Job Insecurity (Hansard, 7 March 1996)

§ 5. Mr. Jim Cunningham
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects on the economy of increases in levels of job insecurity. [17621]

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
The Government are promoting job security by delivering falling unemployment and the fundamentals for sustained growth.

§ Mr. Cunningham
Will the Chancellor stop being complacent and tell us what he plans to do for the 137,000 people suffering from negative equity and the 800,000 who are unemployed in the west midlands, a fair proportion of which is in my constituency? Will he stop waffling and tell us what he intends to do?

§ Mr. Clarke
With respect, I am not complacent, but confident and optimistic. We are moving in a desirable direction for work security. The Opposition are making completely fanciful use of the figures showing the number of people who changed jobs in recent years. Every year, millions of people move from one job to another. Unfortunately, there are always some people who become unemployed, but half are back in work within six months and the great bulk of them get jobs within 12 months. The stronger the economy becomes, the better that gets. The enterprise economy that we have created is delivering jobs. Labour's proposals would destroy jobs and set us back.

§ Sir Jim Spicer
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to find an example of real job insecurity, we need look no further than Germany, where, because of the cost of social taxation and other on-going costs that are piled on employers, particularly in the farming community, there is a tendency for farmers to lay off all their workers in September or October and not bring them back until March? That surely is real job insecurity.

§ Mr. Clarke
Precisely, but it is just brushed aside by the Opposition. Employers pay social charges of £32 in Germany and £41 in France for every £100 that they pay in wages. The equivalent figure here is only £18, which is why the purchasing power of wages is roughly comparable and we create more jobs. That underlying point cannot be emphasised too often, because it is challenged directly by the Opposition, who would add burdens to employment and set us back again.

§ Mr. Skinner
Is it not about time we heard some truth about these unemployment figures? The figure is not 2¼ million, as is often parroted by Tory Ministers. More than 700,000 women do not register that they are out of work, 600,000 young men and women are on the slave labour schemes organised by the Government and do not get the dole, and another 500,000 people are claiming other social security benefits. The real truth is that more than 4 million people in Britain are out of work, at a cost of £30 billion to the taxpayer. There is a moral, economic and social argument for getting the jobless figures down. Those are the real figures. People in the real world laugh at the Chancellor when he talks about a feel-good factor, when all they feel is insecurity.

§ Mr. Clarke
The Labour party used to peddle that nonsense in the mid-1980s. They continued saying that the employment figures were not really falling when there were labour shortages all over the country all the way into the boom. They need only consult the Central Statistical Office, which is independent of ministerial control, or look at the labour force survey, which is conducted under International Labour Organisation rules, to find the same message, or use the Eurostat figures which are prepared outside Britain as an international comparison. The hon. Gentleman is doing what his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench do—he is burying his head in the sand and advocating policies that would drive unemployment up to the levels of countries which are trying to get rid of the policies that he still advocates.

§ Mr. Evennett
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a flexible labour market is essential to job creation, and that lower taxes on business and less bureaucracy are the key to the long-term future prosperity of Britain and job security for our people?

§ Mr. Clarke
I agree entirely. The Government's efforts are all bent to achieve that combination of circumstances, which is largely responsible for the rapid growth of small business and the creation of job opportunities. My hon. Friend and I both know that we have to persist in that. The Germans and the French will make themselves more competitive, get their costs down and come back at us. We are in the lead at the moment; if we create a deregulated economy, lift the red tape from 442 business and minimise the costs of employment, our prospects will be better than they have been for a generation.

§ Ms Primarolo
Is the Chancellor aware that 2.9 million women have suffered periods of unemployment since 1992? Job insecurity, zero-hour contracts, and temporary and part-time work characterise their employment. Does the Chancellor have a message for women in International Women's Week to demonstrate his commitment to eradicating their job insecurity or will he continue to be frozen in the ice of his own complacency and indifference to women's employment contracts?

§ Mr. Clarke
We seem to be having a dialogue of the deaf. I will try to deflate the image of suffering womanhood that is being depicted. The Government are in favour of providing employment opportunities for more women. A higher proportion of the total work force is in employment in this country than in any other European country, bar Denmark. The share of temporary employment in Britain is the lowest of any major European country. Despite an increase since 1993, temporary jobs represent only a relatively small proportion of total United Kingdom employment. The social democratic model in western Europe on which the hon. Lady styles herself has fewer women in work, more women who are not economically active and more temporary jobs than the United Kingdom.