| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned flexibility and competitiveness. In the Budget, the Chancellor said that
"of 3.4 million unskilled jobs today, we will need only 600,000 by 2020."—[Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 292.]
Does he agree that the scrapping of the scheme, which created flexibility and competitiveness by giving people skills, would be disastrous if we wish to create skilled labour to replace unskilled labour?
Mr. Francois: I agree. The Chancellor said little about the initiative in his Budget speech but, equally, he said little about the national health service. However, he evidently tried to hide what was being done. Our role in the House is to try to expose that, and then try to persuade the Government to change their mind.
There was adverse reaction from employers who have promoted the scheme to their employees, as the Government encouraged them to do. Andrew Unsworth, the head of e-Government at the city of Edinburgh council, which is Labour-run—at least until Thursday—sent the following e-mail this morning. [Interruption.] That would be lucky for the Labour party. Mr. Unsworth said:
"City of Edinburgh Council has run two very popular schemes for our monthly staff since March 2005. Take-up rates were over 2000 employees, nearly 16 per cent. of those eligible.
We were preparing to launch another scheme making computers available to our weekly and fortnightly paid staff who are predominantly on lower rates of pay. These pay groups may not otherwise be in a financial position to afford computer equipment. We viewed this as an excellent way for employees to benefit from a computer and its educational properties for both them and their families."
"This scheme provided an excellent platform to improve literacy, communication skills and overall education for employees and their families. City of Edinburgh is currently introducing more computers to schools and several staff had indicated that they were participating in this scheme for the benefit of their children.
City of Edinburgh Council have followed the HCI guidelines very closely and only included computer packages in their scheme. I would hope that the government would consider reversing its decision in this matter even if it means tightening the guideline to prevent the alleged abuse of the scheme."
Similarly, Mike Clayton, finance director of Essex fire authority, wrote to me on the 24 March:
"Take up for the scheme was excellent with over 1 in 5 employees joining. The level of take up was particularly high for firefighters where over 1 in 4 chose one of the computer packages available."
Mr. Clayton amplified his point:
"15,000 nurses took up the scheme last year. Many low paid nurses, fire officers and other key workers have access to IT for the first time because of HCI. Given the importance of computers in the lives of nearly all citizens, I hope that this proposal can be withdrawn and the take up of computers extended."
Mr. Kevan Jones:
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the low-paid gaining access to computers, but is it not the case that higher-rate
2 May 2006 : Column 888
taxpayers accounted for 25 per cent. of the take-up of the scheme, even though they account for 10 per cent. of taxpayers? His arguments would be more credible if the scheme ensured that the money went to the low-paid, as people who pay a higher rate of tax can afford computers without Government assistance.
Mr. Francois: We have already established—and everyone accepts— that 75 per cent. of people who benefited from the scheme were on the standard rate of income tax or lower. The hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the issue of higher rate taxpayers and may wish to know that the general secretary of the TUC made a similar suggestion. I would be interested to hear the Government's answer to that proposal and to find out whether they would be prepared to retain the scheme on that basis—
Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West) (Lab) rose—
Mr. Francois: I have given way several times to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and I want to make some progress. I may give way later to the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), particularly given that we greatly enjoyed his intervention on my Second Reading speech last week.
I move on now to deal with the reaction of the IT industry, including the companies that had been created to fulfil the home computer initiative objectives by facilitating the supply of computing equipment to both public and private sector enterprises, many of which will go out of business if the provision goes through. The Government's regulatory impact assessment, which was rushed out just last week in response to the furore over this issue, admits that, exceptionally, no small firms impact test has been carried out in this instance, although that would usually be the procedure. It also notes in paragraph 62, in classic Whitehall jargon:
"HMRC does expect there to be an impact for HCI providers. Particularly those in the small business sector that have been set up specifically to provide HCI schemes . . . will be impacted more significantly in the short term than businesses with more diversified business models".
The IT industry body, Intellect, put it more succinctly after the Budget:
"There are about 2,000 individuals working in this industry that Gordon Brown has just signed redundancy notices for".
Before Ministers seek to accuse anyone of crying wolf in this matter, I have to inform the House that the programme of redundancies in the companies established to support the HCI initiative has, unfortunately, already begun. Last month, Red PC became the first company to fall victim to the abolition of the HCI when it was reported that it was about to call in the liquidators. On 24 April, another company, Encompass, announced that it was closing down. As the managing director subsequently told the press:
"As a small company solely involved in providing HCI, I was completely knocked back by the Chancellor's decision. The government's Digital Strategy sets targets for 2008 so I thought the HCI scheme would run until then, and at the very least we would have 12 months notice. To be given 15 days is appalling."
At a time when unemployment is unfortunately on the rise again, it will be a great shame to see further high-tech companies going into liquidation if clause 61 remains in the Bill.
2 May 2006 : Column 889
Most importantly millions of people across the country who might have been able to take advantage of the scheme to improve their and their families' IT skills are now to be denied that opportunity. The Chancellor will now disappoint them if the scheme is withdrawn. Moreover, even those on the existing scheme will be allowed to benefit from it only until whatever agreements they have reached with their employers have expired. That is confirmed by paragraph 71 of the regulatory impact assessment:
"Changes to the exemptions for computers and mobile phones were announced in the Chancellor's Budget statement on 22 March 2006 and will take effect from 6 April 2006. However those people already participating in schemes based on the law as it applied prior to 6 April will not be affected until the period of their current agreement expires and they enter into a new agreement."
In other words, at that point they will be caught by the changes. Even the 500,000 people who are benefiting now will not do so for much longer, once their individual agreements with their employers expire.
Mr. Francois: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Wirral, West and I shall keep my word.
Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has moved on to the point that I wanted to raise. The problem is his umbrella assertion that there is an HCI industry. I do not readily accept that there is such an industry that will be abolished by the legislation. I believe that the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General are correct and that there has been a take-up over the last couple of years of only 4 per cent. That being the case, it is not clear what industry has supposed to have grown up over that time. The hon. Gentleman is talking about an industry that sells computers, which has been around for a long time. That industry will continue, irrespective of whether this particular legislation goes ahead. The hon. Gentleman has not taken into account the fact that the scheme will move on to a different phase, focused on provision for the elderly and the unemployed who really need these IT skills—[Interruption.]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |