| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare): The Secretary of State mentioned small businesses. I hear what he is saying about regulation. Would he be prepared to commit the Government to producing an annual report assessing the impact of regulation on small businesses? That would enable us to see whether what he says is true.
Mr. Mandelson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. I am glad to say that the Government's better regulation task force is about to embark on a close examination of the impact of regulation on small and medium enterprises--and not before time.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham misunderstands the thrust of the Government's policy on the application of social policy to business. It is to combine flexibility with decency. I am sorry that that is an alien concept to him. All seriously concerned and committed business people in this country support the idea.
The right hon. Gentleman ignored the offsetting benefits of the working time directive, which include higher productivity, reduced absenteeism and improved employment relations. What is more, it was agreed under the Tories. Would they campaign in Brussels--not that it would do them any good--for the repeal of the statutory
three weeks holiday a year for people in work in this country? Is that the policy of the Conservatives? Their silence is very telling.
Mr. Mandelson:
No, I am sorry. I want the official line from the official Conservative spokesman, not the provisional wing of the Conservative party.
Mr. Mandelson:
And here it is.
Mr. Redwood:
The Secretary of State should remember that we asked for a debate on the issue. Unfortunately, he was obviously not interested enough to listen to what I said. I set out our position at great length, and produced a number of helpful suggestions to make it cheaper for businesses to implement the directive. Our criticism was directed particularly at the massive administrative cost. We do not think that it will help people on low incomes as much as it will create a massive bureaucracy. That is what the right hon. Gentleman should be addressing. I am sorry that he did not bother to read my remarks.
Mr. Mandelson:
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate, and he got it. I want an answer to my question: would he repeal the directive? Does he believe that it would be right to deny people in this country a statutory three-week holiday a year? Is that so wrong? Is that so unacceptable?
Mr. Mandelson:
No, I am sorry. I want the official Conservative party policy.
The welfare-to-work programme, which the Conservatives also attack, makes the labour market more flexible. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should just listen for a moment, and I shall explain. It creates greater flexibility by breaking down the barriers that trap people in long-term unemployment. It increases the supply of labour in the economy, its quality and its employability. That is the point of the new deal and other welfare-to-work measures. I am very sorry that the Conservatives are so short-sighted and narrow-minded that they cannot understand that our measures are helpful to flexibility and employability, and therefore helpful to the competitiveness and success of the British economy.
Mr. Brady:
I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's rather odd definition of flexibility. Which European economy does he consider to have the most flexible labour market?
Mr. Mandelson:
Britain compares with the best in the European Union. Indeed, we exceed the flexibility of many other member states. We are determined to protect that, and build on it. The Conservatives refuse to accept that flexibility can be combined with decency and minimum standards for working people.
The Government's actions are designed to steer a stable course through the world's turbulence, and to offset the immediate repercussions. I have already said that I am saddened by any job loss, every family hit by unemployment, and every locality hit by closure. That is why we have taken steps to reduce the hurt, not by bailing out firms--of course not--but by providing training and employment opportunities for those affected by closures; by working with the companies concerned, such as Fujitsu and Siemens, to try to save jobs by finding new owners for the plants; and by targeting the areas most in need through the single regeneration budget, European funds and assistance to companies.
The Government have introduced a package of measures to provide immediate help for those affected by major redundancies. It includes rapid response teams to provide counselling, careers guidance and advice on retraining opportunities.
For example, in response to the closure in September of the Fujitsu plant near my town in County Durham, the Government are providing £625,000 from the rapid response fund for additional training resources. Already, 123 people have found new jobs, and 377 are engaged in training. That is action that could be expected of a Labour Government in the face of an economic downturn. We shall strengthen our programme of measures in the coming months wherever necessary.
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall):
Siemens and Fujitsu received considerable grant assistance for setting up. Will some of that be repaid to go towards the retraining costs, the redundancy costs and all the costs involved in encouraging people and helping them back into work? Surely those companies should provide at least some contribution to those costs.
Mr. Mandelson:
The hon. Gentleman touches on an important issue, which we need to keep under review as we assist Siemens to find a future buyer for that plant. If those efforts are not successful, the issue of repayment of the grant will arise. Siemens did not receive all the money, and the management has told the Government that the initial grant will be repaid, as is right.
We are doing a great deal. In each region, the single regeneration budget will provide support for areas affected by closures. Following the Chancellor's comprehensive spending review, the Government are allocating new funding to regional development agencies across the country over the next three years. In the context of the RDAs' regeneration activity, projects helping areas worst affected by closure will be treated as a priority.
That is important work. I ask all hon. Members to keep a sense of perspective in their understandable and real concerns about job losses. There is certainly no comparison between the conditions we face today and those during the recession which was manufactured by the Tories in 1990.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham called this debate to paint a picture of doom and gloom across the country. I know that the CBI regional trends survey talks of falling optimism, but let us look at just some of the
facts and the picture across the country. In the eastern region, there has been a net gain of nearly 11,000 jobs over the past four weeks.
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mandelson:
I should like to develop this passage of my speech.
In the east midlands, there has been a net gain of more than 1,600 jobs over the past four weeks. In the north-west, there has been a net gain of nearly 2,500 jobs over the past four weeks--300 new jobs at Zeneca Pharmaceuticals in Cheshire, and 1,000 new jobs at the Vauxhall car plant in Ellesmere Port.
In the north-east as well, there has been a net gain of nearly 500 jobs over the past four weeks--200 new jobs in ship repair at A and P Appledore in Wallsend only last week. In Scotland, there has been a net gain of nearly 4,000 jobs over the past four weeks--270 new jobs at Seagate microelectronics, and 1,000 new jobs in new Virgin Trains call centres. In London, almost 1,900 new jobs have been created since the beginning of the financial year.
I am not saying that the picture is not mixed: of course it is. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] Only a Tory Member of Parliament, trying to make political capital, could ignore the simple fact that the British economy is still creating more jobs than it is losing: more than 400,000 since May 1997. Indeed, it is still growing, albeit modestly.
Mr. Redwood:
Before the Secretary of State concludes his remarks, will he answer the questions that I have asked him in the motion, which I worded, and in the letter that I sent him in advance so that he had plenty of warning to research his answers? The House and industry needs to know which of the many public policy recommendations in the McKinsey report he and his colleagues will implement; otherwise, business will be mired in uncertainty, making its task even more difficult.
Mr. Mandelson:
I have already responded to the right hon. Gentleman about his letter on milk quotas, new hotels and the like--questions on all of which are perfectly important and serious. They will, of course, receive a serious and considered reply in due course. That is exactly what he would expect.
I have not yet finished my speech--the right hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to hear--because I want to make the point that not only do this Government have a good record in job creation, but we continue to attract record levels of inward investment. We are still, this year, leading the way in Europe. If the Tory analysis were right, surely investors would be turning their backs on us. The facts show otherwise.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |