| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: It is difficult to imagine how the hon. Gentleman thinks that Ministers in the Department could sit on £73 million-worth of furniture. I hope that he accepts that, rightly in my view, we upgrade the quality of accommodation for officials working in the Department and in the jobcentres and make jobcentres fit for people to work in and for claimants to come to receive advice.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is anything wrong with placing contracts with expert outside private consultants to help in the implementation of a system as complex as this. If he imagines that it could be done without them, I should like to know how he thinks it would be possible.
Mr. McCartney:
I shall deal with the last point first. It would have helped the House if it had been informed
At one point in the summer, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was, we understand, offered three options on the regulations--to scrap them, to introduce further delay or to implement them in a less sophisticated form. She was also told, at all costs, to prevent another Child Support Agency debacle. Such is the Government's loathing for unemployed people that they are blundering on regardless.
Chapter II of the regulations, which deals with availability for employment, had a mini run-out in yesterday's debate on training. The Secretary of State claimed, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that the Government had worked an economic miracle and had got rid of the north-south divide--and so they have, but in a uniquely Tory way: not by decreasing unemployment, poverty and insecurity in the north, but by dramatically increasing them in the south.
From the time when the Prime Minister took office to his relaunch at last year's Tory conference, we have witnessed the scale of the problems that the regulations in chapter II are supposedly designed to deal with. In the south-east, unemployment has increased by 82 per cent. In Greater London, it has rocketed by 73 per cent. In East Anglia, the message is much the same--it is up by 61 per cent.--and in the south-west it has increased by 55 per cent.
In the country as a whole, unemployment has increased by 32 per cent., and among young people it has grown by 23 per cent. Among those out of work for at least six months, it has increased by 54 per cent. In Great Britain, in the past five years, long-term unemployment has gone up by 70 per cent. More than 1 million people are still out of work compared with when the Prime Minister took office.
Figures released today show that vacancies are down by 3,400 and that an average of 12 people chase each advertised vacancy in Britain. In London, the average is 20 for each vacancy, and in the north it is 18 for each vacancy. That is the real extent of mass unemployment in the United Kingdom. That is the real problem we face, but these regulations do not recognise it.
The real cost of unemployment is more than
£23 billion--equivalent to 4.6 per cent. of our gross domestic product and to almost two thirds of the Government's current borrowing. Without Government borrowing to finance mass unemployment between 1990 and today, the basic income tax rate would have had to increase from 25 to 30 per cent.--taxing for failure instead of investing for success.
With that record, the Government deserve no plaudits for the minuscule reduction in the benefit claimant count, especially in view of the fiddled nature of the figures. Independent Library estimates show that 900,000 unemployed people are no longer included in any Government measure of the true level of unemployment.
What is the Government's response?
Mr. Forth:
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the labour force survey figures or the figures produced by the
Mr. McCartney:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. In its entirety, the labour force survey reflects what has been said by the House of Commons Library: that about 900,000 to 1 million unemployed people are not included in the Government's measure of unemployment. In the past 12 months, we have already had an inquiry and report saying that the way in which the Government are conducting their so-called count of the unemployed is unsatisfactory and does not accurately reflect the real unemployment figure. It recommended that the Government should change the way in which the number of unemployed people is recorded. There has been a deafening silence from the Minister since that independent report was published.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney:
I shall give way in a minute.
What has been the Government's response? Has it been to invest in training? No. That has been cut by 50 per cent. in real terms. Schemes have closed with alarming regularity. Many of the programmes are ineffective in helping unemployed people to gain access to the labour market. Have the Government ended insecurity at work? They have not done that either. Insecurity is a plague across the nation.
No one, and I mean no one, has job security any more. The jobseeker's allowance, the supposed miracle cure, means what? The costs have escalated since its symbolic introduction. There is no genuine assistance for people to gain access to employment. Instead, additional benefit traps have been introduced that empower the Minister to reduce the period for unemployment benefit from 12 to six months.
Let us put the record straight--we are talking about a national insurance contribution scheme. People have paid thousands of pounds over many years to provide benefit should they become unemployed. Yet, at the same time as cutting the benefit period, the Government have increased national insurance contributions. They have awarded themselves a windfall increase of £2 billion in taxation, while cutting benefits for which people have already paid.
If it were a private sector insurance scheme, the provider would be in the High Court for breach of contract. It is scandalous that, having taken thousands of pounds of national insurance contributions from millions of people, the Government are now cutting the benefit period from 12 to six months.
Mr. Duncan:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. McCartney:
Sit down. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. I will give him more chances than he would ever give the unemployed.
After six months, there will be no benefit for people with partners in full-time jobs, and reduced benefit for people with partners in part-time jobs. That is a real disincentive for low-paid workers on minimum wages. Irrespective of their level of income, if they work more than 24 hours a week, they will be required either to give up their jobs and go on to benefit or to maintain the
partner, irrespective of that partner's financial circumstances. That will disproportionately hit women in employment.
