Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Wednesday 22 March 1995

The House met at Ten o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Falkland Islands

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Kirkhope.]

10.4 am

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the Falklands, and I count myself fortunate that I was able to visit the islands in January this year. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and I received an extremely warm and friendly welcome, and it is a trip which I am certain neither of us will ever forget.

The first thing that strikes one about the islands is the remarkably strong British character which runs through the way of life of the islanders and their approach to international and national affairs. The population of about 2,200 is almost exclusively British, and many inhabitants are fifth and sixth generation islanders. From 1883, there was uninterrupted British administration until the 1982 invasion by Argentina.

The invasion left very deep scars, and it is clear that the people of the islands will never forget that 250 British service men gave their lives for their freedom. There is a deep distrust of Argentina among the islanders. After all, Argentina is still making public claims on the Falklands. Only a few months ago, President Menem said:

"The Malvinas will be ours by the end of the century."

The people of the islands do not want any formal relations with Argentina until it has given up its claims of sovereignty for all time.

The people of the Falklands fully understand the commitment of the Government and this Parliament to their defence. Indeed, the islands provide a magnificent opportunity for training Her Majesty's forces, particularly the RAF. I attended one meeting with some farmers at which the low-flying Tornado aircraft were discussed. The farmers were asked what they thought about the Tornados zooming all over the islands at ground zero and making a lot of noise. One of them got up and said, "Thank God for the sound of freedom." That lesson might go home to one or two people in this country who whinge and moan about the low-flying training which the RAF must do if it is to maintain the peak of efficiency that we require from our armed forces.

During the visit of myself and the hon. Member for Woolwich to the islands, we were also involved in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference of a group of dependent territories, including the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Malta, the Channel Islands and St. Helena. I dare not let this debate go by without mentioning St. Helena, because the representative from that country effectively presented his case for an airstrip on the island. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will make note of that, and perhaps it will not be long before that little island has an airstrip, as it is totally cut off at present.

My hon. Friend is wrong to say that St. Helena is totally cut off because it has the excellent services of the Royal Mail ship St. Helena which, I am proud to say, is operated from my constituency by the Curnow shipping company. St. Helena is not totally cut off, although the case for an airstrip is overwhelming.

I am delighted to hear that the ship is in operation. I believe that there were considerable troubles with it. That is in no way the responsibility of my hon. Friend or anyone in his constituency. There is also a need for an airstrip on the island.

I support the hon. Gentleman because the Government have a role to play in the matter and they are not playing it. The St. Helenians wanted a shuttle ship from St. Helena to Ascension so that they could have a more frequent service than once every seven weeks. The Government killed that. They were looking for a service. They gave a lame excuse for not finding one and now nothing will be done for two years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press the Minister to do something about it and ensure that St. Helena has a little more communication with the outside world.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment at the appropriate time on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall return, before I land myself in trouble with you, Madam Speaker, to the Falkland Islands.

The economy of the islands is making steady progress. The islands have been self-sufficient economically since 1983. That excludes defence. There have been massive improvements in the infrastructure—airports and roads—in the past 10 years.

The fishing industry now brings the islands an income of £25 million a year. I was encouraged by the responsible way in which that fishing industry is run. Of that £25 million, between £4 million and £5 million goes on research and protection. Those who are issued with licences operate under strict terms and conditions. The islanders understand that they would be crazy to fish those waters out and, therefore, that the stocks must be carefully managed and husbanded.

There are mixed feelings on the island about oil. Seismic testing has been done on an extensive basis. It is possible that test drilling will take place towards the end of this year or early in 1996. One can understand why the islanders are ambivalent about whether they want oil to be found or not. Clearly, if it is found in large quantities, it will bring massive wealth to the islands. But it will change them in a fundamental way. The type of living and society that they have had will inevitably be fundamentally changed. If oil is found we can safely say that their security will be protected in perpetuity.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if oil is found in the Falkland Islands, which is likely, it will bring a whole set of new pressures on the Falkland Islands in relation to Argentina? Does he accept that it is therefore to be wished that the relationship between Argentina and the Falkland Islands will be normalised before oil is found so that Argentina might be able to have some hand in the exploration, but that that can be done only when the Argentine regime withdraws its claim to the Falkland Islands?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. As he is aware, there are contacts with the Argentine Government on both oil and fisheries. The islanders say that they do not want formal relations until the Argentines have accepted categorically that they have no case for sovereignty over the islands.

There is an exciting future for the islands, but they face many problems. Some colleagues may have read the memoirs of Admiral Sandy Woodward, who was the commander of the South Atlantic force. He used the following words:

"Those who die in battle always pay too high a price but in the South Atlantic as in so many other wars they died for the ideas we stand for."

The islanders are intensely loyal to the British Crown. They want only to live in peace and freedom in the country of their birth.

10.14 am

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who has told us this morning about his recent visit to the islands together with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker). The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The debate should be a signal to our fellow British citizens in the Falkland Islands that, although they are far away, their interests are never far from our thoughts in the House.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, I have visited the Falkland Islands. My first visit was with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 1981. I visited again after the conflict when the islands were celebrating 150 years of continuous British administration. I went there again two years ago at the invitation of the Falkland Islands Government. I know how important it is to Falkland islanders to see and hear their interests debated on the Floor of the House.

On this second wonderful day of our British spring, the signal should go out to the islanders, from Stanley in the east to Port Howard in the west, from Salvador to Goose Green and to the remotest parts of the great plain of Lafonia, that the House is thinking about the Falkland Islands and debating their interests today.

I speak in the debate as chairman of the Falkland Islands group of the CPA. I shall concentrate my remarks on future relations between the islands and the Argentine republic. I do so because I believe that good relations with Argentina are important to the future of the people of that country as well as to the islanders.

If I look ahead to the future—to the next century, which is such a short time away—I see Argentina as a major player on the world stage. It is a major trading partner with the United Kingdom and the European Union which desires to export its goods to Europe and import many important finished products from Europe. Those developments can take place successfully only if Argentina's preoccupation with the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is put on the back burner and preferably dropped altogether. If, instead of pursuing territorial claims to a group of islanders, Argentina concentrates on good international relations and on trade and friendship, that will be the way forward for Argentina, the Falkland islanders and the British. I want to make some comments today which I hope will contribute to that process. Some of them are difficult, but they need to be said and said on the Floor of the House.

First, I hope that Argentina will recognise that there cannot be any basis for negotiations with the United Kingdom which will lead to the transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Much of the Argentine case for sovereignty rests on its claim that it inherited the rights which Spain abandoned. Those rights are held to be based on the papal grants of 1493 and 1494, in which Spain claimed dominion over all south America except parts occupied by Portugal. The sheer generality of such claims weakens their validity. When Spain withdrew its settlement on east Falkland in 1811, it left for all time. It has never assumed any on-going rights to the islands.

A second argument that Argentina uses is based on geographical location. That would be valid only if the Falkland Islands were inhabited now or had been inhabited without continuous administration by a resident power.

In any event, mere proximity—in this case about 300 miles—would embarrass many countries, including the United Kingdom, if it were to be considered as the basis for ownership. Nor can it be argued that the islands are a symbol of British colonialism and that they should be decolonised, if that implies land taken from a native people, as that was never the case in the Falkland Islands and there was no indigenous population.

Moreover, any idea that the United Kingdom should agree to the effective transfer of sovereignty on the basis that the Falkland Islands would become an integral part of the Argentine republic, perhaps retaining its membership of the British Commonwealth, even with the supposed benefits of special status, cannot be a realistic proposition. That kind of on-going charm offensive, as it is called in the Falkland Islands, by Argentina is making it very difficult to make the progress that we all want in good relations with that huge country, which occupies so much of the south American continent.

In some quarters, the suggestion of an autonomous status for the islands has been mooted, with special taxation and education regimes, with respect to special residence and property rights. Again I think that that is unrealistic. Any idea that may have taken root in Argentina of its flag flying in the Falkland Islands can lead only to further difficulties in what is a sensitive and difficult relationship and should not be pursued. From my knowledge of the islanders, they are not likely to give favourable consideration to any plans that Argentina may have for proposing financial compensation to each islander and property owner to persuade them to accept the transfer of sovereignty. Their sovereignty and British citizenship, which the House confirmed only a few years ago, are more valuable than any financial compensation that Argentina could offer and it is important for the Argentine Government to recognise that fact and give up their sovereignty claim, so that relations can develop and blossom in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect.

Argentina is a big country and has a big man as its president. I hope that President Carlos Menem, his Government and the citizens of Argentina, many of whom derive their origins from this country and notably from Wales, will be big enough to give up their claim and to pursue the huge advantages of trade, not only with the Falklands but with our country and the rest of the European Union.

Let there be no doubt about it, the House will never forget the people of the Falkland Islands—our fellow British citizens 8,000 miles away, many of whom I dare say are listening to my words at this very moment. They are the people not of an old-style British colony, but of a self-governing country, and they have the right to determine their future. They will do so in two ways: by maintaining their sturdy independence, and by developing good relations with their south American neighbours by pursuing joint exploration of hydrocarbon deposits and co-operation on activities such as fishing. I say to Argentina, "Make 1995 the year to be the big country that you are and forget the claim, based on understandable emotion and feeling but rooted in the past, which offers little hope for the future."

I share the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown for the young British service men and women involved in the task force operation, but I also think of the Argentine war cemetery on the Falkland Islands, which I have seen on a number of occasions. I think of their young men who gave their lives for what they believed at the time to be right. Five hundred young men are buried in the islands and our country and the Argentine republic owe them a debt. We have a responsibility to them to find a better way of resolving our differences of opinion and of working together and finding a new future, which will be to the benefit of both countries. I very much hope that that will be possible in 1995, and that any thoughts of a transfer of sovereignty by 2000 will be banished for ever.

10.25 am

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) referred to the visit that he and I made as representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I should add that, although that was a long trip—an 18-hour journey in a TriStar with a slight delay at Ascension—it took place at the end of January and the delegate from St. Helena had to leave there on Christmas eve, which demonstrates the communication problems that that island suffers, so I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

I welcome the opportunity that this debate affords to put the Falkland Islands back on the public agenda. I hope that the debate will give some reassurance to the people of those islands. Many of the islanders whom I met considered it unfortunate that they have been viewed in some quarters as a Tory trophy and I hope that the debate will provide a different perspective.

I appreciate why the islanders feel insecure. Many were led to believe by the noises that they were hearing from British Ministers, even before the invasion in 1982, that Britain was prepared to negotiate with Argentina on sovereignty. That insecurity was undoubtedly heightened by the visit in 1980 of Mrs. Thatcher's most trusted ally, Nicholas Ridley. Many people in the islands believed that the signals given out at the time encouraged the Argentine invasion, or at least led Argentina to believe that British resistance would not be as robust as it was.

British Governments successively failed to ensure political or economic development and progress for the islands before the invasion. In 1975, under a Labour Government, my noble Friend Lord Callaghan asked Lord Shackleton to carry out an economic survey of the islands. Important though that survey was, regrettably little action was taken to implement the recommendations. Had they been implemented, it is at least conceivable, and I believe likely, that the Argentine invasion would not have taken place.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that, under a Labour Government in the 1970s, when invasion was threatened the Foreign Office took immediate advance action and there was no invasion. It was only under the Conservative Government in 1982 that, because of cost cutting and efficiency savings, HMS Endurance was withdrawn, allowing the invasion to take place. Does he agree that some Governments have looked after the islands' safety and economic development?

My hon. Friend has a valid point. The concern shown by the Callaghan Government can be identified from the Shackleton report. Its recommendations involved changes in agriculture, including land ownership, the establishment of a fishing industry, to which the hon. Member for Kemptown referred, and investigations into hydrocarbon development and tourism. Shackleton also recommended, among other things, improving communications by building a suitable airport and facilities.

It is true that the islands never featured high on the British agenda and that there was a general impression abroad that Britain saw them as an economic drain. Ridley's visit in 1980 confirmed that view. Indeed, the Government deprived many Falkland islanders of their rights of access to British citizenship by introducing the British Nationality Act 1991. By the time that Argentina invaded in 1982, six years after Shackleton's report, hardly any of the recommendations had been implemented and the economy was in decline. The position was made much worse by the subsequent conflict, which destroyed much of the infrastructure of Stanley, including the power supply and sewerage system, but since the invasion and liberation, the islands' economy has been dramatically transformed. The Shackleton report was updated and most of its recommendations have been implemented.

Some people have referred to the Falkland Islands at that time not as a dependent territory but rather a private company characterised by absentee landlords. That was certainly the case before the invasion. One of the most beneficial changes post conflict has been the transfer of agricultural land from expatriate landlords to local ownership, and 99 per cent. of all farms are now in island ownership. It may be of interest to some of my hon. Friends to know that the Falkland Islands Government own a third of farm land, farmed through the publicly owned Falkland Landholdings company. Agriculture has been diversified, and there is now some meat production.

It is worth noting that, although British service personnel can visit Stanley or Camp and dine on superb local mutton, they cannot eat it on base as no abattoir meets European Union standards or Ministry of Defence requirements. The forces do not appear to have suffered ill effects from eating local produce off base, and I see no reason why the island cannot help to feed the forces on base. Perhaps some investment in upgrading the abattoir would be of mutual benefit to the armed forces and the UK economy, as well as the islands' economy.

Perhaps the most significant change in the economy is the development of the fishing industry. The establishment of a 200-mile limit and the creation of a fisheries conservation zone and a licensing system to control the level of fishing and conserve stocks have been of enormous success, producing a net income of some £15 million a year. We should pay tribute to the Falkland Islands Government on their success in conserving fish stocks and their policy of protecting wildlife in general.

Other hon. Members have referred to major improvements in the infrastructure, not only the international airport at Mount Pleasant but the development of adequate power and water supplies and good educational and medical facilities, which did not exist before the invasion. I pay tribute to staff at the King Edward hospital in Stanley and was pleased to note their close links with the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich.

Naturally, the islanders become nervous when Britain talks about the cost of maintaining the Falklands, but we do not take into account the millions of pounds that were repatriated from the islands to the United Kingdom by absentee landlords. Far from being a drain on our resources, the islands have been more than self-sufficient for most of their history. Since the conflict, great strides have been made in economic and political development and it is appropriate to pay tribute to the elected members of the legislative council. "Dependent territory" may be the Falklands' legal status, but the islands are effectively and essentially a self-governing and self-sufficient democracy. Not only is their economy in surplus but, by a policy of transferring revenue to the reserves, they now have reserve funds of some £67 million.

There are arguments about the cost of maintaining what has been termed "fortress Falklands" and the garrison. I have seen estimates of £60 million to £70 million but those figures do not take into account what it would cost to maintain that force anywhere else in the world. No one, on either Front Bench, would suggest that, if Britain withdrew from the Falklands, the services would be reduced by the size of the present garrison. It is there to protect and give security to the islands but also to serve Britain's wider strategic interest in the Antarctic and the southern Atlantic. The real additional cost of having forces in the Falklands rather than elsewhere in the world is probably nearer to £20 million, and the Falkland Islands Government already contribute to that cost in a number of ways, including by providing housing and recreational facilities and subsidised internal travel for the forces.

However, so long as the Argentine Government maintain their bogus claim to sovereignty, the islanders will wish to have a continued British military presence. Discussions and negotiations must be held with Argentina. The Falkland islanders recognise their geographical location and their need for economic and political relations with their neighbours. They have developed such relationships with Chile, to their mutual advantage. The islanders need to talk to Argentina about fish stocks, conservation, possible oil exploration, and economic co-operation in the region, but such talks cannot progress satisfactorily so long as Argentina claims sovereignty over the islands.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) set the historical claim in context. The Falkland islanders are not some oppressed and subject people under the heel of a military dictatorship; they are a free people who have openly declared their desire to move towards even greater self-government with the goal of secure independence. The islands are not some colonial territory where natives have been killed, expelled or oppressed. There was no indigenous population as the islands were uninhabited. Between the mid-18th century and 1831, there were successive British, Spanish and French settlements but, as other hon. Members have said, since 1831 there has been continual British administration, with the exception of the invasion in 1982. The islands have never been part of Argentina and the current population is almost entirely of British descent, some of it eighth generation.

The fact that the Falklands did not have an indigenous population is in marked contrast to Argentina, where the original tribes were slaughtered by European settlers in an act of deliberate genocide. The islanders are right to query the Argentine philosophy, which suggests that killing the local population provides more secure territorial rights than settling empty islands. The right of self-determination for the Falkland islanders is a valid objective that deserves British and international support.

Finally, I shall raise some issues on which I may be at variance with the Falkland Islands Government. While I appreciate their desire to encourage tourism, I fear that the encouragement of tourism may serve to destroy the very thing that tourists will want to see: some of the most wonderful wildlife anywhere in the world. I am also concerned about oil exploration. I appreciate the islanders' nervousness about fish stocks and fluctuations in income from that source, but in addition to the two distinct squid stocks serving markets in Europe and the far east, they have an opportunity to develop the fin-fishing industry, with its own fishing fleets from the Falkland Islands, and possibly develop processing so that the islanders can benefit from added value.

Given the islanders' concerns about the fragility of fish stocks, the fall in wool prices, and defence costs, it is natural that they should regard oil as their salvation. I am concerned that further oil developments will threaten climate change. The burning of oil contributes 44 per cent. of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. The framework convention on climate change signed in 1992 by 160 Governments, which became law in the UK in 1994, commits Governments to reducing carbon dioxide to a level that does not threaten eco-systems or the viability of food supplies. The Spring ozone hole discovered in 1985 has continued to grow and is now a huge eclipse extending over the entire continent of Antarctica and the southern tip of south America.

Now is not the time to search for additional oil supplies in the world. Particular problems exist with oil exploration in the south Atlantic. The Falkland Islands are a major wildlife area with a rich variety of endemic species, flightless birds, seals, fish, whales and dolphins, all of which could be threatened by oil exploration activities, including seismic testing. Other problems are extreme weather and depth of water, stretching the limits of both technology and logistics. In such remote situations, operators will probably pay only lip service to conservation measures and, because of climatic conditions, any oil spills or operational accidents will take decades to degrade and could wipe out sensitive species.

I realise that the islands are as far from the south pole as London is from the north pole and that the oil rigs off Shetland are much closer to the northern polar region than the Falkland Islands are to the Antarctic. But the Antarctic is the only unspoilt continent and although the Falklands and south America are outside the world park, does it make sense for oil rigs to mark the limits of that world park? I am aware that the wildlife of the islands is as much threatened by risks from oil tankers rounding the Horn, but we should look to other ways of progressing. With their wind and their ocean, targeted investment into research, and development of renewable energy supplies, the islands could become self-sufficient in energy and world leaders in creating a sustainable and affluent economy. Perhaps those countries that have oil reserves should be financed by the rest of the international community not to exploit those reserves.

Whether the Falkland Islands Government take my view on oil exploration or not; whether they opt to exploit that oil or not; they have the right to live at peace with their neighbours, to determine their own future and to determine and pursue their own democratic way of life.

10.39 am

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and to congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on securing the debate. It is timely, because we have not had a debate on the Falklands for some while.

I remember vividly that Friday in April 1982 when the invasion took place. I was in the television studios of Grampian in Aberdeen when the news came through. At first, we could not believe it because it was so utterly incredible. At that time, I was foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal party, which was, in turn, in alliance with the Social Democrats. It was rather difficult being the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal party when the foreign affairs spokesman for the Social Democratic party was a certain doctor, who was known for what one might describe as a muscular approach to politics. Because of the somewhat spurious reason that he had previously been Foreign Secretary, he was always called about 15 times before me. That was one of the crosses one bore.

The House sat on the Saturday and it was a great occasion. I remember Michael Foot's brave, clear speech and the speeches of many others who struggled over the rights and wrongs involved and with their consciences. In the end, we all decided on the right path. It should not be forgotten that some people were not in favour of intervening in any way. If their argument had prevailed, the Falkland Islands would still be occupied by the Argentines and it is more than likely that the junta then in control would still be in control. Hon. Members who took that stand-back position should perhaps remember that.

It is also worth remembering that the junta's action was popular in Argentina—practically the most popular thing that the junta ever did. That is one of the difficulties that we must face. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who chairs the all-party committee that tries to keep some interest going and takes some care of the interests of the Falkland Islands in the Houses of Parliament, touched upon that. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right about establishing good relations with Argentina, but to imagine that somehow one can change an emotional approach quickly is a mistake. It will take a lot of time, patience and persistence to establish good relations and there is no way round that. We must make it absolutely clear that it is not our intention to give up sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Equally, we must talk to Argentina and remember that, sometimes, there is some honour in politics; although, given the way in which politics is written about these days, one would not imagine that that is so.

At the time of the invasion, I remember that The Guardian, of which I am a great admirer normally, was not in favour of Britain taking any action. It contrasted British trade with Argentina with the fact that there were just 1,200 islanders. It argued that it was not in British interests to endanger that considerable trade and possibly offend other south American countries. There were, however, big question marks over that argument even at that time.

Although the lady was not a lady whom I loved, she was right on that occasion. The strategy adopted was a high-risk one. Good heavens, one remembers the pictures of the Canberra, like a huge white whale in San Carlos water, which was such an easy target. That high-risk strategy, however, came off. A lot of people died and that was sad. All war is sad. I hope that we will stick by the results of that strategy.

I readily admit that there are islands and enclaves all over the world that are the debris of empire. The French, however, have somehow managed to treat the business rather better than us. The Minister may smile disarmingly and shake his head, but consider how Martinique, Reunion and various places around the world are integrated into metropolitan France. That policy has been successful when applied to small French territories and it has been accepted by the populations involved. It should be stressed that we have a residual responsibility.

I am sure that the Minister will speak about fishing policy in the Falklands, which, as successive hon. Members have suggested, is of much more immediate importance than any speculation about hydrocarbon resources. Two species of squid are fished around the Falklands. One is more or less confined to the Falkland waters, as defined by the 200-mile limit, while the other species is also found in Argentine waters and so is more vulnerable. I understand that Sir Crispin Tickell's team said that it thought highly of the conservation measures adopted by the Falkland Islands Government. We know, of course, that the Falkland Government do not deal directly with the Argentine Government—that is done by the British Government. An observer from the Falklands has been appointed to the joint committee, but, essentially, it is an intergovernmental committee of Britain and the Argentine. I would like the Minister to tell us how that committee is operating. Is the atmosphere within it good? Is the co-operation reached good? How does he see its future?

The debate is a short one, so I shall not delay the House. I have said what I think. Like others, I believe that, few as the Falklanders are, they are the indigenous population. They have the right to determine their own future. In turn, we have a responsibility, inherited from history, to do all that we can to guarantee that future.

10.47 am

Hon. Members will recall that I am secretary of the British-Latin American parliamentary group and, in that context, I should like to make a few comments.

As long as the islanders wish to remain British, we should underwrite that and they should continue to be so, not least because Argentina's claim to the islands is based on dusty legal texts going back to the beginning of the last century. Those texts are ambiguous and unclear. Lawyers could, at great expense, debate for hours who has proper sovereignty over the islands, according to dusty documents.

We must consider the matter in the context of the Argentina of today. It is becoming successful in reclaiming its place as a nation of significance on the world stage. After all, it now has its second elected President, Carlos Menem, who has created a stable economy, which that country has not had for years. If one visited Argentina, one would discover a capital city, Buenos Aires, of maturity and culture, which makes it the greatest capital city of Latin America. It can rank with, and rival, Milan, Madrid or any of the other great cities of Latin Europe.

Argentina has got over its 50– year nightmare of populist Peronism—a populist Peronism that has done immense damage to that country since the second world war. Let us hope that the ghost of Peronism has been laid to rest at last. We should never forget that Argentina was considered to be the great white hope of the 1920s and 1930s, a country that was rapidly coming up to take its place in the world among the great players. Peronism destroyed Argentina's chance of taking what could be argued to be its rightful place in the world. Today, Argentina is retaking its place in the world. Its armed forces have served alongside ours in various United Nations activities in the Gulf and in Cyprus, and have acquitted themselves with honour and professionalism in so doing.

Argentina is once again showing maturity in general. What pains me, as a friend of Argentina, is that it has failed to do so in one specific way. I highlight the unwise claim of President Carlos Menem that Argentina should retake the islands, as he puts it, by the year 2000.

If Argentina claims parity of consideration in international affairs with a country such as Canada, it should consider the example of the Canadians, and the case of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Those islands have a population of about 6,000, three times that of the Falkland Islands, and are situated only a few miles off the coast of Newfoundland, in the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, yet they remain French territory. They are the only remaining territories that France holds as direct descendants of the extensive land holdings that France had in north America. Indeed, the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon have been a colony of France since 1816.

The Canadians are not hung up about those islands. They have close relations with them. There are flights from those French islands in north America to Montreal and to various airports alongside in Newfoundland. Let us remember that those islands are only a few miles from sovereign Canadian territory, surrounded geographically by Canada, yet Canada has the maturity to live in peace alongside those people, who have a different cultural inheritance. Argentina should consider that case and learn the lessons.

If we were to follow the Argentine precept of saying that our territory extends 300 miles offshore, where would that leave us? Should we reclaim Calais and the dukedom of Normandy? Conversely, should the French claim the Channel Islands on the basis of geographical proximity? Should Venezuela claim Trinidad? Should Italy claim Malta? Should Malaysia claim Singapore? All those islands are much closer to the mainland than are the Falklands. I urge the Argentine Government to grow up and show maturity over that issue, just as they have over so many other issues in recent years.

If Britain owes some obligation to the Falkland Islands to underwrite their entitlement to self-determination and security, surely the islanders owe an obligation to this country for the blood and treasure expended on their relief. They should do nothing to irritate the good relations between Britain and Argentina. We have long-standing relations with Argentina, those of trade and investment and indeed, those of blood ties between families in Argentina and this country. Any rhetoric from the Falklanders against Argentina, although understandable because of the wounds of the conflict, so few years ago, is extremely unhelpful. It is far better that we gradually rekindle relations between Argentina and the Falkland Islands.

With other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I have been involved in the Argentine-British conferences. There have been four such conferences, bringing together politicians, business men, journalists and the like. Two of the conferences were held in Argentina and two in the United Kingdom. The fifth such conference is due to take place in England in September.

I was at the last such conference in Mendoza, close to the Andes, in Argentina. I found it moving that Falklanders came to that conference. Because of the vagaries of politics, they had to enter via Chile, a friendly country, and cross the frontier to come down to Mendoza. I found it moving that Falklanders could speak to Argentines about the realities of life today. The conference was closed by an embrace between an Argentine senator, the chairman of the conference, and those visiting Falklanders.

In the foyer of the conference centre was a large, colourful exhibition mounted by the Falklanders about the wonders of the island. I almost winced at their forwardness in staging that exhibition, but I was touched by the way in which the Argentines looked at the exhibition and came to have greater understanding.

I gather that, at this very moment, two leading Falklanders are carrying out what might be termed a lecture tour in Argentina to speak to people. They have been to Buenos Aires, to Cordoba, to Mendoza and into Patagonia, where there are the Welsh communities in Puerto Madryn and Trelew. They have also visited Comodoro Rivadavia, the town which the Argentine air force used to provide the air link to the Falkland Islands. They are talking to the Argentines about the real Falkland Islands and the real opportunities for the future.

I would, however, take issue with the comments of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), because I regret the fact that British party politics were brought into the debate. I well remember the anti-Falklands rhetoric of the Labour party in the many years that have passed since the conflict. Members of the Labour party could not bring themselves to refer to the Falkland Islands, and it was fashionable for Opposition Members to refer to them as the Malvinas. I thought that that was highly inappropriate, as did the islanders. Indeed, when the Labour spokesman for the islands first visited the islands, he was greeted with a vast piece of graffiti in 6 ft lettering painted on a hulk in Falkland sound, which, in earthy language that you would not allow me to repeat, Madam Speaker, told him to leave the islands somewhat abruptly. I do not think that there are party political marks to be scored on that matter. We want wounds to heal gradually.

Fishing and oil cannot develop properly in that region without Argentine-Falkland Islands co-operation. The illex squid are no respecters of international political boundaries. They move from the high seas to Argentine waters to Falkland Islands waters. Unless there is co-operation, those very large factory ships from Korea and Japan will continue to hoover up the illex, to the detriment of the environment, the fish stocks and the prosperity of the islands. They need control; they need co-operation.

The same goes for any oil that is discovered in those waters. For oil to be extracted properly, a large base is needed, for processing, for servicing the industry and for refining. If the Falkland Islands cares about its environment, it will not want those vast disfiguring industries on the islands. That is where Argentina, with its long coastline, its industry and so on could be of assistance. We want working together, co-operation and the gradual healing of wounds. That way lies the future prosperity of that important region.

10.58 am

I welcome the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden). Indeed, I was in the Falkland Islands at the same time as the hon. Member for Kemptown and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), although I was not there for a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit.

I arrived, not after an 18–hour journey on a Tri-star aircraft, but in a luxury cruise liner called the Hanseatic. I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that envy is an ugly sight, especially when one confronts it on the faces of one's two colleagues. However, as I told the hon. Member for Kemptown, come the socialist millennium, we shall all ride around in Rollers and wear top hats and drink champagne, although of course it will start with me.

I should like to take the opportunity to record my thanks to the governor, David Tatham, and to the chief executive, Andrew Gurr, for their hospitality and for the information that they gave me. My two parliamentary colleagues stayed much longer—we were just, as it were, a ship that passed in the night, or during the day as it turned out—but I am sure that they received the same kindness and the courteous information that I found very valuable. We had an excellent working breakfast with the governor. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), I was not keeping a note of the cost so we shall not be reading about it in The House Magazine.

I have given the subject careful consideration and I agree with every speech that I have heard so far that Argentina's territorial claim to the Falkland Islands is weak and thoroughly unacceptable. I endorse the fact that we need to continue to talk to the Argentine authorities and people. I am glad to hear that some people from the Falkland Islands are touring Argentina now and discussing matters. There seem to be many misconceptions, particularly on the part of Argentine nationals, about what is going on in the Falkland Islands.

I was told—I do not know whether it is true—that a number of Argentines seem to think that the Falkland Islands are full of Argentines, people of Spanish descent, who are being treated badly. If that is what they believe, the matter must be sorted out. One way to do that would be to allow a greater element of tourism from Argentina to the Falkland Islands. I see that some Conservative Members are shaking their heads, and I understand that that is the attitude of many Falkland islanders. The ship, the Hanseatic, could not put into the Falkland Islands on one of its previous visits, and decided to move on through, because there were too many Argentine nationals on board. That damaged the Falkland Islands economy. I can assure hon. Members that those on board the luxury liner were paying a lot of money to be there—all except myself. There is such a thing as a free lunch and I found it on the Hanseatic—I am nothing if not honest.

I must take issue with some of the points made by Conservative Members about the heroic way in which the Falkland Islands were recovered. Signals were sent out that could have led Galtieri and the Argentine Government to think that they could walk into the Falkland Islands and take them over, signals that were ignored by the Foreign Office and Ministers. It is reliably reported that the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Nicholas Ridley, said in the Falkland Islands that thought was being given to handing over the Falklands to Argentina. That caused much concern in the Falkland Islands and may have sent the wrong signals to Galtieri. We must never forget that 255 British service men and 1,200 Argentines died in a war that could have been avoided if the Ministers of the day had been listening to the signals sent to them from the Falkland Islands, including from the governor.

The signs of war are still present in the Falkland Islands. It was worrying to hear about kids being told where the minefields were. It is also worrying that bomb disposal personnel are still removing Argentine mines from the area. I hope that the Minister will say what further assistance is being given to the Falkland Islands authorities and what additional resources are being given to our military to continue to remove mines and make the place entirely safe.

Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the minefields that have been wired off in the Falklands to stop humans or donkeys straying into the area are functioning as a good nature preserve because the penguins are breeding marvellously as men and other predators cannot get into those areas? The penguins are too light to fire off the mines.

The hon. Gentleman, as he knows, has touched me on my weakest point, but even in my most conservationist mood I would not suggest laying minefields around breeding colonies of penguins to protect them. I shall think about that suggestion, but I do not think that, even in my wildest moments, I would do so. That is merely a way of demonstrating that it is an ill wind that blows no good.

One aspect that grated on me slightly was the name of one of the roads, Thatcher drive. Frankly, the fact that the Conservative Government ignored the signs at the time and the way that their popularity in this country was plummeting—Mrs. Thatcher looked as though she would be a one-term Prime Minister—meant that Galtieri's invasion of the Falkland Islands saved the Conservative party's bacon. In tribute to Galtieri for that, Mrs. Thatcher should have named Downing street Galtieri street.

In the remaining moments of my speech I shall return to the subject of the Falkland Islands and their future. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich mentioned the enormous potential of the Falkland Islands in economic terms, especially for tourism. Wildlife, particularly sea mammals, abounds in the Falkland Islands. There are more than 20 species of great and small whales, as well as sea otters and seals. I saw penguin colonies further down in the Antarctic and the rockhopper, gentoo, magellanic and macaroni penguin populations of the Falkland Islands are prospering well—perhaps thanks to the Argentine land mines. I think that the flourishing wildlife has more to do with the sensitive conservation attitude of the Falkland Islands Government.

There is the possibility of over-fishing in the area. We have heard much about the money earned—in 1994, £25 million—through the selling of licences by the Falkland Islands Government to various countries to fish there. Unfortunately, when I look at my pie chart I see that the greatest contributions come from Japan, Korea, Spain and Taiwan—perhaps four of the most unreliable and untrustworthy fishing nations on earth. That is why we should be careful.

The monitoring of fishing is carried out, under contract, for the Falkland Islands by Imperial college and the British Antarctic Survey. I have heard such stories before and I am not satisfied that people so far away can properly monitor what is happening in terms of the percentage of escapes. I do not find that convincing. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will say what additional resources he might be prepared—on behalf of the Government—to provide to the Falkland Islands to ensure that licences and quotas are adhered to and that illegal fishing in the area is restrained by all possible means.

I was worried when I heard the governor talking about the number of fur seals, particularly on South Georgia. We can see the situation developing as venal, greedy fishing fleets hoover up the sea, put pressure on the stocks and begin to destroy them. They then look round at the mammals and say that the seals are taking too much so they must wipe them out.

I have been delighted to participate in this morning's short debate. In conclusion, I send my greetings to the regulars at The Globe pub on Stanley harbour front. I hope to join them for another beer soon.

11.7 am

I must be one of the few to speak in this morning's debate who has not yet had the opportunity of visiting the Falkland Islands. Had I done so, I might have had the same specialist wildlife knowledge as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on securing the debate. For one reason or another the Falkland Islands have never been far from the news in the past 15 years. In the early 1980s the reasons for their prominence were sombre. Today, with our improved relationships with Argentina, we live in more optimistic times.

We welcome the opportunities presented by democracy in Argentina, especially since 1989. The junta that had ruled that country came to our national attention with the invasion of the Falklands in 1982, but the people of Argentina had already suffered for many years. Opposition Members have been vocal in opposing the human rights violations perpetrated by the right-wing dictatorship in the years preceding the Falklands conflict.

I live in hope that British Governments will be more consistent and vigorous in challenging human rights violations in other countries. Perhaps we will learn the lessons of history eventually, rather than allowing our arms manufacturers to trade with evil regimes only to see our own people suffer as a result at a later date.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she recall that, before the last general election, her party released a foreign policy paper which said that the Labour party believed that the future of the Falklands should be the subject of unconditional discussions with Argentina? Will the hon. Lady clarify Labour's current position and make it abundantly clear that there is no question of having unconditional talks with Argentina as that would undermine the sovereignty of the Falklands?

If the hon. Lady is a little more patient I will be delighted to clarify the situation. I make it clear that the paper was not a policy statement; it was an individual statement which did not form part of the Labour party's policy.

The Falklands war played a major part in ending military rule in Argentina, although its intention was limited to the liberation of the islands. On an occasions such as this, it is appropriate to remember all of those, both British and Argentine, who lost their lives in the south Atlantic in 1982. In the following year the radical Government of President Alfonsin were elected, but differences over the issue of Falklands sovereignty prevented discussions between our two countries. Since the election of President Carlos Menem in 1989, British and Argentine relations have improved. The new president recognised the importance of restoring relations with Britain, especially if Argentina was to develop a satisfactory relationship with the European Community.

Diplomatic relations were restored and a new framework has allowed the lifting of the Falkland Islands protection zone which has removed much of the tension from the area. The United Kingdom is now in the process of developing a co-operative relationship with the present Government. I know that I speak for all hon. Members when I offer my sincere condolences to the President on the death of his son last week. Carlos Menem, who was 26, was killed in an air crash after his helicopter hit overhead power lines.

Areas of co-operation between the UK and Argentina include peacekeeping and counter-terrorism. British and Argentine troops are working side by side in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia and in Cyprus. In the trade area, British exports to Argentina grew by 50 per cent. in 1993 and more investment opportunities are available. That is very welcome. Of course, the new relationship must also recognise that the rights and the wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands are paramount.

We desire cordial and constructive relations with the elected Government of Argentina. Provided democracy continues in that country, Labour in government will continue to talk to the Argentine Government to try to find a long-term solution to the Falkland Islands dispute. However, we emphasise that sovereignty is not an issue in current discussions with Argentina.

The future of Britain's military presence in the south Atlantic will depend on the evolution of UK-Argentina relations. However, for the foreseeable future, we do not propose or envisage a withdrawal of the UK military presence.

The major question about the Falklands' economic future involves oil. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House about any plans to commence drilling and what the revenue position would be if there were substantial oil finds, given the UK's considerable defence expenditure in the Falklands. The social and environmental impact of an oil bonanza would be enormous, and the matter clearly needs much thought. I share the concerns that my hon. Friends have expressed this morning. What plans are there for protecting the local environment, particularly plant, animal and marine life?

It is in Britain's interests to be realistic about any possible oil industry development in the south Atlantic. Effective exploitation of oil would clearly be difficult without Argentina's co-operation. It is logical to assume that oil and gas would be pumped ashore to the Latin American mainland for refining, particularly as the Falklanders—who are naturally very concerned about protecting their environment—have apparently rejected the idea of any onshore activity.

I understand that the question of oil exploration will be a matter for joint UK-Argentina discussions, which will take place along similar lines to existing dialogue on fishing and military security. Will the Minister confirm that? I ask that because, when the question was discussed in another place, Baroness Chalker said:

"it will be up to the islanders—and only the islanders—to agree the manner in which the oil industry will develop"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 February 1995; Vol. 561, c. 1114.]

What is the true position? I am sure that the Minister will bear in mind the reality of the situation in the south Atlantic and will work to ensure that all diplomatic means are pursued in order to foster a healthy relationship with Argentina in the area of oil exploration and elsewhere. More specifically, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when drilling is likely to commence and precisely how the oil management team is functioning.

The Government of the Falkland Islands have long made it clear that they wish to pay the costs of maintaining the garrison at Mount Pleasant, which at present are met by the British taxpayer. They also say that they wish to repay the British Government for the capital costs of the military infrastructure on the islands. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about those matters.

In addition, the development of an oil industry around the islands could bring employment benefits to the United Kingdom. If the industry develops, the Government of the islands will look to our oil supply industry for equipment provision. The wind-down of the oil industry in Aberdeen, which is beginning, could be compensated for by the discovery of Falklands oil.

It is somewhat ironic that the discovery of oil in waters thousands of miles away could lead to employment creation in the UK when our own North sea oil revenues were squandered in paying the costs of unemployment during the failed economic experiment of the 1980s. I understand that bids for oil licences to develop the most promising offshore areas are expected to open this month. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House which UK companies are likely to be in the running for those licences.

We are pleased to see positive developments in the areas of fishing, agriculture and land ownership taking place in the Falkland Islands and we hope that the continuance of democratic government in Argentina will allow for a gradual strengthening of co-operation between our two countries. The links between Wales and Patagonia—or Y Wladfa, as Patagonia is known colloquially in Wales—have been mentioned already. Those links have always been strong, and Welsh and Spanish are the two main languages of Patagonia.

Finally, there is one area about which we have long been concerned. We are pleased that Argentina has offered to pay a third party to clear the 30,000 Argentine anti-personnel mines that are believed to remain in the Falkland Islands. I am sorry that we do not have more details about the mines that remain. I also pay tribute to the four British service men who were seriously injured when clearing anti-personnel mines in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands conflict.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am sorry, I do not have time. That is yet another example of why the international trade in anti-personnel mines must be stopped. Following the Prime Minister's inadequate response yesterday on that issue, I appeal again to the British Government to support such moves when the inhumane weapons convention is reviewed in September.

11.19 am

In the brief time available, I shall endeavour to answer the questions raised by various hon. Members. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on obtaining this important debate. He referred to his visit to the Falkland Islands with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I know from reports that it was a fruitful series of meetings and a worthwhile trip, as we also heard from my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for undertaking the visit and for taking the opportunity to inform the House of those proceedings.

As my hon. Friend will have noticed, there is an increasing air of confidence and self-confidence in the islands. The money from fishing licences, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, has been wisely invested—both publicly in infrastructure and higher standards of health and education, and privately in increased direct involvement in fishery and in the sub-division and purchase of farms.

The Falklands is not just a very British society, but a society which is going places. A sign of that self-confidence has been mentioned in the debate—the two young islanders who have gone to Argentina to tell the Argentines politely but firmly that while the islanders want good neighbourly relations with them, that will be impossible until the Argentine Government drop their claim on their country.

The two young islanders—one male and one female—are currently in the middle of a two-week privately funded lecture tour, during which they are telling Argentines about life in the Falklands today. Their audience will realise that the islanders are as British as Members of the House. Once the Argentines accept that the islanders are British and have their own right to self-determination, relations can be built on a normal basis.

I am sure that, like me, the CPA visitors and others came back from the Falklands with a resounding message from the people of the islands that they are British now and they want to stay that way.

Contrary to the perceptions of many people, the history of the islands did not start in 1982. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), whose expertise and commitment in this area is legendary, put it precisely in its historical context. Many islanders trace their roots there back five or six generations. It is not a transitory population; they have been there without interruption since 1833 and have chosen throughout all that time to remain under the British flag.

As hon. Members will know, the Argentines continue to lay claim to the islands. My hon. Friend noted that their President goes so as far as to say that the Falklands will fly the Argentine flag by the year 2000, but the islanders have no intention of becoming Argentine.

We were particularly disappointed by the decision of the Argentine Constituent Assembly, which in 1994 inserted in its constitution for the first time a clause asserting that the Falklands were part of Argentina. Assertions that the Falklands will become Argentine are highly objectionable to us and to the islanders and we reject them and will continue to do so at every opportunity.

Despite our differences over the Argentine claim, however, our bilateral relations with Argentina on other matters have developed well since we reopened diplomatic relations in 1990. In a wise speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke with knowledge about Argentina. We now co-operate in many areas and agreements have been signed on visa abolition, cultural co-operation, investment protection and promotion, anti-narcotics and air services. A double taxation convention was initialled last year and we hope to sign it later this year.

Will the Minister give way?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have only just enough time to make my speech.

Our soldiers have served together with United Nations peacekeeping forces, as has been mentioned, and there is a regular high-level dialogue.

Political progress has been matched by closer commercial links. In 1994, our exports totalled £225 million. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, exports were up 25 per cent. on 1993.

Since the resumption of diplomatic relations with Argentina in 1990, we have been able to discuss matters of mutual interest and have agreed with President Menem's Government that we should discuss such issues without reference to sovereignty. That approach works well, but when the issue of the Falklands arises, we point out to the Argentines that they should respect the wishes of the Falkland islanders.

We have no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falklands and the right to self-determination involves respecting the wishes of the people of the Falklands. The wishes of the islanders could not be clearer, as was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. Most recently, a MORI poll in the islands, conducted at Argentine instigation, found that 87 per cent. of the islanders were not prepared to discuss the issue of sovereignty with Argentina under any circumstances.

That figure of 87 per cent. is a stark statement of the islanders' wishes and of the fact that they wish to remain British. We are committed to the defence of the islanders' rights. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when he visited the islands last April, we fought 12 years ago to sustain the wishes of the islanders to remain British, and we would do so again. There can be no compromise on that commitment.

The maintenance of the garrison at Mount Pleasant is an expensive operation. Building the port and the airfield cost some £300 million. In addition, it costs the British taxpayers some £67 million a year. We do not undertake such expenditure lightly, but we shall not be deterred from the task. So long as there is a threat, we shall commit the forces necessary to the defence of the islands.

Apart from defence, Britain is now responsible only for the islands' external relations. We lead in talks with their neighbours, Argentina, on matters of wider interest to the south Atlantic, such as fish and hydrocarbons—two issues that have been mentioned today.

In all other respects, the islanders run their own affairs through their elected councillors, and they do it well. We enjoy close and fruitful relations with the councillors, both through the governor and through exchanges of visits between London and Stanley. We also liaise closely with Falkland Islands Government officials on a whole host of matters. We appreciate those contacts, as I believe do the islanders, and we look forward to them continuing.

The economy of the islands was traditionally based on wool. That part of the economy has suffered a recent decline due to the worldwide slump in wool prices in 1990. However, the islands still produce 2,000 tonnes of wool a year and income from that source shows signs of increasing as the wool markets recover ground. The income has been sensibly invested and the return from those investments makes up another important element of the islands' economy.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the fishery. The establishment of the squid fishery has generated considerable income for the islands. The sale of fishing licences began in 1987 and has since then been the mainstay of the Falklands economy. Income until now has been from the sale of licences to foreign vessels.

Falklands companies have done well out of brokering and the provision of services, but this year has seen the first Falkland-flagged vessels entering the business. That is an excellent development and will add further to the Falklands success story. One British and five foreign trawlers have now been re-registered in the Falklands, three of them during February. The Falklands now composes one of the most significant deep-sea fishing fleets by tonnage under the red ensign anywhere in the world.

As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) the fishery has been excellently managed. It has been commended for its approach, its concern and its technique in handling conservation issues. It is managed by the Falkland Island Fisheries Department, which I was shown round in January by the able Director of Fisheries, Dr. John Barton. It is also assisted by the valuable research facilities available at Imperial college London. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I know his commitment to the issue but I do not agree that those people's distance from the position in any way undermines their expertise, their commitment or their skill.

In the management of the fishery, it is obviously desirable and sensible to talk to the Argentines with whom the islanders share stocks—a point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. The illex, to which he referred, is a particularly fragile squid stock. A co-ordinated approach means that both countries ensure that stocks are conserved for the benefit of future generations. However, we would welcome greater transparency in Argentine licensing procedures.

On oil, the prospects for exploring for hydrocarbons in the sea bed around the Falklands are a highly topical subject in the islands. It is mildly controversial in terms of its effects. I talked it over with councillors and others when I was there.

No one knows for sure whether there is oil or gas. The signs are encouraging, but no one knows for sure. Seismic surveys took place in 1993. The Falkland Islands Government passed legislation in November last year permitting further exploration. They expect to announce this summer that a licensing round will open later this year inviting companies to bid for areas they wish to explore. If oil is discovered, it could boost the economic prospects of the Falklands. The Government are actively helping the islanders to benefit from that prospective resource.

There is also an Argentine dimension. The Argentines are the islands' neighbours in the south Atlantic, and one does not embark on major projects without discussing them with one's neighbours. There will be a need for co-ordination on matters such as safety, air-sea rescue and the environment. We are discussing the possibilities of co-operation with the Argentines. We would prefer to go ahead with an agreement but that is not a precondition. At the end of the day, that will be a matter for the Falkland Islands Government.

There will be scope for the provision of equipment and services from Argentina, Chile, Brazil and neighbouring countries. The Falkland islanders also want a significant role in such support services, and we will encourage that. We will continue discussing co-operation with the Argentines, and we are of course keeping Falkland Islands councillors fully informed.

Unfortunately, I must conclude. I am delighted that we have had this opportunity—

Order. The Minister must conclude even before he thought that he would.

Training And Enterprise Councils

11.30 am

This debate must be placed in the context of decisions made in the 1993 Budget, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced proposals to cut £500 million from the Department of Employment's programme over the next three years. The training and enterprise councils' national council immediately announced that would inevitably lead to training cuts of between 10 per cent. and 28 per cent. [Interruption.]

Order. It is not appropriate for hon. Members to gather in little knots while the House is sitting.

I am grateful to my Front-Bench colleagues for emphasising the extent to which last year's cuts in training places severely damaged TEC programmes throughout the country.

One year later, the knock-on effects that are part and parcel of the Government's retreat from training are also clear. The sum of £170 million was cut from training for work projects. As a result, this year there will be 55,000 fewer adult places in that programme.

TEC budgets around the country have collapsed. Calderdale and Kirklees have lost £7.5 million, or 25 per cent. of their training budget. Staffordshire lost £7 million, Teesside lost £6.5 million, Merseyside lost £15 million, and Devon and Cornwall lost £11 million.

The Minister might argue that such cuts represent progress rather than being a retrograde step. I suspect that his response will have three themes. One will almost certainly be a repetition of the argument made by the Secretary of State for Employment in the 1993 Budget debate, when he said that

"TEC budgets are being determined by outputs—by what is achieved—rather than by what is spent."—[Official Report, 1 December 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1360.]

That is the "output, not input" argument.

The second defence will elaborate on that theme, with the claim that setting a target of 40 per cent. of trainees securing jobs marks another improvement. The third will be that 27 per cent. of trainees should be drawn from the disadvantaged—refining the quality of aid rather than stressing the quantity. The problem is not the aspirations behind targeting but the emptiness of the programme, which makes the Government's position dishonest.

We are invited to forget the cuts and to accept that there is an improved targeting regime that is the best of all worlds for the best of all programmes. Even the most cursory examination of the programme reveals that the underpinning of that argument is a lie, a folly and fraud.

I will support my claim with the example of the TEC that I know best, which is the one in Greater Nottingham. Other hon. Members will, no doubt, refer to their own areas. This year, a cut in Greater Nottingham TEC's budget from £20 million to £17 million has been announced. In Government terms, that is a mouthwatering and modest 15 per cent. reduction, but in relation to the achieved spending last year it amounts to a cut from £24 million to £17 million, which makes it a cruel and cynical 30 per cent. reduction.

The immediate impact on staffing is even harsher. The TEC has been compelled to reduce its staff from 75 to 47—a cut of 38 per cent. The Minister might argue that when unemployment falls, one can expect a commensurate cut in programmes that address the needs of the unemployed and long-term unemployed. In Greater Nottingham's TEC catchment area, 30,000 people are unemployed, 18,000 of whom are long-term unemployed. Unemployment in the city is 16 per cent. For those 18,000 long-term unemployed, the TEC will be able to deliver no more than 800 training places.

The hon. Gentleman paints a distorted picture because he does not take into account the Government money that is being ploughed into Nottingham through the city challenge project. Is not that going a long way to help training schemes and the people in that area?

I will deal with that point later, but Nottingham's experience of other Government training programmes is that increasingly they are turning into a dog's breakfast of non-co-operation between Departments and cynical manipulation of funding, to deny the city money for bids that are among the best in the country. I will address the role of civil servants in that cynical process of stealing money from meretricious projects.

TECs were flagged up as the centrepiece of Government training initiatives. If one focuses only on the long-term unemployed in Nottingham, one sees that at the current rate of funding it will take more than 22 years for this year's long-term unemployed to gain access to a training place. It may seem capricious of the Government to approach training in such a way that many long-term unemployed are likely to have an entitlement to retire before they are given a right to training. That is hardly the brightest picture of the dynamic market economy that the Government like to paint.

The Government may argue that although there are many long-term unemployed in Nottingham, they are not among the most disadvantaged in the country, but we must look a little closer. Of the gross unemployment figure, 48 per cent. of long-term unemployed in Nottingham are Afro-Caribbean. The city is home for 37 per cent. of all ethnic minority communities in the east midlands. A study of disadvantaged areas in Nottinghamshire showed that, of all of the wards in the county, 14 of the worst areas were in the city itself, in the area covered by Greater Nottingham TEC.

It may be argued that Nottingham is part of an underlying upward trend and that people will find their own prospects of employment. I refer those who want to hide behind that argument to the 1994 urban trends report of the Policy Studies Institute. In relation to employment change over the past decade, it says:

"Leicester and Nottingham … suffered the general decline in the proportion of full-time employees but did not share in the general increase in part-time employment—in Nottingham it actually declined."

That is hardly a picture of a dynamic expansion of work opportunities.

What about discrimination? Every TEC and trainer in the country says that all the evidence shows that the area of greatest resistance in taking on the long-term unemployed is among small and medium-sized enterprises. Those enterprises are not necessarily being run by people who are deeply prejudiced. It may simply be that, in terms of this leaner, fitter Britain, many of them are running on the bare bones. The problems—getting the long-term unemployed back into work—which those enterprises and trainers understand, require considerable personal and financial support. If that is so, one must devote additional resources where there are a disproportionate number of small firms in an economy.

In the Greater Nottingham area, some 15,000 enterprises offer employment on different scales, but 93 per cent. of them employ fewer than 25 people. That is the marketplace in which the long-term unemployed must be placed if they are to have job and career prospects. The support needed to deliver stable and workable training programmes for those people is greater because of the propensity of the city to be dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises. Just when we have the greatest problems and the biggest backlog of difficulties in meeting the needs of the long-term unemployed, the training budget is cut by 30 per cent., and support and staff by 38 per cent. That nails the lie to the Government's argument about a serious commitment to training.

The farce is that underfunding of training turns programmes into cruel jokes. Nationally, we know that 58 per cent. of youth trainees leave training schemes early. Fewer than half are in full-time work. Only one in 20 gets part-time work, and one in two leaves without a qualification. Instead of investment to raise standards and qualifications, cuts are made, which turn farce into fraud. I say that because there is great pressure among TECs simply to look at the outcomes that are required and to tailor the "masquerading" of training into meeting targets that simply deliver the cash. We know already that training providers have fiddled qualifications to secure funding. We also know that there is great pressure—it is recognised in the TECs themselves—to train only the trained. If the trigger point for funding is a qualification, there is growing pressure to look for people who already have qualifications, who can be put through quickie courses to meet the next stage of a national vocational qualification, thereby releasing money.

The problem is that that creates a cynicism gap in the programme. That gap is not being filled by genuine training schemes for people with special needs, who face long-term prospects of unemployment. We know that the least qualified—the most vulnerable people in the work force—have extra needs that can he met only by extra costs and extra support. Instead, TECs will he under pressure to provide short courses that lead to junk jobs. What we will see—and I have talked this through with the TECs—is that a number of employers will come up with offers for TECs to meet the target needs by offering the most cynical employment contracts or opportunities afterwards: short-term contracts, irregular hours, perhaps even finding ways of getting zero-hour contracts recognised as a job without work. The most vulnerable people outside the work force will be cynically exploited simply to trigger the cash to keep training programmes on the road.

In many ways, the new rules also reward underactivity and underperformance. The TECs that have spent their budgets on delivering training are precisely the ones that are most vulnerable to cuts. They have no reserves left to cushion cuts from one year to the next. Nor do they have the cushioning needed to do precisely what the Government often ask them to do: to get into partnership funding, whereby they have to provide matching moneys.

This is particularly important in relation to European funding. Without a cash reserve, a TEC will not be in a position to offer matching funding as part of the more generous offers of additional project-based activities, to which the Government will often lay claim. The TECs that are doing the most will be the most vulnerable to punitive cuts in their funding.

This country is systematically short-changing the unemployed. The average time that an adult receives on a skill-training course in the United Kingdom now amounts to just 20 weeks—the shortest in Europe. It does not surprise me that we see stories in the papers about hospital porters being asked to help in hip operations. We are systematically short-changing ourselves not only in the skill training that we offer but in the job security and the proper staffing needed to run the services in which we are supposedly training people to work.

The United Kingdom is also the meanest of funders around Europe. If we compare the United Kingdom, France and Germany, we can see that, in relation to labour market training as a percentage of gross domestic product, the United Kingdom spends 0.14 per cent., France, 0.39 per cent.—two and a half times more than the UK—and Germany, 0.55 per cent., which is four times as much as the UK. For the entirety of its training budgets, the United Kingdom spends 0.5 per cent, France, 1 per cent. and Germany, 1.6 per cent. This country spends less than half the average for all EC and EFTA countries on training programmes. It is little wonder, therefore, that the chief executive of the Greater Nottingham TEC should write to the Secretary of State, warning him that he is in danger of creating two-tier TECs, where only those that have cash reserves can prosper, whereas those that do not, but have been delivering decent training programmes, are in danger of being driven to the wall.

This country needs a complete rethink of our approach to training the unemployed. First, we need a commitment from the Government that they will restore funding to training programmes. I say that at a time when the country knows, even though the Government will not admit it, that the Chancellor sat on a windfall bonanza income last year when constructing his Budget. Rather than investing that money in training the unemployed he has been stuffing it in his pockets to facilitate a "bung" Budget before he makes a dash for the next general election.

Secondly, we must restore local accountability. Elected representatives of local authorities must have a say in the shaping of local training programmes. The transfer of responsibilities to unelected civil servants has been a disaster.

Thirdly, bureaucracy must be reduced. The delivery of training is now in a dreadful mess, not only in my area but throughout the country. The granting of arbitrary powers to various civil servants, allowing them to create mayhem, is a cynical joke.

I am currently dealing with the case of a young person who is on a training course to become a joiner. The college says that he will pass with flying colours; the Benefits Agency has supported him. Unfortunately, the Department of Employment has subjected him to considerable pressure, telling him that unless he takes a course in office skills his benefits will be cut. When he asked about that course, he was told that it mainly involved answering the telephone. He pointed out that he was training to become a joiner and did not envisage spending much time on the office telephone, but the Department was adamant, and has now reduced his benefit entitlement because he would not go on the office skills course. There are similar absurdities throughout the country: I am sure that other hon. Members can give examples, both absurd and tragic, of the way in which the system is falling apart.

Finally, we must restore a system in which local needs are targeted. Areas must be able to identify realistic job opportunities—examining the specific needs of their labour forces and labour markets—and find ways of tackling the backlogs caused by discrimination and disadvantage. The system must be locally accountable, rather than being run by unaccountable civil servants and bureaucracies.

I cannot describe my anger at the way in which the country and the Government have treated the unemployed. Those who currently have almost nothing can expect to receive even less.

This debate is taking place at a time when the press seems obsessed with the notion of "outing". Let me tell the Secretary of State and the Government that they themselves cannot expect to remain immune from such "outing" much longer. They have produced a succession of policies that have amounted to little more than a belief in getting their leg over the long-term unemployed: they certainly have not been giving the unemployed a leg up into decent jobs.

Order. The hon. Gentleman's language is less than elegant. May I ask him to rephrase what he has said?

Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the Government's policies have been less than helpful in returning the long-term unemployed to secure and prosperous jobs. Before too long the Government will find themselves being judged by the public: they will be "outed" in the most responsible way that I can imagine—at a general election, when the public will "out" the lot of them.

11.53 am

My area contains the Southern Derbyshire TEC, and abuts the area containing the Greater Nottingham TEC, about which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has spoken. I must tell him that I do not share his pessimism about training and the job that TECs do: I believe that TECs do an excellent job, and my belief is confirmed by the experience of all who are involved with Southern Derbyshire TEC.

It is not only the Government's function to fund training; it is the function of employers as well. When I ran a company, before the advent of TECs, we organised and paid for the training ourselves.

Does the hon. Lady support the cut of nearly £2 million in Southern Derbyshire TEC's budget in a single year? Does she approve of the fact that training in her area has been cut by 9 per cent. in one year?

I am aware of those figures, and I shall deal with the hon. Lady's points shortly. If she will restrain herself for a moment and allow me to deal first with Greater Nottingham TEC, I shall deal with Southern Derbyshire TEC a little later—and perhaps reveal another set of figures that may prove an eye-opener and make the hon. Lady wish that she had not intervened.

Who pays for training, who receives it and who benefits from it? Those issues involve a group of people and organisations. Let me inform the hon. Member for Nottingham, South that it used to be common for companies to pay for their own training; the advent of TECs has considerably assisted both those companies and the people who require training—people who are either working for the companies concerned or trying to improve their skills in order to enter the jobs market.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the length of courses. He should hesitate before deciding that long training is good training. When I was involved in training, I found that one of the difficulties was persuading young men, in particular, to remain at the college for any length of time. They wanted to learn their skills as quickly as possible, leave the college and the day-release courses and return to full-time work. Making courses too long does such people a disservice; flexibility is the key word. Training must meet the abilities and aspirations of those involved.

Before the debate, as my TEC is adjacent to that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, I looked up the most recent report of Greater Nottingham TEC. The chairman introduced the report with a statement that strikes me as considerably less pessimistic than what we have heard this morning:

"As Nottingham starts to emerge from recession, GNTEC has streamlined and rebuilt its operation … we now have the right team and the right partners to position Nottingham as one of the country's foremost regional centres."

That implies that the chairman is looking ahead positively.

The hon. Lady knows a good deal about the Greater Nottingham area, and about training in the east midlands generally. She has quoted the chairman of the Greater Nottingham TEC. Does she subscribe to his view that a £3 million cut in the budget was a retrograde step, and that the Secretary of State for Employment should reinstate the former budget?

That is an interesting intervention. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South gave a different set of figures; perhaps he and his hon. Friend should discuss the matter.

Let me point out to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that unemployment is falling substantially in both Nottingham and Derbyshire, which has benefited all who live and work there. Both TECs are becoming involved with other organisations, and gaining access to funds from organisations outside Government—and, in the case of the Greater Nottingham TEC, funds from Europe. Employers are funding more training in the areas. We should consider the funding of training in a wider context and examine the consequences of training, the way in which people benefit and the number of jobs that are being created in both our areas. Again, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that those issues are touched on throughout the Greater Nottingham TEC report, as is the number of long-term unemployed people whom the TEC is getting back into work. The figures are an excellent recognition of the quality of its work, the sort of funds that it is levering out of organisations now and the sort of funds that it is hoping to lever out in future. He and I are looking at something of a success story across our part of the east midlands, with that region being hailed as the strongest-growing region in the country. It is a significant success story, to which the TECs are contributing.

I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would simply accept yesterday's statement by Greater Nottingham TEC. It states that the cuts that it is having to deal with lead, first, to a serious undermining of the quality of training that it feels it can deliver, secondly, to the almost complete erosion of the basis on which it is able to lever additional funding because of the lack of reserves, and, thirdly, to the most enormous questions being raised about the partnerships that it is able to enter into with the private sector in relation to special needs training of people who have been out of the work force the longest.

I too have a concern about partnership funding and the way in which that helps local economies. I am aware that Southern Derbyshire TEC did very well in obtaining additional funds to assist specific groups, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because it had exceeded its targets, whereas Greater Nottingham TEC was not as well able to perform against its targets and, therefore, did not receive the additional funding that it needed for those priority groups. In relation to those specific groups, the message to Greater Nottingham TEC is perhaps that it should consider what Southern Derbyshire TEC did to benefit from its experience of how to target those groups.

On funding, clearly I cannot comment on a letter that the hon. Gentleman has seen and that I have not, but I am aware that, in the coming year, one of the key objectives of Greater Nottingham and Southern Derbyshire TECs is to obtain funds from other sectors and not just to look at Government as the one and only source of finance for training. They are not the only source. We must get away from looking down that narrow road and should consider the broader field. Certainly, small, medium and large companies outside Government consider training in a broader way, as do the further education colleges. We must also do that and accept that, as unemployment falls, funds to help the unemployed will tend to change accordingly.

Training is a partnership for all the people involved and is not just something for Government. I recognise that the Government put substantial funds into training and a great many people have benefited from that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in mine.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

If the hon. Gentleman would excuse me, I intended my remarks to be brief. I have taken three or four interventions. I wanted to speak about Southern Derbyshire TEC rather than Greater Nottingham TEC. [Interruption.]

Order. It is not for any hon. Member to challenge another as to whether they do or do not give way.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will accept what I have said and enable me to concentrate briefly on Southern Derbyshire TEC, which covers a number of local authority areas, of which Erewash is one.

Southern Derbyshire TEC has, in many respects, had many difficult jobs to do. The region's economic profile is usual for the east midlands, but perhaps unusual for the country. Southern Derbyshire's industrial history is strongly linked with many traditional industries. The region has been at the forefront of transport development. The names of Rolls-Royce and Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. are renowned world wide. Rolls-Royce has been feeling very much the competition from around the world in its field of expertise. As hon. Members well know, ABB has felt the draught of competition as well. But there has been substantial investment in the region's traditional industries, which balances the equation somewhat. Toyota built a £700 million production plant for cars. It announced last week that it was going to build another massive car plant in the region. Although there has been a shift away from traditional industries, and employment has fallen in those industries as a consequence of technology improvements, investment has continued in the region's manufacturing industry—to such an extent that manufacturing still employs about 41 per cent. of all people in jobs in the region. The number of people in the mining industry is relatively small, but the number in the services sector is starting to increase.

The region's employment pattern shows marked differences from national trends. The people employed in the engineering and textiles sectors amount to 22 per cent. of people working in the region, compared with a national total of 11 per cent. As with Nottingham, many of those people are employed in small businesses. The latest calculation showed that 83 per cent. of firms employed fewer than 10 people, which illustrates small business' powerful economic role, both in southern Derbyshire and elsewhere.

Southern Derbyshire TEC has been up and running for about four years, but people in the region still ask what the TECs do. One of the reasons why that question is asked is that the use of the word "TEC" is synonymous with so many of the old technical colleges, but another reason is that the TECs' involvement is wide and various—it takes place through so many other organisations—so it is not necessarily known that they are involved in a particular area.

Southern Derbyshire TEC has been involved in training people from school age right the way through to the older age group. It has been involved in setting the region's economic revival on a sound footing with such developments as Derby Pride, which is similar to the Nottingham city challenge scheme. It has been involved in the single regeneration budget and in putting the Derby and Derbyshire chamber of commerce on a sound footing. The TEC, therefore, has a wide involvement in the local economy; it is there not only actively as a trainer, but as a force to move and shake. But the worth of an organisation is not measured just by calculating how much is put into it. It must be measured by what comes out as well. The hon. Member for Woolwich is agitating dreadfully. I shall give way.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied that, in the region covered by Southern Derbyshire TEC, less than one third of the people completing training find their way into full-time employment?

I am slightly surprised at that. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that, out of the 82 TECs in the country, Southern Derbyshire TEC comes second in helping unemployed people find jobs. Last year, it helped some 2,000 people find work and the figure is rising substantially. When considering some of the other criteria against which a TEC's performance is judged—what is happening to the people whom it trains—we find that Southern Derbyshire TEC comes sixth in helping young people obtain qualifications. Last year, 1,340 young people gained qualifications. That information is from Southern Derbyshire TEC. It is more accurate than the information he received from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Opposition spokeswoman on employment.

I give this TEC the credit which does not seem to be coming from Opposition Members. All the hard work that it has done means that, overall, it is in 15th place among TECs. It is often common for people to think of Derbyshire solely in terms of the green and pleasant land of the Peak district, but southern Derbyshire is not like that. It is far more of a traditional industrial region. The Salford index measures the quality of life in the regions covered by TECs. Against that index, Southern Derbyshire TEC ranks about 30th, so it is placed just above half way in terms of the quality of life in the region. For it to be in 15th position when it comes to ensuring that those whom it trains find jobs and go on to do what they want to do is a creditable performance of which it is justly proud. It helps the people in the area.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I intended to make a few brief points about Southern Derbyshire TEC. I have been talking for about 15 minutes and have taken half a dozen interventions. Our constituencies are a long way apart and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to continue with Southern Derbyshire TEC.

Another aspect of the work of TECs, which has not really been touched on so far, is helping new firms get off the ground. That is fundamental to growing jobs in an area. The Government do not create jobs by waving a magic wand. The job creators of the country are businesses. The figures provided for me by my local TEC show that in the last year for which it has records—about six or seven months ago—it helped to start more than 400 firms, which is twice the number it got going two years previously. It monitors those firms to see how it can continue to assist them and keep them growing. Helping new firms get off the ground and encouraging existing companies to grow is fundamental to ensuring a strong economy and more jobs for the people of southern Derbyshire.

The recent unemployment figures for the area covered by Southern Derbyshire TEC show a substantial reduction. In my area, unemployment has fallen by nearly 16 per cent. compared with this time last year and by about 20 per cent. since 1992. There are similar falls in unemployment in the other constituencies and local authority areas covered by the TEC. That shows how jobs are being created in the area and how well the TEC is performing in training people to take up the jobs that are provided.

Another aspect of the TEC's work is the Investors in People award, which was touched on earlier. It has received the extra cash for good performance, particularly when it exceeded targets for finding jobs after training for people with disabilities and for people from the ethnic minority community. I emphasise the phrase "exceeded targets for finding jobs after training" because that is what training is all about.

I make two points relating to the Southern Derbyshire TEC and to TECs generally. First, there was an amalgamation of Southern Derbyshire TEC with the Derby and Derbyshire chamber of commerce. That amalgamation was necessary because the chamber of commerce was in financial difficulties, which was not to the benefit of the business community and the long-term prospects of businesses in the area. However, I am concerned about amalgamations in general.

I hope that any proposed amalgamation between a TEC and a chamber of commerce is considered carefully. The independence of a chamber of commerce is vital for the business community. The jobs done by TECs and by chambers of commerce are not wholly separate from each other, as they obviously cross over at the edges. However, I do not think that they will benefit from being wholly intermingled. There may be areas such as mine where it is necessary to do just that, but as a long-term policy for the business community, as represented by the chambers of commerce in this country, it would not benefit them especially well.

My second point relates to the ability of partnerships set up by the TEC. The business link is now starting to move well in the local area, as is the link between schools and companies and the involvement of lecturers with businesses. Those areas are all showing improvement and they require money. I am concerned that we are looking at capping the amount of surpluses that a training and enterprise council can generate. For example, the allowable profit margins on TEC programmes are capped at or around 7.5 per cent. I am not advocating dependency on the Government for those economic partnerships because I recognise that there must be an all-round contributory effort. However, in the early years of economic partnerships in particular, and the other partnerships that develop and assist in an area, there may be a need for more financial assistance than at later times. I hope that it will be possible at some time to look again at those allowable profit margins and at some of the constraints on TECs relating to their involvement in economic development in an area. By looking again at those rules, perhaps we will continue to assist job creation, which I am sure is what everyone wants to see.

12.15 pm

I have about five minutes, which is not long in which to accuse the Government of, at the very best, a lack of financial rectitude, and, at worst, of fraudulent trading in relation to South Thames TEC. My argument is that the Government should fund South Thames TEC and every other TEC that finds itself in similar difficulties to discharge the debts that they incurred up to such time as creditors were put on positive notice that the TEC would not be able to discharge its obligations.

The Government set up South Thames TEC in 1991 and it went bust just before Christmas 1994 with debts of several million pounds. For instance, it owes over £800,000 to my local Lambeth college—5 per cent. of its budget. It owes money to many local schools, including primary schools, as well as to organisations for the disabled and Age Concern. It left in the lurch 6,000 trainees when it went bust. As I have said, the Government should meet those debts until such time as people were put on notice about those losses.

I accuse the Government of acting in the sort of way that deserves to put them on the BBC programme "Face the Facts". I accuse them of, in some ways, acting no better than those who run disreputable phoenix companies and conmen and spivs who use the method of a limited company to deprive creditors of what is due to them. Can one imagine what would happen if ICI or one of our leading banks was to wholly fund a subsidiary company, as almost the sole source of its funds, and let that company go into liquidation leaving the most vulnerable people to pick up the pieces and face the debts?

What is more, the Government have not simply walked away from this. If there is any wreckage left in the shipwreck of South Thames TEC, the Government are grabbing it as the preferred secured creditors of that organisation. That is absolutely disgraceful. It is an example of a complete lack of financial rectitude.

The matter is even worse than that. I believe that the Government are liable for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which makes any person who is responsible for creditors being defrauded responsible for those debts in full. Why do I say that? The Government said that this was a private enterprise matter, run by private enterprise. It was not. The director, Mr. Hansen, was a former civil servant. He was in my private office when I was a Minister at the Department of Employment.

When the financial director left in August 1994 the Government knew that the TEC was in difficulties. They knew from their financial inspections between August and November 1994 that something was seriously wrong. However, they went on funding the body completely, apart from a little money from the European Union, and holding it out as discharging the Government's responsibilities. If anybody else does that, it is an act of fraudulent trading. It involves giving comfort and support to an organisation from which vulnerable people and groups—primary schools and organisations for the disabled—can derive the reasonable conclusion that the debts are being met. For the Government to grab every penny that was available from the shipwreck is disgraceful. I suppose that it is privatisation, but who would buy a second-hand policy from this Government which came originally from the Adam Smith Institute? I do not believe that any other responsible organisation would have behaved in that way.

The Government should fund the debts incurred for this reason. The TEC was not simply a trading organisation, but an organisation formed to discharge the Government's functions. One of the purposes of a Government is to look after children when they leave school, and also to educate and train people to sustain the economy. The Government have walked away from the wreckage they have created by allowing a TEC to be run badly when it was known to be in a high-risk area, and they disguised its demise in the run-up to the Christmas holiday.

I do not make the allegations of fraud, mismanagement and a lack of financial rectitude against the Minister personally, as he has come here to carry the can. I do make those allegations against the Government. I know of no creditor, from the South London Press to Lambeth college, who believes that the Government should leave people stranded as they have done. I hope that the Minister can say that the Government accept the same degree of responsibility for this fiasco as any other reputable organisation would accept for a subsidiary.

12.20 pm

There is a fairly straightforward approach to measuring a TEC's performance in relation to its funding. We can measure how successful it has been in providing training which leads to new skills and in helping to tackle long-term unemployment.

To date, the results are disturbing. Nearly half of all those who have taken training for work schemes through TECs remain unemployed some six months after leaving the schemes. Nearly 60 per cent. of those leaving training for work schemes leave without achieving the minimal qualification. The root of the problem is not so much the management of TECs as the funding policy on which they are supported. Hon. Members may remember that the present funding system was described to the Employment Select Committee by Professor Bennett of the London School of Economics as "daft".

For example, demanding that TECs make surpluses from training programmes to fund enterprise schemes for small businesses was a classic case. The effect of that was to encourage TECs to cream off those people who were easier to train, thus achieving their target outcomes. At the same time, those with special training needs—those who, I would argue, perhaps deserved greater attention—were losing out, and they continue to lose out.

The danger is that the swingeing cuts that are planned will provoke mass resignations from business representatives unless the budget policies are looked at again and, I hope, reversed. Business people will become disaffected if the only function of TEC boards is to dispense state funds to pay for training schemes for the unemployed. We must remember that the central mission of TECs was that they should be employer-led bodies for economic regeneration, and that central mission will be fundamentally compromised without adequate funding support for the innovative local initiatives that they should be equipped to produce.

I shall give a quick example of my local TEC in Hampshire, the area with the highest dependence on the defence industry of any region in the country. The Hampshire TEC must develop schemes for diversification in the local economy, and has been given the task to help the workers who, in many cases, are highly skilled but who need to diversify their talents into other industries. The TEC is working well within its own abilities and resources, but it is constrained by a lack of support and, perhaps, understanding from the Government.

Is not it a fact that, like my local TEC, the hon. Gentleman's local TEC is deeply demoralised by the cut in enterprise allowance, because that stopped it from helping new businesses to start? The TEC wanted to help people to start their own business and to go on to employ other people.

I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman's TEC, but that is certainly a key problem. There is a need for innovation in funding and a need to look beyond the immediate task of dealing with the long-term unemployed. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same lines.

Given that background, it is hardly surprising that the Secretary of State for Employment reportedly said:

"Some TECs lack credibility with the business community".

That is an important issue which must be addressed by the Government.

The Government continue to pursue funding cuts, with another £280 million forecast to be lost in the next two years. At the same time, funding for youth training and the modern apprenticeship schemes—vital investments in our future skills base—will barely keep pace with inflation.

The Government are proposing an increase in the percentage of training for work leavers gaining jobs from the present 36 per cent. to 50 per cent. in 1997–98, and that is a welcome, if modest, aim. We must question what appears to be the prime aim, which is reducing the average cost per job from about £6,500 to £4,500 over that same period. Improving efficiency of training for work programmes is clearly a responsible target for any Government, and I would endorse that, but withdrawing money that is saved from the budget instead of reinvesting it in better-quality high-skill training is not responsible.

British companies are already constrained by skill shortages as the economy is improving. With the United Kingdom facing widening skills gaps when compared with our competitors, it is the worst example of short-sighted short-termism not to invest efficiency savings from the improvement in the performance of TECs in the development of the high-skill base which is essential to our future prosperity. The drive for lower unit costs brings further threats to training quality.

Clearly, we all agree that the performance of TECs must improve, but without some form of regulatory system, the pressures of payment by results can encourage abuse. We have heard examples of that, and no doubt those pressures will lead to an increase in that abuse. There may be a temptation to take short cuts, and the potential for corrupt practices also increases.

There is widespread concern within industry and commerce about the validity of some of the national vocational qualification assessment techniques, and a reduction in funding will only heighten those concerns. Nothing can make that point more effectively than the Government's own forecasts for NVQ outcomes. In 1994–95, the estimated proportion of leavers of the training for work schemes who will have NVQs is 39 per cent. That is hardly a figure to get excited about, but the forecasts for 1995–96 and 1996–97 show that the proportion will fall from that low figure of 39 per cent. to some 30 per cent. in each of those years.

The vast majority of those NVQ qualifications will be in levels 1 and 2, neither of which is an intensive, high-skill qualification. NVQ level 1 is the equivalent of five GCSEs at a modest level, and NVQ level 2 is slightly better. The Government are predicting that, in the next two years, fewer than one in three of those leaving the training schemes will achieve a skill qualification of the standard of an average secondary school leaver. By no stretch of the imagination can that programme be described as equipping the country with the skills base that we need to compete in the world market. In that context, Professor Bennett was absolutely right to describe the TEC funding policy as "daft". The Government's failure to reinvest efficiency gains from TEC budgets in high-quality training is selling the country short.

I shall return briefly to the effectiveness of TEC funding in tackling long-term unemployment, which is a key area of the Government's policy. The economy is held back by mass long-term unemployment. Throughout 1994, the very long-term unemployed represented close to 40 per cent. of the overall total of unemployed. That is a higher proportion than at any time in the previous four years. There is no clear sign of a significant reduction in that percentage in the coming year. Therefore, the improvement in the economy has made little, if any, difference to the long-term unemployment quota. That demonstrates that long-term unemployment will not be tackled by market forces alone. We need sound, properly funded policies to develop and extend the skills base.

Some of the Government's policies have been successes, and I welcome and endorse those. The workstart pilot programmes have shown remarkable success, with employers taking on long-term unemployed people into permanent jobs. However, instead of concentrating resources and targeting cost savings on those programmes, the Government are starting more pilots. From my correspondence with the Department, it is clear to me that the Government's main aim is to reduce still further the costs of training the long-term unemployed and equipping them for meaningful employment. The schemes are training on the cheap. All the while, the long-term unemployed continue to represent some 40 per cent. of the total quota of unemployment.

There are ways in which we could tackle that problem. We could invest in benefit transfer systems to encourage employers to give meaningful training to the long-term unemployed to make them productive and worthwhile employees who can be taken on as an asset to a company. Long-term unemployment is a major challenge to TECs, but without more support and flexibility, they will lose the battle. All the while, each long-term unemployed person costs the economy £9,000 a year in benefits paid and taxes forgone.

TECs' reliance on short-term funding and the requirement that they comply with central Government restrictions discourages long-term planning and investment in high-quality training. TECs need to be restructured so that local accountability can be improved. Industry needs to continue to play a lead role. Companies must be encouraged to take responsibility in identifying and meeting local training needs, but TECs must also be more broadly based to draw in the support of small as well as large businesses.

TECs need to work in partnership with local authorities and educational and community interests. It is important to note that many small firms involved with TECs now have had no experience in training. They need to be involved to develop the knowledge and skills that go with training employees. TECs must reflect the requirements of small firms in a sector of our economy which has the greatest potential for job creation. TECs need to develop closer links with chambers of commerce to minimise duplication. They need to consult more widely with unions and local authorities.

TEC boards should be more broadly based. Members should be brought in who represent a wider section of the business community, local authorities, trade unions and the voluntary sector. We need to get a local dimension in our TECs. They need to have the flexibility to meet local needs. Ministerial controls on TEC funding need to be lessened so that we have TECs which are more responsive to local requirements.

We need to remove the anomalies in the financial support of different groups. Above all, TECs need rolling funding. They need to be enabled to plan for longer-term targets. They need to be able to concentrate on the provision of skills training for those in employment—one of their fundamental remits—and on giving support to new and growing businesses.

12.33 pm

I wish briefly to reinforce the position of the Greater Nottingham TEC. Let us look at the headline figures. In the current year, the gross budget is £24 million and the core budget is £20 million. Next year, it will be £17 million. At the lowest, that can be classed as a cut of £3 million or 17 per cent. That is on top of a cut in the previous year of £3.2 million or 15 per cent. Put another way, the budget of Greater Nottingham TEC has fallen since 1 April 1993 by 34 per cent. Unemployment has fallen, but by only 15 per cent.

I am worried about the cuts, which will affect the Greater Nottingham area. I fear that the business start-up scheme will consist of counselling only and that no finance will be available. Some £1 million has been lost to new small businesses—a sector which I thought that the Government were trying to encourage. I am particularly unhappy that the local initiatives fund will not continue next year. That brings me to my key point. TEC budgets across the country were cut from a peak in 1993–94 of £1.97 billion, by 12 per cent. in 1994–95 and by 21 per cent. in 1995–96. Budgets are being cut, but TECs are doing more. As other hon. Members have said, outputs are increasing. The consequence is—this is the contradiction for TECs—that although they are doing more for less money, their flexibility and ability to meet local needs is handicapped and hampered.

If we want TECs to be engines for change, to add value to the local economy and create jobs, we have to give them more flexibility. There are ways in which that could be done without spending any extra money. TECs ought to be allowed greater virement—perhaps up to 10 per cent.—between budget heads. There should be a refocusing on European social fund contributions and how they are handled. ESF money comes in at both national and local level. There is often confusion. If we refocus that money at local level, we could obtain extra added value. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.

We ought to work towards a single training for work budget. At present, the training budget and the allowance budget are separate. They are not both managed by the TEC. Integration could provide better impact, efficiency and value for money. A range of flexibility measures could be taken which would not cost money. They would give TECs the flexibility to act. The Minister ought to listen to this. He ought to listen to private sector TEC directors, who say to me that they are in a Catch 22 system. They want things to happen. They want change in their area, but they do not want to be merely the deliverer of the youth and adult training programmes. They want to do more and to add value to their area. They can do that only if they are given flexibility.

I wish to raise a point about a local issue affecting my North Nottingham TEC. If the Minister cannot answer today, I hope that he will write to me about it. As part of its adult training for work scheme, the TEC runs a excellent scheme called jobskills. In the past three years, 6,000 people have been through it. They have had employed status. In October, the Department of Social Security's central adjudication service ruled that participants on the scheme were trainees. Given that such trainees pay national insurance contributions, that seems most odd. They had employed status in the past, which enabled them to claim family credit. Participants or potential participants now cannot claim family credit so fewer people now go on the scheme. Far from being a successful scheme, the rate of take-up is now 20 per cent. down.

I understand that the Minister's officials are talking to other Government Departments about the matter. It is a good scheme, and it would be easy for the Government to resolve the matter. I hope that they will look into it and take it forward.

TECs are important. They are about investing in people, in education and training and in the future. We want to compete with the best in the world—with Japan and Germany. Let us invest in the TECs, give them flexibility, move forward and work for real change if and when we come out of the recession.

12.38 pm

I welcome the opportunity of the debate provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). It is a pity that many Opposition Members who had important speeches to make—there is a great deal of concern on this side of the House—were not able to speak because of shortage of time and the padding speech by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight). That is a shame.

The Opposition believe that training is vital for everyone. High skills mean reasonable prospects and low skills mean insecurity and, all too often, the dole. Everyone knows that one needs skills and one needs to be constantly upgrading them to get a job and to get on in a job. Everyone also knows that these days unemployment is not so much about why one lost one's last job, but about why one did not get the next. How long it takes to get a job depends on one's skill level. There is a clear correlation between lack of skills and long-term unemployment, so high skills are vital for everyone.

High skills are also essential for our economy as a whole. We need them to compete in today's global market, as is well recognised by businesses in this country and by other countries with more successful economies. Before the advent of information super-highways and the dramatic improvements in transport, the success of an economy, and what our economic success was built on, was access to capital and raw materials. Now, capital can cross the world at the touch of a button and raw materials can be moved anywhere.

The skills of a country's people are what gives it its competitive edge and it is because skills are so important that the wholly inadequate state of training in Britain today is so disastrous. This country is second from the bottom in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development international skills league table and we have four major problems, which I shall highlight and to which I want the Minister to respond. Those are: cuts in training courses, the poor quality of training, the collapse of the South Thames TEC and the inadequacy of training provided by employers for their employees.

There is a clear link between long-term unemployment and lack of skills, so why have the Government cut the training for work programme, which is intended for unemployed people and is supposed to give them the skills to help them get back into work? Last November, the Budget cut the training for work programme by a quarter. Those cuts will condemn the unemployed to even longer on the dole.

By the Government's own admission, there will be 55,000 fewer training for work places in the year beginning in April than there were in the current year. The Secretary of State for Employment says that, despite the cut, more people will come out with qualifications and jobs at the end of the programme. His plans, which he believes and says will improve the efficiency of training for work, do not necessitate cuts. He should be aiming to improve the quality for all people on training for work, not for 55,000 fewer trainees.

I reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about training for people with special needs. There is mounting concern about such training. By definition, they are the people who have the most difficulty finding and keeping jobs. They also need greater support during training. That must be done, otherwise they will simply be thrown on the scrap heap and their problems will be made worse.

The inflexibility of output-related funding means that it will flow to the quickest results, which means that training will go to those who can achieve and get qualifications the quickest and who can find a job the easiest. That institutionalises a bias against those who need help most—those with special needs, the long-term unemployed, who have most difficulty getting jobs, and women who want to train and work in occupations that are traditionally male. In short, it means that training for those who pay the bills fastest will take priority over training for those who need the help most.

On the variable difference between regions, the Government's figures show dramatic and unacceptable differences in funding and achievement between different parts of the country. Let me take the Minister through some of his figures and hear his response. First, on funding, let us look at training and enterprise council spending per unemployed person in the area. The TEC with the lowest funding, North London TEC, gets only a quarter of the amount that the Government give to the highest funded, South and East Cheshire. The latter gets £1,600 funding per unemployed person, whereas the North London TEC gets only £476 per unemployed person.

The top five best-funded TECs are all in areas that are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament: Cheshire, East Lancashire, Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Suffolk. The bottom five are all in areas represented by Labour Members of Parliament in London. The Minister has some explaining to do and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so today. Whether one gets training and the quality of that training should depend on one's needs and not on where one lives. It should certainly not depend on whether one lives in a Tory area that is favoured by the Government, or a Labour area that is not.

On success rates, the figures must be examined with some care because the Government's definition of a success rate begs the question of how difficult the task was in the first place. Let us consider the Government's figures. Overall, the success rates for training for work and youth training are lamentable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, 58 per cent. of youth trainees do not even complete the scheme. Half of those who complete it do not find a job at the end and half have no qualifications at the end of the scheme.

On training for work, only one in four trainees leaves to go to a full-time job. Those figures are lamentable, but on top of that there are very worrying regional variations, as 42 per cent. of trainees in North Nottinghamshire TEC programmes leave to go to full-time work—less than half—whereas in the North West Wales TEC and the Essex TEC areas, only 16 per cent. find full-time work when they leave.

What is especially worrying about the training for work and the youth training programmes is the clear gap between the success rates for black and white trainees, and we must have a response from the Minister on that. Although the results, both on training for work and youth training, are very poor, they are doubly bad for people from ethnic minorities. In London, 45 per cent. of white youth trainees leave to go to a job—less than half—but only 18 per cent. of black youth trainees leave to go to a job, which is less than one fifth. Something is badly wrong there. Government training is failing black people—the people who find it hardest to get a job. Is it any wonder that 60 per cent. of young black men in London are unemployed? Training is failing them. The picture is just as bleak on the training for work scheme for unemployed people. Overall, 24 per cent. of white people on such schemes leave to get a full-time job, but only 18 per cent. of black trainees get a job at the end of their training.

The funding has been cut, results are patchy and training is failing—it is failing black people in particular—but there is worse to come. The South Thames TEC has gone bankrupt and I totally support all the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Some colleagues, who represent Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, have been present for the debate and are very concerned about that TEC.

The Government allowed the South Thames TEC to go bankrupt and there is now no training organisation for Southwark, Lewisham, Lambeth or Greenwich. Centec and Solotec, which were supposed to pick up the pieces, have not done so. There is no contract for training in those boroughs and all the training schemes are in limbo. Millions of pounds are owed to providers who have paid out on training allowances for unemployed people on Government training schemes. But, when the TEC collapses, the Government jump back and say, "It's nothing to do with us. Everyone else will have to pick up the bill." That is a disgrace.

Southwark college is owed £400,000 and the Government say, "That's just your hard luck." Springboard Southwark, a small private training organisation, is owed £170,000 by South Thames TEC and the Government say, "Nothing to do with us." But, it is something to do with them. They set up South Thames TEC and it was running Government training schemes, so they cannot wash their hands of responsibility for training simply because they have allowed it to go wrong.

The Government have also failed to ensure that employers train. The old training levies have been abolished for all except the construction industry and many employers do not train at all, while some train only their top managers. An invaluable research project commissioned by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers from the university of Leeds showed that, even where employers spend money on training their employees, most of it is wasted. Two thirds of employees said that the training did not help them to do their job, and half said that training did not give them skills that would help them in their future career development.

New attention must be paid to training by employers. All employers should be required by law to contribute to training their work force, and employees should receive training that they find useful. The heart of the problem is that the Government do not believe that they have a role in providing training or ensuring that businesses train. They believe that it should all be left to the market, but our people and the economy are now paying a price for that failed ideology.

12.50 pm

It is traditional to congratulate the hon. Member who has gained the opportunity to discuss an issue in an Adjournment debate, and I willingly congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on that. However, that is where my congratulations end, because rarely have I heard such a diatribe, punctuated only by headlines, allegations of fraud and corruption by Ministers, civil servants and anyone else who happened to get in the firing line. His speech was totally dissociated from the reality of what is happening in training. It was in stark contrast to that of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) who, while clearly concerned about funding aspects, at least put forward some carefully thought-out proposals, to which I hope to respond briefly in the few moments that I have to reply.

This debate takes place against the background of TECs having been in operation for about four years. In that time, the benefits of changing the method of delivering Government training programmes and the range of other TEC remits have clearly borne fruit. Since the instigation of TECs, the proportion of young people leaving training programmes with a recognised qualification has doubled to 67 per cent., which is considerably more than the 50 per cent. which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) bandied about, having grasped the figure out of the air. The cost of achieving a qualification has fallen by 22 per cent., which clearly benefits everybody concerned, and the cost of getting adult trainees into jobs or further training has fallen by 25 per cent.

Although I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), his point about reducing the cost of getting a job was one not of funding but of mathematics. If the number of people getting jobs increases, the cost per job automatically declines.

A second aspect of the debate is money. This year, TEC budgets nationally, excluding allowances for training for work, will rise by some £19 million in cash terms, from £1,100 million to £1,119 million. In the next two years, expenditure is expected to rise to £1,217 million and £1,236 million respectively. I stress that those figures exclude training for work allowances. It is important to make that distinction, because TECs have no control over allowances. They are set by my colleagues in the Department for Social Security and are not part and parcel of the budget over which a TEC can exercise flexibility.

Within those totals, the increase for young people in modern apprenticeships is £117 million, which is a considerable increase in expenditure. I admit that the training for work budget has been reduced by some 13 per cent. when the allowances aspect is excluded, but what is important is the fact that we are keeping up output. It is planned that 4 per cent. more people will get jobs in the coming year out of the training for work programme. We aim to increase the current 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. by 1997-98, as none of us believes that 33 per cent. is satisfactory. Hon. Members have referred to the low achievements of the training for work programme and I happily accept that criticism, which is why we are concentrating on driving up the result to at least 50 per cent. I was encouraged by the suggestion by the hon. Member for Eastleigh that that target was not high enough. It may redouble our efforts to look more closely at the target.

A further point about budgets applies particularly to the Greater Nottingham TEC, Southern Derbyshire TEC and many other TECs to which reference was made in the debate. As no contracts have yet been signed with TECs and all the figures that have been quoted are under discussion, it would be wrong of me, at this stage, to comment on individual TECs' budgets or contracts that have not been finalised.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I am afraid that I do not have time.

Linked to that point is the fact that the total figure of £1,119 million includes considerable sums that are not allocated at this time through the contracts being discussed, the most significant sum being £41 million from the European social fund. That money, for which TECs are competing, will come into the frame. I know that Greater Nottingham TEC is competing for it, but I cannot yet foresee whether it will receive the money.

Another aspect is known as the work-related further education budget, which is some £60 million. None of that is disappearing from the training budget and £30 million has now been redirected to colleges, so although it may have come out of TECs, it has not come out of training. The other £30 million now goes into competitiveness and development funds for which TECs will bid, so it comes back into the TEC equation. In addition, some regions are keeping back small sums as contingency funds to respond to individual TECs' specific needs or exceptional performance.

Another important point is about the single regeneration budget. I was disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, South accuse civil servants of stealing money. That is a horrendous, scurrilous accusation to make against civil servants, who judged the bids for the SRB extremely carefully. I well understand Greater Nottingham TEC's dissatisfaction about achieving no benefit from the SRB this year, but it was clearly because regional office officials believed that better bids were made. Nothing stops further bids being made in the second round this autumn, when an extra £40 million will be available.

A point made several times in the debate is that the move towards output-related funding will somehow penalise those with special needs and difficulties. Hon. Members naturally draw that conclusion when they do not bother to find out what goes on, and I am afraid that that was clear in the case of the hon. Member for Peckham, with her diatribe on that subject. In reality, we have protected those with special needs. First, despite the reduced numbers overall in the programme, which we readily accept, we are ensuring that the number of starts by people with special needs will be maintained and will increase as a proportion of the total. Secondly, the funding allocated to people with special training needs is substantially enhanced. I do have time to go into all the details, although I am happy to provide them. In many cases, funding is double the amount that goes to someone without special needs. It must be recognised that, in this contract round, measures have been taken to protect those with special needs.

The hon. Member for Sherwood wanted me to respond to two or three points. The first was about rising outputs, the need for flexibility and greater virement possibilities. We will consider those matters. I am anxious to ensure that TECs have all the flexibility that we can possibly give them, commensurate with our accountability to the House for public money. I was interested in what he said about a single training for work budget. I also agree that TECs are not just for deliverers of training—they have a whole enterprise culture to develop.

I am rapidly running out of time, but I should like to reply briefly to what the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Peckham said about South Thames TEC. I have put it on record in an earlier Adjournment debate that no trainee has been left in the lurch. Every trainee has been able to continue his or her programme. It was complete nonsense for the hon. Member for Peckham to suggest that we have ditched trainees. We have made the future of training programmes absolutely central to our policy.

Housing (Uttlesford)

1 pm

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate the debate. It is a tale of unwanted housing, which has arisen from an airport, which was, at least in the beginning, unwanted.

Opinions about the value of Stansted airport may have changed in the intervening years. Many people are grateful for the work opportunities that it provides. Others are finding it convenient to start some of their journeys from that airport. I pay tribute to the airport's operator, BAA plc, for its efforts to build links with the local community, so that the airport is more accepted than it was when the prospect of major development was first suggested.

There is absolutely no doubt about the steely determination throughout the district of Uttlesford that the rural nature of our district, which is undoubtedly the most picturesque part of north-west Essex, should not be scarred as a result of urbanisation. For that reason, the very term "airport-related housing" raises hackles throughout the district.

I have three questions to put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. First, the amount of airport-related housing currently prescribed in line with the projected development of Stansted airport is now undoubtedly subject to question. What is the scope of Uttlesford district council's options in terms of whether it is entitled to seek a second inquiry in relation to the final determination of the matter? Is the overall system for the inspection of local plans totally fair to all the parties affected by them? Had the decision taken by Uttlesford district council been different from that which is now subject to final comment, I would still be asking almost identical questions on behalf of other constituents to those that I have just posed. No one throughout Uttlesford district is particularly keen to have a large number of houses built, especially when those houses are deemed to be airport related.

There is no doubt that memories have faded since the original airport inquiry took place. After all, it is now 14 years since the issues were first discussed. One of the principal reasons for our original opposition to large-scale development at Stansted was that it would lead to urbanisation. We knew that it meant more housing would need to be built. Now that hard decisions must be taken about the amount and location of that housing, I am getting many inquiries about whether, after those intervening years, and given what we now know, the need is still as great as it was when the issue was first discussed and argued. It was originally determined that 2,500 houses would be needed if Stansted is given permission by the House to increase the number of passengers it handles from 8 million per annum to 15 million per annum. That housing was designated for Uttlesford alone, although other houses were to be built in neighbouring districts. That figure was later adjusted to 2,175, only by virtue of adding 325 houses to airport-related development decreed for Dunmow, as part of the first tranche of airport development.

Many of my constituents, in whatever part of the district they live, now question the scale of airport-related housing which was originally determined. They question whether the assumptions about the productivity at the airport are still valid and whether the proposed urbanisation is still required. They also ask whether the ideas propounded in planning policy guidance 13, published as recently as March 1994, suggest that so much housing should not be as close to the airport as originally planned when the figures were first worked out.

It was decided at regional level that the east-west axis of the Al20 should be the general location of the airport-related housing. That was in contradistinction to the north-south axis of the M11, which was seen purely as a corridor of communication, not as a corridor of development. Had the Al20 even been started, let alone built by now, that would have given greater credibility to the sites discussed—whether subsequently rejected or proposed—for airport-related housing. I would be encouraged if my hon. Friend could put the squeeze on his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport, so that we can be more certain about when the new Al20 will go ahead. Without it, some of the decisions that have had to be taken about housing seem even more mysterious to the people affected.

The second major issue to which I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention is the way in which Uttlesford district council has dealt with the problem. It is the most invidious task that it has had to face in years. It knows that even if it had consulted all the parishes within the district on how they would like to contribute to an agreed solution to the problem of where to place those 2,500 houses, it would have been impossible to come to any decision. The decision had to be taken by the elected members of the district council and they tried do so as objectively as possible. First, they asked their planning officers to present a scheme to cope with the proposal. That resulted in the original suggestion of 1,400 houses at Felsted and 1,100 houses at Takeley. Naturally, that was bitterly resisted. An amended plan from the council included two other sites and reduced the number of houses designated for Felsted and Takeley. At the crucial council meetings, those alternatives were rejected in favour of putting all the 2,500 houses—later amended to 2,175—at a single site, Easton Park. That proposal formed part of the local plan, which was subject to inspection.

As a result of the inquiry, and because the inspector recommended that the council should reconsider a four-site solution, although a slightly different one from that originally considered, many of my constituents in the affected areas are now asking whether further consideration should be given to the proposal, so that they can have more of a say. It is a question of how one interprets the guidance published by the Department of the Environment. The crucial passage is as follows:

"The Secretary of State advises planning authorities to hold an inquiry where objections raise matters which were not at issue at all at the earlier stage. This may arise, for example, if it is proposed to substitute an entirely different proposal for one which was in the plan as considered earlier, so that the objections made to the proposed modification include new evidence."

It is not apparent to me whether that means that a recommendation by an inspector upsetting what was in the original plan constitutes the new evidence, or whether that refers to something wholly different in the plan. However, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would throw some light on whether Uttlesford district council interpreted the guidance correctly in respect of its decision about holding another inquiry into placing houses on the four sites instead of the single site.

The third issue is the system as a whole. I have aggrieved constituents who feel let down by the system for the examination of local plans. Some of the most pertinent questions that I have been asked came in a letter from one of the district councillors for Felsted and Little Dunmow, Mr. John Berry-Richards, and which he also asked the Secretary of State. May he please be told who draws up the terms of reference for such an inquiry? Is it usual to decide that some representations are rejected at the pre-inquiry meeting? Is it usual for the inspector to make specific recommendations in the event of his being unable to support the preferred options? In the event of the inspector making recommendations that affect those people not permitted to make representations, what recourse is open to them?

There are other letters, whether they come from Takeley, Birchanger, Little Dunmow or Felsted, saying more or less the same thing. Although the inspector allowed the proponents of the Felsted development to make their case, he refused to hear representations from the communities that would be affected.

"Living where I do,"

says a lady,

"I would be pleased to be able to put forward my views as would many other people living in"

the area,

"since we were not allowed to have our say at the Enquiry in 1993."

Felsted parish council could be speaking for Takeley parish council or Birchanger parish council when it says:

"One of these sites … will have an enormous impact on our village and yet neither this Council, nor any of its residents, were allowed to question the evidence presented to the Public Inquiry".

The words "undemocratic" and "unfair" pervade a great many of the letters that I have received. Those people in the districts where it is now determined that the airport-related housing will be did not have their own opportunity to express their feelings about the matter directly, orally, to the inspector at the inquiry. It is understandable that they feel that they should have been heard, in the light of the undoubted impact that they believe that such housing would have; anyone else in the district would feel exactly the same if the decision had gone against them.

I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to satisfy my worried constituents that the need for airport-related housing remains valid on the original assumptions, that Uttlesford district council has correctly interpreted the guidance from the Department of the Environment, and that the system not only allows justice to be done, but allows it to be seen to be done. At the moment, many people in Birchanger, Little Dunmow, Felsted and Takeley are not convinced.

1.13 pm

I welcome the opportunity to discuss a difficult local problem. Uttlesford district council is planning to provide for housing that would be needed for the expansion of Stansted airport and the jobs that it will bring to the district.

I am abundantly aware, as is obvious, of the great anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and many of his constituents about that issue, and I congratulate him on the explicit and emphatically clear way in which he has expressed those anxieties in his speech. He made an apposite point when he said—I forget the phrase—something along the lines of, "People always express considerable concern when the decision goes against them."

Before I respond to the anxieties described by my hon. Friend, it may be helpful if I briefly provide the background to the issues and mention some of the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned as background.

The Government are committed to a planning system that tries to ensure that land is used for purposes that meet the wider public interest. The key to that is the development plan. Our national planning policies underpin the whole system. A framework of regional planning guidance is built on that basis. Within that framework—in the shire counties—county councils construct strategic plans and district councils develop those strategic visions into local planning policies, some of which allocate specific sites for specific purposes.

We believe in involving local people in the process, not just those concerned with promoting development or specific interest groups in the plan area, but the local people who will be affected by the plan's proposals. To aid that, the plan-making process allows for formal public consultation at several stages from the first draft to the final amendments. I shall follow the Uttlesford local plan through those stages in a moment, but every local plan, as Members are aware, is a jigsaw of interlocking needs and choices over forthcoming years, and often represents a balance between a range of interests and viewpoints.

Once adopted, the development plan gives a measure of certainty to local people and would-be developers about what types of development are acceptable in specific districts. Planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless there are very strong reasons why they should not.

As we have chosen a system that encourages consultation, we must accept that, as a result, plans can take several years to progress from first thoughts to adoption and use for development control decisions. However, it is in everyone's interests to put the development plan in place. We have committed ourselves to complete coverage of local plans in the shire counties and unitary development plans in the metropolitan boroughs by the end of 1996. To date we have much more than 60 per cent. coverage, so I am confident—or reasonably confident—that we shall get close to the target.

I therefore welcome the progress that has been made on the Uttlesford district local plan, although I understand very well the specific worries expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and some of his constituents about the allocation of substantial numbers of new houses to meet projected future needs. That is the major issue in that local plan.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, the need for housing in Uttlesford is closely linked with the projected expansion of London Stansted airport. As London's third main airport, Stansted is intended, in part, to relieve pressure on the heavily used Heathrow and Gatwick airports.

Stansted has already grown significantly since its terminal complex was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in 1991. By August 1994, it welcomed its 3 millionth passenger of the year, and it has the capacity to handle 8 million passengers a year.

Four thousand extra houses are already planned to meet the needs of airport workers and related businesses, spread between Uttlesford, with 900, Harlow with 1,100 and Bishop's Stortford, with 1,000. Many of those have already been built or are under construction. Even more growth at Stansted is expected and planning permission has been granted for the second phase of growth, from 8 million to 15 million passengers per year. However, that is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament of an order increasing the current limit of 78,000 air traffic movements per year.

We recognise that the airport is currently expanding at a slower rate than was first expected. The planned increase to 8 million passengers per year is unlikely to take place before the end of the 1990s.

In October 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced his unilateral decision to allow United States and United Kingdom airlines to operate unrestricted transatlantic scheduled flights from all UK regional airports, and urged the US Government to respond positively to the offer. The decision could bring substantial benefits for London Stansted airport, among others. Several US airlines have expressed an interest in using Stansted, and the airport's managing director has predicted that that relaxation of the rules governing transatlantic scheduled flights might lead to a big increase in the number of people employed at the airport.

It is, as I think has been outlined, a picture of expansion, of enhanced job prospects and a boost to the local economy, but that projected growth would have consequences that local planning authorities cannot ignore. It is estimated that, in time, a further 6,000 houses would be needed to accommodate those who would take up the jobs that the continued expansion would provide. It has been suggested that, because the growth of Stansted has not been as rapid as initially predicted, that housing may not be needed after all. We recognise that nobody can put precise figures on future growth, month by month and year by year, because it depends on demand for flights and controls over air traffic movements. But if we encouraged the county council and the district councils to defer considering the consequences of the national decision on airport expansion, we would be acting irresponsibly.

Forward planning is essential, and it is clear that suitable provision needs to be debated and identified through the local plan process. The Essex county structure plan's first alteration proposed to spread the provision between Uttlesford, with 2,500, Bishop's Stortford, with 1,500, Braintree, with 1,000, Chelmsford, with 500, and Colchester, with 500.

Uttlesford district council put its deposited draft local plan out to public consultation in April 1992. That plan looked ahead to the year 2001. It proposed that the 2,500 dwellings needed for the future growth of Stansted airport should be grouped in a new settlement at Little Easton, to be known as Easton Park.

As my hon. Friend is aware, a public local inquiry was held into objections to the plan between May and October 1993. The inspector who conducted the inquiry was in no doubt about the importance of Stansted to Uttlesford. In the introduction to his report he says:

"In the Airport Uttlesford contains an economic engine-room of previously unparalleled local proportions".

He continues:

"I would hazard a guess that there is no other comparable rural area currently engaged in the local plan system which is obliged to consider the promise of such rapid change".

The inspector who conducted the inquiry was not convinced that the small new settlement proposed was the best solution. He recommended instead that the housing be distributed among four smaller sites—650 dwellings at the Felsted sugar beet works, 825 at north-east Takeley, 400 at Rochford nurseries and 625 at Buildings farm, Great Dunmow. It appears that he reached that view after hearing evidence on the Little Easton proposal and alternative sites. As my hon. Friend has said, the inspector declined to hear counter-objections to the alternative sites that were put forward. But he did take into account the written evidence presented. His report discusses the merits of all the sites in some detail.

The inspector is clearly aware, as his report says, that

"Felsted and Takeley are keenly opposed by local people".

He draws attention to the nature of the various sites, whether high-quality agricultural land in the case of Easton Park or more neglected commercial, or even brown, sites in the case of Felsted sugar beet factory and Rochford nurseries. He considers the nature of existing settlements, development pressures, environmental conditions and traffic impacts.

The inspector reaches the conclusion that the four-site solution is consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and is fair in the sense that the impact of the additional housing would be spread across a wider area of the district at a scale which would not be significantly out of step with the most directly affected communities. He says that, of all the options before him, the combination of the four sites would cause the least intrinsic damage to the range of wider public interests that the planning system strives to protect.

The district council accepted the inspector's recommendation and published modifications to the plan, which provided for the housing associated with the growth of Stansted to be located in the four areas identified by the inspector. Those modifications introduce new policies into the local plan which require the layout and phasing of development at each of the four locations to follow principles set out in an overall master plan, which would form the framework for the consideration of planning applications. Each plan is to be approved by the council only after full public consultation, which means that local residents will be given the opportunity to express their views on the details of the development proposed for each site. That requirement for public consultation is not a suggestion buried in a footnote somewhere; it is built into the text of the policies.

Objectors to the proposed modifications wanted a second public inquiry to reopen the debate on the alternative housing sites. However, after considering those objections, the council decided that no new matters had been raised and a second inquiry would not be justified. That is probably correct, in that it was a local plan and the local council, the local people's representatives, should make the decision. The council has now given formal public notice of its intention to adopt the modified plan on or after 14 April.

As my hon. Friend explained, objectors remain dissatisfied with the council's decision. They also question whether the first inquiry was conducted properly. The conduct of the inquiry is a matter for the inspector and evidence is heard at his discretion. Local plan inspectors report to the local planning authority, not to the Secretary of State, so he has no formal jurisdiction over the procedure adopted at the inquiry.

My hon. Friend draws attention to our planning policy guidance note 12, which provides advice on the conduct of all stages of the local plan process. That guidance has been reproduced in a booklet "Development Plans: What you need to know", which is aimed at the general public who want to be involved. That guidance considers the circumstances in which a second public inquiry may be necessary into a local planning authority's proposed modifications to its local plan. That is an important issue.

The guidance states:

"an inquiry into objections will be necessary only in exceptional circumstances, and it will not normally be necessary to hold a further inquiry into matters already considered. That includes instances where there are objections to modifications not proposed by an authority in response to the Inspector's report. The Secretary of State advises planning authorities to hold an inquiry where objections raise matters which were not at issue at all at the earlier stage. This may arise, for example, if it is proposed to substitute an entirely different proposal for one which was in the plan as considered earlier, so that the objections made to the proposed modification include new evidence."

I hope that that answers some of the points that were raised.

The guidance does not say that a second inquiry should be held in every case where a different proposal is substituted for one in the original plan. It all depends on the extent to which there is new evidence—that is the crux of the matter. In every case where that question arises—and it arises not only in Uttlesford—we must decide whether the issues are "matters already considered" or

"matters which were not at issue at all".

Of course, there is not always a straightforward answer of yes or no—in fact, the phraseology is not too straightforward either. It may well be a matter of degree—was the consideration given to an issue satisfactory and sufficient? While my hon. Friend has concerns on such issues, it is clear that the inspector was satisfied that he had sufficient information to make a recommendation in favour of the four sites, and that Uttlesford district council considered the written objections to those sites before reaching the conclusion that a second inquiry should not be held. But those objectors, from Felsted and elsewhere, did not have the opportunity to cross-examine on the case for development in their villages.

My hon. Friend asks whether we can help his constituents and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene in the Uttlesford district local plan. The Secretary of State has the reserve power to call in all or part of a local plan for his determination and to arrange a further inquiry. That power has not, to date, been used. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that such action would cut across the thrust of the planning system. We want to take the local plan process out of the hands of the local planning authority only in extreme circumstances.

It might be suggested that the issue is a national one that justifies the Secretary of State's intervention because it springs from national decisions about airport capacity. I accept that there may be a measure of truth in that. But once such national decisions have been taken, it is surely right to leave it to the local people—in this case, the local district council in particular—to determine how those decisions should be implemented locally.

I understand and sympathise with the concerns of those of my hon. Friend's constituents who consider that they have not had the opportunity to express their views in public debate as well as in writing. Irrespective of what the outcome of that debate would have been, I can understand that the experience has left them unhappy with the local plan process. But I am not persuaded that the formal intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Uttlesford district plan would be justified.

There are two possible avenues for those who are unable to accept the modifications which the council has made to the district plan. They may be unable to accept the modifications over the allocation of Stansted-related housing, either because they oppose one or more of the four sites chosen, or because they positively support the original Little Easton site. The first is to seek redress in the courts, either to prevent the council proceeding to adopt the district plan or by mounting a legal challenge to its adoption. I believe that some are contemplating that, and they will of course want to take legal advice before they proceed. I recognise, of course, that legal action is not an avenue which everyone will want, or can afford, to take.

Some might prefer the Government to short-circuit the process by saying that the local planning authority's decision was flawed. But we have no powers to do that; and in any case we have no locus to substitute our judgment on these complicated issues for that of the local authority.

The second course of action is to seek to influence the development briefs for the individual housing sites when they become available for public consultation.

Baby Milk

1.30 pm

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of the advertising of manufactured baby milk. I do not propose to speak for every minute of my allotted time because I have agreed that it would be appropriate to allow a contribution from the Labour Front Bench. That means that I shall not give way during my short speech.

As a male Cow and Gate baby, I speak on this subject with some diffidence. However, I recognise the importance of the subject, and particularly the pressures that women often believe are placed upon them in connection with it.

In 1981, the British Government signed the World Health Organisation international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes. The purpose of the code is to ensure that all carers, health workers and especially mothers receive totally impartial information and are protected from commercial pressures, to enable them to make informed decisions about feeding infants. It should be recognised that that information must include appropriate facts about artificial milk products, as not all mothers are able to breast-feed their babies successfully.

In 1990, the Government signed the Innocentri declaration, which committed them to

"taking action to give effect to the principles and aim of all the articles of the International Code … in their entirety".

It also committed the Government to enacting

"imaginative legislation protecting the breastfeeding rights of working women … by the year 1995".

The Government White Paper "The Health of the Nation" called for an increase in the rate of breast-feeding in the United Kingdom. That call was widely welcomed. The Government continued to pay lip service to breast-feeding promotion by supporting the World Health Assembly resolution No. 47.5 of 9 May 1994. We were given one last reason to trust the Government's concern for breast-feeding over bottled formula when they released a proposal for draft regulations in December 1993. The proposals came close to meeting the criteria set out in the international code, although not completely.

However, the true measure of a Government's commitment is in the legislation that they pass. According to that standard, the Government have fallen far short of the promises and alleged commitments that they have made over the past 14 years in their 1995 regulations—Statutory Instrument No. 77—which have been in force for three weeks.

The proposed regulations met with mostly positive responses, despite some calls to strengthen them. The only calls for the draft to be weakened came from baby food producers and their advertising agencies. The Government answered their call with the present regulations, which allow advertising to mothers via

"publications specialising in baby care and distributed to women through the health care system".

Advice was obtained from 48 health, consumer and development organisations, including UNICEF, the British Medical Association, the British Paediatric Association, the Health Visitors Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the National Consumer Council and the National Childbirth Trust. However, their views were dismissed. The international code, to which I referred earlier, provides in articles 5.1 and 6.3 that

"There should be no advertising or other form of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of this Code … No facility of the health care system should be used for the purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code".

However, the international code does not preclude the dissemination of information to a very restricted group—health care professionals.

Regulation 17 of the new law flatly contradicts that code. It states:

"No person shall publish or display any advertisement for an infant formula except in a publication specialising in baby care and distributed only through the health care system".

That is very different from disseminating information only to health care professionals. For example, leaflets may be picked up in any doctor's surgery, clinic or hospital.

Putting aside the Government's policy U-turn, it is correct in this debate to address the reasons why internationally agreed restrictions on milk advertising are necessary or advisable. The most important reason is that breast milk is significantly better for infants than manufactured formula. In 1994, the standing committee on nutrition of the British Paediatric Association stated:

"evidence convincingly indicates that … significant advantages in cognitive assumption have been associated with breast feeding".

Gastro-enteritis and other common infections are less likely among breast-fed babies. Breast-feeding is also better for mothers as it may reduce the risk of pre-menopausal maternal breast cancer. They are just three examples of the many advantages of breast-feeding which are set out in scientific evidence.

The manufactured baby milk industry spends quite a lot of money on advertising. According to the information available to me, it spends between £5 million and £7 million. That translates to about £6.40 per baby. The Government spend between £100,000 and £150,000 on promoting the advantages of breast-feeding, which translates to a measly 20p per baby. It is not a very equal contest.

If the Government were to persuade more mothers to breast-feed, it would save a lot of money. Based on the widespread health benefits of breast-feeding, UNICEF estimates that the national health service in England and Wales would incur an additional cost of £560,000 for treating infants with gastro-intestinal illness for every 1 per cent. reduction in the number of women electing to breast-feed. In other words, breast feeding saves the NHS a lot of money.

The new regulations permit advertisements for formula in

"publications specialising in baby care and distributed to women through the health care system".

One presumes that the Government would argue that that allows mothers access to information on the relative contents of different brands of formula and thus enables them to make an informed choice. However, one has only to look at the information that is provided to see that that is not so. If the scientific information were disseminated widely, it would tax the most expert on the subject. That is why it is important for advertising to be restricted to those professionals who are best qualified to advise mothers on an objective basis.

That a ban on the advertising of baby milk formula would make a significant difference to breast-feeding rates is evidenced by the three European countries which have little or no advertising of manufactured baby milk products. The breast-feeding rate in Norway is 99 per cent., in Sweden it is 97 per cent. and in Denmark it is 98 per cent. On the other hand, in countries where the bulk of information about breast-feeding and formulas comes from the manufacturers of those formulas, the rate of breast-feeding is alarmingly low. In Scotland it is 50 per cent., in France it is 50 per cent. and in Ireland it is a miserable 31 per cent.

The advertising of infant formula in the health service is simply unacceptable. The national health service is no place for mothers to be turned on to a product that is not as good for the baby as the mother's own breast milk and not as good for the mother as giving her own breast milk.

Brand name advertising is selective. It reaches mothers at an early stage with information packs, free gifts and even videos going to maternity wards. Manufacturers provide only the information that they want to be known, and it is not impartial. It is the responsibility of the health service and of the Government to provide impartial and unbiased information. We must keep it in mind that a ban on advertising would not deny anyone the right to buy baby milk if they chose to do so; it would just make it more likely that they would seek balanced, expert and professional advice before they chose to use manufactured milk.

Our responsibility is to protect the best interests of those people who are unable to exercise their own personal choice—the babies. That is the reason for this debate.

1.40 pm

I was astonished to discover that I have to speak from the Back Benches in an Adjournment debate.

Order. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that Adjournment debates are Back-Bench debates.

I was not challenging your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has allowed me some time in his debate because he has raised an extremely important issue. He made a very good case and I endorse everything that he has said in his peroration. However, I should like to add one or two points, which need stressing.

The Government's draft proposals found favour, with virtually no dissent. I understand that, out of 231 letters sent, 216 replied in favour of a ban on advertising baby milk. It seems odd that the Government should carry out a consultation exercise and then not listen to the views of the professionals, which include 48 major health and consumer bodies, among them such organisations as the British Paediatric Association, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors Association. All those organisations are concerned about the health of the infant and not about selling baby milk. They are concerned about giving women an informed choice, thereby providing them with the opportunity to give their children a better start, better health and all the other advantages of breast-feeding.

Article 6 of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes produced by the World Health Organisation, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, states:

"No facility of a health care system should be used for the purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code."

That is precisely what the infant formula follow-on regulations do—they allow the advertising of products for sale within the health care system and during the most vulnerable period for mothers who do not have the opportunity to exercise an informed choice.

Last year, I visited the special baby care unit in my constituency and I was horrified to discover that, although the mothers of those babies were able to express sufficient breast milk to feed them while they were in intensive care, as soon as they went home the majority of mothers stopped breast-feeding. Women are under great pressure not to breast-feed, and advertising which juxtaposes slogans saying that breast-feeding is best with the logo of the baby milk company is effectively saying, "Breast milk may be best, but you cannot harm your baby by feeding our formula." That is the wrong message. The message should be, "Feeding breast milk substitutes harms you and your baby."

Obviously, in some circumstances it is necessary for a substitute milk to be used, but they represent a tiny minority of cases. The vast majority of babies do better and gain advantages from being breast-fed.

By producing the regulations and not banning the advertising of formula milk, the Government have ignored the demands of 48 major United Kingdom health and consumer bodies. They have broken their agreement on the 1981 World Health Organisation code and, more importantly, they may have created serious dangers to the health of babies. The latest evidence suggests that breast-feeding not only protects babies against gastro-enteritis but affects long-term brain development, with a significant difference between the brain development of breast-fed and baby milk-fed children.

We are not anti-choice. Mothers must be given information, but it must be unbiased and mothers must take decisions based on the health of their children and on their own future well-being. We have heard how much money is spent on promoting breast-feeding, which I thought was nearer 9p per nursing mother, but baby milk manufacturers spend more than £6. That is ridiculous, but it shows how much pressure is being brought to bear on mothers to give their babies baby milk rather than to breast-feed.

Finally, we demand a full debate on the matter at the earliest opportunity. It should at least be considered in Committee, so that all the issues can be fully discussed, rather than in Adjournment debates, in which we are happy to take part, but which cannot fully examine all the pros and cons. The Government have made a serious mistake. They should change their mind and ban infant formula advertising as soon as possible.

1.46 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

(Mrs. Angela Browning)

Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest in that I am a mother and a mother-in-law. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for raising the subject. As a self-confessed Cow and Gate baby, he seems to have been nourished by, and thrived well on, the product. There is a great deal of interest about the subject. United Kingdom regulations, which include controls on the advertising of baby milks, were laid before Parliament on 16 January and came into force on 1 March.

I find it ironic that today the Government have been criticised for not going far enough because they have failed to ban the advertising of infant formula. Only last April, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who was previously responsible for these matters, replied to a debate in the House and was criticised for going too far in proposing in the draft regulations to ban the advertising of infant formula to mothers.

The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), who initiated that debate, represented the constituency in which Cow and Gate had its factory.

That simply proves what a marvellous product it was for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.

Having been criticised from both sides, it seems that the Government have steered the right course in the regulations. With that in mind, I should like to set out for the House some of the background to the issue before I deal with the specific points that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the World Health Organisation code. The United Kingdom fully supports the aim of the code, which is to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants by the protection and promotion of breast-feeding and by ensuring the proper use of breast milk substitutes.

I should clarify the fact that we totally endorse the need to encourage and inform on breast-feeding. We accept that it is the ideal method of feeding new-born babies. All mothers have to choose when to switch their babies from breast milk to powdered milk and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, some mothers cannot breast-feed. Adoptive parents and other small minority groups have also to be considered. I would not wish those women to be stigmatised or made to feel second-class mothers by any of the comments in the debate today.

Individual countries were left to decide how best to implement the recommendations of the WHO code. The UK Government decided that that could best be done through industry self-regulation. Following consultation with interested parties, a voluntary code of practice drawn up by the industry, in consultation with my Department and UK Health Departments, came into being in 1983, which gave effect to the WHO code's aims and principles. However, in the mid to late 1980s, the European Community started to consider the introduction of legislation, which is much tighter than a code. In 1991 the EC adopted directives on the composition, marketing and export of infant formulas and follow-on formulas.

While the EC directives implemented the aims and principles of the WHO code, they do not adopt its provisions in every detail. More importantly, the UK is required to implement the terms of the EC directive, not those of the WHO code. In the usual way, the Government considered the terms of the EC directives and drafted regulations to give effect to the directives in the UK, and a draft of the proposed regulations was issued for consultation in December 1993. The consultation generated a considerable response, most particularly about the extent of proposed controls on the advertising of infant formula.

Article 8 of the EC directive, which deals with advertising, states:

"advertising of infant formulae shall be restricted to publications specialising in baby care and scientific publications. Member states may further restrict or prohibit such advertising."

That article's implementation led to this debate.

In July 1992, long before the draft regulations were issued for consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, in answer to a written question, announced:

"The Government are committed to ensuring that the existing restrictions on marketing and advertising are, at least, maintained."—[Official Report, 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 680.]

Bearing in mind that commitment, the Government thought it only right at least to explore other options in the draft regulations.

The draft regulations proposed that the controls on advertising should be far reaching, allowing advertisements to appear only in magazines whose intended readers would be professionals involved in maternal and baby care. It was no surprise that these proposed controls generated a considerable number of responses to the consultation from the public and from many hon. Members. In fact, the regulations were the subject of an Adjournment debate last April.

In the main, reaction was split between two opposing views. One view was that, while supporting the advertising controls proposed, the Government should go even further and use the directive's option to its fullest extent to ban all advertising of infant formula. The opposing view was that we should not use the option at all and should stick to the minimum controls required by the directive.

The latter view drew attention to the Government's policy of deregulation and to the thrust of my Ministry's legislative programme—to introduce regulation as a last resort. There was also a strong feeling—one that I share—that such strict controls would impinge on a mother's right to have access to information. I emphasise that, in essence, we are putting into statute a provision that has existed in voluntary form for some time. That means professionals will give the advice.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Does he not think that midwives, health visitors and similar people are professionals? They are the people who will vet whether material is appropriate to be sent to mothers. My colleagues in the Department are working hard to ensure the success of the campaign to put before mothers the positive benefits of breast milk, and that is the right way to go. However, the debate denigrates that part of a woman's body from her shoulders to the top of her head. It assumes that women do not have the intelligence or the nous to form an opinion for themselves. Most of the professionals giving that opinion are also women.

Are Opposition Members who contributed to today's debate really saying that midwives and health visitors should not be allowed to see an advertisement for a product that is on sale in every chemist and Tesco branch in the country? One would think that it was a banned substance. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery comes from a party that is constantly asking for deregulation of banned substances. He seems now to want to ban a substance that is available to anybody to purchase in any shop in the country.

That point was rather unworthy of the hon. Lady, particularly as I am personally opposed to the deregulation of the substances that the hon. Lady has in mind. She has been a little less generous than she should have been, given the spirit of the debate. My case is not that mothers are unintelligent or that professionals will not receive the information. It is that, under the regulations, it will be possible for freely available advertising material to lie about unsupervised and unadvised in doctors' surgeries, clinics, dentists' waiting rooms and so on. Surely the Government did not intend that.

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that any publication placed in a doctor's or hospital waiting room will have been vetted by the professionals upon whose expertise we rely in giving advice to mothers.

That is being complacent.

:Not at all. That is the restriction imposed by the directive. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not trust health care professionals to vet an advertisement for a product that is freely available? I have not had occasion to buy the product in question for many years, so I made a point of examining its packaging and the claims made for it. I would be concerned if anything on the packaging said that the mother should stop breast-feeding and change to milk powder-feeding, but it does not say that.

It is more subtle than that.

Women are subtle, and they are subtle enough to make intelligent, informed decisions for themselves. They do not need hon. Members to elevate their judgment above that of millions of mothers in this country. While we all agree on the benefits of breast milk-feeding, to assume that hon. Members have better judgment than mothers when it comes to the interests of their babies—

I do.

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does have better judgment. Good luck to him. I hope that he will take his advice to maternity units around the country and put it to the test.

I remind the Minister that the bodies to which the material will be submitted are the same organisations that are asking her to ban infant formula advertising.

The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the representations made by professional bodies were in opposition, but when independent research is undertaken of professionals at the sharp end—health visitors and midwives—there is a different result. They are the professionals, and they say that they are the right people to give advice, and I agree. It is absurd of the hon. and learned Gentleman to put his judgment above that of an experienced midwife or health visitor. He should acknowledge the professionalism of those experts—mainly, but not exclusively, women—who advise women.

Will the Minister give way?

No, because I have only a few more minutes and the hon. Lady merely intervened—it is not her Adjournment debate.

As I said, we were fully committed to supporting the promotion of breast-feeding, and therefore conscious that to adopt only the minimum in the directive would have meant controls less restrictive than those already in place under the voluntary agreement with the industry. We decided that that would not provide the support that the promotion of breast-feeding deserves.

After careful consideration, we concluded that the option that best served that dual purpose was the one that has been operating voluntarily and successfully since 1983. Under the voluntary code of practice, infant formula advertising that is to be read mainly by mothers and pregnant women is not permitted unless it is disseminated under the supervision or care of the health care system. I assure hon. Members that it will remain for the judgment of the professionals concerned. The regulations give statutory effect to the existing voluntary requirements, which means that infant formula advertising will continue to be allowed, but only in baby care publications distributed through the health care system, scientific publications and certain trade journals not seen by the public.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for initiating the debate. We share his concern about, and his enthusiasm for, breast-feeding, but I have to tell him that the women of this country, the mothers of this country and the professionals in the health service are able to make rational judgments. They do not need to be protected from something that is in daily use and that will continue to be so.

Septrin

1.59 pm

I have called this debate on the drug known as septrin, or bactrim, as I am horrified by what I have learnt about the possible side effects of this commonly prescribed antibiotic.

The significance of the drug goes beyond the horrendous suffering that it has caused a considerable number of those who have taken it, to wider questions about the effectiveness of our regulatory system for drugs and medicines. I have called the debate for two reasons: first, to ask the Minister urgently and thoroughly to review the licence of the drug; and, secondly, to draw the attention of the House to my concerns about the framework for licensing drugs, and the need for change.

I first became aware of the issue of septrin, the generic name of which is co-trimoxazole, in January this year. My constituent, Kate Reid, a young woman in her 30s, came to my advice surgery. She told me that, eight years ago, she visited her general practitioner, as she had a sore throat. She was prescribed septrin. After two days of taking the medicine, she collapsed, her tongue having swollen so badly that she could hardly breathe. She was rushed to hospital. Six weeks followed, during which she continued to suffer because of her allergic reaction to the drug. The skin over her whole body blistered horribly and completely fell away. Her vagina closed up. Her finger and toe nails fell out, and she was unable to walk or talk. She was very lucky to have survived at all. Her suffering has, of course, continued and she will never regain her good health. The physical scars will never disappear, nor will the mental scars.

Not only has Kate Reid had to endure numerous skin grafts and surgery, but she is left unable to walk properly because of the pain in her feet left by the blistering. Her tongue remains black and blistered. He body has stopped producing saliva or tears. Her finger and toe nails have never grown back. She has lost her job and lives on benefit. Her relationship with her boyfriend fell apart and she has had to have psychotherapy to come to terms with the trauma. As one can imagine, when she told me all this, I was horrified at the suffering that this woman had endured as a result of a drug prescribed for a sore throat. At least, I thought, it must be a one-off. Surely such an horrendous reaction must be almost unique.

Tragically, that is not the case. As I have discovered, more and more people are coming forward following recent publicity about septrin. As many as 700 people who have suffered, or whose relatives have suffered similar reactions to those experienced by Kate, after being prescribed septrin for minor ailments such as sore threats or cystitis, have contacted either journalists or one of the septrin action groups. Most of those people are women, as women more commonly get urinary tract infections.

No one knows precisely how many people have died as a result of having taken septrin. A recent report to the Committee on Safety of Medicines in England says that deaths linked to the sulphonamide component of septrin have so far reached 137. The same committee's research, however, shows that 10 times as many cases go unreported. As septrin has been one of the most popular antibiotics since the 1970s, the total figure may well be much higher, and, of course, there are thousands of people like Kate who suffer in varying degrees because of its side effects.

What I have tried to do, as a layperson, is to see whether there is a case for reviewing the drug's licence. I submit to the House that the Department of Health cannot continue to ignore the evidence of totally unnecessary human suffering resulting from the inappropriate prescription of septrin. The Department is failing in its duty if it does not call for an immediate and thorough review. More people's lives will be destroyed and more families may lose loved ones in the future.

Septrin was first marketed in 1969 and has been a highly successful commercial product for the Wellcome Foundation. Worldwide sales are said to be worth up to $5 billion. Since it was first licensed, however, extensive medical research has shown that only one of its ingredients, the sulphonamide component, causes those horrific side effects. Furthermore, in most cases, that ingredient is not necessary. Giving patients the other ingredient, trimethoprim, on its own, would be just as effective and much safer.

I am aware that septrin may have a very important role to play in certain circumstances, for example in the treatment of people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome—AIDS—where trimethoprim has not been shown to be as effective as septrin. However, all the major studies have shown that, in most circumstances, trimethoprim alone is just as effective as septrin and much safer. What I cannot understand, therefore, is why the data sheet, which licenses the use of septrin, has not been changed to limit its use to the few circumstances where no other treatment will do.

The case of septrin shows up the failure of our drugs regulation system. The evidence against the wider use of septrin has been around for 20 years, but it has not resulted in a change in the drug's data sheet or licence. Why not? What is in our regulatory framework that can lead to an appalling failure to protect people? First, the system is governed by secrecy. Section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 basically gags the experts involved in regulation from revealing information on drugs beyond that specifically contained in the data sheet; so the experts cannot tell us, the public, or even the doctors, that septrin should be prescribed only in certain circumstances. That is particularly dangerous because the Medicines Control Agency, which regulates drugs, is totally funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Its members mostly have an interest in the products on which they advise. Indeed, almost all research in this field is funded by the drugs industry itself. One is left wondering whether the financial interests of the industry have too great an influence at the expense of safety of the patients.

Which? magazine recently undertook a telling piece of research. It sent duplicate requests for information about septrin to the US Food and Drugs Administration and the United Kingdom Medicines Control Agency. The FDA sent the equivalent of 300 pages of detailed data on the drug, including its side effects. The MCA, our agency, took longer to reply and could send a mere 22 pages. The Government's refusal to repeal section 118 is, in my view, misguided and seems to put the interests of industry profit above those of patient safety.

My second point is that patients need better access to authority to complain about the side effects of drugs. At present, they can speak only to their doctor, who may not want to hear that their prescription is responsible for the side effects that the patient has suffered. My constituent, for example, was so persistent that the GP finally removed her from his register—perhaps that is another story. Again, precisely because there is no channel for complaints, the GP will be unaware of similar cases and may presume that it is a one-off, not to be taken as a reflection on the drug as a whole. We need a proper system to monitor openly all cases of side effects. The Committee on Safety of Medicines is a watchdog that never barks. At the very least, there should be patient representatives on it to beef it up so that cases like septrin are taken seriously and are not swept under the carpet. We also need a system under which patients can seek redress for the harm done to them. We seem to have learnt nothing from the thalidomide tragedy. Incredibly, the success rate of legal claims against drug companies in Britain is zero. I hope that the Select Committee on Health will examine the position.

A third change to the regulatory system would have prevented much of the suffering related to septrin had it been introduced 20 years ago. We need a proper, stringent and thorough review of drug licences when they are renewed. The Medicines Act requires the renewal of licences every five years, but I understand that the reviews are generally conducted by administrative staff at the Department of Health rather than by experts, and tend to go through almost on the nod. We can only presume that that happened with the renewal of the licence for septrin; how else can the licence have been renewed time after time with no change in the rules governing its use?

In its report last summer, the Select Committee on Health made precisely that point to the Government. It recommended a national prescribing list of medicines for the NHS, with drugs being reviewed stringently every five years for inclusion in the list. In a vast and ever-changing market, it is essential that the Government accept the Committee's recommendations: regular reviews of drug licences are essential to determining which drug is the most appropriate, in terms of both effectiveness and cost.

The final change that I consider crucial to the safeguarding of patients is for the Department of Health to take responsibility for informing doctors when a drug's licence has changed. At present, even if the information were getting through to the Medicines Control Agency and drug licences changed when they should, GPs would be unlikely to be aware of the change. That is borne out by evidence that most hospitals have largely abandoned the use of septrin, other than for the treatment of people with AIDS. GPs have not followed suit. There are so many products on the market that GPs tend to use those that they have heard of—those that drug companies have promoted heavily, or tried and tested products that they are used to.

Just one example is griseofulvin, an anti-fungal medicine. Last year, the data sheet for griseofulvin was changed, stating that it should not be prescribed for men who expect to father a child in the next six months. There was no announcement of the change to GPs. How many have continued to prescribe griseofulvin in exactly the same way as they always have, unaware of any change in the data sheet?

If the Government made the changes that I have recommended to tighten drug regulation, tragedies such as those that have befallen my constituent and countless others might be avoided in the future. The onus is on the Government to reassure the British people that their concern lies with the health of the patient, not the health of the drug industry. The evidence on septrin itself overwhelmingly suggests that the sulphonamide component increases both the danger and the cost of the product. I call on the Government to change the licence for the drug with the utmost urgency, before any more people suffer as Kate Reid has suffered.

2.13 pm

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) for allowing me to speak, and for the detailed way in which she put her case.

My interest in septrin began when a constituent, Mr. Beddows, came to see me in November last year. He had been prescribed the drug for bronchitis, but when he took it his skin peeled off and he blew up like a huge balloon. He was in a dangerous condition, and had to go to hospital. Moreover, he could cite other cases among his small circle of friends. A child had lost skin off both legs; an adult had suffered from internal bleeding; another had experienced low blood pressure. According to Mr. Beddows, an action group had established that as many as 25 per cent. of users of septrin were suffering from adverse effects.

Having heard all that, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Cumberlege. I thought it rather complacent: although she admitted that there were adverse side effects, she suggested that they were a matter for GPs, who knew their patients. I wrote to Mr. Beddows, who came to see me again, bringing with him the case against septrin that had been prepared by Professor Richard Lacey—an extremely detailed case.

I wrote again to the Minister, whose reply went a little further this time. She repeated her view that, although dangers existed, they were a matter for GPs; but she also took up Professor Lacey's suggestion that trimethoprim, taken on its own, was the answer. She claimed that that, too, had side effects, but admitted that clinical practice was changing in relation to the prescribing of antibiotics, and that "in some situations"—I believe that in this regard she was following Professor Lacey to some extent—clinical practice

"favours the use of single rather than combination antibiotic therapy."

She added:

"The Medicines Control Agency is reviewing whether the licence for Septrin should reflect this."

I wrote to the Minister again on 2 March, and am still awaiting a reply. In my letter, I asked what evidence there was that serious side effects from co-trimoxazole—septrin—were rare, and what evidence there was that trimethoprim also had side effects. According to Professor Lacey, those side effects are minor in comparison, and trimethoprim would be much safer to use. I hope that the Minister will mention that when he replies.

More and more people are joining the new action group, saying that they, too, have experienced adverse effects. It is time for a complete review of the drug, and if it is found to have serious side effects, I hope that it will be withdrawn from the market without hesitation.

2.17 pm

The safety of medicines is an enormously important topic. Many medicines have serious side effects, and many people suffer without knowing that their suffering results from an adverse reaction.

The story of Kate Reid, related to us by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), is very harrowing. I have visited hospitals and seen people who have been badly affected by drugs, including antibiotics. It goes without saying that there is an element of risk in all medicinal compounds, however many efforts are made to test them and avoid side effects; a balance must always be struck.

As the hon. Lady said, co-trimoxazole has been sold as septrin by Wellcome and as bactrim by Roche Products Ltd. Some 100 generic licences for the production of the compound have now been issued. Since 1969, 85 million prescriptions for co-trimoxazole, under its different names, have been issued in this country. Some 3,500 adverse reactions have been reported to the Medicines Control Agency, and 137 deaths have been linked to the use of co-trimoxazole. However, before coming to any conclusions on that, we must assess whether those adverse reactions and the tragic deaths were attributable to co-trimoxazole or to one of its constituent parts. It has been alleged in the press recently—and, I think, implied by the hon. Member for Barking—that sulphamethoxazole, the other constituent, has mainly been responsible for the adverse reactions. I, too, speak as a layman and I am informed by the Medicines Control Agency that no difference exists between the pattern of adverse reactions to co-trimoxazole and the pattern of adverse reactions to trimethoprim alone.

It has been fairly widely alleged that it would be safer to use trimethoprim. I understand that not only is the pattern of adverse reactions to the compound and to the substance similar but a comparable pattern of adverse reactions exists across the range of widely used antibiotics. That takes the debate much wider into the question of the use of antibiotics and how widely they are used, but we are talking specifically about whether a case exists for a review or, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said, for withdrawing co-trimoxazole from the market. I understand that such a case does not exist because, as I said, the pattern of reactions is comparable across the range of antibiotics.

A body of expert literature exists about this subject. It confirms the Medicines Control Agency's advice, which it arrives at through its yellow card system of adverse drug reactions reporting, that no special degree of risk is associated with co-trimoxazole. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, a study has been carried out recently by Dr. Hershel Jick at Boston university, who is a much-renowned expert on drug reactions. It has considered the prescribing data on tens of thousands of people and compared the adverse reactions of co-trimoxazole with those of alternative antibiotics. That work, which I suspect will be published soon, has been made available to researchers and professionals in advance of publication. It confirms that the risk of severe adverse reaction from co-trimoxazole is not only low but comparable with that from other widely used antibiotics. It has also been said during the debate that a lack of information about medicines exists for patients and doctors. Recently, the Medicines Control Agency was asked for the information about co-trimoxazole and it gave 22 pages of the precisely relevant data. I am not aware that anyone has made a case that anything is missing from that data. The equivalent body in America produced 300 pages simply because it handed over the entire file on the product. One cannot measure relevance or efficacy of information by the weight of paper. As far as I know, all the relevant data were made available on that occasion.

The British National Formulary, which is supplied free to all doctors, clearly states the side effects of co-trimoxazole. There is an alarming list, as there often is on antibiotics and many other drugs. It starts with nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, glossitis, rashes and gives a list of Latin names which I shall not go through. No one is in any doubt that there are adverse reactions to the antibiotic, as there are to most others. A large number of adverse reactions, and indeed deaths, are associated with the range of penicillins, but, if one considers the pattern, it is broadly similar. Clearly, therefore, no simple answer exists, except by raising the question of the use of antibiotics.

Co-trimoxazole still has a place. It is less widely used than it was, and trimethoprim is more commonly prescribed than co-trimoxazole.

If it is true that co-trimoxazole is less well used than before, will the Minister please just listen to the speeches that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I made today? Instead of coming here with a prepared speech, will the Minister go away and really do a thorough review? The reason that it is used less often is that a safer alternative drug is available which can deal with many of the common ailments. He should consider limiting the licence under which septrin is marketed so that it is used only where it is absolutely necessary.

I have not used a prepared speech. I have some notes that I made during the hon. Lady's speech, but I happen to have spent some time with the Medicines Control Agency to try to find out the detail of the argument. A reason still exists for co-trimoxazole to be in the British National Formulary. The hon. Lady referred to drug resistance. It is well known, and a great body of evidence exists on this, that trimethoprim, given alone, leads to greater resistance to antibiotics. There is a great deal of data to suggest that, in some parts of the country—I have a letter from a leading paediatrician to prove this—there is up to 30 per cent. resistance to trimethoprim given alone. There are cases, and she cited one of them—pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, or PCP, among AIDS victims—where it is clear that trimethoprim given alone leads to too much resistance and quickly becomes ineffective. Other practitioners will tell us that much larger doses of trimethoprim must be given if it is given alone, and that it is possible to give a much smaller dose if it is accompanied by the other constituent of co-trimoxazole.

Clearly, antibiotics have been one of the great advances of modern medicine. Thousands, if not millions of lives, have been saved by them, but, like many other medicines, they have an attendant risk. What we have to be clear about—this is germane to the debate—is whether co-trimoxazole has a higher level of risk than antibiotics generally. The evidence that has been given to me is that that is not the case. The hon. Lady mentioned that there should be a five-yearly review. She will forgive me if I say that the Select Committee was talking about the efficacy and value of drugs rather than safety. Safety is reviewed all the time. There is a yellow card system of adverse reactions reporting in this country which, I hesitate to say, is the envy of the world because it is such a comprehensive system. The Medicines Control Agency advises the Secretary of State about drug safety. That body is also widely respected as probably the agency with the greatest professionalism and probity of any in the world. I challenge the hon. Lady to find another country with a more efficient system.

I can assure all those who are concerned about co-trimoxazole that that drug and all others like it are constantly under review. Drug leaflets will be issued with all drugs in future. Since last year there has been a rolling programme for all medicines to have a drug information leaflet and one has already been approved for co-trimoxazole. We have a high-grade system for the monitoring and licensing of medicines and I can assure the hon. Lady that drug safety will continue to be of the highest priority.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers To Questions

Scotland

Nhs Trusts

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the quality of management of health service trusts and fundholder practices in Scotland. [13626]

The quality of the management of NHS trusts and GP fundholding practices is assessed through their performance in delivering quality patient care. They have been most successful: more patients have been treated, waiting times have fallen and new services have been developed.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that fundholding practices in Scotland are a disgrace and that we do not want them? The Government have recommended that there should be 11,000 fundholding practices, but the amalgamation of some of them has brought the number down to 4,000. In fact, there are only 107 fundholding practices out of the 1,000 practices in Scotland. Trusts have turned the health service into a greyhound service. One of my constituents was taken to hospital with a heart attack at 3 o'clock in the morning. He was sent home alone, in a taxi dressed in just a robe. He was taken back to the hospital at 8 o'clock and died at 10 o'clock. That is a disgrace. The health service should be cleared up.

On the unfortunate death of Mr. McGowan in January 1994, the three main recommendations addressed to the Government are being considered by the NHS executive. There are 22 intensive care beds in Glasgow hospitals. Following a review by Greater Glasgow health board, a further four beds have been funded and all aspects of the sheriff's findings at the fatal accident inquiry are being addressed.

We believe that trusts bring a great many benefits. Record numbers of patients have been treated. There are shorter waiting lists and waiting times and more information and choice is being given to patients. There are new services and improvements. GP fundholders have greater freedom and improved communications. They are providing more services and are developing new or improved services. At least 30 per cent. of the Scots population will benefit from their GP being involved in either standard fundholding or primary care purchasing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of people of Tayside believe that our health service in Tayside is second to none anywhere in the world? A number of our GPs are fundholders and they, too, believe that they are providing a service that is second to none. Is not it time that we began to talk up the value of our health service and those who are dedicated to it and work in it instead of constantly attacking it?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I can announce today that for the relatively few cases where there are serious complaints, we are putting in place a new complaints procedure from April 1996 so that there will be a response from the provider of the service, the opportunity for a review of the complaint by a panel with an independent lay chairman and recourse to the health service commissioner. We feel that that will greatly assist in the few cases where there are legitimate complaints.

The public have a duty not to abuse the health service, but will the Minister keep an eye on any tendency by fundholding practices or other general practices to purge patients from their lists in a wholesale manner?

We believe that there are substantial benefits to be gained from GP fundholding. We believe that it will result in a better service for the patients concerned. We do not want to see a deterioration of service, which is the hon. Gentleman's point.

Are we still dealing with the management of a genuinely national health service? If we are, how can the Minister justify the introduction of local pay bargaining, which means that nurses and midwives in one part of Scotland will be paid less than those in other parts? Since that cannot be justified, will the Minister take the opportunity to announce that he is scrapping local pay bargaining and instructing the management of every NHS trust in Scotland to pay the full 3 per cent. to all nurses and midwives, with no strings attached? If he is not prepared to announce that, will he attend one of the rallies to be held across Scotland on 30 March by nurses and midwives, at which he will be able to explain to them face to face why national pay bargaining in the NHS is good enough for consultants and doctors but not for nurses and midwives?

The hon. Gentleman should be clear that under the management allowance for GP fundholders some 2 per cent. of overall funds for patient care are managed by fundholders. It is not a payment for GPs, but a reimbursement of their administrative costs. Obviously, those at the sharp end of the health service should be paid the going rate for the job.

Lockerbie

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who (a) required the bodies found and pronounced life extinct by Dr. David Fieldhouse, Bradford police surgeon, to be re-examined for signs of life in the presence of witnesses at a later stage, as described on page 36 of the determination by Sheriff Principal John Mowat QC in respect of Lockerbie and (b) ordered that two days, or a substantial part thereof, should be allowed to lapse between Dr. Fieldhouse's confirmation of life extinct and the subsequent confirmation and certifications; and for what reasons many bodies were left out in the fields for that period of time. [13627]

In the immediate aftermath of the Lockerbie disaster Dr. Fieldhouse found and pronounced life extinct in 58 bodies. Sheriff Principal John Mowat QC concluded in his determination on the proceedings at the fatal accident inquiry that Dr. Fieldhouse verbally related information concerning his activities to a senior police officer at 7 pm on 22 December 1988. Although this information was also relayed in a letter from Dr. Fieldhouse to the police dated 23 December 1988, the letter was not received at Lockerbie until 27 December 1988. The sheriff principal concluded that the verbal information given by Dr. Fieldhouse had, as a result of the circumstances obtaining at that time, been understandably overlooked. In the intervening period arrangements had been made to recover the bodies of the victims by a systematic and meticulous search and recovery operation and all the 58 bodies dealt with by Dr. Fieldhouse were recovered before his letter arrived. The process of search and recovery, unfortunately and inevitably, took some time.

Was any dead body taken from the scene, thereby avoiding its inclusion in the official list of those who died?

No.

Labour Statistics

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in the number of unemployed since December 1992. [13628]

Between December 1992 and February 1995, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland fell by 41,700.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that substantial reduction in unemployment is partly due to Scotland's success in attracting new industry? Does he believe that inward investment would be encouraged by Scotland signing up to the social chapter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—adopting a national minimum wage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.]—or having a tax-raising Scottish Assembly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.]? The cheers of Opposition Members show how blinkered and stupid they are.

I agree thoroughly with my hon. Friend, and Opposition Members' cheers unfortunately show that they are out of touch with the realities of business.

My hon. Friend referred to inward investment. In 1993–94, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Industry Department helped to attract 95 projects involving planned investment of £588 million and the creation or safeguarding of more than 11,000 jobs. If the United Kingdom signed the social chapter or if Scotland had higher taxes than the rest of the United Kingdom, many of those jobs would be put in jeopardy.

Does the Minister share the concern of the people of Scotland at the loss of high-skill jobs at the BBC in recent weeks? Will he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State organise an urgent meeting with John Birt, Director-General of the BBC, to ensure that there are no further job losses, as there will come a point when BBC Scotland will become incapable of carrying out its role as the major broadcaster in Scotland if it loses more skilled staff?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but, with due respect, it is up to Mr. Birt to decide how best to run the BBC. I have a lot more faith than the hon. Gentleman in the skills and expertise of the BBC in Scotland in making its case for maintaining a sound, professional and positive presence in Scotland.

University Budgets

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with vice-principals of universities to discuss their budgetary requirements. [136291]

I met the committee of Scottish higher education principals in June 1994. We discussed a number of matters, including the funding of higher education.

Is not it a pity that the Secretary of State did not listen to the committee? Does not he realise from the settlement last week that not only are students now driven to poverty but universities and colleges in Scotland find that they cannot make ends meet? Why does not the Secretary of State listen to the distinguished principals of the Scottish institutions and reverse the cuts that he imposed on the vast majority of them last week or tell them where his so-called efficiency savings have come from?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Funding for higher education institutions has been increased by £25 million to £618 million for next year—an increase of 4.2 per cent. What is more, resources available to students through grants and student loans have increased by 19 per cent. in real terms since 1989–90.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some 33 per cent. of those in the relevant age group are now in higher education in Scotland compared with some 17 per cent. under the last Labour Government? Does he agree that that has not been at the cost of any drop in quality? For example, the independent teaching assessment placed four Scottish universities—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Strathclyde and, of course, St. Andrews—in the "excellent" category.

My hon. Friend is right on both points. Not only has participation doubled in the relevant age groups since the Government took office but, as he points out, there has been no loss in the quality of the performance of our best universities. No fewer than 30 per cent. of the departments appraised have been categorised as excellent.

In the light of what the Secretary of State has just confirmed about the increase in student numbers, will he comment on the remark made by Professor John Arbuthnott, the convener of the committee of Scottish higher education principals? In the aftermath of the announcement last week, he said that this was expansion on the cheap which would further threaten the ability of the institutions to maintain quality. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repudiate the suggestion made yesterday by Professor Donald Leach of Queen Margaret college that students should take out loans to pay modest fees for the courses on which they have embarked?

Happily, higher education principals are rather more positive and sensible in their attitude to these matters than the hon. Gentleman suggests. As for the funding of students, even the National Union of Students is now looking at more positive and creative ways of achieving better funding for students.

Will the Secretary of State consider how local enterprise companies could help get the evil drug temazepam off the streets in Renfrewshire? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the local enterprise company could play a role—

Order. I wonder whether I am reading the question correctly. It is about the budgetary requirements of universities: we are on Question 4.

Could the LECs work in tandem with universities to use their research facilities to examine how temazepam could be taken off the streets? It would be of great advantage to the police in their efforts to get the drug off the streets if the Secretary of State made it a schedule 3 rather than a schedule 4 drug.

I am sure that the relevant bodies will have heard the hon. Gentleman's subtle, inventive and creative question—perhaps a university or higher education institution should establish a course on the matter.

In this week of science, engineering and technology, will the Secretary of State tell us which of his Government's policies he thinks contributes most to higher education, and particularly to courses that cost more to take but are essential for our economic revival? Could it be the policy of making higher education institutions do more with less money for each student? Could it be the fiasco of the Student Loans Company, which puts more energy into chasing debts than awarding loans? Could it be the Government's recent decision—contrary to that of all previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour—to withdraw the allowance for mature students and to force who knows how many into giving up courses for which they have worked and sacrificed to gain entry? Our students are trying to learn, but when will the Government ever learn?

I can assume only that the hon. Lady's question is prompted by embarrassment at the Opposition's lamentable record on higher education when in government, compared with the record that we have achieved in the past 15 years. Perhaps she did not hear me point out that the number of students partaking of higher education has doubled since this Government took office and that the quality of the education that they are obtaining is in many cases excellent; that funding next year is up by 4.2 per cent.; and that there will also be a record number of more than 118,000 places in Scottish institutions next year.

Local Enterprise Companies

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the new boundaries for local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement. [13630]

My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on new boundaries for local enterprise companies after he has received and considered recommendations from Scottish Enterprise.

Why are the Government taking such an inordinate time to reach a conclusion on what should be a relatively simple matter? Should not Members of the House, who are responsible for the funding of Scottish Enterprise and the enterprise companies, be consulted? The Government have not consulted the House properly, and are they not trying to draw up boundaries after local government reorganisation? They should have known their intentions in this important matter a long time ago. How does the Minister explain the Government's incompetence?

I must give the hon. Member full marks for his persistence because he has been a firm advocate of certain boundaries as regards his area. He will be well aware that, with his colleagues, he visited my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) when he held office, to discuss the subject, and that he has had discussions with Scottish Enterprise, as have local enterprise companies, the new town development corporations and many other interested organisations, including local authorities. There has been very wide consultation on the subject and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to ensure that all aspects are covered before a decision is reached. I understand that we are close to receiving recommendations from Scottish Enterprise. When those are forthcoming, we will inform the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the boundary change that will take Helensburgh into Argyll, socialist Labour-controlled Dumbarton district council is carrying out a massive asset-stripping exercise in Helensburgh, right down to removing glasshouses from gardens? Is not that absolutely disgraceful and does it not ignore the fact that people in Helensburgh have paid for the assets through their council tax and community charge in recent years?

I think that my hon. Friend might be talking about local government boundaries, as opposed to local enterprise companies. I am sure that he will be aware that there have been significant consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the distribution of assets, and that the matter is still under discussion.

The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) does not know his local enterprise company from his local authority.

When we met the Minister's predecessor, he agreed that any proposal for Dunbartonshire that involved Clydebank and Dumbarton being linked with Renfrew was absurd and that any absorption of Clydebank or any other authorities into Glasgow would be absurd. He also agreed that the present boundaries for the LEC were sound. Does this Minister agree, or will he also be changed soon?

I believe that the hon. Member made representations to my predecessor and to Scottish Enterprise. I am rather more patient than him: I want to await the results of the other consultations to ensure that a proper argument is presented and that the decision that we reach is based on the widest possible consultation.

Scottish Assembly

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from businesses with regard to a Scottish Assembly. [13631]

It is clear from what Scottish business men and women tell me that they believe that the Labour party's proposals for a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers would, if implemented, immensely damage Scottish business. They fear that it would raise costs, undermine confidence, jeopardise investment and inward investment and destroy jobs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that businesses go further than that and are threatening to pack up and leave Scotland, taking jobs and investment with them? They fear the proposed Scottish Assembly with its tax-raising powers of 3p in the pound, which will affect every family in Scotland to the tune of £4 a week.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the considerable dangers that would flow from the creation of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. Although 3p in the pound would amount to more than £6 a week for the average family, it would be only the beginning of what the Labour party would seek to achieve through a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, as it would account for only some 2 per cent. of the present Scottish Office block. The burden of higher taxation, which Scotland alone would face under a Scottish Parliament, would penalise the Scottish people and drive industry away.

The Secretary of State is now aware that the people of Ireland will have the right to a referendum. Why do not the people of Scotland have that right?

The people of Scotland had a referendum in 1979, in which they failed to support the Labour party's proposals.

In an effort to foster greater understanding of how the House deals with Scottish business, will my right hon. Friend consider holding a series of seminars on the way in which the House operates? As a matter of urgency, will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to the first one, as on Sunday he showed an alarming ignorance about how the House deals with Scottish business?

If the Leader of the Opposition does not know how the House of Commons handles Scottish legislation, how on earth is he in a position to say how a Scottish Parliament should do so?

Will the Secretary of State list the representations received from businesses in Scotland about the current policies exercised by this Unionist Government? For example, will he explain why the tourist and whisky industries are now subjected to substantial pressures as a result of the mothballing of three distilleries, and why the fishing industry, which is vital to communities in north-east Scotland, is not protected by the Government within the European Union?

The hon. Lady has managed to ask three questions about three different industries. I shall answer in the context of the question that was tabled, which relates to a proposed Scottish Assembly. The creation of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, adding another burden of taxation and bureaucracy on the people of Scotland, would damage rather than help the industries to which the hon. Lady referred.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the roles for a Scottish Parliament—the Labour party will deliver a Scottish Parliament after the next election and it will be universally popular among all sections of the Scottish people—will be to take back into full democratic control Scotland's water supplies? Today, on the anniversary of the 97 per cent. bloody nose that people gave the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Strathclyde referendum, will he recognise that his quangoisation will transform Scotland's water, which is among the safest, cleanest and cheapest in the world, into among the most expensive in Europe? Why does he not recognise the folly of his arrogant refusal to listen to the people of Scotland and abandon that plan now?

The hon. Gentleman is lamentably ignorant about the facts of the matter. I have no doubt that the creation of those new water and sewerage authorities will lead to a more efficient delivery of water and sewerage systems in Scotland at the least extra cost to the Scottish people. I am concerned about the capacity that a Scottish Parliament would have to abolish the uniform business rate, whereby businesses in Scotland now pay rates averaging 43p in the pound compared with the 76p in the pound that they would otherwise pay.

Value-Added Indicators

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in incorporating value-added indicators in the performance data available in Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement. [13632]

Her Majesty's inspectors already provide schools with tables showing the value added in the upper stages of secondary schools. Work is now under way to develop additional measures of value added for use in both primary and secondary schools, and those measures will be tried out in a number of schools this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the scaremongering and the misrepresentation of the Opposition, Scottish parents have come to value the information given by schools? Does he further agree that information should not be restricted simply to examination results, but should cover as many areas as possible in the life of a school, so that parents, teachers and pupils know as much as possible about what is going on, and how it is achieved, in schools in Scotland which are, after all, the centre of so many of our communities?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The British social attitudes report published last year showed that no fewer than 73 per cent. of the public supported the publication of examination results, which the Opposition originally opposed. I also agree with my hon. Friend about making more information available about extra-curricular activities. We already encourage schools to publish in their handbooks information on achievements by their pupils in sport, music and the arts. I am also glad to say that we have made more information available on truancy by publishing the relevant results. They showed that authorised and unauthorised absences averaged about 6 per cent. in primary schools in 1993–94. That is roughly the same as each primary school missing two school weeks out of 38 and 10 million half-days lost. There is therefore a heavy responsibility on parents to keep a close eye on school attendance in the interests of their children. We are making more information available, not less.

Does the Minister believe that there is a direct, inverse or no relationship between the value added by schools and the spending on them?

We must spend the necessary sums on schools. We believe that the value added should be additional to information about exams and that that information must be made available. The COSLA working party and the Scottish Office Education Department are taking that matter forward.

Is it not undisputed that the performance of all Scotland's schools will be affected by the costly, unwanted and ill-prepared reorganisation of local government? The creation of 32 education authorities, where previously there were just 11, is bound to have a disruptive effect on the education system. Why should Scotland's children pay the price in a damaging disruption to their education, on the basis of a reorganisation that was not wanted by the Scottish people, is far more costly than the Government pretend and was designed simply for the convenience of the Scottish Conservative party? Does the Minister agree that two weeks tomorrow, when elections take place across Scotland, the gerrymandering in which the Government have indulged will boomerang because they will win not a single council in Scotland?

The hon. Member is wrong on every count. Let us take, for example, Borders regional council, which is one of the smallest regional authorities in Scotland. It has an excellent education service. I must tell him that the last time local government was reorganised, 18,000 extra local authority officials were created in two years, which made the whole process much more bureaucratic. We believe that simplifying the processes of local government will make it more responsive to local democracy, which we wholeheartedly support.

Private Residential Homes

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the ownership and management of private residential homes for the elderly. [13633]

In the past six months, my right hon. Friend has received four letters about standards in residential care homes.

Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unethical for a medical practitioner who owns such a home to act as the general practitioner to his own residents? Does he agree that confused, elderly people, particularly those suffering from dementia, should have ready access to independent medical assessment and treatment? When will he introduce a statutory code of practice to outlaw medical practitioners, lawyers and accountants from acting in a professional capacity vis-a-vis residents of their own residential homes?

The hon. Gentleman is correct that nothing currently prohibits the arrangement that he mentioned. That will be considered by the Scottish Office working group. There have been calls for changes in the legislation and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Office officials are considering such issues in general as a result of the disturbing incident at Glenglova. We are determined to see the highest standards imposed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the registration of residential care homes is in the gift of a local authority and if those high standards are not maintained, registration can be withdrawn.

The hon. Gentleman asked about appeals. There have been about six appeals and, in the vast majority of cases, high standards are maintained and the local authorities have the necessary powers. However, we are carefully considering whether the time scale should be altered, as has been suggested. That is one of the issues that is currently being considered by the working group.

Is the Minister aware that, because those residential homes are very expensive, costing about £300 to £400 a week, many people who were persuaded to buy their council houses must now sell them to pay for their care in a residential home? How does that equate with Mrs. Thatcher's famous wealth trickle-down theory, whereby everyone was to be able to have their house and pass it on to their children and grandchildren? I can tell the Minister that, as I am sure that he is aware, the people feel very betrayed as they witness more and more geriatric care beds disappearing from the national health service.

It is not clear from the tenor of the hon. Lady's question whether she is demanding tax relief or what solution she would propose. It has always been the position, under successive Governments, that elderly persons who live in residential homes can be charged when circumstances warrant it.

The Minister will know that many dedicated men and women do not want their loved ones to go into homes when they get dementia and Alzheimer's disease; they want to support their loved ones in their own home. Yet the Minister must know that care in the community is only words—it is non-existent. The Government should be doing more to support organisations such as the Alzheimer's Association for Scotland, which can support relatives who look after their loved ones.

We are providing substantial sums for care in the community. The Government have provided a further £55 million this year for community care infrastructure. Obviously, the resources must follow the patient and the hon. Member is correct to say that many families have a strong preference for looking after their relatives in the community. There are also various grants; we are giving about £15 million a year for bridging finance and we shall ensure that the necessary resources follow the patient.

Scottish Economy

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has recently had with the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement. [13634]

I regularly meet the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a variety of issues relating to the Scottish economy.

The performance of the Secretary of State on the Scottish economy can be summed up in two words—

Which two?

They are not the two that my hon. Friend is thinking about—they are Rolls-Royce.

I remind the Secretary of State that, although Ministers may have forgotten Rolls-Royce, Opposition Members have not. Does he realise that there will be, not only a loss of jobs, important though that is, but a potential loss of skills at the forefront of technology from Scotland and the United Kingdom to Germany? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do anything, will the Government and the bunch of pathetic Ministers who have sat idly by while Rolls-Royce has been sold down the tube in Scotland move aside and make way for those of us who will do something about it?

Hear, hear.

If that is a threat that the next Labour Government, if ever elected, would interfere in every commercial decision made by every company in this country, I am sure that the electorate will take note of that and react accordingly.

Rolls-Royce, like all companies trading internationally and needing to trade competitively, has to take commercial decisions to adjust its dispositions, the activities in which it is involved, the people it employs and the places where it employs them, to ensure that it does that in the most effective and competitive way. That does not alter the fact that 4,000 employees will remain at six Rolls-Royce sites in Scotland.

On the economy in a broader sense, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged that unemployment in his constituency has already decreased by no less than 650 in the current year.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Rolls-Royce, among others, has made massive investments outside the United Kingdom? Does he further recognise that Rolls-Royce has recently acquired Alison Engines in the United States, thus making Rolls-Royce one of the three largest, if not the largest, aero-engine manufacturers? That can only be good for Scotland, but it could all be put at risk by the nonsense of an assembly with tax-raising powers that would drive further jobs away from Scotland.

My hon. Friend is right. Rolls-Royce operates in an international, competitive marketplace. Its two major competitors, General Electric and Pratt and Whitney, have had massive job cuts, including the 14,000 redundancies announced in 1993. At the same time, Boeing announced 80,000 job losses. It is an inevitable part of the developing economic situation and the competitive nature of those industries that they have to adjust the size of their work force from time to time.

The description of the economy that the Secretary of State and his friends give would not be recognised by any of the 4,339 people in Glasgow, Central constituency who are unemployed and eligible to claim benefit. That figure constitutes 15 per cent. of the working population, and at a cost of £9,000 per person that means that £39 million is paid per year to keep those people in my constituency on the dole. When will the Government understand that, instead of talking about the so-called flexible labour market, which means part-time jobs and insecurity, they should start spending money on the economy, on training and on infrastructure, to get people back to work instead of keeping them on the dole?

That is what is happening. The number of people in work in Scotland has risen by 60,000 in the past decade. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, since January 1987, unemployment has fallen by 3,400. Unemployment in Scotland is now, for the first time since records have been kept, lower than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which in turn is more than two points lower than the European average.

On a subject which is on a different scale from Rolls-Royce, would my right hon. Friend welcome the reputation of Lanark blue cheese? No food poisoning cases appear to have been attributed to that cheese and we must try to ensure that there is no interference in that good Scottish enterprise.

I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's commendation of that fine Scottish product. It is one of many fine Scottish food products that are gaining an increasing market share outside Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will have been heard by those responsible for handling the matter.

When will the Secretary of State take action to protect Scotland's economic Infrastructure? Is he aware that last week his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport compared the subsidy to Motorail and sleeper services in Scotland to the subsidy for passengers in the south-east of England? Will he inform the Secretary of State for Transport that £1.5 billion was spent on capital and investment grants in Network SouthEast and London Underground in this financial year compared with, at most, a few million pounds on the sleeper and Motorail services in Scotland? What hope is there for a consultation exercise when the rolling stock is stuck up a siding, the Secretary of State for Transport has already made up his mind and the Scottish Office team is in a state of paralysis, unable to defend Scottish interests?

I suppose it demonstrates the narrowness of the hon. Gentleman's horizons that he cannot understand that cash invested in rail infrastructure south of Scotland also benefits Scotland. The £300 million upgrading of the east coast main line benefited Scotland and the £600 million investment plan for the west coast line will benefit Scotland. The other resources that have been brought into Scotland benefit Scotland. It is a measure of the short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness of the Scottish National party that it does not understand the benefits for Scotland that accrue from the services such as Mossend and the channel tunnel. Those are economic infrastructure developments that have been made under this Government for Scotland's benefit.

The Secretary of State will be aware that Scottish Enterprise has trumpeted the strategy of high-quality, high-skilled jobs. When he next meets the chairman, will he discuss the scandal of low pay in Scotland, where one in 20 of the working population works for poverty pay? Does he think that it is fair that 107,000 people in Scotland work for £2.50 an hour while the heads of privatised utilities like British Gas earn £250 per hour? Has not that unfairness, whereby the rich are getting richer on the backs of the poor, resulted in the rejection of the Government's economic policies? When will the Secretary of State start to do something in economic terms for the ordinary people of Scotland?

The people of Scotland will not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman. There are many high-paid and well-qualified jobs in Scotland in a far richer and more diverse economic infrastructure than ever existed under Labour. Perhaps that is why net disposable incomes in Scotland are among the highest in the United Kingdom.

Road Improvements

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent to date, including land acquisition costs, on (a) the A7 Falla Hill to Heriot improvement, (b) the A7 Bow Straight widen and regrade and (c) the A7 Whin improvement. [13635]

The total expenditure, including land acquisition costs, on the A7 Falla Hill to Heriot improvement, the widening and regrading of the A7 Bow Straight and the A7 Whin improvement is £49,811, £5,405 and £35,523 respectively.

It would be helpful if the Minister could inform the House when the decision is likely to be taken about detrunking roads such as the A7. Does he accept that it would be intolerable if the cost of the improvements that he has outlined were to fall on the new Borders council without a guarantee that extra funds will be provided for that purpose?

Decisions will be made shortly about the trunking or detrunking of various roads in Scotland. The three schemes that I have mentioned are old schemes which will provide overtaking opportunities. Each of the three jobs will cost £1.5 million, making a total of £4.5 million. Primarily for environmental reasons, we believe that it would be more beneficial at present to spend that sum on the A68. The sum, approaching £100,000, which has been spent so far is not necessarily lost or wasted as the new authority can take it forward if the road is detrunked.

Scottish Economy

11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish TUC to discuss the problems of the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement. [13636]

My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.

It is apparent from their answers so far that none of the three stooges opposite has any idea what is happening in the Scottish manufacturing sector. In washing their hands of the haemorrhage of high-skilled, high-tech and high-paid jobs from Rolls-Royce and the BBC, they fail to see that they are presiding over the creation of a skivvy economy, where workers warehouse and sell other people's manufactured goods and run after tourists trying to sell them hamburgers and ice creams. Why do Ministers persist in equating temporary, low-paid jobs like that with the kind of jobs that we used to have in Scotland which involved making things, building things and mining things? When will they clear out and give the Scottish economy a chance?

I expected the hon. Gentleman to come out with that sort of rubbish. Unfortunately, he does not spend enough time in Scotland to see the success stories. Scottish business is enjoying record exports, record output and significant inward investment. If he were only to visit the Dunfermline area and see some of the new jobs that have been created—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has asked his question and he must listen to the answer.

The hon. Member does not realise that business in Scotland must adapt to what the market requires. There is no point in trying to push old companies and old manufacturing practices in a new marketplace. Scotland currently has a significant share—35 per cent.—of Europe's personal computer manufacturing sector. That is an on-going industry. Industry in Scotland has changed and the sooner the hon. Gentleman wakes up to that and starts living in the future rather than the past the better.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Trades Union Congress is a great deal more realistic than Opposition Members, judging from the nonsense that we have heard from them this afternoon? Does he agree that manufacturing productivity is a key figure? Each person employed in the Scottish manufacturing sector now produces more than £30,000-worth of manufactured goods. Is that figure not a great deal better than those in not only the rest of the United Kingdom but in countries such as Japan?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Business can succeed only by achieving the best possible levels of productivity in order to compete in world markets. That is what Scottish business is doing. Scottish business is looking up while Opposition Members are looking backwards and down.

When the Secretary of State meets representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will he explain to them what he will do to correct the wrong that interference by the Scottish Office has done to the celebrations for VE day in Scotland? The Department of Employment has confirmed a bank holiday on 8 May in addition to the traditional 1 May spring bank holiday. Yet correspondence between the former Scottish Office Minister responsible for industry and the CBI has led to the totally nonsensical situation whereby some Government agencies, such as Scottish Enterprise, the Benefits Agency, banks and schools will be on holiday on 8 May because the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has declared that extra holiday, but the Post Office in Scotland is threatened with industrial action because it is stealing the traditional May holiday.

The Secretary of State has a letter dated 5 March from his own trade unions asking him to give the Scottish Office an additional holiday for VE day. When are we going to celebrate VE day rather than denigrate it by making workers pay on 1 May for the extra holiday they should have had on 8 May?

The hon. Gentleman has not pointed out that VE day is a bank holiday in Scotland. He wants extra holidays and that is totally against the line of trying to achieve extra productivity. Every holiday has to be paid for, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not denigrate VE day by making it into a party political issue.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance to my constituents in Ayrshire and other Ayrshire Members of the M77 link with the M8? Does he deplore the activities of those who would stop construction work on that road and does he welcome the excellent letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which sets out in detail the benefits of that particular route? Will he encourage my right hon. Friend to pass a copy to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) as his support would be welcome also?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that he backs Strathclyde regional council in ensuring that the road is completed on time.

Did the Minister see the report in one of this morning's newspapers that in the last nine months of last year 7,600 full-time jobs were lost in Scotland? That was not balanced by the creation of 9,900 part-time jobs. It may seem to be a reduction in unemployment, but although part-time jobs are welcome to some people, they are mostly low-paid and insecure. Is it any surprise that thousands of Scots without jobs or on low pay know only about the feel-bad factor and not about the feel-good factor?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the definition of part time includes working as many as 30 hours a week. He should also be aware that the majority of people working part time do so from choice. The statistics show that only 14 per cent. of those reported in the autumn 1994 labour force survey as working part time wanted full-time jobs.

Highlands And Islands

12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects of the highlands and islands in the coming financial year. [13637]

The prospects for continuing growth towards long-term economic prosperity in the highlands and islands look very encouraging. This is due in no small measure to the continuing success of the Government's economic policies.

Given that land is the basic economic resource of the highlands, is it not profoundly wrong that large estates continue to be sold on the open- market to the highest bidder without any consultation or agreement with the local communities who live and work on the land? That is especially wrong, particularly when the local communities have expressed a preference to take on the ownership and management of the land. Given the uncertainty over the sale of the Isle of Eigg, will the Scottish Office explore with local communities ways in which the goal of community ownership can be realised, perhaps with the help of the National Trust or other similar organisations?

I understand the concern of local residents on the Isle of Eigg, but interference in land sale would paralyse the land market and deny large areas of Scotland the benefits that many far-sighted landowners bring to the land they own. We believe that the way forward is through partnership, as recently evidenced by the Cairngorms Partnership, involving owners, local authorities, conservation bodies and community councils. I piloted the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 through the House to protect the Scottish countryside and wildlife, but excessive regulation would be as inadvisable as the EC directive to bring back wolves to the wilds of Scotland.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the economic prospects of the area are hardly likely to be improved by the cancellation decision that the highland region is facing in respect of the jobs and enterprise training units, or JET units, as a direct result of the capital squeeze by the Scottish Office? Following the discussions that have taken place between the three Members of Parliament representing the highland seats, the trade unions involved, the regional convener of Highland regional council and the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, will the Minister back the call that at the next meeting next month, when the matter is to be especially considered by the regional council, there should be a one-year moratorium on a decision? In tandem, is he prepared to meet a delegation from the area to discuss the problem in detail to see whether a way through the funding impasse can be found in the next 12 months? Will he agree to do that and does he support that approach?

I will certainly see a delegation led by the hon. Gentleman. This year's Highlands and Islands Enterprise budget has increased to £77.4 million. The hon. Gentleman might not think that relevant, but it helps a lot with training, and we want the best possible training in the highlands and islands. The hon. Gentleman appears to agree.

Does the Minister accept that Labour wants increased rail investment in every part of Britain because we acknowledge that that will mean better communications for Scotland and manufacturing jobs in Scotland? That is just common sense. As to the specific issue of sleepers and Motorail, does the Minister accept that all hon. Members realise that consultation after services have been withdrawn is a fraud? Is not he aware that anyone who knows anything about the subject realises that figures adduced to prove a ludicrously high subsidy for sleepers and Motorail are also a fraud? Will the Minister use Scottish Office powers to provide whatever subsidy is necessary only for the short period that would allow full and proper consultation? It is within the power of the Scottish Office to ensure real and honest consultation, but it is also within its power to condemn services without a trial. Which will the Minister do?

I cannot agree to divert funds from education, health or social work for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As to the figures, the subsidy for highland sleeper and Motorail services in 1993–94 was £2.6 million excluding infrastructure, or £6.6 million including infrastructure—a subsidy met by the taxpayer of £180 and £450 respectively. The regulator made it clear that any final decision on minimum service level is for the franchising director after his consultation on ScotRail's public service requirement later this year. Before the hon. Gentleman dismisses that consultation, I emphasise that the franchising director has undertaken to examine timetabling flexibility in daytime connections. That will be important for day services to Fort William, which will tie up with other services, including the new sleeper service between Glasgow and Paris early next year.

Hospital Construction Costs

13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the capital costs of building an NHS maternity hospital capable of coping with 3,000 births per annum. [13638]

There are no current plans for a new maternity hospital of a 3,000 births per annum capacity in Scotland that would provide the basis of a meaningful costing.

The Minister will be aware that Glasgow health board is trying to close the most modern maternity facility in its area, at Rutherglen. That is despite the example set in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), where a similar closure led to the loss of lives. Bearing in mind the capital costs of replacing throughout Scotland stand-alone hospitals not located on the same site as acute services, will the Minister tell Glasgow health board to leave Rutherglen maternity hospital alone?

We have no proposal before us, so we cannot make an exact estimate of the costs of another hospital providing maternity services—but we envisage that they will be in the range of £7 million to £12 million. The board will make its final recommendations once it has considered the outcome of the consultation that ends on 30 April. The board recognises the importance of organising maternity care with close access to the full range of support acute facilities. Any suggestion of closure would have to be put before the Secretary of State. In making a final decision, Ministers would have to be satisfied that a better service was being put in place.

Does the Minister agree that his Government's policies on maternity services are leading to the removal of good, locally based services from hospitals? Does he further agree that the centralisation of maternity services, as has already happened in Fife with the closure of Dunfermline's maternity hospital, can lead to increased risk to mothers and babies? That was tragically demonstrated in my constituency 10 days ago when an unborn baby died as he and his mother were being transported from Dunfermline to Kirkcaldy. Will the Minister listen to what the communities have to say and keep Rutherglen open and restore maternity services to Dunfermline?

I must repeat to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire)—she raised many of these subjects in an earlier Adjournment debate—that the medical profession considered it extremely important to have close access to the full range of acute facilities. In making certain that the high standards are maintained, it is, of course, very necessary to ensure that mothers have access to all the necessary services. I should like to examine the circumstances of the very distressing case that the hon. Lady mentioned, and I shall bear her comments in mind.

National Parks

14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage to discuss national parks. [13639]

I have not met the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage to discuss national parks. However, my ministerial colleagues and I have regular meetings with the chairman. On a number of occasions, we have discussed the management of the countryside.

Is it not time that Scotland had its own national parks, to look after the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis and Glencoe? Why does the Minister persist with the voluntary principle, which, as Scottish Natural Heritage's own corporate plan says, is too costly and unworkable? Is not it time, therefore, that the Minister started to protect the countryside rather than his friends the landowners?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so little faith in the local authorities in the area, or in their capacity to work together in the interests of their area. The fact is that the national park concept is not an unqualified success south of the border. Indeed, Scottish Natural Heritage supports the voluntary principle and the proposals that working parties have developed separately for the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. Our response has been to accept the recommendation of the working party, and I believe that it can be made to work successfully.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, will he raise the question of the spread of mink throughout Scotland from the national parks in England and Wales, and now, indeed, to the outer Hebrides? The impact that those animals are having on the ecology, the wildlife and the economy based on fishing, in Scotland as elsewhere, is extremely damaging.

I am sure that my hon. Friend may well be right about that. It is not a new phenomenon, however. Mink first escaped from captivity many decades ago, and I am confident that every effort is being made to contain them and the damage that they do.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the importance to the local borders heritage of the special bridge built by Rennie straddling the Tweed at Kelso? Will he look urgently at the recent decision to refuse capital consent to build a replacement road bridge across the river to save and protect the bridge for the natural heritage of the borders in the coming years?

I know that that is a matter to which the council attaches considerable importance, and it comes under regular consideration. It has to compete with other priorities, but I will invite my hon. Friend with responsibilities for these matters to have another look at it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the finest countryside in Scotland will be spoilt if Scottish Power is allowed to go ahead with its interconnector to Northern Ireland? Is he also aware that local people are deeply concerned that Scottish Power had unlimited resources to present its case, while the objectors were severely inhibited by a lack of resources and by the fact that Mr. James McCulloch, the senior reporter, seemed to be bending over backwards in favour of Scottish Power? I hope that the Secretary of State will take that into account when he considers the report from the reporter.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as he will know, the matter is currently before a public local inquiry, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment.

Fishing

16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are estimated annually to fish in Scottish waters (a) commercially and (b) for personal or other reasons; what quantity and value of fish is caught; and if he will make a statement. [13641]

About 9,400 commercial sea fishermen are employed in Scotland, of whom about 1,300 work part time. Fish landings at Scottish ports in 1993 amounted to some 519,000 tonnes, at around £278 million in value.

Does my hon. Friend enjoy Scottish fish—particularly Scottish salmon—as much as I do, and as much as the rest of the world? What measures is he taking to increase the supply of Scottish salmon, bearing in mind its great value to the Scottish and, indeed, the British economy?

My hon. Friend properly addresses his question to one of those who know about the matter. In fact, the best Scottish salmon come from the River Dee.

There is much debate about how to preserve salmon stocks in Scottish rivers. Many people are worried about the effect of the north-east drift nets. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has made representations to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that every effort is made to preserve and increase fish stocks in Scottish rivers.

Welsh Grand Committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) (Welsh Grand Committees),

That the matter of health care in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Points Of Order

3.31 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some of the lawyers representing families in the Ayrshire child abuse case have been quoted in the press as saying that Members of Parliament should not raise matters on behalf of their constituents. I represent seven of the social workers involved, and I consider that the action taken by those lawyers constitutes intimidation: they are trying to stop me performing my role as their Member of Parliament. I hope that you will make it clear, Madam Speaker—today or on some other occasion—that not even the most distinguished Scots lawyers can stop Members of Parliament looking after the interests of their constituents.

I am sure that, like every other hon. Member, the hon. Gentleman is not intimidated by any such comments made outside the House. All hon. Members have a duty to carry out their responsibilities on behalf of their constituents, and they will certainly be able to do so for as long as I am Speaker.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware, as we all are, that one of the most distressing experiences that our constituents can have is having their homes burgled. Have you seen this morning's report that 1.5 million burglaries take place in Britain every year—more than in any other country in Europe? According to the report, the chances are that, every year, 65 in every 1,000 homes will be burgled, compared with 37 per 1,000 in Holland and 30 per 1,000 in Germany. Is it not time that the Home Secretary dealt with that disgraceful position? Has he asked permission to make a statement to the House?

The answer is no. What the hon. Gentleman has raised with me is by no means a point of order; it is a matter that he must pursue through the normal channels.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it possible to quote, in an early-day motion, the words of a respected Member of the other place, who said today:

"This lot are a complete shower…and one of the worst Governments I can remember"

under the Prime Minister's "feeble leadership"? That was said by Lord Whitelaw—

Order. I certainly will not give a ruling without notice and without seeing the full context of what the hon. Gentleman intends to put into the early-day motion. If he will let me see that, I shall give my ruling.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is directly responsible only for the Metropolitan police, has he asked to make a statement about the success of Operation Bumblebee, which has substantially reduced the number of domestic burglaries in London?

As I explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House only yesterday or the day before—certainly this week—if any statements are to be made in the House, they will be on the Annunciator screen by lunchtime so that we are all aware that they are going to be made.

School Transport Safety

3.34 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the safety of school transport by imposing stricter standards for school vehicles; by providing for the licensing by local authorities of such vehicles and their drivers; by requiring the supervision of children travelling in school vehicles; and by permitting controls on heavy goods vehicles on school transport routes.

The School Transport Safety Bill is about saving lives—children's lives. First, I want to record my appreciation of the national Belt Up School Kids group, whose secretary, Pat Harris, does an excellent job in campaigning on this issue, and my local branch of that organisation, the Carnwath and Biggar branch, led by Sherley Gallant, the chair; Helen McKenzie, the secretary; and John Pate, the treasurer. I should like to give a special thanks to Shona Cousins, who is also a member of that group. Shona is the mother of Tony Cousins, a young boy who, along with his school colleague Francis Scorgie, died in a school bus accident in my constituency on that terrible and tragic day, 17 February 1994.

My Bill will make seat belts compulsory on all vehicles transporting schoolchildren. It will end the obscenity of three children in two seats. It will empower local authorities to license vehicles and, indeed, to license drivers. It will require supervision of children travelling to and from school in coaches other than by the driver of the vehicle. Equally important, it will control heavy and awkward vehicles using school routes in rural areas where children are travelling to and from school.

The date of February 1994 will live with me for the rest of my life. Two children in my constituency received injuries that caused their death. Those two children left home at 8 o'clock in the morning, as they had done hundreds of times before, but, unfortunately, on that day, they did not return to their families. There has been a great national campaign on the issue and great concern has been expressed about seat belts and the safety of children travelling to and from school. In response to that great concern, on 19 July the then Secretary of State for Transport stated, in answer to a written question, that the Government intended to act ahead of the European Commission and to legislate to make seat belts compulsory on minibuses and coaches. That was welcome. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister with responsibility for such matters at the time, is here to listen to the debate.

Unfortunately, eight or nine months have passed since that statement and little or nothing has been done. I am Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. It set up a Sub-Committee to consider the transport safety aspects and the competency of member states vis-à-vis the European Commission's proposals. We took evidence from the former Minister way back in July. Because nothing had happened, we decided to call the Minister for Transport in London, whom I am pleased to see present, to give evidence. By coincidence, lo and behold, the day before the Minister appeared before that Committee, another statement was issued by the Department of Transport. It mirrored what had been said nine months previously. As happened nine months ago, I did not scorn that statement too much because I welcomed any move that would help to deal with the problem, but I say to the Minister that it is the same as the statement on 19 July. It is too little, too late and it promises to deal with the problem in another 18 months. God knows how many children will lose their lives in that time.

I have argued that seat belts will save lives, but I am not arguing that seat belts are the only thing that we need to have to save those lives. That is why my Bill addresses the problem of supervision. If we have seat belts in coaches, the wearing of them has to be enforced in some way. When there are 30 or 40 children on a coach or bus going to school, they have to be supervised.

It is important to look at the problem of licensing vehicles and it is necessary to have vehicles that are properly designed for the purpose. Equally, it is necessary to license drivers to ensure that they are competent to carry out their task. It is also important to look at the problem of traffic management, especially in rural areas such as my own in Clydesdale, where there are miles and miles of narrow roads on which cumbersome coaches transport children. We have to get rid of the nonsense, the obscenity, of overcrowding where three children sit in two seats. My Bill addresses those points.

I shall close as I began, by saying that the Bill will save lives. In the memory of Francis Scorgie and Tony Cousins, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. John Austin-Walker and Mr. Jimmy Wray.

School Transport Safety

Mr. Jimmy Hood accordingly presented a Bill to improve the safety of school transport by imposing stricter standards for school vehicles; by providing for the licensing by local authorities of such vehicles and their drivers; by requiring the supervision of children travelling in school vehicles; and by permitting controls on heavy goods vehicles on school transport routes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

Orders Of The Day

Consolidated Fund (No 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Jobseekers Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,

That the Jobseekers Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely New Clauses except New Clause 6, Amendments to the Bill, New Schedules, Amendments to the Schedules to the Bill, and New Clause 6.—[Mr. Bates.]

New Clause 7

Expedited Claims For Housing And Council Tax Benefit

'.—(1) This section provides for the making of regulations to enable—

(a) information to be passed between authorities, and

(b) priority to be given to certain persons,

with a view to claims for housing or council tax benefit made by or in respect of persons who cease to be entitled to a jobseeker' s allowance or income support being dealt with quickly.

(2) In the Administration Act, insert after section 128—

"Expedited Claims For Housing And Council Tax Benefit Disclosure Of Information By Authorities

128A.—(1) Regulations may make provision requiring the disclosure by one authority ("the disclosing authority") to another authority ("the receiving authority"), in prescribed circumstances, of information of a prescribed description obtained by the disclosing authority in respect of persons who have been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support.

(2) The regulations may in particular provide for—

(a) information to be disclosed—

(i) at the request of the receiving authority;

(ii) at the request of any person who falls within a prescribed category; or

(iii) otherwise than in response to such a request;

(b) the period within which information is to be disclosed; and

(c) information to be disclosed only if it has been obtained by the disclosing authority in the exercise of any of their functions in relation to housing benefit or council tax benefit."

(3) In section 63 of the Administration Act (adjudication of claims for housing benefit or council tax benefit), insert after subsection (2)—

"(2A) Regulations may make provision requiring authorities to whom claims for housing benefit or council tax benefit are made by, or in respect of, persons who have been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support to give priority, in prescribed circumstances, to those claims over other claims for any such benefit.".'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.].

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.42 pm

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause deals with the mechanics of implementing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's November uprating statement that housing benefit and council tax benefit would run on for four weeks after returning to work for those unemployed or lone parents who have been on jobseeker's allowance or income support for six months or more. It is the Government's intention that that run-on should begin from the outset of the implementation of JSA becoming payable in April 1996. For the purposes of the period beginning in April 1996, it is envisaged that six months on unemployment benefit or income support previously would count.

This is designed to deal with the major concern of those who are moving off benefits and on to work as to whether they will be able to pay the rent in the initial period of their return to work. This is quite an expensive measure. It will cost £50 million a year and it is anticipated that it will benefit about 440,000 individuals a year.

If this measure is to work, the mechanics must be in place to ensure that there is a smooth run-on. The first two subsections of new clause 7 deal with the situation that occurs when jobseekers move from one local authority where they have been receiving housing benefit to another local authority to obtain work. The purpose of the two subsections is to give a regulatory power to require information to be exchanged between local authorities.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the measure will give protection to share fishermen, who may have to wait some time before they receive their share—in other words, their wages—from the landings of a vessel? The hon. Gentleman may smile. I am talking about only a few men, but this is important.

The hon. Gentleman sees me smiling, but I mean no disrespect towards the problems of share fishermen. They have received special treatment throughout the passage of the legislation, as they have for many years. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off the top of my head the precise way in which the rule applies to them, but I shall write to him on the issue.

The first two subsections of the clause deal with the regulatory power to require information to be exchanged and the third with the regulatory power to require authorities to give priority to jobseekers. Local authorities are already under a legal obligation to determine all housing benefit and council tax benefit claims within 14 days of receipt of the necessary information. The powers in the clause will not change that, nor will they prevent local authorities from treating any particular claim as a matter of extreme urgency. They will afford a general priority for determining claims by jobseekers.

To complete the picture, I should explain that we also plan to introduce a financial incentive and penalty scheme to encourage all local authorities to process quickly new claims from those claiming this most important run-on. Additional or reduced subsidy will be paid to local authorities according to whether they process claims effectively.

I shall be brief, as I do not wish to delay the Report stage. This is not the place to go into the detail of the new jobseeker's allowance. We welcome the measure, which will speed up the administration of benefits for people moving in and out of work. A major bone of contention has been that delay has often led to financial difficulties—particularly, as the Under-Secretary said, with rent payments—and any measure to speed the process up is welcome.

I am also pleased about the Under-Secretary's assurances that subsection (1)(b)—which enables

"priority to be given to certain persons"—

does not in any way undermine the general administration of benefit claims. One may feel on seeing words such as "priority" that other people are being de-prioritised and pushed down a waiting list. I welcome the Under-Secretary's assurances that the Government intend to ensure that all such claims are dealt with speedily and efficiently. I am sure that local authorities throughout the country will respond to that request.

There are good and bad practices in such administration, and we want to ensure that all authorities use the best possible good practice. This measure in no way seeks to undermine that intention. People who clearly need a speedy response from the benefit system must not get that response at the expense of other people who have an equal need for such a speedy response, and we must ensure that we do not bring hardship to particular claimants. I am pleased that the Government have introduced the new clause, the need for which they identified in Committee.

I confirm that share fishermen will be among those eligible to benefit from the proposal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Sick Or Disabled Persons

'.—(1) Regulations under section 4(5) shall provide for the applicable amount, in a case where as a result of a physical or mental disability the claimant has to incur additional costs for the purpose of complying with the terms of a jobseeker's agreement or a jobseeker's direction, to include an amount in respect of those costs.

(2) Regulations under subsections (2) and (3) of section 6 may, in particular, provide for any difficulties or discrimination faced by disabled persons in seeking or obtaining employment to be taken into account.

(3) Regulations under section 6(2)(a) and (c) may, in particular, provide that a person who has made and is pursuing an appeal against the determination of an adjudication officer that he is not incapable of work and whose medical practitioner, or another person with a prescribed qualification, supplies evidence of his continuing incapacity for work shall be treated as available for and actively seeking employment pending the determination of his appeal.

(4) For the purposes of sections 7 and 8, in any case where—

(a) the claimant's availability for employment is restricted as a result of a physical or mental disability or partial incapacity, or

(b) it was determined in accordance with the provisions of Part XIIA of the Benefits Act that he was incapable of all work for any period during the eight weeks preceding his claim,

the employment officer, as defined in section 7(15), shall be a person designated by the Secretary of State as a disability employment adviser.

(5) Regulations under section 16(3) may, in particular, provide for an income-based jobseeker's allowance, which would otherwise be prevented from being paid by section 15, to be payable at a prescribed rate where the claimant or his partner is sick or disabled.

(6) In this section—

(a) "jobseeker's direction" has the same meaning as in section 15;

(b) "partner" has such meaning as may be prescribed; and

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 2 deals with some of the problems which thousands more disabled people who will be expected to sign on for jobseeker's allowance will face as a result of the more restrictive test for incapacity benefit. It would help the Employment Service to administer the new system.

It is important to put our concerns in context. It is estimated that 190,000 disabled people will come off invalidity benefit and that an additional 55,000 people will fail to qualify for incapacity benefit in the first year of the jobseeker's allowance. That means that an additional 245,000 who have substantial disabilities are expected to sign on as unemployed and claim JSA. Not only will many of those people face a lower level of income than they would have received under incapacity benefit, but many will receive less than they would have received under the current unemployment benefit. For example, for a 40-year-old woman there is a difference of up to £18.60 a week between the higher rate of incapacity benefit at £65.05 and unemployment benefit, currently at £46.45.

Let us consider why many groups of people will be worse off under JSA than under unemployment benefit. The Labour party believes that there are five key reasons for that. First, contributory JSA will be paid for only six, instead of for 12, months. That is at the heart of the Bill. It is an attempt to cut contributory benefit from 12 months to six months and to move people after six months on to means-tested benefit, so extending the poverty trap and forcing people to be means-tested earlier. At the same time, the Government are increasing national insurance contributions from 9 to 10 per cent. In other words, people will pay more and get less out of the national insurance contributory system.

The rationale for the change is that the majority of claimants have only a short spell of unemployment lasting six months or less. However, the evidence strongly suggests that that is not the case for disabled people. Research by the social and community planning research department found that half of the disabled people who were actively looking for work had been doing so for a year and that a further third had been doing so for three years. That hardly bears out the Government's view that people come off the dole within six months.

Secondly, contributory JSA will be reduced pound for pound where people receive an occupational or private pension of more than £50 a week. Previously, that applied to pensions of more than £35 a week paid to people over the age of 55. The new rule could adversely affect some disabled people who are taken off incapacity benefit if they receive payment from a previous employer in recognition of their ill health or disability. Contributory JSA could be reduced or lost completely. A 50-year-old man with an occupational pension of £60 a week will lose £10 a week from his contributory JSA. Under unemployment benefit, the payment would not have been reduced because he was aged under 55.

Thirdly, no increase will be payable for a non-working partner unless the partner looks after children or is aged over 60. Removing the dependence allowance for a non-working spouse or partner means that contributory JSA will amount to a personal allowance only. Another good example is that of a 34-year-old man who has an injury at work which prevents him from working, for which he receives a lump sum compensation of £20,000. He has two children and a wife who cares for the children. He would receive £127.45 per week incapacity benefit, which includes an allowance for adult and child dependants.

If that person moved to unemployment benefit, he would receive £74.50, which would include an allowance for his wife. Under the jobseeker's allowance, however, he would receive only the basic rate of £46.50—a staggering difference of £80.96 per week between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. His savings of £20,000 as compensation for his injury would preclude him from the means-tested jobseeker's allowance, leaving him with only his six months contributory jobseeker's allowance.

Fourthly, the contributory jobseeker's allowance is limited to six months, thus bringing in means-tested benefits sooner. An earlier means test could bite especially hard for people with income or savings above the limit. The change could affect disabled women disproportionately, especially if they are leaving incapacity benefit, as they are more likely than male claimants to have a partner who is working full time, which would exclude them from the means-tested jobseeker's allowance. The savings limit of more than £8,000 could exclude disabled people with capital from compensation for personal injuries.

Fifthly and finally, on the rationale, disabled people may incur additional costs in their job search because of their disability. In Committee, Ministers said that they would consider the extra expenses incurred by disabled jobseekers and I will return to that matter later.

That is the context within which our new clause is framed. It is an attempt to tackle the consequences of those fundamental changes in unemployment benefit and the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is odd for the House to be debating this issue, which affects the sick and the disabled in particular, at the same time as the Government are proclaiming their conversion to new rights for disabled people in their flawed Disability Discrimination Bill, which will be coming before the House next week?

Throughout our deliberations on Report, we shall be looking closely at the interface between people with disabilities and unemployment and at the Government's Bill on discrimination, which clearly does not go any way towards tackling the real needs of disabled people in the workplace, especially as regards small employers. We shall consider that carefully and in detail as the day progresses.

The purpose of the new clause is to alleviate some of the consequences of the new Bill. First, it will help with additional costs in complying with the jobseeker's agreement or direction.

How much?

Since I have not uttered one word about what the proposal is intended to do, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed, I shall return to that question.

The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a figure for additional costs and I am asking what it would be.

If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause, he will see that its purpose is to prescribe in regulations the extent to which the Government will help disabled people. We are flagging up the intention that that should be done through regulation and we do not prescribe the amount in the new clause. To answer the question directly, if the new clause helps disabled people back into employment and gets them off benefits, at worst, its effects will be neutral and the measure will probably result in a saving to the social security budget.

The purpose is to help people with the additional costs of complying with the jobseeker's agreement or direction. Disabled people may face additional costs.

What are they?

The costs to a disabled person.

Yes, what are they?

I shall explain. If the hon. Gentleman listens carefully when I describe the type of cost that we are dealing with, he might be able to put a figure on it himself.

The additional cost of job seeking for disabled people, compared with able-bodied people, may include travel to interviews, speculative visits to employers or even visits to the Employment Service. For example, people with sensory impairments may need assistance in approaching employers by telephone or letter, or in looking for advertisements. They may need to be accompanied to an interview by a signer. Under the Government's access to work scheme, payments may be made for equipment, adaptation to premises or transport costs to help disabled people in work. However, like the disability working allowance, it is limited to people who are already in work, so offers of help to someone trying to find a job in the first place are not available. In Committee, the Minister of State, Department of Employment showed some sympathy with the argument that disabled people faced additional costs when searching for a job, and I look forward to a positive response from her when she winds up the debate.

4 pm

Secondly, the new clause provides for difficulties of discrimination faced by disabled people in seeking or obtaining employment. In the first year of the jobseeker's allowance, an estimated 190,000 people coming off incapacity benefit will have considerable difficulties in sustaining job search activities. Except for a minority regarded as incapable of work, most incapacity benefit claimants must score at least 15 points in a test of physical or mental functions, or at least 10 points in a test of mental ability alone. The arbitrary cut-off at 15, taking no other factors into account, means that a score of 14, which confirms a substantial disability, would disqualify someone from incapacity benefit.

In addition, DSS research reports Nos. 19 and 20 into invalidity benefit conclude that the constraints arising from disability or health problems disadvantage disabled people in the labour market relative to other jobseekers. Likely to face most difficulty are those over the age of 50 with a background in manual work and no qualifications. Similarly, research by Scope shows that an able-bodied job applicant is six times more likely to receive a positive response from an employer than a disabled applicant.

The Government's Disability Discrimination Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred earlier, fails to deal with the extent of employment discrimination as small employers are excluded from its provisions. It is therefore important that both a person's disability and the existence of discrimination be taken into account by the Employment Service when drawing up a jobseeker's agreement, considering what steps should be taken when a disabled person is actively seeking work and in imposing a jobseeker's direction.

Thirdly, where someone appeals against a decision that he or she is capable of work and where evidence of continuing incapacity is provided, the new clause provides that the person should be treated automatically as available for, and actively seeking, work. Currently, people who appeal against a decision that they are capable for work can, pending their appeal, either sign on or claim income support without signing on. Pending an appeal hearing, income support rules allow someone to claim without being required to be available for work where the person's GP continues to supply evidence of incapacity for work.

In Committee on 23 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security announced that, as from April 1995, all new incapacity benefit claimants who appeal against a decision that they are capable of work will, if they are not signing on, be subject to a 20 per cent. reduction in their basic rate of income support. That new measure is a harsh, worrying and unnecessary appeal penalty. As well as the prospect of living on an income that will be severely reduced from £46.50 to £37.20 a week for a single person, people in that position are likely to be left with a gap in their national insurance credits unless they win their appeal. Furthermore, that new rule will push more people towards the Employment Service to sign on and have a further impact on the administration of the jobseeker's allowance.

My hon. Friend may remember that in Committee the Minister said that those who decided to sign on and therefore said that they were available for work would not be prejudiced in their appeal against the original decision that they were fit to work. Has he heard anything since to convince him that that rather weak assurance is worth while?

The silence from the Government on that is deafening. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us further assurances because disability organisations have been horrified at the new measure. I am sure that they have expressed their protests already to the Department of Social Security, locally and nationally. The benefit penalty is particularly harsh and I am sure that the Minister will be urged by hon. Members on both sides of the House to reconsider it.

Subsection (4) would ensure that where a person's

"availability for employment is restricted as a result of a physical or mental disability"

or that person was incapable of work in the previous eight weeks before his claim, he should be seen by a disability employment adviser. The White Paper on the jobseeker's allowance and the Department of Employment's press release, dated 14 February 1995, stated:

"All jobseekers whose physical and mental condition limits their availability will be able to restrict the type or hours of work for which they are available in line with their condition."

However, the current law goes wider than that. The disabled person may need to restrict not just the type or the hours of work, because evidence suggests that a range of factors may be important in restricting the kind of work that someone could reasonably be expected to do. Disabled people signing on may need to place considerable restrictions on their availability for particular types of jobs and the method and distance of the journey to work.

According to the 14 February press release, an additional £71 million will be made available in the next three years as a number of people are expected to come off incapacity benefit and sign on. It is unclear how well those resources will be used. I hope that the Minister will be able to give further details about that when she replies.

Disabled people will need qualified advice and assistance to help with their job search. The new clause would ensure that, from the outset, the person entering into a jobseeker's agreement with the disabled person was someone from the Department of Employment's advisory service. That person would have specialist knowledge of disabilities. Unless more specialist resources are made available, assistance for increased numbers of disabled jobseekers could be considerably reduced, because we are already aware of a waiting list of disabled people seeking assistance from the Employment Service.

Finally, the new clause deals with hardship payments to disabled people. The Bill includes new powers to increase the use of sanctions against people who "break the benefit rules". In that context, it is important that any sanctions are applied fairly and reasonably to disabled people, so that those sanctions do not disadvantage them in any further way. At present, if someone is disqualified from unemployment benefit he receives a reduced amount of income support—up to 40 per cent. less than the designated amount. Under the jobseeker's allowance, there is no automatic payment, even of a reduced amount. Paragraph 4.39 of the White Paper on the jobseeker's allowance states:

"Although payments will not normally be available during the first two weeks of a benefit sanction, exceptions will be made for disabled people and carers."

The Bill does not suggest how such people could be identified.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would use

"definitions used in the regulations which currently apply to those who fail the actively-seeking-work test in income support…all claimants undergoing a sanction, even those in the vulnerable groups, must demonstrate hardship before they receive a payment."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 February 1995; c. 530.]

There is no guarantee of payment, even for vulnerable groups, as only 48 per cent. of those applying for hardship payments under those rules were awarded payments.

The new clause allows for provision to be made for sick and disabled people in that context. Given the additional costs that confront disabled people, any reduction in benefit is likely to have a massive impact. It could be argued that benefit reduction should be far less than 40 per cent., or that the benefit rate should be paid in full if the claimant or the partner has a disability.

In conclusion, I can do no better than to quote the opinions expressed by Sir Peter Large of the Association of Disabled Professionals, who said:

"Rather than seek some open-ended commitment to cover any number of undefined extra costs that a disabled person might incur in seeking work"—

I refer here to the intervention of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald)—the new clause is

"Government-friendly in that it allows specific additional expenses to be closely prescribed in detail in regulations."

I hope that, in that spirit, the Government will consider the new clause and realise that it is intended to help disabled people return to work and so reduce their dependence on benefits. I hope that, as the measures could be prescribed by the Government in regulation, they will look on it with favour.

I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that, as the legislation is framed and the regulations under it are considered, sensitive consideration is needed of the position and needs of the long-term sick and of disabled people. We need to think very carefully about the appropriate interplay between the incapacity benefit system and the jobseeker's allowance.

A great many people will be affected by the changes, and a great many vulnerable people, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) told us. It is anticipated that about 220,000 people who are now in receipt of invalidity benefit may fail to qualify for incapacity benefit and about 55,000 new claimants who would have qualified for invalidity benefit will not qualify for incapacity benefit. Perhaps 190,000 people will in due course come off invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit to go on to jobseeker's allowance. We are talking of large numbers of people.

The sick and the disabled have a very real apprehension—it is one that I share—that significant numbers of them will not be sick enough to qualify for incapacity benefit but will not be fit enough to qualify for jobseeker's allowance. They will not be able to satisfy the rigorous requirements for availability and actively seeking work.

The test that is being instituted to enable people to qualify for incapacity benefit has an absolutist character, whereas the realities of the labour market are highly complex. It seems to me that that disjunction of approaches will inevitably throw up difficulties. We cannot realistically isolate, in some objective sense, individuals' capacity to work. Their capacity for work in truth depends on the circumstances in which they find themselves; on the interaction of their life history and their unique configuration of abilities with the circumstances around them and the conditions in the labour market. I am sure that my right hon. Friends will want to develop the system to provide real and effective bridges between those two regimes.

I commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the suggestion made by the Disablement Income Group, which appears constructive and practical, that the disability employment advisers should be involved in reconsidering cases in which people have narrowly failed to qualify for incapacity benefit as a result of taking the medical test. It would be good if those marginal cases could be reviewed and referred back to the Benefits Agency medical service for another look. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will think about that.

I also hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish—as they suggested they would during our debates last year on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill—to look systematically at the linking rules. There are generous linking rules for the disability working allowance. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to consider the matter carefully and with open minds.

4.15 pm

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting comparison with the disability working allowance, but surely he will admit that few people have been able to claim that allowance simply because it is available only when they have already overcome the major hurdle of obtaining work. Does he have any views on what problems might be caused in the administration of the benefits by the sheer numbers who will be in the system once incapacity benefit is introduced and both processes begin to bite?

There are, perhaps, two points. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been somewhat disappointed by the take-up of the disability working allowance and have taken steps to liberalise the rules for DWA to encourage, and make it possible for, more people to benefit from it. I very much agree with the hon. Lady that, given the numbers of people who will be in the hinterland between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance, a great many demands will be placed on administration. That is an extremely important consideration.

Last year the Government undertook to look systematically and carefully at linking rules and the progression from one benefit to another of disabled people. I hope that the Government will apply that approach when considering the relationship between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. We shall need to have flexibility and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there is not a gulf between the two benefits into which vulnerable people can fall and find themselves altogether without benefit.

I am unclear whether the rules that allow sick or disabled people to restrict their availability for work—taking reasonable account of where the job may be located or the conditions of work in a particular employment—are to be carried through to the jobseeker's allowance. Hon. Members must forgive me if the matter has already been dealt with in Committee, but if it has not been clarified, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment could cast some light on it.

It is tremendously important that the jobseeker's agreement takes account of the needs of an individual disabled person. The agreement must, of course, take account of the individual needs of any claimant, but that is particularly important for disabled people. I hope that we may have some reassurance on that point. I have a more radical suggestion for my hon. Friend the Minister. I am encouraged to see her turning round in her place and smiling at me. I smile on her and wonder whether, in her present benign mood, with the milk of human kindness coursing through her, she feels able to agree to allow the long-term sick and disabled to receive the contributory jobseeker's allowance for 12 months instead of six.

It is important to recognise that, as we are all too well aware, there are fewer jobs available for the disabled, regardless of discrimination. In the nature of things, it is harder for many disabled people to find work. However arduously and determinedly they look for work, typically, it takes them longer to find work. The hon. Member for Withington cited research carried out by Patricia Prescott-Clarke who found that half of those disabled people who were actively seeking work had been looking for more than one year and that one third had been seeking work for more than three years. Could the Minister find some margin in the public finances which would allow them to receive contributory benefit for 12 months instead of six? It would make an enormous difference to them and to their families.

I would also like a more lenient sanctions regime to apply to the disabled—just as I would like it to apply to many others. Surely the disabled should be able to refuse work or training that is not suited to their needs.

The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has raised an important point, based on its extensive practical experience in the field, concerning problems that arise with medical evidence. Fundholding general practitioners and consultants are increasingly asked to provide certificates of one sort or another, which we recognise can create practical problems for them. As a result of those increasing pressures, it appears that more of them have begun to charge for the provision of evidence. A report from one citizens advice bureau states:

"In the last six tribunals I have undertaken for patients of our local fundholding GP a charge of £15 per letter has been levied."

In another case, a GP was requested to provide evidence to support a disability living allowance review. He replied with a 16-line letter giving a brief history of the client's condition and an attached note saying that the fee for the enclosed report was £50. Another rather brief report stated:

"This patient is suffering from backache."

It was accompanied by a bill for £22.

As I understand it, when the Employment Service seeks medical evidence it will meet the cost involved. However, when an individual claimant wishes to support a claim for restricting his or her availability for work, it is uncertain whether that person would have to pay the cost of producing the evidence in order to satisfy the Employment Service. I hope that the Government will undertake to pay such fees when the Employment Service insists on the provision of evidence.

There is an alternative approach which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Security or the Department of Employment, but is a matter for another Government Department. The terms and conditions of general practitioners could be altered to make provision of that service obligatory for GPs in discharging their ordinary duties. It is an urgent practical point which must be addressed.

The hon. Member for Withington referred to the difficulties that disabled people face in appealing against a decision to disallow disability benefit. They can either accept income support with a 20 per cent. cut or they can sign on to claim jobseeker's allowance. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point that those measures should be unnecessary. If convincing evidence must be produced at an appeal, that should operate fairly effectively to discourage frivolous appeals. I am concerned that a single person would see his or her income reduced from £46.70 to £37.20 per week.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the prejudice of sick and disabled people's national insurance credits. They face either those penalties or the rigours of actively seeking work when they may be in genuine difficulty and when their appeal may be upheld and they may be accepted as being unfit for work.

In conclusion, let me revert to a point that I touched on earlier. We need to see the system and the needs of claimants as a continuum. I am worried that we shall end up with an all or nothing position in which people are judged absolutely as either sick or fit. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be willing to reconsider another suggestion that the Disablement Income Group has consistently advanced and which has great merit—the case for a partial incapacity benefit. That would help to ensure that we have the necessary spectrum of provision.

At present, there is a real danger that people may fall into a gulf in which there is no protection. Some disabled people may be taken out of the benefits system altogether either because they fall into the gulf between incapacity benefit and the jobseeker's allowance or, because of earlier means testing under the jobseeker's allowance, for reasons that the House well understands, because they end up not receiving jobseeker's allowance.

I also fear that disabled people will suffer under the new jobseeker's allowance. Other hon. Members have spoken about incapacity benefit, but that will be up and running when the jobseeker's allowance comes in. According to the Government's own figures, some 220,000 people will be debarred from invalidity and incapacity benefit and told that they are fit for work.

I am afraid also—and I should like some clarification from the Minister—that people will not be able to get the jobseeker's allowance because they are not available for work, so they will fall between the two benefits of jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefit. That is already happening with invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit. The citizens advice bureaux in particular have drawn attention to many cases in which people are debarred from getting invalidity benefit and cannot get any other benefit because they are not capable of work.

What does the Minister envisage that the Employment Service will do about the influx of people? Other hon. Members have raised that issue. I do not know whether the Employment Service will be able to cope with the 220,000 people in the Government's estimated figures. How will it cope with the fluctuating physical conditions or mild mental health problems of some of the people who will be applying for benefit?

At the moment, disability employment advisers deal mainly with people with severe disabilities and they are not used to dealing with people with mild mental health problems. A great deal more money will be required to train those advisers and many more advisers will be needed.

The Minister stated that £71 million will be made available for training staff dealing with the jobseeker's allowance. I should like more clarification on whether that money will be only for disability employment advisers or whether it will also include those who will be involved in the jobseeker's allowance. We need to know whether they will also receive specific training. Is the £71 million just for disabled people, or does it go further? We have not had much guidance from the Government on how that £71 million will be split up. I greatly fear that they will make do with the present number of disability employment advisers in order to save money.

We all know that people are falling through the net at present and it would be an absolute disaster for the jobseeker's allowance if it got worse.

We have heard already that anyone who decides to appeal against a decision to withdraw or refuse incapacity benefit is faced with an impossible dilemma. They either get income support at a reduced rate of 20 per cent. or they sign on. We need definite clarification from the Minister as to whether signing on at the employment exchange will mean that they are debarred from getting benefit or that it will hinder their appeal. In Committee, the Minister justified the penalty clause on the ground that it would reduce the number of appeals, but everyone should have the right to appeal against being debarred from a benefit. The Minister did not make it clear whether signing on would count. There have been many contradictory statements, so clarification is needed.

4.30 pm

Disabled people are disadvantaged in society. Next week we will debate the Disability Discrimination Bill—but I do not believe that it will help a great deal. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) spoke of the need to obtain medical evidence to support a claim of being unable to perform certain jobs because of disability. Will the Government meet the cost of obtaining that evidence? Will the Employment Service make an allowance? Otherwise, there will be a disincentive to appeal. People should be made to feel that they can appeal against a decision and not be denied that course because of the cost.

The cost must also be met where a disabled person finds it more difficult to meet the expense of travelling to and from a new job, as well as all the other costs that he or she might incur in meeting a new job commitment. I agree with new clause 2 and hope that the Government will accept it.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) asked a number of pertinent questions, but she could have elicited answers to many of them if she or any other Liberal Democrat had taken the trouble to serve on the Committee that considered the Bill.

No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that I served on the Committee considering the Disability Discrimination Bill, so was unable to be on two Committees at the same time. As I am my party's social security and disability spokesperson, I should have served on the Committee considering the Jobseekers Bill, but I served on the other.

To conclude this slight spat, both the Government and my party were able to place social security and employment spokespersons on the Committee considering this Bill, and I imagine that the Liberal Democrats have an employment spokesperson.

Figures released by the unemployment unit today show that the number of jobless people losing benefit has doubled in the past 12 months, which fully justifies fears repeatedly expressed by the Opposition that the jobseeker's allowance legislation is paving the way to a harsher and more repressive regime in the Employment Service. There is deep anxiety on these Benches that new toughness will work to the special disadvantage of the most vulnerable claimants—the sick and disabled, who will be presenting themselves in vastly increased numbers at jobcentres.

Incapacity benefit will replace invalidity benefit on 13 April, when it is estimated that more than 200,000 ex-claimants will fail the new test of incapacity and will be treated as capable of working. There is widespread evidence that a clampdown is already operating in the run-up to incapacity benefit. Streatham citizens advice bureau has seen significant growth in recent months in the number of cases where DSS medical boards are finding people fit for work and discontinuing their invalidity benefit. Trades Union Congress unemployment centres are reporting a tenfold growth in appeals against loss of invalidity benefit over the past 12 months.

One of the purposes of the new clause is to make some provision for the extra costs that are faced by disabled people, in satisfying the availability and actively seeking work requirements of the proposed legislation. I want to say a word in support of that proposal, but before I do, I ask for a specific assurance from the Government with regard to the costs of supporting medical evidence. I mentioned the experience of Streatham citizens advice bureau, of the recent growth in judgments against invalidity benefit claimants by DSS medical boards. Apparently, where claimants wish to appeal against such judgments, some doctors are now charging for the medical reports necessary for appeal, regardless of the patients' ability to pay. I find that a distressing and unfair development. It does not auger well for the new arrangements under the jobseeker's agreement where a person is seeking to restrict his or her availability for work on health grounds and needs to produce supporting medical evidence.

In Committee, the Minister appeared to offer an undertaking that no charge would be made to a claimant where the Employment Service requested such evidence. That form of words appeared at the same time, however, to exclude provision for such evidence to be free when it is the claimant who requests it. I seek an assurance that where either the Department or the claimant requests evidence with regard to limits on work, on health grounds, it will be free at the point of supply.

I notice that the Minister is shaking her head. I hope that, by the conclusion of my observations on this matter or at the end of the debate, a more generous spirit will have surged through her and that that assurance will be offered.

In more general terms, it is obvious that the sick and disabled usually face greater living costs than other people as a result of their illnesses and disabilities. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security offered to consider the possibility of making provision for specific travel, interview or search costs incurred by disabled people in search of work. I hope that the Minister will be able to undertake to include such provision on the face of the Bill later.

The new clause also removes the new appeal penalty that was introduced in Committee, which is explicitly designed to act as a disincentive to appeals against the withdrawal of incapacity benefit. Rather than penalising those who exercise the right of appeal, it seems more reasonable to increase the resources available for dealing with appeals. The truth is that although many will choose to sign on while appealing, not least to preserve their national insurance record, those who feel least able to work will be penalised the most. Not only will the withdrawal of incapacity benefit in itself reduce their income but they now face a further loss of income of at least £9 a week. I commend the proposal in the new clause that will at least ensure that disabled people are treated as available for work for the duration of their appeal.

It is a grave cause for concern in my view to force the sick and disabled out of benefit as a result of illness and on to lower benefits and the highly notional job market. When I visited my local CAB recently, I was told of the pressures experienced by an arthritis sufferer. She had been forced out of her old job by her disability and was told by the DSS to apply for a job as a cleaner. Another client, more than 60 years of age, who had been out of work for years, also because of arthritis, faced the loss of invalidity benefit. Where is the fairness or common sense in that?

Even more worrying is the situation of those suffering from non-physical disabilities under the new arrangements. Let me cite two further cases dealt with by the Streatham CAB in recent months that illustrate the problems that are likely to be faced by those suffering from mental illness. In one case—that of a controlled schizophrenic—the DSS suggested that that person could be employed, again, as a cleaner. It is interesting that in this new world of work that is being opened up and the wonderful, flexible labour market that is being created by the Government, the characteristic job that seems to be on offer to those about to move into the labour market is that of cleaner.

Another case, also passed to me by the Streatham CAB, concerned a severely alcoholic man, part of whose brain had been affected by alcoholism. He too faced the threat of losing his invalidity benefit. The CAB helped both those people to win on appeal, but that is no basis for complacency. People with mental illness are the least able to help themselves, and could be said to suffer from one of the least easily provable illnesses. They are in great danger of being disadvantaged by the new tough regime that the Bill presages.

Is not another factor the time that it takes for appeals to be heard, and the disadvantages that someone considering an appeal may suffer in the interim?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. My local CAB has given distressing examples of the enormous difficulties experienced by its clients in obtaining benefits—or any form of income—during that period.

People suffering from mental illness are most likely to be pressurised into job search activity that may be unsuitable or even detrimental to their health. There is a danger that a number of long-term sick and disabled people will find themselves squeezed out of the benefit system altogether. New clause 2 is designed to offer some safeguards against the risk posed by this worrying, repressive and mean-spirited legislation.

I support new clause 2. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up some ambiguities relating to transfer from invalidity to incapacity benefit and thence—in some cases—to the jobseeker's allowance.

The hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said that some 200,000 people were in receipt of invalidity benefit. If I have misquoted either of them, I shall of course give way.

According to the Government's own estimate, 220,000 people will be ineligible for invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit.

I am grateful for that clarification. I wonder whether the statistics include the approximately 80,000 women aged between 60 and 65 whose invalidity benefit has been suspended by the Department until such time as the European Court of Justice offers an opinion in the test case of Mrs. Graham.

Mrs. Graham appealed against the suspension of her invalidity benefit. A commissioner by the name of Skinner—I am sure that he is no relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—found in her favour, but the Department challenged his finding and went to the English Court of Appeal, whose judges sent the commissioner's decision to the European Court of Justice. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position; I am sure that she is wonderfully clear about the issue of the 80,000 women who are currently in a curious state of limbo.

In a letter sent to me last week, the Secretary of State assured me, and I believe him, that if the opinion of the European Court of Justice—for that is what it offers: opinions—is accepted by the English Court of Appeal, he will ensure that women caught in this appalling trap will receive invalidity benefit backdated to, I believe, 1 April 1992. I welcome that commitment from the Secretary of State. I know that the Minister cannot speculate on the likely outcome of a case that is to begin in Luxembourg on 6 April, I think, with the oral evidence of Mrs. Graham's QC, a gentleman by the name of Drabble. The Minister will readily acknowledge that the Government have a fairly honourable record in honouring European Court of Justice decisions that go against the legislation, policies and procedures of the United Kingdom.

