Unemployment Data (Hansard, 9 May 1995)

2. Mr. Alan W. Williams
To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Royal Statistical Society on the accuracy of unemployment data; and if he will make a statement. [21617]

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim)
I met the Royal Statistical Society working group studying the accuracy of official unemployment statistics and had lengthy discussions with it. We are currently considering its conclusions.

Mr. Williams
In that review of unemployment statistics, the Royal Statistical Society concluded that the general public do not trust Government data on such statistics or find them convincing in any way. It suggested that the claimant count should no longer be used as the basis for the monthly figures and proposed instead that the quarterly labour force survey, which has much wider international recognition, should be published monthly. Will the Government seriously consider that recommendation and accept the society's criticisms of their fiddled figures?

§ Mr. Oppenheim
The hon. Gentleman should read the report carefully. Its main conclusion was not that the claimant count should be discontinued. It said that the count should be continued, but that more prominence should be given to the labour force survey, which the TUC called "fully reliable". As the hon. Gentleman and Labour apparently agree and as that count shows unemployment at very similar levels to the claimant count, perhaps Opposition Members should stop making nonsensical claims that there are really 3 million or 4 million unemployed people.

§ Mr. Anthony Coombs
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the labour force survey, which the TUC says is totally reliable, showed that last year the numbers of those in employment rose by 347,000 and that two thirds of those were full-time jobs? Is it not typical of Labour Members that, when there is that sort of good news, they choose to ignore it and to call into question the statistics—through the survey—that others, including the trades unions, regard as entirely reliable?

§ Mr. Oppenheim
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The labour force survey shows that employment rose strongly last year and that the vast majority of the jobs created were full and not part time. Labour Members say that they support the labour force survey, which we have promoted all along. We have increased its frequency from once every two years—its frequency under Labour—to four times a year. That survey shows that unemployment is not 3 million or 4 million, as trade union leaders and Labour Members have been claiming for so long, but 2.4 million, which is almost exactly the same level as the claimant count that they say is fiddled.

§ Mr. McCartney
It is astonishing that the Minister can stand there and claim that the Royal Statistical Society report backs the Government's claims for their figures. The report said that the Government's use of the claimant count was "both unfortunate and unhealthy"—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that Opposition and Back-Bench Members are not allowed to quote directly. Could he paraphrase, please?

§ Mr. McCartney
I will paraphrase it, Madam Speaker. In civil service jargon, it is fiddled. Since 1979, four out of 10 jobs in manufacturing have been lost and nearly 3 million full-time jobs have been lost to the economy, at a cost of £13 billion. If those jobs have been replaced at all, it has been by part-time, semi-skilled or unskilled, poor jobs. When will the manufacturing industry in this country have the feel good factor?

§ Mr. Oppenheim
Perhaps I can educate the hon. Gentleman. In the 1970s, when Labour was in power—that heyday of British manufacturing—British Steel was the world's largest loss maker, British Leyland was the butt of music hall jokes, British Airways was rated below Aeroflot, British manufacturing output fell, our productivity was the lowest in the OECD and our growth in manufacturing productivity was also the lowest. Since then, we have been producing more manufactured goods of higher quality, which is the best guarantee of more high-quality jobs in future.