HL Deb 16 October 1975 vol 364 cc996-8

3.9 p.m.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government to state the total sums paid to those persons in receipt of unemployment benefit in the last six months, and the total sums paid to those unemployed in social security benefits.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, it is estimated that in the six months ended 30th September, people unemployed were paid about £190 million in unemployment benefit and about £160 million in supplementary allowances.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these are vast sums which have to be expended for social welfare and security purposes? May I ask him whether the funds that are available are contained in the financial reserves available to the Government and, therefore, if the Government anticipate unemployment figures rising, would it not be wiser to use these funds for investment purposes instead of having to use them subsequently for the purpose of relieving unemployment?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, the Government accept the view of my noble friend, and a good deal of thought is being given to how best to deal with this matter in the future. My noble friend is right: these are substantial sums, and they are not lessened by the fact that if I say that they amount to only £13 million a week, when they are compared with the total weekly expenditure on social security benefits—and perhaps it may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to know that we are spending £165 million a week on social security benefits—what we are are paying to unemployed people represents only about 8 per cent. However, it is a substantial figure and we arc not unmindful of the need to think very carefully about this.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, may I ask what possible excuse or apology can be furnished by the present or the previous Government for having anticipated that unemployment would rise because of the imminence of a recession, but not having utilised the funds that were available which were intended for subsequent expenditure on social well being? Why did they not utilise those sums for investment purposes when we are told that part of the real trouble is the absence of investment? Surely the opportunity was available for Governments, both present and previous, to utilise those sums for investment which would have provided work for vast numbers of people who are now unemployed and who are receiving benefits which could have been avoided?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I will take note of what my noble friend has said and convey it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, since the noble Lord has equated the record of the previous Government with this Government, is not the present rise in unemployment at least in part due to the rate of 25 per cent. inflation which has been directly the result of the present Government's policy?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord really is not being fair. He knows as well as everybody else in your Lordships' House that this is worldwide.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, in order to correctany possibility of misunderstanding arising from the supplementary question put by the noble and learned Lord opposite, may I ask my noble friend whether historically it is not demonstrable, even now, that inflation has been operating not since the present Government came into Office, but for many long years, both in my experience and in the vast experience of the noble and learned Lord opposite?

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

But will the noble Lord consider that inflation has not been operating at 26 per cent. until the noble Lord's Party got into Office?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)

My Lords, perhaps I should stand between the House and the noble and learned Lord and suggest that we move to the next Question.