Home Page

Column 1171

House of Commons

Friday 29 November 1991

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Mr. Speaker -- in the Chair ]

Employment

9.35 am

Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : I beg to move, That this House welcomes the great progress that has been made in employment and the reduction of strikes since 1979 and condemns the employment policies of the Labour Party, particularly its proposals to encourage strikes, to accept every aspect of the European Commission's Social Action Programme and to impose a national statutory minimum wage, all of which would significantly increase burdens on British employers, undermine competitiveness and destroy jobs.

There is a saying that one should never explain or apologise in making a speech. However, I must break that rule this morning and apologise for the fact that I have an extremely heavy cold, which will make the delivery of my speech a long process--and even longer for the House, which has to be detained in listening to it. I rather foolishly ran round the Staffordshire moors on Saturday with the perhaps to be disbanded 5th Battalion Light Infantry from Shrewsbury and caught a heavy cold. Perhaps that is a lesson that, at my age, I should stop doing such silly things. I therefore move the motion with a glass of privatised water ready to hand.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Under-Secetary of State for Employment, who will reply to the motion. I have followed in the national press with great interest my hon. Friend's borough's activities. Unfairly, Redditch has been described as the most boring town in Britain, which produces the most boring postcards. That is unfair on that wonderful area. Anyone who has witnessed my hon. Friend and his especially outstanding and noticeable ties will see that Redditch has many lively things on which it can be commended to the nation. I hope that the campaign about its postcards will end.

I suspect that during today, when we warm up and wake up, we shall have a fairly broad and lively debate. The purpose of the motion is to enable the House, with the Chair's permission, to range as widely as possible over the subject of employment and unemployment, over the Government's policies and record, over Labour's record--not least that of the shadow Chancellor--and over the alternative policies that may be offered if the format of the Government changes.

With the permission of the House, I hope that it will be possible to conclude the debate briefly to allow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) an opportunity to say something about his motion. The terms of the motion may not be welcome to all hon. Members, but what he has to say deserves to be aired and I hope that the House will ensure that he has an opportunity to make his point today.

Column 1172

I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I paint a brief picture of my own borough of Shrewsbury and Atcham in Shropshire. Shropshire is about one quarter of the land mass of the west midlands and it is the most rapidly growing county in that area. My constituency fills a broad canvas. Although it is a huge rural area, with 117 villages and the county town, only 3 per cent. of the work force are employed in agriculture. Another 4 per cent. are involved in energy and water industries, and we have a regional headquarters of the electricity board. Thirteen per cent. are in manufacturing. In a town such as Shrewsbury, a high proportion of manufacturing is linked to the defence industry. The superb main battle tank engine is made by Perkins Engines, one of our larger employers. Five per cent. are employed in the construction industry--that may be why the effects of the recession have not hit Shrewsbury as hard as they have hit other parts of the country, although we have felt the cold wind. A large proportion of people employed in the borough--23 per cent.--work in the hotel and catering and associated distribution industries. Shrewsbury is one of the most attractive county towns in the country, which, because of its historic nature, attracts much tourism. It also acts as the regional centre for mid-Wales and north Wales, as well as for Shropshire.

A further 16 per cent. are involved in finance and commerce. A huge and seemingly ever-growing number of accountants, solicitors and estate agents have made Shrewsbury their professional base. I am not sure whether we have found a professional group that the Government have as yet failed to offend, but if one exists, it is a growing sector of Shewsbury's business community.

A further 6 per cent. are employed in public administration in the area. We have the headquarters of Shropshire county council in the town, as well as the borough council and the district headquarters of the Shropshire health authority.

More recently, on the defence employment front, the "Options for Change" programme has meant that the unified command for the west midlands, the north-west and Wales has been sited in Shrewsbury, under the command of Major-General Mike Regan, who took over on Monday. The borough welcomes the presence of the unified command, although it has caused consternation in parts of Wales and the north-west. We feel that, historically and geographically, Shrewsbury is the right place for it. Thirty per cent. of our people work in associated industries.

