| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jobseekers
11. Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): What steps his Department is taking to ensure that people receiving jobseeker's allowance meet their responsibilities of looking for work and improving their employability. [88977]
The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Everyone receiving the jobseeker's allowance signs an agreement on the steps that they will take to find a job. That is monitored fortnightly by the Employment Service. If people do not meet their responsibilities to be available for work and look for jobs, they can lose their benefits, but the overwhelming majority want jobs--and, under the present Government, more and more are obtaining jobs.
Dr. Ladyman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and commend his efforts to encourage people to find work. May I put it to him, however, that one of the barriers confronting unemployed people who are trying to improve their employability is the fact that so many of the training funds that are available are still focused on people who are already in work, or on employers and their new recruits, rather than on those who are out of work? That strategy is clearly inappropriate in areas of high unemployment such as my constituency. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about this serious problem?
Mr. Smith: As we develop the new deal and implement the continuous improvement strategy, we shall involve employers to a greater extent in pre-employment training programmes. Training that is detached from workplace experience is far less effective than training in conjunction with a job or an opportunity for work experience. The evidence from the new deal shows that, as does all the evidence and evaluation of training for work. Employers such as Stagecoach who operate pre-employment training through the new deal are both finding a ready source of good recruits and helping many people who had given up on the prospect of getting a job back into the workplace.
Utilities (Job Creation)
12. Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): What estimate he has made of the number of new jobs created by utility companies since 1 May 1997. [88978]
The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The number of employee jobs in the electricity, gas, water supply and telecommunications industries in Great Britain increased by 2,000 to 342,000 between March 1997 and March 1999.
Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for those figures, but I wonder what work his Department has done to monitor which is more successful in creating real jobs more cost effectively: the utility companies or the new deal. May I refer him to an example from my own constituency? A local electricity company has so far created 500 new jobs in building a new gas-fired power station, despite the Government's moratorium on gas-fired power stations. Half of those 500 new jobs are guaranteed to employ local people, yet, according to the
last count, only 67 new jobs have been created under the new deal in the whole of West Sussex. Which is the more effective creator of new jobs?
Mr. Smith: Of course businesses generate jobs. The task of the new deal is to equip people with the skills to fill those vacancies. Of the net increase of 2,000 jobs in the utilities industries that I just mentioned, 230 are new-deal subsidised, and there will be many more unsubsidised jobs in the total. As for the record of the new deal in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he might like to pay tribute to the efforts of local people, who have secured a 65 per cent. reduction in long-term youth unemployment in his area. That is testimony to the success of the new deal and the way in which it works in partnership with utilities and other businesses.
Class Sizes (Leicestershire)
13. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): If he will make a statement on the average class size for children aged seven to 11 years in Leicestershire. [88979]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): In Leicestershire, the average primary class has fallen from 26.9 to 26.7 between January 1998 and January 1999. The key stage 1 average has fallen to 25.3 compared to 25.8 last year, and key stage 2 classes average 28.0 compared to 27.8 last year. The number of pupils in primary classes of more than 30 has also fallen, from 14,984 to 14,551.
Mr. Robathan: It is therefore obvious that class sizes are going up for those aged between seven and 11. It is said:
- "the rhetoric is of much greater funding but all the announcements of extra government money for education are meaningless to us in Leicestershire . . . we do not have enough money to pay for the teachers we need or to improve the learning environment."
- "It is not convincing for this government . . . to blame the Local Authority . . . The SSA is fundamentally inequitable."
- "Why should a child at school in Leicestershire have so much less money spent on her or his education than a child living elsewhere"--
Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman invites me to address the question of Leicestershire. The county's LEA received almost £1.5 million this year to fund 57 extra teachers and build six extra classrooms to enable it to reduce infant class sizes. The funding that we are providing will enable the LEA to reduce the number of infant pupils in large classes from 3,146 in September 1998 to 2,630 in September 1999. The LEA has said that it will implement the policy in full by September 2000.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, when we compare Leicestershire with other parts of the country, we find that the average class size in that county is less than the average for England as a whole, and that Leicestershire has more children in smaller classes than the England average. That is a good record of which the Government can rightly be proud, and I wish that, rather than nit-picking from the edge, he would join us in celebrating that.
Mr. Andrew Reed (Loughborough):
I welcome the figures that the Minister has announced today. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who, before the election, was opposed to reducing class sizes, has been heard in the House on many occasions denigrating the work that has been done. However, will the Minister take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the standard spending assessment and Leicestershire's funding? We have a double problem in that not only is the SSA less than those in other parts of the country--I am sure that the difference will be made up in the coming years--but there is a shortfall of £1.5 million that the LEA has received from the Department but not passed to local schools. Will the Minister ensure that, in future, moneys provided by the Department to the LEA go to schools to ensure that targets are met?
Mr. Clarke:
I take very seriously representations on SSAs because they concern many issues that have been raised in Leicestershire and other parts of the country. I take even more seriously the issue that my hon. Friend mentioned about passporting the money. That is why, about 10 days ago, we published data setting out exactly what every local authority is doing, and that will enable a proper assessment to be made.
Post Office
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office White Paper, which the Government published today.
The White Paper sets an agenda for the Post Office to offer a world-class service for the 21st century. Today's announcement is good news for the Post Office and all those whose livelihoods depend on it, because it can now build for the future with real confidence. It is good news for the Post Office's millions of customers, who will benefit from improved services from a new, modernised Post Office and from greater competition for postal services.
The White Paper brings an end to the uncertainty that has dogged the Post Office over the last decade: uncertainty over its role and place in society; uncertainty over its long-term viability and ownership; uncertainty over the universal service obligation; and uncertainty over the Post Office network. Today, we provide certainty and a new sense of direction and purpose based on modernisation and reform.
Throughout the world, postal markets are changing at an increasingly rapid rate. Globalisation of postal services, the growth of faxes and e-mail, more demanding customers and greater liberalisation of markets are driving change as never before. It is a question not of whether markets will become more competitive, but of how far and how fast that will happen.
The Post Office already faces fierce competition, not only from private sector couriers but from other post offices throughout Europe and from the internet. I know that the Post Office management views change and greater competition as an opportunity, not a threat. It is an opportunity to enter new markets and to overhaul the Post Office's business processes. It is an opportunity for new ventures and new alliances. It is an opportunity to prove that the Post Office can compete against the best in the world, and do so successfully.
To compete effectively and fulfil its potential, however, the Post Office needs greater flexibility. If it is not given greater freedom to expand into wider and international markets, it will find itself confined to a diminishing sector of the postal market, saddled with falling value and shrinking profits.
That is why, in this White Paper, the Government are mapping out the most radical set of reforms since the modern Post Office was created in 1969--reforms that will ensure that the Post Office can provide the services that we need in the 21st century.
The White Paper proposes that the Post Office be subject to effective market disciplines coupled with regulation, and be allowed new commercial freedoms. Operating at arm's length from Government, it will have the freedom to grow and the means to succeed.
Existing mail services will be maintained and, indeed, strengthened as, for the first time, the universal service obligation, including the requirement to deliver to all addresses, will be laid down in law. That will guarantee a uniform tariff for those services. The cost of a stamp will be the same, regardless of the distance of delivery. I am pleased to confirm that the free service for visually impaired people will continue.
Stronger competition and better regulation will work together to keep prices down, and improve service quality and consumer choice. As part of the balanced package that we are bringing forward, greater commercial freedom must be matched with some liberalisation. The White Paper, therefore, proposes a reduction in the monopoly from the present £1 limit to 50p or 150 g with effect from 1 April 2000.
A new independent postal services regulator will promote consumer interests, regulate prices and ensure that the Post Office provides a high level of service to all households and businesses. Consumers' views will be championed by a greatly strengthened Post Office Users National Council, which will have the power to refer poor performance by the Post Office to the regulator and will be able to recommend the levels of fine to be imposed for bad service.
The Post Office Counters network, which plays such a valuable role in local communities, particularly for the less mobile, will be strengthened by our decision to put the Horizon project back on track.
We shall equip all 19,000 post offices with a modern, on-line computer system. It will enable the Post Office to modernise and improve the service that it gives to existing clients and customers, and to win the new business on which the future success of the post office network will depend.
For the first time, the Government will lay down minimum criteria to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has reasonable access to post office counter services, particularly in rural parts of the country and areas of social deprivation. The new regulator and the users council will monitor the network against those criteria.
We have agreed arrangements with the Post Office for maintaining a network of Crown offices, which will handle at least 15 per cent. of total counters business. Where appropriate, new Crown offices may be opened.
Although the Government will set out clear objectives for the Post Office, they will not be involved in day-to-day business operations. The Post Office Board will be responsible for running the Post Office, based on a rolling five-year strategic plan, which will be agreed with the Government. Clear duties, real powers and necessary resources to promote consumer interests will be given to the independent regulator and the users council. Annual reports will be published by the Government, the Post Office, the regulator and the users council on their roles and performance during the year.
We shall implement as much of this package as possible through administrative action and secondary legislation. However, primary legislation will be needed, as soon as parliamentary time permits, to complete the full package of reforms.
Primary legislation will be necessary to transform the Post Office into a public limited company. That will underline the new commercial freedoms and help to establish clearly the separate functions of ownership and management, by subjecting the Post Office to the full range of company law. In particular, the directors will owe their duty to the company, not directly to the Government.
There have been suggestions from some quarters that this is part of a plan to privatise the Post Office by stealth. There are no such plans. As we stated in our manifesto--
and we keep to our manifesto commitments--we intend to provide commercial freedom, while retaining the Post Office in public ownership.
I can therefore inform the House that the Act of Parliament to create the Post Office as a public limited company will make it clear that we would not seek to dispose of Post Office shares without further primary legislation.
As my predecessor's statement on 7 December made clear, we cannot ignore the possibility that the Post Office might wish to enter into a joint venture or strategic alliance with another company, and might wish to cement this with a limited sale or exchange of equity. In such cases, it would not always be sensible or practical to seek parliamentary approval through a separate Act of Parliament. However, I can assure the House that any such proposal would be debated and voted on in both Houses of Parliament.
To ensure that the Post Office can compete in the fast-moving domestic and international postal market, we will give the Post Office the greater commercial freedom that it has long desired. That will help the Post Office to be more competitive, and more responsive to market developments and evolving customer demands.
The Government's financial demand on the Post Office will be reduced to match commercial dividend rates. From April next year, it will be cut to 40 per cent. of post-tax profits--more than half the rate at which profits have been removed from the business in recent years. That will be worth an estimated £150 million a year--money that will go directly to the Post Office.
We shall also allow the Post Office to borrow at commercial rates for growth investments--up to £75 million a year without approval from the Government. That will give the Post Office greater freedom to enter into acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances and partnerships. However, the Government recognise that the Post Office has been starved of resources as a result of the previous Government's approach. The Post Office cannot wait until April next year for the additional resources necessary to ensure that it can compete in the modern postal market. We therefore intend to take action immediately.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |