§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent monthly unemployment figures, they now have proposals to reduce long-term unemployment.
83§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)My Lords, we shall continue to encourage the creation of new job opportunities through our financial and enterprise policies and to direct practical help towards the long-term unemployed through the expanding community programme and our other initiatives.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the unanimous report of the all-party committee of another place that has proposed that £3.3 billion be spent on housing, the National Health Service, and on assistance to industry specifically to assist the long-term unemployed? Will the Minister pass his judgment on that report?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am fully aware of the report of the Select Committee of another place. We are considering that report and in due course we shall give our opinion on it. However, I suspect that in the fullness of time we shall find that there are other ways of helping the long-term unemployed.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, does my noble friend recall the sorry consequences of the efforts of previous governments to spend their way out of unemployment?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamYes, my Lords. Also your Lordships' House should be reminded that unemployment is not merely a domestic problem. Much as we regret unemployment in this country, and the fact that since 1981 it has increased by 30 per cent.—and no one regrets that more than I—unemployment has increased more in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Ireland, Spain, France and Germany. All those countries show greater increases in unemployment after 1981.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonWhat about Monte Carlo, my Lords?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, if noble Lords say we should go back to 1979, I would tell them that the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany show greater increases. When one considers the sorry state of the economy that this Government inherited, ours is indeed a remarkable achievement.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonWhat about Liechtenstein, my Lords?
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, is the Minister aware that we are concerned about what happens in this country, particularly when one bears in mind that this country has the record high for unemployment within the industrial world? Has the noble Lord seen the TUC's document Budget for Jobs, which calls for higher research and development in industry; higher spending on the infrastructure, including schools, housing, and the health service; and also an increase in benefit? Does the Minister not recognise that that view is supported, in the main, by the CBI and by the Select Committee of another place? When there is such a confluence of opinion as that, does it not occur to the noble Lord that they are right and that he and the Government are wrong?
Lord Young of GrafffhamNo, my Lords, not in the slightest. Indeed, I remember full well, as many of your Lordships may remember, when the counsels of the TUC weighed loud and long in Government—and look at the sorry state that brought us to! No, my Lords; in this country we elect a Government to govern, and that Government will govern.
I wish to correct one other statement. We do not—I repeat, not—have the highest level of unemployment among the industrialised nations. Certainly Spain has a higher rate than do we, and certainly Ireland has. The important thing is to look at the rate of increase and not at the absolute level.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, may I point out to the noble Lord that when the TUC was taken into consultation there were—
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I hope the noble Lord will put his remarks in the form of a question and not in the form of a statement.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's remarks, does the noble Lord accept that when the TUC was taken fully into the counsels of the nation unemployment stood at 1.2 million instead of 3.2 million, as it is today?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamYes, my Lords, I recall that when the TUC started unemployment stood at about 600,000 and that it went up in the same proportion as unemployment has gone up in the last few years, but that was in vastly different economic conditions. We should do well to remember that in 1979 there was a change and the western world as a whole went into economic reverse. We are weathering that storm and coming up better than ever before.
§ Lord KaldorMy Lords—
Viscount St. DavidsMy Lords, will the noble Lord not concede that in the times when Government and trade unions were busy over-stuffing the economy with unnecessary workers it would have been a miracle indeed if unemployment had gone up? The great miracle today, when the Government are busy making industry leaner and more efficient, is that unemployment has not gone up much more than it has. That is the real miracle we are now looking at.
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
§ Lord KaldorMy Lords, this is a misleading way of putting a Question. I am amazed that the noble Lord's Civil Service advisers allowed him to pass it. If he says—
§ Lord KaldorMy Lords, the question is this. Is the increase in unemployment a proper test of the size of the problem? On that method of reckoning, is it not true that a country which had 0.1 per cent. unemployment for the base period and which ended up with 0.2 per cent. unemployment is in the worst category and not in the best category?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I hate to correct the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, but the Question is that of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and I am merely answering it.
§ Lord RochesterMy Lords, in his first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, the noble Lord referred to the Government's policies for creating jobs through enterprise. Will the Government provide for the training of long-term unemployed, particularly those aged under 25, under the expanded enterprise allowance scheme?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamYes, my Lords. At the present time we are conducting nine pilot schemes in nine separate areas of the country, where we are having talks with all the long-term unemployed and offering them a variety of different ways to get back into employment. All I can say is that so far these pilots are proceeding very satisfactorily. We are learning the whole time to deal with problems which are now common to large parts of the industrialised world—how to get back into gainful employment those who have been out of work for some time.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, does the Lord the Minister agree that this question of unemployment is now attacking the moral fibre of millions of families in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that there are youngsters in our great cities who are turning to crime; that there are men trying to eke out a living to feed their families, and who cannot entertain any idea of paying the rent in any way whatever? For example, in the London borough of Ealing there are 200 families who are unemployed and who are living in the backs of motorcars.
