HL Deb 10 February 1988 vol 493 cc201-4
Lord Dormand of Easington

My 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 what is the total number of unemployed; how many are men, how many women, and how many of each sex are part-time; whether they regard this situation as acceptable; and, if not, what proposals they have to reduce unemployment.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham)

My Lords, on 10th December 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,695,800. Of these, 1,878,700 were men and 817,100 were women. In the third quarter of 1987 there were 1,059,000 men and 4,548,000 women in Great Britain in part-time employment.

While the level of unemployment is still too high, adult unemployment has fallen by a record 600,000 since June 1986 and continues on a downward trend. The Government will continue to pursue the sound economic and financial policies which have brought seven years of sustained economic growth and helped to create nearly 1.5 million additional jobs since March 1983.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that a figure of 2.6 million people unemployed is a disgrace in a modern society? Is he further aware that the worst feature of unemployment figures is the number of long-term unemployed and that within the past two years two independent reports have shown a distinct link between long-term unemployment and ill health? In view of the fact that the Government have been in power for nine years, what does the Secretary of State think has been the reason for the failure to reduce unemployment to a reasonable level?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I venture to suggest that no one in your Lordships' House is more aware than I of the plight of those who have been out of work for more than a year. I have spent many years dealing with that problem.

We went through a period of considerable industrial restructuring, as a result of which many who had been employed for most of their adult lives in one occupation were forced to find another. Of course long-term unemployment is too high but it has come down faster in the past year than in almost any other industrialised country. I used to stand before your Lordships' House and explain the level of unemployment which at that time was higher than that of most of our partners in the Community. Today I am proud to say that, while our level of unemployment is still far too high, it is lower than that in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Spain and Ireland and, most importantly, it is coming down here while it is, alas, rising elsewhere. It is a problem and it is being shown that there is only one way to deal with it: sound economic policies produce jobs for people.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, is it not the case that the sound economic policies of which the noble Lord speaks have increased the unemployment numbers in this country by at least 1½ million and more probably by 2½ million? Is it not also the case that the reduction in the figures given for unemployed people is almost entirely due, first, to part-time working at low rates for women; secondly, to dead-end jobs in which there is no incentive to use a constructive interest in the work; and, thirdly, to the use of youth training schemes, community schemes, and so on, which are in fact used for the unemployed even if they are not counted as such?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, for once I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that economic policies were responsible for the considerable increase in unemployment in the early '80s. They were the economic policies we followed in the mid-'70s, which are shown to have had a direct result in our economy not being able to adjust to the sharp change which happened when the oil price rise came and when this country found it had to be competitive in a world in which we had to earn our way or suffer the consequences.

In regard to the other matters, of all the large industrialised nations in Europe we give more jobs to women and 4½ million women work in part-time employment. Many of those women are married, and perhaps the noble Lord should ask them whether or not they value their jobs.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that service industry employment is on the increase, that manufacturing employment has decreased and that the production of the wealth of our nation based on manufacturing industry is in the North of England, which is exacerbating the North-South divide? What does the Minister intend to do to rectify that imbalance?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I am aware that manufacturing employment has been falling at the rate of 10,000 jobs a month on average, month in and month out, since the middle of 1966. I suspect it will continue to fall in that way as manufacturing industries adjust to modern technology. There has been a similar trend in the United States of America, France, Germany and all industrialised nations with the exception of Japan; and Japan now has lost substantial manufacturing jobs in the past year or two. It is the almost inescapable effect of the change in employment due to modern technology.

I am glad to be able to report to your Lordships' House that in the recent substantial fall in unemployment the way has been led by the North-East, the North-West, the West Midlands and Wales. I ask your Lordships to visit again places like Consett and many places in the North-East and the North-West to see new industries arising. Not all are in manufacturing industry. However, what is important is not the balance between the manufacturing and the service sector but the balance between wealth creation and wealth consumption.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend concerned about the effect on the unemployment figures of the recent sharp rise in wage levels and the strike action by which those have been obtained?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I think all in your Lordships' House should be concerned about increases in wages that are not earned. Where wage increases are accompanied by productivity increases and unit labour costs are under control, we should all welcome that because the ambition of this Government is to have a high wage society, not a low one. However, where industrial action takes place for wage increases for their own sake, without accompanying productivity increases, I fear for the future of jobs.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I am rather puzzled by one aspect of the noble Lord's Answer. Is he saying that the recent strike in connection with a rise in wages is unconnected with the claimed rise in productivity? I go on to ask him whether his claim about unemployment falling last year will carry on into the coming year. In other words, will unemployment go on falling at the same annual rate?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I resisted all temptation to forecast the future of unemployment when it was rising and I shall equally resist that temptation when it is falling. I hope that my Answer made clear that I was concerned with strikes about wage increases which were not accompanied by productivity increases. That will affect the future of jobs.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, is it not a fact that much part-time employment is very low paid, and is it not also true that there is very little statutory employment protection for part-time workers? Should not something be done to remedy that unsatisfactory situation?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, whether or not part-time work is low paid often depends on the willingness of people to take those particular jobs. We have agreed that there is a correlation between protection of employment and the number of jobs that actually come about. I suspect that if we were to give statutory rights to those in part-time employment we would not be helping those in part-time jobs but would be sharply reducing the number of opportunities.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that if unemployment continues to decrease at the rate which he has just given to the House, it will take at least 10 years and probably 15 years, assuming that the decrease continues as my noble friend says, to return to the level which this Government inherited in 1979? Is that anything to be proud of?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I am not saying that employment will continue at this rate because I am not making any forecast. However, if I were to take arithmetical proportions, it will fall beneath the 1979 level in about three or four years' time. However, that is hardly the point. We have a vastly increased working population. We have an economy that is the envy of the industrialised world; whereas in 1979, as I hardly need remind any one of your Lordships, we were the sick man of Europe and an object of ridicule by other industrialised nations.