Unemployed Persons (Hansard, 24 June 1980)

§ 1. Mr. Edwin Wainwright
asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many males and females, respectively, were unemployed at the latest available date.

§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior)
At 12 June, the provisional numbers of males and females registered as unemployed in Great Britain were 1,082,933 and 503,712 respectively.

§ Mr. Wainwright
Does the Secretary of State agree that those figures are both disastrous and calamitous? Will he tell the House the Government's target date for increasing unemployment to 2 million, so that they can weaken the trade union movement? If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will not take note of the TUC and the Labour Opposition on the policies that will bring us back to more constructive work in Britain, will they take note of the CBI which is advising them that they are ignoring several of its policies and thus there will be no forward march towards a reduction in unemployment?

§ Mr. Prior
I have constantly warned the House that a combination of high inflation and world recession, and the fact that we are paying ourselves much more than we are earning, is contributing to a high level of unemployment. I do not wish to make any forecasts about the next few months.

§ Mr. Needham
I accept that the figures are appalling, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the featherbedding of, and subsidies given by the previous Labour Administration to, so many industries are responsible for the problems that we face today?

§ Mr. Prior
I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that we face a difficult period and that there is a hard slog ahead, but it has been made worse over a number of years by not facing the realities of our economic position. It will be better for the country and the House if we face them now.

§ Mr. Woolmer
With the worst monthly figures since records began in 1948 and an annual increase in unemployment of 600,000, are not the Government well on target to increase unemployment to over 2 million? When will the Government accept that these are the results of their own policies? When will they stop blaming others and change their policies in order to bring down unemployment?

§ Mr. Prior
Yes, these are the highest figures since the new series started in 1948. This is a matter of great regret for the Government and for everyone else. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government saw an increase in unemployment of 692,000 during their period in office, and the rate of increase at the moment is lower than it was during their first year.

§ Mr. Madel
As it is important that the expanded youth opportunities programme should continue to help young people who are out of work, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every effort will be made to ensure that there is 100 per cent. take-up of the programme, especially in areas hard hit by unemployment.

§ Mr. Prior
Yes. There will be an increase in the youth opportunities programme this year of about 50,000 over last year, and 60 per cent. over two years ago. Total spending on all special employment measures and the Manpower Services Commission, despite the cuts, is £50 million higher than it was in the last full year of the Labour Government. What is more, the total register effect of 190,000 is again higher than it was a year ago.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from either side before calling the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

§ Mr. Stoddart
Will the right hon. Gentleman stop weeping crocodile tears about unemployment? Does he not recall that only two or three months ago he reduced the amount of money available for job creation and other services? Is this not a deliberate act of Government policy to create unemployment and to bludgeon working people and trade unions into accepting a lower standard of living?

§ Mr. Prior
No. I refute the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. What is more, he is not even right about his first remarks, because the amount of money being spent this year is greater than last year and about £50 million greater than two years ago. [Interruption.] We had forecasts of increased expenditure by the previous Labour Government, but they were just forecasts. They did not actually spend the money.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Is my right hon. Friend aware of any policy being advocated by the Labour Party that is likely to bring about a reduction in unemployment?

§ Mr. Prior
Not only has the Labour Party no policies, but its policies—

§ Mr. Cryer
You are in office now. You are in Government.

§ Mr. Prior
Not only have the Labour Opposition no policies, but their policies largely contributed to the state that we are in now.

§ Mr. Varley
rose—

§ Mr. Winnick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the practice, but question No. 30 is identical to question No. 1, yet it has not been taken by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the reason is that it was felt that it would be jumping the queue. I do not make the choice.

§ Mr. Varley
rose—

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to you to extend the time on question No. 1, because many of us who have seen unemployment rising in our areas will not have an opportunity during the rest of Question Time to put questions on this matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman could see that most Members on the Opposition Benches were on their feet. I must be fair to hon. Members who expect their questions a little lower down to be called.

§ Mr. Varley
Does the Secretary of State realise that the record and terrifying figures that he announced today are the direct consequence of the economic 213 policies being followed by the Government—monetarism, and nothing but monetarism? When will the right hon. Gentleman do his job of promoting employment instead of conniving at destroying it?

§ Mr. Prior
These unemployment figures arise chiefly out of the fact that we are paying ourselves far more than the increase in production or in the monetary targets, which are approximately the same as those set by the previous Labour Government. If we are to get further growth in employment, we must cut down the level of wage increases so that we can all share in higher employment.

§ Mr. Varley
Will the Secretary of State answer the simple proposition: why is it that in the textile, footwear and clothing industries, where workers have accepted lower wage increases than the going rate of inflation, about 5,000 workers have been thrown out of work over the last month? Why is that happening when they are not paying themselves more than the rest of the community?

§ Mr. Prior
I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer. The answer to that is largely the world recession.