§ Lord MolloyI know that is a joke for people who have very large houses. Will the Minister please understand that this is a grave and serious issue which is afflicting our nation?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I must confess to a slight sense of déjà vu. It seems only yesterday that I was answering a similar question put in similar terms by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Indeed, I suggest that what we should actually do is have a hard analytical look at the problem to find ways of curing it, and not, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, raise such emotive issues as 200 people living in cars in the borough of Ealing.
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, we are looking at all long-term unemployed in the borough of Ealing, with interesting results. There are 5,000 people in the 86 borough of Ealing who have been out of work for more than a year. We are looking at ways in which we can help them back into work. It is not always as it appears to be, and that we shall have to find out in due course.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, in view of the Secretary of State's constant advocacy of Government policy, can he tell the House when Government policy will result in a substantial reduction in unemployment? Will it be in 12 months, three years or five years? It is time the Government predicted when unemployment is to come down.
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observation but, as I have continually endeavoured to point out to your Lordships, unemployment is a European problem. In Europe there are many different political systems. We even have (heaven help us!) a socialist government. In France there is a socialist government which tried to conduct the policies advocated by the Labour Party but which failed dismally, and today France has rising unemployment on a shrinking workforce. I would point out that last year the workforce in this country increased by 510,000, and despite that unemployment went up by about 150,000. We shall have to see what the future brings. What I do know is that if we do not follow the policies advocated by this Government the position will be far worse.
§ Lord GlenamaraMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the House last week, when he was not here, I made a suggestion whereby the Government could prevent an increase of some hundreds in unemployment in the North-East, where we have up to 40 per cent. unemployment at this very moment? There, the Bates pit in Blyth—the last remaining pit—is being closed with £27 million-worth of mineable coal. It is a profitable pit. It is being closed against the advice of the special review body which was set up deliberately to keep NACODS out of the recent strike. The Coal Board rejected that advice and is closing that pit. It started this week to demolish it. The Government have the power to stop that.
§ Lord DenhamQuestion!
§ Lord GlenamaraIt is a question if the Chief Whip will only allow me to ask it.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I hope the noble Lord will sit down.
§ Lord GlenamaraMy Lords, I am asking a question about unemployment in the North-East of England.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will support me in this.
§ Lord GlenamaraMy Lords, I am asking a question.
§ Lord GlenamaraI should be allowed to put my question, my Lords.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, a great deal of time would have been saved had my noble friend been allowed to pursue his question. I think we are acting contrary to the interests of the House by intervening too much. I am sure that if my noble friend would conclude his question, that will settle the matter.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, what I was hoping to say to the House, and to the noble Lord in particular, is that the custom in this House is to ask a question and not to make a statement; and also the Procedure Committee in this House has suggested that every noble Lord should ask a simple question and wait for an answer. We have been 24 minutes on two Questions, and we are not finished yet. The suggestion of the Procedure Committee is that four Questions should last 20 minutes only.
§ Lord GlenamaraMy Lords, having been 35 years in one House or the other, I do not need the Chief Whip to tell me about the rules of procedure.
§ Lord GlenamaraMy question to the Secretary of State for Employment is: will the Government now use their powers under the coal mines legislation to prevent the closure of this pit and so save some hundreds of jobs?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, let me say at the outset that I slightly resent the implication that I am not here to answer questions the whole time, as the noble Lord said. If your Lordships look at the record you will find that I am quite assiduous in my attendance in your Lordships' House. In another place attendance for Questions by a Minister is once every three weeks. If your Lordships look at my record I think you will find that I am here more than often enough. I also have responsibilities outside your Lordships' Chamber, and I take both responsibilities seriously. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that. Secondly, although I am not in charge of the Coal Board, my reading of the situation is that, despite the report, there was no way in which that mine could ever be held to be profitable and the review body thought that it should continue in certain circumstances for other reasons. It is not my responsibility, but if the noble Lord wishes to have a Question put down he will find it answered in another place. The question has little to do with unemployment; it has a great deal to do—
§ Lord Young of GraffhamOh yes, my Lords, it has a great deal to do with employment elsewhere in the industry. Without an efficient and productive coal industry and efficient energy prices we shall not retain our place in the world.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, the Secretary of State has called for careful analysis of the problem of the long-term unemployed. Did not the all-party committee, supported by members of all parties in 88 another place, undertake such an analysis over a number of months and reach certain conclusions which are consonant with those reached by the CBI, the TUC and the British Labour Party? Is the noble Lord saying that he knows better than all those bodies and will reject the advice that has come out of careful analysis such as that which he is proposing?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamNo, my Lords, I am quite capable of speaking for myself. What I am saying is that I shall show respect to a Select Commitee in another place by answering it directly and not in the form of a reply to a question in your Lordships' House.