§ 2.51 p.m.
§ Viscount HanworthMy 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 whether they have discussed with the trades unions their ideas on work sharing as a means of reducing unemployment, and if so to what extent the unions are willing to accept some small but necessary reduction in shared wages if products produced under such a regime are to remain competitive.
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, we have not discussed this issue specifically with the trade unions, as it is best dealt with directly between employers and unions in individual cases. The noble Viscount is, however, quite right to point out that, if work is shared to create extra jobs, those involved must accept that their combined wages should be shared, too, in order to allow the goods or services they produce to remain competitive. Otherwise, all the jobs will be put at risk.
§ Viscount HanworthMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I ask him whether he realises that it has been reliably estimated that it costs the country something approaching 80 per cent. as much to have people not working and getting unemployment benefit as it would if they were actually in a job? This being so, and if the Government are prepared to look at their accounting, it surely creates great possibilities as to what could be done, not only by way of work sharing—the Government getting the 80 per cent. which they would otherwise have to lose—but also, of course, in cutting down overtime, were they to subsidise by some means firms which are at the moment in fact relying on overtime. Would he not agree that this is an area which it would be well worth looking at in conjunction with the unions on the basis that everybody would have to give up a bit to decrease the unemployment?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, no one is keener to bring down unemployment that I am; and I know of cases where firms have offered one salary for two jobs to young people and to new recruits, and that seems to me to be an admirable and sensible thing to do. But overall, as I said in my original Answer, it is more sensible for unions and employers to negotiate together about the sharing of work than for the Government to plunge in themselves.
§ Viscount HanworthMy Lords, if I may take up one point that the Minister has, I think, failed to answer, there is 80 per cent. which, one way or another, the Government have to spend on unemployed persons—that is including the tax they do not get, and so on—and it really is up to them to put that 80 per cent. to some useful purpose in solving this problem. Could the noble Earl deal with that point, which I thought I had made clearly at the start?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, the 80 per cent. figure is not accurate in any respect, and the noble Viscount must be aware that the unemployment register is a constantly shifting register. Even at this particular dark hour more than 300,000 people a month are leaving the register.
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while his Answer has rectified it to some extent, the Question as it stands depicts very dangerous trends in suggesting that the Government and the unions should talk? Are not management and the owners of businesses to have any say in how their labour should be deployed in the interests of their companies and the country?
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, in view of the suggestion that everyone should share, would this proposal extend to the salaries of the management and the fees of the directors in these concerns?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, since the proposal is the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and not mine, that question is perhaps more properly directed to him.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the Question itself is indicative of the appalling situation into which the present Administration has got this country? Would he not further agree that his Answer confirms that; and is it not the fact of the matter that what we have to do—and it is a possibility—is create jobs; that is, take the unemployed and give them work to do, which they want to do? They want to earn a living, not to be dished out with money on the dole; and, if we were to follow the policies which have been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and by well-known economists, this could be achieved and our nation could be saved.
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, I would very much welcome the co-operation of the noble Lord and his friends in talking to unions about the lowering of objections to activities by young people which are at present undertaken by unionised labour.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, would not the noble Earl have a word with the Institute—
Viscount St. DavidsMy Lords, would the noble Earl not confirm that he and the Members of the Government with whom he sits have for a very long time been urging the unions to ask for rather lower rises in order to keep more of their colleagues in employment? Is this not in fact the same picture as was put forward by my noble friend Lord Hanworth?
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, yes, I have no objection to the proposition that lower wages will protect more jobs. I agree with both the noble Viscount and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on that. My objection was as to whether the Government were the best agency to try to determine what people should bargain at the workplace in this respect.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that another way to tackle this problem would be by issuing a sort of reverse rights issue, whereby you substitute one share for two? By this means you halve profits, and this makes the product more competitive in exactly the same way as the noble Viscount proposes.
The Earl of GowrieMy Lords, I very much enjoy the financial language on the lips of the noble Lord, with his background. I must point out—and this is a view not necessarily of the Government, however—that the CBI recently came out against a reduction in hours overall because of loss of competitiveness. But, as I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, where people are offering two jobs for one salary that would seem to me to be a sensible way to proceed, particularly where new recruits are concerned.