Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

This group of women is very talented and we need to be using their talents in the economy. The additional plans for flexibility are helpful not just for those with caring responsibilities for young children, but for people as they get closer to retirement age. Rather than falling off the cliff of working full time and immediately going into full retirement, being able to reduce hours and work flexibly can be helpful in that transition.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Synod rejection of women bishops will have deeply disappointed the talented women who work in the Church of England, the vast majority of Church members who had expressed their support, and those in Parliament and across the country who supported women bishops. Does the Minister agree that we should urge the Church to look again at this swiftly, and that it cannot be left to lie for another five years? The Church is the established Church, so the issue affects bishops in Parliament and Parliament has to agree to the changes. She and the Secretary of State will know that many in Parliament will feel uncomfortable if new proposals come forward that further water down plans for women bishops, when the majority of those in the Church have already shown their strong support for these plans. Will she ask the Secretary of State to convey to the Church the willingness and readiness of Parliament to work with it and to support the views of the majority of Church members in support of women bishops?

[Jo Swinson]

The right hon. Lady will know that there is due to be an urgent question shortly, when this issue will be discussed in more detail. Personally, as a strong supporter of women’s equality, I share her disappointment and that of many others. As a Scottish humanist, I recognise that I may not be the best person to tell the Church of England what it should be doing. All our religious institutions are important. She raised the issue of the role of Parliament. She may be aware that I have not been a supporter of all-women shortlists for Parliament. There is an irony in that there is a continuing all-male shortlist as a result of this decision. She is right to highlight that a significant majority in the General Synod supported the move to women bishops. The fact that 95% of dioceses supported it gives some reassurance to those who would like to see this change happen.

Living Standards

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is all rail fares, but I do not want to split hairs with the hon. Gentleman about whether he thinks it will help his constituency. I think it will.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about protecting women but he will know that House of Commons Library figures show that women are paying two thirds of the contribution in tax and benefit changes. He also said that the personal allowance increase benefits women more than men. Does he admit that the truth is that the Library figures show that while 13,500 women benefited from the personal allowance increase even though it was compensated for by other cuts, 16,800 men benefited, so in fact women are a minority, even from the personal allowance increase that he parades as a change to help women?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I can look at the Library’s figures and decide whether they or our figures are correct. We will have a look at them. My view is that the figures that we have show that more women than men benefit from that change. We can debate that if the right hon. Lady likes, but at least she is admitting that, one way or the other, a significant number of women benefit dramatically. That is a good starting point.

I want to move to an important subject. Given that this is an Opposition day debate, I had rather hoped––

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Today’s debate has been an extremely good one, with many Members contributing. It has been a very serious debate about the real consequences to families across the country of yesterday’s facts and figures and yesterday’s decisions. We are holding the debate on the day on which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Britain is facing the steepest drop in living standards for generations, and the day after the Chancellor told us that there will be a quarter of a million more people on the dole each and every year, that growth has collapsed and that borrowing is set to be an astonishing £158 billion higher. We know that it is hurting, but it is not working.

I will not mention every Member who spoke in the debate, because to do so would take me to the end of my time, but there are some things on which we agree. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said that the best way to increase living standards is to increase growth. I agree, but the Government’s policies are choking off growth, not supporting it. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) made a thoughtful speech, and the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) talked about the impact on children in care. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) took us to Planet Zog, I think, and even worse, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) wanted to take us back to Wales in the 1980s when, by my recollection, unemployment was considerably higher than it is today.

We heard serious speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), who described discussions with women in her constituency who are really worried about the impact of Government policies, as well as the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for or Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who all talked about the devastating impact on communities, families and child poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) talked about the impact on housing and jobs, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) made a powerful speech rebutting the claims, to which Government Members are clinging, that low interest rates are a sign of confidence on the international markets, instead of a reflection of decisions made by the Bank of England. As Japan’s experience for many years shows, they are a sign of weakness in the economy.

The Treasury analysis published yesterday of who is taking the strain of the Government’s plans is pretty gloomy. It shows that the impact of their plans next year alone is regressive across 80% of the population. It also shows an increase of 100,000 in the number of children in poverty, just as a result of the autumn statement. The IFS analysis published today, which takes account of far more measures, is far more damning, showing that the poorest 30% in society will lose more than three times as much as a share of their income as the richest 30%. In addition, an earlier analysis shows that 600,000 more families will fall into absolute poverty.

We remember what the Government said. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said today that he was protecting the poorest families. No, he is not, and the IFS figures make that clear. The Chancellor said, “We’re all in this together,” and the Deputy Prime Minister said his cuts would be progressive. Time and again, the facts show the opposite. Even today, the Prime Minister claimed that he was increasing child tax credit, providing more support for families. He said that he had increased child tax credit this year, but the truth is that this Government have cut tax credits for families, cut child benefit, cut Sure Start and cut the child care element, so some families are losing more than £1,000 in child care support alone.

As for the Government’s claim today that they will increase child tax credit by £135 next year, that is just inflation. They are not increasing the value of tax credits; in fact they are cutting them, and cutting child benefit too. A family on the minimum wage with two children will lose £320 a year as a result of yesterday’s decisions alone, and over £100 more as a result of the freezing of child benefit. That is the equivalent of about two weeks’ take-home pay. If the Prime Minister thinks that he can stand in the House of Commons and claim that he is increasing support for children, and imagines that parents will not notice what is actually happening to their pay packets and what they receive at the end of the month, he is simply out of touch with what is happening in communities across the country.

We understand that the Chancellor wanted to raise money for youth unemployment. It would have been better not to abolish the youth guarantee and the future jobs fund in the first place, it would have been better not to let long-term youth unemployment rise by more than 80% since the beginning of the year, and it would have been better to prevent youth unemployment from hitting the 1 million mark and start reducing it, as we did before the election. However, we do support extra action for youth jobs, and indeed we said that we would raise a bankers’ bonus tax in order to pay for it.

What was the Chancellor’s response to that? It was not “Oh yes, what a good idea, let us introduce a bankers’ bonus tax.” It was “No thanks, I think I will leave the bankers alone. In fact, I was planning to cut their 50p rate as soon as I could afford it. I have another wheeze: I want to take the money from families who are on the minimum wage.” That is what the Chancellor did yesterday. He has already taken £6 billion a year from support for children, and now he has gone back for over £1 billion more: £7.5 billion a year from children, and £2.8 billion from the banks. He is taking between two and three times as much from children as from the banks. That is the supposedly progressive decision that this out-of-touch Government have made.

What do the Government’s proposals mean for women? We know that the Government are already worried about their popularity among women, for the No. 10 memo tells us:

“We know from a range of polls that women are significantly more negative about the Government than men. We don't at present have a finer-grained analysis than this”.

It also says:

“the group of Cabinet Office and No 10 women we assembled felt strongly that the general tone and messages of government communications, particularly around deficit reduction were an issue - with women, especially in the public sector feeling targeted… we found the insights useful.”

We can imagine the Tory special advisers scouring the Cabinet Office and No. 10 for women who would tell them the obvious. It is not rocket science, and it should not take so much for them to find out what is the experience of women across the country.

The memo also says:

“we are clear that there are a range of policies… which are seen as having hit women, or their interests, disproportionately, including… Public sector pay and pensions…Tuition fees… Abolition of Child Trust Funds… Changes to child tax credit and the childcare element… Changes to child benefit… Rising cost of living… Lone patent obligations… Income support”.

Exactly. So what have the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister done in response to that? They have simply gone back for more.

In the autumn statement, the Government are hitting women hardest again. We already knew of the £16 billion that they were raising in tax and benefit changes— £11 billion of it coming from women, even though women still earn less and own less than men. It is hurting but it is not working, so the Government think that they should just go back and make it hurt more. The Prime Minister can try as much as he likes with his new women’s spin doctor, the marginally greater chance that a woman will occupy the throne as a result of the succession changes, and some family-friendly photo opportunities, but that is all that he is offering, and it will not work. The Government are out of touch, and women throughout the country are aware of the damage that they are doing to their families and their lives.

The biggest problem, of course, is the impact on growth and jobs that is affecting women, families and everyone else in the country. An extra £29 billion on the benefits bill is not lifting people out of poverty, and is not helping people into work. It is the cost of failure: the choking off of recovery, more people on the dole, and the pushing up of inflation. We should be investing in growth and jobs, not borrowing to pay the bills of failure. This is hurting, not working, and it is time to change course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Yvette Cooper. I had thought that the right hon. Lady wanted to come in on this question.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps there has been a change of plan. Never mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. In the past 14 years huge sums of money have been narrowly focused on different groups, and we have forgotten that in households with families, far too many are out of work. That is one reason why child poverty has been so difficult to tackle, and why we must change the system. We want to consider how to make work pay for those on the lowest incomes, and how work can be distributed more among households and less just among individuals. Most particularly, we want people to recognise that it is more important and more viable for them to be back in work than on benefits. The complicated system that the previous Government introduced, with all its different taper rates and withdrawal rates, meant that people needed to be professors of maths to figure out whether they would be better off going to work or staying on benefits. Our job is to ensure that the system is simpler and easier to understand. Unlike the previous Government, we will value households that take a risk and try to go to work.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that many young people get fantastic help from the voluntary sector through, for example, the future jobs fund, the youth guarantee, the working neighbourhoods fund, and also through small contracts with the jobcentres to help people into work. As he is cutting those programmes by more than £1 billion, does he think that the funding from his Department for the voluntary sector to help young people and others into work will increase or decrease in the next 12 months?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I would say to the Secretary of State—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I mean the shadow Secretary of State; I nearly made a mistake there. I would say to the right hon. Lady that we will provide sufficient funds as necessary for the voluntary sector. She should know from all our previous work that the voluntary sector is a vital part of finding people work and putting them in closer touch with their local communities. She goes on about the future jobs fund, and she must understand that we are continuing with the programmes that have already been let, but getting rid of those that have not yet been let. She knows that those programmes are incredibly expensive—far more expensive than the guarantee. We simply cannot afford them, because of the mess that the previous Government left, so she must understand that we will get people back into work through ensuring that the economy is back on track, providing apprenticeships, which offer real opportunity for young people, and ensuring that the national insurance hike that she was about to make will not happen.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the consequence of his party’s Budget is to cut, not increase, the number of jobs in the economy. He will also know that he is cutting 90,000 planned and funded jobs from the future jobs fund. He did not answer the question about whether he would increase or cut the support for the voluntary sector to help get people into work. As he well knows, the Minister in the Lords has told voluntary sector providers that they are too small to get contracts under the Work programme. The Government have quadrupled the size of the contracts, and are locking out the voluntary sector for up to seven years. Is not the truth that all the right hon. Gentleman’s talk about the big society is simply a big con, to hide cuts in jobs, in help for the unemployed and in support to get people back to work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is ridiculous for the right hon. Lady to stand there, two and a half months after leaving government with the finances in a total shambles, and try to lecture us about youth unemployment. [Interruption.] I remind her that in the whole time for which Labour Members were in government, there were only three years in which they reduced unemployment for 16 to 17-year-olds. Youth unemployment rose throughout 10 years, and the Labour Government left it worse than they found it. No lectures from the right hon. Lady, please; only apologies will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are 2.2 million people on incapacity benefit and an additional 400,000 on employment and support allowance, and under the previous Government a very large number of them heard absolutely nothing from the state; they were simply left to rot on benefits. I think that is wrong. Many of those people could benefit enormously if we helped them back into the workplace. That will be a central goal of the Work programme. My one regret is that the Labour party did not do that years ago.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State particularly about the overall impact of the welfare changes announced in the Budget and since then, because he will know that, for instance, the value of carer’s allowance is being cut by about £135 a year over the next few years, which particularly hits women, and that the value of attendance allowance is being cut by about £185 a year over the next few years, again particularly hitting women? Has his Department done any assessment of the overall impact of the £11 billion of welfare cuts on women—yes or no?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are assessing all the impacts of every change we are making. As the right hon. Lady knows, we will be publishing those relating to housing benefit, and as and when we have the full details, I will quite happily let her know.

Jobs and the Unemployed

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with grave concern that the emergency budget will increase unemployment; calls on the Government to publish the HM Treasury analysis of jobs that will be lost in the public and private sector; condemns the Government’s decision to axe the Future Jobs Fund, the Youth Guarantee and the Jobseeker’s Guarantee, scrapping hundreds of thousands of jobs and training places for the unemployed; further notes that the Government is cutting employment support to help people into jobs at a time when growth is still fragile; regrets that the role of the voluntary sector in helping people into work is at risk; further notes that the current claimant count is half the level it was in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of the support and investment the previous Government provided for jobs and getting people back to work; further notes the cost to communities and the economy of long-term unemployment; and condemns the Government’s decision to abolish regional development agencies with potentially damaging consequences for regional economies at a time when the recovery is not yet assured.

Mr Speaker, you said in response to the points of order that Secretaries of State are busy, but that it is very important that Ministers are accountable to the House. At 11.45 this morning, I took a call from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is not in the House today. He rang to tell me that he would not be here today and that he would not answer the debate because he is speaking to civil servants. Instead of giving a speech to Parliament, he has gone to speak to a London conference for civil servants. He has decided that he cannot rearrange making that speech, despite the fact that he is speaking at a three-day conference organised by the same civil servants who work for and answer to Ministers and advise them on the importance of answering to the House. So the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has chosen to turn his back on Parliament and the debate. A debate in Parliament on support for jobs and the unemployed is clearly not important enough for him.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Will the right hon. Lady confirm to the House that, during no fewer than three of the last six Opposition day debates held under the previous Government earlier this year, the Secretary of State in the previous Labour Government failed to appear in the House?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that, on many occasions, the then Opposition did not put up their shadow Cabinet Minister to open the debates. He will also know that Members have given reasons for not attending. I was ready to take the call from the Secretary of State, had he told me that he had a family emergency, a health problem or a European event to attend. The Minister has an engagement in Brussels, and I understand that he will therefore not be here for the close of the debate. I completely understand that; of course, he must fulfil his international responsibilities. Of course, we recognise such responsibilities, but to choose to attend a three-day conference for the very hour at which the Secretary of State should be present in the House to discuss support for jobs and the unemployed is a dereliction of his duty not only to the House, but to the unemployed he should be trying to help.

We think that this is an important subject. That is why we have chosen it for our third Opposition day debate. This month, many young people will leave school, college or university, and they are looking for their first jobs. It is not an easy time to look for work. We have just come through the worst global recession for many generations, and across Britain as in many other countries, many people have been hit by job losses and unemployment as a result.

Next week, the June unemployment figures will be published. The House will know that the International Labour Organisation unemployment figure currently stands at 2.47 million, more than 500,000 less than many experts predicted when the recession and financial crisis started and more than 500,000 less, too, than in the 1980s and 1990s recessions. The claimant count is 4.6%—less than half the 10% that it reached in the ’80s and ’90s recessions and almost 750,000 less than expected in last year’s Budget, thus saving us £15 billion over the next few years.

Of course, those figures are too high, families are still struggling and we need to bring down unemployment, but it is worth understanding why unemployment has been kept lower during this recession, because it reflects the work that businesses and employees have done to protect jobs. People have been working fewer hours, often cushioned by tax credits—a cushion that Government Members now want to take away. To help to save jobs, businesses have cut other costs. The fact that unemployment has been kept lower reflects the extra support for the economy—the VAT cut, the public sector construction contracts, the car scrappage scheme and the maintenance of public spending and public sector jobs through the recession—all opposed by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. It reflects, too, the extra help to get people back to work faster than in previous recessions—the youth guarantee, the extra education training places, the stronger jobseekers’ regime run by Jobcentre Plus—all support that the new Government now want to take away.

I pay tribute to the work that Jobcentre Plus did during the recession to help as many people as possible to get back to work much faster than in previous recessions, but this is a dangerous time. Too many people, especially young people, are still struggling to find work. If we look at the lessons from history, we see that this is the time when the labour market is at its most fragile. This is the time, just as the economy is coming out of recession, when there is most risk of people getting stuck in long-term unemployment. If we look at what happened in the 1990s, we see that it was a long time before unemployment started to come down after the recession finished. Youth unemployment rose for 18 months after the recession finished. If we look at what happened in the 1980s, we see that unemployment rose for years after the recession finished. Youth unemployment rose for four years after the recession finished.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

On youth unemployment, has my right hon. Friend noticed the total absence of Liberal Democrat Members from this debate? Does she believe that they are unwilling to come to the House to defend their complicity in scrapping the future jobs fund?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In fact, the welfare spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats said that his party had no plans to cut the future jobs fund and, indeed, that it supported help to get young people into work. He is not here either, despite the fact that he is a Minister in the Department that is responding to the debate.

In the ’80s and ’90s, the then Conservative Government turned their back on the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, and unemployment rose for years as a result. But unemployment scars. Unemployment causes people problems for years to come. If people lose their jobs and cannot get back to work quickly, they can find it much harder to get back into jobs, even when the economy is growing again. That is what happened in the 1980s. It took a long time to get new job growth in many communities across the country, and by the time that we did, many people had been scarred for life and some have never worked again.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that the problem basically is that the Conservative party believes that the only reason people are unemployed is that benefits are too generous, that we do not need job creation projects and that all they need do is to cut benefits and, somehow, unemployment will magic itself away?

[Yvette Cooper]

The troubling approach that the new Tory-Liberal Government are taking is to cut the help to get people back into jobs and to cut their benefits when they cannot get back into work. The Secretary of State has claimed to be concerned about intergenerational poverty and worklessness, but the truth is that many of the problems that the Government worry about have their roots in the unemployment and hopelessness of communities without work in the 1980s. If they are really serious about tackling long-term poverty, they should act to prevent long-term unemployment now. They talk about broken Britain, but the truth is that their party broke Britain in the 1980s and now they are trying to do the same thing again. Let us look at their actions in the first four weeks: cuts of £1.2 billion in support that was getting people back to work; cuts in the future jobs fund; cuts in the youth guarantee and in help for the long-term unemployed just when they need it most; and a Budget that cuts the number of jobs in the economy so that there are fewer jobs than there would have been, not just next year but in every year for the rest of the Parliament too.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Many of the previous Government’s measures helped some people into work, but the 3 million workless households where no adults of working age were working were barely touched in the Labour years. It is all very well to talk about the 1980s, but what was happening between 1997 and the last election? Precious little. Many of those people never saw anybody from Jobcentre Plus or anyone else. They were just left to stew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman what happened after 1997. In fact, there was a reduction of 350,000 in the number of people claiming inactive benefits, as a result of the extra support that was put in. That was in strong contrast to the early ’90s recession when we saw an increase of more than 450,000 in the number of people on incapacity benefits. In this recession, we have had a reduction of more than 70,000 in the number of people claiming those long-term sickness benefits, despite the difficulties in the world economy.

[Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

One reason why young people find it so difficult to get into work is that they do not have experience, and the future jobs fund and the youth guarantee were very good for young people because they gave them that experience and made them much more employable. Has my right hon. Friend done any analysis of the effect on these young people of the scrapping of both those schemes?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. She obviously brings great experience to the field, having been a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions for many years. She is now its Chair, and I look forward to hearing more of her views on this in the House. We have been talking to many young people about the impact of cutting the future jobs fund. Yesterday afternoon, I met 10 young people who have just started work thanks to the future jobs fund. They are all working for charities and social enterprises, have jobs in fundraising, in office work, in organising charity events and in repairs and maintenance, and some had fantastic jobs in creative design. Several are graduates who had struggled to find work because of the recession. Many had tried unpaid internships and voluntary work—anything to get a foot in the door. It was only the future jobs fund that had made the real difference to them. One of them said to me, “It’s a life saver.” Another said, “It’s given me confidence. It’s a proper job. It’s a huge boost to put this on my CV.” A young woman I spoke to in my constituency who was training to be a car mechanic, thanks to the future jobs fund, told me, “I tried and tried to get something, and this is just like the light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, it’s the only opportunity I’ve been given. I don’t understand why they want to cut it.”

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On that point, my right hon. Friend might be interested to know that a constituent recently came to see me at my surgery who had been offered through the future jobs fund an opportunity to work by the Royal National Institute of Blind People, and on arrival at Jobcentre Plus was bitterly disappointed to be told that the list was closed because of the Government’s decision to cut the future jobs fund, and now faces the prospect of not having an opportunity that would otherwise have been available. Is it not ironic that with all the talk of a big society, jobs that would have been available to people in the third sector are now being cut by the Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. This is happening now to young people throughout the country. One of the young women I talked to yesterday also told me about a job with the London Wildlife Trust. It had asked her if she would be interested in working for it through the future jobs fund, and when she contacted them to say yes, it said, “Sorry, too late. The programme is closed.”

Ministers try to claim that there are no cuts in these jobs. The Secretary of State said:

“we are not cutting any jobs at all. We are saying that we will stop the part of the programme relating to jobs that were not contracted for.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 584.]

According to the Secretary of State, if the contract has not been signed, it has not really been cut. He says that these were only notional jobs. The trouble is that he has not cut notional money. He has cut real money—£290 million this year, and hundreds of millions of pounds in future years. That money would have funded 90,000 future jobs fund jobs for 90,000 people—real people who will struggle longer on the dole as a result.

[Chris Grayling]

Before the election, the previous Administration were planning public spending cuts of £50 billion. Where did the right hon. Lady expect to make those cuts in the Department that she was then heading?

[Yvette Cooper]

We were clear that the best way to cut welfare spending was to get more people into work. The very fact of getting people into jobs was cutting £15 billion from welfare bills over the next few years. That is substantially more of an impact than the right hon. Gentleman could possibly have by cheese-paring bits from employment programmes that end up putting more people on the dole and pushing up the bills for unemployment. That, in the end, is the right hon. Gentleman’s problem.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pressures placed on the private and public sectors in recent weeks will deliver a potential skills shortage in the UK? Without investment in our young people today, we will have a skills shortage tomorrow, which will be detrimental to our growth in future years.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. This is about investing in our future, because this is about the young people who will support us all for very many years to come. If we do not give them the start in life that they need, if we do not give them the work experience that they need to get into jobs, if we leave too many of them stuck on the dole for years, we will pay the bills that result from their being unemployed for years and we will lose their potential skills and talents that could contribute to our economy for many years to come.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Is not the biggest burden on the young people about whom the right hon. Lady talks so eloquently the massive debts that her Government left behind? They are already shackled by the previous Government’s policies, and that will be a burden on them and their employment opportunities for the future.

[Yvette Cooper]

If those young people cannot get jobs, if they end up stuck on the dole for years—that is what happened to young people whom I left school with in the 1980s—that will devastate their entire future. They will struggle to get work for many years to come and that will push up the deficit. The hon. Gentleman seems to fail to understand that if unemployment is high, that pushes up the bills for unemployment benefits and cuts the number of people who are working in good jobs and paying their taxes, not just this year and next, but for many years to come.

[Richard Fuller]

In my constituency, the unemployment rate doubled under the last Administration. In the last 10 years, unemployment has gone up. We recognise in Bedford and Kempston that we need small businesses to create the jobs that will employ people, not just in five years’ time, but in five months’ time. The one thing that small businesses in my constituency want is to know that the Government have control over the deficit, that their taxes will be down, and that regulation will be reduced. Surely that is the way in which we can create jobs.

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, if we cut the deficit at the pace and scale that his party wants, that will make it harder for businesses. It will make it harder for small businesses and companies across the economy. His party’s own appointed Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that. It says that there will be fewer jobs in the economy, not just next year, but each year for the rest of this Parliament as a result of the Budget. It is hitting businesses and employers throughout the country, making it harder for them to take people on. That is the complete fallacy in the arguments of Conservative Members. They are stuck in the mentality of not just the 1980s, but the 1930s, which says that so long as the deficit is cut, things will suddenly be hunky-dory. It will not. It cuts jobs and makes it harder for people to get back into work, and it pushes up the costs of failure too. That is what is so irresponsible.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I have a lot of sympathy with the right hon. Lady’s argument and she is right to stress the fragility of the economic recovery at the present time and the fact that the Budget proposals will cut jobs, but I am sure that she is aware that the previous Government imposed cuts of £400 million on the devolved Scottish Government in the very teeth of the recession, knowing that it would cost jobs and jeopardise recovery. If her argument holds water now, why did it not hold water then?

[Yvette Cooper]

In fact, the additional support we put in through things such as the future jobs funds and support for the economy helped Scotland. Indeed, Scotland benefited from thousands of future jobs fund jobs, which were funded by the Government, in addition to the money that went directly to the devolved Administrations. Every part of the Government had to make efficiency savings, and unfortunately the Scottish Administration consistently set themselves efficiency targets considerably lower than those set and met in Whitehall Departments across government. It was fair to expect the Scottish Administration to pay their fair share and to contribute to those efficiency savings.

We believed, however, that it was right to keep supporting jobs in Scotland through things such as the future jobs fund, which is why the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations said, in response to the cuts in the future jobs fund:

“We know of many third sector organisations in Yorkshire who were ready to place people into jobs and were mid-way through bidding for FJF money to make that possible when the funding was cut. Among the placements that were to be created were jobs to support women in the community through a Women’s Refuge. Now those women won’t get the extra support and Yorkshire won’t get the extra jobs.”

Real jobs in Yorkshire gone—because of the Secretary of State’s plan!

[Miss Begg]

It is third sector providers who often help to get people facing particular barriers into work. It is hard enough for young people to get into work anyway, but if they have barriers such as drug dependency or homelessness, it is particularly difficult. The future jobs fund was being used by organisations such as Aberdeen Foyer in my constituency to get those marginalised youngsters into work and to break that cycle of poverty, which the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald), who sits with me on the Work and Pensions Committee, talked about earlier.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, which is why all young people, no matter what the difficulties they face, should have a guarantee of a job, training or support to get into work. She might also be interested to know that significant numbers of the people going into the future jobs fund were disabled, so it was providing additional support for people who might have found it more difficult to get their first job elsewhere in the economy and to get that start and get into work.

The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), told the House that DWP officials had advised that the future jobs fund was not effective and not working. That is not what young people and voluntary sector providers are telling us. For example, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said:

“It is obviously very disappointing that the Future Jobs Fund is not continuing as it was a highly successful initiative which was popular with employers and employees”.

Angie Wilcox, whom I met, from the Manor residents association in Hartlepool, said that

“in one area alone, manor residents have recruited 118 young people, of which the first 17 finished their six months last month, all 17 secured sustained employment...This is a vital programme that must stay”.

So what advice did DWP officials really give to the Treasury? The Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has so far refused to publish any advice or evidence that it is not effective. That is because, in the end, he does not have any. He has commissioned a detailed evaluation of the future jobs fund for 2011, so there is no evidence to show that the fund is not working and plenty of testimony from young people and employers across the country that it is transforming people’s lives. The Government did not talk to a single voluntary sector provider before they axed the fund, and they did not talk to a single young person on the fund before they made their decisions—actually, the Prime Minister did. He talked to young people at a social enterprise in Liverpool, and told them he would keep the fund. He said that

“it is a good scheme, and good schemes we will keep.”

Was he setting out to deceive those young people, or does he just not care about the broken promises from the election?

The Employment Minister has, I understand, been back to that same corner of Liverpool to see the same social enterprise. He has told us in previous responses that he has not received any representations about the decision to cut the future jobs fund. Yet someone who was at the meeting said that

“when Chris Grayling visited Everton on the 26 May we raised with him the very negative impact cutting the Future Jobs Fund will have and 2 local people said the difference having a future jobs fund position was already having on their lives, their self esteem and their long term job prospects...We asked him specifically about whether his replacement scheme was going to give at least the minimum wage. He couldn’t guarantee that at all...The FJF has already made a big difference to us in Everton... Young people on the FJF have got their heads back up and are going for it.”

So what other excuses have the Government given us for cutting the future jobs fund and the support for the unemployed? The Secretary of State claimed on 8 June that the cost of the programme was “running out of control”. That is rubbish—it is a fixed-cost programme. It costs just over £6,000 per job and is paid when the job is delivered. Furthermore, the taxpayer saves six months of benefits too. It is a fixed cost, so it cannot escalate out of control.

The difference between us is that we want 90,000 people in jobs. The Government would rather have them on the dole than pay for the extra support that those young people and long-term unemployed need. So, from next year, they are cutting the rest of the guarantee. In total, they are cutting £1.2 billion from support for the unemployed—and they tell us it is all right because there is going to be a Work programme. But where is it? The soonest the Secretary of State will be able to deliver it is next summer, but what about the people in the meantime who need support and help? What about the young people leaving school, college or university this summer who need help? What about the people who have been unemployed for six months and who need support now? Yet now is the time when he is cutting future jobs fund opportunities in favour of a Work programme that cannot be in place for at least another 12 months.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I shall give way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can provide some clarity on that point.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The right hon. Lady talks about the young people coming out of schools and colleges. Did she think about them when she was in government and borrowing £500 million a day? Did she think about their future while the Government were borrowing £100 for every £300 they were spending?

[Yvette Cooper]

Had we not increased borrowing during the recession, we would have seen recession turn into slump, millions of people on the dole being scarred for life, and huge increases in repossessions. Unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to support the economy and growth, he will never see the deficit come down. The best way to get the deficit down is to keep the economy growing, and the only way to get us through the recession was to support the economy at a very difficult time. He seems to want to return to the madness of the 1930s when economies across the world were pushed into depression and slump as a result of the kind of narrow-minded, short-term policies that he is now advocating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. May I remind Members to use the third person? When Members refer to “you”, it means me. I have just been accused of a few things that I do not own up to.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) should learn a few lessons from economic history. He should look at what happened not just in the 1980s, when there was not the same scale of world recession, but in the 1930s and at the orthodox views being put forward then by Bank of England Governors and senior politicians and the devastating consequences that they had. Keynes was led to write his general theory because of the deeply destructive approach that so many people in senior positions took and the consequences that devastated the lives of millions of people who were pushed into unemployment and poverty. Businesses were destroyed for many years as a result of that approach—the approach that the Conservatives seem to want to go back to.

I agree that borrowing needs to come down, and of course we need to ensure that the deficit comes down in a steady and sensible way as the economy recovers. However, by cutting an extra £40 billion for ideological reasons in a way that will hit jobs and the economy, the Conservatives are turning their back on the unemployed. Ministers need to tell us what they will do to help young people this summer. What are they going to do to reassure parents that their sons and daughters will not be stuck on the dole for more than a year? All that they promise is a Work programme sometime in the future, with incentives for private sector companies to help people find work but no guarantees to young people or anyone else that they will actually get work. There are no jobs for them to go to.

Ministers also want people to move house to help the labour market, but it is not clear where they want them to move to. The Secretary of State has said that he wants the unemployed to move to more affluent areas where there are more jobs. In fact, if they do not and they are out of work for a year, their housing benefit will be cut. At the same time, the Government are telling working people on housing benefit in affluent areas that they have to move to cheaper areas because their rents are too high. If they do not, their housing benefit will be cut, too. The Secretary of State is telling my constituents that if they do not move south to get a job he will cut their benefit, and his own constituents that if they do not move north to get a cheaper home he will cut their benefit too. Presumably they can wave at each other as they pass somewhere along the A1.

The Secretary of State wants people to give up cheaper housing to find work, but he also wants people to give up work to find cheaper housing. He is telling people to get on their bikes, but with no clue about where they are supposed to go. That is the same Secretary of State who said last year that he wanted to maintain community ties. He said:

“It is getting more and more difficult for parents in some poorer backgrounds…that extended family link is often severed by the fact that they can’t get living near their parents.”

Yet those are the very same community ties that the Government’s policies on employment and housing would rip up right now. They are cutting help for people to get jobs and cutting their benefits too.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s contention appears to be that the future jobs fund is simply training without a job guarantee? Is that not just snobbery, as they do not put forward the same argument—nor should they—that people accessing degrees should have a guaranteed job outcome? Quite simply, is it not true that the Tories have never believed in parity of esteem between vocational and academic training routes and still believe that unemployment is a price worth paying?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. I know that his constituency was hit very badly in the 1980s as a result of the decisions that previous Conservative Governments took, and that that is why he feels so strongly that we should not take those decisions again. We have to do everything possible to help people back into work.

The Guardian has even reported that Ministers want jobcentres to give out charities’ food vouchers, so now they are turning the clock back not just to the 1980s but to the 1930s. It is looking less like welfare to work and more like welfare to the workhouse.

[Miss Begg]

Before my right hon. Friend moves off the subject of housing benefit, I wish to mention that Aberdeen is one of the areas where there are jobs—unemployment in my constituency is 2.6%, which is higher than we would like but relatively low. The problem is that rents are high. A constituent who came to see me on Friday is finding things very difficult, because in the private rented sector she is already subsidising her rent despite being on full housing benefit. It is therefore impossible for people to move into Aberdeen to get a house and a job without falling foul of the Catch-22 situation that my right hon. Friend describes.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, and that is why it is difficult to reform housing benefit without considering the consequences for the labour market. The two things should be examined together, not in isolation in a way that can have destructive consequences.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

May I confirm that the matter has nothing to do with snobbery but is about the best way to handle the situation? Can the right hon. Lady confirm that at present, the number of 18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training is at its highest, at 837,000?

[Yvette Cooper]

If the hon. Lady is concerned about young people who are not in education, training or employment, why on earth is she supporting her party’s decision to cut the future jobs fund and help for young people to get into jobs? The number of 18 to 24-year-olds who are on the dole is about half the level that it was in previous recessions.

[Esther McVey]

I think there needs to be clarity of purpose on a way forward; you have left us with a record deficit—[Hon. Members: “She.”] Sorry; the right hon. Lady’s Government have left us with a record deficit, and new times require new measures. Working together, we will provide clarity and look for greater apprenticeship schemes.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I advise the hon. Lady that asking me to give way and answer another question when I have not yet answered the first is probably not the best way to get her question answered.

I ask the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) where is this Work programme and this extra support? All that we see so far is £1.2 billion-worth of cuts. There are cuts to the future jobs fund, a programme that is already in place and delivering real opportunities. She should go and talk to the voluntary sector providers in her constituency and constituencies across the country about the great work that they are doing. Social enterprises, charities and organisations in the public and social sectors are doing some great things to give young people a chance, and her party wants to pull the plug on that. That would be madness at a time when young people need our help.

[Sarah Newton]

I wish to return to the right hon. Lady’s point about giving out food vouchers. What is compassionate about a benefits system that is leaving people hungry in their hour of need? Voluntary organisations in my constituency, such as Church organisations providing food banks, are barred from offering vital necessities to people in jobcentres who are literally starving. That is ridiculous when people are going hungry.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am interested that the hon. Lady is concerned that people are not getting enough support and believes that they should have more help. I wonder why on earth, then, she has voted for a Budget that cuts £11 billion from benefit support for those on the lowest incomes in the country. What she is arguing for are cuts in Government and taxpayer support, and for people simply to depend on charities instead. That would be a return to the Victorian approach of the workhouse and the pre-Beveridge, pre-welfare state approach of not supporting families across the country, which would be deeply unfair. There may not be the type of charity that she happens to have in her constituency in every constituency and working with every jobcentre in the country. We in the Labour party believe that we should support people, which is why we have not proposed cutting benefits by uprating them only by the level of the consumer prices index, which will take £5.8 billion out of the value of benefits for some of the lowest-income people in this country.

[Chris Grayling]

Can the right hon. Lady confirm to the House that before the election, she did not at any stage give serious consideration to increasing benefits in line with CPI? Can she make it clear once and for all—did she consider that or did she not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I can say very clearly to the right hon. Gentleman that my view was always that it would be unacceptable to increase benefits in line with CPI. I wish to make that very clear, and I am sure that papers will testify to that effect. It will be unfair on people such as those who are severely disabled or on the lowest incomes, who will see the real value of their support cut by hundreds of pounds over the next few years. For the Minister to try to defend the Budget as “progressive” when it will hit people who are severely disabled and cannot work, people who are on carer’s allowance and some of the most vulnerable people in the country who may be struggling to support their families, is a distortion of the meaning of the word.

Welfare to work does not work anywhere in the country if there is no work for people to go to. That is the real tragedy of this new Government. At a time when growth is fragile and too many people are out of work, they have introduced a Budget that cuts growth and jobs. It is shocking.

Even on the assumptions of the Government’s own appointees in the Office for Budget Responsibility, this emergency Budget means that there will be more than 100,000 fewer jobs in the economy, and not just this year. There will be fewer jobs every year for the lifetime of the Parliament as a result of the Budget. The Budget cuts consumption, through the VAT hike and benefit cuts; it cuts Government spending; and it hits private and public sector jobs. The Budget will also push up the bills of unemployment. Even on the optimistic assumptions of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the taxpayer will fork out around £2 billion on unemployment over the course of this Parliament as a result of the Budget. That is £2 billion that we could have spent on the future jobs funds, school buildings or other support to help people into work.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is merely the thin end of the wedge? Many of the young people who find themselves unemployed and many of the communities where unemployment is ingrained are also more reliant on other benefits and public services such as health. The mental health and well-being implications for those communities are enormous, but they have not been factored into those calculations.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right. We are having this discussion in the light of the Budget measures and the initial cuts in support for jobs, but we know that there are spending cuts to come as part of the spending review, to which the Government have added £17 billion to the amount to be cut from Departments. The consequence is that the Government’s policies will keep more people on the dole, not fewer, and more people out of work, not fewer. That is what the Budget does, and that is on an optimistic reading, because we know that the Treasury’s real assessment is worse.

The only reason why the Government think that employment will be growing at all is that they are counting on around 2.5 million net jobs being created in the private sector over the next five years. However, that is something that John Philpott of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and other respected economists have said is simply unrealistic. The Government are living in cloud cuckoo land. In fact, the Financial Times survey of major private sector employers found that none was planning to increase recruitment on a large scale just because the public sector was cutting back. Arriva said:

“We are not planning a recruitment drive any time soon. Everybody is watching their costs at the moment.”

Today’s KPMG survey found that the number of new recruits is at a seven-month low, just at a time when it should be increasing. Business confidence has been hit by the Budget and the austerity approach that the Government have been pursuing.

The Government have abolished the regional development agencies, which were supporting jobs in the regions, and cut Building Schools for the Future and other capital projects that were supporting construction jobs. The Government are hitting jobs in the public sector and the private sector, all at a time when the economy is still weak. They say that this is unavoidable, but that is simply untrue. They do not need to cut £40 billion extra from the economy; they have chosen to do so, even though that will cut jobs and hurt the unemployed. The Government do not need to cut the help for the unemployed that is getting them into jobs; they have chosen to do so, even though it will increase long-term unemployment. They do not need to push up the costs of unemployment; they have chosen to do so, even though that will cost us more. They do not need to scar young people for years to come; they have chosen to do so, just as they did in the ’80s and ’90s.

Why are the Government doing that? It is because they say that they have to get the deficit down. Why are they introducing a savage Budget to cut the number of jobs in the economy? They say that that has to be done because of the scale on which they want to get the deficit down and the pace at which they want to do it. In the 1990s, the Conservatives said that unemployment was a price worth paying to get inflation down. Now they are saying that unemployment is a price worth paying to get the deficit down. However, unemployment is not a price worth paying; unemployment will stop the deficit coming down. This year’s school leavers will pay the price, our young people will pay the price, and we will all pay the price for many years to come. Unemployment is not a price worth paying. It is time that the Government ditched the failed ideology of the 1980s and the 1930s, and supported jobs for the future. That is what our party will do, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I know that the hon. Lady is a new Member, and she might not be aware of the changes made by the previous Government. One of the things they did was to extend the period that people had to wait before they could receive support on employment programmes. In the case of young people between the ages of 16 and 25, the period was extended from six months to 12 months. I agree with her that things need to happen sooner, and one of the things we will do in the Work programme is to give that support sooner.

The coalition Government are committed to supporting people in sustainable employment, providing opportunities that will provide skills, open doors and help people to stay in work. Our goal is not to get people off the unemployment register temporarily, but to work with them to achieve a goal of lasting employment. That means plotting a different course. The same tired old policies will not work. For too long, economic growth in Britain has been unbalanced, driven by the accumulation of unsustainable debt and a bulging public sector. We have been forced to deal with the largest public spending deficit in peacetime history, and the crisis in the eurozone has shown that the consequences of not acting are severe.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have heard what the Minister is saying, but how does he account for the fact that, in 2012-13 and 2013-14, employment will be 110,000 lower as a result of his Budget than it would otherwise have been, according to the assessment of the Office for Budget Responsibility? If there are fewer jobs in the economy, how on earth does he think young people are going to get more of them?

[Chris Grayling]

If the right hon. Lady looks at the figures, she will see that the OBR is forecasting an increase in employment of 1.5 million jobs in the wake of the Budget over the next few years. My goal, and the goal of this Administration, should be to ensure that as many of those jobs as possible go to people who are on benefits, many of whom have been on benefits long term. The big mistake of the past decade when jobs were being created was that that simply did not happen.

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm the OBR’s forecast that, as a result of this Budget, employment will be lower. Before the Budget, it forecast 29.47 million jobs in the economy for 2012-13; after the Budget, it forecast 29.36 million jobs for the same year. Will he confirm that the consequence of his Budget will be to cut the number of jobs in the economy?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Lady has continued to operate on the basis that the public sector could somehow remain as it was, and that we could carry on spending the same amounts of money. She does not seem to understand the consequences of carrying on with the same level of deficit. They would include higher costs for business and higher interest rates. We can see the consequences in the eurozone of not getting to grips with the deficit. We are interested in creating long-term, sustainable employment, which is why we want to deliver schemes and support that will encourage the private sector to grow and develop. That will not happen if we maintain a deficit, however.

[Yvette Cooper]

But will the Minister confirm that the reason for the lower number of jobs forecast for 2012-13 is that the private sector will have been hit by the consequences of his Budget?

[Chris Grayling]

Last week, the right hon. Lady was criticising us for theoretically planning job reductions in the public sector. She cannot have it both ways. We cannot have an increase in employment, a fall in unemployment and a fall in public sector employment without the private sector beginning to take people on again. This might be a point of difference between us, and I can accept that, but I believe that, over the next 10 years, we shall need a successful, flourishing private sector that can create sustainable jobs. I am sorry that the Labour party appears to be reverting to type in believing that the public sector can somehow carry it all. This is a point of difference between us, but I believe that we will not create opportunities for those young people unless we have proper, sustainable private sector employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

No; I am going to wind up my speech now.

I want to end by making a point about the overall context of our proposals. We are trying to create an environment in which business can grow, develop and flourish. The Budget was about that as well. The Chancellor announced measures to stimulate growth, including a reduction in the main rate of corporation tax and the rate of corporation tax for smaller companies, a reduction in the main and special rates of capital allowances, an increase in the enterprise finance guarantee, the creation of a growth capital fund, and the regional support with which we intend to help private sector employers to grow and develop in our regional areas. We also stopped the Labour jobs tax. All those measures are designed to create an environment in which small, medium-sized and larger businesses can grow, develop and create jobs in the next few years, and they have all been welcomed by business groups.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

Oh, go on.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in allowing me to intervene again. He referred to support for the private sector and for private sector growth. Will he confirm that according to the OBR’s own assessment, in 2012-13 private sector employment will be 260,000 lower than it would have been under Labour’s Budget?

[Chris Grayling]

When will the right hon. Lady recognise that the Labour Budget was not affordable? It was taking the country down a path we could not afford. We have seen in the eurozone what happens if nations try to do things they cannot afford. Labour Members keep going on as if nothing had happened—as if all would somehow have been swimmingly good if they had returned to office, and all the problems would have been sorted out—but it is not like that. Labour Members are living in a fantasy land, but the reality is that business groups welcome what we have done.

Richard Lambert, director-general of the CBI, has said:

“There was clear recognition of the role that business needs to play in getting the economy back into shape, and generating the jobs and wealth needed to sustain economic recovery.”

The British Chambers of Commerce has said:

“The government’s decisive moves to cut the deficit will have positive effects on business and investor confidence. Even more importantly, the Chancellor's message that Britain is open for business will be welcomed by companies the length and breadth of the country, and across the globe."

That is what we need to do to create the environment in which Britain is a good place to do business again, and in which jobs are being created.

It has been interesting to listen to Labour today. To be honest, it has been like a Westminster version of “Life on Mars”. Suddenly we are back to the old Labour rhetoric of the past. They seem to believe that what we need is big Government to create jobs, and if we spend just a bit more all will be well. That is nonsense. We know that we need flourishing businesses if we are to create jobs for the future. We know that we need the right skills and technologies for the future. We also know that we need to ensure that everyone in our society has the chance to find the right opportunity for themselves. We heard some of those messages from new Labour in its heyday, but they were never followed through. We are all paying the price now. This Administration will not make the same mistakes that Labour made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I start by commending Labour Members on securing this debate, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about something we think is integral to putting Britain back on the right tracks. It has been an interesting debate, but sadly, that probably has less to do with the quality of the facts from the Front-Bench team, and more to do with some of the theatrics and selective memories that have accompanied them. In the interests of everyone here, I hope that hon. Members will permit me to set the record straight, because we need to be absolutely clear about the legacy left by Labour after 13 years of failed policies.

The spin from the shadow Secretary of State simply does not match the facts. In the real world, almost 2.5 million people are unemployed across our country, and 1.4 million under-25s are not in employment, education or training. Some 2.2 million are currently languishing on old-style incapacity benefits, written off by the system that was designed to help them. Even before the recession, more than 15% of children were growing up in a household where no one worked. Income inequality is now at its highest level since records began.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me for not letting her in, but I want to pay tribute to Members who have contributed to the debate today, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) did.

We are now staring down the barrel of the largest peacetime deficit this country has even seen. That is Labour’s record loud and clear.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

Okay, I will give way.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Minister confirm that the number of children in workless households fell between 1997 and 2010 from 2.3 million to 1.8 million?

[Maria Miller]

The fact that I would give back to the shadow Secretary of State is that we have the highest number of children living in workless households. If she is proud of that fact, she deserves to be on the Opposition Benches.

It was with some bemusement that I learned that the Opposition wanted to debate employment today, but it has been good to get some of the facts out. We have had a very wide-ranging debate with many thoughtful contributions, and I should like to take some time to pay tribute to those who have made them. First, of course, I have to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who gave his maiden speech. It was, as I think all Members would agree, a fine, assured speech and in the very best traditions of the House. His constituents have in him a strong voice who clearly understands the issues, and he will certainly find a place here as an advocate of the Norfolk way, turnips or no turnips.

As I said, the debate has been wide-ranging, but my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) summed it up when he said that this Government have inherited a horrendous financial situation. This is a financial crisis that Labour knew was coming, which was why it had already identified the need for 20% cuts in Government budgets. Yet again, the shadow Secretary of State refused to identify where those cuts were going to come in her Department when she was challenged by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). She really will have little credibility until she answers that question—or did she think it would be right to continue to leave this country with the economic instability that debt creates?

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) made a very thoughtful contribution and spoke at length about the importance of nurturing business, something in which we have a common interest. She was a lecturer at Cranfield School of Management and I worked in business for 17 years. Sometimes, theory and practice can be very different, but we both recognise that confidence is important when it comes to creating a stable business environment. That point was echoed by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). Such confidence will come if we can show businesses in this country that we have Government debt under control and financial stability, and that we do not have the threat of a hike in job taxes, such as the Labour Government so clearly put forward.

The hon. Member for Wakefield raised a number of questions that I cannot go into in detail on now, but if there is anything she wants me to cover in more detail, perhaps we can speak later. She particularly mentioned Jobcentre Plus staff, and I can assure her that the head count will be reduced by freezing external recruitment and not extending fixed-term contracts when they come to an end.

A number of hon. Members mentioned apprenticeships, which are an important element of our strategy for tackling poverty and worklessness. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) talked eloquently about the role of apprenticeships in his constituency, and particularly the business-facing educational institutions in Hertfordshire that are pivotal in delivering the lowest level of NEETs in the country.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) also talked about youth unemployment. I should perhaps remind him that we now have 1.4 million unemployed or inactive under-25-year-olds who are not in full-time education either, which is 250,000 more than in 1997. However, that is an issue we will address. He also talked about apprenticeships, which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford discussed in her speech. She needs to have a bit more faith in British industry. Apprenticeships are at the heart of British industry. There are already 240,000 apprenticeships, and we are talking about raising that by 50,000 among small and medium-sized enterprises. That is an opportunity being delivered by this coalition Government, which I know people in my constituency are crying out for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) also raised the issue of apprenticeships, talking about the importance of getting young people back into work and the debilitating effects of worklessness. I know she will understand the importance of the Work programme in delivering for the people in her constituency.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I was not going to deal with that at this point, but while we are on it, I can tell my hon. Friend that I know there has been speculation in the media over the past few hours and days. I can confirm that, as we said previously, we will launch the work programme in 2011, and will migrate current incapacity benefit claimants to employment support allowance over the three years. We have absolutely no intention of changing the current plan to assess 10,000 claimants per week over the period. That is our expectation. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will know, it will involve challenges, but we will stick to it and see if we can get there. Unlike the last Government, we will provide an extra bit of help for those on employment support allowance who undergo the work capability assessment and need that support. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will table a statement tomorrow giving more details.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady—my opposite number—will back up what I have said. She has already expressed the hope that we will proceed with the changes that she introduced and with which we agreed.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that his timetable is the one that we proposed for the roll-out of the work capability assessment, and that it is expected to save about £1.5 billion over the next five years? Does he plan to make additional savings, and if so, where? The briefing that was in the papers today will have caused concern to people. Will the Secretary of State also tell us whether he will implement the small amendments to the work capability assessment that we announced just before the election in response to points raised by the citizens advice bureaux?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are continuing with the programme that the right hon. Lady left. We thought it a good programme, and I want to make it happen. She asked us to do that, and I agreed that it was right. We always said in opposition that we would do it.

As for whether we are looking for more savings, we are going to intensify the work support programme, which was not there before. I should be happy to give the right hon. Lady more detail about it, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make a more detailed statement. We estimate that we will be able to return more people to work, but we will keep that estimate under review. The right hon. Lady will recall that when she was Secretary of State there was a constant review of the programme to deal with the group who were flowing in. Recommendations were made, and we are paying attention to them.

[Yvette Cooper]

Does the fact that the Secretary of State thinks he will be able to help more people to return to work—although he has cut the job guarantee and billions of pounds from the support that would help them to do so—mean that he thinks that other people will not get jobs instead, or is he suggesting that the Office for Budget Responsibility will raise its forecast of the number of people in employment? Where will the jobs come from for the extra people whom he is going to return to work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Lady is assuming that the economy is static, and that nothing changes in it. We believe that unemployment will fall—that is what the Office for Budget Responsibility says—and that we will therefore create more jobs.

The right hon. Lady’s programme, which we inherited, provided support for the “back to work” element in only two parts of the country. We are extending support to the whole country, and that is where we will get the extra effort. We will continue the programme. We think that we have embellished it and made it somewhat better, and I guarantee that we will keep it under permanent review.

The third thing that we are doing is setting down a strong foundation for long-term reform, which is part of the Budget proposals. Although we must correct the failings of the last Government, we are committed to delivering a better future for Britain, and we have had to make the stability of our economy a priority. I know that it is difficult for many Opposition Members to talk about this, but I also know that it is what they would be talking about if they were in government. There are always difficult choices to be made at a time when we have to draw our horns in.

We have had to prioritise the stability of our economy lest we forget the shambles with which we were left. Borrowing will be £149 billion this year, the second largest amount in Europe, and, as the Prime Minister pointed out before the Budget, it was on course to double in five years to £1.4 trillion—£22,000 for every man, woman and child. As a result of the Budget, however, the debt will fall to £116 billion next year, £89 billion the following year, and £60 billion in the year after that. It will fall to £37 billion in 2014-15, and is projected to fall to £20 billion in 2015-16, with the current structural deficit back in balance. That is the task that we have set ourselves. That was the first test of this Budget: to tackle borrowing and get the deficit down. Our approach has been reinforced by the judgments of the credit rating agencies and the business lobby when they agreed on Budget day that the plan is credible. Measures include reducing current expenditure by £30 billion a year by 2014-15, stronger medium-term growth with more business support to restore UK competitiveness, and reducing regulation and tax rates; and unemployment is forecast to fall throughout the OBR’s forecast period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Directly in terms of this Budget, there will be no increase at all; that figure is approved by the OBR, and it is our determination to drive the figure down. Let me say to my hon. Friend that he is right: we have inherited from Labour one of the worst records of household unemployment in western Europe and, worse than that, we have the highest number of children living in workless households in the whole of western Europe. That is a shameful record of the previous Labour Government, and although Labour Members go on about it, it is we who have to deal with it, and I promise my hon. Friend that we will deal with it.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of children living in workless households has fallen from about 2.3 million in 1997 to 1.8 million today, and that it was, in fact, his party when in government previously that trebled the number of children in poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

If the right hon. Lady wants to go on fighting past elections, she can; it will not change the results of them. The reality is that under her Government, child poverty rose—[Interruption.] It rose from 2004 onwards, and the Government threw a lot of money at it and absolutely failed. Under her Government, in the last seven or eight years child poverty has risen dramatically, and I have to point out to her that she has failed to recognise that as a result of their policies child poverty is now at serious risk of rising even further. We have to get it down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way in a second; I think that I have been reasonably generous.

I should like to return to the choice on the uprating of benefits—something on which, I guess, Opposition Members will want to intervene. Before the Budget, there was some media speculation, much of it fed by the Opposition. In fact, I think that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said that she would not support a freeze of benefits and that she would definitely want to oppose that. The media speculation was that we would go to that—in fact, I believe that that would have saved some £17 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament—but I resolved not to do that. We decided that it would be unfair for the worst-off. Instead, the Chancellor and I agreed that we would continue to uprate benefits by the consumer prices index, which is forecast in the Budget to be 2.7% this year. Of course, the CPI does not include housing costs, and it seemed more reasonable. However, the right hon. Lady was reviewing that before she left office, and I am sure therefore that she will want to tell me that she agrees with the uprating, rather than remaining as we were. I would therefore like her to tell me exactly what reduction in spending she was planning as her Department’s share of the £45 billion. I will give way to her if can tell me which elements of saving she would have made in her budget. She does not want to use the CPI; what was she going to do that added up?

[Yvette Cooper]

In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the additional support that we have put in to help the unemployed has kept unemployment at about half the level of previous recessions and nearly 750,000 lower than it was predicted. That in itself is likely to save more than £15 billion over the next five years. We believe that the right way to do welfare reform is help people into work, not just to slash the support for the most vulnerable people in society.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am very sad that the right hon. Lady chose not to answer the question. When I give way to an intervention from now on, I will ask Opposition Members—this goes for all of them—the very simple question: what would they have reduced? They were in government not two months ago, and they have left us with a terrible problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State told us in May in his first speech that he would work to improve the quality of life of the worst-off in Britain. He said that

“we are here to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.”

He has just spent 40 minutes defending a Budget that kicks the poorest and the most vulnerable in the teeth. How does that sit on his conscience? Was it his idea, or was it the Treasury’s, to tell a woman in her fifties, who has given up work to look after her elderly parents that, in fact, what they wanted to do was cut housing benefit and make her pay VAT—hundreds of pounds a year—and that even her carer’s allowance over the next five years would be cut in value by about £90 a year? Was it his idea, or was it the Treasury’s, to tell someone who is severely disabled—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer this point as well if he is going to respond. Was it his idea, or was it the Treasury’s, to tell someone who is severely disabled and really cannot work, “We’re going to cut the value of support over the next five years by £300 a year”? If he could answer those points, that would be very welcome.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady answered the original question. She was in government not two months ago. [Interruption.] No—the Opposition have to recognise that they have only just left government, so we have a legitimate right to ask the question. They left the deficit behind, which will lead to real problems for Britain—we have had to resolve it. If she does not like what we have done, what would she have done instead? Will she answer that question?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. He has not explained why he claims to help the poorest and most vulnerable, yet is cutting the benefits of those who are poorest and most vulnerable in society. Government Members like to claim that this is inevitable. This is an ideological choice that they are making. They have chosen to cut an extra £40 billion from the economy. They have chosen to cut an extra £11 billion from the value of benefits and tax credits. They have chosen to cut an extra £17 billion a year from Government Departments, and they have chosen to increase VAT. They have chosen to cut the deficit at a pace that is not only unfair and destructive to our public services but damaging to our economy.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady tell us exactly what the maximum level of housing benefit should be? Does she think it right that we are paying people more than £100,000 a year?

[Yvette Cooper]

No, I do not, which is why we introduced cuts in support for the highest rents as a result of the previous Budget, and set out a series of further reforms. I want to return to the point about housing benefit in a moment, because it is important.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

On page 33 of the Red Book, paragraph 1.102 makes it quite clear that the Government intend to reduce housing benefit to people of working age if they under-occupy council housing. In his response to an intervention, the Secretary of State referred to pensioners under-occupying social housing. Does that not give the lie to what is in the Red Book, and show the real intention of housing benefit changes, which are an attack on pensioners?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am happy to accept an intervention from the Secretary of State if he wants to clarify the position, because he did indeed discuss pensioners who under-occupy homes across the country. It is right that we help and support people who want to move to smaller homes as they grow older, but he needs to give us an answer. If he is telling elderly people and pensioners that they are going to have to move out of the home where they have lived all their lives, and where they have brought up their children, that has severe consequences. He must clarify his position, because my hon. Friend is right.

[Simon Hughes]

The right hon. Lady’s attack appears to be that the measures introduced by the Government are ideologically driven—something that is difficult to justify with regard to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb); and others, who have a record of campaigning for the poor and disadvantaged. Might not the same fallacious argument explain why, for 13 years, the Labour Government never linked pensions to earnings? Was that an ideological option? I hope it was not but if it was, the right hon. Lady cannot make the argument, because it is fallacious.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are many members of the Government who have indeed campaigned against poverty for many years, which is why their betrayal of the people whom they have stood up for is shocking. He will recall, too, that it was the Labour party that legislated and changed the law to restore the link with earnings. He should look rather carefully at the increase that, in practice, pensioners will receive over the next few years compared with the old standards. He will find that the new proposals are rather less generous than they appear at first sight.

[Chris Bryant]

Is there not also a real danger that the Government are presenting us with a straw man on housing benefit? In many of the constituencies that have the biggest problems in the land in trying to get people into work, it is not a question of people being paid more than £400 or of their living in houses that are too large, but of people living in houses that are not large enough and not looked after well enough by unscrupulous landlords. What we need to do if we want to help young people to grow up in households where there is work is to give them real opportunities to work.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that the key is helping people into jobs, yet the Budget cuts the number of people in work, increases the number of people on the dole, cuts the help for people to get back to work, as well as cutting the income of carers and the severely disabled, cuts help for kids, and hits the elderly with a VAT hike. Nothing in the Budget will get a single extra person back to work. Instead, it cuts the number of people in work.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

To what degree does the right hon. Lady believe that the previous Labour Government were responsible for the massive budget deficit that we face?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been through the greatest global recession for many generations. That has had an impact on economies across the world, pushed up unemployment across the world, and pushed up borrowing across the world. We think it was the right thing to do to increase borrowing in response to the recession. That is why unemployment in this recession has been about 5%, compared with 10% in the recession of the 1980s and 1990s. Helping more people back into jobs has saved us money and also helped to put borrowing in a stronger position.

Minister after Minister has tried to pretend that this is a fair and a progressive Budget. The Liberal Democrats are clinging to the fig leaf of their increase in personal allowances, despite the fact that it is more than blown away by the hike in VAT. The Prime Minister said last year about VAT that

“it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest. It does, I absolutely promise you. . . VAT is a more regressive tax than income tax or council tax.”

That, then, will be why the Government have cut council tax, cut income tax and increased VAT to pay for it. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies made clear, the Budget is regressive, no matter how many times Ministers try to pretend the opposite.

[Bob Russell]

Does the right hon. Lady agree with the study by the Fabian Society and the Webb Memorial Trust that shows that 20% of the population is living in poverty? Talking about betrayal and 13 years of Labour Government, the inequality in Britain today, on some measures, is at its highest since the early 1960s.