Across the borough, about 27,000 people are in full time employment and 10,200 in part-time employment--about 37,200 people in all. That employment pattern is not necessarily reflected in many areas these days. Shrewsbury is still a traditional market town, so employment patterns, especially for women, are different from those to be found in urban areas. Perhaps for many people who come to live in the town that is part of its attraction.

My motion centres on the level of employment, because there are 2, 700 more people in employment in Shrewsbury now than there were a decade ago. We still face unemployment problems, but the fact remains that employment has increased by 2,700. That is not to say that we can ignore people who are unemployed and seeking a way of earning a living.

In 1983, a total of 3,774 people were seeking work in Shrewsbury. By 1987, that figure had dropped a little to 3,401. But this year, the figure was down to 2,558, so since

Column 1173

the general election, unemployment has fallen by 28.7 per cent. Over the five years since the present Administration were returned in 1987, there has been a welcome change in the picture. We appreciate that, over the past 12 months, unemployment has become an issue again, as the figures have begun to rise. Nevertheless, the record over five years is a fall of 28.7 per cent.

In the House there is a tendency to think that the experience of unemployment, and care for the unemployed, rest exclusively with Opposition Members. The election of the Prime Minister has done much to dispel that idea and to show the general public that in my right hon. Friend we have a Prime Minister who is frank about his business background and honest about the employment difficulties that he faced as a young man. The public know that he understands the difficulties of unemployment, having had personal experience of it, which he has not forgotten.

I left school at 15 under a Labour Government. I was one of many thousands of unemployed school leavers. The experience of unemployment has not been exclusive to people who left school under a Conservative Government. Many of us remember that experience from the days of the Labour Government, many of whose Ministers are now in another place.

One brighter aspect of the unemployment figures in Shrewsbury has been the steady and sustained drop in long-term unemployment. It would be unfair to the House to spend hours reeling off reams of statistics but, so that the picture of Shrewsbury is fully painted, I must tell the House that in 1983 there were 1,334 long-term unemployed people. In the four years to 1987, that picture had not changed much ; the figure had grown slightly to 1,337. There had been little movement--really no improvement at all--in long-term unemployment.

However, this year the figure has dropped to 548. That reflects the emphasis placed by the Department of Employment, both at the centre and among those who represent it in Shropshire, on trying to help the long-term unemployed in particular. The big drop over the past five years since the 1987 election is welcome news. Undoubtedly, the problems of long-term unemployment are the most difficult to come to terms with and to solve.

That is probably enough history and geography. I shall now consider the way ahead, and the way in which unemployment is being tackled by the Government. Some of those activities will be continued whichever Government are administering the country's affairs in six or seven months' time.

Part of the progress that has been made in our area has been the establishment of the Shropshire training and enterprise council. Our TEC, which is one of 82 in the country, is chaired by David Houghton, who lives in my constituency in Shrewsbury but is the managing director of GKN Sankey, one of the larger manufacturing employers in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I pay tribute to the work, energy and effort that David Houghton puts in as chairman of the TEC. Undoubtedly that takes much time, and the GKN Group is to be congratulated for encouraging its senior executives to play such an important part in an organisation that achieves such excellent work in Shropshire. It is all too easy for

Column 1174

senior executives, especially in times of great pressure on business, to say that they have no time to devote to such activities for the community. That has not been the attitude of David Houghton or his group, and they are to be congratulated for that. So are the members of the Shropshire TEC board, who also run demanding businesses yet give much time to developing the TEC and working towards what it is trying to achieve, especially for young people in Shropshire.

As the House will recall, board members have to be in business currently, rather than retired. That is a matter for debate. It is arguable that more recently retired business men would have a constructive role to play. I tend to favour the idea that people who have not been out of business too long could probably play a valuable role, although I accept that, if someone has been out of active business life for two or three years, his contacts and awareness of up-to-date affairs may have changed. That is why the Government have concentrated on keeping people who are actively involved in business. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment may care to comment on that later.

The chairman of the TEC, David Houghton, and his team are backed up by an able chief executive--Roy Knott. Although the TEC has been operating only since 1 April this year, Roy Knott and his team have shown that they are dedicated to the employment training future for Shropshire. They have rapidly pulled the TEC together. This year, it is operating on a budget of about £14 million.

Shropshire's population is just under half a million. The youth training element of the budget for 16 and 17-year-olds is £7 million--roughly half the total budget. Three million pounds is for employment training ; for employment action, which is specifically related to longer-term unemployment, there is £500,000. Shropshire TEC turns its attention to various other schemes, too. There is £1.5 million for the business enterprise scheme. Those training activities represent only part of the work in which Roy Knott and his team are involved. They have a business development programme, an "investors and people" programme and an education programme for business partnerships, all of which are of particular help to those who are new to their own businesses.

The TEC is also actively pursuing a much closer liaison between the local education authorities, which provide excellent courses for those developing their business life, and with the careers service and the vocational education structure. One of the initiatives is to encourage more teacher placements in industry, so that those in education who have gone from school to college and back to school as teachers and who have not experienced life in industry or commerce can be exposed to it, the better to assist their pupils in preparing for a working career.

The establishment of TECs was debated and fought in the House, but it is now evident that the TECs are doing good work and that the system needs to be given time to settle down. Equally, we must have realistic expectations of TECs and realise that those that have not been in existence for very long--as is the case with our own TEC, which has been going only since April--will take time to work themselves up to their most effective point. The start that has been made in Shrewsbury, however, is extremely encouraging for my constituency and for the people of Shropshire in general. I have spent quite long enough outlining the picture in my own constituency and I have no doubt that the House

Column 1175

will wish to consider the national picture as well. Nationally, the fact remains--sadly, it is a fact not often reflected in the media--that there are more people in employment in the United Kingdom today than there have ever been before. Let us compare the present Government's record with that of the Government from whom they inherited power in 1979. There are some 800,000 more jobs than there were then. Many people will say, "They are probably all part-timers, grossly underpaid and grossly overworked, so it is not a genuine increase." But the increase in part-time unemployment--

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Right.

Mr. Conway : It may be full-time unemployment for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, in six months' time.

Part-time unemployment has increased by 7 per cent., so the growth in employment is not reflected exclusively in part-time jobs or twilight industries. We are talking about 800,000 effective jobs. The fact is, however, that unemployment is rising, and we recognise that. It is rising in every G7 and other industrialised country in the world, and particularly in Europe. Although we are constantly hearing about cuts, and the Opposition and hostile media want to make everything that the Government have done seem bad, one positive development has been that, whereas, when the Conservative party came to power in 1979, there were 6,000 training places for young people, the figure today is 260,000, and that reflects a remarkable commitment by the Government to ensuring that young people who leave school and who do not want to go into higher education have the opportunity to train for a career. We talked about training for decades. We used to envy the commitment of the Germans and French, but British politicians talked about it without doing anything. Today, the opportunities are there. In 1981, 52 per cent. of the population had experienced some kind of work-related education. By 1989, the figure had increased to 73 per cent., and it has continued to grow. Today, Opposition Members will have the useful opportunity to explain to the House the precise impact of the policies that they will put to Britain and the British people. I think that the facts and figures will explode the myth that more people are unemployed in Britain. The fact is that more people are employed. One wonders what the picture would be in five years' time were the Government to change in the next six months.

Some of us are a little sceptical about the extent of the commitment of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to all things European and wonder for how long it will survive. However, those on the Labour Front Bench say that they are committed to the social charter. Several independent studies, including one by Liverpool university--hardly a hotbed of Toryism--have examined the impact on the business community that the adoption of that charter would have. The Liverpool study shows that it would increase the burden on business by £4 billion per annum, and undoubtedly it would affect employment, business efficiency and Exchequer income from corporation tax.

It has been estimated--although I know that this is a matter of controversy --that the adoption of a minimum wage would result in the loss of some 2 million jobs. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will come clean on the Opposition's position on the

Column 1176

minimum wage, but the principal Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has put on record his own confusion. This debate provides an excellent opportunity for us to hear once and for all--if such a thing can be imagined--where the Opposition stand and whether they accept that a minimum wage--

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : As an hon. Member representing a constituency where industries have always paid low wages, let me ask the hon. Gentleman this. Can he not understand that people in such areas know that low pay has not helped to save jobs in the past? Can we not refer instead to fair pay, and does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that, in 1991, £3.40 an hour is not an unrealistic wage? It is the absolute minimum to which anybody in work should be entitled.

Mr. Conway : The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point which stands examination. In my part of the world, for example, one does not find salaries as high as those paid in more industrialised parts of the country, but, particularly to part-time workers on lower pay, the option that the Opposition offer is not better pay but no pay. That is the difficulty.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman fails to realise that some Members of the Conservative party do not come from the same background as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who inherited huge wealth. Some of us come from more modest backgrounds. I remember my mother leaving home at 4.30 am to go to her part-time, low-paid job. That is precisely how many working-class families on Tyneside had to live in the days of the Labour Government, when the problems of low-paid workers were very much worse.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one thing to use income support and so on to ensure that people can live at a reasonable level of income but quite another to place the additional burden on firms which may not necessarily be able to afford to pay more? The result of placing such a burden on industry is that the most vulnerable people in society, such as young people and people with disabilities, are either thrown out of work or cannot find work, because insufficient jobs are being created.

Mr. Conway : As ever, my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and the House will look forward to hearing of his personal experience, particularly of trade union legislation. Under this Government, provision for most low-paid families has increased dramatically. I was interested to note that, on 29 June, the principal Opposition spokesman on employment wrote to The Independent trying to clarify, for the benefit of the country and the House, his view on the impact of a minimum wage on jobs. Under the heading "Pay, Low Pay or No Pay", the hon. Gentleman wrote :

"I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs ... I have simply accepted that econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."

I do not know what that will mean to someone on low pay, but to me the message is, "Look out for unemployment." Whatever gobbledegook the hon. Gentleman may have written, that will be the consequence. The Opposition's policies would have a further impact on the business community and those who create and maintain jobs. Principally because the Labour party is in the pocket of the major trade unions, it is committed to

Column 1177

repealing the trade union legislation that has transformed not only the United Kingdom's working record but our record of inward investments. It is partly to that legislation that Britain owes its success in attracting foreign investment.

We should think of the citizens charter and the various rights and opportunities that the Government are affording consumers and parents. The general public will welcome those developments and compare the citizens charter with the strikers charter offered by the Opposition, under which we would again face secondary picketing and the impact of flying pickets on wholly unrelated businesses. That would have a dreadful effect on employment and businesses and it would make Britain far less attractive for foreign investment. I would welcome more information about the jobs tax which has been so widely canvassed and debated. I should like to know whether it would simply add to employers' burdens and at what level it is likely to be set. Independent experts suggest that it will cost 50,000 jobs a year. In addition, there will be an impact on corporation tax. While Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are running around the country promising more jam for everyone, their shadow Treasury colleagues must be wondering how that jam is to be made, given that it is being spread so thickly.

No doubt that tax will have a serious impact on the level of taxation paid by the general public and it will have an equal impact on the business community, which in this country enjoys the lowest rate of corporation tax in the industrialised world. I am certain that our business community would not enjoy the prospect of a change of Government.

Bearing in mind the intervention by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about low pay--or the offer of no pay under the Opposition--we must consider the application of national insurance contributions in respect of part-time workers. The 1.75 million people who earn less than £52 a week in part-time employment would, according to the Opposition's proposals, fall within the national insurance contributions framework. That would be a retrograde step and would not be welcomed by the lowest paid and the part-time community.

