§ 5. Mr. FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the total numbers on the list of employed who are counted more than once.
§ Mr. ForthPrecise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available. However, the labour force survey estimated that 724,000 people held a second job as an employee in the spring of 1990.
§ Mr. FlynnDoes not the Minister's admission that some three quarters of a million people are counted twice in the employment figures—as well as trainees who are counted as though they were in full-time professional jobs, and part-timers who are counted as though they were full-timers—prove that the Government's much-parroted claims about employment levels constitute a monumental lie? Instead of running away from the rigorous examination of his policies carried out in a television studio, and instead of attacking the BBC, should not the Secretary of State try something new? Should he not adopt a novel—novel in his case, that is—approach to the employment figures, and tell the truth?
§ Mr. ForthIf the rather over-the-top strictures that the hon. Gentleman has tried to apply to the Government were remotely true, they would also be true of what was done by his party when it was in government. The House should be aware that the method of counting used in this instance is exactly the same as it has been for 20 years—since 1971, if not earlier. I did not hear any of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues make the same point when their party was in office.
When an employer-based survey method is used, as it has been in this instance, the sort of counting that I mentioned earlier will be adopted. Let me give another example. The same counting method is used in France, a country often held up by Opposition Members as a socialist ideal. Presumably, any strictures that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) applies to us will also apply to that country.
§ Mr. SquireGiven the dismissive way in which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred to part-time jobs a moment ago, will my hon. Friend confirm that only about 6 per cent. of those in part-time work claim that they are seeking full-time work? That means that 94 per cent. of people in part-time work who were looking for such work, have found it and are happy in it.
§ Mr. ForthIndeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which echoes the point made so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan).
Opposition Members deliberately avoid the fact that the bulk of people in part-time jobs choose, and want, to work part-time. It is a matter of choice. I know that choice is anathema to Opposition Members, but Conservative Members rather want to defend choice wherever that is possible, in every aspect of Government policy. If Opposition Members do not like that, they should stand up and say so.
§ Mr. McLeishWhen will the ministerial team apologise to the nation for its unique record, and its unique failure in regard to labour market policies? Will the Secretary of State and his team tell us why 790,000 people have joined the dole queue in a year, why 662,000 have lost their jobs, why 43,000 fewer training places have been provided over the last year and why there are 53,000 vacancies? Will they also tell us why—most worrying of all—in a year in which unemployment rose by 800,000 in Europe, 700,000 of those people were unemployed in Britain? We have a unique recession. When will the Secretary of State start apologising to the country?
§ Mr. ForthThe hon. Gentleman has outdone even his dismal record for selective quotation.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make European comparisons, by all means let us do so. Socialist France, for instance, has an unemployment figure higher than ours, and the socialist Government in Spain manage to continue in office with an unemployment figure some 50 per cent. higher than ours. The more that we make such comparisons, the less we can understand why Opposition Members keep trying to use them. They are simply no good.