Oral Answers to Questions — Education and Employment – in the House of Commons at 1:51 pm on 26 February 1997.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has for new training and enterprise measures to deal with the problems of unemployment in Cumbria. [16062]
Unemployed people in Cumbria will have access to all the Government's new national programmes, especially national traineeships for young people and pre-vocational training for adults.
May I enter a plea to the Minister that in his reply he does not merely parrot off totally spurious fiddled figures on unemployment in west Cumbria, because my constituents simply do not believe him? Has he seen the Labour party's significant policy document called "Opportunities to Earn: Labour's proposals to tackle long term unemployment"? That document includes a raft of employment and training policies, many of which will be funded by Labour's windfall tax, which will raise billions of pounds from the former public utilities and privatised companies. It offers the first opportunity in years for many people in west Cumbria to secure employment and training.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had used figures in my answer, but I did not refer to any figures. I recognise that unemployment in his constituency is higher than the national average, and higher than either he or I would wish it to be. To suggest, as he does, that we could dispense with unemployment through the windfall tax is to perpetrate an immense con trick on the people in his constituency and in the rest of the country. Labour proposes to get rid of unemployment with a one-off measure from a one-off tax. Besides the cost of the windfall tax to his constituents through their pension funds and shares, we all know that that proposal could not possibly work.
Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the job losses that would result from the lack of investment by the utilities if Labour were to implement the windfall tax? How many people in Cumbria would become unemployed because of the windfall tax before Labour even started to create the make-work schemes and spurious training schemes outlined in that stupid Labour party document?
As my hon. Friend knows, it is impossible to calculate how many people would be put out of work, because the Labour party is not prepared to say how much it would seek to raise from the windfall tax, how it would be levied and who precisely would pay it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would cause a reduction in employment levels, for the simple reason that, contrary to what Labour says, there is no pot of money waiting to be taxed. If the utilities were forced to pay the tax, they would have to put up prices, cut dividends or, most likely, as my hon. Friend suggests, cut jobs.