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the level of child poverty is some 600,000 lower than it was in 1997 as a result of the action that the Labour Government took. He also knows that we deliberately made the measures of poverty by which we were judged relative measures. Of course, that makes matters harder as the economy grows, and of course there is always more to do. That is why we believed it was right to do more to help the poorest and those who were struggling—in contrast with this Budget, which does the opposite. Pensioners do not get the income tax cut, but they have to pay more in VAT. Those on the lowest incomes do not get the income tax cut, but they have to pay more in VAT.

The Ministers are like fraudsters in the fairy tale, telling gullible Liberal Democrat MPs about the beautiful progressive clothes that the emperor is wearing, if only they are clever enough and loyal enough to see them. Liberal Democrats are clinging desperately to shreds of invisible cloth, reaching deep into their Liberal and Conservative history to pretend that they can be progressive now. They are claiming that Keynes might have backed the Budget. They are calling on Beveridge for support, kidding themselves that they can call on their history and that they are following in the footsteps of great liberal Conservatives like Winston Churchill, who supported the minimum wage, but the truth is that the emperor has no clothes.

The truth is that if we look at the detail, the Budget is nastier than any brought in by Margaret Thatcher. Instead of Churchill, Keynes or the founders of the welfare state, the Liberal Democrats have signed up, with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his Chancellor, to cut support for the poor. It is perhaps apt that in this week of World cup disappointments, it was a footballer who got it right. In 2002, after England were defeated in the World cup by Brazil, Gareth Southgate reflected ruefully on England’s performance and said:

“We were expecting Winston Churchill and instead got Iain Duncan Smith.”

That is the reality for the Liberal Democrats now. With all their high hopes, they have betrayed the poor and the vulnerable, whom they stood up to defend.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know he has a history of supporting people on low incomes. I do not know why he is betraying it now.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Will she confirm a fact for us about the pension rise that she pencilled in for 2012? Whereas we have guaranteed a minimum of 2.5%, can she confirm that her spending plans proposed a pension rise below 2.5%?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the old uprating rules are that the pension should go up by either RPI or 2.5%. If he had stuck to those old rules, pensioners would be better off in 2012, 2013 and 2014. As he also knows, all parties supported restoring the link with earnings in the next Parliament, but his proposals cut the support for the additional pension for 6 million women and 4 million men by £100 a year, as a result of his upratings by CPI, rather than RPI.

[Steve Webb]

As a new Minister, I have had to reply to many letters complaining about what the previous Government did. One of things that people complain about is the freezing of the additional pension by the right hon. Lady’s Government in April 2010. Can she confirm that under our CPI policy, the pension would have gone up in April 2010? Can she confirm that she froze that pension for millions of people?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will struggle to defend his progressive history if he quotes selectively from the figures. He knows that the Budget sets out the additional cuts and savings that he will make from benefits, tax credits and public service pensions from the switch to CPI indexation from 2011-12, which includes, as he well knows, the additional pension and much additional support for pensioners—and which he hid from pensioners on Budget day. That will lead to cuts of £1.17 billion in 2011, £2.2 billion in 2012, and £3.9 billion in 2013.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should also consider this: he had his negotiations with the Conservatives about the personal allowance that they were so keen on, yet they failed to consider extending that personal allowance increase to pensioners. They left pensioners out. If he really cared about pensioners, he might have increased the personal allowance for pensioners. As a result, all the pensioners across the country do not benefit from the increase in personal allowance, but they will pay hundreds of pounds extra every year in VAT—an increase that members of his party opposed, campaigned against and shouted about in the run-up to the election. Where are their principles now? Now they are ditching all those commitments and all those principles because they are happy for pensioners to pay hundreds of pounds a year more in VAT.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Can the right hon. Lady remind me, a new Member, which Government it was who gave pensioners a 75p a week increase?

[Yvette Cooper]

I do not think that was right. That is why it was right to increase the support for pensioners, to increase the winter fuel allowance and to bring in a floor, so that never again would pensioners face such an increase.

Members on the Government Benches jeer and call, but what are they going to do to the winter fuel allowance and to free bus passes? They are already briefing the newspapers that they plan to cut the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes, and that that is needed to protect the police and public services. I invite the Secretary of State to intervene and to confirm that he will make no cuts in the winter fuel allowance every year for the next five years.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I tell the right hon. Lady that the coalition gave a commitment. We are paying the winter fuel payment.

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope that meant for this year, next year and future years. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he is paying the winter fuel payment in full. It is not clear, however, what he thinks the full level is. Perhaps he could make the same commitment about free bus travel. Will he stick with free bus travel and not cut it for the next five years?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I shall tell the right hon. Lady what I am going to do. I am going to answer questions when she answers this question: what would she have reduced with a £45 billion requirement on her head to cut the deficit? Until she owns up and answers that question, she has no right to ask us any more.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman has gone £40 billion further. He has proposed an additional £40 billion of cuts that we do not think are the right thing to do. He asks what we would have done, but I am sure that he has read chapter 6 of the March Budget, which sets out £20 billion of saving cuts in some detail and a further £19 billion in tax increases. I shall tell him what else we would not do: we would not waste money on measures such as free schools and the married couple’s allowance.

Nothing in the Government’s plans will get a single extra person back to work. In fact, the opposite is true. The Budget cuts the number of jobs in the economy by 100,000 a year. It increases the number of people on the dole by up to 100,000 a year, and that is on the admission of the experts the Government appointed. At the same time, the Government are cutting 200,000 jobs and training places and the youth guarantee and job guarantee schemes. How on earth will they get more people into work if they keep cutting jobs?

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing, which, in relation to a Department that allegedly is protected, suggests that at least 5,500 and, possibly, as many as 30,000 front-line nurses’ jobs will go?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that the Government’s proposals do not even include the consequences of the spending review and the proposed additional £17 billion of cuts in public services.

We think that it is better for people to be in work than on the dole, and that is why we funded the future jobs fund and additional support and jobs. They were often in the community and run by the voluntary sector, and they helped young people to obtain the skills that they needed and to stay off the dole. Yet, shockingly, the Government have cut 90,000 jobs through the future jobs fund, putting all those people—additionally—back on to the dole and pushing up unemployment bills. As a result, even on the OBR’s calculations, those measures will cost the Government £2 billion more over the next four years. They will have to pay additional benefits for the unemployed, and the financial, economic and social price of higher long-term unemployment will cost us more for years.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to make some progress before I do.

The Secretary of State also said that he wants to make work pay. Yesterday he told Sky that there are marginal tax rates of 90p in the pound for some young people, that that was regressive and that he wanted, first, to change the system so that they are able to keep more of their own money. But, page 69 of the Red Book shows that as a result of the Budget an extra 20,000 people will lose more than 90p in the pound.

We agree that housing benefit needs reform, and we brought forward some measures in the March Budget and introduced a consultation paper last December to set out our proposals. We agree also that we have to stop some of the most excessive rents being paid, and that we should exclude some of the highest rents in every area. However, we should also consider how we provide more security and payments for people moving into work, so that work incentives are improved. There is a strong case for linking housing benefit to tax credits in the longer term, but the Government’s proposals do not set out any reforms; they set out only cuts, and destructive ones at that. Their plans cut almost £1.7 billion a year from housing benefit, and there is no analysis of how many people that measure will push into poverty or homelessness.

[Mr Slaughter]

There are clearly no poor people left in Southwark—certainly none on housing benefit, or the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) would not have the temerity to support the Budget. However, there are poor people in Hammersmith, Islington, Westminster and Kensington, so does my right hon. Friend agree not only that it is wrong to force thousands of families out of London, but that such measures will do nothing to get people into jobs, nothing for family break-up figures and nothing for community cohesion in London?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that those proposals will have an impact on families and on entire communities. Almost £1 billion will be taken from tenants in the private rented sector—almost 20% of their support. If tenants have on average 20% of their payments cut, how many of them does the right hon. Gentleman think will really be able to carry on paying their rent? People in Wakefield will lose £20 a week; people in Barking will lose £40 a week; and people in Broxtowe will lose £30 a week. That is before they face the cuts in tax credits and the hit from extra VAT.

[Glenda Jackson]

The Secretary of State cited a four-bedroom house in the private sector. My constituency is served by two local authorities, and in Brent the medium price for a four-bedroom house is £450 a week. In Camden the medium price is £1,020 a week. Currently, 42% of people claiming housing benefit in Brent and 18% of people doing so in Camden are in the private rented sector. That represents a sizeable number of families who will clearly lose their homes under the current Government.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns, particularly as many people who receive housing benefit are in work. They work hard, are in low-paid jobs and cannot afford to pay their rent without the extra help that housing benefit brings. So, the Government’s measures will hit people who work hard to support their families and make ends meet. They will find the rug withdrawn from under them.

I am particularly concerned about the combined proposals for lone-parent families, and I ask the Secretary of State to look at them, because he says that lone parents with five and six-year-olds will move on to jobseeker’s allowance and have to look for work. However, his own documents, which were provided at the same time as the Budget, assume that only 10% of those lone parents will leave benefits because of the risk they might be less work ready or need more time to find a suitable job that fits with their caring responsibilities.

Many lone parents need additional support to find work that fits school hours, but as a consequence of these proposals about 90% of them will still be on jobseeker’s allowance one year later, at which point they will suddenly be hit by the right hon. Gentleman’s 10% cut in housing benefit. Lone parents with young children might work really hard to find a job that fits school hours, but suddenly an average of £500 a year will be taken from their incomes because they cannot find work and because, as a result, he wants to cut their housing benefit. That is deeply unfair on families who might work really hard to try to make ends meet. What does he expect people to do? Hundreds of thousands of people will struggle to pay their rent, and parents will have to move house, shift their kids out of school, move long distances and break up communities in order to try to find an affordable home.

[Emily Thornberry]

Given that the Secretary of State seems to think that we are exaggerating the position, does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea if he spent a morning with me visiting some of the Islington families who will be profoundly affected by those changes to housing benefit?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is a very generous invitation, which I shall pass on to the right hon. Gentleman.

Where are the figures for the analysis of the impact of those proposals on homelessness? Where are the figures for their impact on families who will not be able to pay their rent? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea how expensive it is to keep a family in temporary accommodation? That is the problem. That proposal is just like the proposal on unemployment. If the Government do not provide the support up front, it will cost them more later on in terms of dealing with homelessness.

As for supporting families, not even in the worst of the Thatcher years did the Government ever introduce a Budget that hit children so hard. Of the £8 billion that this Budget raises from direct tax and benefit changes, however, £3 billion directly hits children: cutting the child trust fund and the value of child benefit, and overall cuts in child tax credit. That is even before we add the cuts that families face in housing benefit, free school meals, free swimming, the future jobs fund and university places. This is a savage Budget for children. The Government claim that it will be all right because there is not a measured increase in child poverty as a result of this Budget. Of course there is not, because the Treasury model will not measure the impact of changes to VAT or housing benefit, and it will not look ahead any further than 2012-13, before many of the cuts bite.

Look at the people the Secretary of State is hitting hardest—the very youngest children of all. Gone is the baby tax credit, so some mums will now find they cannot afford to stay at home for as long as they want with their little babies. Gone is our plan for a toddler tax credit, gone is the pregnancy grant, and cut is the Sure Start maternity allowance. Has he no idea at all that supporting a family and getting the children out of poverty when the babies are born can save money from the public purse for years to come? Instead, he wants to cut support from the babes in their mothers’ arms. At least Margaret Thatcher had the grace to wait until the children were weaned before snatching their support.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Child Poverty Action Group has said that this is a disappointing Budget in terms of child poverty and that it will make it very difficult to meet the targets for the eradication of child poverty already set by the previous Labour Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right. When one takes account of what the Government are doing to housing benefit and VAT, the real consequence of this Budget is that it will push people, including children, into poverty. We remember how the Conservatives did this before in the ’80s: they cut jobs and cut the help for people to get into jobs, they cut the support for people who could not find jobs, they cut help for pensioners, and they cut support for families and ramped up the VAT bills for them to pay. We also remember how those cuts cost us more for generations to come. It cost more to deal with people on the dole, it cost more to help families who were made homeless, and it cost more to deal with the long-term effects on communities devastated by unemployment.

These unfair cuts are not driven by good budgeting. They will cost our economy and they will cost our public finances, too. This is an ideologically driven Budget by a party that simply wants to cut the size of the state, no matter who gets in the way. The truth is that the Conservatives have the youngest, the oldest, the poorest, the weakest and the most vulnerable in their sights. The nasty party is back—only this time they brought along their mates. Shame on them. Both parties have broken their promises; now they want to break Britain too, and we will fight them all the way.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

No, I want to press on.

Thirdly, this is a Budget for fairness. Fairness underpins this Budget, and fairness runs throughout this Budget. This is the first Budget to include an analysis of the distributional impact of its measures. It shows that overall the richest will contribute most to deficit reduction, and it will have no measurable impact on child poverty by 2012-13. That is a good start, and of course we will take further action to underpin fairness on future occasions and in future Budgets. It is important to stress to the House the fact that the principles that have shaped the Budget will also shape the decisions that we make in the spending review, too.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, this is a progressive Budget. It is a Budget that takes almost 1 million of the lowest-earning income taxpayers out of income tax altogether—that is progressive. It is a Budget that locks in an annual increase in the state pension in line with earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest, to the benefit of 11 million pensioners. That is progressive, too. It is a Budget that increases capital gains tax rates by 10% for higher rate taxpayers, but keeps it the same for basic rate taxpayers. That is progressive. It includes a radical programme of welfare reform to focus support on those most in need. The welfare bill has ballooned from £132 billion 10 years ago to £192 billion today. If we ignore the economic and social pressures caused by this system, we will only put the whole country and the front-line services on which we rely under even greater financial pressure in future. The Government will tackle that situation head on, including through the reforms in the Budget to the disability living allowance, housing benefits, and the uprating of benefits. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said, these reforms will ensure that help is targeted on those most in need.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I will not give way. The irresponsible Opposition, when in government, caused many of the problems that we face today. We have heard accusations from them today that the measures we announced in the Budget are unfair. Let me test that accusation. The previous Government uprated pensions by 75p. That is not fairness. We have reintroduced the earnings link as our first action—that is fairness.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I will not; I must press on.

The previous Government abolished the 10p rate of income tax. [Interruption.]

[Danny Alexander]

That is not fairness. We have taken nearly 1 million people out of income tax altogether. That is fairness. The previous Government left an open door for the highest earners to exploit the gap between the rate of capital gains tax and the top rates of income tax, costing the taxpayer £1 billion a year. That is not fairness either. We have raised capital gains tax for higher rate taxpayers, and only higher rate taxpayers, by 10%. That is fairness.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that pensioners will pay hundreds of pounds a year in VAT as a result of his VAT hike, but he chose not to include them in his increase in the personal allowance?

[Danny Alexander]

I thought that the right hon. Lady was going to do better than that. We have relinked pensions to earnings after 13 years. She failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary earlier about the uprating she had planned, which was less than ours even in the second year.

We should compare the Opposition’s denial that there is a genuine economic need to tackle the deficit with our decisiveness, taking the action on the deficit that we all know is necessary. Compare their complacency with our responsibility. Compare their legacy of ruin in the public finances with our approach of fairness as we take steps to clean up the mess that they left. Compare their obstinate refusal to take unilateral action in introducing a banking levy with our resolute leadership, which not only delivered a levy but brought France and Germany along with us too. The Opposition would have us living in denial. Their approach to the deficit seems to be see no deficit, hear no deficit, speak no deficit. One Opposition Member even told us in today’s debate that they believed the deficit was a fantasy. It is such self-indulgence and complacency that led us into the mess we are in. The way that they got us here is not the way out.

This is a Budget for responsibility, it is a Budget for freedom and it is a Budget for fairness. It is a coalition Budget, and I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady at a moment of her convenience. I understand that the centre had reached the end of its lease, and we are trying to find a way of ensuring that there is support in the area. I am happy to meet her and deal with those specifics.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that he wants more people off benefits and in work. He will know that that depends on their having jobs to go to. Can he tell the House exactly how many of the 205,000 jobs planned under the future jobs fund he is cutting as a result of his plans?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Lady will know that we are not cutting any jobs at all. We are saying that we will stop the part of the programme relating to jobs that were not contracted for. All the other jobs that are contracted for will go ahead. Originally it was estimated that that meant that 140,000 jobs would be found. In fact, we understand the number to be about a third fewer than that—about 100,000—although we will know when we get closer to the time.

I say to the right hon. Lady that the money that we save will go towards preventing the jobs tax—the national insurance tax—that her party was going to impose on those people when they took work, which would have meant fewer people being in work. We will also have the money to make sure that 50,000 new apprenticeships, which are sustainable jobs, come into existence under this Government.

[Yvette Cooper]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which today issued its forecasts based on the previous Labour Government’s tax and spending plans, in fact confirmed that unemployment would continue to fall in future years, including the plans for national insurance contributions? Can he also confirm that the Labour Government’s plans set out at the Budget were for 205,000 jobs under the future jobs fund this year and next, and his Department’s website says that only 111,000 jobs will be funded? Can he confirm that 205,000 take away 111,000 is 94,000, and that he will therefore be cutting nearly 100,000 job opportunities for young people and the long-term unemployed—cutting support for the jobless when they need it most?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I know that the right hon. Lady feels personally wedded to this programme, but those figures are quite ludicrous. She poses notional figures of jobs that she might have created had the scheme worked against jobs that we believe are likely to be there, so a silly game is being played out.

Whether the right hon. Lady likes it or not, had she got into government—heaven help us—she would have had to cut back on various budgets, as her own Government at the time said they would. Where would she have made those savings? She cannot, now that she is in opposition, simply say no to everything. Her Government went on a spending spree like drunks on a Friday night, and we have all got the hangover now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I can confirm that we will look for better value for money for the taxpayer and the maximum possible effectiveness in getting people into work; not work that lasts just six months, but work that gets them into sustainable, long-term careers that can make a difference to them—not the sort of short-term scheme that characterised the previous Government’s last few months.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility has found that unemployment would have fallen under Labour’s plans. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development survey in April also said that unemployment was close to its peak. However, the Minister will know that it has recently revised its forecast and, as a result of the change in policies by the new Conservative-Liberal Government, it predicts that public sector jobs will be cut by 750,000 and unemployment will increase to nearly 3 million. Does the Minister think that it is talking nonsense or does he agree that his proposals for cuts will hit jobs hard?

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was a firm supporter of yours in the recent elections. I also warmly welcome the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) to her position. She has been sitting in the Whips Office for a number of years now, and I am sure that standing at the Dispatch Box beats that any day of the week. I congratulate those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today, which I will come to in a bit more detail later.

First, I want to pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Lady in her closing comments. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), began the debate with the bleak picture of poverty that the country faces. Despite record levels of spending on benefits in the last 13 years, we have more working-age adults living in relative poverty than ever before. The hon. Lady said that the Labour Government acted to tackle poverty, but I am afraid that her rhetoric does not match the facts. Income inequality is at its highest since records began, and a higher proportion of children grow up in workless households in the UK than in any other EU country. That is a damning indictment of the previous Government’s legacy, a legacy that I am afraid was absent from the opening comments of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The facts could not be clearer. The tired old ways of continually throwing money at the problem, no matter how deeply entrenched or seemingly intractable, lie discredited.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. I am sure that she will do some very important work in the Department. Will she confirm that the number of children living in workless households has fallen significantly since 1997, having previously risen substantially?

[Maria Miller]

The shadow Secretary of State fails to point out that the previous Government completely failed to tackle the level of poverty in this country in the way that they set out that they would, and they did not hit their child poverty targets. They have left us to put in place a firm strategy to address that issue. The right hon. Lady should not be too selective with her facts.

It could not be clearer that we need fresh ideas if we are to reverse the dreadful situation that we face; and it could not be clearer that, if new approaches to tackling poverty are to have any effect, they require new, clear thinking. That is exactly what our coalition Government are able to offer: a new vision and a new strategy to tackle the root causes of poverty. Family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, worklessness and economic dependency are the pathways to poverty and the underlying problems that can lead to a lifetime—even generations—of worklessness and welfare dependency.