Proceeding contribution from Stephen Timms (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 January 2012. It occurred during Opposition day on Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses.
Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses
We do support the benefit cap. The version that the Minister is pressing through is, as the House of Lords has rightly pointed out, going to cause huge costs for the Exchequer. I hope that even now the Secretary of State will think again before returning to the House with the measure next week. The Work programme was rushed, and badly prepared. As we pointed out at the time, there should have been a plan for transition to the new programme. There was no plan. We can glimpse how the Work programme has been going by looking at the number of people coming off benefit each month. The number plummeted last May, when the flexible new deal stopped, and it stayed low as the Work programme got going. I invite the Minister to compare the months after May with the same period the previous year, because he will see that poor Work programme performance resulted in 86,000 people not getting into work who should have done. That is probably a permanent unemployment rise. The damage will be with us for years. The Government told us that the Work programme would enlist an army of voluntary organisations to give specialist help to jobseekers. To begin with, we were told that 508 voluntary sector organisations would be involved. By August, that number had fallen to 423. Next week the Government will count once again. Last week, apparently, at a crunch meeting, voluntary sector organisations told the Minister that they were being used as ““bid candy”” to win contracts. Some of them still have not had a single referral since the Work programme began last summer. The Open Public Services White Paper promised, as I quoted to the Minister earlier:"““Providers of public services from all sectors will need to publish information on performance and user satisfaction.””" I welcome the Minister's U-turn on performance. What about user satisfaction? Let me tell him about the satisfaction of one user, the father of a constituent of mine, who came to me to complain about his daughter's experience on the Work programme. She received a letter referring her to mandatory work activity. It was completely incomprehensible; I will send the Minister a copy. She lives in my constituency in east London. The letter appeared to require her to report on an unspecified date to an address with a postcode in Sheffield, and the telephone number was given as 000. It was a shambles. It is no wonder the Work programme is not delivering and youth unemployment is rocketing.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 539 c129-30
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Directors Banks Incentives Financial services Pay Managers Young people Taxation Unemployment
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:12:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_802762
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_802762
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_802762