Of those 80,000 women, some 3,000 or more live in Northern Ireland, several thousand live in Scotland and about 400 live in my constituency. What will happen to such women if they are paid invalidity benefit as a result of the intervention of the European Court of Justice? Presumably, they will be assessed for incapacity benefit, even though some of them are aged between 60 and 65—some of them, of course, will be aged over 65. If those who are aged under 65 years move to incapacity benefit, will some of them then be assessed for the jobseeker's allowance? It would help if that could be clarified.

4.45 pm

A small number of those women have visited me at my surgery. I readily acknowledge that I organised a take-up campaign in Scotland on behalf of such women. I hope to organise such a campaign in Northern Ireland because those women are being miserably treated by the Government.

Incidentally, Commissioner Skinner decided that the Government were in contravention of a European Community directive. I cannot remember its classification, but it was obviously an equality directive. It will help if persons who will be directly affected by the legislation know what the position will be if the case goes Mrs. Graham's way, as, naturally, I sincerely hope that it will, or if the Government's case is accepted by the European Court of Justice.

It is unfair that those women have been treated in this way. I readily acknowledge that, in cases of hardship, such women can have the benefit restored, as has happened to some of my women constituents. Some 800 women throughout England, Scotland and Wales have had the benefit restored on the ground of hardship. A small number of women in Northern Ireland have also had their benefit restored on that ground, which they had to prove. It would be extremely helpful if such women were informed, especially given the imminence of the case. As the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in another letter, no opinion will be offered by the court until July, but those women are coming to hon. Members' surgeries—they are certainly coming to mine—and asking what their likely position will be if the court offers an opinion in favour of Mrs. Graham or, on the bleak side, if it offers an opinion that supports the Government.

This matter is important because we are talking about scores of thousands of women. It would be remiss of hon. Members to ignore their sparse circumstances in a debate on the new clause, which seeks, however directly or indirectly, to protect people who have suffered long bouts of sickness. Also, some of my constituents and many other women in Scotland, who are so affected and who have been in touch with me, have contributed to such benefits. They have a right to demand from the Government some sort of indication of where they will stand in the near future vis-a-vis the test case which will shortly begin its proceedings at the European Court of Justice.

We have had an interesting debate and I think that there is a genuine shared concern on both sides of the House that we should ensure that when we introduce the jobseeker's allowance, people with disabilities, having been refused incapacity benefit—as it will then be—will not fall between two stools. The main concern that has informed contributions to the debate—with the exception of the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) to which I shall return later—has been that people should not be caught and fall down some black hole. That was the main thrust of the speech made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne).

I can reassure the House, as I reassured the Committee on several occasions, that we are concerned to ensure that people do not fall between two stools. It is important to understand—I say this particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—that when people sign on for JSA, rather than for income support, they will be able to place restrictions on their availability, on the type of work that they are able to do and even on their job search activities. They will be able to include such restrictions as arise as a result of their condition. I shall go into a little more detail about how we will make those judgments later.

When the Minister does go into detail, will she explain how the jobseeker's agreement will tie into that and what would happen if there were no agreement? Will she also refer particularly to whether specialist advisers will be on hand to interpret the practical effects of some conditions which ordinary Employment Service staff may not always appreciate?

Those are all important questions and I can answer most of them in a positive way which I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome.

In Committee, I made available copies of the draft jobseeker's agreement. I demonstrated that there are questions on that agreement which ask, for example, about the hours that somebody is willing to work. If somebody's condition is such that they are able to do some work—one would presume that to be the case since they have been turned down for incapacity benefit—but are not able to work a full working week, which we define as 40 hours for the purposes of JSA, they would be able to agree with the Employment Service adviser, not the disability employment adviser, some restrictions on the hours. There is then a catch-all section which says:

"Other agreed restrictions on …availability".

That is a section to which people with disabilities might wish to add extra points that are not necessarily to do with hours or the type of work. It is important to understand that the jobseeker's agreement is meant to be tailored.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that any applicant should be able to have his circumstances taken into account in all reasonable conditions. That is a view to which we would subscribe. I spent some time during the Committee—as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) will remember—trying to reassure hon. Members on that point. I shall deal with the hon. Lady's other points when I come to discuss in greater detail how the matters will be managed, and she can intervene again at that point if she is not satisfied.

I shall now address some of the specifics which came up in the debate in relation to the clause and its various subsections. First, we dealt with the question of the extra costs involved in a job search, and the particular difficulties that a person with disabilities might face. Such a person would be able to put restrictions into his jobseeker's agreement, and specialist help designed for each individual will also be available.

Help with travel to interviews will be available, and that will include the costs of an escort to or from an interview. Premiums are also payable to people with disabilities which do not depend on their availability for work, such as disability living allowance, severe disability allowance and mobility allowance. All of those will still be available, and should address the specific problems which people with disabilities have.

The jobseeker's agreement focuses on the steps to be taken, but those steps will have been agreed. There is no single prescription of the steps that should be taken. I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on subsection (2) when he talked about discrimination. Clearly there is discrimination against people with disabilities, and the Disability Discrimination Bill was introduced to address that. That Bill is where we shall base our help for people who face discrimination.

Why does the Disability Discrimination Bill not include small employers, who may be very willing to take on disabled people?

If they are very willing to take on disabled people, there is no problem at all. What we have said in the Disability Discrimination Bill is very straightforward. We do not wish to place undue burdens on small businesses. If small businesses find that it is not possible within reason to make adjustments, they must still prove that that is the case if they are caught within the terms of the Bill. They also have to master a fairly complex piece of legislation, and we must bear it in mind that they do not have discrete personnel departments as larger concerns do.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that small firms have been exempted in other countries where such a measure has been brought in. We encourage small firms to take on people with disabilities. Access to work covers large, medium and small firms, and is available to each individual. We have gone a long way towards addressing the particular concerns of the hon. Gentleman.

The Minister said that small firms were exempted in other countries. In the United States, firms of 15 employees and under are exempted. Why is the figure 20 and under in this country?

There is no need for us specifically to follow the United States. We have made a judgment on what we think is reasonable in terms of our legislation and the burdens we are proposing to put on business. The hon. Lady will be well aware that, under the Disability Discrimination Bill, regulations will be able to provide for that threshold to be altered if necessary. We have built in flexibility, and I feel that her point on that issue is not fair.

While on the issue of subsections (1) and (2), this is probably a convenient place to explain the figure of £71 million which has been raised by hon. Members this afternoon. Unemployed and disabled people have priority for places on all main employment and training programmes for which they are both suitable and eligible.

The Employment Service will spend an additional £71 million in the first three years of incapacity benefit on all those who come on to unemployment from incapacity benefit. That £71 million will cover, among other things, in-depth interviews, specialised help from placing assessment and counselling teams—the PACTs to which I referred earlier—and extra provision for job plan, job club and the job interview guarantee. Therefore, people affected by the introduction of incapacity benefit will have early access to the most appropriate provision. The access to work scheme—

The Minister gave a breakdown of the £71 million, but did not specify how much more money would be put into the system of disability employment advisers.

5 pm

There has already been substantial training as a result of the new incapacity benefit. There will be additional training as a result of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, which will include such things as reasonable restrictions. I shall deal specifically with disability employment advisers when I talk about the particular route that I said that I wanted to follow in more detail.

The access to work scheme, which extended and replaced existing programmes, will also be of use to people who have the difficulties which hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly acknowledge.

I understood that the access to work scheme was up for review shortly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is here to stay?

If a scheme is up for review, I shall not prejudice that review any more than I am willing to speculate on the outcome of a court case. However, access to work is recognised as a successful scheme. I am sure that that success will be taken into account when the review is conducted.

That means no.

I did not say no. If I had said no, it was not here to stay, I would have been speculating on its demise. I am not doing that. I am saying that when anything is the subject of a review, it ill becomes Ministers to speculate on the likely outcome in the House.

Much that I have already said covers subsection (3) of the new clause. Of course, the individual is not forced on to income support with a 20 per cent. deduction. He has the choice of going on to full JSA, placing restrictions on the hours and type of work and anything else that may be immediately relevant to his disability.

This is an important point. Will the Minister confirm that if an individual who wishes to appeal against being disallowed incapacity benefit signs on to JSA, with all the restrictions, no tribunal will regard that as in any way prejudicial to the appeal?

Yes. I can confirm that absolutely unequivocally. Signing on for work will not prejudice an appeal against a refusal to allow incapacity benefit. I can furthermore say that the courts have made that clear. The chief adjudication officer has also made that clear. Therefore, I do not think that that need be a worry. I know that it exercised several hon. Members who spoke in the debate. I intended to deal with it at a subsequent stage.

Subsection (4) of the new clause would ensure that a person with disabilities receives the advice of a disability employment adviser rather than just an Employment Service officer. We shall ensure that the individual will be able to make a free choice. He may not want to go to a disability employment adviser. There are people who do not. They want to be treated in the main stream. They want to stay in the main stream. One needs to respect that choice, but there will be a choice. Anyone who wants the services of a disability employment adviser and who is eligible through having some physical or mental restriction will be able to receive that advice. I hope that the hon. Member for Withington will accept that assurance.

I can also reassure the hon. Gentleman on subsection (5). Claimants who are, or have partners who are, sick or disabled will automatically be classified as vulnerable and, therefore, will receive hardship payments throughout the sanction. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and I wish to confirm, they will have to establish hardship. As they are in a vulnerable group, it will be assumed that where there is financial hardship, they qualify.

I shall deal now with some of the specific points that were made in the debate. The main thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow was about women between the ages of 60 and 65 awaiting the outcome of the Graham decision. If the appeal goes in their favour, they will come under the rule which says that people aged 58 or over in receipt of invalidity benefit since 1 December 1993 will be exempt from the all-work test. Accordingly, if they win, they will not move off benefit through the all-work test. They will have their position restored and they will then be covered by the protection extended to those over the age of 58. My understanding is that if they lose, they will be in exactly the same position as anyone else over 60 in terms of retirement pension or income support where the pension is not appropriate, or whatever the case may be. I hope that that clears the matter up.

The hon. Member for Withington was probably slightly confused. I think that I heard him say that access to work and general help was for those in work. I reassure him that the Employment Service can fund the costs of travel to interview, the cost of escorts to and from interview, which are important for people with disabilities, the cost of providing communications for the deaf at interview and other similar measures. For example, when talking about people facing extra costs in looking for work, one can call to mind the blind and whether they can type a CV. The PACTs and the Employment Service can provide such a service.

I said that I would go into the detail of the position of those who cross from one benefit to another. The full detailed arrangements will be set out in regulations, but I can give the following assurances. When a claim is made, Employment Service front-line staff will take the claimant's own evidence about the extent of his condition and the impact that it has on his availability or whatever he seeks to restrict. In many cases, that will be agreed and there will not be any further problem.

Where a claimant has left incapacity benefit and makes a claim for JSA, the Employment Service will have a range of medical evidence available to assess whether the restrictions are reasonable, given the claimant's particular condition. That will include, always assuming that the claimant has given written consent, the incapacity benefit disallowance notice, which will set out the case, evidence provided by the Benefits Agency medical services and specialist expertise within the Employment Service.

Where a claimant has not made a previous claim for incapacity benefit, our front-line staff will have full access, where they need it, to the range of services offered by the disability employment advisers and the PACTs, who have specialist knowledge and expertise on the impact of disabilities on occupations and the effect on a person's prospects in the local labour market. If they have doubts about the reasonableness of the claimant's proposed restrictions, the case will go to an independent adjudication officer. He or she will, in turn, have access to the full range of evidence provided by the all-work test and incapacity benefit, if appropriate, or the expertise of the disability employment advisers and the PACTs. The adjudication officer may also require the claimant to provide further evidence, which could include medical evidence.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that we expect that to be necessary only in a small proportion of cases. We understand that many doctors will be prepared to provide that sort of evidence free of charge and we do not, therefore, see the need for legislation to provide for any other system.

The hon. Lady says that doctors will be available to provide medical evidence free of charge in many cases, but what if no doctor is prepared to do so? She said that she does not want to introduce legislation, but if that were the case it would be essential.

We expect that the provision will affect only a small number of cases, and within those we would expect many doctors to provide the evidence free of charge. That is not merely a vague expectation, as it is based on the knowledge available to us. If the hon. Lady is challenging me to agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who is also about to intervene, we do not accept that there is a case for an open-ended commitment from the Department of Employment to fund medical advice in that way. We do not see the need to fund it in that way. First, there is no good reason why we should fund some doctors and not others, and we would have to have an open-ended commitment whereby we would fund all such evidence. Secondly, we must remember that the procedure occurs only in cases of doubt and after all the other evidence that I mentioned has been exhausted. We are not talking about imposing charges at an early stage in the process.

I am a little worried that my hon. Friend may be at risk of underestimating the incidence of such charges. We should certainly acknowledge that, where they occur, they bear heavily on people on low incomes and in a precarious situation. While I recognise her difficulty about making a commitment to funding, will she say here and now at the Dispatch Box that she believes that it is right in principle that doctors should not charge to provide claimants with that evidence? Will she also undertake to confer with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to find out whether further steps can be taken to encourage doctors to conform to the standards that I am sure that she and I would both want them to adhere to?

While there is no reason to doubt the good faith of the claimant concerned, I hope—I can put it no higher, as I cannot lay down ethics for the medical profession—that the doctor would provide such a service free of charge. I cannot undertake to apply pressure on the Department of Health as my hon. Friend suggests, but I undertake to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in whose province that falls, to talk to the Department of Health.

I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Withington sufficient reassurances to enable him to withdraw the new clause.

I am grateful for the detail in which the Minister responded to the debate on new clause 2 and for the contributions from both sides of the House. It was always a great sadness to Opposition Members that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was not selected to serve on the Standing Committee to help us in our deliberations.

We accept the Minister's assurances on certain areas, but the proof will come out in the detail in 1996, after the Bill becomes an Act, when we can judge the interrelationship of its provisions with incapacity benefit in practice. We reserve our judgment on whether the seamless service between the two benefits will be as effective as the Government suggest.

We are concerned that £71 million will not be sufficient to meet the extra demands that will be placed on the Employment Service. On the pertinent question of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon about the access to work fund, which is under review, I can only say that the independent living fund was a huge success and we all know what happened to that, so we will be watching with great interest.

We will look at the operations of the Act in practice and I am sure that these matters may be considered in further detail in another place. With that comment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Availability For Employment: The 21 Hour Rule

'.—(1) A person who—

(a) is attending a course of education, training or instruction;

(b) would, if he were not attending that course, be available for employment;

(d) was for a prescribed period or periods before he first attended the course in receipt of a prescribed benefit or on a prescribed course of training or instruction,

shall be treated as available for employment for the purposes of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), "course" means—

(a) a course of a prescribed description financed by the European Social Fund; or,

(b) a course in the pursuit of which time spent receiving instruction or tuition, undertaking supervised study, examination or practical work or taking part in any exercise, experiment or project for which provision is made in the curriculum of the course, excluding time occupied by meal breaks or spent on unsupervised study, does not exceed 21 hours a week.'.—[Mr. McCartney.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.15 pm

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I want to set the new clause in context as it concerns one of the issues over which there was great contention in Committee. There was contention for a number of reasons. One was the way in which the Government introduced the measure in Committee and the other was the fact that we believed it to be a perverse and mean-spirited approach to reduce the 21 guided learning hours to 16.

Yesterday, more than 1,000 people representing all aspects of education came to the House to voice their disapproval of and concern about the Government's continuing disinvestment from education. This new clause should be seen in the context of the Government's overall drive to disinvest from education, whether at primary, secondary or tertiary level or, as in this case, from people who are unemployed and require training and further education to get back into the work force.

For those reasons, we opposed the Government's statement in mid-February and submitted a new clause in Committee to reverse the decision back to 21 hours. This afternoon, we are continuing the fight with a further new clause, which contains an additional provision to that tabled in Committee, as the Government did not give any clear indication of the way in which they intended to deal with education and training schemes run under the European social fund.

Up to 80,000 jobless people are using their time on the dole to study. They will be forced to consider giving up their studies to take low-paid, part-time and casual work with no prospects for future career development or educational training.

The present rules allow for 21 hours of guided study or learning, but under JSA rules, the Government will cut that to 16, with five hours or more for private study. In general, the Government are presenting that measure as a continuation of the current scheme, which it is not. As we already know from information received following the Government's announcement, at least 11,500 people each year will be disqualified from taking part in further education because of that cut. It is also believed that that is a gross underestimate.

During discussions on the Minister's statement in mid-February, she said that there would be some losers, but that the Government could not put a figure on it, or were not prepared to do so. The truth of the matter is that the Government are making the reduction to save £40 million. It is not about clarifying the position in respect of the 21-hour rule as regards educational establishments, or pulling it into line with the Government's position on other benefits and access to them; it is about saving £40 million. This Bill is about saving £400 million from the benefits of those who have been put on the dole by Government economic policies.

What will be the result of this swingeing cut? It will undermine training programmes that are run with social fund assistance. It will put at serious risk the viability of further education colleges that specialise in helping the long-term unemployed to train or study.

The Government's meanness seems to move in the opposite direction to the needs and wishes of further education colleges, students, the jobless, teaching organisations, trade unions and employers. All those with a stake in further education and training have argued that, rather than reduce the 21 hours to 16, the Bill should have contained measures to relax the 21-hour rule and make it easier for people on the dole to take up part-time training and study. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence presented to the Government in advance of the Bill, they have chosen not to relax the arrangements but to tighten them up and introduce far more coercion into the system.

This Government are the only western Government with an advanced economy who are now disinvesting in training and further education. Because of changes in both national and international markets, we see a dramatic change in how people are employed in local labour markets. Governments overseas and in Europe are meeting that challenge with massive investment in education and retraining. Only this Government are taking steps both in the Bill and the Budget to reduce overall funding in the education and training budgets. They have cut more than £300 million from training budgets, tightened the rules and undermined people's opportunities to have genuine access to education and retraining to allow them to return to the marketplace and seek employment in their local labour market or further afield in the British or European economies.

In many instances, the current rules provided a genuine open door for individuals who, through sheer misfortune, found themselves out of a job and needing to train or retrain to improve their career chances and job hopes. May I give an example of the type of individuals who will be badly affected by the proposal? In Committee, my hon. Friends and I referred to individuals anonymously. I hope that the Minister accepts that we do so to protect the individuals concerned rather than mislead or deceive anybody about the circumstances.

Mr. P, aged 28, was made redundant from a junior management post and was unsuccessful in obtaining work for some while. He had no formal qualifications and had experience of work only in the retail trade. He took an access course under the 21-hour rule while employed and is now in a residential care home with the intention of qualifying as a social worker. There can be no guarantee under the new 16-hour rule, which will apply a much tighter definition and a shorter period of learning each week, that that gentleman will be able to escape unemployment and find a route into a worthwhile occupation by retraining.

In Committee, we gave specific examples of individuals who had been denied access to income through unemployment benefit and income support while retraining for the caring professions. Despite that evidence, the Government made no effort to acknowledge that those individuals would be affected in that way or to acknowledge the hardship that their proposal would cause. The Bill is a lost opportunity to invest in people and get them off the dole and into meaningful employment.

The new 16-hour rule comes at a time when the long-term unemployed find it even more difficult to clamber back into the job market. Those with low skills are more likely to be long-term unemployed than highly skilled and qualified people, who find it easier to get another job. The unskilled and semi-skilled are four times more likely to lose their jobs than the average person and less likely to find a new job quickly. Those with few or no qualifications form the majority of the long-term unemployed, 38 per cent. of whom have no qualifications and 58 per cent. of whom have qualifications below 0-level standard. Unqualified men are four times more likely to be unemployed than graduate men and eight times more likely to be out of work for more than a year.

Those are not Labour party statistics but figures produced from Government labour force market surveys. Government statistics show that long-term unemployment exists because of under-investment in training. Those trapped in that position find it increasingly difficult to enter the marketplace, which is why the Government continue to pay benefit whereas they should invest in giving people opportunities to be in gainful employment. The Government have chosen to ignore the evidence and have taken steps to tighten up the 21-hour rule to 16 hours.

Skills among the jobless become out of date quickly, which further penalises their chances of getting back to work. In a world of rapid technological change, employees need continually to update their skills. The longer the period that someone is out of work, the less currency his old skills and qualifications have. Labour Members like me who represent former mining, textile and engineering communities have seen that all too clearly. Direct intervention has resulted in the dislocation of our local economies and, almost overnight, tens of thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers, mainly men, have found themselves unemployed. Their skills have become redundant because of the changing nature of the local economy, and low-skill, part-time employment has been offered in place of their previous permanent, high-skill employment.

It is precisely those groups of men and women who require the opportunity to study and train under the 21-hour rule to learn completely new skills that will give them an opportunity to get back into the labour market, yet they will be worst affected by the Government's proposals. I sometimes think that the Government do not give a damn what happens to mining, textile or heavy engineering communities because, on each and every occasion, their direct action has led to mounting unemployment and a dislocation of employment patterns in those communities. The employment opportunities of those former work forces are increasingly reduced. Unemployed people are offered part-time menial jobs because we have an economy in which skilled jobs are being replaced by unskilled, part-time, semi-skilled employment. Eight out of 10 new jobs created under this Government are part time. Although the opportunity for full-time employment has been ominously eradicated by the Government's proposals, they intend further to reduce access to training and education.

On numerous occasions in Committee, we attempted to get some information from the Government about why those who attend European social fund courses are treated as second-class citizens. The rules that relate to those courses are radically different from those that relate to programmes directly supported by the Department of Employment. The contrast is stark. People on training for work courses are guaranteed benefit plus £10 a week and are not required to be available for or actively seeking work.

Unemployed people who want to take up a place on a European social fund course and need to retain their benefit payments can do so only under the limits of the 21-hour rule. That means that they cannot participate in a full-time training programme but must remain immediately available for full-time work and show that they are actively seeking work. They must continue to sign on and attend compulsory restart interviews and courses like job plan workshops or workwise, irrespective of whether those courses cut across the European social fund course that they are attending.

If successfully completed, European social fund courses provide individuals with a marketable skill. Despite that, the Government will reduce or stop benefit entitlement if, during those courses, an individual fails to attend a compulsory restart interview or a compulsory job plan workshop. A student who applies for or participates in a course cannot take the course employer or provider to an industrial tribunal on the grounds of racial or sexual discrimination.

5.30 pm

If an unemployed person, who has signed on, takes up a full-time training place through the European social fund, he loses the right to income support and his automatic entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit. That person also loses automatic entitlement to free dental treatment and free prescriptions, becomes ineligible for some of the loans available from the social security social fund and must forgo assistance with mortgage interest payments.

Why do the Government take such draconian action against an individual seeking retraining and qualification through the European social fund? For many unemployed people, that fund represents the most practical way back into the labour market, because in many areas of high unemployment the European social fund is providing the practical investment for training and education. Why do the Government insist on treating those trainees differently from those who receive funding through our Department of Employment?

It has been suggested that the European social fund training programmes simply represent the means for the Department of Employment to distribute money and that the arrangement is purely administrative. I find it strange that as a result of a purely administrative arrangement people may be denied a range of benefits, including council tax benefit and income support. In fact, they run the risk of losing access to any income. Surely the arrangement is a bit more than an administrative one. In truth, the Government have always opposed European social fund schemes in, for example, former coal mining communities. When the Government were forced, for political reasons, to accept the necessity of European social funding of education and training courses, they decided to make it increasingly difficult, through the nature of the rules they set, for people to participate in those schemes or to take full advantage of them. We receive additional resources from our European partners in the Community to help retrain and redeploy tens of thousands of unemployed people. It is disastrous that the Government should simply respond by undermining an unemployed person's ability to participate in and complete such a course.

It is important for the Government to say that they intend to integrate the rules governing European social fund courses with those courses under their direct responsibility. It seems only sensible that that relationship should be equitable. After all, the qualification gained from a European social fund course is recognised by the Government as a route back into employment. Despite that, the Government seem intent on continuing to undermine the rights of people who join such courses.

The Government should have used the Bill to deal with the real issue—the 21-hour rule—because they received thousands upon thousands of requests from citizens advice bureaux and other organisations to do just that. Six key amendments are necessary. What is meant by actively seeking work should be defined more clearly. What is meant by being immediately available for work, when many individuals on courses of 10 hours—not 16 or 21—have lost the right to benefit because of the interpretation that local employment officers have placed on those courses and those individuals' availability for work?

That leads on to the problem of arbitrary local decision making. The Minister said nothing in Committee about what she intended to do about that. She failed to mention that, as a result of such decision making, however, individuals on the same type of course, or even on the same course, are dealt with differently by different officers who judge their respective ability to continue a course or their right to receive benefit while on that course.

The Minister has tried to define the difference between full-time and part-time education through her attempts to reduce 21 hours of supervised study to 16 hours. When the problem of that definition was originally raised by Opposition Members and organisations representing the unemployed, we had supposed that the Minister would not reduce the hours from 21 to 16, but would extend the regulations to allow people to enjoy a full 21 hours of learning rather than run the risk of having their ability to continue on a course undermined by Employment Service officers.

Local DSS officers have different customs and practices, which has led to many people losing their right to benefit, despite the fact that their circumstances are similar to, if not exactly the same as, those of claimants on courses in other parts of the country. There is no clear central guidance from the Department about how individuals should be treated sympathetically.

The Bill is a wasted opportunity on the Government's part. It has undermined the capability and the range of options of many thousands of unemployed people. The proposals are not only mean-minded, but unforgivable. The Government, having first placed hundreds of thousands of people on the dole, are now attempting to blame them for that. They are using coercive measures to reduce funding for the very schemes that would allow unemployed people to get back into work. If the Minister does not respond positively to the debate, we will divide on the new clause.

We all recognise how crucial it is to develop the competences and skills of our people. That is what individuals want in terms of their personal fulfilment and it is absolutely necessary for our economy.

There is no lack of evidence to tell us that the unemployed want training and education. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, some 80,000 unemployed people are studying while in receipt of benefit. The Employment Service national customer satisfaction survey in 1993 revealed that 60 per cent. of the unemployed people surveyed were interested in finding training opportunities; of that number, 32 per cent. wanted to train for a specific occupation, 27 per cent. wanted to pursue a vocational qualification and 17 per cent. wanted an educational qualification.

My hon. Friend the Minister has recognised that need and addressed herself to the reform of benefit regulations as they bear on part-time study. I welcome the fact that she has modified the regulations in recognition of the ending of the old distinction between part-time and full-time work resulting from the way in which further education courses are now delivered.

I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is increasingly difficult to cling to that distinction for higher education. Open university courses already benefit a considerable number of unemployed people. The increasing move toward credit accumulation and the increasing tendency for higher education courses to be franchised for their delivery to further education colleges suggests that, over time, there is likely to be a blurring of the distinction between further education and higher education in terms of vocational studies.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to respond to a number of questions for written answer that I had tabled. I noted her acknowledgement that part-time education

"can enhance some clients' prospects of finding work".

I welcome that recognition as far as it goes, although it was perhaps a less fulsome recognition than I would ideally have wished. We need to adopt a much more positive view of the desirability of providing opportunities and supporting unemployed people to undertake studies so that they can upgrade their skills. Their right to study while drawing benefit is termed a concession. If that approach is carried through from income support to jobseeker's allowance, I fear that it will remain somewhat too negative.

My hon. Friend the Minister has robustly, and rightly, argued that the move from a 21-hour rule to a 16-hour rule in respect of part-time studies is not a cut; those 80,000 people will still be able to study under the new rules. However, not only do we want to preserve the present position but we want many more people to be encouraged and enabled to undertake studies. Policy should encourage part-time study.

Unemployed people often believe that an employer is more likely to rate highly what they have gained from pursuing a course that leads to an academic or vocational qualification than what they have gained from taking part in one of the Government's own courses.

We speak in terms of an Employment Service. That term suggests that it should not always be assumed that the Employment Service knows better than unemployed people what is appropriate for them. I recognise that there is to be a spirit of consultation and discussion in the development of individual jobseekers' agreements.

I submit that an unemployed person should be able to embark on a part-time course confident that she or he will not lose benefits as a result, and should have every prospect of completing the course. However, at the moment it is not quite like that. Far from systematically building in encouragement to study, in too many instances we appear to discourage it.

I was disappointed that the learning for work scheme was so quickly scrapped. That scheme would have allowed as many as 30,000 people to take full-time vocational courses. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may have had good reasons to discontinue support for that programme, but at first blush it appears to be a slightly retrograde decision.

I am also somewhat disappointed that the target under training for work for the numbers of participants to achieve qualifications has been lowered from 39 per cent. to 30 per cent. Training for work is accepted as a positive outcome in respect of restart interviews, but it appears that we are missing an opportunity by not allowing other opportunities for education and training to be treated as "positive outcomes", in the jargon.

That is especially strange, in that signing off from benefits and benefit sanctions are regarded as positive outcomes. They may be outcomes that are justified in specific circumstances, but it is strange to call them positive outcomes. I regretted the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was unable, in her answers to me yesterday, to confirm that part-time study would be regarded as a positive outcome at restart interviews.

I do not know the extent to which my hon. Friend the Minister has already clarified arrangements for incentivising Employment Service officials to discourage—if that is not too strong a word—unemployed people from undertaking part-time education and training. Will she clarify to what extent the system of incentives for Employment Service officials does, in effect, discourage unemployed people from undertaking part-time education and training? My impression is that we are at least moving towards arrangements whereby the remuneration of Employment Service officials is related to their contribution to enabling the service to achieve its business objectives. Among its business objectives are those "positive outcomes", which do not include part-time education and training.

5.45 pm

I also remember noting in the Employment Service agreement that there was a target for challenging benefit claims. Where is the incentive for Employment Service officials positively to encourage unemployed people to improve their skills beyond the opportunities provided under training for work—opportunities that are, sadly, diminishing in number? Jobseekers' directions will reinforce the scope for Employment Service officials to steer unemployed people towards outcomes other than education and training.

We already have a tightened availability test. As I understand it, if unemployed people are to be eligible to receive benefit, they must satisfy the requirement that they should be willing to take time off their course for a job interview, they must be willing to adjust their attendance to fit in with a job and they must be willing to give up a course at once to take a job.

I am especially worried about the latter requirement. Is it really sensible—is it far-sighted—to insist that an unemployed person should abandon a course if a temporary job is offered, or if an unskilled job is offered, when he is developing a higher level of skills, which would enable him, in quite a short period, to contribute more effectively to the creation of wealth in our economy? That appears to me wasteful and short-termist.

I suspect that that is somewhat akin in approach to the thinking that underlies the notion of the permitted period, which is reaffirmed in the new policy. A permitted period, so-called, will be of 13 weeks, during which people claiming benefit are entitled to confine their search for work to work that matches their skills and experience. Thirteen weeks is a very short time to allow for that. After 13 weeks, they will have to accept any job that the Employment Service considers appropriate for them.

I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is prodigal—somewhat too destructive—after only 13 weeks to set aside a person's accumulated skills and knowledge. That approach appears to me consistent with the requirement to give up a course immediately if any job comes on offer. We should value and nurture higher levels of skills more than we do at the moment.

I was surprised to note that revised instructions in the context of unemployment benefit regulations were issued last summer which insisted that people should be disqualified from benefit if they had paid more than £100 to attend a course or if their course led to a qualification needed for the job that they were seeking. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; I am happy to withdraw that point if I am in error. I am puzzled by that measure, because it appears to be almost a surreal policy. Surely it must be desirable that people should pursue courses that lead to qualifications that better enable them to do the jobs that they want to do.

I understand why full-time students should not be smuggled into the benefit system and I well understand the dilemmas that confront my hon. Friends, but how insistent do we have to be—how much on the qui vive do we have to be—to cut off benefit when there is even the faintest suspicion that someone might be a so-called student? We should try to be as flexible and constructive as we can.

Speaking as a Warwickshire Member of Parliament, I must also comment on the dearth of funding for discretionary awards in our county. We have not seen discretionary awards for some years. Every now and again, the local authority is sued by someone who feels that it is only fair that, living in the county of Warwickshire, he, like people living elsewhere, should have at least the opportunity to obtain a discretionary award. But that does not occur.

We should invest in education. I am worried about the collapse of the discretionary awards system. Some of the features of the system which I have been describing seem to discourage self-help and the impulse to self-improvement, values that my hon. Friends often praise. In addition, it does not help that the regulations are somewhat inconsistently applied.

The hon. Member for Makerfield touched on European social fund-funded courses. The Government's position on that subject seems to be curious. As I understand it, they argue that resources for the courses are not payable out of public funds, but they are derived from the European Union, whose funding is derived from the taxpayer. Also, the funds are administered by, among others, local education authorities. That seems to be a quibbling distinction that tends to discourage and take away opportunities.

In one of her answers to me, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that client advisers would give advice and guidance on part-time education opportunities. I am glad that she has been able to place that on the record. The 1993 survey which I mentioned found that more than half the unemployed people inquiring about vocational qualifications went elsewhere—presumably, because the Employment Service found it difficult to answer them. We were told in the survey that the Employment Service was able to supply information to only one third of unemployed people interested in pursuing an educational qualification. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her determination to improve on that state of affairs.

On a more general note, abuse by a few should not prejudice the opportunities of the many. Of course, my hon. Friends are right to say that we must police the system to ensure that people are not able to exist on benefit while pretending to be on courses and to be undertaking education and training. That would be unacceptable, but we should not design a system to which that consideration is central. It is a valid factor, but we should do everything that we can to ensure that as many good-quality training and education opportunities as possible are available.

I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are afraid that if they increase public expenditure, even on education and training, they will be visited by the most terrible retribution by international markets. But that will depend on the quality and purpose of the public expenditure we undertake and on what we fail to do. If we were to degrade our labour force by pursuing a low-skill, low-pay policy, international investors might look elsewhere. Quite rationally, they would become much less interested in investing in our economy. The devaluation of our skills would have just as damaging a long-term effect on our economic fortunes as the devaluation of our money through inflation has had over a previous generation. International investors are more likely to back our economy if we demonstrate that we are investing in human capital.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the context of her announcement on the 16-hour rule. She recognised the need to focus help where people have poor skills or where their skills are obsolete. I welcome, too, the commitment in her press release to keep the situation under review.

This is a short debate, so I shall condense my remarks.

I raised this issue at Employment questions and wish briefly to exercise my right of reply. In response to my question of 7 March, the Minister argued that there was no change and that the new position would be the same as the existing one. She said:

"At present, the 21-hour rule covers both guided learning hours and private study".—[Official Report, 7 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 134.]

When I checked regulation 9(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, I discovered that the reference was to supervised study. There is a crucial difference. Will the Minister admit that 21 supervised hours are becoming 16 guided learning hours? There is a change—will she admit it? I know that, in a sense, the reason why the Minister says that there is no change is that many other mechanisms have been introduced to attack the rights of the unemployed to part-time study and education.

I would refer in detail to Employment Service notice 7/95, issued in January, but I do not have time to do so. It deals with the definition of "student" and tries to define as students more and more people who are studying part time, thus disqualifying them on the grounds that they are students. Employment Service notice 104/94, issued in July—to which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred—attacked people's rights in terms of their availability for work. I mentioned the subject on Second Reading. Students who pay more than £100 for a course are automatically disqualified from benefit. If the course leads to a qualification needed for the job for which they are looking, they are also disqualified.

The rights of unemployed people to undertake part-time study are being attacked. We opposed those regulations and we oppose the new change, which takes us in the wrong direction. Everyone says that we want to expand the rights of the unemployed to part-time education and training because that will create the skills that the economy so badly needs.

Once again, the debate has been interesting and once again, there is common ground between Opposition and Conservative Members on the necessity to make it possible for people who are looking for work to undertake courses of part-time study or to undertake training that will enhance their job prospects. That was very much uppermost in our minds when we formed the rules that were to apply under the jobseeker's allowance.

In response to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I must say that it is simply not true that the Government are disinvesting in further education and training. The reverse is true. There is a planned increase of 25 per cent. in further education starts between 1993–94 and 1995–96. I do not think that an increase of 25 per cent. is a disinvestment. There is a planned further expenditure on further education of £2.7 billion. I am not certain how that can be called disinvestment.

This country stands up extremely well in terms of training investment and its outcomes when compared with its European neighbours. In 1990, 94 per cent. of 16-year-olds were undertaking some sort of education and training—that figure is among the highest in the main developed countries. In 1991, a higher proportion of the United Kingdom's population between the ages of 14 and 49 had recently undertaken a period of education and training than was the case in France, West Germany or most other European Union countries. Our record is a proud one. The Opposition always believe that if we are not spending more, we cannot be doing more. But we are offering the same number of opportunities through our training and our special programmes as we have offered previously—1.5 million.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) is utterly wrong to pick out just one programme of training for work and make deductions from it while ignoring the measures for training in the White Paper on competitiveness, the creation of modern apprenticeships and the large number of other initiatives such as Investors in People. All those factors show our clear commitment.

I shall explain the change. Once again, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is wrong. Supervised study was a combination of tutored and private study. There was and has been until recently a clear distinction between part-time and full-time education. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon warned me that we may not be able to maintain the distinction in higher education for ever, but for the moment we can, which is why there was no change. But the distinction has become so blurred in further education, where more and more courses are modular and based on guided learning hours, that there is no longer a common definition of what is part time.

The net result was that rules were being applied inconsistently from area to area because there was no recognised definition of "part-time". In seeking to redefine part-time study—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford has welcomed our efforts—we were guided very much by the view that we should help the same number of people. There has been no reduction in assistance. We currently help about 80,000 people and some 80,000 people will be assisted under the new proposals.

6 pm

Was not unsupervised study specifically excluded in the 1970s, whereas now it will be included?

No, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. I understand that his concern is genuine and I honestly believe that he is confused—I do not mean that rudely. I shall explain it to him later.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have written to her about a constituency case and, uncharacteristically, I have not received an instant response, so it must be a difficult question. A man in my constituency in his early 30s who is currently studying for 15 hours per week has been told by the Department of Social Security that he no longer qualifies for assistance because he does "homework"—to use the Department's term. That seems quite extraordinary and, judging from what the Minister has said, it must be incorrect.

I will make the position clear. The person who is studying must not allow that study—be it homework or supervised study—to conflict with his or her availability for work.

It does not.

If it does not, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about the matter. I will examine exactly what has occurred and reply to him. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not receive an instant response—we are a trifle busy in my Department at the moment. However, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman.

I turn briefly to the question asked by the hon. Member for Makerfield about the European social fund. I am baffled as to why the hon. Gentleman is making such a meal of the ESF. Should we conclude from the Opposition's new clause that they want all ESF courses to be treated in the same way? Would the Labour party undertake that spending commitment?

Under our proposals, ESF-funded courses will be treated like any other course. If people undertake an ESF-funded course which is part of our training scheme, such as training for work, the rules of that scheme will apply. If they receive a training allowance and not a jobseeker's allowance they will not have to be available for work. However, if they are undertaking the course while receiving JSA, the rules of JSA will apply. That is common sense.

I get the impression that the Opposition are struggling tonight. Their kneejerk opposition to the legislation was based on the false assumption that it would mean a reduction in assistance. That has been disproved and Labour Members feel that they must justify their ridiculous stand in some other way. There is no reduction in assistance. The Government have made a clear commitment to funding part-time study and that commitment will continue. I think that the Opposition should withdraw their new clause 4 and perhaps, in so doing, Labour Members might also apologise for misinterpreting the legislation.

If there are any apologies to be made tonight about the unemployed, they should come from Conservative Members. There have been two recessions in the past decade and there are 3.5 million people unemployed. Yet Government Members have the cheek to come to the Chamber and ask Opposition Members to apologise for the effects of mass unemployment.

The Minister of State has failed once again to answer the pertinent questions about why the Government discriminate against people on European social fund courses. The truth is that the Minister is disinvesting in training. The Secretary of State goes around the country saying that he is disinvesting in training and education; he prides himself on that fact. The training for work scheme has been cut by 66,000 places and the learning for work scheme has been cut by 30,000 places.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely right: the Government have cut grants to local education authorities to such an extent that virtually no money is available for training or for creating further employment opportunities through further education. I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in voting for the new clause in order to assist the unemployed of this country.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 277.

Division No. 108]	[6.04 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Ainger, Nick	Dewar, Donald
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Dixon, Don
Allen, Graham	Dobson, Frank
Alton, David	Donohoe, Brian H
Armstrong, Hilary	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ashton, Joe	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Austin-Walker, John	Eagle, Ms Angela
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Eastham, Ken
Barron, Kevin	Etherington, Bill
Battle, John	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Bayley, Hugh	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Fatchett, Derek
Beggs, Roy	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Fisher, Mark
Bell, Stuart	Flynn, Paul
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Benton, Joe	Foulkes, George
Bermingham, Gerald	Fraser, John
Berry, Roger	Fyfe, Maria
Betts, Clive	Galbraith, Sam
Blair, Rt Hon Tony	Galloway, George
Blunkett, David	Gapes, Mike
Boateng, Paul	Garrett, John
Bradley, Keith	George, Bruce
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Gerrard, Neil
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Godsiff, Roger
Burden, Richard	Golding, Mrs Llin
Byers, Stephen	Gordon, Mildred
Caborn, Richard	Graham, Thomas
Callaghan, Jim	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Campbell-Savours, D N	Grocott, Bruce
Cann, Jamie	Gunnell, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Hain, Peter
Chidgey, David	Hall, Mike
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hanson, David
Church, Judith	Harman, Ms Harriet
Clapham, Michael	Harvey, Nick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Henderson, Doug
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Heppell, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Clelland, David	Hinchliffe, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hodge, Margaret
Connarty, Michael	Hoey, Kate
Corbett, Robin	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hood, Jimmy
Corston, Jean	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cousins, Jim	Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Cummings, John	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hoyle, Doug
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Dafis, Cynog	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Dalyell, Tarn	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Darling, Alistair	Hutton, John
Davidson, Ian	Illsley, Eric
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Ingram, Adam
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Jamieson, David	Pike, Peter L
Janner, Greville	Pope, Greg
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Primarolo, Dawn
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Purchase, Ken
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Quin, Ms Joyce
Keen, Alan	Radice, Giles
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Randall, Stuart
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Raynsford, Nick
Khabra, Piara S	Redmond, Martin
Kilfoyle, Peter	Reid, Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy	Rendel, David
Lewis, Terry	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Litherland, Robert	Rogers, Allan
Livingstone, Ken	Rooker, Jeff
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Rooney, Terry
Llwyd, Elfyn	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Loyden, Eddie	Ruddock, Joan
Lynne, Ms Liz	Salmond, Alex
McAllion, John	Sedgemore, Brian
McAvoy, Thomas	Sheerman, Barry
McCartney, Ian	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Macdonald, Calum	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
McFall, John	Short, Clare
McKelvey, William	Simpson, Alan
Mackinlay, Andrew	Skinner, Dennis
McLeish, Henry	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McMaster, Gordon	Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
McNamara, Kevin	Soley, Clive
MacShane, Denis	Spearing, Nigel
McWilliam, John	Spellar, John
Madden, Max	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Maddock, Diana	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mandelson, Peter	Steinberg, Gerry
Marek, Dr John	Stevenson, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)	Straw, Jack
Martlew, Eric	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Maxton, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Michael	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Meale, Alan	Timms, Stephen
Michael, Alun	Tipping, Paddy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Touhig, Don
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Tyler, Paul
Milburn, Alan	Wallace, James
Miller, Andrew	Walley, Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Morgan, Rhodri	Wareing, Robert N
Morley, Elliot	Watson, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Welsh, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Wicks, Malcolm
Mowlam, Marjorie	Wigley, Dafydd
Mudie, George	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mullin, Chris	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Murphy, Paul	Wilson, Brian
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Wise, Audrey
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)	Worthington, Tony
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Wray, Jimmy
Olner, Bill	Wright, Dr Tony
O'Neill, Martin	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Parry, Robert
Patchett, Terry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Pearson, Ian	Ms Tessa Jowell and
Pickthall, Colin	Mr. Dennis Turner.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Arbuthnot, James
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Alexander, Richard	Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Atkins, Robert
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Amess, David	Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Baldry, Tony	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	French, Douglas
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Fry, Sir Peter
Bates, Michael	Gale, Roger
Batiste, Spencer	Gallie, Phil
Bendall, Vivian	Gardiner, Sir George
Beresford, Sir Paul	Garnier, Edward
Body, Sir Richard	Gillan, Cheryl
Booth, Hartley	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Boswell, Tim	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Gorst, Sir John
Bowis, John	Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brandreth, Gyles	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Brazier, Julian	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Bright, Sir Graham	Grylls, Sir Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Hague, William
Browning, Mrs Angela	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Budgen, Nicholas	Hampson, Dr Keith
Burns, Simon	Hannam, Sir John
Burt, Alistair	Harris, David
Butcher, John	Haselhurst, Alan
Butler, Peter	Hawkins, Nick
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hawksley, Warren
Carrington, Matthew	Hayes, Jerry
Carttiss, Michael	Heald, Oliver
Cash, William	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Chapman, Sydney	Hendry, Charles
Churchill, Mr	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James	Hicks, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Coe, Sebastian	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Congdon, David	Horam, John
Conway, Derek	Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Cran, James	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Hunter, Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Jack, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Jenkin, Bernard
Day, Stephen	Jessel, Toby
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Devlin, Tim	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dicks, Terry	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Key, Robert
Dover, Den	King, Rt Hon Tom
Duncan, Alan	Knapman, Roger
Dunn, Bob	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Elletson, Harold	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Legg, Barry
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Leigh, Edward
Evennett, David	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Faber, David	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fabricant, Michael	Lidington, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lightbown, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fishburn, Dudley	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel	Lord, Michael
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	Luff, Peter
Forth, Eric	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Maclean, David	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Shersby, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Sims, Roger
Madel, Sir David	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Maitland, Lady Olga	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Malone, Gerald	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mans, Keith	Soames, Nicholas
Marland, Paul	Spencer, Sir Derek
Marlow, Tony	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Spink, Dr Robert
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Spring, Richard
Mates, Michael	Sproat, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Merchant Piers	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mills, Iain	Steen, Anthony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Stem, Michael
Moate, Sir Roger	Stewart, Allan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Streeter, Gary
Needham, Rt Hon Richard	Sumberg, David
Nelson, Anthony	Sweeney, Walter
Neubert, Sir Michael	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Norris, Steve	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Oppenheim, Phillip	Thurnham, Peter
Ottaway Richard	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Paice, James	Townsend, Cyril D(Baxl'yh'th)
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Tracey, Richard
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Tredinnick, David
Pawsey, James	Trend, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Trottter, Neville
Pickles, Eric	Twinn, Dr Ian
Porter, David (Waveney)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
	Walden, George
Powell, William (Corby)	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Rathbone, Tim	Ward, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Waterson, Nigel
Richards, Rod	Watts John
Riddick, Graham	Wells, Bowen
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Robathan, Andrew	Whitney, Ray
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Whittingdale, John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)	Widdecombe, Ann
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Willetts, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Wolfson, Mark
Sackville, Tom	Yeo, Tim
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)	Tellers for the Noes:
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Mr. Timothy Wood and
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

Loans For Back To Work Expenses

'.—(1) Regulations shall make provision for the payment in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed items, of sums in the form of repayable loans to or in respect of persons, who are or have been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support.

(2) A sum payable under the regulations shall be known as a "jobstart loan".

(3) The question whether a jobstart loan is to be awarded and how much it is to be shall be determined by an adjudication officer.

(4) In determining whether a jobstart loan shall be paid under this section, and the amount of any such loan, regard shall be had, so far as regulations so provide, to the income or capital of the claimant.

(5) Regulations made under this section may, in particular, provide for—

(a) a jobstart loan to be payable only on the occurrence of a prescribed event;

(b) a jobstart loan not to be payable unless a claim is made before the end of a prescribed period;

(d) the amount of any jobstart loan otherwise payable to be reduced where the claimant has income or capital of a prescribed description which exceeds a prescribed amount;

(e) a jobstart loan to be repayable after a prescribed period, upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.'.—[Ms Lynne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall not detain the House for long on new clause 5. It is a modest measure which recognises the financial barriers that can hinder unemployed people who are keen to work from taking work once they are offered it. I should prefer grants to be made more available to get people back into work or to help them when they have got back into work. If the jobfinder's grant were payable after six months of unemployment instead of after two years, that would be a step in the right direction—but I do not imagine that the Government will move on that.

My small proposal for a modest, interest-free loan for people starting work could be implemented at little cost. In that way, when people have stopped receiving benefit and are waiting for their first pay cheque, they would not be left without money in their first week or month of employment. I envisage a loan in the region of £500, to assist with living expenses, travel to work and other employment-related costs.

A citizens advice bureau in western England reported the case of one client who had found a new job after five months' unemployment. His wife had been in work but had been off sick the previous three months and was about to have her income reduced from half pay to statutory sick pay. The client had borrowed as much as he could from the bank and was worried about supporting himself and his wife while awaiting his first pay cheque a month later as his employer was unwilling to pay his salary after two weeks. In eastern England, a citizens advice bureau reported the case of a client who came off unemployment benefit to start a job. After two weeks, she had no money left and a fortnight to go before receiving her first pay cheque. She was unable to afford her bus fares and was worried that she might lose her job, which she was enjoying tremendously. Neither the DSS nor the jobcentre could assist her. In such circumstances, I do not suggest payment of a grant, but a repayable loan.

It is also difficult for people to repay their debts after leaving the benefit system and before receiving a salary. The Benefits Agency has established a good scheme for the direct payment of debts to gas and electricity companies, and to others to whom a claimant owes money, but when a person starts work that scheme comes to an end and the individual has to renegotiate his own debt repayments. Invariably, the gas company, for example, will want to negotiate a higher repayment rate and often is not prepared to wait a month before payments begin.

A loan would also be useful to pay for work tools or for special clothing or footwear, without which the individual might be unable to take a job. The person might need driving lessons, or a driving course if he intended to set up as a minicab driver. A loan would also help to meet the cost of a medical examination if required.

The loan could be claimed before the individual started work or within 28 days of doing so. If the person had savings of more than £500, the loan could be reduced. Repayments would be interest free, commencing 13 weeks after the start of employment, as it would be unreasonable to expect the person to start repaying it before he was re-established, and there would be a maximum repayment term of three years.

I hope that the Government can see their way clear to accepting new clause 5, which would help people seeking work to begin new employment. Otherwise, many people may be debarred from saying yes to a new job because they do not have the right clothes or cannot meet the travelling expenses involved.

Although most of the time in Committee was spent on the main thrust of the Bill—which is to cut benefits—there were frequent debates on measures to help people back to work. As the Government had called the measure the Jobseekers Bill, we hoped that they would take every opportunity to accept suggestions to help people back to work. I pay tribute to the citizens advice bureaux and to other organisations which, throughout the Committee stage and since, have provided invaluable information on the detail of the Bill and on cases such as those cited by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) which illustrate the difficulties that people experience when they want to take up work but do not have the means to do so.

The hon. Member for Rochdale could not serve on the Committee during those deliberations because she was serving on the Committee considering the Disability Discrimination Bill. In view of the contributions that the Liberal Democrats are making now, it is unfortunate that they were unable to produce another spokesperson in Committee on the Jobseekers Bill as I am sure that we would have welcomed that support.

One is always reluctant to support the introduction of more loans into the social security system. We have learnt from bitter experience that the replacement of grants by loans under the social fund—because of the inequitable way in which that system can be administered with cash-limited budgets—leads to disparities of treatment depending on when people come through the door.

I was always under the impression that one stood more chance of a social fund loan at the beginning of the year when the new budget was in place, and when offices were more likely to treat claimants sympathetically, but research shows that the reverse is true. Social fund officers are so worried about exhausting their funds too early in the year that they store up money and administer the fund only towards the end of the year. That is clearly unacceptable and inequitable, and leads to claimants in identical circumstances being treated differently in the course of the year.

Our experience of the social fund and of the Student Loans Company has shown that loans are expensive to administer and we would certainly not want to use the latter as a model for new clause 5. However, a loan is better than nothing and we approve new clause 5 in those terms because we must give whatever help we can to encourage people to take up new employment.

New clause 5 is modest in that, as with our earlier new clauses, it would allow the Government to prescribe the circumstances, amounts and operation of loans in regulations. At this stage, we are not asking the Government to accept a defined proposal which would create tremendous costs—the money would be paid back. We are not asking for an open-ended commitment to the loan: we are looking to the Government to take the modest view that such a scheme should be considered with a view to coming back with the detail at the regulation stage to debate the matter further.

The Labour party supports the new clause. We believe that it should be added to the package of measures that the Government have introduced, modest as they are. I do not believe that this additional modest measure should be denied by the Government. We leave it in their hands to come forward with the detail. I believe that this enabling new clause would be to the great benefit of unemployed people and I hope that in that spirit the Minister will accept the new clause.

I thought that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) was rather torn in his speech. He began by saying that he was reluctant to see the extension of loans in the social security sphere and gently chided the social fund for a number of faults which he and his colleagues have put to Ministers in the past. He referred to loans being expensive to administer and even referred to the Student Loans Company, but at the end of the day he said that the new clause was good and that it simply empowered the Government to do things. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that there is perhaps some ambiguity in the hon. Gentleman's position.

6.30 pm

I must say straight away that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) raised a most important issue, and I do not disagree with her fundamental proposition that there are difficulties for people moving into work after a period of unemployment. The question is what is the best combination of ways in which we can assist. People in that position face a number of problems and it is a matter of putting a number of measures together to deal with them.

My approach to the problem has been this. It is important to recognise that in the Bill and in other Government actions we have introduced a number of proposals, the first of which—the jobfinder's grant—was mentioned by the hon. Lady. The 1994 Budget announced the nationwide expansion of that scheme from April 1995, with 25,000 grants available each year. The main national programme will have a fixed grant of £200 available to all people unemployed for two years who take a job paying less than £150 per week. The hon. Lady welcomed that, but sought to persuade me that we should reduce the qualifying period from two years to six months. The difficulty, of course, is cost. The grant targets help on those who most need it and the cost will be £5 million. Obviously, that sum would increase considerably, the more the period of qualification was reduced. We have determined that it is best to focus that help on the long-term unemployed.

The second two measures are in the Bill before us. The back-to-work bonus is a measure whereby for claimants who have taken small amounts of work while on benefit, a bonus will build up, to be paid when they go back into work. The gross costs in the first full year 1997–98 will be £50 million.

Will the Minister explain why the Government intend to include the lump sum of £1,000 in capital for the calculation of other benefits?

It will be included in capital after 52 weeks. The point at stake is that that sum of money, which will have been built up by work and effort, will be available to be spent on all the problems that have been mentioned, for example, when the breadwinner of a family is moving back into work. That is a positive and real way of helping.

The third item in the Government's package is one that I mentioned earlier—the four-week run-on of housing benefit and council tax benefit to ensure that the family will be able to afford the rent in the first four weeks. The cost, again, is £50 million.

Those measures are already a substantial package and they are targeted at the unemployed who need most help—the long-term unemployed. The measures are a most important advance, but they involve significant extra expenditure. I must tell the hon. Lady, therefore, that in view of that package we do not propose now to introduce additional proposals for loans. As the hon. Member for Withington recognised, loans—even modest ones of £500—involve an administrative cost, so it would not be fair to say that the proposal would be cost-neutral.

Let us see how the measures that we have proposed work out. We recognise the problem that the hon. Lady identified and we shall, of course, continue to review whether any further measures—whether loans or other initiatives—are needed to address that continuing problem.

For the reasons that I have given, I invite my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

I am disappointed that the Minister cannot see his way to accepting the new clause. It is a modest measure and would involve little cost for the Government. I believe that unemployed people will be hindered from taking work. Those who want to take work and are offered a job may not be able to meet some of the expenses and may have to turn the offer down.

When the Minister talks about the cost of administering the measure, he must balance that against the cost of people staying on benefits. I gave an example of a woman who could not get to work because she did not have enough money for the bus fare. She was going to have to give up her job because she could not afford to get to work. She had no money whatever. We are talking about people who would have to stay on benefit or return to benefit. It would be more cost-effective if the Government accepted the new clause.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) about the social fund. I am not asking for a grant to be replaced by a loan. I am not in favour of the social fund and would prefer to see a grant brought back in, but this is a new, small loan, and it is up to the Government to decide how much it should be. I said that it should be in the region of £500, because that seems a reasonable amount when the person has a month's travel costs and also the cost of new clothing and so on to be taken into account. The Government have taken that into account with the back-to-work bonus. A person who has been unemployed for some time may well need a new suit. He may need different clothes for the job. He needs to be able to pay debts that have built up.

Taking into account all that the Minister has said and the three measures that he has introduced, it is a very small and specific thing that I am asking for and I am disappointed that the Government feel unable to accept the new clause. I believe that in the long term it would be cost-effective. I therefore urge the House to join me in voting for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 261.

Division No.109]	[6.38 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Corbett, Robin
Ainger, Nick	Corbyn, Jeremy
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Corston, Jean
Allen, Graham	Cousins, Jim
Alton, David	Cummings, John
Armstrong, Hilary	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ashton, Joe	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Austin-Walker, John	Dafis, Cynog
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dalyell, Tam
Barnes, Harry	Darling, Alistair
Barron, Kevin	Davidson, Ian
Battle, John	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Bayley, Hugh	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Beggs, Roy	Dewar, Donald
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Dixon, Don
Bell, Stuart	Dobson, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Donohoe, Brian H
Benton, Joe	Dowd, Jim
Bermingham, Gerald	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Betts, Clive	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Blunkett, David	Eagle, Ms Angela
Boateng, Paul	Eastham, Ken
Bradley, Keith	Enright, Derek
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Etherington, Bill
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Burden, Richard	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Byers, Stephen	Fatchett, Derek
Caborn, Richard	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Callaghan, Jim	Fisher, Mark
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Flynn, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blylh V)	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Campbell-Savours, D N	Foulkes, George
Canavan, Dennis	Fraser, John
Cann, Jamie	Fyfe, Maria
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Galbraith, Sam
Chidgey, David	Galloway, George
Chisholm, Malcolm	Gapes, Mike
Church, Judith	Garrett, John
Clapham, Michael	George, Bruce
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Gerrard, Neil
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Clelland, David	Godsiff, Roger
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Golding, Mrs Llin
Cohen, Harry	Gordon, Mildred
Connarty, Michael	Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Milburn, Alan
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Miller, Andrew
Grocott, Bruce	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Gunnell, John	Morgan, Rhodri
Hain, Peter	Morley, Elliot
Hall, Mike	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hanson, David	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Mowlam, Maijorie
Harvey, Nick	Mudie, George
Henderson, Doug	Mullin, Chris
Heppell, John	Murphy, Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hinchliffe, David	O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Hodge, Margaret	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hoey, Kate	O'Hara, Edward
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Olner, Bill
Hood, Jimmy	O'Neill, Martin
Hoon, Geoffrey	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)	Parry, Robert
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Patchett, Terry
Hoyle, Doug	Pearson, Ian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Pickthall, Colin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Pike, Peter L
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Pope, Greg
Hutton, John	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Ingram, Adam	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jamieson, David	Primarolo, Dawn
Janner, Greville	Purchase, Ken
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)	Radice, Giles
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Randall, Stuart
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Raynsford, Nick
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Redmond, Martin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Reid, Dr John
Jowell, Tessa	Rendel, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Keen, Alan	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Rogers, Allan
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Rooker, Jeff
Khabra, Piara S	Rooney, Terry
Kilfoyle, Peter	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lewis, Terry	Ruddock, Joan
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Salmond, Alex
Litherland, Robert	Sedgemore, Brian
Livingstone, Ken	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Llwyd, Elfyn	Short, Clare
Loyden, Eddie	Simpson, Alan
Lynne, Ms Liz	Skinner, Dennis
McAllion, John	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McAvoy, Thomas	Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
McCartney, Ian	Soley, Clive
Macdonald, Calum	Spearing, Nigel
McFall, John	Spellar, John
McKelvey, William	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
McLeish, Henry	Steinberg, Gerry
McMaster, Gordon	Stevenson, George
MacShane, Denis	Stott, Roger
McWilliam, John	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Madden, Max	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Maddock, Diana	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mandelson, Peter	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Marek, Dr John	Timms, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Touhig, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)	Turner, Dennis
Martlew, Eric	Tyler, Paul
Maxton, John	Wallace, James
Meacher, Michael	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Meale, Alan	Wareing, Robert N
Michael, Alun	Watson, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Welsh, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm	Wray, Jimmy
Wigley, Dafydd	Wright, Dr Tony
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wise, Audrey	Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Worthington, Tony	Mr. Simon Hughes.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Alexander, Richard	Elletson, Harold
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfteld)
Amess, David	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Arbuthnot, James	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Evennett, David
Atkins, Robert	Faber, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Fabricant, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Baldry, Tony	Fishburn, Dudley
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Forman, Nigel
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Bates, Michael	Forth, Eric
Batiste, Spencer	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Bellingham, Henry	French, Douglas
Bendall, Vivian	Fry, Sir Peter
Beresford, Sir Paul	Gale, Roger
Booth, Hartley	Gallie, Phil
Boswell, Tim	Gardiner, Sir George
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Garnier, Edward
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Gillan, Cheryl
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Brandreth, Gyles	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Brazier, Julian	Gorst, Sir John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Budgen, Nicholas	Grylls, Sir Michael
Burns, Simon	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Burt, Alistair	Hague, William
Butcher, John	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Butler, Peter	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Carrington, Matthew	Hannam, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael	Haselhurst, Alan
Cash, William	Hawkins, Nick
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hawksley, Warren
Chapman, Sydney	Hayes, Jerry
Churchill, Mr	Heald, Oliver
Clappison, James	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Coe, Sebastian	Hendry, Charles
Congdon, David	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hicks, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hunter, Andrew
Day, Stephen	Jack, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Devlin, Tim	Jenkin, Bernard
Dicks, Terry	Jessel, Toby
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dover, Den	Jones, Roberts (W Hertfdshr)
Duncan, Alan	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dunn, Bob	Key, Robert
Durant, Sir Anthony	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dykes, Hugh	Kirkhope, Timothy

Knapman, Roger	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Sackville, Tom
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Shaw, David (Dover)
Legg, Barry	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Leigh, Edward	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lidington, David	Shersby, Michael
Lord, Michael	Sims, Roger
Luff, Peter	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
MacKay, Andrew	Soames, Nicholas
Maclean, David	Spencer, Sir Derek
McLoughlin, Patrick	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Madel, Sir David	Spink, Dr Robert
Maitland, Lady Olga	Spring, Richard
Malone, Gerald	Sproat, Iain
Mans, Keith	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Marland, Paul	Steen, Anthony
Marlow, Tony	Stern, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Stewart, Allan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Streeter, Gary
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Sumberg, David
Mates, Michael	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Merchant, Piers	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mills, Iain	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)	Thompson, Partick (Norwich N)
	Thomtn, Sir Malcolm
Moate, Sir Roger	Thurnham, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard	Tracey, Richard
Nelson, Anthony	Tredinnick, David
Neubert, Sir Michael	Trend, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Trotter, Neville
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Norris, Steve	Walden George
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Oppenheim, Phillip	Waterson, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard	Watts, John
Paice, James	Wells, Bowen
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Whitney, Ray
Pawsey, James	Whittingdale, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Widdecombe, Ann
Porter, David (Waveney)	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Wilkinson, John
Powell, William (Corby)	Willetts, David
Rathbone, Tim	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Wolfson, Mark
Riddick, Graham	Yeo, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Robathan, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Tellers for the Noes:
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Mr. David Lightbown and
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

Duration Of A Contribution-Based Jobseeker's Allowance

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'him from' and insert 'his'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7 to 10, 14 to 17, 20 to 22, 29, 30 and 36 to 38.

I understand that the Opposition are content not to have an exposition amendment by amendment. Many of the amendments, of course, have been tabled in response to representations from Opposition Members in Committee, including the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—he is not here, sadly—who debated the gerund and possessive pronoun extensively. Other amendments make clear the policy intention, in some cases just changing "and" to "the," or "the" to "and". I therefore wish to move the amendment without further discussion.

I am grateful to the Minister for the succinct explanation of the amendments. We do not want line-by-line clarification of them, but in Committee we opposed every aspect of the measures that are being tidied up. By not having a vote, I do not want it to be construed that we support the clauses to which those tidying-up amendments refer. With that explanation, we accept the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

Availability For, And Actively Seeking, Employment

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 6, line 11, leave out `actually'.— [Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 7

The Jobseeker's Agreement

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 31, at end insert—

'(6A) A jobseekers agreement may specify that a claimant need not be available for or seek, employment other than at a minimum prescribed amount of remuneration.'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 16, page 14, line 32, at end insert—

`(1A) Nothing in section 15, or in regulations under that section, shall be taken to prevent payment of a jobseekers allowance merely because the claimant refuses to seek or accept employment other than at the minimum amount of remuneration prescribed under section 7(6A) above.'.

I exclude the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) from criticisms that I will make of his party in relation to the minimum wage and to in-work poverty. The hon. Gentleman has more than a fair record on those issues. It is pity that he was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. He would have assisted us greatly when Opposition Members moved the amendments to improve the Bill in relation to unemployed people.

The amendments have been tabled specifically to deal with minimum earnings. The reason we have done that, as I shall set out in detail, is the context of the debate. The Tory party is a party of fat-cat excess, exploitation and the dole—there can be no doubt about that. In 1993, directors in Britain's six top banks enjoyed salary increases of up to 181 per cent. Many of them made profits of more than £4.8 billion. That orgy of greed has resulted in the axing of 72,000 jobs since 1990, and the closure of 2,252 branches in the past five years.

The figures show how these godfathers of the bank boardrooms have been writing fat pay checks to themselves in the morning and redundancy notices to their employees in the afternoon. It is a scandal that pay has gone through the roof for top directors while thousands of their employees have faced a pay freeze or the sack. So what strategies do the Tories have for tackling the poverty trap? The answer is simply that they have none. They have turned Britain into a sweatshop. I want to set out the reasons why that is the case, and a diary of events on low pay.

The Committee sat for the first time on 24 January this year. Interestingly, that was the first occasion on which Mr. Cedric Brown of British Gas discussed with members of the Select Committee on Employment his views on fair remuneration at work. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I am not someone who goes in for gongs or presentations, but my hon. Friend has been outstanding in her pursuit of greed in the boardroom at the expense of ordinary workers at the work place. Much of the exposure of the Conservative party's hypocrisy on these issues and its sham support for low-paid workers has been down to my hon. Friend.

On 1 February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the shadow Secretary of State for Employment, released figures from the Government's own new earnings survey. They showed that Sir lain Vallance earned more in a day than 80 per cent. of Britons earn in a month—more than 17.3 million people had to work a month to earn what Sir Iain Vallance earns in a day. On 9 February, when the Committee was sitting, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on income and wealth stated that

"low pay is a problem on unprecedented scales. The lowest 10 per cent. of hourly paid workers are earning less now than in 1975 while the top 10 per cent. are earning 50 per cent. more."

On 14 February the Minister of State, Department of Employment, announced triumphantly to the Committee that considered the Bill that no lower income floor would exist to which an unemployed person could look for a safeguard against being offered a £1-an-hour job, or losing benefit. She trumpeted that as a triumph for the marketplace.

On 16 February, a Sweatshop of Europe report entitled, "What Future?" was published. It contained a detailed analysis of the jobs and pay rates offered by the careers and employment services, which are directly under the control of the Minister. The report highlighted the fact that young people had to work about eight weeks full time to earn what the head of British Telecom earned in one hour. The Minister's Department is offering people in Britain jobs where they have to work eight weeks to earn what the head of BT earns in one hour of one day. Despite that, she still trumpets with triumph her commitment to offering to the unemployed jobs that pay £1 an hour or less.

On 17 February, to their shame, Tory Ministers lined up to defend top pay awards and to attack the minimum wage proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. On 21 February, the International Labour Organisation attacked deregulation and stated that that was not the pathway to greater job creation. It called on all Governments, and in particular this Government, to end poverty pay and to renew a commitment to full employment. The Government failed to respond to that by offering a debate in the House or even by offering the House a statement about their position on the ILO. The reason for that is that they do not want further to expose themselves publicly about their lack of commitment in relation to poverty pay. Their support for driving down wages further directly contravenes the ILO report.

On 1 March, the Secretary of State for Employment put clear blue water between himself and the Prime Minister when he defended mega pay rises and attacked a minimum wage, offering himself as a standard bearer of the politics of greed and privilege. I was unfortunate enough to be there listening to that diatribe of attacks on the low-paid in Britain.

On 7 March the banks were at it again, along with the privatised utilities. Jam, jam all the way for the rich and powerful, and dole, dole every day for more of the workers. There was a further scandalous announcement of mega pay rises and arrangements on pensions and share deals making them instant millionaires while workers were being made redundant, despite the fact that the profits were at the greatest level ever.

7 pm

On 15 March I issued a report highlighting the fact that privatised utility bosses have axed 126,000 jobs with another 82,000 to go in the next five years. So far, the jobs-to-dole strategy has cost the taxpayer £1 billion in benefit payments. That £1 billion of taxpayers' money has been used to strip out high-paid, high-quality jobs from the privatised utilities while the profits from those utilities go straight into the pockets of the few powerful people in charge of them. The Government responded by supporting that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way in a moment.

On 17 March my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham published a further report saying that the axing of wages councils has led to a cut in wages and reduced levels of employment. That is a direct attack on the concept that the Secretary of State for Employment always parrots; that if wages are reduced, employment increases. That is entirely bogus and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham proved that to be so.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I said that I would give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has only just come into the Chamber. He was not around for the eight weeks during which we were discussing this issue in Committee. I will give way later.

On 20 March my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham published a further report highlighting the fact that over 3 million workers now earn less than the national insurance contribution of £57 per week. Of that number, a shameful 74 per cent. are women. It beggars belief that as we come to the next century so many people are earning less than £57 a week. Yet, the Government and their proposals in this Bill will force people to accept wage levels that are even lower than that.

The hon. Gentleman said that in the privatised industries money had been diverted into the pockets of the managers. That is a gross simplification. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is only since the privatisation of the water companies that they have begun to deal with the huge logjam of crumbling Victorian sewers? That is costing hundreds of millions of pounds and was not being dealt with when the industry was in state hands.

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should defend the Government's position on private utilities and that he went further to promote the water industry, which, since privatisation, has made thousands of people redundant. There have been record levels of cut-offs and record levels of profit at the expense of those who require water for the basic necessities of life. The hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House for his views on this matter. What about his constituents who have to suffer under the yoke of privatised utilities such as water which are increasing charges at the same time—

rose—

Order. It might be advisable if we returned to the subject of the minimum wage.

I apologise for allowing myself to be led down the wrong path. I will not do it again.

On 21 March the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social Security tabled a new clause, which will he debated tomorrow, to cut hardship payments to unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds. It will confirm the £400 million cut in benefits for the unemployed.

There it is. That is the catalogue of Government support for greed and privilege which occurred during the weeks in which the Bill was in Committee. At the end of that, the Government's only response is to attack unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds and reduce further their ability to live on or below the breadline. Many of those young people whom the Government intend to attack are kids who have come out of care and who may have been physically or sexually abused. Some of them are children with relationship problems or who have mental health or other health problems. The Government's only response is to defend the fat cats and the privileges in privatised industry. Those 16 and 17-year-olds will have no training place and no proper job to go to. It is no wonder that today Lord Whitelaw said of the Government:

"This lot are a complete showerone of the worst Governments I can remember."

Opposition Members could not agree more with those sentiments.

Where have the Government got us? We are now the sweatshop of Europe. We have the longest working hours, the least holidays, poorest pensions, lowest pay and highest levels of insecurity. The bottom tenth of the population are 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms than when this lot came to power. The proportion of households living in poverty has trebled from 7 per cent. to 24 per cent. of the population since the late 1970s. A total of 328,000 people in Britain earn less than £1.50 an hour. Over 1 million people earn less than £2.50 an hour. Women have been badly hit by low pay—670,000 of them earn less than £2.50 an hour. In every part of Britain there is a serious low pay problem. Some of the worst affected areas are in regions such as Yorkshire, Humberside and the north. That coincides with high levels of structural unemployment. Those are the very areas that will be the worst affected by this Bill.

The Government do not just stop there. Between 1984 and 1994 there has been an increase of 1 million people holding down two and sometimes three jobs just to make ends meet, and a further 4.5 million people are earning so little that they live on or below the poverty line. The Government promote that as an excellent idea. They say that that is what people should do in a deregulated marketplace. They say that people should find themselves a second or third job in order to develop their skills and energies and that they should be thankful for it. Interestingly, in The Guardian today there is a little more insight into what the Government really mean about their friends having little extra earners in little jobs. Seamus Milne, the labour correspondent said:

"The £300,000-a-year chief executive of the privatised electricity generator Powergen left MPs investigating top corporate salaries speechless last night when he mentioned in passing he had three 'little jobs' on the side paying £36,000 a year."

I must emphasise that they were "little jobs" on the side. Mr. Wallis took up share options of £876,194 last year and received a pension payment of £53,000. He stands to earn a £100,000 bonus. In defence of all that he said that the

"extra jobs were all 'done in my own time'."

For one meeting a year he was paid £17,000 by the British Standards Institute. That is not a bad rate—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject. He may be talking about that gentleman's minimum wage—I do not know—but he should return to the amendment under discussion.

I was contrasting the Government's proposals in the Bill and their intention to drive down the position of the unemployed, who work for £1 an hour or less or run the risk of losing benefit, with their general policies in the labour market. The Bill supposedly provides opportunities for employment in the labour market.

My contention, as shown by the evidence I have put to the House, is that the Government have double standards—one standard for their friends and one for the unemployed. It is legitimate to say why we have tabled these amendments. We want to put the unemployed at least on a level playing field. It may be that the job that is being offered leaves them worse off than when they are on benefit. They may be driven further into poverty by having to accept an employment opportunity that none of the Conservative Members would accept for themselves or their family.

It is clear that Ministers would never accept those wage rates for the companies and individuals who support them, whether in the privatised industries, the private sector or the banking sector. It is legitimate to state precisely what the Government are doing with the Bill.

Did my hon. Friend notice that Mr. Giordarno and Mr. Cedric Brown of British Gas said in their evidence to the Select Committee that they would have no objection whatsoever to a minimum wage?

It is interesting to note that a large and growing number of employers not only accept but promote the idea of minimum standards at work. Many companies which are involved in compulsory competitive tendering now recognise that one can maintain standards and opportunities in the marketplace for their goods and services only if they provide minimum standards of investment, training and education for the work force. Many companies now fear that, following the total deregulation of the labour market, competition will be on the basis of who can pay the least wages. Instead of investment in quality, there will simply be investment in the firms with the lowest wages. Companies will then be in an unfavourable position when trying to compete in the marketplace.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman may be able to make a speech during the debate. [Interruption.] I gave way to him earlier, and I was sorry I did because of the stupidity of his remarks.

The hon. Gentleman did not answer my question.

The hon. Gentleman has had an answer. If he does not like it, he can lump it.

The hon. Gentleman adopts the intellectual approach.

It says a lot for the hon. Gentleman's intellect that he supports what is happening in the privatised utilities at the expense of those on low pay. If that is a sign of intellect, I am glad that I have my intellect and he has his.

The Government have got themselves into a position where on the one hand, their proposals will further undermine the right of the unemployed to seek a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, while on the other hand, they will allow employers—such as the bosses of the privatised utilities—to set wage levels for their own benefit. There will be huge wage levels and minimum levels of pay for the privatised bosses, while no minimum level is set at the lower end of the market, where it will be left to the market to drive wages down further. With that will go the rights of unemployed people to seek employment which will take them out of poverty, and not drive them further into it.

The Government's position is even more unsustainable when one looks at what the new JSA rules are doing to the incomes of people who are currently requiring benefits. Eighteen to 24-year-olds will lose £500 a year—a 20 per cent. cut—simply because they are under 25. They must still pay the same levels of national insurance contributions, tax, council tax and mortgage payments. But when it comes to their payments from the benefits system, the Government immediately make a cut in their income because of their age.

A person aged between 18 and 24 who has a partner working full time will have a 60 per cent. cut in benefit, and will lose £1,457 simply because of his age. Again, that is despite the fact that he pays the same level of contributions as people over 24. A 25-year-old with a partner working full time will lose 50 per cent. of his income, or £1,205. Someone aged 25 or over with £8,000 of savings—which can include, of course, any redundancy payments—and a non-working partner will lose 70 per cent. of his benefit, or £2,694.

The House should look at those figures alongside the Government's support for Mr. Wallis and his one day a week job which gives him extra spending money of £17,000 a year. It is no wonder that we ask about double standards in public life, and about the hypocrisy, mean-mindedness and tight-fistedness of the Government. The Government are blatantly cutting the benefit of the unemployed and kicking them in the teeth. They are asking the unemployed to pay the price of the Government's failed economic policies.

Would the Labour party reverse those cuts? I asked that question before, but I did not get a satisfactory reply.

7.15 pm

If the hon. Lady and her party had bothered to serve for eight weeks on Committee, she would have had an answer to that question, and a lot of other answers as well. The Labour party has consistently tabled amendments and new clauses to defend the status quo and to try to challenge and defeat the Government on the Bill. The next two days of discussion on the Bill will be about the clear proposals from the Labour party to defend the rights of the unemployed. We cannot make our position any clearer. We have not spent the last eight weeks of our lives in Committee—without the support of a single Liberal Democrat—defending the rights of the unemployed, to come here and have a silly smart Alec question about what we will do at the next election.

We are desperate for the Government to announce a general election so that we can put our new proposals on the minimum wage and other issues before the British public. With every day that goes by without a general election, more people are ending up in poverty and unemployment, and more people are being exploited in the work place because of low wages. If the Government are really serious about the Labour party's position on policy issues, they should give us a general election.

I understand that right hon. Members in the Cabinet set themselves up a little sub-committee to look after Government gaffes. Their first mistake was to put the chairman of the Conservative party in charge of the gaffe committee.

The Government would seem to have no intention—either before the passage of the Bill or slightly after—of allowing us to put the issues to the British public. But they cannot run away for ever, and we await the day when we can put some different proposals to the public, not only on the minimum wage but on recreating a welfare state which takes people out of poverty and into work and which gives people access to a range of issues which the Government currently deny them.

Getting back to the amendment, what would be the

"minimum prescribed amount of remuneration."?

The Government have three choices, and each time we asked the Government about them they failed to respond. The Government can—by regulation—say that the minimum would be a person's current unemployment benefit level, his current income support level or his current jobseeker's allowance level. We have asked questions about that, as the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) knows. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee, and that is why I was prepared to give way to him.

We asked the Minister of State, who was so eager that she answered before I could get the question out. She said that there would be no level in respect of the protection of an individual in relation to the minimum level of salary which can be given in an offer of employment. Therefore, the three options available to the Government could offer protection for the unemployed going back to the work place.

Which option would the hon. Gentleman choose?

If I were the Minister, I would not be putting the unemployed in the position in which the Government are putting them. No Labour Minister would force people into employment at wages of less than £1 an hour or take away their right to benefit. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North's support of the Government's proposals in Committee has been shameful.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, when asked about that very matter, said that the correct answer to question 18 of the jobsearch plan is the level of wages a person was earning in his last job?

My hon. Friend is right, and when we challenged the Government on that, no answer was given.

The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot say that no answer was given when I was challenged. I gave the Committee a full explanation of what happened. The hon. Gentleman will recall, as will the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), what happened that night. There was a great deal of yah-boo stuff coming from the Opposition Benches. There was chaos. One could hear the chaos several miles off. My hon. Friend was not allowed to complete his sentence. Far from being confused, had he been allowed to finish he would have said that the amount was someone's last salary within the permitted period. The hon. Gentleman was given that explanation in Committee.

The Minister is absolutely consistent in the excuses that she gives for the mistake either by herself or by the Under-Secretary, her hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). The fact is that the Government got themselves into a mess on that occasion. If I remember rightly, for her trial and tribulation in trying to trip around her hon. Friend's terrible error, we gave the Minister a Gotcha award on behalf of the rest of the Committee.

When my hon. Friend read the Hansard record of the response of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment did he notice the full stop at the end of the sentence?

I do not want to discomfit the Minister any further. It is a difficult position when a Minister prays in aid a full stop or comma in respect of Government policy, but there we are. The Minister is right. She gave an explanation in Committee, but the problem was that all the members of the Committee laughed their heads off and we did not hear it all.

The Labour members of the Committee found the Government's position on this matter unacceptable. Through their labour market policies, the Government are trying to price the unemployed into low-paid work by denying them benefit. The unemployed have two choices, neither of which is acceptable. The choices are exploitation or the dole. The Government's proposals for JSA offer a simple choice.

Question 18 of the draft agreement on the jobsearch plan asks the claimant:

"What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"

There are even boxes in which to put the lowest hourly, weekly, monthly and annual wage rate. I do not think that Mr. Ed Wallis of PowerGen will be filling in the form, but it would be interesting if he did.

The box is not big enough for all the noughts.

My hon. Friend is right.

The Government's proposals for the jobseeker's agreement are different from what happened under unemployment benefit. JSA is not a daily benefit but a weekly benefit. In the jobseeker's agreement people have to sign up in advance for seven days a week at a minimum of 40 hours. If that is calculated in relation to the level of the jobseeker's allowance, it equates to about £1 an hour. The Government are giving a green light to poor employers in local markets to offer employment opportunities with pay at or around jobseeker's allowance rates. They will do so in the sure and certain knowledge that the Minister will offer up large numbers of unemployed people who will either have to take the job or lose their right to benefit.

Unemployed people will be criminalised. They can be fined and fined again. They have nil choice. It is either to have no income or to take the exploitative job. That is why the Government have made this proposal. It is a cowardly attempt further to manipulate local labour markets not by investing in quality training and job opportunities but simply by driving down pay to the lowest possible level.

Our position is in stark contrast to the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Amber Valley. This is the hon. Gentleman who got the Minister into trouble in Committee. In a letter to the Financial Times on 23 December last, he stated that £2.70 was an extremely low level of pay. He can write that in the Financial Times, but as a Minister in the Department of Employment he backs the Government to the hilt when they are prepared to introduce the jobseeker's agreement and force people to work for not half but almost a third of that.

What is the Government's position? If £2.70 is extremely low, would the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North support it, given that that is the position of an Employment Minister? People could legitimately say that offers of less than that could leave them considerably worse off. The Government should respond to that. Is that Government policy? Did the hon. Member for Amber Valley declare the Government's position on the minimum level of wages in the economy?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way a second time. He quoted earlier the view of The Guardian on the minimum wage. While I have not read that article, I have read reports by the OECD which say that the single common cause for high unemployment levels in France and the Club Med countries is a minimum working wage. So what is the hon. Gentleman's policy and what is his response to the OECD, if not to The Guardian?

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. This is not a complaint. The article that I quoted from The Guardian was not about the minimum wage. It was about Mr. Wallis's personal position in relation to his minimum wage. As for the OECD, the report did not say what the hon. Gentleman said it said. The Government interpret it in the same way as they do the ILO report. Those reports make it clear that the Government's position is unsustainable in terms of the market.

The ILO report, which is less than a month old, has made it clear that the position of this and other Governments who promote free market policies to the extent of poverty pay is driving their economies in the wrong direction. In the long run, that will damage the economy as a whole. Academic research has also shown that, in countries that have a minimum wage, there is no net loss of employment opportunities. The Government have not been able to prove their case.

Does the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire believe that the Under-Secretary was correct? Does he believe that £2.70 is the level that the Government should choose in respect of the jobseeker's allowance? Does he think that that is a fair level? Does he think that that should be the floor?

I am concerned that people should have jobs. It is pointless to set a minimum working wage if it creates unemployment. Would the hon. Gentleman's party welcome the creation of unemployment?

We are the only country in Europe that does not have statutory pay protection. Ours is the only country out of 100 ILO signatories that is opposed to providing minimum pay protection for its work force. The bulk of empirical evidence shows that the impact of minimum wages on unemployment is insignificant. That evidence comes from studies by the ILO on the minimum wage throughout the world. The Government do not have a case for opposing the minimum wage. They are opposed to people having fair standards, wages and conditions of work. The Government have set their face against that.

It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire did not support the Under-Secretary's view. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister of State supports the Under-Secretary. The excuse that she gave in Committee—that the hon. Gentleman was shouted down by yah-boos—does not stand up. He wrote the letter in the closeted, quiet atmosphere of the Department of Employment and sent it off after due consideration. The Minister can give no excuse for what her hon. Friend believed about extremely low levels of pay.

The Government have every intention of taking wage levels in Britain to the lowest possible point, regardless of the social and economic consequences. They have no desire to see any wage protection for workers in Britain. It suits the Government to have high levels of unemployment because they create a market in which unscrupulous employers can call the tune. There is a trough for the wealthy fat cats to eat and gorge themselves in and for millions there is a trough of despair. That is what the Government's policies offer.

A national minimum wage would get people back to work, off benefits and out of the poverty trap. It beggars belief, but, as we approach a new millennium, earnings inequality in the United Kingdom economy is greater than at any time since 1866. For the bottom quarter of wage earners, earnings fell in comparison with average pay by 10 per cent. The earnings of the upper 25 per cent. rose by 11 per cent. The earnings of the top 10 per cent. of earners have risen by a staggering 50 per cent. Wages councils for 4.5 million people were abolished by the Government in 1993–94.

I am still trying to find out what the minimum prescribed amount of remuneration is. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it will be equal to the statutory minimum wage that the Labour party would introduce as an incoming Government? If so, is he talking about £4.05 an hour for 40 hours a week—£160 a week—as the minimum amount that would entitle a claimant to refuse a job?

During the eight weeks in Committee, I know that the hon. Gentleman found it difficult to come to terms with the fact that he was in the Committee to defend the Government's position and that we were debating a Government Bill.

This is an Opposition amendment.

7.30 pm

The Secretary of State must contain himself a moment longer. The position is this. The Government have four choices on this amendment and I will repeat them: employment benefit level, income support level, jobseeker's allowance level and the £2.70 suggested by the Under-Secretary in the Financial Times. I have given the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North four choices. Given that the Bill will be law before the next general election, if he wants a debate in the general election campaign about the minimum wage and any changes that an incoming Labour Government would make to social security, I shall be delighted to come to his constituency to help remove him. I have no problems with that.

As regards the Bill and what happens if it becomes law this summer, the Government must make choices and so far they have chosen to offer people £1 an hour or less. The amendment gives them four opportunities. I will make it easy for the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North. Which opportunity does he choose? Which one would he agree with? I see that he is smiling, but he will need to do better than that—he cannot buy food with a smile. What choice will he make? I will give him four opportunities—one out of four, two out of four, what is it to be? What is his choice?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity. The choice that he is offering is totally bogus because the potential law that we spent eight weeks debating does not make choices of that sort. It says that it is up to the claimant to show good cause, and he knows that. Will he finally answer the question and say that the minimum prescribed amount of remuneration would be the same as Labour's figure for a statutory minimum wage—that is, £4 an hour?

The hon. Gentleman has surpassed himself as he has given us a fifth choice, which is no floor. The position is clear—the Government are not prepared to defend people from having to accept £1 or £1.50 an hour, or less. Theirs is a total zero position.

This is an Opposition amendment and presumably its purpose is to make clear what they want in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman consistently refused to make it clear throughout the Committee and the beginnings of this debate. What does he want us to do and what is his choice of the five, six, seven or eight options? Will he specify that figure in that box?

The hon. Lady is being rather disingenuous with me. During the passage of the Bill, I gave her the options. From the moment that she got out of the trap and made it clear that there would be a zero rate for the unemployed and that the sky is the limit for the public utility bosses, she has had opportunities. In this debate, I have given her a fourth opportunity to agree with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Amber Valley. I would call it a draw if I got anything out of this debate that improved the situation for the unemployed from zero. I give the hon. Lady another opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to support her hon. Friend's assertion in the Financial Times. Does she agree that that should be the minimum floor?

My hon. Friend has not suggested a minimum floor as regards the Bill. All I want to hear from the hon. Gentleman is the figure—whether for an unemployed agricultural worker or an unemployed ex-boss of a public utility—that he wants in that box under the Bill. What is he asking for?

I am going to have to give the hon. Lady a lesson about her own Bill. An unemployed ex-head of a public utility would not qualify because of his capital resources—he would probably retire with about £2 billion of taxpayers' money in the bank, so the question does not apply.

The Minister cannot use the excuse that the Under-Secretary has been misquoted. He took the opportunity, in his own time, to submit the letter to the Financial Times. She either agrees with him or she does not. I will repeat his remarks. On 23 December last, he stated that £2.70 is an extremely low level. That is the position of her junior Minister. That being the case, how can the Government accept a zero position in the Bill for the unemployed? It is clear that the hon. Lady—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition to table an amendment and for no guidance to be given in the speech for the Opposition about the essential point—what the prescribed minimum amount of remuneration should be? If I may give an example—

Order. The hon. Gentleman need not bother to give an example because it is not a point of order and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is responsible for his speech.

