| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I can do that for the hon. Gentleman now. In the normal way, the Employment Service and officials from my Department came to me with a number of different options. These were discussed and considered, and they included a number of different areas, including Maidstone. With advice from my officials, I decided on what I thought would be two reasonably representative areas to give us usable results for the pilot project.
The hon. Gentleman should not read conspiracies in everything. There was a perfectly straightforward process, and it illustrates the harmonious relationship among Ministers, officials and the Employment Service, which I am confident will continue.
Mr. McCartney:
That was an interesting and revealing answer. I offer no conspiracy theory--I just asked a clear question. It was interesting to note that the Minister referred to the "harmonious relationship" between Ministers. [Hon. Members: "And officials."] Fair enough. I apologise to the officials, who are neither seen nor heard in this place. But his answer seems to indicate that there was at least some discussion between the Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone about the matter. Is that the case? Were any representations made to the Minister on the placement of the pilot scheme?
Mr. Blunkett:
The Minister must be careful what he says.
Mr. Forth:
I shall be very careful, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's advice.
I had no discussions with any colleague, other than the Secretary of State--I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that was correct--about the decision, which was mine to make. I gave advice to the Secretary of State, and she was content with the advice I gave. I had no discussions with other colleagues, parliamentary or ministerial.
Mr. McCartney:
I accept in good faith what the Minister said. [Hon. Members: "So apologise."] I will
It is important that, if the regulations are passed in their present form, when hon. Members seek, either collectively or individually, to discuss their implications with Ministers, there is an open-door policy. The regulations are complex. There is insufficient time today to cover all the issues which arise from the regulations, but I have tried to express--I hope without boring the House unduly--how seriously we take their implications. We need some assurances and some clarification of the regulations from the Minister, which I hope he will provide in his reply.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West):
The speech--
Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton):
Some sense at last.
Mr. Hughes:
My hon. Friend might want to make that judgment after I sit down.
The speech by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was very revealing, and I hope that those who look after such things will ensure that Conservative central office has it duplicated and sent out to business men.
Mr. Hughes:
While the hon. Gentleman's leader goes around making speeches about a conservative economy and taking tough decisions, and even mentions workfare and the need to crack down on people who do not deserve to receive benefit, not one bit of that has washed through to any of his colleagues, including his spokesmen. It is clear that old Labour, which is real Labour, is alive and well and living in the whole of its policies.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover):
We can hear it.
Mr. Hughes:
Not only can we hear it, it is clear that the country will hear it as time goes on. The speech of the hon. Member for Makerfield was grossly old-fashioned and demonstrated a lack of understanding that the only people in the world who do not believe in a conservative economy are those in the British Labour party.
Is it not curious that the Labour party leader must go around pretending to believe in a conservative economy? Perhaps he does, but his party plainly does not. I shall provide a brief tutorial for the Labour party, before I turn to the regulations. Unemployment does not cause excess Government spending, as the hon. Member for Makerfield
suggested. Excess Government spending causes unemployment. If he understood that, he would understand a great deal more.
Ms Eagle:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after significant and hard cuts in public expenditure in the Budget, only £3 billion was saved for tax cuts? Year on year, however, we are spending at least £20 billion, and possibly as much as £22 billion, to support the mass unemployment that has persisted for the entire life of this Government.
Mr. Hughes:
I have no doubt that the figures given by the hon. Lady are correct. There were not cuts in public expenditure; the rate of growth was reduced, which is a significant difference.
Mr. Duncan:
Let us be intellectually honest.
Mr. Hughes:
As my hon. Friend says, it is intellectually honest, but that is not something that one would expect from the Labour party. What the hon. Lady has said shows that she does not understand new Labour either. Perhaps there is someone on the other side who does understand new Labour and who will explain it to us. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Makerfield to say that the regulations are being forced through in three hours, because a proper piece of primary legislation has been put before the House. I have no doubt that Ministers, Back Benchers and Opposition spokesmen spent many hours in Committee discussing the regulations.
Ms Eagle:
The problem is that the regulations had not even been drafted when the Jobseekers Bill was in Standing Committee. This is, in effect, the first sight that we have had of them, yet they form much of the detail of that Act. That is one of the objections we had to the shape and status of the Act as it went through the primary legislation stage.
Mr. Hughes:
If we reach the dark days of a brief sojourn under a Labour Government, we will remember those words about every detail being on the face of every Bill which that Government might bring forward. However, I believe that we are unlikely to have a Labour Government.
Undoubtedly, there is much confusion among people who administer the system and, most important, among the people who receive the benefits. There is confusion between unemployment benefit and income support. Therefore, it is important that we should replace that confusing and out-of-date two-benefit system. Those two benefits cover different periods and play different roles. They require different bureaucracies, offices and computer systems, so it is not surprising that people are confused about it. The system is probably too complex for staff to administer, and it is bound to be more expensive for the taxpayer. Therefore, I welcome the principle behind the Bill.
I also welcome another element of the regulations, which I might describe as the carrot. That element is the way in which the new jobseeker's allowance will encourage people back into work. We all understand, from different perspectives, that the longer people remain on benefit, the more their motivation and skills decline, thus reducing their chances of finding a job.
I welcome the fact that the new system will attempt to keep people in touch with the labour market by encouraging them to take part-time work, and will help
people to move from part-time to full-time employment. It will also allow others to take unfamiliar work without being unfairly penalised if the jobs do not work out.
The back-to-work bonus enshrined in the legislation is very inventive. At present, after a small initial level of earnings--£5 per person or £10 per couple a week-- income support is reduced pound for pound, which discourages part-time work by claimants and partners. Under the new back-to-work bonus, the Government will set aside 50p of every £1 by which benefit is reduced when claimants enter part-time work to pay to them, up to a maximum of £1,000, when they enter full-time employment. That will have a genuine effect of increasing the incentive to begin work again. It will certainly reward honesty and encourage part-time work as a stepping stone to employment, while retaining the essential difference between a benefit that is paid to people out of work and one that is paid to people who are in full-time employment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |