Social Security

I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I took the trouble to look up the last four years’ debates on the uprating, and it was my understanding that they roved quite widely. However, I shall observe your strictures. We are talking about benefit recipients, and the benefits that they receive, including incapacity benefit, which is the subject of the order. We are also talking about jobseeker’s allowance and the allowances available under the new deal, so, if I may, I shall continue with my remarks, but not specifically in relation to the Green Paper. The proposals for change and reform will affect some of the people who are affected by the order today. It is important to remember that the Green Paper is very slack when it comes to detailed costings. The help that people need is not going to be delivered from existing budgets. Benefit recipients—who are the subject of the first order—will perhaps benefit under the extension of the pathways to work programme, which will be funded from existing budgets, but from 2008, there is no indication of the commitment of resources that the Government will need to deliver the help and support that benefit recipients need. Another issue related to those who will be affected by the order is the release of the labour market statistics yesterday by the Office for National Statistics. They showed a sharp rise of 17 per cent. in long-term unemployment over the past 12 months. It was particularly noticeable that 18 to 24-year-olds were the hardest hit, with an increase in youth long-term unemployment of more than 28 per cent. in the past year. The figures also show that the number of economically inactive 18 to 24-year-olds is now more than one fifth higher than it was in May 1997. The Chancellor has claimed that he would not be satisfied until he had"““removed the scar of long-term unemployment from the face of Britain.””" However, yesterday’s figures clearly show that he is nowhere near to achieving his goal. His welfare policies—the present ones and the proposed ones—have a long way to go before they deliver for young people. The Government must re-evaluate their approach to long-term unemployment and the economically inactive. I must now anticipate the question that I know Labour Members will ask me. It concerns our stance on the new deal. The future loyal Opposition—the Labour party—are keen on saying that we want to scrap the new deal and all its works. Let me place on record, so that it is absolutely clear and there is no misunderstanding, that the new, compassionate Conservative party, under the brilliant leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), says unambiguously that the Conservatives, now and when in government, believe in active intervention to get people who can work and who want to work back into work. The principle of the new deal, and of a Government backing welfare-to-work policies, is not in doubt, and I hope that Labour Members will be mature enough to accept that we are all on the same page in wanting to help people back into work—[Interruption.] Hon. Members ask whether I would keep the new deal. The straightforward answer is that every single commitment made in a manifesto is for the lifetime of a Parliament. If the party that put forward those proposals in the manifesto was not fortunate enough to get into government, the basic laws of politics mean that that manifesto would fall. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has already said that we will be doing patient, long-term policy work on a range of policies over the next 18 months, but let me say that we have grave concerns about how the Labour new deal is configured. Let me tell the House why. We have yet to see any proper evaluation to describe and detail the cost to the taxpayer and to Government budgets for every new job created. Research published by John Van Reenen of the Centre for Economic Performance in April 2004 said:"““The jobs created are much smaller than the total numbers of young people who have gone through the New Deal and into jobs . . . This is mainly because the majority of those people would have attained employment even in the absence of the New Deal.””" It is difficult to judge from the evidence available how many people have got jobs because of the new deal and how many would have got jobs in any event. In short, the statistics released by the Department for Work and Pensions in, for instance, ““New Deal for Lone Parents: Statistics to end of August 2005”” show that 42 per cent. went into employment, either sustained or not sustained; 13 per cent. went into employment and in-work benefit; and 37 per cent. went on to income support. It seems to us that those figures could be improved. Whether we improve them by revamping or recasting the new deal, we promise the House this: we will do better—