I do not want this debate to be exclusively a Labour-bashing exercise. Those of us who are interested in regional policy are a little concerned. I served on the North of England development council which tried to attract inward investment to the north of England. After that, I served on the Washington development corporation, which was one of the new town boards. We were reasonably effective in attracting new investment to that part of the United Kingdom and we were helped by the implementation of enterprise zones. While the enterprise zones were not loved by the Treasury from their introduction in 1981, they have been hugely successful. Although most of them were established for only 10 years, people in many areas now want to know what will follow them.

While my constituency does not have a level of unemployment that qualifies it for assistance, many people in Shrewsbury travel to work in Telford, which has an enterprise zone. Although not every quarter of the Conservative party accepts this, I believe that regional policy has a role to play and the Government should help

Column 1178

to balance the geographical and social problems. If regional policy is properly controlled and effectively directed, it has a role to play for the future. It must be managed in a way that eases the burden on business instead of increasing them.

In that sense, greater emphasis must be placed on inward investment and agencies should not simply run around the country trying to attract jobs from one area to another.

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : I have been listening with interest to my hon. Friend as he addressed this loosely packed House. I want to contest his proposition that enterprise zones and regional policy have a net effect on the economy. From my experience of working in Reading, which is quite a high-cost area, and being offered constant inducements to move to Wales and occupy free factories--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Briefly, please.

Mr. Norris : My experience is that the taxpayer simply contributed a great deal of money to move a job 100 miles down the motorway. Will--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Interventions should not be speeches.

Mr. Conway : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) for intervening, because he has allowed me time to drink some water. He has had a medicinal effect on my speech. I understand my hon. Friend's point. Many people believe that regional policies have existed only to shift Government money around the country and to take jobs from one constituency to another. When I was a member of a development council in the north of England, we were not really in competition with other parts of England. Of course, we were in competition with Scotland and Wales, which had greater resources and could call on the support of the royal family to impress Japanese visitors more effectively than we could. We were principally in competition for foreign investment.

I recall a time when the Government of Eire offered 10-year tax holidays and they were very effective for many businesses. However, businesses that were tempted to move often found that the move was not so attractive and that they could not sustain a long-term plan. The employment pattern in this country is disproportionate, particularly in the areas further from the centre. Without the balance of regional policy, the cluster in the south-east because of its proximity to the channel and the European market would make life in the south absolutely unbearable. We are trying to help people get their cars from one part of the south-east to another and in some small way to spread the employment burden.

Businesses must carefully consider the disadvantages of long communications connections for their markets. The motorway system has undoubtedly improved dramatically under this Government, particularly to the north and north- west. That has made it more attractive for businesses to move from the south-east and we particularly welcome that in the midlands.

People who prattle on about the north-south divide amuse me. Bearing in mind your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the constituencies of hon. Members who represent northern and north-western areas, I should point

Column 1179

out that business commuting to Doncaster, Newcastle upon Tyne or Edinburgh has been dramatically transformed as a result of British Rail's capital investment in the east coast line. Businesses can now move around the country more easily, and that places pressure on local authorities, which must ensure that they are more supportive and welcoming to businesses instead of erecting, as is sadly so often the case, planning barriers that drive away potential investments. The House should recognise that in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we undoubtedly have a man who has experienced unemployment and has demonstrated that he has not forgotten that experience. He is so patently honest about it and that shows the nation that he cares. The unemployed voters we survey and canvass understand that our Prime Minister is a man who understands their difficulties.

In the next six months, the country will have to compare the record of this Administration against that of the previous Administration and consider the alternative of many of the Opposition retreads on offer. The country must conclude that, in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have a man we can trust. I am confident that the verdict from the general election and the slogans from the British people will be "Kinnock can't" and "Major makes it".

I hope that we will have an opportunity today to hear what the Opposition propose. Once we have heard that, it will be clear that my constituents might face a bleaker future on both the business and employment fronts. When the time comes, those policies will be firmly rejected.

10.7 am

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on his motion and on giving us an opportunity to debate unemployment. The House should spend more time debating unemployment. The present appalling unemployment figures are graphic evidence of this Government's failure.

We all remember that in 1979 the Conservative party spent an enormous amount of money festooning the country with posters saying that Labour was not working.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth) : It was very effective

Mr. Leighton : As the Minister said, that cynical propaganda was effective. At that time, unemployment was 1.3 million and falling. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the position is now. Is not unemployment now double what it was in 1979?

Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence.

Mr. Arbuthnot rose--

Mr. Leighton : I like to see eager young men at this time on a Friday morning, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Arbuthnot : I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech so much that I want to take part in it. The hon.

Column 1180

Gentleman said that unemployment was 1.6 million--1.3 million--at the end of the Labour Government. What was it at the beginning of the Labour Government?

Mr. Leighton : The hon. Gentleman cannot get his figures right. He thought that unemployment was 1.6 million when it was 1.3 million. The best thing for him to do is to listen for a little while and perhaps he might be in a better position to understand. Of course, I shall gladly give way to him again if he wishes to make such helpful interventions.

Mr. Arbuthnot rose--

Mr. Leighton : Here we go again.

Mr. Arbuthnot : Would the hon. Gentleman care to answer the question by saying what the figure was at the beginning of the Labour Government?

Mr. Leighton : I shall give several statistics in a moment. I do not want to give too many. Statistics are boring. If the hon. Gentleman will contain his eagerness and enthusiasm, he will be rewarded. One of the figures that he might like to consider is the grievous economic and financial cost. We might hear from the Minister what the cost of the dole queue is. It is well in excess of £20 billion. Each unemployed person costs in excess of £8,000 and that huge cost has ruined the public finances.

We used to hear a lot about the iniquity of borrowing and having a public sector borrowing requirement. The Government used to boast that they were repaying the national debt. The cost of unemployment is now so high that the Government are in the red. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many billions the Government are borrowing this year to pay for the mistakes that they made on unemployment. Perhaps he will tell us about the human cost--the heartache, the misery and the destruction of family life. We did not hear much about that from the hon. Member from Shrewsbury and Atcham. The Government's rhetoric, which we will no doubt also hear before the election, is all about choice and opportunity. We might even hear a bit more about the classless society. When we hear the cynical and hollow rhetoric we should remember that the Government are busy destroying choice and opportunity for millions of people. A man or woman is what he or she does. That is how a person defines himself. Often, when we meet people, they ask, "What do you do?" If one does nothing, one tends to feel that one is nothing. That is damaging to one's identity and sense of self-worth and it is destructive to society. That matter is closely connected with the increase in crime, which is sometimes denied by the Government. It does not surprise me in the least that we have riots every summer. Law and order does not come from having large numbers of policemen on the streets ; it is social control. People ask, "What will the neighbours think? What will people at work think?" Of course, if one does not have a job, if one has never had a job and if one does not think that one will ever have a job, what the hell--what does it matter what people think? One has no perspective on the future ; one lives for today. That is part of the explanation for crime and riots.

Let us consider life on the estates dotted around the country. Children see their fathers idle. Home is where there is never an alarm clock going off in the morning. Children never see their parents going to work. They see their older brothers and sisters leaving school without a

Column 1181

job. That is disruptive of society and family life. When such matters are raised, the Government blame everybody but themselves. They normally blame the victims and look for scapegoats. They say, "It is the parents' or teachers' fault ; it is evil." They never blame themselves for the unemployment that they have brought about. The truth--it is a brutal thing to say--is that the Government are using unemployment as a weapon of policy. It is a deliberate feature of Government policy to have a high level of unemployment.

Mr. Forth : Would the hon. Gentleman, therefore, in the same breath say that in France, where unemployment is higher than it is in the United Kingdom, the socialist Government are similarly using unemployment as a weapon?

Mr. Leighton : I intend to refer to that point as well, if the Minister will contain himself.

We often hear the recession referred to as though it is an act of God or an act of nature, or as being like the weather. One gets up to see whether there are any signs of confidence or whether there are any green shoots. The Government engineered the recession. They set about deliberately to cause a recession. They deliberately increased interest rates. When the Government deliberately set out to increase interest rates and to shut down large parts of the economy, they knew that they would cause unemployment.

At the beginning of the recession there was much talk about the economy and whether there would be a hard or soft landing. If we have a healthy or successful economy, why not keep flying? Why have a landing of any description? The Government deliberately increased interest rates to cause a recession and they knew that it would lead to mass unemployment.

When we referred to high unemployment and the pain and damage that it was doing to our society, what did the Prime Minister--then Chancellor of the Exchequer--say? He said, "If it is not hurting, it is not working." The policy was deliberately to cause unemployment. He was saying, "Yes, it is hurting. That is proof that it is working. I want it to hurt." That is Government policy. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer made the Government's position absolutely clear. Incidentally, where would politicians be without the phrase "make our position absolutely clear"? The Chancellor said that high unemployment was "a price well worth paying". Mass unemployment was a deliberate Government policy and he said that it was a price well worth paying.

The Conservative party has become what it was before the war--the party of chronic mass unemployment. Were we to have the misfortune of the Conservative party winning the next election, it would be the party of chronic mass unemployment for as far ahead as we can see. Mass unemployment is built into all its calculations for public expenditure. Full employment is not among its economic objectives.

Mr. Bowis : The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable, moderate and fair- minded man. Therefore, he would wish to give the true context of what he is saying. Is not it the case that unemployment is now 13 per cent. below what it was in 1987 and about 21 per cent. below what it was in 1986? As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and

Column 1182

Atcham (Mr. Conway) pointed out, there are 800,000 more people in jobs today than there were in 1979 when the Government came to office.

Mr. Leighton : I begin my reply with a rhetorical question. I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not want me to provoke the hon. Gentleman into replying immediately. However, during that period, what happened to the number of people of working age? The hon. Gentleman will find that the working age population increased much more substantially than the number of jobs that were created. Those extra people in the labour force are, therefore, purely a function of the population growth and of the fact that the population is growing much faster than the economy. That is why there is high unemployment. That must be the case otherwise how could the hon. Gentleman answer the puzzle that there are hundreds of thousands more jobs but also much higher unemployment? The simple explanation is that the population has grown. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) used to research such matters and should know the answer to these questions, but I will give him the exact figures because I looked them up in the Library only yesterday. I am now whetting his appetite for the information that I shall give him later.

Nowhere among the Government's objectives have I ever heard any mention of full employment. I listened to Treasury questions yesterday when the Government appeared to be saying that the level of inflation at the moment would justify a cut in interest rates, that industry is crying out for such a cut in interest rates but that now, given that everything must be subordinated to the exchange rate mechanism, our growth, employment, interest rates and everything else must be abandoned and sacrificed to that end. There was no suggestion that full employment was one of the Government's policy objectives. I do not think that Ministers care about unemployment. I have seen no evidence to that effect. It seems to be well down their list of objectives. I have no doubt that they subscribe to obscure and extremist economic theories that anaesthetise their conscience on such matters. The Secretary of State for Employment has now been in office for 22 months, during which time there has been the most enormous increase in unemployment yet. I find it impossible to detect any remorse in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's demeanour and attitude. I have yet to hear him apologise to those hundreds of thousands of people whose lives he has blighted and whose happiness and prosperity he has destroyed. Instead, he tries to ignore it altogether. He never talks about it. I have never heard him address that problem.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared before the Select Committee on Employment on Wednesday--only two days ago. I asked him, "Secretary of State, since you have been in office, how many extra people have become unemployed?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not know, or at least he pretended not to know. He would not answer, but he, at least, should have known the figures. I can make allowances for some of the Back-Benchers who may not have the figures, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman lives with these figures every day and one would have thought that he, as the Secretary of State, would know. However, when I questioned him, he said that the number of unemployed was "irrelevant". Those were his words to the Select Committee.

