HC Deb 20 March 1984 vol 56 cc895-9
6. Mr. Lofthouse

asked the Secretary of Slate for Employment what is the latest number of people unemployed; and how many of them have been unemployed for more than 12 months.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King)

On 9 February the total number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,186,000. The number unemployed for over 52 weeks on 12 January was 1,188,000.

Mr. Lofthouse

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the next financial year, the Government and the National Coal Board are about to add 20,000 miners to those figures, including 1,000 miners in my constituency? Bearing in mind that those miners will be in their early 50s, has his Department any plans to encourage future employment in the mining areas? Do the Government plan to commit young miners to an industrial desert?

Mr. King

The best hope for the unemployed and those facing job losses because of pit closures is a general improvement in the economy. I am encouraged at the progress being made. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has decided to abolish the tax on jobs that was introduced by the last Labour Government. I am delighted that the confidence flowing from my right hon. Friend's Budget has resulted in an immediate reduction in interest rates. Both those measures will make a substantial contribution towards helping the employment scene.

Sir Kenneth Lewis

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those over 55 who are now long-term unemployed are those least likely to obtain jobs again? Is there not, therefore, a case for either a higher form of unemployment benefit or some bridging income that will take those people to the retirement pension level and thus look after that group?

Mr. King

Our first ambition is to provide the best possible opportunities for people to obtain jobs. Although the employment position differs in different parts of the country, it is encouraging that this year, compared with last year, there has been a significant increase in job placements. I do not necessarily take my hon. Friend's approach to this matter. Long-term unemployment benefit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Flannery

Is it not the height of hypocrisy for the Government to have been prating for the past fortnight about allowing miners who wish to go to work to do so when all hon. Members know that the Government are closing pits at a rate that will put scores of thousands out of work? When the Government are putting millions of working people out of work, why do they not realise that their policy is causing unemployment? Why do the Government not begin reflation of the economy and get the working people back to work?

Mr. King

I do not regard the hon. Gentleman as an authority on hypocrisy when he chooses to make that sort of comment and when he supported a Government who closed pits at twice the rate of the present Government and who invested half as much as we are investing in new and more productive capacity.

Mr. McQuarrie

I accept what my right hon. Friend says about the long-term effect on most industries of the removal of the national insurance surcharge. Does he agree, however, that, particularly in rural areas, those over 55 and the young are unable to obtain work because of the scarcity of jobs in those areas? Will he give thought to finding a solution to this severe problem?

Mr. King

The whole House—indeed, anybody who has studied these problems—recognises the real difficulties faced by the more elderly in the search for work. I cannot go further than my comments today, although I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. John Smith

Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of the fact that in five years of Conservative rule the number of long-term unemployed has steadily climbed to the scandalous total of 1,188,000? As the Government appear to have no special measures in mind to alleviate their condition, is it not long overdue that they should be given the elementary social justice of long-term supplementary benefit?

Mr. King

I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of a Cabinet which succeeded in doubling unemployment and which had no solution to that problem. I note, too, that I am a representative of a Government who are spending substantially greater sums in trying to solve these problems with a range of special employment measures. The problems are, of course, extremely difficult. The first requirement in our handling of expenditure is to ensure that we give the best chance of employment to people, which means continuing to pursue the economic policies that were amply reinforced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget.

7. Mr. Ron Davies

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people over 50 years of age his Department estimates to be unemployed at the latest available date.

Mr. Alan Clark

The number of unemployed claimants aged 50 years and over in the United Kingdom on 12 January, the latest available, was 574,692.

Mr. Davies

Is the Minister aware that in these days of Tory Britain, those 500,000 are effectively consigned to the scrapheap? If there is logic in applying the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to people over 60 who have no prospect of work, why is there not logic in the argument that long-term supplementary benefit should be extended to the over-50s who have no prospect of work?

Mr. Clark

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a particularly difficult sector of the labour market where there will be many individual cases of frustration and disappointment. We hope that employers will recognise the value of the experience and skills of people in this age group and will alter their recruitment practices to take advantage of them. When the hon. Gentleman says that logic would indicate a certain course, he must also allow that resources oblige another one.

Mr. Bill Walker

Is my hon. Friend aware that among those over 50 who are unemployed are a number in my constituency who have been unemployed since the mills closed down under a Labour Government? Those people have the opportunity of finding jobs only in the service sector and tourism, and recent measures taken by the Government have done something for that sector.

Mr. Clark

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that fact. It is in the service sector that the new jobs are expected to come fastest.

Mr. Penhaligon

How many more people in this category are in effect unemployed because they have some savings and are, therefore, disqualified from receiving supplementary benefit? Is it the Government's intention that those in this category shall eventually be reduced to claiming supplementary benefit as they see the efforts of their lifetime's work gradually being eroded?

Mr. Clark

If it is possible to ascertain how many potential claimants there are in that category, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman has the information he needs.

Mr. Lord

How much in redundancy payment is likely to be obtained by somebody aged 50 after a lifetime spent in the coal industry?

Mr. Clark

Approximately £30,000.

Mr. Evans

Does the Minister have any idea of the despair of many of the 574,692 aged over 50 who have become unemployed under the Tories and who feel that they have no chance of ever getting another job? Will the Government formulate policies either to get this group of people back into employment or to give them a decent standard of living which will allow them to remain unemployed until they qualify for retirement pension?

Mr. Clark

As I have told hon. Members, there are cases of individual distress and frustration in that sector of the labour market. The hon. Gentleman asks what the Government will do. Resources limit the extension of supplementary benefit along the lines that many would like. It would cost £480 million to extend it across the board, and £220 million to extend it just to those with dependent children.

8. Mr. Teddy Taylor

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current unemployment percentages in the United Kingdom and in each current or former member state of the European Free Trade Association; and what were the corresponding figures in 1972.

Mr. Gummer

For the United Kingdom, the latest figure on an OECD standardised basis is 13.4 per cent. in January, compared with 4.3 per cent. in 1972. For the other countries, the latest available figures range from 16.7 per cent. for the Republic of Ireland in November last year to 0.8 per cent. for Iceland for 1982, but as there are a number of figures from differing sources I will with permission publish the complete information in the Official Report.

Mr. Taylor

Do not the average figures show that we have not done a service to our working population by withdrawing from that outward-looking and non-bureaucratic organisation, which co-operates fully with the Common Market but does not get involved in its bureaucratic and interventionist nonsenses? Might it not provide an answer to our current problems in Brussels if we reapplied to join that excellent organisation?

Mr. Gummer

The views of my hon. Friend and myself are well known. I believe that we have gained considerably in jobs through membership of the European Community. In this country 2½ million jobs depend on our exports to the rest of Europe, and many of them would be lost if ever we left the Community.

Mr. Wilson

As the United Kingdom's economy has been declining steadily for some 30 years, going back before our entry into the EEC, does not the blame for our high unemployment rest on the shoulders of successive Labour and Tory Governments, who have proved incompetent to deal with the economy?

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a major way of getting ourselves out of our economic problems is through our own efforts, which is why the Government's policies are most likely to produce the economic rejuvenation that we look for.

Following is the information:

Unemployment rates compared with 1972
Latest date Annual average 1972
United Kingdom* 13.4 (January) 4.3
Republic of Ireland║ 16.7 (February) 6.0
Denmark† 10.6 (November) 1.7
Portugal‡ 7.6 (1982) 2.5
Finland* 6.2 (December) 2.5
Austria* 4.2 (September) 1.2
Sweden* 3.2 (January) 2.7
Norway* 2.7 (November) 1.7
Switzerland• 1.0 (December) 0.1
Iceland║ 0.8 (1982) 0.5
* OECD standardised seasonally adjusted unemployment rates, expressing unemployment as a percentage of the total labour force.
Source: OECD.
† Seasonally adjusted registered unemployment as percentage of total labour force. Source: OECD "Main Economic Indicators"—supplemented by labour attache reports.
‡ Estimates from labour force survey. Source: "OECD Economic Outlook".
║ Registered unemployed—basis of rate calculation not known. Source: "ILO Year Book of Labour Statistics".
Seasonally adjusted registered unemployment as percentage of civilian working population. Source: OECD "Main Economic Indicators".
• Registered unemployed as percentage of working population. Source: labour attache report and "ILO Year Book of Labour Statistics".