Unemployment Statistics (Hansard, 14 January 1988)

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I am satisfied that the monthly unemployment figures derived from the claimant count are an accurate measure of the number of people claiming benefits at unemployment benefit offices. However, I am aware that the figures are somewhat higher than an alternative estimate using an internationally recommended definition of unemployment, based on the number of people without jobs seeking work. The results of the annual Labour Force Survey for Spring 1986 gave an unemployment total on the basis of 2.97 million for Great Britain—200,000 less than the claimant count.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, is it not a fact that since 1979 there have been no fewer than 19 changes in the way in which those statistics are compiled and that on each occasion, with one exception, the result has been to lessen the numbers of officially notified unemployed? As an example, there was the decision to remove men aged 60 and over from the unemployment count even though they were not necessarily out of employment, and the Social Security Bill removed men from the age of 55 and above from the unemployment count. Will there be further moves in that direction and does the Minister think that such self-deception helps anybody?

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to point out the changes that have occurred. However, I do not agree that any measure of self-deception corresponds. It is impossible to know what the current unemployment count would 1344 be now if it were calculated on a former basis. While some people attempt to estimate current totals on the old basis, they cannot really know, for example, how many people would now register at jobcentres if that were made compulsory again or how many occupational pensioners would still be signing on if it were not for the relaxation of the requirement for men over 60 to be available for work in order to get national insurance credits or supplementary benefit at the long-term rate.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether, in calculating the increase in employment which is largely an increase of women working part-time, those part-time workers count as a complete unit or a fraction of a unit? Do two part-time workers make one job or do they count as two jobs?

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I shall need notice of that question.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, that is a preposterous answer when we have been told time and time again over very many years that two part-time workers count as two jobs. No attempt has been made to determine what a full-time worker is.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that we can calculate how many people have been removed from the unemployment statistics because of changes in social security benefit eligibility conditions as well as the proposed changes contained in the Bill which is about to come before the House? Will the noble Earl consider publishing in the Official Report a breakdown of how many people have been removed from the unemployment statistics because of changes in social security legislation? It is becoming evident that, while the Government appear to have a splendid—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Stallard
Is it not becoming evident, as has been said before, that while the Government have a splendid policy of reducing the numbers of unemployed what we need is a policy to reduce unemployment?

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord when he says that what we need is a policy to reduce the number of unemployed. I am very happy to repeat today the announcement this morning that we have had a fall of 35,400 in December to 2.614 million. That is a fall of 505,000 over the past 12 months, the largest since similar records began in 1948.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the possibility of unemployment figures being cooked, the main factor is that they are far too high? Does he agree that there is a possibility that high unemployment figures may be related to the problems of inner cities and the rise in criminal activity throughout the country?

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, we shall always feel that, whatever the level of unemployment, it is too high and should be reduced. I can assure the noble Lord that the happy news that we have had today reflects reductions in the level of unemployment throughout the country.

§ Baroness Carnegy of Lour
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the welcome fall in unemployment figures is great news to a number of noble Lords, at any rate on this side of the House, who disagree with the groans we hear coming from the other side of the House? Does he agree that the unemployment figures record the number of people who are looking for a job, want a job and cannot find a job and so are drawing benefit, and that many women who are in part-time work or looking for part-time work are very satisfied with that type of work? There is absolutely nothing wrong with counting those women as individuals and not as half people.

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I endorse my noble friend's view that those people should be counted as individuals.

§ Lord Basnett
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Young, in evidence to the Select Committee on Employment in another place, conceded that the campaign alleging that the unemployment figures were fiddled had succeeded, would the noble Earl not agree that those figures lack public credibility? Would he not further agree that it would be sensible of the Government to introduce an advisory committee on the unemployment figures like their advisory committee on the retail prices index?

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, as I have already said, I do not accept to any extent that the unemployment figures have been fiddled. We are able to achieve consistency, if we so wish, between the current date and 1979; the seasonally adjusted series is maintained on a consistent basis going back in fact to 1971 and the figures are published. It takes account of all the relevant changes.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people very much resent the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite that the figures have been fiddled as both an unjustified reflection on Ministers and a yet more unjustified reflection on our wholly impartial and honourable Civil Service?

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support.

§ Lord Basnett
My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that I did not say that the figures were fiddled? I happen to think that the changes over the past few years have been inexplicable. What I said was that the noble Lord, Lord Young, had accepted before the Select Committee on Employment in another place that the campaign alleging that the figures had been fiddled had succeeded. I therefore asked a question which has not been answered by the Minister.

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, however much the noble Lord may question the method of computing and doubt the particular figures that he sees, I am sure that he agrees that we should all welcome the trend in unemployment which is coming down. That is now undeniable.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why it has been necessary for the statistical method of calculating unemployment figures to be changed—we suggest "massaged"—19 times since 1979?

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, the most important change, which was the introduction in 1982 of the count of benefit claimants, came about because of the introduction of voluntary registration at jobcentres and careers offices. The previous registration figures would have been incomplete and it was necessary to change the basis of the count. Other changes have resulted from the elimination of unnecessary procedures in benefit offices and there have been two corrections to reduce over-recording.