Column 1183

I was able to help the right hon. and learned Gentleman by telling him by how much unemployment has increased since he took on that job. The figure was 857,000 people. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman show any concern about that? No. Yet that is an abysmal figure. I do not know of any other Secretary of State for Employment under whom unemployment has risen by that amount. It must be a record. It should be in the "Guinness Book of Records", yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not know the figure and showed no concern. He does not seem interested in unemployment. Could we have more telling proof of the Government's failure than the fact that unemployment has increased by 857,000 during his 22 months? The Government's policy is to ignore unemployment and the associated figures. At employment questions on Tuesday, one of my hon. Friends asked the Secretary of State what was the total increase in unemployment across the European Community, the increase in the United Kingdom and the latter as a percentage of the former. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer--he never does. He said only that there were no comparable estimates. In other words, he pleaded ignorance again. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really not interested, but he pretends that he does not know.

Again, I have consulted our estimable Library, which had no problem giving me the figures. I received a nicely typed letter within the hour telling me that there has been no increase in unemployment in many European Community countries--in fact, there has been a decrease in unemployment in some. The figures, which the Secretary of State did not know, or pretended that he did not know, or was not prepared to tell the House and the country, show that there has been an increase in unemployment in the European Community in the year to September of 972,000 while the figure for the United Kingdom is 777, 000. In other words, 80 per cent. of the increase in unemployment across the European Community is solely in the United Kingdom. It is therefore the responsibility of the Conservative Government and I hope that the Minister will explain and apologise for that.

Mr. Forth : The hon. Gentleman is now basing his case on arbitrary time periods. He must know that what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was saying to the Select Committee was that his period in office was irrelevant as a way of measuring the movement in the figures, not that the figures themselves were irrelevant. That is nonsense, but the hon. Gentleman is now doing the same thing again.

In addition to giving the House the figures that he has just given, will he tell us about the actual levels of unemployment in socialist Spain, socialist France and in some of the other continental countries for which he seems to have so much admiration? Will he explain the connection between socialist policies and high unemployment?

Mr. Leighton : The policy that has led to an increase in unemployment in France and Spain is those countries' adherence to the exchange rate mechanism--

Mr. Forth : Ah, but that is the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Column 1184

Mr. Leighton : That is the explanation for those figures. In such a regime, the strong and the competitive are successful, but the non- competitive are less successful and that fact will be revealed in their unemployment figures.

Our question about the movement in the figures in the past year is the sort of question that is regularly asked--it was a fair question, not a trick one--yet when we asked, "What has been the increase in the past year", the Secretary of State did not say, "You should have chosen another year" ; he simply said that he did not know. Then, when we pressed him, he said that it was "irrelevant". The question that he described as "irrelevant" was by how much unemployment had increased during his 22 months in office. How on earth can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that that is irrelevant? Is not it grotesque and bizarre for the Government to be reduced to saying that the issues that we raise in our pointed questions are irrelevant and for them to refuse to answer? Is not that ghastly evidence of their failure? I know that the Under-Secretary of State is extremely articulate and intelligent and that he can always put a gloss on a case, but if he cannot do better than that, he cannot have a case. The truth is that for 22 months the Secretary of State and his Government have been destroying jobs at an average rate of 1,250 a day--that is how the figures work out. They are still doing it and will continue to do so.

One way to disguise what is happening has been used this morning by the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for Battersea, who said that there are now more jobs than in 1979. I now come directly to the point of the hon. Member for Battersea. His argument will not wash because the simple explanation is that the population has grown. Again, I asked the Library for the figures, which show that between 1979 and 1990--perhaps the Minister will agree that that is a reasonable period because it is not only one year, but the Government's entire period in office--the population of working age grew by 1,862,000. That is an increase of 5.6 per cent. It was much greater than the increase in the total work force in employment. The total work force grew, not by the figure of 800,000 given by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, but by just over 1 million. To have stood still we would have needed over 1,862,000 jobs. That is the explanation. So it does not help the Conservative case to say that the total number of jobs has grown. It has grown because the size of the country's population has grown. The most important factor is the level of unemployment and the waste of paying people to stay on the dole and ruin the public finances.

Mr. Bowis rose --

Next Section

  Home Page