessions, is it not about time that the Government began to consider whether it might be the policies of Labour Governments that create this phenomenon?

Mr. Booth

I do not think it was any more a coincidence than that it was a coincidence that unemployment rose very rapidly under the last Conservative Government.

Mr. Madden

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the use of bogus unemployed people in advertising material by PR men plugging the Tory Party does nothing to lessen the cynicism among real unemployed people about the lack of determination by some politicians to combat unemployment?

Mr. Booth

Yes, I certainly agree with my lion. Friend. It is possibly to be regretted that the advertising agency involved used its existing employees and did not take on additional employees, which might have had a slight element of merit.

Mr. Budgen

Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the greatest growth areas in unemployment is among females and that that is caused mainly by the effect of the sex discrimination legislation?

Mr. Booth

It is certainly true that the change in the unemployment figures over the past month was due to a rise in the number of unemployed females. In fact, there was a drop in the male unemployment figures. I do not agree that the sex discrimination legislation is the reason. It may owe something more to the new method of national insurance collection which, very properly, encourages women to register as unemployed when they are seeking work.

Mr. Loyden

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Opposition display hypocrisy and cant on this issue, the Labour Government have the responsibility of dealing with the urgent problem of unemployment? Does he also agree that we cannot wait for long-term solutions, and that immediate short-term solutions are necessary, particularly in those regions where unemployment is high at the moment?

Mr. Booth

Yes, I accept that. There is no justification for reliance wholly on short-term or on longer-term solutions. We must have a proper combination of both, and proper regard must be paid to those areas which are suffering the most severe effects of unemployment.

Mr. Prior

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over a period of about four and a half years he has been appearing at that Dispatch Box and producing every month the same sort of shuffling off of responsibilities that he has shown again this afternoon? Is that the best that he and his hon. Friends can do—to criticise a rather good advertisement put out by the Conservative Party, which ought to shame the Labour Party for its miserable economic performance over the past four and a half years? Surely he can do better than that.

Mr. Booth

Our concern about the social, individual and economic effects of unemployment is such that nothing that the Conservative Party is likely to produce in the way of advertisements will in any way affect our determination to deal with the problem in a thorough-going way.

8. Mr. Michael Latham

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment; and by what percentage it exceeds the figure for February 1974.

12. Mr. Knox

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

Mr. Booth

At 6th July, 1,512,487 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.

At 6th July, the number registered as unemployed in Great Britain, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 1,309,900. This figure was 1383 per cent. higher than at February 1974. Seasonally adjusted figures have to be used to allow proper comparisons between different months in different years.

I am particularly pleased to note that the Manpower Services Commission has today announced approval of 28 area plans which envisage the provision of 200,000 places in the youth opportunities programme and 35,000 temporary jobs in the special temporary employment programme by March 1979.

Mr. Latham

Does not the Secretary of State agree that there is one simple fact apparent to the British people? Is it not true that, despite all the bogus compassion of this Government, unemployment is now 1383 per cent. higher than when the Conservative Government left office?

Mr. Booth

I do not know whether that simple fact it apparent to the British people. If it is, I hope that another simple fact will be made equally apparent by those who want to publicise that figure, and that is that there are more than 500,000 more people in employment now—men and women employed part-time and full-time—than there were in 1971 and 1972 when the Conservative Government were in office.

Mr. Bidwell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one on this side of the House yields to any Member on the other side in his concern to reduce the current unemployment level, and that the vast majority of people in the land do not believe that a Tory Government would do better than the present Government in their endeavours?

Mr. Booth

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and if people had any doubts about that they would only need to reflect on some of the courses advocated by leading members of the Opposition over the past four years.

Mr. Knox

Why is not the right hon. Gentleman reacting to these disgraceful figures in the same manner as he reacted when employment reached about two-thirds of its present level for a very brief period when the previous Conservative Government were in power?

Mr. Booth

Possibly one of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman might care to consider is that part of my reaction was reflected in the announcement that the area boards have approved 200,000 places to come into effect under the youth opportunities programme. In other words, we are doing something about unemployment that was not done by a Conservative Government in 1971 to 1974 facing a rapidly rising rate of unemployment.

Mr. Noble

Has my right hon. Friend any assessment of what the level of unemployment would have been had the Government accepted the pressures from the Opposition with regard to, for example, British Leyland and Chrysler? What would have been the effects on the economy if the NEB had not intervened in those two cases'?

Mr. Booth

There is little doubt that in those two areas alone more than 100,000 jobs could have been lost, but, as to the total effect of our measures, one would have to take into account the fact that today in this country 300,000 people are being assisted by Department of Employment measures.

Mr. Lawrence

Is the Secretary of State aware that there would be 170,000 more people working under Labour but for the defence cuts, and that another 143,000 people are projected to be unemployed in the next year in the defence sphere? How on earth does that square with the Secretary of State's assertion that the Government are doing everything to increase employment?

Mr. Booth

If we are talking of squaring assertions, I should like to hear someone on the Conservative side of the House square the assertion that public expenditure cuts in defence create unemployment while public expenditure cuts in the social services help to sustain employment.

Mr. Ioan Evans

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the announcement by the Manpower Services Commission that 200,000 jobs will be provided for young people under the youth opportunities programme is to be welcomed, but will he ensure that there is full co-operation from the trade union movement and also from employers working through the CBI?

Mr. Booth

The 200,000 figure to which I referred means 200,000 places, and therefore I hope to see in the course of the full development of the programme some further provision for these young people. But I agree with my hon. Friend that it is of the greatest importance that we have the co-operation of employers and trade unions in maximising the benefit to be derived from the programme. That is why I welcome the commitment of CBI and TUC commissioners within the Manpower Services Commission to making this programme the most effective that has ever been introduced for unemployed youngsters in this country.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. James Prior.

Mr. Prior

I never miss an opportunity of bashing this Government when I get the chance to do so. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what sticks in the gullet of the British people is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party which takes one view in Government and a totally different view in Opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the 100,000 opportunities now available through the youth opportunities scheme—which we welcome—are likely to be taken up within the next month or so and, therefore, what fall he expects in the number of young unemployed between, say, now and the middle of October?

Mr. Booth

I expect very few of them to be taken up in the next month, because the programme will not start over the country as a whole until 1st September. There are some areas where we have made exceptions to this general rule because of special problems. I expect that beyond 1st September there will be a fairly even take-up, month by month, leading through to next Easter, by which time I hope the programme will have covered more than 200,000 youngsters. Our plan is to get an even entry into the places, so that the places are fully manned throughout the 12-month period.