There will be no benefit after six months for people with more than £8,000 savings. That is a real attack on middle England, at a time when job insecurity and joblessness are rising in some sectors of banking and insurance. Those who receive more than £8,000 in redundancy payments will, after six months, have to maintain themselves, because they will receive no benefit. For those with £3,000 savings, after six months there will be a cut in benefit--despite the fact that they may have paid thousands of pounds into the national insurance fund.
Mr. Duncan:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. If he believes that the unemployment figures, including those released today, are unduly optimistic, will he categorically confirm that, if Labour ever came to power, it would immediately revise the basis on which the figures are calculated, resulting in the higher figure that he believes to be valid?
Mr. McCartney:
Let us get the language correct-- today's unemployment figures are a disaster, because more than 2.3 million people are unemployed. It is nonsense to say that the figures are good. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I have twice given a commitment that a Labour Government would implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry. I ask the Minister to give a similar commitment and bring some common sense, understanding and legitimacy to labour market figures. I have given a clear and precise commitment to do so after the general election.
People undertaking study to improve their chances of obtaining a job will be hit, because the 20-hour rule will become the 16-hour rule. There will be no automatic increase in JSA in line with inflation, so the principle of state unemployment benefit will wither on the vine. The regulations say nothing about that; it is not something that the Government have trumpeted. However, for the first time, the Act will remove the legal requirement for the annual uprating of unemployment benefit in line with inflation.
The setting of the next JSA level will remain in place not for one or two years, but for three, four or five years, thus dramatically reducing the actual value of the benefit, despite the contributions paid by the recipients. That is the first step towards removing the concept in principle of the state being involved in the funding of unemployed people.
The truncated time available for this debate prevents me from going into greater detail about the regulations, and I therefore give notice to the Secretary of State that I shall be putting before her in the coming days a significant number of questions in order to clarify a range of ambiguities thrown up by the regulations, some of which seem contrary to guarantees given during the passage of the Bill. The questions will cover areas including young people, new jobseekers, age-related distinctions, and definitions of "seriously ill", "low pay", "actively seeking work", "variation of the jobseeker's agreement", "good cause", and "part-time study".
For the moment, I shall seek clarification in five areas of the regulations. Regulation 9 is about low pay. I call it the no-pay regulation. It describes the basis on which
people may be offered a job for £1 an hour after--we thought--13 weeks, and if they do not take it, they lose their right to benefit. That regulation opens up the labour market to cowboy employers, to impose any level of wages, irrespective of the individuals' skills.
The regulation states that, after six months,
Does that mean that, in that six-month period, a person can restrict his availability for employment by restricting the level of remuneration in employment for which he is available? That is what the regulation implies, yet it clearly contradicts regulation 16 on the permitted period, and regulation 72(7)(a) relating to sanctions for refusing a job offer because of the level of remuneration.
Is regulation 9 the result of having to meet international labour law requirements? If so, the Social Security Act 1989, which introduced the permitted period and the regulations preventing claimants from refusing job offers after 13 weeks because of low wage levels, was a contravention of International Labour Organisation regulations.
If regulation 9 is linked to international labour law, preventing disqualification from national insurance or employment benefit for refusing low-paid job offers, it raises serious questions about claimants penalised in such circumstances since the implementation of the 1989 Act.
I know that detail bores the Minister--we could tell that from his speech--but it is not boring for those it affects. After study of the regulations, crucial points arise--more serious than the spelling errors he mentioned.
A regulation similar to regulation 9 covering unemployment benefit would have protected claimants from being disqualified during the first 12 months of unemployment for refusing a low-paid job if they were in receipt of unemployment benefit. If that is the case, the Government have been wrongfully disqualifying claimants for periods of up to six months since the 1989 Act was implemented in 1990. I would like some legal clarification on that. It could have serious implications for thousands of benefit recipients, as well as the Government's financial commitments in the Budget to the paying of benefits.
Regulation 12 deals with volunteers. The Government agreed to conduct consultation following pressure during the passage of the Bill in another place, and I thank the Minister for carrying it out. There is, however, at least one unresolved question to be addressed.
The voluntary sector has given examples of considerable inconsistencies between employment offices in their interpretation of the regulations. That has led to a person in one part of the country being penalised for volunteering, while someone else is allowed to do exactly the same type of voluntary work and not be penalised. Will the Minister give details of the training that will be given to employment officers on the eligibility of volunteers for the jobseeker's allowance, so that consistency can be achieved?
During the passage of the Bill, I was given a commitment by the then Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss
Widdecombe), that, from 1 April 1996, all staff training would be completed. Has that timetable been met or has it to be extended to, say, October? I would welcome information on that.
