| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about long-term funding. Obviously, there is a comprehensive spending review time frame, but clearly we want more certainty, which is why we are looking at the way in which we provide contracts so that they can take into account such things and are outcome-focused, too. We should not just provide people with a contract and that is it: it should be more outcome and results-focused—a
point that is made, he will agree, by the Freud report, and one of the many points that we have picked up.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about child care, I am not sure that he listened carefully to what I had to say. As I provided him with a copy of my statement, he might have checked it out in advance. We are linking the measure, especially for lone parents, for whom we start to bring the age down to seven years old by October 2010, to the availability of child care. If we reach the targets that we have set, there will be pre-school and after-school child care arrangements, and high-quality wrap-around child care. The child tax credit system is important, and there is more support for children and child care than ever before in the history of this country.
This is about providing lone parents with an opportunity that many of them crave and want, so we need support arrangements to enable them to take advantage of that opportunity and lift themselves and their children out of the poverty in which far too many of them are still stuck. The truth is that we have lifted people out of poverty in greater millions in recent times, and certainly compared with the previous Government. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. We have made a start on tackling inequality by that route, and we have provided, too, the highest level of employment ever in the history of this country.
Danny Alexander: What about the rate?
Mr. Hain: The truth is that more people have come on to the labour market in the past year than ever before, yet employment has still been rising, and unemployment is still falling —[ Interruption. ] I do not mind the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) heckling me—he is welcome to do so—but he should compare our record as a Government, which is a proud record on employment, with his miserable record on employment, especially in areas outside the south-east where unemployment was steep and long-term and many people disappeared on to the dole, never to have any hope or prospect of a job. That is the record that we are now seeking to replace and improve. There are big challenges ahead, which is why the Green Paper signposts the way to meet them.
Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will know that employment in the northern region was decimated under the Conservative party. He will also know that the new deal introduced by our Government has enabled 240,000 people to find work in the region. However, we still have a problem: we have under-employment, a skills gap and a percentage of people who are still registered unemployed.
During the consultation, will the Department be prepared to accept information from organisations such as Blind People’s Voice—whose programme Visage helps blind and partially sighted people into work—and TTP, which is highly successful in providing employment for skilled people in Teesside? Will my right hon. Friend also bear it in mind that many thousands of people in the northern region still feel thoroughly unconfident? We need a new deal programme that will encourage young and middle-aged people to believe that they have talents, and that we want to see them in employment.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a statement, and we must have supplementary questions, not speeches. That sounded too much like a speech.
Mr. Hain: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. As one who represents a part of south Wales with much of the same legacy of the terrible Tory years, I know that we must continue to tackle it.
We will work with my hon. Friend, and with everyone who wants to work with us in all parts of the House, to try to make this programme work. We certainly intend to conduct our consultation on a regional basis, and I hope that my hon. Friend will work with us in the northern region. We also intend to work with organisations such as Blind People’s Voice and TTP. It is important that we get the programme right.
I remind the House that there are still big challenges to be met. There are still 4.5 million people on benefit, many of whom want to work and have the potential to do so. If we are to reach the 80 per cent. employment target that we have set to make our economy truly globally competitive for the future, realising that ambition will require 1 million fewer claimants on incapacity benefit, and 300,000 more lone parents and 1 million more older people in work. That is our ambition: not to go backwards into a failed Tory past, but to provide a successful future for Britain under Labour.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con): May I press the Secretary of State a little further on his proposal to end the entitlement to income support of lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 or over simply because they are lone parents? I suspect many people understand that there is a natural change of gear when a child enters secondary school that may provide more time for parents to find jobs, but why do the Government propose to lower the age to seven, when there is no such natural change of gear? What is the thinking behind the age of seven, rather than six, eight or some other age?
Mr. Hain: This is an opportunity programme, not a “big stick” programme. As I have said, under this Government there are over 300,000 more lone parents in work than in the past. They are doing better than ever before, and they have been able to lift their children out of poverty as well as taking for themselves all the advantages and dignity that come with work.
In our judgment, moving the age to seven—given the correct child support arrangements, along with support for parents that enables them to work in a way that protects their own interests and those of their children—presents a big opportunity. The point is that most of those people want to work. I think that provided that the circumstances are right, and—as we made clear in the Green Paper—provided that child care support is available, from 8 am pre-school to 6 pm post-school, lone parents who wish to work when their children reach the age of seven should be given the opportunity to do so. They should then move not from income support to nothing, but from income support to jobseeker’s allowance. That will give them a chance
to make progress in a work-based environment, with regular interviews and all the opportunities that that brings.
Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend’s localised and personalised approach. It has proved effective in pathways to work pilot schemes around the country, especially in helping people off incapacity benefit and into work. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that whereas large voluntary sector organisations may well have the infrastructure and capacity to deliver such programmes in partnership with the Government and others, we should not lose sight of what small voluntary sector organisations can offer, particularly in local areas? Will he ensure that they are not squeezed out of the system?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly do that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many small voluntary organisations, especially in local areas, know their areas well, and often harness local people’s potential, expertise and commitment to their communities. Far from being squeezed out, they should have more opportunities as a result of our approach, which—generally after 12 months, and in some cases earlier—will give them a greater stake in making progress and thus helping many more people into work.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): The Secretary of State is right to stress that child care is crucial to the age reductions to 12 and seven, but he will know that it is often a problem in rural areas, especially when the market has failed and the private sector simply cannot provide. What steps will he take to ensure that rural areas are given particular attention before the age reductions come into force?
Mr. Hain: Child care places—places in children’s centres, or pre-school or after-school places—are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as in mine. We intend to work closely with that Government, and with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives, although in Northern Ireland employment programmes are not covered by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Rural areas do suffer from problems such as those that the hon. Gentleman has described. We need to proceed carefully. The extra obligations that will apply to those coming off incapacity benefit, or income support in the case of lone parents, must be matched with opportunities—and, for those with young children, child care support, so that they can work in the way that they wish while ensuring that their children are looked after properly.
Flexible working is important to lone parents in particular. We were told this morning by the large retailers, including Sainsbury, that their tremendously variable hours were ideal for lone parents, even at weekends when family support is generally more available.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab):
I assure the Secretary of State that there will be considerable support for his proposals, at least on this side of the House. Does he not admit, however, that in the light of the Government’s record creation of new jobs since 1997, the movement from benefit to work has been
modest, to put it mildly? During the past three years 2 million people have come to this country, practically all of them to work, yet the number moving from benefit to work is minor. Does the Secretary of State think that he can achieve his employment target if we continue an open-borders policy?
Mr. Hain: I do not think that we have an open-borders policy. The interesting truth is that although over the past year a significant number of people, mostly from central and eastern European countries, have come to work in Britain—often bringing skills with them—the claimant count has fallen. The two elements are therefore not necessarily at odds with each other. However, in the new work environment and given the challenges that I described earlier—the need to achieve an 80 per cent. employment rate, and the number of people whom we need to take off benefit—we must continue our efforts. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s views, and to his assistance.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): I share the Government’s wish to return the work-inactive to work and their interest in doing so, but I am just as concerned about those who are currently losing their jobs. In my constituency, AstraZeneca, the international pharmaceutical business, is shedding 700 manufacturing jobs over the next three years, and Capital One is closing entirely its home loan brokerage business, mainly because of global competition, high costs and increased regulation. I know that the Secretary of State is concerned about such matters, so will he seek to do something about increased regulation and business costs, which are forcing companies to close and people to lose jobs?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has long taken a close interest in manufacturing not only in his constituency, but generally. Of course, any closures are regrettable. I do not wish to make a party point, but it is a fact that when there were job losses in the 1980s and early 1990s people were just thrown on to benefit, whereas nowadays Jobcentre Plus ensures that there is a rapid response to any closure and that we work with the employers and individuals involved, and in most cases almost everyone finds a new job as a result. That is what is needed in respect of the cases the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Over the past 10 years, when we have been in office, although globalisation pressures have intensified, increasing numbers of people have been entering new jobs and gaining new skills, supported by our employment programmes. Therefore, we can offer employment optimism for the future, despite the closures and job losses that inevitably occur, given competitive pressures.
Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): I am sure that most Members support the Green Paper’s general thrust of working towards achieving full employment, but I have a question about how single parents with children over the age of 12 will be dealt with under the proposals. Many single parents in my constituency perform a dual role, in that they also look after elderly parents. That is particularly prevalent in former mining areas because of the legacy of that industry. Do the Government intend to make single parents who also care for elderly relatives seek work?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important point, with which I am familiar as I, too, represent a constituency that is largely a former mining area—in a few places it is still a mining area. Such areas face particular problems, such as high levels of incapacity benefit owing to industrial injury and the need to care for elderly parents, which is often performed by single parents. We must and will have personalised responses; it is made clear in the Green Paper that that will be a cornerstone of our policy. There will not be a universal application of a rigid programme, but instead we will look at each person as an individual and make sure that they have the support they need. Many of them might not be able to work, perhaps for the reasons my hon. Friend describes, and support will continue to be provided while they are on benefit. However, we will assist those who can work to do so.
Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD): Becoming a lone parent—perhaps after a difficult separation—can be traumatic for both parent and children. Will a new single parent, who might be feeling bereaved after a separation, within days also feel pressured to seek work when they should instead be spending time with their children, who will also be feeling the bereavement of separation? How flexible will the system be? Will such single parents from day one feel under pressure, or even suffer benefit sanctions, if they do not go straight out to look for a job?
Mr. Hain: There will be no question of sanctions applying from day one, especially in such circumstances. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to put that on the record. When, for example, a father suddenly leaves or a parent dies, the lone parent’s primary desire will be to look after the children, who will need special support and help at such times. Jobcentre Plus and the wider programme will ensure that those wishes and needs are met. I genuinely want such issues to be fed into the consultation by the hon. Gentleman and others—although we have anticipated the specific point he raises—so that we ensure we get the programme right.
Our programme is ambitious. It must be an opportunity programme. It will not seek to force lone parents with young children to go into work under any circumstances. The children’s interests must be paramount, as must fighting child poverty. We can get the programme right, but that requires there to be a much more personalised form of support than previously.
Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East) (Lab): Financed by windfall utility taxes, in the first four years of the Labour Government unemployment in my constituency was halved. However, in the last six years as the funds have run out the unemployment level has stayed the same and is now rising. I will warmly welcome the statement and the Green Paper if the new ideas and initiatives are backed up with new finance. Without that, nothing will change. Will the Secretary of State confirm that new money will be available to finance the new initiatives?
Mr. Hain:
I recognise what my hon. Friend says, especially in respect of cities. In cities such as London and Leeds there are still pockets of poverty and worklessness, sometimes cheek by jowl with very high
house prices and many jobs and great prosperity. We must tailor programmes to reach those who are not benefiting from the general prosperity. However, let me add to my hon. Friend that every day 4,000 jobs are delivered through Jobcentre Plus and that there are more than 600,000 vacancies in Britain at any one time. I do not claim that they are all in his constituency—they evidently are not. We need to make sure that we provide the support that he wants.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): The Secretary of State said that he wants to have a system of support that is
“ever more personalised and responsive to the needs of individuals”,
which I welcome. However, is that aspiration compatible with his Department’s proposal to close the Christchurch Jobcentre Plus office? The Secretary of State might know that a petition signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 Christchurch citizens has been presented to the House. Will he receive a deputation led by me from the local authority and people of Christchurch in order to try to establish some sort of partnership and to achieve the objectives set out in the Green Paper, instead of closing its Jobcentre Plus office?
Mr. Hain: The Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform will be happy to receive a delegation seeking to take forward the hon. Gentleman’s campaign. I understand his position. I have received representations from many hon. Friends on such local issues, and they are difficult to solve. We have been trying to take resources from back office Jobcentre Plus functions to ensure that we get the maximum resources to the front line. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, personalised support is essential if we are to meet the challenge of getting people, many of whom have been on long-term benefits, into the world of work—if they are able to enter it.
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) (Lab): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the Green Paper, and he is right to remind Members that we have the highest employment in our history. We certainly should support the free movement of labour throughout the enlarged European Union and the great migration of workers from central and eastern Europe to this country, as it helps us achieve faster economic growth. Is he aware, however, of there being any evidence that that will make it harder to drive down unemployment among certain social groups in our society? Will he also tell us whether some of our major banks and insurance companies are among the major employers who have agreed to interview people who have been unemployed for a long time?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |