With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on today's Green Paper, "In work, better off: next steps to full employment". Ten years of progress under this Government have transformed work and opportunity in Britain. We have seen the longest and most sustained period of economic growth for over 200 years, the fastest falling child poverty in Europe and the highest employment in our country's history.

Today, the achievement of full employment and the eradication of child poverty are seen no longer as simply aspirational rallying calls, but as real targets that people expect to be delivered in our generation. But to achieve them, especially at a time when the global forces of economic and demographic change present new and ever greater challenges for our economy and labour market, will require a step change in our reforms.

We must reignite the jobs crusade that started in 1997 and renew the partnership between Government, employers and individuals by focusing now on those who remain furthest from the labour market and on those whose potential is untapped—on the 3 million people of working age who have been on benefit for over a year, many on incapacity benefits; on lone parents and ethnic minority groups still without the right support to work; on 16 and 17-year-olds not in education, employment or training; and on those remaining pockets of poverty and worklessness concentrated in some of our major cities, yet often close to thriving labour markets and great prosperity.

I said that we needed a step change to tackle these entrenched problems and today's Green Paper delivers it, based as it is on values and principles that go back to Beveridge and Attlee, and on to our new deal. I refer to the belief in equality and opportunity and in rights and responsibilities; to the principle of work for those who can and support for those who cannot; to the idea of working in partnership with employers; and to the belief that an active, progressive welfare system should provide people with the skills that employers need to fill some of the 600,000 vacancies that come up in our labour market each month.

The reforms will build on our progress with the national roll-out of pathways to work. They will see the development of support that is ever more personalised and responsive to the needs of individuals. They will focus on job retention and progression, not just on job entry. They will devolve power to local areas by incentivising local solutions and making the best possible use of expertise across the public, private and voluntary sectors.

We propose, first and foremost, a renewed partnership with employers to ensure that those on welfare applying for jobs have both the skills and the work attitudes that employers need, underpinned by a new jobs pledge aimed at finding opportunities for 250,000 people currently on benefit. Building on the cutting-edge local employment partnerships announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Budget earlier this year, major employers—in both the public and private sectors—have given a commitment to offer guaranteed job interviews for people who have been on benefit and who are ready and prepared to work. Employers will ensure that such people can compete more effectively for vacancies and have the support then to progress within the workplace, adding to last month's employer skills pledge in which 150 leading employers made a public and voluntary commitment to train all their staff to level 2 in the workplace. This will be a two-way process, however, and through the new local employment partnerships, individuals on benefit will be expected to do all that they can to help themselves prepare for work.

Our second area of reform will be to introduce a more personalised, flexible and responsive new deal, with a more integrated approach to skills and wider support for the family, but matched by new responsibilities for jobseekers to do all that they can to help themselves. Those facing particularly severe barriers to work will now get fast-tracked help, while others who have a history of long-term benefit dependency could face tougher responsibilities from the start of their claim. There will be an earlier and more focused assessment of the skills needs of those who are out of work, to inform the development of a back-to-work plan. Agreed activities will be mandatory, however, with clear sanctions for failure to comply.

Eradicating child poverty lies at the heart of the Green Paper. Following the recommendations of Lisa Harker's report last year, we are already changing Jobcentre Plus systems and targets to ensure that the delivery of our employment programmes is more family-focused. We are introducing mandatory work-focused interviews every six months for partners of jobseeker's allowance recipients with children. As with lone parents, work offers a powerful route out of poverty for many of those families.

For lone parents, we will introduce a new social contract which promotes the value of work as the best route to tackle child poverty. We know that the children of lone parents in work are more than five times more likely to be in poverty than the children of lone parents in full-time employment, and that they are three times more likely to be in poverty than the children of lone parents in part-time work. Given our record investment in improving the quality and supply of child care, together with measures to ensure that work pays, lone parents will be expected to make an eventual move into the labour market in return for new and more personalised support.

From October next year, lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 and over will no longer be entitled to income support simply because they are a lone parent. Instead, supported by the new job opportunities made available by the local employment partnerships, they will be eligible to claim jobseeker's allowance, on which they would be expected to look for suitable work in return for personalised help and support. Because we are serious about tackling child poverty, we intend that the relevant age be reduced further to seven from October 2010, backed up by the local availability of high-quality wrap-around child care.

Finally, building on the Freud report, this Green Paper makes greater use of expertise across the private, public and voluntary sectors at both national and local level. Private and voluntary sector providers already play a crucial role in delivering programmes, such as employment zones and the new deal, and we intend to build on that. After 12 months on jobseeker's allowance, or in some cases probably even sooner, we will move customers to a specialist return-to-work provider, who will offer an intensive outcome-focused service, funded on the basis of results; we will push forward with a City strategy, offering local consortiums of providers new funding and flexibilities in return for outcome-based payments; and we will pilot an approach where providers who are successful in moving people into sustained employment are rewarded with increased funds to invest in further activity.

The publication of our proposals today will start a 15-week consultation process. We encourage contributions from both sides of the House and from all those who share our commitment to delivering full employment in Britain. The contrast with 1997 could not be greater: then, record unemployment and the worst child poverty in Europe; today, 2.6 million more people in jobs, more women, more lone parents and more disabled people in work than ever before, and already 600,000 children lifted out of poverty. We must now rise further to the challenge of going further.

The Green Paper lays the foundation for the eradication of child poverty; it builds on the progress that we have made in extending the right to work to all; and in reaching out to the hardest to help, it aims to offer true social mobility and social justice for every individual. I commend it to the House.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for observing the usual courtesies in providing me with an advance copy of the statement. What a shame it is, though, that he did not observe the courtesies that were promised to the House when the new Prime Minister took over less than three weeks ago. We were told then that major policy announcements would be made in the House and not the media, as you have so often demanded, Mr. Speaker, so let me start by asking the Secretary of State why details of the statement were on BBC breakfast television this morning. Is this just a one-man rebellion by the Secretary of State against his new leader, or is it just that the promises made by our new Prime Minister have a shelf-life of only a fortnight?

The statement contains much that all of us can agree on. That is hardly surprising, as parts of it, such as the changed approach for lone parents, are things that we have already argued for—but with this Government, nothing is ever quite what it seems. For a start, there is a distinct feeling of déjà vu in all of this. This is the Government's 11th announcement in 10 years about getting people off benefits and back into work. The last Green Paper was published less than 18 months ago. At that time, the then Minister, Margaret Hodge, was scathing about the Government's record. She said:

"I think that the whole system has left people languishing on benefit... We need to provide the infrastructure of support that helps people break down their barriers and enables them to exercise their rights. So far we have done sweet nothing."

Well, it is now a little over a year later, and what has happened? I think that the House would agree, to judge from today's employment statistics, that the answer is still sweet nothing.

The number of single parents stuck on benefits is barely changed on a year ago. According to the Secretary of State's own figures, 7.93 million people of working age in this country are economically inactive, and that figure is rising, as is youth unemployment. The Government's response is to publish yet another Green Paper—another set of headlines to try to reassure people that Ministers are actually trying to do something, while in the real world too many people are being left behind in our society.

Last year, the Government asked David Freud, chief executive of the Portland Trust, to make recommendations about how to tackle the blight of economic inactivity in this country. His report sets out a radical agenda for change in the way that we help people off benefits and into work. The last Secretary of State said of the report, back in March:

"David Freud's report presents a compelling case for future reform."

We agree with him, but the new Prime Minister clearly does not. He gave David Freud short shrift when they met. In April, a leaked letter from the then Chief Secretary said:

"As the chancellor made clear, it is not possible to develop or pilot a new funding model in the immediate future".

So much for the Government making real use of external advice, or the former Chancellor's big tent. It is obvious that while the Prime Minister is perfectly happy to get in external advice to help him with public relations, he clearly has absolutely no intention of actually using that advice. Let me ask the Secretary of State why the Prime Minister has ordered so much of the Freud report to be watered down. How much extra funding does he really have to implement these changes?

The truth is that after 10 years of broken promises on welfare reform, we still have more than 750,000 lone parents on benefits. We have far more—16 per cent. more—young people who are not in education, employment or training than in 1997, despite all the billions of pounds that the Government have spent on the new deal. Today's figures show that youth unemployment is getting worse. Despite years of promises, we still have more people on incapacity benefit than in 1997. The Secretary of State talked about falling child poverty, but I put it to him that his Department's statistics show that the figures for child poverty in the UK have been rising over the past year.

Neither this Government nor this Prime Minister have shown any sign of being able to get to grips with these problems. Their solution is always to launch yet another consultation, yet another Green Paper, yet more legislation and yet more initiatives, but they never actually get the job done. The truth is that we face a massive social challenge in Britain today. After 10 years in office, there is no real sign that the Government have any idea of what to do about it.

I could not disagree more strongly with the rhetorical end to the hon. Gentleman's response. First, let me say that I gave no interviews before making this statement to the House. The details about the publication of the Green Paper have been given to the House before anyone else—certainly the media—has received them. Many of the details that appeared in bits and pieces in the media this morning were wrong.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to trumpet today's fantastic employment figures, which show record employment, unemployment down, and the number of people on benefits falling. Since he probed me, let me remind him of the figures. Employment is now at more than 29 million, which is 93,000 up on the quarter and 180,000 up on the year. International Labour Organisation-measured unemployment is down. The jobseeker's allowance numbers are down by 91,000, and the number of people on incapacity benefits is down by 38,000, which can be compared with the miserable record under the Tories when it kept rising. The number is now at its lowest level for more than seven years. The number for lone parents is down by 3,000 on the previous year. There are now 317,000 more lone parents in work than there were when we came to power in 1997. I will happily talk about our record any time that the hon. Gentleman likes, including in relation to today's very good employment figures.

The hon. Gentleman made some points about youth unemployment, although they were not specific. Actually, youth unemployment has been all but eradicated —[ Interruption. ] However, as I identified in my statement—this is also identified in the Green Paper—there is an issue in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds who are not necessarily in training, education or work. They need more intensive support, and that is precisely what we are offering them in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills so that they are given the opportunity of gaining skills and jobs in the future.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our response to the Freud report. I would have thought that he would welcome our response—I would not be surprised if the report's author welcomed our response as well. Let us look at the detail. The report recommended a change to the way in which we encourage lone parents into work. We have agreed and taken that change forward. A change was recommended on using the more specialist expertise that is available in the private and voluntary sectors, as well as the public sector. After 12 months, we have adopted that approach. In some cases, we did so before 12 months, as I said in my statement —[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is heckling me, but if he had listened carefully, he would know that in some cases that can take place before the 12-month period.

We have not gone for the big, regional private monopoly provider, because there was a strong response from stakeholders participating in the Freud report consultation that suggested that that was not necessarily the preferred model. Many private sector providers objected to a single regional monopoly provider, because if it failed the whole region would fail with it, so they said that we ought to look at provision in a more flexible way. This is a consultation document: we want to deliver the programmes and to get the best possible support for those who need and want to come off benefit and into work. That is available in the private sector—we want to take advantage of that—but it is available, too, in other ways.

The statement and the Green Paper are a response, too, to the important report by Lisa Harker on child poverty, to the Leitch report on skills, and to the important report by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. We are not just responding to the Freud report, although it is important and will inform our work in future.

Earlier, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State referred to the social contract for 250,000 jobs, but as I understand it, a large slice of those jobs is in the retail sector, which has an employee turnover rate of about 25 per cent., rising to 34 per cent. at Sainsbury. That programme needs to be revisited if it is to be sustainable. As for child poverty, more than 300,000 children are not living with their parents for whatever reason, but with other family members. The system does not cater for them at all, and very little assistance is offered to their supporting families, but it is a serious child poverty problem.

As ever, my hon. Friend, who has authority and expertise in this area and who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, has raised some important issues. The issue of the 300,000 children is important, and we should like to work with him and his colleagues to try to make sure that we can get that right, because there is an important problem to overcome and a challenge to meet.

On the question of the retail sector in local employment partnerships, the Prime Minister and I, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, met a number of employers this morning at No. 10 Downing street who represent more than 30 companies that have signed up to our local employment partnerships so far—the number is increasing all the time. They included important national retailers such as Debenhams, Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury's, as well as Network Rail, security companies and other organisations that have signed up to the partnership with Government.

It is true—this was one of the points made by the retailers' representatives this morning—that retailers tend to have a high turnover, partly because they attract many students at certain times, such as the pre-Christmas period. However, they find that when they can get someone through Jobcentre Plus—off benefits, in many cases—such people tend to stay. Working with us is therefore attractive, as it will help to make sure that many of those individuals have the opportunity and dignity that comes with work, and receive the support, including child care in the case of parents, that enables them to work, which they have not been able to do in the past.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. Does he agree that, despite suggestions that all parties are interested in this agenda, it is astonishing that the official Opposition refused the opportunity to repeat the statement in the other place?

We share the Secretary of State's objective of ending child poverty, but is he not aware that child poverty has gone up in the past year, not down? Is he not aware that the employment rate has gone down in the past year, not up, and that it is no higher now than it was at the peak of the last economic cycle? Is he not aware that inequality is rising, not falling?

We welcome David Freud's proposals to move the benefit rules for lone parents closer to those in the rest of the European Union, but does the Secretary of State agree that he must address, too, the huge problem of child care availability which is the major barrier to work for that group? Is it not very hasty indeed to go further to the age of seven without addressing those child care issues and without allowing time for a proper evaluation of the reduction to the age of 12?

The Government must tackle the shameful fact that after 10 years in office 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit have still not received the help that they need. We welcome the long-overdue focus on building relationships with employers, but David Freud's most significant contribution was on the funding of welfare support to the hardest-to-help groups through three-year contracts. Does the Secretary of State agree that such long-term funding is essential to enable the private and voluntary sectors, which he rightly praised, to deliver for those groups? Will he confirm that the Treasury objected to the long-term funding model proposed by Freud, and that without that funding it will be much harder to provide the personal support into work for those people who need and want that help most?

Freud made it clear in his review that the byzantine complexity of our benefits system is a major disincentive to work. He is right. Why will the Government not move faster towards his recommendation of a single system of working-age benefits? What steps has the Secretary of State taken to implement Freud's proposals that Jobcentre Plus should become a one-stop shop for all benefits and tax credits? Britain today is disfigured by inequality and by concentrations of worklessness. By watering down Freud's key recommendations in a Green Paper that took longer to write than Freud took to write his own report, today's statement misses a huge opportunity to deliver extra help to those people who need it most.

To pick up the hon. Gentleman's last point on the simplification of the benefits system, we are still considering the best way forward, as it is an important issue. However, there are many difficult problems. David Freud explored the notion of a single benefit system, and found that none of the options was straightforward—something that the hon. Gentleman did not mention. A recent paper by the Institute of Public Policy Research highlighted the costs of a single benefit system. We are still looking at the proposal, but we must proceed with a great deal of care.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about long-term funding. Obviously, there is a comprehensive spending review time frame, but clearly we want more certainty, which is why we are looking at the way in which we provide contracts so that they can take into account such things and are outcome-focused, too. We should not just provide people with a contract and that is it: it should be more outcome and results-focused—a point that is made, he will agree, by the Freud report, and one of the many points that we have picked up.

As for the hon. Gentleman's point about child care, I am not sure that he listened carefully to what I had to say. As I provided him with a copy of my statement, he might have checked it out in advance. We are linking the measure, especially for lone parents, for whom we start to bring the age down to seven years old by October 2010, to the availability of child care. If we reach the targets that we have set, there will be pre-school and after-school child care arrangements, and high-quality wrap-around child care. The child tax credit system is important, and there is more support for children and child care than ever before in the history of this country.

This is about providing lone parents with an opportunity that many of them crave and want, so we need support arrangements to enable them to take advantage of that opportunity and lift themselves and their children out of the poverty in which far too many of them are still stuck. The truth is that we have lifted people out of poverty in greater millions in recent times, and certainly compared with the previous Government. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. We have made a start on tackling inequality by that route, and we have provided, too, the highest level of employment ever in the history of this country.

What about the rate?

The truth is that more people have come on to the labour market in the past year than ever before, yet employment has still been rising, and unemployment is still falling —[ Interruption. ] I do not mind Chris Grayling heckling me—he is welcome to do so—but he should compare our record as a Government, which is a proud record on employment, with his miserable record on employment, especially in areas outside the south-east where unemployment was steep and long-term and many people disappeared on to the dole, never to have any hope or prospect of a job. That is the record that we are now seeking to replace and improve. There are big challenges ahead, which is why the Green Paper signposts the way to meet them.

My right hon. Friend will know that employment in the northern region was decimated under the Conservative party. He will also know that the new deal introduced by our Government has enabled 240,000 people to find work in the region. However, we still have a problem: we have under-employment, a skills gap and a percentage of people who are still registered unemployed.

During the consultation, will the Department be prepared to accept information from organisations such as Blind People's Voice—whose programme Visage helps blind and partially sighted people into work—and TTP, which is highly successful in providing employment for skilled people in Teesside? Will my right hon. Friend also bear it in mind that many thousands of people in the northern region still feel thoroughly unconfident? We need a new deal programme that will encourage young and middle-aged people to believe that they have talents, and that we want to see them in employment.

rose—

Order. We are dealing with a statement, and we must have supplementary questions, not speeches. That sounded too much like a speech.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. As one who represents a part of south Wales with much of the same legacy of the terrible Tory years, I know that we must continue to tackle it.

We will work with my hon. Friend, and with everyone who wants to work with us in all parts of the House, to try to make this programme work. We certainly intend to conduct our consultation on a regional basis, and I hope that my hon. Friend will work with us in the northern region. We also intend to work with organisations such as Blind People's Voice and TTP. It is important that we get the programme right.

I remind the House that there are still big challenges to be met. There are still 4.5 million people on benefit, many of whom want to work and have the potential to do so. If we are to reach the 80 per cent. employment target that we have set to make our economy truly globally competitive for the future, realising that ambition will require 1 million fewer claimants on incapacity benefit, and 300,000 more lone parents and 1 million more older people in work. That is our ambition: not to go backwards into a failed Tory past, but to provide a successful future for Britain under Labour.

May I press the Secretary of State a little further on his proposal to end the entitlement to income support of lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 or over simply because they are lone parents? I suspect many people understand that there is a natural change of gear when a child enters secondary school that may provide more time for parents to find jobs, but why do the Government propose to lower the age to seven, when there is no such natural change of gear? What is the thinking behind the age of seven, rather than six, eight or some other age?

This is an opportunity programme, not a "big stick" programme. As I have said, under this Government there are over 300,000 more lone parents in work than in the past. They are doing better than ever before, and they have been able to lift their children out of poverty as well as taking for themselves all the advantages and dignity that come with work.

In our judgment, moving the age to seven—given the correct child support arrangements, along with support for parents that enables them to work in a way that protects their own interests and those of their children—presents a big opportunity. The point is that most of those people want to work. I think that provided that the circumstances are right, and—as we made clear in the Green Paper—provided that child care support is available, from 8 am pre-school to 6 pm post-school, lone parents who wish to work when their children reach the age of seven should be given the opportunity to do so. They should then move not from income support to nothing, but from income support to jobseeker's allowance. That will give them a chance to make progress in a work-based environment, with regular interviews and all the opportunities that that brings.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's localised and personalised approach. It has proved effective in pathways to work pilot schemes around the country, especially in helping people off incapacity benefit and into work. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that whereas large voluntary sector organisations may well have the infrastructure and capacity to deliver such programmes in partnership with the Government and others, we should not lose sight of what small voluntary sector organisations can offer, particularly in local areas? Will he ensure that they are not squeezed out of the system?

I will certainly do that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many small voluntary organisations, especially in local areas, know their areas well, and often harness local people's potential, expertise and commitment to their communities. Far from being squeezed out, they should have more opportunities as a result of our approach, which—generally after 12 months, and in some cases earlier—will give them a greater stake in making progress and thus helping many more people into work.

The Secretary of State is right to stress that child care is crucial to the age reductions to 12 and seven, but he will know that it is often a problem in rural areas, especially when the market has failed and the private sector simply cannot provide. What steps will he take to ensure that rural areas are given particular attention before the age reductions come into force?

Child care places—places in children's centres, or pre-school or after-school places—are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as in mine. We intend to work closely with that Government, and with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives, although in Northern Ireland employment programmes are not covered by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Rural areas do suffer from problems such as those that the hon. Gentleman has described. We need to proceed carefully. The extra obligations that will apply to those coming off incapacity benefit, or income support in the case of lone parents, must be matched with opportunities—and, for those with young children, child care support, so that they can work in the way that they wish while ensuring that their children are looked after properly.

Flexible working is important to lone parents in particular. We were told this morning by the large retailers, including Sainsbury, that their tremendously variable hours were ideal for lone parents, even at weekends when family support is generally more available.

I assure the Secretary of State that there will be considerable support for his proposals, at least on this side of the House. Does he not admit, however, that in the light of the Government's record creation of new jobs since 1997, the movement from benefit to work has been modest, to put it mildly? During the past three years 2 million people have come to this country, practically all of them to work, yet the number moving from benefit to work is minor. Does the Secretary of State think that he can achieve his employment target if we continue an open-borders policy?

I do not think that we have an open-borders policy. The interesting truth is that although over the past year a significant number of people, mostly from central and eastern European countries, have come to work in Britain—often bringing skills with them—the claimant count has fallen. The two elements are therefore not necessarily at odds with each other. However, in the new work environment and given the challenges that I described earlier—the need to achieve an 80 per cent. employment rate, and the number of people whom we need to take off benefit—we must continue our efforts. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend's views, and to his assistance.

I share the Government's wish to return the work-inactive to work and their interest in doing so, but I am just as concerned about those who are currently losing their jobs. In my constituency, AstraZeneca, the international pharmaceutical business, is shedding 700 manufacturing jobs over the next three years, and Capital One is closing entirely its home loan brokerage business, mainly because of global competition, high costs and increased regulation. I know that the Secretary of State is concerned about such matters, so will he seek to do something about increased regulation and business costs, which are forcing companies to close and people to lose jobs?

I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has long taken a close interest in manufacturing not only in his constituency, but generally. Of course, any closures are regrettable. I do not wish to make a party point, but it is a fact that when there were job losses in the 1980s and early 1990s people were just thrown on to benefit, whereas nowadays Jobcentre Plus ensures that there is a rapid response to any closure and that we work with the employers and individuals involved, and in most cases almost everyone finds a new job as a result. That is what is needed in respect of the cases the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Over the past 10 years, when we have been in office, although globalisation pressures have intensified, increasing numbers of people have been entering new jobs and gaining new skills, supported by our employment programmes. Therefore, we can offer employment optimism for the future, despite the closures and job losses that inevitably occur, given competitive pressures.

I am sure that most Members support the Green Paper's general thrust of working towards achieving full employment, but I have a question about how single parents with children over the age of 12 will be dealt with under the proposals. Many single parents in my constituency perform a dual role, in that they also look after elderly parents. That is particularly prevalent in former mining areas because of the legacy of that industry. Do the Government intend to make single parents who also care for elderly relatives seek work?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, with which I am familiar as I, too, represent a constituency that is largely a former mining area—in a few places it is still a mining area. Such areas face particular problems, such as high levels of incapacity benefit owing to industrial injury and the need to care for elderly parents, which is often performed by single parents. We must and will have personalised responses; it is made clear in the Green Paper that that will be a cornerstone of our policy. There will not be a universal application of a rigid programme, but instead we will look at each person as an individual and make sure that they have the support they need. Many of them might not be able to work, perhaps for the reasons my hon. Friend describes, and support will continue to be provided while they are on benefit. However, we will assist those who can work to do so.

Becoming a lone parent—perhaps after a difficult separation—can be traumatic for both parent and children. Will a new single parent, who might be feeling bereaved after a separation, within days also feel pressured to seek work when they should instead be spending time with their children, who will also be feeling the bereavement of separation? How flexible will the system be? Will such single parents from day one feel under pressure, or even suffer benefit sanctions, if they do not go straight out to look for a job?

There will be no question of sanctions applying from day one, especially in such circumstances. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to put that on the record. When, for example, a father suddenly leaves or a parent dies, the lone parent's primary desire will be to look after the children, who will need special support and help at such times. Jobcentre Plus and the wider programme will ensure that those wishes and needs are met. I genuinely want such issues to be fed into the consultation by the hon. Gentleman and others—although we have anticipated the specific point he raises—so that we ensure we get the programme right.

Our programme is ambitious. It must be an opportunity programme. It will not seek to force lone parents with young children to go into work under any circumstances. The children's interests must be paramount, as must fighting child poverty. We can get the programme right, but that requires there to be a much more personalised form of support than previously.

Financed by windfall utility taxes, in the first four years of the Labour Government unemployment in my constituency was halved. However, in the last six years as the funds have run out the unemployment level has stayed the same and is now rising. I will warmly welcome the statement and the Green Paper if the new ideas and initiatives are backed up with new finance. Without that, nothing will change. Will the Secretary of State confirm that new money will be available to finance the new initiatives?

I recognise what my hon. Friend says, especially in respect of cities. In cities such as London and Leeds there are still pockets of poverty and worklessness, sometimes cheek by jowl with very high house prices and many jobs and great prosperity. We must tailor programmes to reach those who are not benefiting from the general prosperity. However, let me add to my hon. Friend that every day 4,000 jobs are delivered through Jobcentre Plus and that there are more than 600,000 vacancies in Britain at any one time. I do not claim that they are all in his constituency—they evidently are not. We need to make sure that we provide the support that he wants.

The Secretary of State said that he wants to have a system of support that is

"ever more personalised and responsive to the needs of individuals", which I welcome. However, is that aspiration compatible with his Department's proposal to close the Christchurch Jobcentre Plus office? The Secretary of State might know that a petition signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 Christchurch citizens has been presented to the House. Will he receive a deputation led by me from the local authority and people of Christchurch in order to try to establish some sort of partnership and to achieve the objectives set out in the Green Paper, instead of closing its Jobcentre Plus office?

The Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform will be happy to receive a delegation seeking to take forward the hon. Gentleman's campaign. I understand his position. I have received representations from many hon. Friends on such local issues, and they are difficult to solve. We have been trying to take resources from back office Jobcentre Plus functions to ensure that we get the maximum resources to the front line. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, personalised support is essential if we are to meet the challenge of getting people, many of whom have been on long-term benefits, into the world of work—if they are able to enter it.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the Green Paper, and he is right to remind Members that we have the highest employment in our history. We certainly should support the free movement of labour throughout the enlarged European Union and the great migration of workers from central and eastern Europe to this country, as it helps us achieve faster economic growth. Is he aware, however, of there being any evidence that that will make it harder to drive down unemployment among certain social groups in our society? Will he also tell us whether some of our major banks and insurance companies are among the major employers who have agreed to interview people who have been unemployed for a long time?

We are embarking on a more radical approach to employment generation and enabling people to move into work—I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes that—for the very reasons that he gives. I know that he has been concerned about the issue, and the local employer partnerships will be concentrated on getting long-term benefit claimants into work. The focus is not those people who come out of a job, go on to benefits for a short time and then go back into work, but those who have been out of work for a long time. That is one reason why we will require lone parents to seek work once their child reaches the age of seven: the longer lone parents are out of work, the more difficult it is to create the environment in which they can return to work. We will work closely with everybody and I welcome any views that my right hon. Friend wishes to express.

I also welcome the Government's attempt to tackle the hard edge of the unemployment problem. It appears that two approaches will be adopted. The first is the emphasis on the private sector in providing skills, guaranteeing interviews and, indeed, guaranteeing 250,000 jobs. Is the Secretary of State assured that the private sector has the capacity to do that, and that the capacity is located at the hard edge and in the same places as the bulk of those affected? Secondly, given the public commitment to a flexible new deal approach and the wrap-around care provision, what public resources will be devoted to that?

The Secretary of State will know that Northern Ireland is one of the areas with a big problem with long-term unemployment. What plans does he have for discussions with the Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Employment and Learning to ensure that some of these ideas are passed on?

We would be happy to discuss those matters. When I was responsible for the area, I was well aware of the points that he raises, although—as the hon. Gentleman will know—Northern Ireland now has more jobs and lower levels of unemployment than ever before, and is well on the way to being where it should be as a successfully performing area. I would be happy to work with the Ministers he mentions.

The hon. Gentleman asked about capacity in the private sector. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Prime Minister met large employers at No. 10 this morning, it was noticeable that they were keen to engage. Many, if not all, of them are already engaged, but they are keen to reach out because they have a large number of vacancies. They include—I do not know the detail, but I know that they are keen to help in Northern Ireland as well—Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury, which all see huge opportunities.

As for flexible child care and other support mechanisms, it will be for the devolved Executive to deliver, but we want to work closely with them and co-operate in whatever way we can.

I welcome the new personalised service that my right hon. Friend has mentioned and his reassurances that the system developed out of the Green Paper will be applied sensitively and flexibly. Will he therefore consider the special circumstances of lone parents with a child or children with disability? As their children get older, the accessibility of child care and other support mechanisms is much worse. Indeed, as those children move into adulthood, even lone parents who have been in work find that they can no longer work because the support services simply are not available. Will my right hon. Friend consider their special needs?

I will happily do so, and I am keen to work with my hon. Friend, who heads the every disabled child matters group. I hope that she will give us the benefit of her ideas. The system will be geared to individual needs and will be very personalised. We must recognise that for everyone family life is just as important as working life. This is not about focusing on getting a job, but about the idea that getting a job will help to strengthen family life. That will need to be individually tailored and individual needs will be taken into account. The proposals are about choice and independence. For most lone parents, the opportunity of a decently paid job is a liberating experience, because the state is then no longer responsible for them. They are responsible for themselves and have the dignity and opportunity to offer support to their children that come with that.

The Secretary of State talked earlier about getting more staff to the front line, and I agree with the need to do so. However, in my constituency, his Department is making two members of staff compulsorily redundant in the small job centre in Campbeltown, and three more jobs are threatened, which would almost halve the number of staff. Does he not realise that local staff possess local knowledge, which is important when giving advice and support to local people? Instead of centralising the service in big call centres such as Clydebank, the Government should keep the work locally. Will the Secretary of State alter the policy of shifting jobs from small towns such as Campbeltown to big call centres such as Clydebank?

There is a distinction between call centre work and front line delivery in Jobcentre Plus offices. As I said earlier, we have tried to get more resources to the front line, where staff with local knowledge are very important. That will remain a key part of what we are trying to do.

What functions currently provided by Jobcentre Plus will move to the private and third sectors? How will the commissioning work, and will the contracts be published?

I was able to provide some reassurance on those points to Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, when I talked to him about our plans. There will be more intensive work for Jobcentre Plus staff in the first 12 months. It is in the nature of the shift from being on passive benefits such as income support or incapacity benefit to being on active, work-based benefit that more activity by Jobcentre Plus staff will be needed. After 12 months, depending on how the provision is delivered—by the public sector, the private sector, including Jobcentre Plus in principle, or the voluntary sector—there will be an impact. However, I expect that it will balance out in terms of staff. We will have to work out the contracts, but we want to ensure that they are results-based and sustainable.

I was delighted recently to be able to show Lord McKenzie the partnership work between the retail sector and the further education sector in my constituency, and the impact that that has had on employment. I commend that work to my right hon. Friend. Will he ensure that he gets his own Department in order and that family-friendly policies prevail within it?

My hon. Friend had better tell me exactly what he means by that. The Department should practise what it preaches and I think that we have a proud record of delivery in recent years. On the partnership between retail and further education, the latter has an important role to play, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills will identify shortly, especially in forging close links with local businesses. In my experience, the FE colleges that perform most successfully have an organic relationship with the local business community.

While most of the Green Paper will be about getting people who are out of work into work, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that there would be a focus on job retention, which is extremely important for those with mental health problems. We make it doubly difficult for them because they get help only when falling out of their existing job, and finding a new job causes extra stress and anxiety. What is his thinking on how we can improve job retention, especially for people who have had mental health problems?

I welcome what my hon. Friend says, and she makes a very important point that illustrates the step change that we will need to make. New challenges will be faced by the extra layers of people to whom we want to offer the chance to work. Sainsbury is one of the companies with which we are working in partnership, and it has put in a lot of work, with Mencap, on employing people with mental health problems. It intends to pilot one of our local employment partnership programmes though recruitment for online grocery jobs in London within the M25. Sainsbury's chief executive talked about that at No. 10 this morning, and the company's participation will help us to encourage employers to recognise that people who claim incapacity benefit because of stress or similar problems are able to work. They can be helped to overcome their problems if they are given the opportunity to work, but job retention is important, and they must be given support in that respect as well.

I welcome many elements of the statement and the Green Paper, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that many hon. Members in the Chamber today share my difficulty with the idea of a lone parent of a 12-year-old child being taken off income support. Many parents will welcome the opportunity to work, but the problem has less to do with seeking jobs or the stigma associated with not having a job, than with the fact that there is a lack of wraparound child care that is affordable and of high quality. That is especially awkward in the summer months when the schools are on holiday, as child care that is normally needed only before or after school has to be available all day. People who work in supermarkets suffer most of all, as the flexible hours that they work mean that they often finish at 8 or 10 o'clock in the evening, and it cannot be expected that those hours will all be worked only by people who do not have children. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the first box to be ticked in the personalised care catalogue will be the availability of high-quality, affordable and wraparound care? The second box to be ticked can then be a person's suitability for work.

I shall welcome my hon. Friend's detailed comments on the Green Paper, but it makes clear that the availability of suitable child care is an essential component. We cannot expect lone parents who have to care for children to take a job unless that care is available. Such care will be increasingly available over the next few years, and should be universally available when we come to consider bringing the age of the child down to seven. We would not expect parents with children aged seven to accept a job unless it was certain that the proper child care was available locally, and that they had access to the support that they need. That support must be affordable, as people in that situation cannot always get jobs that are well paid, although we hope that they will be able to do so in the future. If parents do not get affordable support, we will not be able to give them the opportunities that they want.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling child poverty, we should look not only at the quantity of people whom we move from welfare into work, but also at the quality of the jobs that they go to? If we force people to take unskilled, insecure and low-paid jobs, we will tend to entrench families in poverty. In contrast, we should give people with slightly older children a breathing space so that they can go into full-time education without adversely affecting their benefits. In the longer term, that will be a much more sustainable and sensible solution.

I know of my hon. Friend's work with the Child Poverty Action Group, and I welcome her expertise and commitment in responding to the Green Paper. She is right that the question is one of quality as well as quantity. There would be no point in making lone parents enter an insecure world of work, and no benefit would accrue if they were to find themselves in the twilight world of temporary and agency work, as that lacks the security that they need. People in that situation would not feel that they were offering themselves or their children any future, and we must make sure that the problem identified by my hon. Friend is resolved.

I do not seek a referendum on this matter. The Government's record in this regard is generally excellent, but I hope that they will recognise that, as other hon. Members have noted, some stubbornly difficult areas of high unemployment remain. In my constituency, which covers Govan and Pollok, more jobs are about to be created than there are unemployed people, but the danger is that the jobs will be filled by people from more prosperous areas, or by migrants. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling for my area to be made a zero unemployment zone? Jobcentre Plus staff should be tasked with working to that end, so that the jobs are not filled with people from outside. Will he also co-operate with the Scottish Parliament and Glasgow city council to achieve zero unemployment in the parts of the city that I have mentioned? Thank you!

I thank my hon. Friend. We are very happy to work with Glasgow city council and other local authorities across the country. That is one reason why I have made that option available after 12 months, rather than simply sticking with job providers in the private or voluntary sectors. Many councils want to get involved, and they have the sort of ideas and expertise that will assist us in our aims. However, it is precisely to avoid the problem that my hon. Friend describes—of more jobs being available than there are people on the jobseeker's allowance claimant count—that we are getting local employers involved in the local employment partnerships. The priority of such employers is to employ local people, as they are more likely to be long-term rather than short-term employees. Turnover rates are often very high in the retail sector, for example, but they can be reduced if local people are involved, and especially the ones who are desperate to work but have previously not had the opportunity. Local employment partnerships provide a key answer to the important question posed by my hon. Friend.