I am grateful to the procedures of the House of Commons for Adjournment debates and for enabling me to obtain this first debate of the morning on the work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. The trust particularly interests me because I am chairman of the Conservative party's Back-Bench smaller businesses committee, although the comments that I shall make today are not designed to be of a partisan or political nature.

I have also started a small business, and have helped others to start small businesses. For many years, I have passionately believed that this country will succeed not only as a result of large businesses but of enhancing opportunities for people to develop small businesses, which are increasingly being shown to be the future for many people and are, indeed, providing many opportunities for them.

As Members of Parliament, we are privileged to see and learn about many projects designed to help to improve the lives of people in our nation. Some of those projects are not always successful. Indeed, some do not even get off the drawing hoard. Some projects do not always help the people that they are intended to help, and some projects produce short-term benefits and have no lasting long-term impact.

None of those problems applies to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which has now helped some 25,000 young people to start their own businesses. It has demonstrated success, it has gone from the ideas stage to the achievement stage, and it has shown that its benefits are long-term.

The purpose of my debate is to draw attention to the achievements and success of the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which was started by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales just over 10 years ago as a youth business initiative. It was his Royal Highness's idea, and he has been a very active president who is frequently seen at meetings and exhibitions associated with the trust.

Some may ask why the Prince's Youth Business Trust is necessary. Youth unemployment in this country exists under all Governments, and no Government have succeeded in avoiding the problem. Although the United Kingdom has one of the lowest levels of youth unemployment in Europe, it is still significant, and I hope that all hon. Members will always consider good, new ideas to deal with the problem. There is also an increasing recognition that young people need help to take their first step up the ladder. They need some form of assistance to show them the difference between a life of education or a life, perhaps, of unemployment, and what work entails. The Prince's Youth Business Trust fulfils that role.

One other significant problem of the 1980s and 1990s is that, with more and more global competition and greater demands on British business to be more efficient and effective in its operations, larger companies are growing in size—not by increasing their staff numbers, but by reducing them to become more efficient. Consequently, the growth of companies today often occurs in the capital of the business and not necessarily in staff.

That is not always bad for Britain. Indeed, it is often good for Britain, because it means that our best companies are internationally efficient and competitive. It also means, however, that more and more young people will not necessarily get work in large companies, they will get work in smaller businesses and even start their own small business. Self-employment, which is some 3 million strong in this country, now offers hope of a good future in employment for many young people.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given way on that very point. Coming from an area where the bulk of people are employed in small businesses, I support him. I pay my own tribute to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, for one of my constituents was one of the national winners this year. I pay tribute to its work in stimulating young people to go forward, when other aids are no longer able to help them.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point so well. I know that many hon. Members will be able to say the same sort of thing about the way in which their constituents have won awards. That is a feature of the scheme that encourages more young people to come on, creating the friendly competitive atmosphere in which the businesses develop.

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's important speech on such an important and interesting subject, but will he emphasise the after-care by the Prince's Trust once a business is established, and its unwillingness to prepare a business plan for a young person, so that nobody gets the wrong idea? I believe that that is the point.

As always, my hon. Friend is slightly ahead of the game, and he has raised the very point that I intended to stress. However, it is worth emphasising at every stage in my speech that the after-care and advisory work is a most important feature of the way in which the Prince's Youth Business Trust operates.

I admire tremendously the work of the trust in helping young people to set up their own businesses. The skills that need to be developed to start a business are substantial. Young people also have to face the risks that that involves. Starting a business is not risk-free, and the trust emphasises the risks involved before allowing a young person to proceed with his or her scheme. The entrepreneurial spirit of the country and of those young people who take part is greatly encouraged. The young people also need hard work and dedication, or they will not succeed. At every stage, the trust encourages those qualities to develop. When one goes round the exhibitions and sees many of the young people involved in the trust, one realises that, in a different environment and without the opportunities provided by the trust, those people might not have been able to develop those abilities. I am convinced that some of them have developed a hard-working and dedicated attitude and an entrepreneurial spirit that they did not realise were there within them, which have been released by the work of the trust.

The Prince's Youth Business Trust helps 18 to 29-year-olds who are out of work and disadvantaged—people who, for one of a number of reasons, are finding life tough. Some are living in deprived areas, and in areas where the Government or the European Union provide support in one way or another. Many lack formal education at advanced level, some live in had housing conditions, some come from single-parent families, many have unemployed parents, and others have no family support. The trust makes a special effort to encourage applications from disabled people, from members of ethnic minority communities and from former offenders. The age limit for disabled applicants is 30.

Young people who are to join the trust scheme must all have a viable idea for starting their own business. That is the key—a viable idea. They then have to prepare an acceptable and well worked-through business plan, and must prove that they have the necessary initiative and commitment to make a go of it. As a general rule, they cannot obtain money from other sources, because money is often not available to people in their circumstances—and that is where the trust fills a gap in the financing market.

I shall now go into a little detail for the House, and place on record some of the methods by which the trust operates. First, it operates on sound business principles. There is a tremendous emphasis on sound business practice, and that is a critical aspect of the approach of the trust and its advisers to helping young people.

The trust gives loans of up to about —5,000—although the average loan is as low as £2,000—to people who are setting up or expanding a business, and the money may he used for stock, equipment or working capital. The loans are repayable; money is not written off. For the business, repayment is as follows: for the first six months neither interest nor capital is repaid; in the second six months, there are capital repayments but no interest; in the second year, capital is repaid and interest is charged at 3 per cent; in the third year, full capital and interest at 8 per cent. are paid.

Although most applicants receive loans, the trust sometimes offers grants of up to £1,500 to individuals and up to £3,000 to groups of people who want to start a business. Grants may be used for tools, equipment, transport, fees, insurance or training, but not as working capital or for rent, rates, raw materials or stock.

Since 1991, the trust has been able to give second loans of not more than £5,000 to people under 30 who have already had one loan or grant. Second loans are purely for expansion; they cannot be used to rescue failing operations, for which different help and advice are available.

The fact that second-loan finance is available is an important factor worth bearing in mind, because in my experience of small businesses, all too often those that can fail are the successful ones, because they get carried away with their own success, extend their debtors and end up in serious financial difficulties. All too often in this country, it is the business that has done reasonably well as a start-up business that over-extends itself and may get into serious difficulties, so it is especially interesting that the trust has now recognised the problem, and can now give second-tier finance for expanding businesses.

Another key feature is the fact that test marketing grants are often given to young people who have a good idea but need to do more market research before the idea can he put into practice, or even before it can he determined whether it is viable. Such market research often results in the trust's giving further support for more work even before the business starts.

Much pre-planning is involved, which is especially good and helpful for young people. Careful planning is an essential ingredient. No loan is given without a business plan, which is checked by the trust's pool of experienced business men and women. Market research is encouraged, required, and tested, if possible.

By now, the House will appreciate that the trust needs both staff and finance to do its work. Its operations now extend to the whole of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and north of the border there is a separate Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust. The trust's work is carried on through 38 area boards, to which young people apply for financial support. I hope that many hon. Members are either in contact with or have spoken to their area boards—I am sure that that is true of most Members who are here today.

Most area managers are either seconded or are trust employees whose costs are funded in whole or in part by donations. Local business people, too, are involved in each area hoard, and there is at least one area manager and sometimes more than one. Invaluable support, either voluntary or donated, comes from companies, training and enterprise councils, local authorities, Government Departments and European funds. I am pleased to say that there is even an area office in my constituency, at Whitfield just outside Dover.

If I may be forgiven for doing so, I shall refer briefly to the problems in my area and to the relevance of the trust in my constituency and in east Kent as a whole.

The area that I represent is suffering from a serious change because of the channel tunnel. Obviously, the ferry industry has become more efficient and effective, but it is expecting considerable competition. There has been a change in the labour market. The larger companies in the area have been shedding labour, and in many cases, for reasons that I have already explained, they have passed their peak in their use of labour.

Many young people who had expected to follow careers similar to those of their parents will not be able to do so. People have been slow to realise that small businesses might fill that gap. That is not surprising, as much of the area has not been used to running small businesses in the past. Therefore, there is an opportunity for something like the Prince's Youth Business Trust to help develop the skills of young people.

Some young people in east Kent have developed skills and taken up loans and grants from the trust, and I pay tribute both to the trust and to those young people for showing entrepreneurial and risk-taking skills. I hosted an exhibition for the trust in the House of Commons some four years ago, and it is with slight sadness that I report that one of the businesses at that exhibition which was founded by someone from my constituency is no longer working and employing in my constituency. The business became so successful that it moved closer to its market in London, and it has set up a successful operation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner).

My hon. Friend is not here today, but she sends her apologies as she is away on House of Commons business in Europe. The trust has been successful in helping young people in my area, and I look forward to more help in the future for the young people who need the benefits which the trust can bring.

The success rate of the trust in helping businesses is considerable. An independent survey of the trust carried out recently on behalf of the Department of Employment showed that two thirds of businesses were still trading after two to three years. That is an incredible achievement, because it is the reverse of what normally happens.

Normally, two thirds of businesses fail within two to three years of their start-up date. It is quite an achievement for many of the young people who have taken advantage of the trust that their businesses have a greater likelihood of success than the national average for small businesses. Starting a business is risky, and it is good to see that level of success.

The trust's strong performance is particularly interesting when one takes into account the age and background of those it has helped. Many of the young people would not normally have been associated with running a successful business, nor would their background have been the sort from which one would have expected success in business to come. The trust has managed to generate within the United Kingdom the skill and ability which, while clearly present, might not have had an opportunity to grow if the trust had not been in existence.

It is not all had news for those businesses which are no longer trading. Half the people involved in such businesses decided that self-employment was not for them and are now working for other people. The skills and the discipline which those people learned from their work were useful for them in getting work elsewhere.

I am not one for political correctness hut, with a lady Minister on the Front Bench, I should refer to International Women's Day. My wife has taken International Women's Day literally, and she is in America on business at the moment. She is celebrating that day by battling for her bit of business, which I hope will bring benefits to Britain as a result.

One interesting feature to mention on International Women's Day is that the trust has discovered that the women it helps into business have been shown to have a slightly better rate of survival in business than men. Women in businesses helped by the trust seem to be more able to face competition than is often imagined. That shows that what helps women is not so much giving them positive discrimination as making sure that the opportunity is there for them.

The report sponsored by the Department of Employment also shows that the trust is cost-effective and very efficient in terms of the way in which helps businesses and helps people to avoid becoming unemployed and claiming benefit.

Businesses do not survive without a solid form of successful experience, which the trust ensures they have. The trust helps young people whether they remain in business or go to work for somebody else's business.

Many people may well ask why the trust's success rate is so good. What is it that especially helps the young people to develop their businesses? What is the trust doing for women in business that they perhaps might not get elsewhere? What is it that helps young people to develop their skills and to take on the risks involved in starting a business?

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred to the careful preparations which a young person must make, and to the advice that is available. That is the key to the whole system. A business plan must he prepared in a disciplined manner. Market research must he carried out carefully by a young person into whether his business will be able to sell its products or services. But the one magic and essential ingredient which we have mentioned is the advisers, and it is worth paying tribute to the advisers who help the trust.

The advisers are business men themselves, and they give ongoing help and advice to every trust-supported business. Each person who starts up a business has his own adviser. That adviser is a volunteer who ideally has started his own business, and he will keep a friendly eye on the entrepreneur for a couple years or more. The adviser can call in other expert help if it is necessary. If an adviser does not have the skills which are relevant to a problem, another adviser can be called on.

The trust has about 5,400 advisers, but the current rate of expansion of the businesses which the trust is helping is such that about 2,000 new volunteers are needed every year. One of the big problems is that marketing experts are greatly in demand and, having a father who has been involved in marketing, I am not surprised. One of the UK's weaknesses has been that we have not done enough marketing in the past, and I am delighted that the trust puts an emphasis on encouraging young people to take marketing advice and tries to provide marketing advisers.

The trust is more than just a business trust. It has become the largest business consultancy in the world, but it pays its consultants absolutely nothing. it has been estimated that the trust gives £5 million cf advice free every year to the supported businesses and to the people who created the businesses.

I shall briefly mention some examples of the types of businesses created under the trust. I have visited a number of the regular exhibitions at St James's palace, which the Prince has hosted, at which I have seen a wide variety of businesses. There are often 25 businesses run by young people represented at a typical exhibition, and they cover a wide range of products and services. One common factor which one cannot fail to notice is the tremendous enthusiasm of the young people for businesses which they have created.

The businesses range from fashion concerns to swing-boat operations in fairgrounds, and from those involved in the world of electronics to those who make hand-made pottery. There are a whole host of mobile businesses, including farriers and hairdressers. There have been drystone wall builders and repair firms. There have been businesses dealing with golf clubs, musical instruments, ceramics and gilding. One firm even offers alternative wedding arrangements. There are cake makers and pet food delivery services. The trust proudly claims that it has some unusual businesses, although one wonders what an unusual business is today, which include charcoal burners, sheep pregnancy testing and a firm that tracks underground pipes and cables. There are falconers, a team of high-wire motorcycling experts, and fire-eating jousters. The trust has also supported businesses that teach chess or rock guitar.

The 20,000th young person supported by the Prince's Youth Business Trust was a lady from Sheffield who set up a shiatsu practice. I am looking forward to someone explaining all the details of shiatsu to me. The trust is looking forward to celebrating the 25,000th young recipient of its work, and is well on the way to the 30,000th during the next year or so.

A young man who uses a wheelchair could not find a lightweight and inexpensive model, so he designed his own and started a business. He now has a turnover of £200,000 from selling lightweight, inexpensive wheelchairs.

The businesses have also reached great heights of success and the PYBT has created some millionaires. The first is a Kenyan-born Asian, who is running a garage in Peterborough. His recent turnover approached £750,000 and he has been appointed a member of his area Prince's Youth Business Trust board. His case interests me in particular, because it shows that the trust now has people coming on to its advisory board who have gone through the process and been helped themselves, which means that success is starting to build success. That is one of the key features of getting successful businesses going–one needs the advice and contact with someone who has done it before.

There are numerous award schemes, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said in an intervention, which often have prizes and other methods of encouraging young people to develop businesses. They operate in a friendly and competitive way, which encourages young people to build something really worthwhile and to achieve recognition as a result of the award.

The Reader's Digest recently sponsored the award scheme. One of the more successful businesses is Caring Force, which is run by two ladies in Merseyside, provides a professional mobile care assistant service to the community and employs 35 people. Another award winner is a young man in Lancashire who has developed a universal hand control for disabled drivers. Another is a Nottingham metal-cutting business called Esprit Automation, which has just exported 22 cutting machines to the far east. They are very worthy of an award and of the recognition of hon. Members.

One company peels and packs vegetables for restaurants and hotels. Another person runs a surfing business in Cornwall, and another uses recycled materials to make jewellery and bags and employs 33 people. So there are environmentally friendly businesses, too.

Various businesses and inventions have been well marketed and given considerable support. Apparently, one even sells a particularly ingenious type of cuff link known as Cuffas, and another makes solid fuel briquettes from wood shavings—Dobviously another environmentally friendly business.

The markets of the various businesses cover the social spectrum. I gather that one makes hats for society weddings and its hats, and accessories have featured in Vogue and Harpers & Queen magazines. The goods sold by PYBT businesses are on sale around the world and its events department is hard at work organising many exhibitions to promote the products and services. One young engineer—it is nice to hear that manufacturing businesses are being helped as well—has developed a gear invention that is helping to break national and international speed records, although I hope not on our motorways.

The trust has been involved in a successful pilot scheme to help young offenders in custody to prepare and set up businesses when they are released. The first young offenders involved in the scheme are in business–one as a welder and one as a dog groomer–and two ladies who met in prison are running a greetings card business.

The House will by now realise that both conventional and non-conventional businesses are supported. It is also worth noting that minority businesses, people from ethnic minority groups and disabled persons are also given full support. Leaflets for young people wanting to set up businesses have been printed in Urdu, Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi and Gujerati. Considerable emphasis is placed on trying to ensure full equality of opportunity under the PYBT scheme.

About 340 disabled people have been helped to start up in business, which is a substantial percentage compared with those in the economy as a whole. Clearly, that is something that needs support. They have set up a wide variety of businesses and range from landscape gardeners, photographers, remedial therapists, clowns and disability awareness trainers to jewellery designers.

About 95 full and part-time members of staff are paid by the trust. We should pay tribute to their hard work and skills and the effort that they have put in. There are also 49 secondees and 89 funded employees from Government, industry and many large companies. In many instances, the latter have taken a break from their career to support something that they, and the boards of directors of those companies, believe is worth while.

The trust needs to attract at least 40 new secondees a year. I hope that anyone listening to this debate or reading Hansard who is interested will apply to help the trust in its work. It operates under a 95-member advisory council—there is plenty of advice and support.

The PYBT obtains grants and assistance. The Government have given considerable support and the Prince of Wales set up an appeal for about £28 million on his 40th birthday in 1988, which the Government, with all-party support, agreed to match pound for pound. The appeal has depended on donations from the private sector and, despite the problems of the recession, there has been considerable support from that sector because it recognises that the work is worth while.

I understand that the Department of Employment has given about £21 million to the PYBT, which is extremely cost-effective because the Department is paying about £2,500 per person helped. That money is forthcoming only if the young entrepreneur is still trading 15 months after being given the original PYBT loan or grant. A second condition is that the trust must raise funds from other sources. The demands put on the trust by the Employment Department are therefore reasonable and effective, and encourage success. They also encourage the trust to demonstrate that it is succeeding.

There are many people to be helped out there, and, as limits on resources enable the trust to help only about 5,000 a year, there is probably a need for additional finance, but I stress to my hon. Friend the Minister that the purpose of my debate was not to press for more funds. We did not feel that that was appropriate today, although I am sure that my hon. Friend will have inferred from what I have said that I would certainly not be unhappy if the Ministry delivered more funds or resources in this instance. As a chartered accountant and member of the Conservative finance committee, I do not like to see money wasted in the public sector.

Without making a strong demand for more funds from the Government, one can say that considerable evidence shows that the trust is an effective way of helping young people. It is effective in terms of both cost and quality of output.

By emphasising the value for money that the trust is producing, the large number of young people who are helped, the many benefits to members in a wide variety of constituencies, and the future opportunities for young people, I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the real benefits which the scheme brings to the country. Many young people will be better off as a result of the trust, and many other people will benefit as a result of the solid business base that is being developed from work that it carries out.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for raising this subject. My researcher tells me that we have never had a debate on the Prince's Youth Business Trust and that it has been mentioned only once in a written question. That is odd and sad, but I hope that we shall correct it today.

May I say at the outset that hon. Members are united by the fact that your immediate predecessor, Madam Speaker, since stepping down from his job as Speaker of this House, has become involved in the trust. The House, and especially hon. Members in the Chamber today, therefore can all feel associated with the initiative.

The hon. Member for Dover raised this topic not to ask for something but to tell the House how extremely good the scheme is. I want to share that main message with him, although at the end of my brief speech I shall express my real concern about the trust's ability to do as it wants in south London, given the circumstances in that area.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak for two reasons: first, because in my parliamentary party's team I am responsible for looking after the interests of young people, urban and looking after urban issues; and, secondly, because my constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom.

It is no pleasure to have a constituency with the fourth highest rate of unemployment in Great Britain and the fifth highest in the UK—west Belfast has a higher unemployment rate—with 7,500 people unemployed. According to the latest figures, male unemployment is 28.5 per cent.; female unemployment is 12.8 per cent.; and the average rate is 28.1 per cent.

So anyone who gives unemployed people, particularly the young, an opportunity to be employed, engaged, resourceful and independent is extremely welcome and hugely necessary. About 1 million young people in the age group which we are discussing are currently registered unemployed, so the potential for helping people who need such initiatives is huge.

The hon. Member for Dover gave some figures, and I shall try not to repeat much of what he said. But the figures he gave are extraordinary: the trust has helped some 23,000 people in 18,000 newly formed businesses, two thirds of which are still trading. Compared with the normal fall-out rate among small businesses, that figure is exceptional, if not unique.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that the money is given in loans or grants, and that advice is given free of charge by experienced business people—advice is given at the beginning and advisers remain available to the young people—appears to make the trust the biggest business consultancy of its type in the world. The fact that the aid and assistance is free is extraordinary.

I am sure that the trust would not mind if the debate served to tell a few people out there who might he interested in being advisors to come and join it, so I am happy to plug for more advisers: please contact the main office. In a second, I shall be as crude about telling people how to contact the trust, because we are here to promote a good thing.

I am much more "wised up" on the trust than I was a year ago, not because I was not aware of the trust before, but because the trust has recently made a particular effort to communicate to hon. Members. Initiatives have been made here and in another place.

I was among hon. Members from both sides of the House invited to Buckingham Palace in December by the Prince of Wales to be briefed on his trusts' work. That briefing helped to explain the complication that there is a family of prince's trusts, of which the youth business trust is only one. It is important to clarify that point. The trust that we are discussing, which is for business start-up, covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a similar trust exists for Scotland.

I pay tribute to the fact that the Prince of Wales has taken initiatives to set up organisations that reach out to and work with those in the community for whom extra help, support, advice and finance can make all the difference. May I list the whole family of prince's trusts so that it is clearly on the record? It comprises the Prince's Trust and Royal Jubilee Trusts; the Prince of Wales's Advisory Group on Disability; the Prince's Trust Volunteers; the Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust, which is the sister organisation to the Prince's Youth Business Trust; the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum; Business in the Community; Scottish Business in the Community; and the Prince of Wales's Committee.

I shall now make a crude plug for the Prince's Youth Business Trust. People can express their interest to area boards, but the trust's address is 5, Cleveland place, London SW1. The telephone and minicom number is 0171 925 2900, and the fax number is 071 839 6494. Cleveland place is at the back of St. James's square. If anyone thinks that that is a posh address, as it is, the area board addresses are often much less posh. In any case, people have only to telephone. Another interesting statistic is that the third of businesses which are not still trading have not necessarily failed. Half of those involved in them have decided to opt for self-employment, and the trust has therefore acted as a stepping stone. Another good aspect is that the trust operates as a last resort. That may not happen in every case, as it is not perfect, but it seeks to help when people have been turned down by banks and cannot get going with help from elsewhere.

It is a bit like going to the European Court, in that one must exhaust the domestic remedies first. People must have exhausted their normal financial possibilities first. The trust also sets the precondition that beneficiaries are not from well-off backgrounds, and that resources, buildings and training schemes would not normally be available to potential beneficiaries.

The figures relating to beneficiaries are telling. A pie chart in the last report shows that 9 per cent. of those helped were young offenders; 10 per cent. were from ethnic minority backgrounds; and 5 per cent. were young disabled people. Those are all above-average percentages.

The chart also shows that 41 per cent. of those helped were female. Although not half, that figure is good, given how often such schemes are skewed in favour of males. Moreover, no area of the country gets much less than 5 per cent. of the money—Northern Ireland gets 4.8 per cent. The area that received most was the north-west, so funds are not metropolis-centred either.

Interestingly, in passing, we are talking about what the hon. Member for Dover rightly says is the main area of business in our society. I gather that 90 per cent. of businesses in our country–as the Minister must know better than I–employ fewer than 10 people, and 70 per cent. employ fewer than five people. Small businesses are what Britain is about. For whatever reason, the age of coal mines and docks is past.

It is good that we produce vibrant earners and vibrant survivors. It is important to ensure that young men and women–I pay particular tribute to the latter on International Women's Day–have the skills to be part of the work force, to earn for themselves and to earn for Britain.

The Government have been helpful. They have, I think, said that they are paying £2,500 a person, up to a total of £10 million, for three years, starting this year, but only if the person continues to trade after 15 months, and there must be matching funds. I hope that that will be sustained and never reduced. As the hon. Member for Dover said, more money would be welcome.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Dover mentioned that another good deal was recently secured with the clearing banks—the "Banks Directory". They will match other funds for the hest businesses, on preferential interest rates. That means that those businesses may be moved to the support of the banks, releasing Prince's Youth Business trust moneys to work with other people. That is very good news.

I have witnessed the work on the ground, as others have. I visited, like Jeremy White, chief executive of the trust, the firm that features pictorially in the most recent annual report. That firm is imaginatively called Michenuels, named after the three lads who are the partners—Miguel, Henroy and Michael, whom we met. They are furniture makers and restorers. They had done some work; they were unemployed; they had come together and were now restoring furniture.

They were in a little estate business start-up unit on the borders of my constituency, on the Deptford-Bermondsey border. They seek more premises. They want to obtain premises on the main road, so that they can sell their wares. They are enthusiastic, vibrant, go-ahead and ready to storm the world. If anyone has any furniture that they need restoring, they should go to Michenuels, because they will do a good job. That is exactly the type of business that we should be interested in.

I shall now mention local circumstances and make my specific request to the Minister. In south London, 40 per cent. of new businesses are started by members of the ethnic minority community, and I am told that 33 new businesses have been set up in or near my constituency by the Prince's Youth Business trust. I am told that south London will receive £62,000 from the trust this year in grants and £250,000 in loans. Good money is entering an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in Britain.

Madam Speaker, you know as well as anyone that one should never write off a district simply because it has traditionally suffered from high unemployment. People living in such districts are not less skilled or less talented. By contrast, one probably needs to be more streetwise, bright, sharp-eyed and bushy-tailed if one lives in a grotty estate in the middle of south London, or Liverpool, Leeds or Bradford, than if one lives on the white cliffs of Dover, looking out over lovely views. If the success rate in south London is that more than 80 per cent. of PYBT businesses continue to trade after three months, and more than 60 per cent. are still going after three years, that is good news indeed.

The Prince's Youth Business trust relies heavily on business start-up schemes, and business start-up courses run by the local enterprise agencies are the precondition to that working. Young people, when they are in the scheme, also need the enterprise allowance money—that is the way in which they fund themselves, so that they are supported for what is now six months and was 12 months.

There is a significant worry that enterprise allowance might be removed—I flag that up. If it is, it will pull the rug from under the scheme altogether. I say to the Minister: please may we have a guarantee today, or will she speak to her colleagues and give a guarantee later, that, as long as the present Government are in office, the enterprise allowance will not be removed?

The immediate additional problem is that, since the South Thames training and enterprise council went into liquidation at the end of December 1994, no one can claim enterprise allowance in the South Thames TEC area, and there are no business start-up courses. Suddenly, because the TEC was the servicing agency, there is a closed door. There is no way in, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that the Prince's Youth Business trust, the door to opportunity for many people, is closed as a result of the way in which Government and the TEC have been sorting out their business.

I initiated, and we have had, an Adjournment debate, thanks to you, Madam Speaker, about the South Thames TEC, but that matter must be sorted out soon. The people knocking at the PYBT door in south London are now not receiving an answer, because the TEC is not there. My last general request to the Minister is, will she please not only sort that out so that we may get into the slipstream again, but also put money back into TECs? Cutting TEC funding–—137 million was cut last year—is bad news, because it reduces enterprise allowance and reduces business start-up schemes. I repeat my specific request to the Minister; will she please not leave south London as the one area of the country that, because our TEC has folded, is unable to benefit?

I end with a quote from the boss, which he wrote in the forward to this year's annual report. The Prince of Wales said:

"Helping just one person to start their own business, thus taking them off unemployment benefit, saves the country thousands of pounds each year. But the benefits of our work go far beyond the merely financial. As I often see, starting a business not only restores the self-confidence of the individual, but can also play a part in helping to shore up the fabric of the community in which they live and work."

I hope that we can all say amen to that.

I say to the hon. Member for Dover, the debate is welcome. I hope that the whole country gets the message, and that many more young people hear about the scheme as a result of his initiative and, Madam Speaker, your choice today.

It is a pleasure to he able to contribute to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on securing a debate on such an important and interesting subject.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover takes a keen interest in small businesses, and especially venture capital activities. As has been mentioned, he will be well aware that few venture capital businesses in the traditional sense can boast a success rate approaching that of the Prince's Youth Business trust. Of course, traditional venture capitalists charge enormously high rates of return on their investments, and the charity that we are talking about does it for nothing. There is a tremendous lesson to be learned from that alone.

We have in the Prince's Youth Business trust an excellent example of what can be done to stimulate economic activity, to create jobs and to give people a sense of purpose. I know that all Members who will contribute to the debate will echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said.

It is not simply an economic benefit, although the economic benefit is important, that the trust helps to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover has said–this was echoed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)–that small businesses are the backbone of economic activity in the country. Anything we can do to stimulate the creation and development of smaller businesses must be good news for the economy and for jobs.

We have a lower rate of unemployment for people between the ages of 18 and 25 in this country than is the case in many other countries in the European Community, but at 14 per cent. it is still too high. I have no doubt that one of the reasons why we have a lower rate than, for example, Spain, where the rate is 38 per cent., is the existence of schemes such as the one that we are discussing—imaginative schemes, designed to tackle the problem specifically and creatively.

This excellent trust does a huge amount of work to bring hope and purpose and to offer opportunity to those whose talents would frequently otherwise be wasted. I notice also that it is an efficient organisation, and that the Department for Employment last year gave the trust the accolade of saying that it was the most cost-effective job creation programme in the country. The trust can he proud of that.

The trust is also an excellent example of partnership in action. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned the various agencies—the local authorities, the training and enterprise councils, Government Departments of course, and the the European Union—which co-operate with the private sector to make it all happen. Obviously, central Government funding has been vital and welcome. I think I am right in saying that £20 million of central Government funding has been applied to the trust since its inception, and, as we know, a new arrangement has been put in place for the next three years, which will add another £10 million to what has been spent.

The success of the scheme depends crucially on the commitment of people and companies in the private sector, who are prepared to lend their time and expertise and give willingly to help young people to set up in business. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out that it is estimated that that assistance alone is worth about £5 million per year.

Three years ago, Robert Darrell started a business under the scheme with a £5,000 loan. His business now turns over £2.4 million per year and he believes:

"The advisers provided by the Trust are as valuable as the loan".

I think that that is absolutely correct.

The scheme has caught the imagination of businesses in Surrey to such an extent that the clarion call by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to the private sector to become involved in the scheme is somewhat otiose. Until recently, a superfluity of business people wished to offer their help for free, but unfortunately their number was not matched by people wishing to participate in the scheme.

The hon. Gentleman, who spoke eloquently about the problems in his constituency, smiles wryly. It is true that, thankfully, Surrey does not suffer the same sorts of problems as his constituency. However, that is not to say that individuals do not need help. I hope that they will come forward and take advantage of the scheme.

It is in keeping with the spirit of the trust that, faced with the situation chat I have described in Surrey, instead of sitting around and doing nothing, advisers have gone into the community to encourage people to come forward with ideas for developing their businesses. To that end, a roadshow will be held in Caterham in my constituency this Friday. I look forward to attending it, and I hope that it is enormously successful.

If there are spare advisers in Surrey, they could travel to areas where there are not enough advisers to talk to the people there. They will be more than welcome in south London.

I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's message to the advisers in Surrey. Bermondsey is not that far away, and I hope that something will come of his suggestion. Every hon. Member has his or her favourite scheme, and a few from the Surrey area have caught my imagination. One involves a young man with cerebral palsy, who, with the help of the trust, has established a business duplicating musical cassettes. I am assured that that is not a breach of copyright, and that it is perfectly legal. That business is extremely successful, and it has given that young man access to a whole new field of activity, which would otherwise have remained closed to him.

Perhaps a more spectacular example is that of the young man from Kingston who, four years ago, visited his mother in hospital. He found that, like many people who are in hospital for any length of time, she was becoming very bored, and he brought a television to the hospital for her to use. That gave him an idea, and, with the help of the trust, he set up a company called Hospital Entertainment, which rents televisions to hospitals. The company has done extremely well, and it now turns over £750,000 per year. It recently acquired a subsidiary of Thorn EMI, which specialises in similar activities.

Less well known is the growing success of the trust abroad. Through Youth Enterprise Service International, the Prince's Youth Business Trust is exporting its expertise and its ideas to several countries, notably India and Hungary. I am happy to say that that enterprise is backed by the Foreign Office with money from the Overseas Development Administration programme.

The trust's activities are not only good news economically and socially—they fulfil an important social function which was perhaps the original idea behind the trust—but also an example of a great British idea which is being applied successfully overseas. I think that we should all be proud of that.

It is hard to think of a better idea. The trust is not the biggest charity in Britain, but it is targeted very carefully. It is difficult to think of any charity—particularly one associated with the unemployed—which has such a rewarding and beneficial effect on those who become involved with it. The trust's advantages are summed up by a member of the Surrey Prince's Youth Business Trust board, who said:

"The Trust does so much to get young people doing things for themselves; and even if their businesses just potter along and they don't do much with them and eventually move on, they have so much more to offer prospective employers as a result of their experience".

The beneficiaries of the trust, the people they employ subsequently and every hon. Member have cause to be grateful to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for having the idea in the first place, and to all those who give of their time, energy and effort to ensure that the scheme is a success. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for giving the House the opportunity to put on record its appreciation for the tremendous work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. I wish the trust every success in the future.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on his success in the ballot, and on introducing this morning's debate on the Prince's Youth Business Trust. I think that everyone agrees that the trust has done very valuable work over the years in helping young unemployed people into self-employment. Most of the people the trust supports are in their twenties and have been unemployed for a considerable time.

The hon. Member for Dover referred to a survey conducted by the Department of Employment to gauge the trust's success rate. It found that more than two thirds of businesses created under the scheme are still operating three years later. That is a better success rate than that of most of the high street banks, which in most cases turned down those ideas in the first place. It makes one wonder about the ability of those who are running our banking system to gauge individuals' potential to contribute to economic growth.

Some 3,000 young people have benefited from the scheme in the last 12 months. As it is International Women's Day, I point out that 40 per cent. of that number were women, and I am pleased to say that that includes some of my constituents. About 24,000 people have taken advantage of the trust since its inception. That figure relates roughly to the number of long-term young unemployed people in Yorkshire, Humberside and the east Midlands. That gives us some idea of how much assistance the trust has provided.

The average cost to the Prince's Youth Business Trust of creating a job is £2,500, which is less than a third of the cost of keeping one unemployed person for a year. Clearly, in that context the trust is a major success. That cost pales into insignificance when compared with the cost of inward investment through regional selective assistance, and it shows how the country has benefited from that type of scheme.

I visited the Prince's Youth Business Trust exhibition marquee at the Rotherham show last year as a guest of the South Yorkshire region, and I was greatly impressed by the types of products on display.

I spoke to a man named Frank White, who started a business called Busy Bees in May 1991 after having been unemployed for 10 years. The business, which is run from the Westfield road craft park in Rotherham, makes garden ornaments. What I found most amazing about the company is that between 60 and 80 per cent. of its output, depending on the season, is exported to the United States of America.

Mr. White exports garden ornaments in the guise of alligators to America. They are constructed in three sections and are most impressive, although I would not want to have one in my garden. Mr. White is a success not only for himself, but also for the country and the local economy, because he employs two people in his business.

Since its inception in South Yorkshire, more than 700 people have benefited from the trust's work. In 1994, the trust helped 16 young people to start up 13 businesses in my constituency. Those businesses range from a mobile beauty therapist to tachograph services, and from a manufacturer of jewellery to a delicatessen in the village of Thurcroft. In the latter two cases, the individuals concerned had been out of work for 18 months, so that shows how successful the trust has been in combatting long-term youth unemployment in the area.

I welcome the fact that the Department of Employment now matches the donations that the trust receives from private sources. It is my understanding that, if private funding is raised, the money from the Government now represents about 20 per cent. of the trust's total funding. Echoing what has been said by all hon. Members this morning, I very much hope that the Government's commitment will continue after the current end date of 1996.

I should also mention that the Government are a taker as well as a giver, for they have removed an important method of potential support for participants in the Prince's Youth Business Trust in recent months. I refer to the business start-up allowance that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. That problem has not arisen in his constituency, simply because the South London TEC has gone into liquidation. The Government have moved money away from supporting self-employment for the previously unemployed by that method.

When the business start-up allowance replaced the enterprise allowance scheme, a large number of unemployed people were dropped from the system, despite the fact that the "£1,000 of own capital" rule was removed.

In 1984, more than a quarter of those receiving the enterprise allowance had been out of work for a year or more and all were unemployed. By the first year of business start-up, just one in 10 of those receiving the allowance had been long-term unemployed, and a quarter of the people on the scheme were not classified as unemployed.

The withdrawal of the business start-up scheme as a nationally available measure is a distinct threat to the ability of the Prince's Youth Business Trust to perform effectively. That is not an idle remark. In South Yorkshire, for example, the effects of losing the business start-up allowance are already being felt.

In the past, applicants had been able to claim a business start-up allowance of £35 a week for the first year of trading. The South Yorkshire area manager, Mr. David Houghton, wrote to me recently:

"We have been informed by the TECs in south Yorkshire that"

the allowance

"is now being withdrawn this month and not being replaced. Our information is that enterprise allowance is disappearing nationally except for a couple of areas in the North East.".

He continued:

"In my view I believe that the removal of the … allowance will dramatically affect the number of people we help and we are already seeing signs of this in South Yorkshire. Throughout the last year the South Yorkshire Board have considered between 12 and 16 businesses each month, but in February 1995 only eight businesses were helped and this month possibly only five or six are being put forward.".

The impact of the Government's ending of the start-up allowance is giving some early warning signs to the South Yorkshire manager of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. If that is a reflection of the future, we shall have to reconsider the position.

A great percentage of the people the trust helps have been unemployed for six months or more, and have no collateral, so the guaranteed business start-up allowance of £35 a week was vital to them. It made the difference between taking the risk of trying to improve their standard of living and continuing to live on state benefits.

I know that there is common agreement about state benefits. Certainly, people with young children find it difficult to get into any work, let alone self-employment. The experience of the Prince's Youth Business Trust is that, in the first few months of trading, the businesses rely on the £35 a week while they build up sales and a customer base.

My local area manager continued in his letter:

"If these unemployed young people lose their initiative due to the curtailment of the allowance they will miss the opportunity the Trust gives them at a relatively low cost to become self-employed and will possibly remain unemployed at a yearly cost of thousands of pounds to the state.".

That cannot be right. The Government must put in place some alternative business encouragement measures to replace what we are about to lose or are losing.

The bottom line is that there is there is no real money on the table to encourage young unemployed people to start their own businesses. There is plenty of advice and training, but no hard cash. The cushion provided by the business start-up allowance has gone and the allowance itself has been subsumed into the general funds of the single regeneration budget.

My own borough, Rotherham, was successful in its bid for the single regeneration budget. I was looking at the submission and the outcome only yesterday. However, the only thing on offer under the single regeneration budget in Rotherham is advice to people who are already getting that advice through the Prince's Youth Business Trust. Under the circumstances, it seems that the allowance is being withdrawn without being replaced.

We have to ensure that such a cavalier attitude does not damage the operation of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. It is vital for the growth of local economies, and I hope that the Government will look hard at the possible consequences of the withdrawal of the business start-up allowance.

My own borough has only half the national average for self-employed people—the figure is only 4 per cent. I am clear in my mind that there is a great deal of scope for the growth of self-employment as a means of getting rid of long-term unemployed in my constituency, but it will not happen if people cannot get the assistance they have had in the past.

In the next few weeks, I hope that the Government will look hard at the results from the Prince's Youth Business Trust about how many start-ups are occurring, and if the withdrawal of business start-up allowance from long-term unemployed people has created a problem for the trust, I hope that the Government take measures to remedy it. Like everybody else, I am sure that they would like the trust to go from strength to strength in its work for our young people in the economy.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on obtaining the debate, and on raising the important matters that we have been discussing. He was quite right to draw attention to his own track record of support for small businesses which is well recognised in the House, and on which he also deserves to be congratulated.

I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that today is an unique occasion, and that we have not discussed the Prince's Youth Business Trust before. I hope that we will not leave it quite so long in future before we return to such an important subject. I think that the interest caused by the business trust was exemplified by the number of hon. Members who have been present in the Chamber during the debate. I mention in particular the hon. Member for Belfast South (Rev. Martin Smyth), my hon. Friends the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). I now see my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). It is a tribute to the Prince's Youth Business Trust that so many hon. Members are present this morning to hear about its excellent work and to pay their own tributes to it.

Certainly, the PYBT carries out excellent work in helping disadvantaged young people to enter self-employment and set up their own businesses. Today's debate provides us all with a welcome opportunity to publicise that work.

The trust was founded in 1986. Since then, it has helped some 25,000 young people to set up or expand more than 19.000 businesses. It does that, as we have heard during the debate, through providing grants or loans and in particular through its volunteer network of business advisers. Those advisers are assigned to particular young people and act as mentors, giving help or advice for a couple of years or so.

I find it very heartening that there are currently some 4,500 volunteers, most of whom have themselves started businesses. They therefore know exactly what is involved, and are prepared to give young people the benefit of their time and expertise. More than 2,000 volunteers are needed each year to keep up the momentum, and I understand that the Prince of Wales recently wrote to every existing adviser asking him or her to recruit another volunteer. I wish the trust every success in that campaign.

As has been acknowledged today, we in the Government are extremely supportive of the trust's work. Indeed, we have provided substantial financial help over the years. In November 1988, on his 40th birthday, the Prince of Wales launched an appeal to raise £40 million from the private sector, and the then Secretary of State for Employment, Lord Young, promised to match that pound for pound. So far, we have given some £21 million in accordance with that promise, and our total maximum commitment currently stands at £31 million.

More recently, in March last year, we agreed to provide further funds focused on the more disadvantaged, especially the long-term unemployed and the disabled. Our maximum commitment over the next three years is £10 million, as has already been pointed out. That includes welcome contributions from the Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.

Our contributions are designed to help the PYBT to maximise the funds it receives front the private sector. Both the schemes, which run alongside each other, are paid only on a matched-fund basis, pound for pound. At the trust's suggestion, the new scheme is also output-related: we pay £2,500 for each young person who is recruited and who survives for 15 months in business, which demonstrates the confidence that both the trust and the Government have in those young people. All that helps the trust to raise substantial private sector contributions to the cost of its work.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the interaction between the House of Commons and the trust. Is she aware that, last year, the Prince and his trust helped an all-party project known as "Return Ticket"? Long-term unemployed people were sent 30,000 hooks to give them hope, which has been afforded not least by the success stories emanating from the trust.

I am grateful both for my hon. Friend's interest in the trust and for his reminder of that important initiative.

The free advice that the trust gives each year is estimated to be worth about £30 million. Because of the leverage that our funds ensure, it hopes to double the number of young people that it supports as a result of the new scheme.

I am delighted to say that our research suggests that the young people who start businesses generally go on to set up thriving concerns: two thirds are still in business after two to three years, and a high proportion of those who sadly cease trading say that their experience with the PYBT has helped significantly to make it easier for them to find employment—or, indeed, to continue in some other form of self-employment.

I pay particular tribute to the work that the trust does in Kent, not least because I was recently privileged to go to a reception for young people who had set up businesses. I particularly remember a young man called Andrew Harsley, who had founded a very successful business making cable ties—perhaps because he was kind enough to give me a bunch of flowers tied up with one of his cable ties. I thought that that was a very nice gesture, and I wanted to put it on record and thank Mr. Harsley today.

The sheer diversity of the trust's businesses is amazing. They include both the more obvious concerns such as fashion, hairdressing and manufacturing, and unusual businesses such as sheep pregnancy testing, pet food delivery services and surfing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given many examples of specific initiatives, and paid tribute to them.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made an important contribution to the debate. He mentioned the fall-out from the circumstances of the South Thames training and enterprise council. As he will know, we are arranging for the TEC's functions to be taken over, but as a result of what he has said today I shall find out what specific arrangements have been made in relation to the PYBT and write to him as soon as I can.

I hope that the hon. Member will take that as an indication of the seriousness with which the Government view the trust, and our awareness of the importance of maintaining continuity. I take the hon. Gentleman's point: continuity is all, especially in the early stages.

The speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was unusually emollient, which is in itself a tribute to the trust. It clearly has considerable appeal for all parties in the House. I do not think, however, that the hon. Gentleman's portrayal of our treatment of the business start-up scheme was altogether fair. He implied that it had been withdrawn. Our evaluation in 1991 suggested that some 80 per cent. of PYBT-supported businesses were in receipt of business start-up allowances, which did of course tend to increase unit costs from the Government's perspective. The funds from the business start-up scheme have been transferred to the single regeneration budget, but that does not mean that they have been withdrawn. The budget will directly support some 18,000 new businesses in 1995-96; moreover, all projects supported by it will tend to help new businesses.

Is the Minister saying that the transfer of the money to the single regeneration budget will give those who benefit from the trust's work a weekly allowance for the first 12 months of the existence of their businesses?

I am saying that it is wrong to suggest that the fact that the business start-up scheme now functions as part of the single regeneration budgets means that it has ceased to function at all.

Some £40 million will be available in 1996–97 for the second round of bidding. That will build up to £200 million in the following year. Provision for the single regeneration budget over the next three years accounts for a substantial sum, of which more than £800 million will be provided for new projects.

It is for local partnerships to decide what priority to give to small business support. There is plenty of scope for the PYBT, and for other concerns, to work with local partners, as it is already doing in many parts of the country. I do not share the rather gloomy view of the hon. Member for Rother Valley: The change in procedures does not mean that we are any less committed to looking after small businesses.

Let me again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and also congratulate the trust on the diversity of its work. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, many women, disabled people and ethnic minorities have benefited from that work. The trust's scope is wide, encompassing both rural and urban areas, and the contribution that it makes, not only to the well-being and the economic prosperity of young people but to the well-being and the economic prosperity of the country is well worthy of the recognition that it has received today.

Today is International Women's Day and it is right to celebrate that with a debate about an issue that is dear to the hearts of many women, who comprise 51 per cent. of the people of this country. It is worth saying at the outset that there arc at least 4 million low-paid women in this country. We define low pay as being below two thirds of the male median earnings.

That is not an insignificant number. Divided equally, on a geographical basis, it would mean that there are 6,000 low-paid women in every constituency in the United Kingdom. However, the geographical distribution of low pay is not completely even. In inner London, only 18 per cent. of women are low-paid, while in west Yorkshire the figure is 58 per cent.—a much higher figure. East Anglia, the part of the world that I represent, is often seen as more prosperous, but in fact 54 per cent. of women in East Anglia are low paid. That is perhaps a surprising figure, but East Anglia has low-paid employment in agriculture, hotel and catering, cleaning, the health service, social services, and many other jobs traditionally done by women.

The hon. Lady is saying that women earn less in certain parts of the country than in others. She is also a well-known supporter of the national minimum wage. If the national minimum wage were introduced, would there be a regional differences in the minimum wage?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point that I was making. I said that the distribution of low pay was different in different regions. I will come to the minimum wage later. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I reach that point.

One of the rather surprising things—or perhaps it is not so surprising, given the national situation—is that in Cambridge and the surrounding areas there is a great deal of high-tech industry, but although people working in those industries are often highly paid, on the whole women are not benefiting from that high-tech industry which has grown so successfully in and around Cambridge over the past 15 years. I am pleased to say, however, that Doctor Elizabeth Garnsey of the Judge Institute in Cambridge is embarking on a study to determine why so few women are employed in the high-tech industries in the Cambridge region. It will be interesting to see the results of that study.

Much of the ground was covered in yesterday's debate, when Ministers and Conservative Members spent a great deal of time telling us of the tremendous improvements that had been made, and it is true that for some women life has got better over the past few years. There are more women in professional jobs, there are more women at the top of their professions and there are more women Members of Parliament, but that has not been achieved as a result of Government policies; it has been achieved despite the Conservative Government.

A good way of illustrating that is to look at how the number of women Members of Parliament has increased. It has increased because the Labour party has taken positive steps to improve the chances for women in our party, and we are continuing to take those steps, which bring nothing but criticism and carping from Conservative Members.

We all welcome the increase in the numbers of women who manage to rise to the top of their professions, but does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that just 5 per cent. of professors in higher education and 6 per cent. of QCs and High Court judges are women is not exactly a startling achievement as we approach the end of the 20th century?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Although some progress has been made, the situation is far from satisfactory and certainly does not merit the kind of complacency that we have seen from Front-Bench Conservative Members.

My hon. Friend referred to the Labour party's determined efforts to ensure that our electoral representation in the House reflects Great Britain, where half the population is female. Does she not find the schizophrenia of Conservative Members on this issue fascinating when they attack—[Interruption.]—and laugh at the fact that the Labour party has quotas for women but fail to acknowledge that the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), is frequently given permission to be away from the House to try to persuade constituency associations to comply with the Conservative party's target of 50 per cent for women candidates? Is not the only difference the fact that the Labour party is serious about it and the Conservatives are willing, the means?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Conservatives are trying to improve on their 63 women candidates in the past election compared with Labour's 138.

rose—

Order. Even hon. Ladies must take their scats. The debate is about wage levels for women. It is not really about party politics and which party has which candidates.

As women Members of Parliament are perhaps more highly paid than other women, an increase in their numbers will help in a small way to raise wage levels for women.

Will the hor. Lady give way?

Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait until I have made a further point.

If we define low pay as less than two thirds of a full-time median wage—not just men's wages, but taking men and women's wages together—we can compare ourselves with our European partners.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Not at the moment.

In Belgium, for example, which has clear minimum wage legislation, less than 5 per cent. of women come into the category of low-paid. In the Netherlands, which also has minimum wage legislation, although perhaps not quite so good, only I I per cent. of women come within the definition of low-paid. In Ireland, however, the figure rises dramatically to 18 per cent., in Spain it is 19 per cent. and the UK tops the European Union tree with 20 per cent. That says something important about the effect of a minimum wage on low pay for women.

Will the hon. Lady specify what she is saying in quantitative terms? She has defined low pay as being two thirds of male median earnings. What are male median earnings in quantitative terms? Unless we know that figure, talking about low pay and linking it with some kind of poverty makes no sense whatever.

I have the figures and I can inform the hon. Gentleman that, according to the 1994 wages survey, male median earnings were around £300 per week, so two thirds of male median earnings is a little over £200 a week. The hon. Gentleman can find those figures quite easily if he would like to look them up. In the last case, I was talking about two thirds of the full-time median wage, taking both men's and women's pay together.

Yesterday the Trades Union Congress launched a new document, "The New Divide". It is a study of the pay of part-time workers. The TUC says something that is important for us all to take on hoard, and we should celebrate the contribution that part-time workers make to the economy. Many men and women want to work part time because of family responsibilities, others perhaps want to study at the same time or they may be caring for elderly parents. There are all sorts of reasons why people want to work part time. We should encourage that if it is what people want to do. But why should part-time work mean low pay and worse conditions than those of people in full-time employment?

It is shocking that half a million part-time workers, mainly women, earn less than £2.49 an hour. That is disgraceful, and it is an indictment of the Government's complete lack of policy on eanings and incomes. Many workers earn less than the national insurance threshold, which is currently £57 per week. Those workers not only take home low pay but lose a number of contributory benefits, especially pensions, so those who are poor at work tend to be poor in old age as well.

In the context of social justice, it is obviously important for part-time workers to be treated in the same way as full-time workers. With more people choosing to work part time, it is becoming more essential to treat people equally. The Government have an appalling record and have continually tried to block part-time workers' rights. Following the House of Lords ruling in March 1994 that the Government were acting illegally in denying employment rights to part-time workers, in December last year the Government were forced to give equal rights to part-timers.

The Secretary of State for Employment last year blocked European directives on parental leave which would have been of enormous help to men and women in employment. That now has to be introduced under the social protocol, which excludes the UK and means that our workers are not able to benefit from it.

The Equal Opportunities Commission has produced a good report on low pay and women. The report identifies that low pay is associated with having children and/or caring responsibilities and having a part-time job. I can illustrate how that affects ordinary people from the letters of one of my constituents. She is a highly qualified woman with a degree in microbiology. In her letter to me she describes how she had worked while living with the father of her two children. He became violent and threw her out. As a single parent she was able to draw £600 a month in benefit.

However, when she tried to go back to her job, which was quite well paid compared with most of the jobs that women are able to get, the loss of benefit and the cost of child care reduced her income from £600 to £450 a month. Not surprisingly, with two children, that woman found that quite impossible to live on. She wrote to me pointing out how ridiculous it was that the Government were paying her £600 a month to stay on benefit rather than £150 a month to be in work. That is the amount that she would have needed to bring her income up to what she had while on benefit. That is absurd.

It is essential to increase opportunities for women by increasing the provision of low-cost publicly funded child care and abolishing the anomaly by which people can reclaim tax on their secretary's wages but not on child-minding costs. It is no coincidence that, on the whole, men employ secretaries and women employ child minders, and it is clear discrimination that the one is allowable against tax while the other is not.

It would be discourteous to allow the debate to go much further without congratulating the hon. Lady and her lady colleagues on having overcome the ingrained male chauvinism within her party to which she referred earlier. Not one male Labour Member is in the Chamber or has been here since the start of the debate. Does the hon. Lady feel that that is a symptom of the fact that perhaps there is still a long way to go? There is an empty space where one male Labour Member was sitting, so I apologise for being incorrect in that, but certainly no one has bothered to stay. The one who was here left as soon as the hon. Lady started to speak, which was grossly discourteous.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) has slipped out for a few moments and will be hack. He was here at the beginning of the debate. The Opposition can celebrate the fact that we have enough women to keep the debate going without falling back on our male colleagues. The Conservative party would dearly love to solve the problem of having too few women hon. Members, but it has no idea how to go about it.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I have given way a number of times and I will give way to the hon. Lady later. At the moment I should like to make some further progress.

It is important to look at ways of increasing access to existing child care, and we also need to increase the amount of it. I am pleased that in my constituency we have been able to put together a project involving the city and county councils, the local employment agency office, the training and enterprise councils from Cambridge and Greater Peterborough, the Cambridge Training and Development Organisation, which is a private training body, and the Benefits Agency.

We have formed a working party to look at ways to make child care and work more accessible to those who wish to return to work after a period of being at home and looking after children. We have decided to have points around the city to give information through the form of a one-stop shop so that people can find out where child care and training opportunities are to he found, where they are likely to find a job and what difference that will make to their benefits. That is to say, they can discover what their income will be at the end of the day.

We plan to make that service accessible through a computer-based system which will, of course, be linked to the information super-highway. I am pleased that the project has attracted all-party support in Cambridge. Of course, we cannot pursue it without money, and I am pleased that all the major banks, plus Philips Telecom, some of the Cambridge colleges and two training and enterprise councils, have contributed substantial sums to get the scheme off the ground. That shows how important people think it is to have good quality child care and to give people proper access to it to enable them to get hack to work.

Labour party policy on the minimum wage has been mentioned. The statistics show that it is essential to have a minimum wage to help the 3 million British workers who earn less than £3.50 an hour. Four out of five low-paid people are women. We have only to look at the stories of people on very high salaries to realise that there are not many women among them. Mr. Cedric Brown springs to mind immediately, and the National Grid chairman recently managed to effect a pay deal worth £2 million. There is no chance of that person being a woman. A 28-year-old man on £200,000 a year managed to break a hank but did not contribute much to the economy in the process.

The Low Pay Unit has come up with examples of people being offered extremely low pay, not in a covert way but by advertisement in Government job centres. There are examples of shop workers being offered £1.66 an hour and hairdressers being offered £1.43 an hour. How could anyone survive on such wages? They are totally disgraceful.

Despite the rhetoric of Conservative Members, economists in Britain and America who have studied low pay have concluded that a statutory minimum wage does not cost jobs and may even increase employment. That is what the research is showing. Time and again, we hear Conservative Members say that we must not let workers price themselves out of jobs. Let us consider, however, what happened in 1990 when the United States Government raised the national minimum wage to the equivalent of approximately £2.70 an hour. Despite everyone's efforts, study after study found that that was effective in raising the income of some of the poorest people in America, and that it had done so without jobs being lost.

A further example is the east coast state of New Jersey, where local legislators raised the minimum wage to $5.05 an hour, compared with the state of Pennsylvania where the minimum wage was only $4.25 an hour. If what the Conservative party is saying is correct, one would have expected jobs to increase in Pennsylvania and to decrease in New Jersey, but that did not happen. Economists examined one sector of the industry—fast food restaurants, where wages are traditionally low—in both states. They found that employment had fallen in cheap—rate Pennsylvania but risen in higher-rate New Jersey—the reverse of what the Conservatives claim would happen. The research simply does not bear out the points that they make.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in the United States the rate of female participation in the labour market is significantly lower than in the United Kingdom and that the percentage of earnings gained by females in the United States does not compare favourably with that in the UK?

I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's point refers to the minimum wage, but it is true that there are far more fragmented part-time jobs in the United States than in the UK.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are not interested in the research, that they do not consider it and that they do not care? They believe ideologically in low pay. They cannot stand the idea of a minimum wage. They attack it constantly because they crudely and ideologically believe in market forces. They cannot believe that paying people a decent rate is a proper social policy, and therefore they are not listening to the research that my hon. Friend has outlined.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right. If Conservative Members are not interested in the facts, they should stop making comments which are not true.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am not giving way again as I wish to make some progress.

Low pay tends to increase staff turnover and to make it much more difficult to recruit staff, so firms often lose business because they are unable to meet orders. They also face much higher training costs, because a constant turnover of staff means that they will have to train people more frequently. Firms which pay low wages do not do well. Some of the squeals that we have heard from employers in the past few weeks should be taken with a pinch of salt, because the evidence does not bear out what they are saying.

Since the Government abolished wages councils, which set minimum rates for workers in the retail, hotel, hairdressing and other trades, hourly wage rates have decreased. According to Government theories, when wage rates go down we should naturally expect an increase in vacancies, but that has not happened. The Low Pay Unit found that, after wages councils were abolished, employment in the hotel trade decreased. [Interruption.]

Did my hon. Friend pick up the little sedentary comment from the Conservative Benches—that jobs fell in the hotel trade because of the recession? Conservative Members seem to think that it is acceptable to have lower wages and fewer jobs.

For the past two years, the Government have been telling us that we are coming out of recession, that we are in a boom period, that we should all expect to be feeling much better and that there should be a feel-good factor, but if they are now saying teat we are in recession, that directly contradicts what they said previously.

No other country is considering abandoning the minimum wage and the constraints that we had under the wages councils. Not even Newt Gingrich is proposing the abolition of the minimum wage in the United States. We should recognise that minimum wages encourage people to work instead of staying at home on benefit. We want to encourage that, and we thought that the Conservative party was in favour of it.

We have one of the worst records in Europe on women's wage levels, and poverty at work leads to poverty in old age. We need to improve conditions and pay for part-timers, and we should not block European directives intended to help them. We desperately need to ensure access to good quality publicly funded child care, so that women can work without worrying about their children. Because the Government have so resolutely turned their face against a minimum wage, which has been widely adopted in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, we need to ensure electoral victory for a Labour Government, who will introduce a minimum wage and increase opportunities for all women.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), my near neighbour, on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject.

I remember the hon. Lady's maiden speech some three years ago, as I was in the Chamber at the time. Although it was a good maiden speech, I recall her painting a gloomy picture of life in her constituency. I hope that she will acknowledge that all over East Anglia, and most notably in Cambridge, dramatic falls in unemployment have begun to take place. That is to be welcomed. Male and female workers alike have benefited from that. East Anglia is enjoying the fastest rate of economic recovery of any region in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that, in the past three years, job opportunities for females and female participation in the labour market have expanded markedly, both in her constituency and in East Anglia.

The hon. Lady is right to refer to the gap between male and female earnings. In many respects, that is not acceptable. Members of Parliament are paid the same amount, whether they are male or female, and it would be preposterous if it were otherwise. That principle should be extended across many other spheres of employment. The Labour party's policies, however, are destined to destroy the very job opportunities which have caused so many women to make such tremendous and remarkable strides in employment since 1979.

Of all the European Union countries, only the UK has a lower unemployment rate for women—currently 4.6 per cent.—than for men. Compared with the larger countries in the European Union, the participation rate by women in the UK labour market is at the highest level.

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the number of hours that women work in Britain is the lowest in the European Union? That means that many women are working fewer hours than they would prefer because of the constraints of lack of child care and non-availability of decently paid employment.

The hon. Lady misses the point entirely. The purpose of a dynamic and flexible economy is to create job opportunities. The policies that she espouses would destroy job opportunities and the enormous progress that women have made in the labour market in the past 15 years. It cannot be denied that there is a gap, but it has been closing partly because of legislation and partly because cultural attitudes to female employment have rightly moved on. I welcome that, but what is needed is a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market and a Government committed to widening choice and opportunity for everyone. The surge in flexible working has been greatly welcomed by women employees and we are seeing the fruits of that flexibility.

Let us examine whether that supposition is backed by the facts. In 1970, average gross weekly earnings for women were 54.3 per cent. of men's earnings. By 1994, the figure had risen to 72.2 per cent., and the figure for full-time hourly earnings is now 79 per cent. That is due to an expansion—both relative and absolute—of female earnings.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the desirability of flexibility in the labour market. Will he explain the desirability of zero-hours employment contracts, which are increasing especially in the shop and hotel sector, whereby employers do not contract to provide any hours of work for employees but employees have to be available for work at all times? Whose opportunities are increased by such contracts?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. In my constituency, where employment has increased substantially and where the tourism and hotel sectors arc expanding, unemployment has dropped to 4.6 per cent. precisely because of such flexibility. If we had the regulated labour market and total lack of flexibility advocated by the Labour party, there would be no such employment opportunities and unemployment in my constituency would double.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will deal with the increase in female earnings and then give way to the hon. Lady.

In the four or five years since 1990, female earnings have risen by 30 per cent., compared with a rise of 23 per cent. in men's earnings. Again, Labour's policies would destroy that growth because of the ossification of opportunities that would certainly arise. The female activity rate continues to rise while the male activity rate continues to fall.

An article in The Guardian—so it must be true—written by Edward Balls in September last year stated:

"Since the early seventies female employment has risen by a fifth, while male employment has fallen by the same percentage."

He is the same Mr. Edward Balls who, significantly, contributed to the intellectual thrust of the Labour party's economic policy—namely, the introduction of a neo-classical endogenous growth theory and symbiotic relationships—so what he says must he of great interest to the Labour party.

It was not a neo-classical endogenous growth theory, but a post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory which recognises that labour markets and the supply and demand curve which so obsesses free-market Conservatives simply do not represent the real world.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's attempt to clarify Labour's economic policy. During the years that I spent at university learning about economics and hearing a catholic spread of ideas, at no time did I hear a theory along those lines. It has nothing to do with the real world and made the Labour party a laughing stock.

It is most impressive that female self-employment has risen by 80 per cent. since 1981. The hon. Member for Cambridge will know that the small business sector in East Anglia is one of the most important elements of growth in our part of Britain. Our economy is very much based on small business. In the late 1980s, a considerable part of the expansion in employment during the boom period was in the small business sector. The fact that so many more women are deciding to become self-employed in that sector is greatly to be welcomed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one in four small businesses are now started by women, who are making a considerable success of them? Indeed, banks tell me that they would rather give a loan to a woman because they know that she will be successful.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I am sure that she is correct. I hope that in future there will be many more women entrepreneurs who will start and build seedcorn businesses like the Body Shop and many others that have been so commercially successful.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge agrees that the key to employment success and higher wages for women lies in education. There is a clear relationship between professional success and education. When the Labour party was in office, one in eight young people went on to higher education, a figure that was regarded as a scandal in the 1970s. It is now one in three, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge welcomes that.

Below university level, we find that, in 1979, under a Labour Government, 44 per cent. of A-level entrants were female, but the figure has risen to 52 per cent. under the Conservatives. In 1979, 40 per cent. of full-time students in higher education were female; today, 48 per cent. are female and their number is growing. If one adds the figure for those in further education, more than half the students are female. In the same period, three fifths of those involved in further education are female compared to two fifths when Labour were in power.

I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes the tremendous progress that has been made and is anxious to share the following information. At Cambridge university in the 1970s, one in four undergraduates were female, but the figure is now 43 per cent. and rising. All this shows what a dynamic, open and growing economy is doing to create opportunities for women. There is clear evidence of increasing and very welcome professional success among women. An article in the Financial Times of 22 August 1994 carried the headline "Women 'beating men for top jobs'". It stated:

"Women prove more successful than men when they are competing for senior management positions, statistics released by an executive recruitment consultancy show.

The survey, which focused on 85 posts in the £30,000 to £75,000 salary range handled by the London office of NB Selection, found that from the shortlisted candidates for the posts one in four women, compared with one in six men, secured management positions.

The company also examined the sample of 31 vacancies covering 3,000 applicants and found that, proportionately, women again fared better. Some 22 per cent. of women applicants secured interviews compared with 10 per cent. of male applicants."

I am sure that everyone welcomes the considerable professional success at management level that is now manifesting itself and which will certainly continue to boost female earnings.

The hon. Gentleman is painting an extremely rosy picture, but is he aware that the recent trend towards more women in management has gone into reverse? A recent survey shows that 9.5 per cent. of managers in 1993 were women, compared with 10.3 per cent. in 1992. Only 2.8 per cent. of directors were women. Those figures are taken from the Institute of Management survey of 1994. The hon. Gentleman must admit that there are large problems.

>: From the figures that I have given, the hon. Lady will accept that progress for women in professional life is strong. I entirely welcome that, and I hope that it will go further. However, I do not especially want to bandy around endless surveys.

I come next to the employment forecast for women to the year 2000, put out by no less an organisation than the Equal Opportunities Commission, working together with the Institute for Employment Research. The report shows that the proportion of women in the labour force has increased steadily despite the last recession. Using a forecasting model which relates activity rates to various socio-economic variables, the author of the report finds that

"women are likely to increase their share in almost all occupations, particularly in the managerial, professional and associated professional areas where they are currently under-represented.

For example, the proportion of female corporate managers is predicted to grow from 30.5 per cent. in 1991 to 39.6 per cent. by 2000. Over the same period the female proportion of science- and engineering-associated professionals is expected to increase from 22.5 per cent. to 29.9 per cent. and in other associated professional occupations from 38.9 per cent. to 44 per cent."

I hope that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) agrees that such a report, produced by an impartial body, is especially welcome.

What was markedly lacking in the list of figures that the hon. Gentleman shared with the House was any mention of wages. Can he furnish us with those figures and perhaps with details of the differentials between men's and women's wages which still exist in every area of working life?

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. There is a gap, but it is closing. There is a direct correlation between education, professional accomplishment and wage levels. The point that I am trying to make is that, as more women rightly occupy senior positions, the gap will close. It is now closing rapidly as a result of a mixture of legislation and a dynamic economy which produces growth opportunities for everyone in the labour market.

The hon. Gentleman agrees, I presume, with his Government's view that low wages create more jobs. On the point to which he has devoted so many figures, does he therefore believe that the way to close the gap between male and female employment in managerial positions is to lower wages in those positions'?

I believe that, in a growing and dynamic economy which provides job opportunities, we shall see general standards of living rising. Those living standards will be based on an increase in average earnings in a non-inflationary economy. That is to be wholly welcomed.

Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched in 1991 his well-known initiative to increase the proportion of women appointed by Government to public bodies, the proportion of women holding public appointments has risen from 5 per cent. to 28 per cent. The Government are committed to equality and to a comprehensive legal framework. We have a legislative foundation. We have seen clear evidence that women are advancing, rightly, at all levels. We have seen clear evidence that the gap in earnings is closing and will continue to close, and I wholly welcome that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I must conclude.

At the heart of this remains one point that is crystal clear. All that I have described can happen only if we have an open, free and dynamic marketplace economy providing the opportunity. What we do not need is the imposition of a social chapter, which will destroy jobs, and a minimum wage which has had catastrophic employment consequences for both men and women across the European Union. The way that I have described is the way in which women can advance, and that is the way in which, under a Conservative Government, that is now happening.

I am conscious that there is limited time in the debate so I shall be brief, if hon. Members will allow me.

There are some areas in which there is a common awareness of the difficulties women face. We all recognise that women have made great strides over the past 20 years and that more women are now in paid employment than at any other time. The gap between male and female wages has narrowed. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) said, women now take up more than half of all further and higher education places. We can say that for some women, especially young, childless women from white, well-educated middle-income backgrounds, equality of opportunity has become a reality, but for many others, the old injustices and inequalities remain and new problems limiting their choice have arisen. On average, women who work full time are still paid only 79 per cent. of the pay of their male counterparts. A large majority of those who earn less than half the national average wage are women. The large majority of pensioners on income support are women. Some 90 per cent. of all lone parents are women. The vast majority of employees with the primary responsibility for caring for children, caring for the elderly and caring for the sick are women. Women make up 44 per cent. of the United Kingdom work force, but only 20 per cent. of our managers and a mere 2 per cent. of senior executives.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that there are no women chief police constables?

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Indeed, I share her disappointment. That point illustrates the problem of discrimination to which I shall come later.

The Low Pay Unit recently reported that half of all full-time women workers and three quarters of all part-time women workers earned less than 68 per cent. of the average wage. We heard earlier that some 4 million women earn low wages. The latest figures from the Low Pay Unit tell us that 6.5 million women are earning low wages. Two thirds of low-paid workers are women. More than 70 per cent. of those earning less than £3 an hour are women. Women are the primary victims of low-wage exploitation. I am sorry about the continual recounting of figures, but I believe that they illustrate the fact that women are the victims in this respect.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that women would far rather have a job than not? Does he also accept that Britain has the second-highest proportion of working women in Europe? We are second only to Denmark. Does he agree that a woman with a job, even a part-time job, is better off than a woman who has no money at all?

The hon. Lady repeats points made earlier, which is a waste of the time of the House. I do not believe that we should expect anybody, woman or man, to work for wages that are akin to slavery. I do not believe that this country should move towards a third-world economy. It is women who are exploited, because they have fewer choices.

We need to have a flexible, but firm, approach to low wages. We need to establish a regionally based minimum hourly rate in determining wages. We need a minimum hourly rate which is agreed by employers and by representatives of trade and commerce, working closely with a low pay commission. We need to protect the vulnerable from the unscrupulous; women are usually at the sharp end of that.

Low wages are not the only problem. Our tax and benefits system discriminates against women. We need reforms to present going to work as a genuine option. We need to remove the mechanisms in the tax and benefits systems that reduce economic independence for women and stifle opportunity. We should remove the lower rate of national insurance contribution on earnings of less than £3,445. We could take 50,000 low-paid workers out of the tax system altogether by that simple move. That would help mainly women.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's proposal is well meant, but has he looked at the lower threshold? Something like 3 million people, mostly women, are trapped beneath it with no entitlement to pensions or anything else. It becomes an incentive to employers to pay their workers wages that are just below that threshold and to keep them low so that those workers never receive any national insurance benefits or other entitlements, which is a real problem.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. That is one of the basic reasons why we need to look closely at our tax and benefits systems to try to avoid such exploitation.

On that very point, many women's employment is severely disrupted, usually because they have taken on the responsibility of bringing up children at some stage during their lives. They therefore have incomplete contributory records, which, of course, lead to all the disadvantages of the future loss of entitlements. We need to move towards phasing in a system of benefits and pensions which are paid on the basis of residence and to merge the national insurance contributions into the same tax base as income tax. That may begin to overcome some of the problems mentioned.

We need to examine how carers are treated. Changes in the contributory principle would help to remove some of the benefit system's built-in disadvantages to carers. We also need to consider training provision. Training for work and increasing employability are vital, and improvements in education, training and skill levels would bring the greatest benefit to the low-paid, who, again, are mainly women.

I shall sum up briefly, because I know that there is little time.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. Does he agree that the representation of women on training and enterprise council boards is lamentable and that there are very few women throughout the entire TEC system? Does he agree that it would be much better to have better representation of women on TEC boards?

TEC boards need to be reviewed because there is widespread under-representation, not only of women. I am particularly concerned that small firms are inadequately represented on TEC boards, yet they often need the most help, liaison and dialogue about training needs. Many small firms have never engaged in training, and their under-representation is a great flaw in the system.

Most importantly, we need to improve anti-discrimination policies. Better child care provision, improvements to the tax and benefits system, minimum hourly rates, improvements in training, and so on are all peripheral if the central issue of discrimination is not tackled. Replacement of the Sex Discrimination Acts and the Equal Pay Act 1970 by an equal treatment Act would help to counter all discrimination, unintentional as well as intentional. Employers should take responsibility for ensuring that the inequalities in pay and conditions are not the result of discrimination.

The approach to policies that I have tried to outline in my short speech would ensure that, in future, all employees were paid according to the quality of their work, not according to their gender. We need to help ensure that the structural imbalances which prevent women from getting and retaining the sort of work that they want are removed. Women should have the same opportunities as men. The aim of the Liberal Democrats is not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. We do not propose special treatment for women, but equal treatment.

I particularly warmly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place at all. I say that because I have worked all my adult life and I have never felt in any way discriminated against by wage levels because of my sex. I have worked as a secretary and I have never felt discriminated against. The Labour party asks why there are not more male secretaries. I have not had a single male apply to be my secretary.

I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to know that I have a male secretary and he is extremely good.

I am delighted for the hon. Lady and I am sure that lie gives her excellent service.

Discrimination is not left to the individual to feel or to recognise. We are arguing that the discrimination from which millions of women suffer is set in place by an employer who makes a distinction between a male and a female employee. Women are discriminated against quite deliberately. They earn less money. It is not a feeling or a sense; it is a fact.

Women earn less money partly because of the kind of job that they do. From my experience in whatever area I worked, whether in Fleet street as a junior reporter or as a head of a department, I know that I always had the same salary as everybody else. The Government are concerned about the iniquities which may arise, which is why they set up the Equal Opportunities Commission and, indeed, pour £5 million

It was set up by a Labour Government.

Oh, well, I withdraw that remark. None the less, this Government pour £5 million a year into the commission to ensure that women get a fair deal.

This is a very artificial debate. It is the result of the spin doctors in the Labour party trying hard to get the women's vote. They say to themselves, "Ah, the women's issue." It is all meticulously planned, the ball is set rolling down the road and the Labour women, if I may say so, just do as they are bid.

More than that, the Labour party is saying, "Let's attract the women's vote by offering baubles." It is looking, for instance, at different forms of tax relief. Indeed, I read with the greatest interest an article in She magazine, which featured the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said that he would look at tax relief for child care—in other words, a nannies charter. I am sure that the poor working woman would not be very happy to find that her increased taxes are paying for nannies for wealthy women.

I regard this debate as the product of a rather cynical ploy that will not work. The Labour party totally underestimates the intelligence of the British woman. We are not that easily fooled. The women who come to see me in my surgery do not talk about the issues that the women in the Labour party raise or about sexist issues. They say that they want a stable, sustainable economy, which is dynamic and which will give them jobs for themselves and their husbands, which we all want.

They welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 500,000 over the past two years and they welcome the fact that in Sutton the number of unemployed people is barely 300 above the peak unemployment level of 1986. We should be looking at the real issues of how we are helping women.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Very well, for a moment.

What does the hon. Lady say to the 80 per cent. of women who earn less than half the median rate paid to male workers about her Government's policies of removing the protection which was provided by wages councils, which has led to those low levels of pay being further reduced? Is she not concerned about the low levels of pay that so many women have to put up with?

I am always concerned about wage levels for all people. This cant of positive discrimination totally overlooks the main issue, which is ensuring that our economy is dynamic and determined to help all women.

I shall not give way any more. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, and tokenism is not acceptable today. Time is tight and precious and I want to address a very important issue which was raised by the Labour party yesterday and has been raised again today, about the lack of a national child care strategy.

If the House wants a national care strategy, it should look to the Conservative Government, because we are doing just that. They have an excellent record on child care. Does anybody give us any praise? No. Why does not the Labour party acknowledge that 90 per cent. of all three to four-year-old children are in some form of education or organised day care? Why does the Labour party not thank us for that? Why does it not accept it? It certainly takes advantage of it. Why does the Labour party not praise our Prime Minister, who has set the target that over time he will provide a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish to take it up.

Why does the Labour party not welcome the fact that in 1992 there were 133,600 places in registered day nurseries and nursery placcs—more than double the number in 1983? Why do Labour Members stay silent on that? In 1993, there were 296,000 places with registered childminders, and childminding increased by 40 per cent. between 1988 and 1991. What a fantastic track record.

We know that we have a record of helping women—a record of which we are proud. The Conservative party will carry far more credibility in the cause of women than the Labour party will.

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, especially as I was involved in Committees yesterday and could not attend yesterday's Supply day debate on women. I note that, for two years running, we have had debates in Opposition time on the extremely important subject of the position of women in society, and what kind of progress is being made.

Today's debate has been won by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and I congratulate her on having secured it—but we still await a debate in Government time. If the Conservative party is really so interested in the progress of women and wishes to spend time demonstrating to us how central the issue is, the Government might at least condescend to give the House time to discuss it at length. I certainly hope that they will, but in 16 years of Conservative rule we have yet to see it happen.

Women constitute the majority of those in low-paid and insecure employment, and in the deregulated labour market insecurity is growing and wages have been falling, ably aided and abetted by the Government's abolition of the wages councils two years ago. As a result of that, in the affected sectors 42 per cent. of the part-time vacancies overall—and 75 per cent. in some sectors—are for jobs that still pay less than the low wage rates stipulated by the wages councils when they were abolished two years ago.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that almost 75,000 people, most of whom are women, now earn less than £1.50 an hour. How on earth can anyone keep his or her life together, try to support someone else or have any kind of dignity in the world earning such a wage? There are 200,000 people who still earn less than £2.70 an hour. Again, most of them are women.

We must abolish such low wages in our economy. Working for such low wages does not aid dignity, and is unlikely to allow for training or to lead to career prospects. It is merely exploitation, and we should see it for what it is.

There is an interesting discussion that always takes place about the minimum wage. Of course, the minimum wage and the arguments about it are at the core of the pretty fundamental disagreements between the main political parties on such issues. We believe that a minimum wage will help to banish exploitative jobs from the economy.

The hon. Lady is right to say that that is a fundamental point, and I invite her to examine other European countries in which the minimum wage exists. For example, in Spain 35 per cent. of young people are unemployed, and in France the proportion is 25 per cent. The hon. Lady talks about exploitation, but there is nothing more cruel than the exploitation of having no hope, no job and no prospects. That is the tyranny of the minimum wage, where it exists, right across Europe.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up different economic effects. I do not think that the existence of the minimum wage has created that high youth unemployment in other countries, or that it would create it here.

In the lower income sectors in this country wages are so low that the Government now subsidise, via top-up benefits to the tune of billions of pounds, the employers who pay those low wages. Some recent parliamentary answers have demonstrated how much taxpayers' money is paid to employers to exploit their work forces, and that is neither economically efficient nor morally acceptable. A Labour Government would certainly get rid of it.

The argument that a minimum wage would destroy jobs has been demonstrated to be false this side of the second world war. In the early 1970s, there were discussions about introducing equal pay legislation, and the Conservative party—which, by the way, opposed equal pay legislation all down the line, and also opposed the introduction of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) praised—told us all that millions of women's jobs would be destroyed and that women would be forced back into the home.

Conservatives said that the paradoxical effect of the Labour Government's pushing for equal pay legislation to improve some of the low wages, and of their trying at least to ensure equality between men and women, would be to push women back into the home. But what has happened since the legislation was put on the statute book?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I shall give way in a minute, but I was going to explain what has happened since the legislation was passed.

There has been a massive increase in the number of women entering the work force. Because of the Government's economic incompetence, there has also been a massive decrease in full-time male employment, which has been partly replaced by part-time female employment. It is estimated that nine out of every 10 jobs created between now and the year 2000 will he part-time and will be taken by women. Whatever has happened as a result of equal pay legislation, it has not been the destruction of women's jobs in the economy. The opposite has happened.

I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell).

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for not showing the discrimination against males shown by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who also spoke about equal pay. I do not think that my hon. Friend will recall the time when equal pay for teachers was won, but is she aware of the enormous opposition to that proposition by the male teachers union that was afterwards absorbed into another union? It put up a tremendous fight on the ground that equal pay would depress the wages of males because women teachers' earnings were merely a second wage.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Now we see the pattern repeating itself. The Labour party puts legislation on the statute book and argues for the further advance of women in our society, against discrimination where it exists and in favour of equal treatment, whereas the Conservative party spends all its time and resources opposing those moves every step of the way. Yet, when the legislation is on the statute book, Conservatives later claim that they supported it all along.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I have only three minutes left, so I do not want to give way at this stage.

We must realise that there is always a fight to enable women to take their rightful place in society. Where there are areas in which women have not yet arrived, the Conservatives will always oppose any change. I read yesterday's debate in Hansard, and there was nothing but carping about the quota system and the way in which the Labour party is seeking to integrate women into political life. Of course that is relevant to today's debate, because the more women we have here and in other decision-making areas, the more likely we are to be able to combat the low pay and discrimination that currently exist for women throughout their working lives, and even in the shape of the pensions industry.

The Labour party, by introducing the state earnings-related pensions scheme, gave women equality in pensions provision for the first time, but the Conservative Government have now made two attacks on that, which have reduced the value of SERPS to one quarter of what it would have been had it been left undisturbed.

The Conservatives destroy women's opportunities and oppose any attempt to make progress and to create equality. Because those things are so popular, they realise that they must pretend to he in favour of equality, but they do nothing about it. The first woman Prime Minister did nothing to help women make their way in society, except by the pure example she gave as the first ever woman Prime Minister. That was a powerful example, but she did nothing in legislation to help women. She showed contempt for the idea of allowing women to make progress in society.

I am sorry, but I have little time left and cannot give way.

One final thing which we must get right is affordable child care for women who wish to go to work. I am a member of the Employment Select Committee, which has been looking carefully at child care, and a report is due next week. The Committee has been overwhelmed by the sheer logic of the case to provide decent and affordable child care for women who want to go out to work. We were particularly concerned about the plight of lone parents. Fewer lone parents now work because of unacceptable benefit traps than worked 10 or 20 years ago.

The Opposition are addressing the issues of social policy seriously, and that is shown by the fact that we keep having debates in Opposition time—

Endless debates.

The hon. Gentleman may say that the debates are endless, but, frankly, the Government provide us with no time to discuss the issues. The hon. Gentleman has just wandered in at the end of the debate, and he has not even deigned to grace us with his presence. At least the Opposition provide time in the House to discuss issues which are important to 51 per cent. of the population.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on securing the debate. We shall continue to push the issues because we know that justice must be done for women through the political process. We will fight to gain that justice, and we will not stop until we have equal opportunities and a proper place in society—whether the Conservative party likes it or not.

I call Ms Clare Short.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also spoke in yesterday's debate, when Madam Speaker was in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on introducing this debate. The issues which we are debating go to the heart of the difference in values between the Tory party and the British Labour party. We are approaching the end of a failed economic experiment known as Thatcherism. The experiment encouraged a belief that inequality is good for people and for the economy and a belief that one had to remove all protections for low-paid workers and let the market rip. Workers had to find their rate, no matter how low it might be. One had to stop taxing the wealthy, so that they could get rich and not pay taxes.

The moral contradiction at the core of the experiment is that the rich have to get richer to get more efficiency while the poor have to get poorer. Those are the core values of Thatcherism. The Opposition have always said that the Government were demonstrating a morally bankrupt set of values which was causing great pain to the British people. Galbraith said that Britain would do a service to the people of the world by testing those ideas to destruction in a fairly homogeneous and stable society. We have paid the price, and we have proved that those values are economically incompetent. Enormous damage has been done to the British economy by the present Government while they have conducted an experiment which has promoted inequality and inefficiency in the economy.

Conservative Members suggest that women Opposition Members do not realise that women's lives have improved. It is incredible to suggest to my generation that we are not aware of that. I am deeply aware that I am part of the luckiest generation ever to grow up in Britain. I thought that the generations who came after me would do even better, but that has not happened as yet, and it will not happen until we get a Labour Government.

I am a product of the post-war settlement. I am a product of that proud Labour Government who dealt with the previous terrible recession, and who brought in a comprehensive welfare state, full employment and expanding educational opportunities. I had all that. I am part of the first generation of my family to have had a university education. I have always been employed, and I have worked in a whole series of senior positions. I have always had the same pay as men, and I have always been at least equal to my male colleagues. I realise how lucky I am, and I am massively grateful for the opportunities which were given to me by that fine Labour Government.

We now have a Government who have ripped up those opportunities for current generations. I appreciate—unlike the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—that not all women in my country are as lucky as me. I see it as a part of my duty in politics to make life more just for everyone, and not just to be happy that I am okay whereas others can go and rot while working in low-paid jobs.

I am aware that there is an ever-growing number of women in Britain working in part-time and very low-paid employment. There is nothing wrong with part-time work. In the future, both men and women will work part time and will have careers in part-time work. They will therefore be able to share the care of their children, and of their parents as they become older. We can then all be civilised, and be all the things we wish to be. We can care for our families, use our brains and abilities, operate in the economy and care for the people we love and are responsible for.

rose—

I am sorry, but I am very short of time. If I get on with my speech, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The model to which we should aim will he the model which the next Labour Government will seek to bring about in Britain. We will create a more just, generous and comfortable quality of life for everybody.

The present Government have failed, in that they deliberately and positively encourage low pay. They have absolutely and deliberately stripped away all the protections which exist for low-paid workers, and they have deliberately created a lower national insurance threshold to encourage the trap in which 3 million low-paid workers find themselves. Those workers are not even earning enough for their national insurance entitlements.

Secondly, the Government provide the lowest quantity of publicly funded child care of any European Union country. The consequences of that are that half the women in Britain who care for their children—that has been their traditional role—have to work part time. Their work is therefore extremely badly paid. Part-time work in Britain is so organised at the moment that it goes with poor pay, no training, no access to promotion and no pension rights, and leads to poverty in old age. Half the women in Britain are trapped in such a position.

That is not good for British men, for whom employment has dropped massively during this failed economic experiment. Some 93 per cent. of men were in employment in 1971, while just 75 per cent. of men were in employment in 1992. Men have been squeezed out of the labour market because employers are using the cheapness of women to damage women and to push men out of the labour market.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am sorry, but I have only three minutes left.

The Government's third failure is that their experiment leads to poor economic performance. Competition by wage-cutting leads to poor investment, poor training, a high labour turnover and, therefore, a poor performance in the British economy.

The Government's fourth failure is the massive benefit bill. There is the high cost of unemployment—by God we are paying a high cost in benefit expenditure—and also the high cost of subsidising the worst employers in the land who pay rotten wages on which people cannot live. Therefore, we have a £1 billion family credit bill, plus an additional £1 billion in housing costs. The Government's economic and labour market strategy is disastrous, and it is a part of the Government's ideological commitment to free market forces and inequality. It is damaging British women, British men and the performance of the British economy. It is a disaster.

The Labour Government will soon replace that failed economic experiment, and we will steer forward in the way which I have just described. We will produce a more comfortable society in which to live and a more efficient economy. The issue of where women sit in our society is a core issue. We must decide whether we wish to take our economy forward and modernise it to be successful, or whether we want to be held back—as the Government are doing.

The hon. Lady may be coming to the national minimum wage. I suspect that she will not give us the rate of that wage, but I would be delighted if she did so. Does the hon. Lady think that the deputy leader of the Labour party was wrong to say that any old fool knows that the national minimum wage would bring with it a "shake-out" in employment?

The national minimum wage, full-time rights for part-time workers, a national child care strategy—all those are part of the new economic settlement that I mentioned. One of the differences of morality, principle and economic understanding between the Opposition and the Government centres on the value of the national minimum wage. It is part of preventing employers from using women as cheap labour to push men out of the labour market, and using cheap labour instead of training and investment and thus holding back the British economy. We proudly put the national minimum wage at the centre of our economic strategy.

The Conservative party attacked us when we introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970, but Conservative Members are now boasting about how women have made some progress in their pay levels as a consequence of our Act. They said that we would put up women's wages and that women would he pushed out of the labour market and would lose jobs—that there would be massive unemployment among women. There was not, so they are wrong, as the international example and the example of our own history prove. They want to attack the minimum wage because they hate the idea that market forces will not be let rip and that lots of British workers will not he used as cheap labour by rotten employers. A Labour Government will not permit that.

Today, we witnessed the second wasted opportunity in two days. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her choice of subject, and that is about as far as my congratulations extend. For the rest, we have seen exactly what we saw yesterday—the massed ranks of the Opposition sisterhood, with a token man from time to time. Women speakers only and tokenism personified—that is what we have witnessed in the past two days.

What do the Opposition do? Do they welcome the great improvements in the way in which women live their lives? Do they welcome the great improvements for women in the labour market and in education? No, they whinge and whine, and moan and groan. Every time that a single good fact for women is produced, they look as glum as owls. The truth is that they want bad statistics, proof of suffering and low pay so that they can say, "Look, it's all the Government's fault." They will not welcome one good fact. I am going to give them some good facts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said, "Hear the research." I am going to let the Opposition hear the research as well. First, we will start with the good facts. Since 1979, which, in case the Opposition missed it, was the year we came to power, women's pay—hourly, weekly, full-time and part-time—has increased faster than that of men. There are 1.5 million more women at work than 10 years ago, which is a 16 per cent. increase. That is the product of a Conservative Government.

The Opposition whinge about child care, by which they mean publicly funded child care. They discount all the rest, because if one is not spending public money, one is not doing anything according to their policy. Yet the greatest increase in the work force has been among women with children under five—from 27 per cent. in 1984 to 46 per cent. in 1993. That has been done under a Conservative Government.

There has been a rise of nearly 80 per cent. in the number of self-employed women since the Conservative party came to office. Of course there has been, because we are the party of the self-employed and of the women self-employed. All that has been done under a Conservative Government.

In the decade 1984 to 1994, the proportion of women in management and professional occupations increased from 25 per cent to 30 per cent., but the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), in what was otherwise a fairly thoughtful speech, criticised the lack of women at managerial level. He picked on training and enterprise councils and said—

That was the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in an intervention in my speech.

I am sorry—the Opposition picked on TECs and it was said that there were too few women on their boards. Another fact is that there are 12 women chief executives of TECs, but only four women general secretaries of trade unions.

During the 1980s, women moved into new occupations. The number of women lawyers trebled, and they now account for one third of the profession; the number of women accountants doubled, and they now make up one quarter of chartered accountants; and nearly 30 per cent. of doctors are women. Those are achievements from which our country will receive lasting benefit and of which we can be proud.

In comparison with other European countries, we have done remarkably well. The United Kingdom has the second highest female participation rate in the European Union and that has been achieved by a Conservative Government with a flexible labour market. There are more women in employment in the United Kingdom than in any other EU country, except Germany. Only the UK, among the EU countries, has a lower unemployment rate for women than for men.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I shall do exactly as the hon. Member for Ladywood did and allow the last two minutes for interventions, so that we can get some of these important facts on the record.

Those are the facts. Now for the research. According to the hon. Member for Ladywood, we do not hear about that. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studies acknowledge that statutory minimum wages have an adverse effect on employment prospects, especially among the young and in low-productivity regions. How about the International Monetary Fund's "World Economic Report", which called on the industrial nations, especially those in Europe, to lower their minimum wages and to institute a wide range of other policies to make labour markets more flexible.

We have heard a lot about what is going on in the United States and how the minimum wage there has led to increased employment. Let us have the facts on the minimum wage in the United States—the way in which the hon. Member for Cambridge analysed the workings of the minimum wage there did not do justice to the name of Cambridge.

The federal minimum wage has fallen from more than 50 per cent. of the average wage in the late 1960s to 36 per cent. in the late 1980s. The freezing of the nominal wage in the 1980s led to a dramatic fall in its relative value, so the national minimum wage that the hon. Lady trumpets as an example is now at a 20-year low. We all know that President Clinton came into office promising that he would uprate the national minimum wage, but he found that he could not do so because, as his Labour Secretary said, of its adverse impact on jobs.

May we also have the answer that the hon. Member for Ladywood—the hon. Member for Cambridge can relax on this occasion—did not give, when we asked her about the deputy Leader of the Opposition and his clear admission that a national minimum wage would result in shake-outs? What will be shaken is people and what they will be out of is jobs. Many of them will be women. That is what the Opposition are promising women.

rose—

I shall give way in the last two minutes only.

We have heard much spurious analysis about low pay today. The low pay network's attempts to show that pay has fallen since the final abolition of the wages councils in 1993 are a complete failure and are based on flawed surveys that study unfilled job centre vacancies, not the pay that workers get. It is not surprising that unfilled vacancies offer significantly lower pay than people really earn, because the higher-paying jobs are filled more quickly and are therefore under-represented in such surveys. It would be the economics of the kindergarten not to he able to work that out.

We have also heard the usual adverse comments about part-time workers, but 87 per cent. of those who work part time do not want a full-time job. I have, of all things, the Trades Union Congress on my side—I do not usually quote the TUC, but I am delighted to have this opportunity—which has carried out a survey that says that part-timers are more than twice as happy with their jobs as full-timers. That is not very surprising, is it?

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on their pertinent interventions. I am delighted that, on the Conservative side, men took part in this debate, because women's rights, and pay and equality for women, concern all society and not just women. That is why the restriction of speeches to women on the Opposition Benches yesterday was one of the most shameful aspects of the debate—as if only women should be concerned about that.

The Labour party boasts that it is the only party concerned to have such debates, but, since 1979, it has initiated only two debates on the subject. Labour Members should not castigate us when, at the last moment and as a token gesture, they have suddenly realised that they can do something by instituting Supply day debates on the subject. Are we to understand that, from 1979 until last year, they did not think that the subject was important because they had no Supply day debates on it?

When the Minister has a chance to look at the Hansard record of yesterday's debate, I hope that she will withdraw those remarks, because a number of men participated early in the debate. What she said was therefore completely untrue and—

Order. It is now time for the next debate.

I am grateful to have an opportunity to raise a problem that occurs in the funding of higher education. The problem occurs with the system not of mandatory but of discretionary grants. Even with mandatory grants, which are basically those for which people apply when they want to take a degree course, everyone can think of ways in which the system could be improved. I certainly would not come here today to say that the mandatory grant system is perfect, but essentially it works. What has become increasingly obvious in recent years is that the discretionary grant system simply does not work.

For the most part, discretionary grants are given to people for further education but not necessary for a university degree. The effect is that they are given a grant under section 2 of the Education Act 1962, and it is entirely at the discretion of the local education authority whether a person is given a grant. One way or another, that system must be brought to an end.

The problem has become more obvious in recent years, because people now do more than one job in a lifetime and are encouraged to return to education and training. The difficulty is that, when they do that, they cannot demand a grant as of right but must apply for that grant, and whether they get it lies entirely at the whim of the local education authority.

Today I shall mention just two areas where that system can cause real injustice and bring about a state of affairs that nobody on either side of the House would want. Other examples exist, but I shall deal simply with the problems that affect, first, those doing A-levels and, secondly, those doing dance or speech and drama courses.

If someone takes A-levels at a time when most people do—at school—the system works, and no great problem arises. Students are at home being looked after by their parents, so their subsistence is taken care of and the school pays the fees.

The problem arises for people who do not take A-levels in that way. They may have failed them at school and then gone out to work; perhaps they did not go to a good school, or left school early with no intention of taking A-levels. Subsequently, however, a variety of people without A-levels decide, for whatever reason, that they want to go to university. At that stage, they realise that they must get some A-levels in order to do so.

I have now discovered, through numerous cases that have been drawn to my attention at my constituency surgeries, that people then follow a well-worn course of action. Such people are usually quite committed, have identified the university that they wish to attend and know which course they want to do. Having established that, they want to take their A-levels.

People with that amount of get up and go will usually have gone to a local college and satisfied themselves that it can take them on and provide the A-level courses they want. Then the problems start, because, when they apply to the local education authority, they invariably find—it happens increasingly in Devon—that they will not get the support they need.

Obviously, it would be easier to give a knee-jerk reaction and say that people should work their way through college, as that is how it used to be done. That is easy to say, but it does not answer the case. Usually, people who do A-levels in that way do them intensively—perhaps three A-levels in one year.

The idea that one should be able to do such a concentrated course and work sufficiently to provide accommodation, food and sustenance and pay for college fees is too much to expect. There may be one or two exceptionally brave individuals out there, but I did not have to get my education in that way, and I doubt whether many other hon. Members did. I pay credit to those who can cope, but many cannot. Why should we expect more of our constituents than was demanded of us?

The problem for many people at that stage is that, although they have shown commitment by working out what they want to do, which university they wish to attend and which college can take them on, they are suddenly hard up against the problem of receiving no grant. If all else fails, they must simply drop out if they cannot raise the money for their fees or maintenance, and their hopes are blighted.

In practice, it means at the very least that people will not fulfil their potential. In reality, it means that people who could have passed A-levels and gone on to get a degree, which does not guarantee them a job but gives them a better chance of a getting a fulfilling job and contributing back into the tax system, have to drop out. Everybody then loses.

Alternatively, some people live dangerously within the "21-hour rule", as it was until recently. There is no doubt that some local DSS officials take a relatively broad and academic view of those matters, but we cannot base a further education system on local officials turning a blind eye. If a full-time A-level student maintains himself on social security benefits, ultimately he is skirting close to breaking the criminal law, and we do not want that to happen.

The third option is that potential students—in a sense, this is how i come into the debate—may take the matter to their local Member of Parliament

Over the years, I have developed a format for dealing with the problem. I have identified 10 or 12 charities that are prepared to consider a case put up by an A-level student. I provide a list of those charities and tell people, based on experience, which charities are more likely to offer a grant. It is a sticking plaster operation, and I hesitate to mention it on the Floor of the House lest I suddenly receive applications from not one constituency but 650. I am not in a position to give that list to anyone but my constituents. In any case, it is not a satisfactory way to deal with the problem.

I make no apology for dealing with the problem as a constituency Member of Parliament, but the problem goes far wider than my constituency. It is well summed up by the principal of the excellent South Devon college, Dr. Keen. I shall quote just one paragraph from his long letter, which sets out far better than I can the essence of the dilemma:

"I am pleased to be able to provide some of the information which came to light in our discussion earlier today … The following information is drawn from Devon County Council's Citizens Charter indicators for 1993/94, and you will be interested to note that they issued 1,075 discretionary awards, representing 65.02 per cent. of applicants. What was not mentioned in that report is that discretionary awards were provided for subsistence only, no fees were met. We have evidence at South Devon of over 400 adult applicants for mainstream full-time further education courses, including A-levels, where the failure on the part of the local authority to provide a discretionary award has prevented the individuals concerned from attending. As a College we have reacted to this concern by waiving 100 per cent. of the fee element of such courses for all applicants who are eligible for a discretionary award but for whom no award has been given."

Dr. Keen goes on to explain:

"This contribution on our part has had adverse effects on cash flow, as we have had to survive on the units of funding derived from the Further Education Funding Council which, without a fee element, are below cost levels. Nevertheless, of 400+ applicants only 203 were able to accept under these terms. The other group (in excess of 200) had received neither discretionary award for fees or subsistence and remained unable to follow any study at the College at all."

That shows, in a crisp way, the dilemma that faces students of that sort.

I said a few moments ago that it is not only those who are studying for A-levels in their maturer years who fall into that category. What about those people who want to do speech and drama? Anyone who has any personal acquaintance of the dedication of a student who expects to be able to make a living in fields such as that will realise that they do not offer themselves lightly for such an award.

I quote from a letter that I received from the Royal Academy of Dancing, south-west region, on February 23 1995. A Miss Walker writes:

"As I am sure you are aware discretionary grants for dance and drama students have been abolished by Devon County Council.

This will obviously mean that our most talented youngsters in the region will he unable to take up their places at Vocational colleges, from where many of them would go on to perform in the West End or in ballet companies world-wide. Eventually, it could lead"—

I would say, would lead—

"to the smaller local dance schools in the South West closing if there is nothing for our students to work towards …

We must not let our talented dance students lose out".

Those people show a high degree of commitment and dedication even to have got themselves that far, and everything collapses when they cannot obtain funding.

What is the answer? My hon. Friend the Minister, with his usual generosity, will admit that I have not tried to take him unaware. I have pestered him with specific constituency problems during his entire time as Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education. I guarantee to continue to pester him and any successors, and I have also supplied the notes for my speech today and the material on which I draw.

I hope that my hon. Friend finds that helpful, because otherwise he will he reduced to saying, "What the hon. Gentleman says is very interesting; I shall pause and reflect on it." I hope that my hon. Friend feels that I have been extremely helpful in providing him with the information in advance, so that he can say something to us about it.

Obviously, it would not be the answer—I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister would even try to do it—to say, "The answer is that we have already done a great deal." Indeed we have. An all-time record number of people attends further education, and we can derive satisfaction from that, but it does not solve the specific problem. It is only a temporary answer to say that the social security system should be altered so that people can live on social security while undertaking education courses. In all conscience, the social security mechanism does not exist to underpin the education system; it is there for an entirely different reason.

In no sense is the position the Government's fault, but in a sense it is the Government's problem, because ultimately only the Government can solve it. What is the answer?

I have always held the opinion, on the Back Benches and at the Dispatch Box, that it is a Back-Bencher's job to come up with problems, not solutions. It would be unfair if my hon. Friend the Minister, with his considerable expertise and the serried ranks of experts behind him, were to pick off any solution that I might offer and say, "That one will not work." The problem needs to be brought to the House, so that my hon. Friend can respond to it. Having said that, I acknowledge that old habits die hard. Perhaps I may suggest two ideas that occur to me that would solve the problem.

The first way in which the problem might be solved would be to make, in addition to a mandatory grant for a degree course, a mandatory grant for a course immediately preparatory to a degree course. That would mean that, if one took a bona fide A-level course—safeguards might be built in to ensure that it was bona fide—one could obtain a compulsory grant for so doing. That is one possibility. However, it would not encompass speech and drama students.

Therefore, a second solution might commend itself to my hon. Friend—to take away that part of the rate support grant that goes to a local education authority and give it to the Further Education Funding Council, so that the funding council can disperse it, and do so 100 per cent.

Dr. Keen draws attention to the reason why that would be a good idea. Dr. Keen sounds a caveat, and I have not been able to check that it is correct, but I guess that it is. He says:

"Although I am unable to provide specific sources at the moment, I am led to believe that that element of the Rate Support Grant which should reasonably be expected to be spent on discretionary awards in Devon is in the order of £7M, and yet I am told that in the present year the actual expenditure is likely to be in the order of £3M".

It would appear, therefore, that, at the very least, the moneys that might be said to be available are not being spent 100 per cent.

It is obvious—and obvious if one considers the antics of the Devon local education authority in recent days—that decisions of that type are too crucial to be left to the whims of local education authorities. If we are to respond to changes in educational patterns and life patterns; if we are to accept and adjust to the fact that people live longer, stay younger longer, stay healthier longer and move from job to job in a way in which in our parents' and grandparents' generation would have thought impossible, we must say that the group of students that I have mentioned can no longer depend on the whims of a—perhaps even maverick—local authority.

The number of potential students affected may not be great. I do not have the resources to ascertain the number, but I do know that, even in one rural constituency, a steady trickle of people find themselves in that position. Ultimately, if I cannot help, or others cannot help, there will be blighted expectations and blighted lives.

I should like to think that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least be able to say, even if he cannot approve any solution and even if he does not know the answer off the top of his head, that nevertheless there is a problem. If we establish that, we shall be halfway to solving it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate, and for using it to bring the important issue of education for mature advanced level students to the attention of the House. He has done that clearly and eloquently.

He has, as he has said himself, done it on the back of a continuing correspondence, and having expressed concern to me repeatedly. I hope that, in turn, he will understand that I cannot give him any instant solutions today, but I have listened carefully, especially to the specific arguments that he has articulated as part of a more general picture. I shall return to those later.

I emphasise that the general system of adult student support that we have stands comparison with that in any other major comparable industrialised country. On the mandatory award side, when student loans were introduced five years ago, the total resources available to students in grants and loans were increased by 25 per cent., and they have increased each year since then, in line with forecast inflation. Those current arrangements in higher education are most generous, and, unlike the situation in many of our competitor countries, the great majority of our students pay nothing towards their fees.

I shall return to the subject of discretionary award provision later, but first I should like to say something about the increasing importance of learning throughout life, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and what the Government are doing to encourage it.

We are committed to encouraging all types of adult learning to increase participation in education by adults, and to improve levels of attainment. The evidence is that increasing numbers of people are returning to education. In the past 10 years, there has been an increase of about a quarter further education enrolments by adults in England and Wales.

More recently, the rapid expansion of the further education sector, since its establishment in 1993, has enabled more adults to undertake the type of formal qualification-bearing courses for which the further education funding councils are now responsible. Indeed, adults now make up the majority of those in the further education sector, and we have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of mature entrants in higher education.

The national targets for education and training provide a commitment and a focus for all of us—employers, unions, educationists, trainers and Government—by highlighting what we need to do to compete with our international rivals. The targets envisage our becoming a skilled nation, and that requires raising the levels of attainment of young people and adults alike.

The lifetime learning targets set challenging goals for individuals and employers to improve skill levels to world class standards. That requires fostering a culture of lifetime learning, and that is reflected in those national targets. We all need to work together to achieve the better educated, more highly skilled, nation that we all require in future.

The Government will continue to play their proper part, principally by funding the further education sector. The plans announced in the most recent Budget will support a 25 per cent. increase in FE student numbers in the period 1993–94 to 1996–97. A further 3 per cent. increase in student numbers is planned for 1997–98.

The increase in funding in 1995–96 will be 4 per cent, and adult students will be among those to benefit. The system that we have established, with colleges having control over their own affairs, enables colleges to respond to the needs of their own local communities in the best way possible. The funding council has assisted that process by introducing a funding system that looks at the guidance students get and the outcomes they achieve, not just at student enrolments. Colleges have the incentive to give students the qualifications that suit them best.

My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to the difficulties that students in Devon and in his constituency are experiencing in obtaining discretionary awards to finance their studies. As my hon. Friend is aware, discretionary awards are, by definition, an area where individual local education authorities may exercise their discretion. It is for them to decide how many awards to make, to which students and at what rates, depending on their view of local needs and priorities. Under the present arrangements, the Secretary of State has no power to intervene unless there is evidence that an authority is acting unlawfully—for example, by operating a policy of "no awards, come what may".

The evidence suggests that, overall, the number of awards made to further education students is holding up. In 1992–93—the latest year for which figures are available—there was an increase of 12 per cent. in the number of FE awards made by local authorities in England and Wales. In the same year, those authorities spent almost £170 million on such awards.

Enrolments in further education sector colleges rose by 5 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1993–94. The strategic plans of colleges indicate that the number of full-time enrolments are expected to rise by 23 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1996–97; and part-time enrolments are expected to rise by 20 per cent in that period.

I am aware, however, that there are wide differences between LEA policies and practices in this area. Where the differences reflect more than the normal variations resulting from decisions about local needs and priorities, and where they amount to some authorities effectively throwing in the towel on discretionary awards, that is of course a matter for concern, locally and nationally. I know that the local authority associations—I met them again last week—are drawing up some voluntary guidelines which should help to address the situation as to both process and substance. That is a very welcome development. The Government are also keeping the situation under review.

My hon. Friend suggested that Devon county was spending only £3 million a year on discretionary awards, against an "expected" total of £7 million. We need to be clear that Devon county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its priorities between and within services. The council has the final say on how much it spends on education and how much is spent on other services.

The role of central Government is to set the overall framework for the funding of local authority services nationally and to determine the way in which national "standard spending" totals are distributed between local authorities through the standard spending assessment system, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar.

The 1995–96 local authority grant settlement is a tough one, but it allows LEAs in England to spend £17.204 billion on education—an increase of 1.1 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1994–95, which reflects the priority that we have given to education, among other local services, in the settlement.

Having received its individual education SSA, it is for Devon to set its own budget and to decide what to spend on particular areas of the service, including discretionary awards. The SSAs are not prescriptive, and decisions about how much to spend on education and where to spend it are matters of local discretion. The county council is responsible to its electors. It will assess its own priorities in the light of local circumstances, and take the appropriate action.

After adjustment for recoupment—which covers the net costs of 'imported' or 'exported' pupils—Devon's SSA for 1995–96 was almost £7 million greater than that for 1994–95. That represents an increase of 2.1 per cent. However, it is entirely for the authority to decide what level of budget to set, and how to spend it.

My hon. Friend also suggested a possible general solution to the problems that he identified: that discretionary award funding should be transferred to the FEFC and then passed to colleges which would make their own awards. That is an interesting suggestion, and I certainly do not wish to discourage a debate of its merits, but I should perhaps point out that it would not be as straightforward as my hon. Friend suggests.

For example, how would one deal with those colleges which are not supported by the funding council—including many of the dance and drama colleges which my hon. Friend mentioned and to which I shall return in a moment? Would it make sense for local authorities to retain responsibility for higher education but not for further education awards? On what basis would the funding council decide how to distribute the available money between colleges? Are all colleges well placed to take on the role of making grants to students, and would they wish to do so?

Of course, a transfer of funds of that sort would not of itself increase the overall amount of money available, and there would be losers as well as winners if funds were reallocated. I should also point out that primary legislation would be needed if we were not to leave local authorities with a legal obligation to consider all applications for awards, but no provision with which actually to make them.

Returning briefly to the subject of dance and drama students which my hon. Friend mentioned, I am aware that in many areas of the country that group faces particular difficulties in obtaining discretionary awards. Their courses, which are largely provided in the private sector, are relatively expensive to support and many LEAs are becoming increasingly unwilling to do that. My hon. Friend is correct to say that. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are concerned about the implications of that situation, both for individual students and for the future of the dance and drama industries.

My right hon. Friend had a very useful meeting with the chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain last autumn to discuss the matter. Since then, our officials have been discussing the issues with officials of the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council. However, I make it clear that, in the current public expenditure climate, there is no prospect of any significant extension of eligibility for mandatory awards to cover students on those courses.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the so-called 21-hour rule. The Government wish to continue to encourage people of all ages to improve their qualifications for productive employment. They have given intensive consideration to how that aim may be supported in setting out the new arrangements under the job seeker's allowance. Our aim was to establish clear and objective new rules which could be easily administered and understood.

From April 1996, the new arrangements will allow people to study for up to 16 guided learning hours. They do not cut eligibility to study from 21 hours; the basis for calculation is different. The new threshold will maintain broadly the same numbers of people who are able to study at present while in receipt of benefit, and it broadly equates to part-time study under the present rules. Individuals can—and should—study privately in addition for as long as they like and still remain eligible for benefit so long as they are available for work. I think that the new arrangements will be clearer, more consistent and more certain for student applicants.

The benefit of Adjournment debates is that it enables hon. Members to offer local perspectives on issues, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing that today. There are many educational opportunities in the south Devon area. I know that many people who are involved in education and training in Devon will want to play their part in increasing participation and attainment in adult education. I am grateful for the figures that my hon. Friend supplied about the number of applicants.

There are a number of excellent colleges in south Devon, and if their growth rates are anything to go by—I know that anything up to 14 per cent. a year has been planned—they serve the local population well. I know that the achievement of one of the colleges in a nearby constituency has been recognised by the award of a charter mark. I take this opportunity to congratulate South Devon college and Dr. Keen on that award. It serves as an example of what can be, and is being, achieved.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing his concerns so eloquently. I share his hope that, in the years to come, as a result of our provisions, the educational institutions in Devon—schools, colleges and universities—will continue to go from strength to strength, and to merit many more accolades.

The loss of a dear one in the family or a very good friend is a trauma from which people seldom recover. When that real sense of grief is overlain with deep anger at the feeling that the death may have been avoidable, the pressure is so great that it needs to be expressed, and in this case it is being expressed in the House of Commons.

In the past several years, there has been clear evidence that, because of defects in the way in which they are run, HGVs and large vehicles are increasingly contributing to terrible deaths and even worse injuries. In the frightful case at Sowerby Bridge, where six people lost their lives, not only did it take a considerable time for the case to be considered by the relevant authorities but the maximum fine for the death of six people was £5,000. The effect was to bring together a small group of relatives who have suffered that frightful trauma to alert the House of Commons to a serious and current problem.

The Government rely heavily on the fact that accident statistics are decreasing, but within those numbers it is clear that the problems involving HGVs are not only real but need to be addressed urgently. The Government have behaved with enormous and frightening complacency, despite various campaigns. I make an honourable mention of the one run by the Yorkshire Post, which highlighted some of the terrible things that have happened. The present Minister has told us that we should put pressure on the Home Office and the other agencies concerned to understand the problems.

Let us examine what the Government have done. They have announced a 20 per cent. cut across the board in the Vehicle Inspectorate. It has already been reduced by 15 per cent. since 1991. There has been pressure on the traffic police, who have responsibility for multi-agency stops and are directly responsible for many of the statistics that are of such great importance. For example, the West Mercia police gave me statistics for the total number of checks that they have carried out in a six-month period. There were 473 checks and 365 document requests, but the average mean defect rate was 91.18 per cent.

The police say, sensibly, that those statistics can vary in the type of defect that they reveal. However, vehicles that are capable of inflicting death and injury are travelling our roads. Hauliers are not just cutting costs; some are cutting corners. As one of the relatives told the Minister this week, when he was good enough to see a delegation, we should put life before livelihood.

In 1994, the Vehicle Inspectorate had 1,780 staff; by 1996 that number will be down to 1,268. The front-line enforcement staff will be reduced from 419 to 370. Therefore, we need the Government to produce a policy which is both urgent and immediate.

We must give the traffic commissioners stronger powers. They must have the right to deal with those unlicensed operators who are not part of the licensing system and who are not, therefore, subject to periodical checks. There is already a review of the traffic commissioners' work. I hope that, far from looking at a cost-cutting programme, they will be given increased powers and the ability to initiate work. The Minister said, however, that he is satisfied that the Government do not necessarily seek undemanding roles in these matters. A recent memo to all traffic examiners highlighted the problem:

"As you are aware we are falling behind on some key targets in our activity budgets at this time, with your co-operation we should be able to meet them by changing our methods … Due partly to unrealistic targets using present methods partly to unreliable weighbridges, lack of police support and road works we are well behind on both weighing and vehicle inspections … It will be helpful if … you could approach private weighbridge operators such as those at Quarries, Factories Stock Holders and Agricultural Product Stores, and ask if you may observe weighing in and out. It is realised that no prosecutions will be generated … but prevention is supposed to be better than cure."

That is absolutely right, and it is time that the Government started to put that idea into operation with some vigour and commitment.

We must have more, not fewer, roadside checks; we must ask the police not to do away with their traffic divisions, but if necessary to increase the number of those who are capable of carrying out that detailed and highly specialised work. We must not use the report of KPMG Peat Marwick, which apparently will recommend that there should not be long and costly investigations, with major tachograph inquiries, without pointing out that, as a result of some of those inquiries, the directors of two companies have been gaoled and the transport manager of a third company has been given a suspended prison sentence. Those exemplary damages are not handed out without evidence that there is a need for them.

The Government should be seeking a way of developing corporate manslaughter charges. Where there is evidence of consistent neglect or the abuse of drivers' hours, we should know that someone will be prosecuted for that irresponsibility. The Government should introduce consigner liability so that companies that use transport firms have to take responsibility for ensuring that they are employing only reputable contractors.

The fines must be increased. It is bizarre that a £5,000 fine was considered adequate for Sowerby Bridge, yet a company director who was involved in hygiene problems in the catering industry could face a larger fine. The fine for illegal operation is £450, whereas an overload could attract a fine of £750. It is worth while to some cowboys to take a risk that leads to death and injury.

We must seriously consider abandoning the deregulation of the goods vehicle licensing system. Licences are renewed at five-yearly intervals, and I do not believe that the public will continue to accept a system of renewing licences which means that, unless there is a real body of evidence, neither local authorities nor individuals have the opportunity to object to a road haulier having his licence renewed. We must do something to increase enforcement at every level.

We should stop artificial targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate and ensure there is far better training. We should certainly ensure that computer links exist between the courts and the enforcement agencies. There is no reason why those who contravene the law of the land should be able to escape. Some cases avoid proper detection for many months because the statistics have been lost between the courts and traffic enforcement agencies, even if they eventually arrive on the right desk at the right time.

Company directors who know that they are running sub-standard vehicles and pushing their drivers well beyond the hours they should work should be punished. They will not be punished adequately by the courts unless the Government make clear their anger and their commitment to changing the way in which they are operating. The Magistrates Association will respond only if it is made clear that the House of Commons does not accept what is happening.

On several occasions, the Minister has asked my little voluntary organisation—consisting only of relatives of those who have been killed or injured in accidents involving heavy goods vehicles—to put enormous pressure on the Home Office. On Monday, he said that he would act when he saw evidence of illegal operations. Let me remind the Minister that, two years ago, his own Department set up an illegal operation working party under the traffic area co-ordinating division, which recommended the introduction of power to impound vehicles. The Government should be considering that now.

I feel so indignant about the matter that I could easily speak for longer than my allotted time. We are talking about people's lives, and the destruction of families and homes. The Minister will not be able to wave that aside with bland assurances; we want him to paint a clear picture of the measures that he personally intends to introduce.

rose—

Order. Do I understand it that those who wish to speak have the agreement of both the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the Minister?

Certainly.

r: Have they the agreement of the Minister?

Yes.

In that case, I call Mr. Tyler.

I did not expect to be able to speak. No doubt the Minister will be glad to learn that I shall do so very briefly.

Let me emphasise two aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). First, she expressed an all-party concern. She generously allowed me to join a deputation to the Minister earlier this week; we are grateful to him for meeting members of the campaign for safer lorries, also known by the shorter name of Brake.

Secondly, there is a feeling throughout the House that we should emphasise prevention rather than penalty. As the hon. Lady pointed out, effective penalties are an important deterrent, but prevention is more important. It is in that context that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety about the apparent reduction in the manpower strength of those who are responsible for inspecting, monitoring and policing the current regulations. When our deputation met the Minister on Monday, he ruled out the possibility of corporate manslaughter charges. That stance has never been explained to my satisfaction—or, I believe, to the satisfaction of other hon. Members—given that it was considered appropriate to bring such a charge against the owners and operators of the Herald of Free Enterprise. The two instances are exactly comparable: both involve loss of life, disaster and damage on a very large scale, as will be clear to those who add together all the human tragedies that have occurred as a result of heavy lorry operators' going well outside the law.

I am delighted to have been able to speak, albeit briefly. I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was able to raise the issue, and I hope for a positive and forward-looking response from the Minister.

I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to speak briefly. Without this opportunity, my comments would have been made in an intervention—for I know that, with their usual courtesy, the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend would have given way.

Sowerby Bridge is not in my constituency, but I represented Sowerby for a long time. It is a stone's throw from my present constituency—just a step over the border. The shock generated by the tragedy to which the hon. Lady referred cannot be exaggerated; I join her in congratulating the Yorkshire Post and the local paper, the Courier, on their restrained and sensible campaign. Long-established haulage firms in my constituency, such as Joe Dean, have asked me to convey their belief that safer lorries create better rather than worse business.

The hon. Lady made her points in her own way. I have only one point to add, which was not covered adequately earlier; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up further points in his reply. I believe that there should be more mobility in regard to traffic inspection points. Cowboys tend to divert their lorries from the fixed points that are often provided because they know where they are likely to be inspected, and that cannot be good. I have written in the past about this matter to the Minister, but I feel that I should mention it again.

I shall speak briefly to allow my hon. Friend the Minister to respond in detail, but I wish to highlight issues raised by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).

Growing concern about lorries that do not meet the safety requirements that we rightly demand is bad news for those who operate within the law. Protection should be provided not only for lorry drivers but for the innocent travelling public who are sometimes involved in horrendous accidents. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about the accident that took place on Cromford hill in my constituency last year; another bad accident involving the mother of my constituent Mrs. Williams, also in my constituency, probably led to the formation of the Brake campaign. I pay tribute to the way in which Mrs. Williams has put so much work into bringing the issue to the fore.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us about the number of inspections that will be carried out. It is vital for the whole road haulage industry to understand that the Government are serious about enforcement. Although we must look for efficiency gains in management costs, we must not be diverted from the need to enforce the law as it stands.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I am grateful for the opportunity to assure the House that the Government remain fully committed to raising the safety standards of vehicles.

I acknowledge immediately that what the hon. Lady said is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) were able to speak; I am well aware of their interests in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley has taken a particular interest in it since the tragedy in Sowerby, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire—a former Transport Minister—has long been concerned about it.

Earlier this week, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) came to see me with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. We held a useful meeting with the organisers of the lorry safety campaign Brake. The hon. Lady chose to quote what was said then; she has her recollections of the occasion and I have mine, and no doubt any significant differences in our recollections will become clear. Suffice it to say that I believe we should spell out the measures that we ought to take, how they should be developed, what is practical and what is not, the reaction that is, no doubt, understandable on occasions but may be less practicable when implemented on the ground, and how we intend to build on our good record.

We have a good record. We are introducing measures to achieve further improvements, with the objective of making our roads safer. I pay tribute to staff at all levels in the Vehicle Inspectorate—a highly trained body of men and women who are fully committed to keeping our roads safe and working closely with the police and trading standards departments of local authorities throughout the country.

The Government certainly share the objectives of the Brake campaigners. One of those many objectives is to ensure that lorries are properly controlled and adequately maintained. Enforcement measures should be in place to ensure that, and transgressors should be suitably dealt with.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we are satisfied that an enforcement regime is in place and that it ensures that the vast majority of lorry operators are operating legally, within the requirements of the operator licensing system. That system sets very high standards: many believe that they are the highest in Europe. Despite that, we are constantly seeking improved ways of targeting enforcement against operators who run outside the system.

We must remember that operators are responsible for maintaining their vehicles in a safe and roadworthy condition. No Government can ever stand over all operators all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire was quite right to say that the majority of lorry operators try to operate legally and that they deeply resent those who do not. Enforcement is being directed effectively to ensure that transgressors are suitably dealt with.

The enforcement system underpins the individual responsibilities of vehicle operators, with three complementary forms of control. It is important that we recognise each of those components in our control system. The operator licensing system is administered by the licensing authorities. They are independent traffic commissioners, appointed by the Secretary of State and supported by the staff of the eight traffic area offices.

With very few exceptions, hauliers wishing to operate in road haulage must apply to enter the operating licensing system; entry is conditional on having adequate maintenance arrangements, not just when a licence is sought but throughout its life, to ensure that vehicles are maintained and kept mechanically sound. We have produced, in partnership with the industry trade associations, the "Guide for Maintaining Roadworthiness", which sets down the standards that operators are expected to reach in operating their vehicles. The guide has the strong support of the traffic commissioners.

An operator's performance in running his or her fleet is kept under review and can be called into question by the licensing review boards of the traffic area offices, which monitor operators' performance and bring together all the relevant data. Those licensing review boards can consider whether to recommend disciplinary action against those who fail to match the formal declaration that they made to the traffic commissioner when they applied for a licence to operate in road haulage. A computerised database has been developed to support those licensing review boards, and the number of cases considered increased from 2,175 in 1991–92 to 3,291 in 1993–94, as the system became more effective.

The Vehicle Inspectorate directly supports the operator licensing system and the traffic commissioners through its work on enforcement and in carrying out maintenance investigations and appraisals. This year, the Vehicle Inspectorate plans to carry out 15,109 in-depth investigations, which are usually directed at new operators, with around 32,000 appraisals.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was quite wrong when she asserted that, under the arrangements now in statute under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, there would be any relaxation of the supervision of operators. She is factually wrong. The reality, of course, as she would know had she listened to the debate, is that operators' licences, in every case, will be examined every five years, as now.

On deregulation related to the advertising arrangements for operators, no one has complained on any basis whatever. There are, in fact, better arrangements for representations from members of the public on operators' licences. As the hon. Lady should know, there is an advertisement that offers interested parties a narrow window during which they must post their concerns about the operator's licence. Late representations are routinely ruled out, much to the irritation of those who wish to have them taken into account. It is quite right that we should have the arrangement, which we have developed, to allow people to make representations at any time during the five years and still have those representations taken into account.

Almost all heavy goods vehicles are subject to annual roadworthiness tests by the Vehicle Inspectorate. A certificate is issued if a vehicle is shown to meet safety and emissions standards required to pass that test. In 1993–94, the Vehicle Inspectorate carried out annual tests of about 448,000 heavy goods vehicles, of which about 127,000 had to be retested, and about 224,000 trailers, of which 43,000 had to be retested.

As well as roadworthiness tests and the operator licensing arrangements, checks are made at the roadside to ensure that UK lorries are operated safely and within the law. Checks are also made on foreign vehicles using our roads. This year, the Vehicle Inspectorate plans to carry out about 120,000 roadworthiness checks on lorries and trailers, including more than 5,000 foreign vehicles. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley that those spot checks are a powerful deterrent, as an immediate prohibition is issued for vehicles found to have significant defects, and that ban is not lifted until the inspectorate is satisfied that the defect has been remedied.

Prohibitions were issued on 16 per cent. of vehicles checked in that way in 1993–94. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there should be an clement of surprise in the way in which the checks are carried out, so that operators do not simply seek to avoid the areas where they think that the checks will take place.

In addition to roadworthiness checks on lorries, the Vehicle Inspectorate also checks that other requirements are being met, including correct documentation, overloading, drivers' hours, tachographs, vehicle lighting, tyres and placarding of hazardous loads, all of which can have a direct effect on the safe operation of lorries. The Vehicle Inspectorate aims to carry out those checks on some 306,000 lorries in 1994–95. In 1993–94, checks of that nature resulted in some 15,000 prosecutions. It is the Government's intention that lorry standards should be maintained and that enforcement should be directed against those who operate outside the law, or fail to maintain their vehicles and meet the requirements of the operator licensing system.

Much has been made—indeed, the hon. Lady referred to it—of the Department's 20 per cent. efficiency gains initiative. I want to assure the House, not for the first time, that we are quite clear that the level of enforcement by the Vehicle Inspectorate is being maintained. The efficiency gains that the Vehicle Inspectorate is achieving arise from a variety of measures, including reductions in middle management, rationalisation of the organisation, reduced accommodation costs, an increased use of information technology and improved productivity of inspectorate staff at all levels.

The Vehicle Inspectorate expects to achieve the targets set without any reduction in its effectiveness as a road safety agency or in the level of enforcement that it provides. The effectiveness of that work and the position on resources and staffing for enforcement are kept constantly under review. Each year, the Department agrees with the inspectorate a balance of enforcement work to match the enforcement requirements of the Department and the traffic commissioners. Enforcement is directed against a broad range of requirements and the mix of enforcement activity is kept under review, and redirected where considered necessary, to address any new priorities.

For example, more enforcement effort has been directed to drivers' hours, and tachograph investigations have been carried out by a Vehicle Inspectorate task force to address the particular concerns of the traffic commissioners, because, of course, tiredness among drivers is a lethal cause of accidents. It is entirely right that, if one is looking to operate a safe regime, one should direct substantial effort at tachograph investigations. Interestingly, we carry out about twice as many such investigations as other European countries. Our record on that is second to none.

We are also looking at the problem of illegal operators. A small minority chooses to operate illegally outside the system and enforcement is being targeted against them. It is true that the scale of illegal operations is difficult to estimate, and we are currently examining how a more precise quantification of the size of the problem can be obtained.

Contrary to what the hon. Lady asserts, I have not asked Brake to produce that evidence, or in any sense challenged it or relied on it to do that. I merely suggested that, if it had any information on that score, I would be more than happy to receive it, because it is important that the organisation should not feel that it is being told that it must rely solely on the statistics gathered by the Department. When one is in the area of illegal operations, by definition one must be prepared to take a fairly wide view on where the information comes from.

We want to take action against illegal operators on two broad fronts: first, by building up information to identify who they are; and, secondly, by targeting the locations where we know they may be. We recognise our own responsibilities as a major contractor of civil engineering work in that respect. Discussions are still taking place on the detail, and I am grateful to the Federation of Civil Engineers and Contractors, which responded positively to the introduction of checks by main contractors on the licence status of vehicles delivering to and from the Department's own construction sites, for providing facilities for checks and displaying signs warning drivers that checks will be carried out. I know that the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office have taken similar initiatives.

The objective, of course, is to prosecute the illegal operator in court, where, I hope, a suitably heavy fine will be awarded. Another objective is to persuade the illegal operator to apply for a licence and enter the licensing system. Once in the system, the performance and subsequent transgressions that result in prosecutions can be taken into account by the traffic commissioner when considering disciplinary action against a licence holder or a driver. I am satisfied that the traffic commissioners are mindful of the need to perform their statutory duties for operator and driver discipline with due regard to ensure that the procedures are properly followed and that appropriate disciplinary action is taken where justified.

Enforcement needs to be supported by data sharing. Some computer systems are already in place and others are being developed to support the enforcement and roadworthiness work of the Vehicle Inspectorate and the operator licensing function of the traffic area offices.

I want to say a few words to the hon. Member for North Cornwall about the concept of corporate manslaughter. I must make it clear to him that it is not directly my policy area in terms of constructing the criminal law. As he rightly said, I told the campaigners that there are already a whole range of remedies, including legislation on manslaughter, for such cases. I entirely take his point about the existence of the concept of corporate manslaughter and its applicability in other circumstances.

Although I do not want to rule out the prospect of other offences being created on the statute book, I reiterate that there is already a panoply of offences. From his experience, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the diffidence of the courts is often at issue. They are diffident about bringing charges in such difficult areas. I am satisfied that our effective and valuable enforcement system plays a vital part—

Order. Time is up.

As many hon. Members are aware, the country's main national homelessness charity, Shelter, recently organised a promotional event, Shelter Week, through which it sought to boost awareness of its work and to encourage support and involvement by our constituents. I was asked to record a taped message of support for the promotional campaign and I was delighted to do what I could in a limited way to assist. As a result of that involvement, I decided to seek an opportunity to put on record a number of important points of detail and of principle in an effort to assist in moving the issue of homelessness further up the public, political and parliamentary agenda.

My starting point is simple. In a well organised and affluent society such as ours, it is a tragedy in personal, social and economic terms that homelessness continues to be a major problem. I am anxious to do all that I can to encourage the establishment of a new consensus in finding practical solutions. The more I look at the situation, the more I am convinced that real and lasting solutions will be found only when the problem is tackled by a genuine partnership between national and local government, housing associations, charities, campaigning organisations and individuals.

It is against that background that we need, first, to appreciate the sheer scale of the problem, which persists despite the commitment and determination of successive housing Ministers. In February, Shelter published a report which showed that it is helping a record number of homeless and badly housed people—it helped 64,000 households last year—through its national network of housing aid centres which are supported by central and local government grants as well as, of course, by charitable donations. The report also clearly demonstrated how crucial a decent home is to stable family life and how homelessness causes great individual misery and leads to increasing burdens on the taxpayer.

In 1993, some 139,790 households in England were accepted as homeless under the law, although many more sought assistance under the legislation and were not accepted. Although there has been a welcome decline in the number of people accepted as homeless since 1992, research by Shelter published last year showed that many authorities believe that the reduction in numbers was due to a temporary increase in the supply of housing association homes following measures in the 1992 autumn statement.

There remains considerable concern that homelessness will increase once again as the housing association development programme of homes to rent is reduced next year. The output by housing associations of new or rehabilitated homes to rent will be less than a third of what many experts agree is required. The Minister may be interested to learn that the Housing Corporation's assessment of housing needs concluded that about 100,000 low cost homes a year would be needed for the decade up to 2001. Perhaps he will take the opportunity provided by this debate to say whether he agrees with that assessment and what research his Department has carried out on the subject.

It is not just that the number of new homes coming on to the market has been reduced. The volume of new lettings of council and housing association homes has remained relatively static and in many areas the size or type of housing most commonly available to re-let is all too rarely appropriate for those in most urgent need. The success of the right-to-buy scheme, which I whole-heartedly support, has had the practical effect of allowing 1.5 million council houses to be sold, removing them for ever from the system.

The private rented sector is often financially beyond the means of many people, especially the very young, who cannot afford the necessary deposit or rent in advance. In short, in some areas there is not enough decent housing available at affordable rents. One of the largest factors in the homelessness equation—the breakdown of traditional family life—must also be confronted.

Liberal divorce laws, the encouragement of teenage sexual activity and single parenthood, and the general undermining of the family unit—by which I mean the husband and wife and their children bound together by marriage—by taxation and other legislation, have been major contributors to changes in our country's demography. Those changes have led to less stable homes and more fragmentation. Successive Governments cannot ignore their responsibility for those social changes.

There is much evidence of disrepair in the existing housing stock. One in six homes needs urgent repairs costing more than £1,000, and they include more than 2 million owner-occupied homes. Some of those who own their homes continue to face real problems of negative equity, although, thankfully, that problem is less acute in the part of the world that I represent in Cheshire. The problem has been exacerbated by rising interest rates and the fears created by the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Security substantially to reduce income support for mortgage interest payments. That move has prompted the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association, the House-Builders Federation and the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to warn of an increase in the number of repossessions next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is the chairman of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, told the House just a few days ago that, thus far, the house building industry is certainly not participating in the more general economic upturn that we all agree is taking place. That view will be shared by many. Unless the Treasury takes steps to encourage greater confidence in the housing market, there is every prospect that home ownership—participation in the property-owning democracy—will no longer be such a popular option as it has been in the immediate past.

One of my greatest concerns is the effect on family life, on the development of children and thus on the future of our society, of placing too many families in relatively insecure temporary accommodation. I remain concerned that too many local authorities place too many such families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at an extremely high cost to the public purse. Living in such accommodation is surely bad for the health, education and welfare of families, especially those containing young people. Shelter is to be congratulated on at least highlighting the problems and pressing instead for resources for investment in good quality housing.

A recent report by the Standing Conference on Public Health estimated that homelessness and poor housing conditions were adding a staggering £2 billion a year to health care costs. More than 50,000 families live in temporary accommodation in which disrepair, overcrowding, shared cooking and sanitary facilities, and lack of space for children's play and study lead to higher rates of infection, depression, anxiety and behavioural problems in children, and an increased number of injuries sustained through accidents. Surely it is not, therefore, a case of being unable to afford the resources to tackle the problem; rather it is illogical and counter-productive to allow those problems to continue further.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate a willingness to agree that all changes in housing policy and benefit arrangements should be assessed against the test of whether they will increase or decrease the number of families in unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation. A classic example of just what can go wrong when bringing forward changes in housing policy is revealed when we consider how the funds saved by reducing housing subsidies to housing associations and councils has been offset by more current and future spending on housing benefit as a result of higher rents. Higher rents also contribute to higher wage demands and thus fuel the inflationary spiral.

A recent survey found that 94 per cent. of the public believe that homeless people should be found homes, although that may he slightly idealistic in some ways. We need to build on that consensus to find a real, lasting and practical solution to the problem. We need an adequate supply of affordable homes for people who need them, and those in the greatest need are the homeless.

In addition, we need an owner-occupied sector which is secure and not just a route into homelessness for some people. We need a housing system that offers mobility, flexibility and real choice. Surely we, the Government, charities and individuals need to do everything that we can to extend measures which help people to keep their homes, and to ensure stability in family life, of which housing is an essential part.

I hope that, if nothing else, this short debate has provided the opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister to respond constructively to what I have said, to avoid polemics, and to rise to the challenge for the Government to redouble their efforts to tackle a problem. In a relatively wealthy, well run society such as ours, there can be little excuse for the continuation of that problem.

The principal aim of the Government's housing policy is that a decent home should be within reach of every family. Relieving homelessness is an important part of our housing policy. Figures collected for my Department each quarter by local authorities show that fewer and fewer households are becoming homeless and requiring local authority help to obtain accommodation.

For the past two and a half years, there has been a reduction every quarter in the year-on-year numbers of households accepted for rehousing under homelessness legislation. The figures show that the Government have been successful in encouraging authorities to move away from using bed and breakfast hotels as temporary accommodation for homeless households. The number of homeless applicants living in bed and breakfast accommodation at the end of September 1994 was only about a third of the number three years previously.

A number of authorities use short-term leases of privately rented accommodation as a better alternative to provide good quality temporary accommodation for homeless households. To help authorities to continue to provide that accommodation, we shall shortly be laying regulations which will extend for up to a further two years the period for which such leases can be held without the cost scoring as capital expenditure.

Our policies are dealing with the needs of people sleeping rough. The Government's six-year £180 million rough sleepers initiative in central London is widely regarded as having had considerable success in reducing the number of people sleeping on the streets of the capital. A count by voluntary agencies last November found about 290 people sleeping rough in central London, a reduction on estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began in 1990. Independent research into the first three years of the initiative also showed that several thousand people had been helped to find accommodation through the initiative, and that many more had been prevented from becoming homeless in the first place.

Many of the people who remain on the streets of central London are the "hard core" of rough sleepers who may have slept out for a number of years. They may suffer from alcohol or drug abuse, or they may have mental health problems. The needs of those people can best be met by focused co-operation by health authorities, social services departments, housing authorities and voluntary sector agencies. We have to accept, however, that some long-term rough sleepers will be resistant to offers of accommodation and that it may take time to persuade them to come inside.

My ministerial colleagues and I have paid a number of visits to projects for single homeless people in central London, managed by excellent voluntary sector organisations such as Centrepoint, St. Mungo's, Crisis and the Salvation Army. Many of those are funded by the Department. One cannot fail to be impressed by the way in which those agencies seek to provide assistance for individuals who would otherwise sleep rough.

By March 1996, the rough sleepers initiative will have provided about 5,000 places in a range of permanent and temporary accommodation, as well as outreach and resettlement workers who contact people sleeping on the sheets and help them to start a new life away from the streets. The initiative has shown how voluntary and statutory agencies can work together towards the relief of single homelessness.

Outside central London, it is the responsibility of local authorities to consider the needs of people sleeping rough as part of their overall housing strategy. I commend to local authorities the model of co-operation between statutory and voluntary agencies developed under the rough sleepers initiative. For our part, the Government pay grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary agencies which provide direct and practical help for single homeless people. In 1994-95, £6.8 million has been made available to more than 150 projects.

As well as specific action to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Government are pursuing wider policies aimed at expanding the housing options available to everyone. Eighty per cent. of respondents to surveys said that they would prefer to own their own homes. There can no doubting our success in expanding owner-occupation. The right to buy for council tenants has brought home ownership to more than 1.6 million families in Great Britain. We are widening the choice for tenants who want to become home owners. The local authority cash incentive schemes and the Housing Corporation's incentive schemes for tenants have helped a further 21,000 people to buy homes. Those schemes have the additional benefit of freeing council or housing association dwellings to house more families in greatest need.

We shall continue to give high priority to bringing the option of owner-occupation within the reach of more people. Since house prices and interest rates are both low, home ownership is more affordable than it has been for years, so now is a good time for people to think about buying.

We recognise, of course, that not everyone will be able to afford to buy a home outright, particularly young people, so our policies also deal with the demand for rented accommodation. In particular, we are keen to expand the role played by the private rented sector in offering accommodation to people in housing need. It is a mistake to assume that private rented accommodation will, by definition, he inadequate. For many families, it is the right and most flexible answer. With several hundred thousand vacant private sector homes in England, scope exists for bringing more homes into private renting to help meet housing demand.

We have introduced a number of initiatives to achieve that. For example, housing associations have become involved in the management of private rented stock. Acting as managing agents, they have brought benefits to tenants, through the provision of a high level of service and security, and to landlords by providing a high quality, hassle-free intermediary. To build on this initiative, a new scheme—HAMA Plus—has been introduced. It will provide an additional £5 million in 1994-95 to housing associations providing management services to bring empty properties back into shape and back into use. Housing associations have also been central to the flats-over-shops initiative, which not only brings unused space back into use but brings new life to abandoned areas of our high streets.

Local authorities themselves have also done a great deal. A number have introduced imaginative schemes to encourage local landlords to co-operate with them in housing families and others in need. One approach that is achieving impressive results is the introduction of rent and deposit guarantee schemes. They give landlords the reassurances that they may require to house low-income tenants and can dramatically increase the chances of such households gaining access to rented accommodation.

There is now some evidence of an increase in private lettings. The number has grown from just over 1.6 million in 1988 to just under 2 million at the end of 1993. It is important that we continue to reinforce that trend in recognition of the vital role that a healthy private sector can play in meeting housing need. But the social rented sector also has, and will continue to have, a role to play in providing long-term, settled housing for families who need help.

It is difficult to estimate the need for social housing at national level because it depends on how need is defined and short-term fluctuations in factors affecting access to owner-occupation, such as house prices and interest rates. However, many publicly quoted estimates of 100,000 homes a year seem to us to be overstated.

We are investing significant sums of money in social housing. Public resources to housing associations—the main providers of new low-cost housing for rent and for sale—are more than £1.5 billion this year, enabling some 60,000 new lettings to be provided. That will bring the total over the three years to 31 March 1995 to more than 180,000, an all-time high level of housing association provision and about 27,000 more homes than we promised in the 1992 Conservative manifesto. Over the next three years—1995–96 to 1997–98—we expect Housing Corporation and local authority expenditure together, and the private finance that they will attract, to produce a further 180,000 new lettings.

If local authorities are to make the best use of those new lettings and the existing stock, they need fair and rational systems for allocating their housing and their nominations for housing association tenancies. The courts' interpretation of the current homelessness legislation has made that impossible in some areas. At present, households who happen to apply for assistance under the homelessness legislation are automatically placed on a fast track for housing allocations, irrespective of whether they have the greatest need for long-term social housing. Meanwhile, families in need on the housing waiting list are left standing. For that reason, we are committed to reform.

Our proposals would separate the allocation of long-term tenancies from the provision of immediate assistance to the homeless. Quite simply, those who have the greatest need for long-term social housing should get the highest priority, whether or not they have been accepted as homeless by the local authority. At the same time, we are committed to retaining an effective safety net for homeless families and vulnerable people to ensure that those groups have access to suitable accommodation.

The relentless growth in the number of households in this country has presented a formidable challenge for our policies on housing throughout the Government's period in office. I am pleased to say that those policies have withstood the test and are succeeding in dealing with homelessness and increasing the supply of dwellings. We have also expanded the housing options available, so that more people than ever before have the opportunity to own their own homes.