HC Deb 31 January 1978 vol 943 cc229-32
8. Mr. Hardy

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of persons in employment in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

Mr. Booth

At September 1977, there were 22,721,000 employees in employment in the United Kingdom. This figure is provisional.

Mr. Hardy

Whilst unemployment has continued to cause concern, is it not to the Government's credit that, despite the urgings of the Opposition, they have taken action so that, despite the recession, more people are in employment than when the Conservatives were in office?

Mr. Booth

It is certainly true that, as my hon. Friend says, there are more people in employment now than in September 1971 or September 1972, and there are almost as many as there were in employment in September 1973. However, I do not think that we can in any way be satisfied with this performance, bearing in mind the enormous number of additional jobs that we shall need in view of the much lower rate of retirement that we expect in the next year or two and the vastly greater number of young people coming from school to seek jobs.

Mr. Raison

What does the Secretary of State think would be the effect on the unemployment figures if the money spent by his Department on job subsidisation were transferred to other public services such as education, health and defence?

Mr. Booth

The effect would be to reduce slightly the number of jobs available. All the special job measures operated by my Department are tested for their cost-effectiveness and the labour-intensive effect that they can produce against expenditure in the public services. The expenditure of money in certain public services is extremely labour-intensive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support any measures that the Government bring before the House to spend money in spheres such as the Health Service, education or others which will produce many more jobs.

Mr. Hooson

Does the right hon. Gentleman's last answer but one imply that the Government are to lower the retirement age in the next year or two? If so, they have estimated how this will reduce unemployment? For example, have they worked out how it would affect unemployment at present if the male retirement age were reduced to 60, and what it would cost?

Mr. Booth

The Government certainly have worked out the cost and the effect on employment. The costs figure has been given in the House more than once by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The effect now, as compared with the effect a period of full employment, would be about half, and the cost would be correspondingly reduced.

Mr. George Rodgers

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the temporary employment subsidy were withdrawn it would have a devastating effect on the current level of employment? Will he resist attempts by the Common Market Commissioners to have the Government withdraw this subsidy? Will he suggest what alternative legislation can be introduced if this is foisted upon us by the Common Market?

Mr. Booth

I can assure my hon. Friend that the withdrawal of TES would have a serious adverse effect on employment, particularly in certain industries in the area that he represents. In fact, I would expect that its total withdrawal might increase unemployment by about 200,000. As for resisting the attempts of the Common Market Commission to restrict the application of TES, I shall do my utmost to prevent that. I undertook yesterday to lay before the House legislation which would give us an undisputed right, I trust, to introduce measures to offset any action by the Commission to reduce the effect of temporary employment subsidy.

Mr. Hayhoe

Will the Secretary of State take this early opportunity to correct the very misleading information that he gave to the House yesterday, when he used OECD figures to try to say that we were seventh in the league of unemployment, when in fact he was quoting from Table 7 on page 29 of the latest OECD Economic Outlook, which has a footnote which says These rates are not comparable between countries.

Hon. Members

Too long.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman really must ask a question.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am asking the Secretary of State whether he will correct this very misleading information and quote from the table in which the figures are adjusted which fully sustains the position put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that unemployment is worse than in all the other OECD countries except Canada.

Mr. Booth

If the hon. Gentleman is to hand out advice about reading footnotes, he might first direct his attention to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). The figures I quoted in the House yesterday give a far more accurate reflection of the position than did those of his right hon. Friend. I very much resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I misled the House in this matter.

Forward to