HC Deb 23 November 1982 vol 32 cc690-2
1. Mr. Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest unemployment figures, both nationally and regionally; and if he will make a statement.

2. Mr. Dykes

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to see a reduction in the numbers of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom.

8. Mr. Winnick

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest number of those who are unemployed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit)

At 14 October the number of unemployed people claiming benefit in the United Kingdom was 3,049,008. The comparable regional figures were published in the press notice issued by my Department on 18 November. A copy is in the House of Commons Library.

Lower inflation and interest rates provide a firmer base from which industry and commerce can regain lost customers at home and abroad, thereby generating more jobs. The timing and extent of that cannot be predicted and depends upon the ability of those concerned to offer lower prices, better quality, speedier delivery and better service than their foreign competitors.

Mr. Skinner

Who can believe those figures after what has happened in the past few weeks? Instead of fiddling the figures, why does not the Minister for unemployment and his partner in crime, the Prime Minister, do something about reducing the real figures of unemployment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the resolve that was shown during the Falklands invasion and the money that was found for that effort, the British people now know that money is available and that it can be used to reduce unemployment? Does he agree that money is also available to reduce the working week to 35 hours and the retirement age to 60? Moreover—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to other hon. Members.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman could have done better than that. Perhaps he would consider the support that he gave to a pay claim of 31 per cent. Perhaps he would also consider whether, if it had been granted—indeed, if it had been supported by the people for whom the hon. Gentleman purports to speak—it would have caused more unemployment or generated more new jobs.

Mr. Dykes

As existing measures and policies seem unlikely, on balance, to produce a fall in unemployment, when does my right hon. Friend consider that additional measures will be necessary?

Mr. Tebbit

Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear the latter part of my reply. I emphasised that it was the business of those in commerce and industry so to conduct their affairs that they became sufficiently competitive to win back markets that have been lost.

Mr. Winnick

Does the Secretary of State agree that the fresh wave of redundancies and closures that are sweeping through the West Midlands give the lie to any claim of economic recovery? Is he aware that a parliamentary reply that I received last week stated that the highest recorded unemployment in the West Midlands prior to the present Government coming into office was 6½ per cent.? Is he further aware that it is now 16½ per cent., and rising? Why should the West Midlands be turned into a wasteland as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's disastrous policies?

Mr. Tebbit

If the West Midlands had learnt earlier the lesson that it has now learnt—that it is essential to rid industry of people such as Red Robbo and Mr. Thornett and get on with the business of producing motor cars instead of calling politically motivated strikes—there would be far more jobs in the West Midlands today.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the best long-term hope of providing more employment lies in the encouragement of small industries? Will he further confirm that the Government have taken more than 95 specific measures to encourage new small industries and that they are having a substantial effect?

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. Friend is right. The worst possible result for all concerned in industry would be achieved if anyone was barmy enough to believe that the way out of our problems lies through a devaluation of 30 per cent. in sterling parity or in the sort of talk that we heard today from the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). The right hon. Gentleman confessed that the programme of the Labour Party which a week or so ago was a commitment to reduce unemployment is now not a commitment, not a promise, not a pledge, but only a hope.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

As the Secretary of State has persistently argued that the rise in unemployment is due to the world recession, will he confirm that the increase in Britain has been more than twice that of the average of all other Western industrial countries since May 1979? Will he also confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to give the TUC any prospect of immediate or rapid recovery?

Mr. Tebbitt

The right hon. Lady over-simplifies matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have persistently pointed out that there are several causes of unemployment. One is the recession. A second is the uncompetitiveness of British industry. A third is the degree of destocking of labour, if that is the right expression—the shaking out of labour—that has had to occur in many industries that were grossly overmanned. Many still are overmanned.

The right hon. Lady should not seek to over-simplify matters by blaming the world recession. It plays a major, but not the only, part. What I found disappointing at the meeting last night between the TUC and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself was the great difficulty that still exists in persuading the TUC of the need to make British industry more competitive.

Mr. Varley

Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the truth when he refers to what he claims is the Government's success in bringing down the year-on-year rate of inflation? Does he admit that it has been brought about through the whip of mass unemployment and the deliberate and systematic destruction of one-fifth of manufacturing industry?

Mr. Tebbit

No, Sir. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should persist with that question. It has been explained to him more than once that the high level of unemployment that we are experiencing is the cost, not of reducing levels of inflation, but of high levels of inflation, sparked off principally by the ridiculous policies of the Labour Government in the years when he was a Minister, during which time unemployment more than doubled.