| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Darling: The Opposition do indeed support the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Mr. Jack:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 63 and 64.
Mr. Jack:
During the Committee's debates on shipping, I said that the Government were not opposed in principle to extending rollover relief for balancing charges arising on ships across groups of companies. We had discussions with the shipping industry, and we made rapid progress. I am pleased to be able to say that we reached agreement on the matter, and I commend new clause 16 to the House.
Mr. David Hunt (Wirral, West):
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and congratulate all those involved on some speedy work. I pressed my hon. Friend to try to ensure that the work was done in time for this Finance Bill, and that has been done. I am sure that the measure will overcome a number of anomalies, and will enable a number of investment decisions to be made that might otherwise not be made, or perhaps might not be so well-timed.
My hon. Friend will know that I have raised a number of other matters on behalf of the shipping industry, an industry that is vital to the future of this country. I am grateful to him for agreeing that further meetings can take place, so that we can explore a number of other matters further.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The Opposition welcome and support the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause calls for a report to be made on the effects of the Budget and the Finance Bill on employment and job insecurity. We see this as part of the focus that this country needs on employment generation and tackling job insecurity. We are arguing that the measures in the Budget and the Finance Bill should be assessed for their effects on jobs and on helping people into jobs in a far more comprehensive and purposeful way than happens at present. We believe that the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"--the Red Book--which quite properly devotes substantial space to the effect of the Budget's tax and public spending proposals on revenue yields and costs, borrowing and the public finances, ought also to evaluate the employment implications.
That is especially important at present, when Britain has not only 2.2 million unemployed, but 800,000 long-term unemployed and 600,000 young unemployed. Even when unemployment has fallen, there has not been a corresponding increase in employment. Job insecurity has become a more pressing concern for millions of people, and Conservative Members would do well to remember that when they attempt to boast about the Government's record on unemployment.
If Conservative Members want an explanation why the so-called feel-good factor remains so elusive, they need look no further than the fact that, on top of the Government's betrayal on tax promises and on top of last year's fall in living standards--the sharpest for 14 years--we still have not only high unemployment, but many people in work suffering downward mobility and insecurity, and people riddled with anxiety about how long their job will last and what will happen if they lose it.
It is true that there are already some contributions on the labour market within the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". For example, in annex B to chapter 3 of last year's Red Book, there are some interesting remarks by the Treasury's panel of independent advisers that some Conservative Members seem to ignore when making claims about unemployment. For example, on page 61 it says:
There follows an analysis of the dismal employment record in this recovery compared with previous recoveries, concluding that
Although it is helpful to have that evaluation of the labour market from the panel, the new clause argues that we should go beyond that and focus attention much more closely on the employment implications of the Budget measures themselves. For example, it would be useful to have a broad report on the composition of the labour market, categorised by tenure in terms of part-time, full-time, temporary and self-employed employment. Each category could be analysed in terms of qualification for employment rights and turnover within the category.
At present, those in full-time work qualify for full rights after two years of service, and that requirement rises to five years for those in part-time work. It would therefore be important to include an analysis of turnover within each category and between categories, so that the extent of job insecurity can be properly ascertained.
As well as analysis of the labour market broken down into those categories, it would be useful to assess the direct effects of the Budget on new jobs. Employment creation should be broken down in the same way as the fuller picture of the labour market to keep track of any headway being made on countering job insecurity and encouraging quality employment.
On a more specific basis, the impact of Budget changes in tax, expenditure or national insurance could be more directly assessed in terms of jobs and employment. For example, in this year's Red Book, the revenue implications for the extension of the rebate on employers' national
insurance contributions for the long-term unemployed are listed on page 107. They are costed at £5 million in 1996-97 and 1997-98 and £10 million in 1998-99, but there is no mention of the corresponding impact on alleviating long-term unemployment within the Red Book--the very purpose that is argued for the measure.
In future years, that could with benefit be factored in for specific taxation and expenditure measures. In addition, the much broader impact on employment of Government policies on taxation, national insurance contributions and employment rights in the tenure and distribution of the labour market, both for existing jobs and for those newly created, could be included. We want that information not merely for the better analysis of what is happening, but to focus attention on the need for action if unemployment and job insecurity are to be tackled with real effect.
Since the publication of the Red Book last November, the picture has worsened further. Unemployment rose last month for the first time in two years, to reach more than 2.2 million. Not only is mass unemployment a symptom of Tory Britain, but, under the present Government, the 1990s have become a decade of mass downward mobility and insecurity. Many of those who have jobs are insecure in them and overshadowed by the threat of redundancy. Many are having to move into lower-paid jobs, with less secure contracts and conditions.
What is more, whatever the convenience and attraction of part-time work for many employees, which we recognise, according to the March labour force survey, nearly half the men in part-time work say that they work part-time because they cannot get a full-time job. The facts speak for themselves. Our analysis has revealed that more than 8 million people have had at least one spell of unemployment since the last general election. This year, more than 2 million new people are likely to experience a spell of unemployment, and, since the Prime Minister took office in 1990, no fewer than 10 million people have experienced one or more spells of unemployment. That is one in four of the working population.
Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington):
So that we get the figures in context, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the average length of the period of unemployment that those 8 million people experienced?
Mr. Smith:
I do not have the figure to hand, but any period of unemployment is too long for those who suffer it. The aim of public policy in the area--the role of the state in assisting the individual--should be to help to equip them with the skills to ensure that they can get back into quality employment as quickly as possible. In that sense, the true measure of the success of policies to counter unemployment is not merely, where appropriate, to attenuate the rate at which people are losing jobs, but to ensure that, when they do lose them, they are in a position to get back into jobs.
The tragedy at the moment is that 2.2 million people are unemployed, another 2 million are likely to experience a spell of unemployment this year, and there are 800,000 long-term unemployed, who have been out of work for more than a year, and 600,000 young unemployed, for whom I hope the whole House would agree there is a case for priority action.
'. Schedule (Roll-over relief in respect of ships) to this Act (which amends sections 33A to 33F of the Capital Allowances Act 1990) shall have effect.'.--[Mr. Jack.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
"The recovery in the labour market appears to be losing momentum. Employment growth has slowed, and the rate of decline of unemployment has slowed sharply."
"it is clear that there has been a substantial increase in numbers counted as economically inactive . . . the peculiar feature of the recovery . . . is that participation has not picked up."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |