Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I take very seriously the points of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson)who is not present, and must have very good reasons for not being so. They made serious contributions, touching
not only on our response to the current downturn, but on what should follow. Between them, they made some very astute points about matters such as the low-carbon economy, green jobs, and taking some time as we work through the unemployment that is currently with us to lay the groundwork for what the economy will look like afterwards. That is a difficult trick to pull off, but it is one that a Government of any political persuasion should be trying to perform.
I accept the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) about the £2 billion, because that is essential to keep Jobcentre Plus going and working effectively. I also take his pointnot least because we recently announced the Houghton reportabout the role of local government of all political persuasions in working with its local communities to do everything possible for local labour markets.
A point was made about the six-month offer that will come in from April. That will be for everybody at six months, and in this instance it is right and proper to say what we will do in January, to get on then with the design work, and to make sure it is available for people by the end of this month. That is the way it should be.
When the predecessor of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead announced a similar scheme last November, it was utterly for the birds for the following reasons: there was no funding at all; it was as if it had been written on the back of the proverbial envelope, which is the politically correct way of saying the back of a fag packet; and crucially, her colleagues had made utterly wrong assumptions about the cost of people being unemployed for 12 months, forgetting that, even now in the depths of this downturn, Jobcentre Plus does help people back into work60 per cent. within three months, and 75 per cent. within six months. What the Opposition came up with was not costed; therefore, it was not worth the paper it was written on.
People must be offered substantial help, support and promise, rather than suggestions, all of which are fatuous if there is no money behind them. Because of its deception, that is a cruel way to conduct politics, especially given the serious nature of these issues. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady chunters away from a sedentary position. She was asked time and again, notwithstanding the fact that she has two shadow Chancellors, to stand up to both of them and agree that the £2 billion can, and should, be spent now as a real help for people throughout Jobcentre Plus. Answer came there noneabsolutely none. I still offer her the chance to do that, but she is still not forthcoming.
I do not want to dwell on the past, and I do not think the Secretary of State dwelt on it. This is all about the future, save for one point: we must learn from the past. We have learned from the good and bad elements of all aspects of the new deal over the past 10 years, and those lessons are informing the flexible new deal. We also can, and should, learn from previous recessions, and we will not face the people of this country without learning those lessons and ensuring we do not dump people sideways on to benefits just for the sake of it and leave them alone. We also do notwhoever said it earlier was wrongcook the books and change the statistics 19 times for our own purpose, as we would far rather work with the numbers as they are. Also, it cannot be in anybodys interestI start from the position that every Member of the House agrees with thisthat we leave anybody to
one side and do not help them. Therefore, we push on with welfare reform despite the downturn, and we offer everybody as much help as we can.
The one lesson from our recent history, regardless of the party politics involved in previous recessions, is that now, more than ever, we cannot stand idly by while anybody suffers from this recession. All of us must make sure that the UK gets out of this in as strong a position as possiblethe country will not forgive this Chamber if that is not what prevails.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
That this House notes that unemployment is rising in Britain and across the world; believes that unemployment is never a price worth paying and that as unemployment rises the amount of support that is offered should be increased; further notes that the Government is investing nearly £2 billion extra into giving additional assistance for the unemployed and that this will provide additional help to people losing their jobs, including a national rapid response service to react to redundancy situations, advice from day one of unemployment on skills and finding a job, assistance to pay mortgage bills to prevent people losing both their jobs and their homes, cash incentives for employers to recruit and train unemployed people, more training opportunities to help people back to work and more places on the New Deal employment programme; believes that it is preferable to invest millions into helping people now than to spend billions of pounds of public money on benefits in the future; further notes that in previous recessions the numbers on inactive benefits were allowed to increase dramatically; further believes that the mistakes of previous recessions must be avoided by investing now to prevent people becoming long-term unemployed today; and further believes that the Government should increase the support offered to people trapped on benefits by previous recessions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House opposes the forthcoming blanket imposition in Britain of the 48- hour working week under the European Working Time Directive in August 2009; welcomes improvements in the workplace which improve safety and general wellbeing but does not believe that the further implementation of the Directive is necessary to deliver this; notes in particular the potential impact on patient safety arising from reduced and inflexible working hours for NHS doctors; recognises the additional constraints imposed on the NHS by the SiMAP and Jaeger judgements; is disturbed by the negative impact of the Directive on medical training and on the viability of some frontline services; further notes that the New Deal for Doctors in 1991 would have secured the necessary reduction in junior doctors hours; regrets a series of missed opportunities to amend the worst aspects of the Directive since 2003; expresses solidarity with other member states who are finding the Directive impracticable, including the 15 countries that currently depend on derogation; further notes that the loss of the opt-out and the distinction between active and inactive on-call time would also be deeply damaging to British business and other public services such as those provided by retained fire-fighters; fully agrees with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform that the UK should stand firm in support of the opt-out; deeply regrets that most Labour Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have failed to support the Governments position; advises Labour MEPs to support the retention of the opt-out; and urges the Government to give full consideration to alternative solutions.
We have given up waiting for the Government to allow Parliament to debate the issues that will have most impact on the health service, so I am very glad that my colleagues have once again allowed us to raise an issue that is timely and important as regards the management of the national health service. I hope that we have not gone beyond the point at which the Government can do something to remedy the problems. The timing is important.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lansley: I will in a moment; I have not begun yet [ Interruption. ] Perhaps I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, since he might be eager to go to dinner.
Sir Robert Smith: I am eager to hear the hon. Gentlemans words, especially as there is considerable concern in the health service about the impact on training and on the development of doctors. The motion should go wider, however. There is great concern in the north-east of Scotland about the future of the retained fire brigade service and the working time directive. I wanted to add that important focus to his introductory remarks.
Mr. Lansley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has neglected to read the motion that I have just moved, which
further notes that the loss of the opt-out and the distinction between active and inactive on-call time would also be deeply damaging to British business and other public services such as those provided by retained fire-fighters.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |