§ Sir David Priceasked the Paymaster General if he will publish a table showing (a) the number of people in full-time employment and (b) the total work force for each of the last 10 years.
§ Mr. LeeThe quarterly estimates of the numbers of male employees in employment do not separately identify those in full-time employment for dates prior to September 1984. For the earlier periods, estimates of the numbers of full-time male employees in employment are available only from censuses of employment. Estimates of the numbers of self-employed people do not separately identify those who are employed full time. The available information for the years specified is given in the table.
685WThe labour force survey provides information on a different basis which includes estimates of total numbers of residents of private households in full time employment. The available estimates are given in the following table.
Persons in employment: Whether working full-time Labour Force Survey Estimates: Spring 1979 to 1985
Great Britain
Thousands All persons in employment
of which: Full-time
11979 24,214 19,611 1981 23,606 18,783 1983 22,944 18,291 1984 23,387 18,392 1985 23,739 18,672 1 Usually working more than 30 hours per week (including overtime)
§ Mr. Knoxasked the Paymaster General what proportion of jobs lost since 1979 have been lost in the northern regions, and Scotland.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeThere are no figures for the number of jobs lost in the country as a whole or in each region. The inaccurate claim that 94 per cent. of jobs lost have been lost in the north is totally misleading. That particular figure uses changes in the net numbers of employees in employment which is the result of both jobs lost and jobs gained. If the same procedure were applied to changes in the net numbers of jobs (i.e. including the self-employed) between 1979 and 1986, that would produce the absurd conclusion that "148 per cent. of jobs lost were lost in the north." The 94 per cent. figure was also arrived at by including Wales, the west midlands and the east midlands in the north rather than the south, which is a definition which might be challeged by the residents of Northampton and Cheltenham.
Quite apart from the odd nature of the statistic recently quoted by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the fact is that falls in the number of employees in employment as a result of the recession and improvements in productivity were by no means confined to the north. Even adopting the odd geographical division of the country above, the "south" which had 35 per cent. of manufacturing employees in 1979 experienced 28 per cent. of the net fall in manufacturing employment between 1979 and 1986. And, between 1983 and 1986, 40 per cent. of the net fall in manufacturing employees occurred in the "south". Conversely, gains in employment were by no means confined to the "south". The dramatic increase in self-employment since 1979 has benefited the "north" substantially; 368,000 more people became self-employed in the North, accounting for nearly half the total increase in self-employment.
There is a need to encourage more enterprise in the "north" and to make it a more attractive place for investment in modern industry and commerce. This is being tackled by a whole range of Government policies and by enterprising private initiatives. Exaggerating the extent of job losses in the "north" does nothing to help our endeavours to encourage job creation there.