Regulation 18 deals with the so-called spoiling tactics of claimants. That provision was a shambles in Committee.
The then Minister argued against the wearing of earrings by certain job applicants, despite the fact that her civil service adviser, who was sitting 2 ft away from her, was wearing two earrings at the time. Now that the Minister is Minister of State at the Home Office, she is positively enthusiastic about the wearing of chains, although she is obviously still against the wearing of earrings by those claiming unemployment benefit.
Regulation 18(4) is particularly vague. It provides grounds on which claimants who otherwise meet the actively seeking work regulations can be disqualified. Employment staff can say that a claimant has an abusive manner or has spoiled the application form. They can say that his behaviour or appearance has undermined his prospects of securing the employment in question. During the passage of the Bill, spoiling an application form was not mentioned. Will people who are not proficient at filling out application forms be disqualified from benefit for that reason alone?
What standards will be used to determine what behaviour or appearance is suitable? Will the Secretary of State place in the public domain the Employment Service and adjudication officers' guidance on those issues?
What is involved is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. If we are not careful, many people will be disqualified from benefit on the basis of factors that are outside the regulations, such as the length of their hair or their style of dress--whether they have a clean shirt on for the interview. There could be a shambolic number of complaints and appeals because of the wording of the regulations. It is important that the advice of adjudication officers and of the Employment Service is published and placed in the public domain.
Regulation 73 defines what is good cause for not attending a Government programme, and relates to the reduction from 21 hours to 16 hours. Again, the Minister owes us an adequate explanation. There is no provision in regulation 73, which covers people who are studying under the 16-hour rule, to protect people from being forced to give up their studies so that they can attend a Government programme, under threat of a benefit sanction.
Under the current system, Employment Service staff are advised to refer people in that position to compulsory re-motivation courses, such as restart and jobplan, during the vacations. Yet evidence suggests that that flexibility is rarely offered to claimants, and that the majority have their studies disrupted by attendance at those courses. If they do not attend the courses, they suffer a 40 per cent. deduction from their income support.
That has become an even greater problem with the introduction of workwise and worklink, the compulsory course for 18 to 24-year-olds. The course lasts for four weeks. Missing that amount of time from a part-time course can leave people with little opportunity to fulfil the coursework requirements. The jobseeker's allowance sanction for missing the compulsory courses will be much harsher, forcing more claimants to give up their studies to attend them.
In addition, the jobseeker's direction will enable Employment Service staff to instruct claimants to attend much longer Government programmes, such as training for work and job clubs. That will force more claimants to give up their part-time studies for inappropriate placements on Government schemes. How does that square with the Government's desire to improve access to skills to assist a person's employability?
A recent report, under the heading "Policy Analysis", says that there will be regional variations in the 16-hour rule, which will add further complexity to the regulations. Will the Minister give a clear explanation of the rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Why will the rules there be different from those applying to people studying for 16 hours in England? Why is there a change? Why was that change not explained clearly during the passage of the Jobseekers Bill?
Regulation 17 deals with workers on short time. Some workers whose companies are suffering difficulties, thanks to the Government's economic failures, temporarily stop work or are put on short-time working. At present, workers who are laid off temporarily or who work a certain number of days a week or weeks a month are allowed to claim unemployment benefit, and do not have to be available for work on the days when they are working at their normal jobs.
Under regulation 17, after a 13-week permitted period, a worker will be disqualified from benefit. To continue receiving benefit, claimants must be available for any job, irrespective of the fact that they are on short-time working for their employer. The rule will force workers who are temporarily laid off or who are working short time to give up their jobs. Many of those thus forced into unemployment will remain unemployed.
As I have said, most businesses that have introduced short-term working or laid off staff are in difficulties. For some, losing experienced staff will be the final straw, forcing them to make further redundancies among the remaining work force. I wrote to the Minister on this issue, but received a bit of a non-answer. Perhaps the implications of the regulation will be clarified during the passage of the Bill.
Regulation 63 deals with a range of issues affecting young people, on which I shall write to the Minister again. Why are the Government not giving a commitment during the passage of the legislation to help young people who are coming out of care and young people with special needs? The Minister said that the regulations protect them, but we know that the regulations will lead in some circumstances to vulnerable young people coming out of care--some without a family and some who may have been sexually or physically abused--being disbarred from benefit.
The regulations may also lead to a young person being sent on a training course or employment opportunity. If it is the second occasion on which the young person has been sent on such a course, there is no requirement on the employer to guarantee the quality of training, employment opportunities or the level of wages, and no prior check of the health and safety environment of the premises will be carried out by the Department. That is unacceptable in any circumstances, and I therefore ask the Minister to have another look at the young jobseeker's agreement and the complaints that we have consistently made about it.
"a person may not restrict his availability for employment by placing restrictions on the level of remuneration in employment for which he is available."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |