§ 3. Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number and percentage of people unemployed in April of 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, respectively.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison)As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. It shows that the rate of unemployment was 5.7 per cent. in April 1978 and 12.1 per cent. in April 1982.
§ Mr. DormandDoes the Minister agree that those figures, more than anything else, destroy the myth perpetrated by the Government that the present level of unemployment is caused by the world recession? If so, will the Government stop kidding the people of this country about that? In view of the ever-increasing unemployment, at what point will the Government begin to consider whether their economic policies may be wrong? Would 5 million unemployed be an acceptable figure for the Government?
§ Mr. AlisonThe hon. Gentleman's assumptions are wrong. He forgets the experience of the Labour party. Unemployment doubled under the Labour Governments of the 1960s and again under the Labour Governments of the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman forgets the physical phenomenon of the gap between seed time and harvest in these matters. We are reaping the harvest of the inflationary outrages inflicted on the British people by the Labour Government.
§ Mr. FormanI share my hon. Friend's concern about unemployment. Will he confirm that the deliberate creation of unemployment is no part of the Government's policy?
§ Mr. AlisonI naturally and absolutely confirm that.
§ Mr. AshleyDoes the Minister agree with the Chancellor's call for the suppression of the NEDC report showing that unemployment would not fall in this decade? Whether he does or not, what constructive response can he make to that very disturbing report?
§ Mr. AlisonI reject the conclusions of that report in so far as they represent a projection of expectations into the next decade which are wholly unacceptable to the Government.
The information is as follows:The following table gives, for the United Kingdom, the number of unemployed claimants and percentage rate of unemployment in April of each of the years specified. The figures include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted.
| Number | Percentage rate | |
| April 1978 | 1,369,800 | 5.7 |
| April 1979 | 1,260,900 | 5.2 |
| April 1980 | 1,418,100 | 5.9 |
| April 1981 | 2,372,700 | 10.1 |
| April 1982 | 2,818,500 | 12.1 |
§ 4. Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total of unemployed in inner London.
§ Mr. GummerAt 10 March there were 170,602 unemployed claimants in the jobcentre areas which correspond most closely to the 13 inner London boroughs.
§ Mr. DubsHas the Under-Secretary seen the recent report of the inner London consultative employment group, showing that in the past four years cuts in public spending in inner London have contributed to the downturn in inner London's economy and thus resulted in high unemployment? Is he aware that even Conservative boroughs, such as Wandsworth, which have been cutting services to reduce rates, have experienced record increases in redundancies? Does he agree that a major rethink of economic policy will be needed before we can tackle the major problems of unemployment in inner London?
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman must understand that inner London, like the rest of the country, is still suffering from the wrong economic policies that led us to believe that the rest of the world owed us a living and that we could spend this year earnings that would not be made until next year. The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers would have done well to devote more attention to the fact that in many London boroughs a considerable impact on employment is caused by Labour councils putting up the rates and thus driving out both people and jobs.
§ Mr. StokesIf unemployment in central London is so high, why is the booking office at Marylebone underground station almost always closed with a large notice saying, "Closed due to shortage of staff"?
§ Mr. GummerI am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to give detailed reasons for the emptiness of the Marylebone booking office, but he rightly points out that many jobs exist in inner London. If the Opposition want more jobs in inner London, they should use their influence with local Labour councils to maintain and create jobs rather than to force them out.
§ Mr. TilleyDoes the Minister agree that the figure that he has given for unemployment shows the total failure of 653 the Government's inner city policy in relation to London? Does he further agree that this is the worst possible time for the Manpower Services Commission, which his Department controls, to switch its main provision for the adult unemployed from the community enterprise programme to the community programme, under which existing projects will offer part-time work at very low wages as the only provision for the adult unemployed in inner London? Will he consider allowing the community enterprise schemes in inner London to continue with their present structure for at least another year?
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that that is the only provision for the adult unemployed in inner London. To cite just one example, £40 million is going to the London docklands scheme. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that will provide no jobs for the adult unemployed? He would do his constituents far more good if he praised the schemes that are providing more opportunities in London than anything achieved by the Labour Government.