The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North should know better than to challenge the Chair as it was obviously in order or we would not have been debating it. I should have thought that he would have learnt his lesson, as he got himself into hot water on more than one occasion in Committee with similar points. He is using yet another tactic, but he has failed to answer.

The Government are extremely embarrassed. They never expected that from the young boy Minister—he is the only Minister who went straight from a youth training scheme to be a Minister and he is the only person I know of who qualified and got a job out of the scheme. The "young Minister", as he was described in the last Employment questions, has put it on record—I assume that he is speaking for the Department as he is not speaking on his own—on behalf of the Government and of the Department, that he believes that £2.70 is an extremely low level. Opposition Members would all say, "Hear, hear."

What we find interesting is that, during the passage of the Bill, it has been obvious that the Minister of State believes that a zero rate or £1 an hour is not too low. There is a difference of about 66 per cent. between the hon. Lady and the Under-Secretary. I do not want to labour the point too much, but it is a further sign of Government confusion over minimum wages and standards at work. I see that the Philadelphia lawyer is coming to the Dispatch Box.

The question that I want an answer to is this—the hon. Gentleman may not want to give a figure, but he used the phrase

"a minimum prescribed amount of remuneration"

in amendment No. 1. Is that the same figure as Labour's minimum wage? If it is, could he tell us, and if it is not, could he explain it?

The hon. Gentleman must do better than that. I know that he can convince juries at the Old Bailey with his arguments, but that was a bit threadbare. We state clearly that there should be designation in regulations—[Interruption.] I cannot make it any clearer. Through the amendment, we are trying to ensure that there is a floor, so that an unemployed person can be defended against exploitation.

This Bill will be law before the next general election, when the Labour party will put forward its position on the minimum wage and a range of other issues. The Bill is a stop-gap between this and an incoming Labour Government, which there will undoubtedly be—we will get rid of the whole damn shower of them. The position is clear.

Does the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North think that the Under-Secretary was right about £2.70 an hour? Does he think that he has put the Government's position? If so, we will call it a draw and we will accept that and designate it in the regulations. At least that would be better than what the Minister of State is saying—£1 an hour or nothing.

Do I take it from that evasion that, if there ever were a Labour Government, the figure that he is proposing for the minimum prescribed remuneration would be Labour's minimum wage?

The Under-Secretary thinks that he is at the Old Bailey again. He seems to be rather troubled by the judge in this matter.

Answer yes or no.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about yes or no. The Government must defend the Bill which, unamended, provides for a zero rate. Unemployed people can lose their right to benefit if they do not accept a job that pays £1 an hour or less. We have offered four options in that respect. I ask Tory Members again whether they would accept: a minimum level of unemployment benefit; income support; jobseeker's allowance; or the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment of £2.70 an hour? For God's sake make up your mind and pick one of those four options before tens of thousands of unemployed people lose their right to benefit or are forced into skivvy jobs that leave them in in-work poverty at the end of the week.

In-work poverty affects millions of people. It is interesting to note that Tory Members have lost, within the confines of Government, the argument on the minimum wage. The Secretary of State for Employment is not here because he cannot take the embarrassment. The Minister of State and her hon. Friends wanted to get rid of the agricultural wages boards, which are the only statutory minimum pay boards left in Britain. They had to hold a public consultation on the matter and discovered that employers, employees and farming communities wanted to keep a minimum wage and minimum standards to protect their community from the onset of further poverty and to defend their local economies and local companies. The Secretary of State for Employment had to swallow that decision in Cabinet and his position was overturned.

So, the first time that public opinion was tested—it will probably be the only occasion between now and a general election—on the issue of a national minimum wage, the Government were defeated and had to climb down. I welcome the fact that a national minimum wage for agricultural workers is still protected. Tory Members have had to accept the principle and concept of a minimum wage, and the agricultural wages boards will continue to operate.

I wait to see whether the Minister will attempt tonight, by the back door or other means, to undermine the decision to continue the agricultural wages boards. May I put another question to her in respect of the jobseeker's agreement? In areas where agricultural wages board rates apply, what will be the position under the jobseeker's agreement of somebody who says, "I'm not prepared to accept a job below that rate."? The local labour market will have a floor agreed by the Government, as the agricultural wages board sets a statutory minimum floor in the local agricultural economy. What is the position of unemployed people in those areas? Will they be allowed, under the JSA, to insist that they will not accept wages below the level that the Government set under the agricultural wages board?

The Government were not in power when our right hon. Friend, Barbara Castle, put equal pay legislation on the statute book. The Tories screamed that millions of people would be made unemployed, industry would be laid to waste and destroyed, and the only casualty would be women. That has been proved to be a fallacy because women play an increasing part in the work force. The problem is that the equal pay legislation needs a little assistance because of the direct effect on low pay of the Government's market policies. Our proposals on a minimum wage will ensure that women have their rightful opportunity in the marketplace to take home a living wage.

The Labour party is proud to support a minimum wage policy and, during the run-up to the next general election, we shall increasingly promote and put forward that proposal effectively.

On low pay, is my hon. Friend aware of the case in Coventry some months ago in which an individual was paid £1 an hour? When we took the matter up with the Secretary of State for Employment, the individual was told that he should claim benefits. The Government are thus protecting employers while abusing taxpayers by using taxpayers' money to subsidise bad employers.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Lady need not shake her head. If she wants a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State for Employment, I shall willingly send her one. That is the racket which the Government are perpetrating.

7.45 pm

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are using in-work benefits not to lift people out of absolute poverty but to subsidise employers who are maintaining people in poverty. Not only do employers receive that incentive to pay poverty wages but, through the taxation system, they have huge tax rake-offs for their private income and capital at the expense of the low-paid. So it is a double whammy: if people work for a bad employer, the bad employer receives a subsidy to keep them on low pay, while his profits and personal income are hardly taxed at all. The vast majority of working people face a 7p in the pound tax rise, which is the highest tax hike in history. The Government have the worst record on tax of any Government ever, anywhere and at any time. They not only lie about taxation but pile it on as quickly as they can, especially on low-paid, middle-income and ordinary people.

Without a pay floor in the economy, low pay damages our economic prospects. It dampens consumer activity; leads to a high turnover of staff; weakens investment in training; and creates insufficient production by employers, who drive down wages to cut costs instead of improving investment in modern equipment and production methods. A statutory minimum wage would provide a floor to stop unfair exploitation. It would stop bad employers and corporate individuals having the subsidies that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) described a few moments ago.

Only in the two-nation Britain created by today's Tories can a massive taxpayers' subsidy to low-wage firms be considered sensible economics. If the Minister does not want to listen to me and to my hon. Friends, perhaps she will listen to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who clearly stated that there was general agreement within the Cabinet on the need for the agricultural wages boards and that a minimum wage in farming should be applied because it was fair. He said that it did not cost jobs and that both employers and employees wanted to keep it. If that is the hon. Gentleman's position, it is time that the hon. Lady gave up her bile and prejudice against low-paid workers and gave unemployed people a fair crack of the whip and an opportunity for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

I totally support the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).

What has angered me most in Committee and in successive debates and Question Times in the House is how the Government and Tory Members preach about creating jobs and attack a minimum wage, when their party is full of people who have several jobs and think that the salary that they receive to serve in this place is insufficient. At the same time, they expect millions of people to live on poverty wages and accept any job, however low paid, that is offered to them. Tory Members are good at preaching about people who are workshy, but would they consider taking a job that paid £2.70 an hour or less?

The Government's employment policy and the Bill are all about creating a skivvy economy where hundreds of thousands of jobs are low paid and short term, while a few thousand people—like some retired Tory Ministers and the chairmen of the privatised public utilities—rake in up to £150,000 a year for just one day's work a week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has already mentioned the evidence that was given yesterday to the Select Committee on Employment. Another fact that particularly angered me and should anger every hon. Member was the news that Michael Bett, the chairman of the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body that recommended the paltry, insulting increase of 1 per cent. to the thousands of people who devote their lives to caring for the population, has been offered £57,000 a year for a three-day week. If the Government are willing to offer that kind of remuneration to the thousands of my constituents who are unemployed, I am sure that they would be more than happy to accept it. If the Government want to tackle unemployment, perhaps they should limit the number of jobs that any one person can do, because it seems that just a few hundred people grab every job that is going.

The Bill, if it is unamended, will force people to accept wages of £2.70 an hour or less; otherwise their benefits will be stopped. Just in case anyone thinks that the Opposition are exaggerating about jobs that pay less than £2.70 an hour, let me quote three examples from my part of the world.

First, there was the recent case in the Strathclyde area of a taxi office controller, working a 54-hour week for £1.48 an hour. If that person became unemployed, would he really be expected to be willing to work for even less? The second case is that of a qualified hairdresser in the Fife area, whose take-home pay is £68. She and her partner would be better off living on income support, because they would then receive the great sum of £71.70 a week. I came across the third example of low pay when I opened my local jobcentre in Dunfermline in July—a week before the Government confirmed the closure of Rosyth naval base, which has put thousands more out of work. A security guard's job was advertised, which required the man or woman to make their own transport available and offered between £1.80 and £2 an hour.

The hon. Lady has cited examples of people on low wages, but is it not fair to say that they are entitled to family income supplement, which increases their income considerably?

As far as I am aware, family income supplement disappeared some years ago and we now have family credit or income support. Because of the complexity and maze of rules concerning family credit and income support, many people on low wages are not entitled to either benefit.

The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) leads me on to quote another example of a constituent who came to see me at my surgery at the weekend. He has worked for 29 years at Rosyth dockyard and is to be made compulsorily redundant. He has discovered that, first, because he is 55 years of age, he is not entitled, under current legislation, to unemployment benefit, even though he has paid all his life in the expectation that such benefit would be available to him. Secondly, he will not be eligible for income support because he will receive a pension of £79 a week. That is what he is expected to live on.

Some other Ministry of Defence Rosyth employees, who also face the prospect of redundancy, came to see me yesterday. They told me how shocked they were by the low level of income that people are required to live on.

In Scotland alone, 83,000 people earn less than £2.50 an hour and 24,000 people already earn less than £1.50 an hour. That is the type of wage for which people are expected to work. They are expected to accept such low-paid jobs or face the risk of losing benefit.

The Opposition have made it clear that we want to promote decency and decent pay and conditions for those who are in work and then, unfortunately, find themselves out of work. That is why we believe that it is only just that we should amend the Bill, so that men or women can refuse to work for poverty pay without having their benefits stopped.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has already mentioned that, under the Government, the gap between the highest and lowest-paid workers is greater than it has ever been since records began in 1886. The bottom 10 per cent. of full-time workers earn on average about one third of that earned by the top 10 per cent. In 1992, the richest 20 per cent. of the population had net income five times as great as the poorest 10 per cent. That disparity will have grown even larger in the intervening years. It seems that the Government are in favour of low pay, but we are not.

The Government claim that the unemployment rate is falling. I would argue that that is happening not because they have created decently paid jobs, but because they have encouraged low-paid and frequently part-time work. In the past 16 years, I have, time and again, seen jobs that once employed someone for between 30 and 40 hours a week split into three or four part-time jobs, which have left people with few if any employment rights and low pay. Since 1938—I mean 1978; it just feels like 1938 sometimes—the number of part-time jobs has risen by 32 per cent. while the number of full-time ones has dropped by about 13 per cent. In Scotland, the number of part-time jobs has gone up by 9,900, but the price we have paid is the loss of 7,600 full-time ones. One must question the reality of job creation.

In my part of Scotland, Fife region already has the highest unemployment rate of Scotland at 11.2 per cent., while one of my district council electoral wards is already approaching an unemployment rate of 20.7 per cent. The Bill will bring no hope to those unemployed people.

Low pay puts a burden on the taxpayer because the profits of low-paying employers are subsidised through family credit. I believe that the system of tackling wage poverty by top-up benefits is economically inefficient.

I shall now mention some of the arguments that have been made about a minimum wage. First, it has been argued that it will lead to job loss. There is little real evidence to demonstrate that. Before the previous general election, the independent organisation Industrial Relations Services carried out a survey of 527 firms, asking them what they would think of a minimum wage set at half average earnings. Nearly two thirds of those questioned said that it would not increase the organisation's pay bill, and a further 30 per cent. said that it would add less than 5 per cent. to the pay bill. Following the abolition of wages councils, we have not witnessed a growth in the very low-paid sector of employment, but jobs have been lost—notably, as many as 27,000 in the hotel and catering sector—and even lower wages have been paid.

8 pm

I remind Conservative Members that although minimum wages have little impact on employment, they affect the economy. Let me again take Scotland as an example, where 220,000 workers used to be covered by wages councils. Every 10p decrease in their wage levels since the abolition of wages councils will lose the Scottish economy £30 million. That policy damages the economy.

A second argument about the minimum wage is that it will lead to inflation and that the higher-paid will seek to maintain a differential. The Government should preach to those fat cats in the privatised utilities about seeking to maintain differentials, because they are the ones who constantly demand massive pay increases.

There is little evidence to show that maintaining differentials will affect the economy. Indeed, the Confederation of British Industry has estimated that a minimum wage set at half average earnings may add only 1.2 per cent. to the nation's wage bill.

The third argument that has been used against a minimum wage is that it will affect Britain's international competitiveness. Do the Government really suggest that we should adopt the employment practices of some countries in other parts of the world, where there continue to be children in full-time employment, where children work down mines and where workers are paid as little as 50p an hour?

Will the hon. Lady now tell us when any member of the Government has suggested any of those things? [Interruption.]

It seems that the jobseeker's agreement and the Jobseekers Bill suggest that there is no problem with people working for as little as 50p an hour. That sort of level of pay puts pressure on families to suggest that their children and young people should find any job, however poorly paid.

But the hon. Lady mentioned a number of horrors, including child labour. Where does that come into the Bill?

I am saying to the hon. Lady that she has refused to set a level below which she thinks that it will be unreasonable for anyone of any age to work, and that that appears to me to be imitating the employment practices which, tragically and unjustly, continue to exist in other parts of the world where children continue to be engaged in horrific manual labour and wages are as little as 50p an hour.

It is a fact—the Minister of State knows it, and she has been disingenuous not to admit it in the debate—that, under the young person's jobseeker's agreement, if the Minister carries a set of proposals that the Government will set out after the Bill is passed, young people coming out of care will lose the right to any form of income. Those are young people, newly out of care. The truth is that the Government are attacking, and will tomorrow attack, the very young people whom the Minister of State says that she will defend.

I thank my hon. Friend for those excellent arguments.

When the Government are considering ways in which to create decently paid employment, they should consider the fact that good companies do not make investment decisions based solely on labour costs; they consider other aspects to be important, such as a highly skilled and motivated work force, an efficient transport and communications network and good research and development. Those can be far more effective than low pay in attracting inward investment and helping to create jobs.

If the Government are serious about reducing unemployment, they should also alter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, their education and training policies, especially as reflected in the contents of the Bill. The Government should eliminate the contradictions created by existing rules rather than set up other barriers.

In conclusion, I hope, albeit faintly, that the Government will support the amendments. It appears that their employment strategy is designed simply to move people from unwaged poverty into waged poverty. That merely exchanges one set of problems for another.

Pay is probably the clearest signal that we give of the value and worth that is placed on a person's work. Without a minimum prescribed amount of remuneration, contained in our amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the only message that the Government will give to unemployed people, whatever their circumstances, is that they are of little or no value and little or no worth.

When I was considering what to say today, and flicking through some of my notes, I came across a quotation that very much describes what the Government are about. It is by someone called Thomas Paine who, I know, will be familiar, at least to Opposition Members. He said, more than 200 years ago:

"It is inhuman to talk of a million sterling a year, paid out of the public taxes of any country, for the support of any individual, while thousands who are forced to contribute thereto are pining with want and struggling with misery.

"Government does not consist in a contrast between prisons and palaces, between poverty and pomp.

It is not instituted to rob the needy of his mite, and increase the wretchedness of the wretched.

There never did, there never will and there never can exist a parliament possessed of the right of commanding forever how the world shall be governed. I am"—

we are—

"contending for the rights of the living."

That means that we support a minimum wage.

I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). Starting with her quotation from Thomas Paine, I wonder whether she is prepared to accept that, 200 years ago, he was talking about a country with the workhouse and with the justices in charge of local government—a very different society, in which one could be hanged for stealing potatoes. Is the hon. Lady seriously saying that we live in such a society today?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am happy to give way, although somewhat earlier than usual.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I could not contain myself.

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that, 200 years ago, when Thomas Paine was writing, so was Adam Smith? The Conservative party appears to be fixated on the writings of that economist.

He was right.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and that sedentary intervention indicates that Adam Smith was right. However, I think that the hon. Lady should agree, although I am sure that she would not, that a sense of balance is needed in those things.

Reading!

I am not reading.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West gave us that sense of balance. She discussed the problems of unemployment in her constituency without mentioning that, in the past year, unemployment has decreased in her constituency by 10.4 per cent. The figures that she took would have suggested that the position throughout Scotland was becoming worse rather than better. In the past year, in Scotland, unemployment has decreased by 11.2 per cent. Twenty-eight thousand people net in Scotland this year are back in work. That is good news. The Scottish economy is improving—the hon. Lady knows that better than me.

The idea that we are discussing the subject against a background of worsening unemployment and no opportunities for young people is wrong. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made a similar point, but unemployment in his constituency is down by more than 10 per cent. The level of unemployment in his constituency is 8.5 per cent., having gone down by almost 18 per cent. in the past year. Can he seriously argue that unemployment is getting worse, which is something that he said in one of his contributions?

I want to correct the hon. Gentleman. It is not unemployment that is going down, but the claiming count. The hon. Gentleman should add to the claiming count the 2.4 million people who are economically inactive. The Government do not include them in the count; if they did, they would find that there are about 5 million people in Britain still looking for jobs and desperate for work. The Government are preventing them from working.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which shows no sense of balance. As the hon. Gentleman would know if he had researched the matter—I think that he does know—the International Labour Organisation's figures, which have been described by the Trades Union Congress as utterly reliable, show almost exactly the same unemployment figures as the Government's own departmental figures.

What is more, is the hon. Gentleman really saying—I know that he cannot be—that the Labour party, in the unlikely event of its coming into government, would add those economically inactive people to the count? Of course a Labour Government would not. That would provide an inaccurate figure that would not reflect the true circumstances in this country. The ILO measure is different from the Government's measure in its formula, but the result is almost exactly the same: 2.4 million people are currently unemployed. The figure is too high, but it is falling fast.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West said that most of the jobs that have come on stream over the past year are part time. Not only is that inaccurate, but she should not forget that the people who are taking part-time work want part-time work. The Department of Employment survey of part-time workers showed that only 14 per cent. of them wanted full-time work.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall be happy to give way when I have finished my point.

If we consider full-time workers, as the survey did, we see that about one third of them would like to work part time. To suggest that people are being forced into part-time work is wholly inaccurate. Is it not about time that the Labour party started to address the serious issues on the basis of the facts?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, as I promised, and then to my hon. Friend.

I certainly agree that there are people—the majority of them are women with family responsibilities—who look for part-time work. But they are looking for part-time work, not poverty wages, which is what they are frequently offered. I was also saying that full-time jobs are being replaced by low-paid, part-time work. If one talks to skilled engineering workers from dockyards and elsewhere, one finds that they are looking for full-time, not part-time, employment.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. What people who are looking for work want is a job. All the evidence shows that if we were to introduce a guaranteed minimum wage—something for which she has argued—we would lose rather than gain jobs. Who is she to tell people what sort of jobs they should accept?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I must finish my point, and I have also promised my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) that I will give way to him next.

Who are any of us to tell people what jobs they should take? Who are we to say that someone should not have taken that job, but another? That is nonsense. Each individual's circumstances are different. A particular worker may want to take a specific job for his or her own reasons.

Is my hon. Friend aware—from what he has said to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) I think that perhaps he is—that thousands and thousands of people, particularly women, treat part-time jobs as freedom from the drudgery of the workplace at home? Is not the part-time job an expression of freedom—something that the Opposition are always prating about?

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way.

The huge increase in women in work since 1984 is something of which this country should be proud because those women who wanted to work now have the opportunity to do so, and do so in large numbers. It is true that one of the reasons for the increase in part-time work is that many women want part-time work. There is no reason why they should not want it. It may fit in with their responsibilities to their children. Some men may like part-time work so that they can give a hand in the home as well. We in this place should support women who want to go out to work and take pride in the fact that they have been given that opportunity. We should not always try to knock them down, undercut them and say that they should not have taken a particular job and were silly to do so.

8.15 pm

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the recommendations of the Select Committee on Employment on mothers in employment, as he has just given a paean of praise to women in the work force. He asked, "Who are we to tell somebody what job to take?" Does he agree that that is what the Bill is all about? It is about telling people to take particular jobs on low wages or have their benefit denied. Who is he to make a point like that when it is the very point of the appalling legislation?

The hon. Lady makes my point for me. I am asking how we can say to someone who has taken a job that he or she should not have taken a particular job. I think that I made that point clearly. It is different if someone is paying a jobseeker's allowance, as the taxpayer is, or will be. The taxpayer is entitled to have his or her position protected, which is exactly what the Bill does.

It is not presumptuous to tell someone receiving the benefits of the taxpayer—we are the taxpayer's protectors—how we believe a proper, structured approach should be taken to job seeking. It is not presumptuous for us to say, "This is the advice that we are giving you and the agreement that we would like to make." If the person is not prepared to accept the terms on offer or suggested by the employment officer, the adjudication officer decides. If that is still not acceptable to the claimant, the matter can be sent to the social security appeal tribunal, which consists of the employer's representative, the employee's representative and a lawyer. There are further rights of appeal in the event that the appeal tribunal does not deal with the issue properly. The hon. Lady cannot say that the taxpayer's interests are being dealt with in anything other than a proper way.

The hon. Gentleman is trying to be reasonable. He talks about protecting the taxpayer's interests. Does he have something to say about the interests of the taxpayer who is currently subsidising low-paying employers to the tune of £1 billion a year—twice as much of the taxpayer's money as the Bill attempts to save with its vicious cuts? Why is there not some protection for the taxpayer on that side of the equation as well as the other side?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but time is short—it would be an extremely interesting argument to get into.

When my hon. Friend heard the intervention of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), did it not sound to him extraordinarily as though she were proposing the abolition of family credit?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend as that is precisely one of the points that I wanted to make. That is not the first time in the debate that we have heard that line peddled. The hon. Member for Makerfield decried family credit in his speech and said that it was a disgrace. I thought that we were finally about to hear a commitment from the Labour party. Is it Labour party policy to abolish family credit? That would be a bold proposal by new Labour. I do not suppose for a minute that we will receive a clear answer tonight when we did not get one during the weeks of consideration in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman had the absolute temerity to stand at the Dispatch Box and pretend that the Labour party had something to say about tax, when week after week in Committee he ducked and weaved in an attempt to avoid making the commitments that were the only logical consequence of the amendments that he tabled. The Opposition's amendment talks about a "minimum prescribed amount". Have Opposition Members said what that amount will be? Will it be the same figure as Labour's guaranteed minimum wage? That does not help us much because the Opposition are not prepared to tell us what that figure is either.

The Labour party is humbug from beginning to end. Labour Members make criticism after criticism week after week, but they are not prepared to say what they would spend or when they would spend it. We have seen examples of that approach again tonight.

Unemployment in Britain is falling for a number of reasons, one of which is that the Government have put in place a structure which assists the jobseeker. The Bill builds on that structure and I believe that hon. Members should support it. The Opposition's amendment gives no information about what the Labour party would do—it does not even give the Government the benefit of the Opposition's advice on the issue. How on earth could anyone support it?

I was pleased when the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) got to his feet and I was delighted when he began to speak. I hope that many people outside this place will read his remarks, because he has done the Labour party a great service.

The hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about "forcing" people out of jobs. A central issue in the debate is whether it is reasonable for the Government to force people into jobs that pay poverty wages. Government Members must answer that question because it is their legislation. Even after a Second Reading debate and eight weeks of consideration in Committee, we have yet to hear what the Government consider to be a minimum reasonable rate of pay to expect people to work for without risking a deduction in benefit.

Government Members may disagree on that point, so I intend to go to the top in respect of the legislation. The Minister of State made her position clear in Committee and it is important to put it on the record on Report. She said:

"I have said until I am tired of saying it, that pay will not constitute a reason for refusing an offer of work. I know that that is not palatable to the Opposition. I have also said on record—it is already published in Hansard—that an unemployment adviser"—

I thought that they were employment advisers—

"would take into account all prevailing circumstances".— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 February 1995; c. 521.]

We examined the prevailing circumstances that the Minister had in mind. We were pleased to learn that she did not intend to cut the current list. Health considerations were a prevailing circumstance that could be taken into account generally—but not in respect of pay. Religious conviction, conscientious conviction and caring responsibilities could be taken into account—although the Minister did not mention the cost of caring. If travelling costs associated with a job were considered excessive, they could be taken into account, as could excessive travelling time. But there was no mention of pay. The Minister did not answer the key question: what level of wages is it reasonable to expect people to work for? Anything goes for the Minister and the Government.

Are we trying to imagine problems that do not exist? Is there no problem with low rates of pay? Perhaps the problem existed once but it has now disappeared. The facts are that the problem does exist and that it is growing. Mention has been made in the debate of a survey conducted by the Manchester Low Pay Unit which found that one third of jobs offered wages below the national insurance threshold.

The Low Pay Network undertook a study entitled "After the Safety Net", based on a survey of 5,918 job vacancies at 128 jobcentres across the country. Of the 4,493 vacancies that gave a rate of pay, 36.5 per cent. paid less than they would have done if wages councils had still existed.

We are not talking about highly paid jobs; we are talking about jobs in catering, hotels, shops, hairdressing salons and clothes manufacturing. We are talking about rates of pay that the wages councils said were unlawful. Under the wages councils, it was unlawful to pay people less than about £2.50 per hour. When the Government were busy abolishing the wages councils, we posed the question, "Do you condone the fact that many employers are paying less than wages council rates?" Government Members replied, "Of course we do not condone the law being broken." So the Government abolished the law and legalised pay rates that had been unlawful under the wages councils.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he mention the 15 per cent. fall in unemployment in his constituency in the past year? Does he intend to examine subsections (7) and (8) of clause 7, which make it perfectly clear that the terms of a jobseeker's agreement are subject to the test of reasonableness, with a right of appeal not only to the adjudication officer but to the social security appeals tribunals? In those circumstances, how can he make those points?

The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency. I know precisely what the unemployment situation is in Birmingham. It does not give me any joy that one in five people in Birmingham are unemployed. About half that number have been unemployed for more than a year—that is higher than the national average—and about 30 per cent. of them have been unemployed for more than two years. One quarter of young people in Birmingham are unemployed. I think that that is a problem and I would not use that tragedy to try to score political points.

The Government should be more concerned about doing something to address the unemployment problem and to create jobs. Government Members seek to blame the unemployed for their predicament. The unemployed are unemployed because there are no jobs, not because they are workshy. The community understands that and it is about time Government Members understood it as well.

Of course, it is not just a question of overall rates of pay. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North mentioned the expansion of part-time work and job insecurity in Britain. That is part of the backcloth to the debate. He referred to the number of jobs that have allegedly been created. The fact is that an average of 270 full-time jobs have been lost every day since 1992. That is a net figure; it takes into account the number of jobs created as well as those that have been lost.

It is true that there has been an expansion in part-time work. If people are unlucky enough to lose their job, there is a one-in-three chance that their next job will be part time. If people move into part-time work, they are twice as likely to lose their job within a year. The average pay for a part-time job is—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for civil servants to brief Back-Bench Members?

It is completely out of order.

I apologise; the civil servants made that point to me.

The average pay of part-time workers is 70 per cent. less than that of full-time workers and, on average, a part-time job is 50 per cent. shorter than a full-time job, so when Conservative Members talk about the expansion of part-time working as if it were a one-way street or something for which people were crying out, perhaps they should look at the reality of part-time work for so many of our citizens.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who always gives way. Will he be as fair as he is wont to be? If he is to go through the parade of figures over the past few years, is it not right that he should point out that we have created 600,000 jobs in Britain in the past 18 months, when 2 million jobs have been lost in the rest of the European Union?

8.30 pm

If the hon. Gentleman does not understand how many jobs have been lost every day since 1992, I shall give him the figure in a few more ways. Let us go back to 1990 rather than 1992: since 1990 the number of jobs lost per day has been 579, which equates to the loss of about 24 full-time jobs every hour for the past five years.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If, instead of comparing peaks and troughs, he looks at the matter over a complete economic cycle, will he admit that we have created 1.5 million jobs in Britain, a figure substantially higher than most of the rest of the industrialised world?

If the hon. Lady wants to look at a complete cycle, perhaps she should examine the level of unemployment in my constituency and others since the Conservative party came to power. She will see that the Government have destroyed many jobs.

I am pleased that the Minister intervened as I was talking about job insecurity. The philosophy of job insecurity has been encouraged not just by the Government but by her Department.

I received a letter from the hon. Lady today dated 19 March taking exception to the fact that, a week or two ago, I publicised the fact that an internal circular in her own Department—Employment Service personnel notice 5/95—was deliberately encouraging managers in the Employment Service to deprive temporary staff of their employment rights.

I shall quote from that letter as the hon. Lady was obviously quite put out by what I said. She wrote:

"I can assure you that the aim of the document is not to deny temporary workers their employment rights. On the contrary the notice aims to reinforce the principles underlying the Civil Service Order in Council."

Obviously that circular, which instructs managers to make sure that temporary members of staff are not employed for longer than 51 weeks, had nothing to do with depriving temporary workers of their employment rights. Perhaps it was totally misrepresenting the intentions of the Employment Service. Was it? I shall quote from that particular circular.

Personnel notice 5/95 also encouraged managers to carry out employment checks on potential recruits to see whether they had worked for the Employment Service before. Why do managers have to carry out an employment check? There are various possible reasons. It could be for reference purposes. If somebody who had worked for the Employment Service before was a good member of staff, perhaps the service would want them back, but that is not why the circular urges managers to carry out employment checks. The reason is:

"If it is not checked, we might later find that the individual has already worked for up to two years and might now be in the position of having enough service to qualify for a wide range of employment rights."

There we have it in a nutshell: job insecurity, getting rid of employment rights and denying temporary workers employment rights is official Government policy. It is all linked together. Low pay, job insecurity and increasing casualisation of employment are all part of the Government's ideology. It is something to which we may object, and indeed we do. The Government may think that they can get away with that, but they might have some problems with this Bill under European law.

It is by no means certain that the Bill, if enacted, will be lawful under European law. As far as I know, the Government and Britain are still bound, or consider that they should be bound, by the European convention on human rights.

Article 4 of the European convention on human rights states:

"No-one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."

The article also sets out some exceptions to that rule which allow work to be done by prisoners and the military in times of emergency and include

"any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligation".

The Commission has decided in a number of cases that, in order to give rise to a violation of that article, the work must be involuntary, done in order to avoid the menace of a penalty, be unjust or oppressive and cause the victim unavoidable hardship. So there we have it: a violation occurs if a job is taken under the menace of a penalty. That is precisely what the Jobseekers Bill seeks to impose. It seeks to force people into jobs under the menace of the penalty of having their benefit deducted. Benefit sanctions are absolutely at the core and the heart of the Bill.

Tomorrow we shall debate new clause 6, which attempts to deal with another example of that compulsion or threat of penalty. Tomorrow we shall debate the Government's ambition to force young people to remain on training schemes even if the quality of the schemes is lousy and the Government are doing nothing for the young people. They are to be forced to stay on those schemes under the threat of removal of benefit.

The Bill is not only fatally flawed logically and blames the unemployed for their predicament but fails to create one single extra job to put people back into work. I am pleased to see the President of the Board of Trade—or the new leader of the Conservative party—coming into the Chamber.

The Bill also perpetuates the state's and the taxpayer's subsidising of low pay. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) talk about how family credit can come into play to alleviate low pay. He is absolutely right; it does. It would be far better if employers who paid poverty wages were not subsidised by the taxpayer. There should be an obligation on employers to pay reasonable wages. It is not up to the taxpayer to subsidise poor employment practices, whether by private employers or by the Employment Service itself. In-work benefits cost the taxpayer many millions of pounds, as my hon. Friends have already said.

The Bill is not only flawed logically; it could be flawed legally. The United Kingdom has been before the European Court of Human Rights 47 times and has suffered 23 losses in 16 years. The Government could be heading for another defeat in relation to the Bill. At best, the Bill shows ignorance of the plight of the unemployed. At worst, it shows the Government's determination to cover up their own failures, to blame the unemployed for that and, in an unlawful manner, to impose on the unemployed penalties for problems which they have not caused and for which they should not expect to stand the price.

I am conscious of the time and the wide range of the debate so far, but certain points need to be made about the minimum wage. The absence of a minimum wage certainly contributes to economic inefficiency. The history of the textile trade—which is close to the hearts of the people of west Yorkshire—in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was of an industry that tried to compete on wage levels with the far east, with the consequence that hundreds of companies went out of existence and 57,000 jobs were lost in west Yorkshire. The textile companies that survived, prospered and remain today invested in technology, machinery, equipment and human capital—in training people and enhancing their skills—to increase their companies' capacity.

Low wages encourage the black economy. Anyone with experience of contract cleaning or contract packing companies knows that the names on the payrolls come from Disneyland. The vast majority of people working in those industries are colluding in a black economy, in which the employer does not pay national insurance contributions and employees often have alternative occupations.

Low wages also set the poverty trap, because people in receipt of family credit and living in rented accommodation are liable to a 94 per cent. clawback of any increase in their income. A person earning £120 per week and receiving family credit must increase his wages to more than £200 before enjoying any benefit. The Government are considering extending family credit to childless couples, which will broaden the net of the poverty trap.

During the passage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was the present Under-Secretary's predecessor, took part in almost a Dutch auction in a debate on the abolition of wages councils, when it was said that a wage of £2.75 per hour, or £2 or £1.50, was acceptable. It was only when the figure reached 70p per hour that the right hon. Member for Stirling wavered. He did not say that was bad, but if the figure had dropped to 60p, he would probably have been on our side.

Compare that with Home Office policy. Anyone in Britain with a spouse living abroad whom he seeks to bring into this country must have an income of £160 a week, and an additional £40 per week for each child involved. The Home Office requires a couple with two children to have an income of £240 per week. The right hon. Member for Stirling thought that an income of £28 a week for someone working 40 hours was acceptable. It is disgraceful that such policies operate. The Home Office supports the minimum wage, but the Department of Employment supports the opposite. A minimum wage brings dignity, economic prosperity and security to the employed, saves taxpayers' money and is economically efficient.

Unfortunately, time is again short. The new clause attacks the heart of the Bill, which is why there is no possibility of the Government accepting it. The Bill's apparent purpose is to reduce public expenditure by attacking benefits for the unemployed, but its underlying reason is to drive people into low-paid employment and, by increasing the pool of people in such employment, to drive low wages even lower.

Conservative Members get excited because figures are not quoted, but the principal question is whether there is to be a floor to wages. The Government have refused to put in a floor. The absence of one is bad for workers, bad for public finances, bad for demand in the economy, bad for economic efficiency and bad for jobs. We will take on the Conservatives over all the nonsense they talk about jobs being lost through a minimum wage. Many statistics prove how bad it is for workers not to have a wages floor, and I recommend that people read the new Labour party document published last week, which shows that 328,000 people earn less than £1.50 per hour for their work. Women are particularly badly affected. Three quarters of the 3 million people who earn below the national insurance threshold are women.

8.45 pm

The absence of a minimum wage is also bad for public finances. Conservatives make a fuss about our attitude to family credit. Of course it will not be abolished, but more of the strain should be taken by employers. The Conservatives are supposed to favour privatisation, so why do they not privatise family credit? That way, more would be paid by employers and less by the Government. That should appeal to the Government, because it would reduce public expenditure.

If more people earned more at the bottom of the income scale, that would increase demand in the economy, which would, in turn, create more jobs. Low wages also cause high staff turnover, which serves as a disincentive to train. Why should employers train staff who will not stay with them long? Low pay is a substitute for training and for developing new processes and products. That was the point of Winston Churchill's famous quotation in support of a wages floor 90 years ago.

We will continue until the general election to challenge the assertion that a wages floor is bad for jobs. It is bad for jobs not to have one. At the last general election, the Government peddled their lies, and no doubt the same lies are all ready for the next general election. When that time comes, we will dissect and demolish those arguments. I do not have time tonight, but I can offer a foretaste.

The Government assume that a minimum wage will bring changes at all income levels, but many studies have shown that segmentation of the labour market will not necessarily have knock-on effects for other wage levels. The methodology of some theoretical studies that say there will be job losses can be challenged. They merely add the amount of money necessary for a minimum wage as an increase in the average wages level and feed it into the computer, to produce job losses. If that were true, when equal pay legislation was enacted in the 1970s, there would have been declining employment; instead, there was a slight increase. Women's wages increased a little and more women were working.

The same is true of the agricultural wages board. Even the Government accept that, and studies by the London School of Economics show that a minimum wage level had no effect on jobs. That applies equally to wages councils. The Library background paper refers to studies by the LSE and others that show that the existence of those councils did not hold back employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) told us what happened after the wages councils were abolished. There is evidence that there were fewer jobs-18,000 in retailing and catering in the period immediately following the abolition of wages councils. At the same time, wages fell—which was, of course, the purpose of the legislation.

Europe was also mentioned, as was the Under-Secretary's letter following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). Again, the Under-Secretary seemed to think that he disproved the point, because the figure for employment growth in the UK between 1980 and 1990 was 6.4 per cent.

It is interesting to look at the employment growth from 1980 through to 1993, which was what the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham was about. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, there is a slightly negative figure for the UK. Every other country about which my hon. Friend asked had a positive figure. In other words, all the countries that had some form of minimum wage legislation had a better employment growth record in that period.

I note that the same letter also makes the point about the low level of the minimum wage in the US. At least the US has accepted the principle, which is all we are asking the Government to do. A figure of $4.25 is quoted. If hon. Members refer to the study paper from the Library, they will find reference to another paper. Quite a lot of research on this has been done in America. When New Jersey, I believe, increased its minimum rate from $4.25 to something over $5, and the neighbouring state—I believe it is Pennsylvania—did not, there was a job increase in the state that increased its minimum wage. So why does the Conservative party not look at evidence from throughout the world, and, indeed, from this country, with agricultural wages boards and the wages councils, and see what has happened in practice, instead of inventing all the figures and feeding them through its computers?

There are, perhaps, reasons why that has happened in America, where minimum wages have increased, because in certain circumstances it is rational for employers not to hire new workers. Sometimes, it is rational for employers to keep output below the optimum, because sometimes they also have an interest in keeping wages low, and therefore having a pool of unemployed people in the labour market.

We in the Labour party are saying that there must be a floor for wages. There will be a market failure in our economic system if we do not have that floor. It will not cost jobs, and we shall go on saying that until the general election. We know that the Government do not have many cards to play in the next general election, so they will be scaring the electorate about the minimum wage as well as about Scotland, where I come from. We know all the scares that we will hear, but the Labour party started its campaign last week to tell the British people the truth about the minimum wage. That is the message that we shall get across so that the Government will not be able to scare people into voting for them again.

The standard of debate has deteriorated through the evening. We started off with an entirely sensible debate about disability provisions. We then had a debate which was total confusion and chaos because Opposition Members did not understand what was being proposed. Now, in our final debate, we have heard a rant of unreconstructed 1970s socialism from just about every Opposition Member who has contributed.

The first point to get across in this debate—although one might have been forgiven for wondering whether that is what it is—is about a proposed amendment which would write in that there must be specified levels of remuneration. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) asked whether we would imitate countries that had child labour, low wages and so on. In fact, what we are going to imitate is our own existing system. In question 18 in relation to the jobseeker's allowance, the claimant is asked:

"What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"

The Opposition talk as if we were introducing something scandalous in the Bill. By the end of the evening, we even heard about it being "unlawful" to introduce that under the Bill. Yet under the "Helping you back to work" plan that the Employment Service currently operates, question 27—I appreciate that the Opposition may have had difficulty getting as far as that—asks:

"What is the lowest amount before stoppages, etc. that you are willing to accept?"

There is absolutely no change.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall give way presently as I sympathise with the hon. Lady's obvious affliction, but I need to leave the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) time to respond, so there is some pressure. I will take the hon. Lady's intervention presently, but first I want to finish this statement because it is crucial that people should understand—I believe that they have been badly misled by the Labour party, both in the House and outside—that this does not represent a change.

I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way. I shall be quick. What would be an acceptable answer to question 18, which asks:

"What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"

What would be an acceptable answer to avoid an individual applying for the jobseeker's allowance being denied benefit for making an unreasonable claim on wage levels? Will the Minister answer that simple question?

I refer the hon. Lady to clauses 7 and 8, which are about reasonableness. I shall come to that presently. What is being suggested by the Opposition today is that we could even get down as far as having no pay. The hon. Member for Makerfield actually said that. Given that this is a straight carrying over of the present system, how many people are currently offered nothing and then lose their benefit? The only incidence that I know of somebody being offered nothing was when a jobcentre displayed a vacancy on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, when he was advertising for an assistant. I do not suppose for one moment that it would have been regarded as unreasonable if somebody had turned down that job on the basis that no pay was being offered. That is the whole point.

The Opposition are the scaremongers in this. They want people to believe, first, that there is a change and, secondly, that the policy would be unreasonably operated.

rose—

This will be the last intervention that I shall allow, so is the hon. Gentleman sure that he wants to intervene at this point?

I am very sure indeed. Is the Minister now saying, unlike what she said on 21 February, that pay could constitute a reason for refusing an offer of work?

What I was saying then—I understand that the hon. Gentleman may not have clicked on as quickly—was that no pay would constitute a clear reason. The hon. Member for Makerfield said specifically several times in his opening rant that nothing would count for these purposes.

One other thing that I have to correct concerns the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), but he has just had his intervention, so that is bad luck. What he did not read out when quoting from my letter was the postscript, in which I said that it was a pity that he had not bothered to ask the Employment Department for an explanation before going public with his horror story.

There is no question whatever of the purpose of that circular being to deny people their employment rights. The policy of the civil service since 1870—there have been a few Labour Governments since then—has been that recruitment to permanent posts in the civil service is to be done through fair and open competition. To that end, the guidance for the civil service is that for temporary workers, after one year of employment, their employment must cease and the job must become open to fair and reasonable competition from outside—in which they, of course, can compete. The hon. Gentleman can show me no part of employment law in which 51 weeks is significant. It has nothing to do with employment law, but everything to do with civil service fair and open competition.

The hon. Gentleman then came to the other quote about managers ensuring that people have not accumulated two years. He read it as though it were something sinister. It cannot have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that people who had accumulated two years would have the full rights of permanent employees, which would cut off opening their jobs up to fair and open competition. The hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to raise a storm in a teacup, but it is cruel, misleading and a sign of how desperate the Opposition must be if they cannot come up with anything better than that.

Let me explain what will actually happen under our proposals, as opposed to the dreadful stories put about by the Opposition. As I have said, I do not think it reasonable for pay normally to constitute a ground for refusing an offer of work—but I emphasise the word "normally". Clause 16 continues the concept of the "permitted period" that the Government introduced in 1989: a claimant with a usual occupation has up to 13 weeks to refuse work outside that usual occupation and the rate of pay that he or she used to receive. The claimant will not be subject to a sanction in such circumstances.

9 pm

That system works in a sensible way. After the permitted period, claimants should start to widen their job search. I explained clearly in Committee that we were not interested in introducing a "cliff edge"; we do not suggest that, after 13 weeks and one day, someone who used to be a senior manager, for instance, should immediately seek work as a gardener, or take some other job that is wholly removed from his previous occupation. Of course unemployed people should be given a reasonable time in which to review their prospects. If the senior manager whom I have cited is still unemployed at the end of his permitted period, he might then be expected to start looking for a junior management or senior clerical position; but that is not to say that he must immediately take any job at any level.

Obviously, the Employment Service will be offering jobs and operating sanctions. Hon. Members' objections can be interpreted to mean only that they do not trust the ordinary individuals in the Employment Service who will implement the rules. I assure the House, as I have done before, that the Employment Service will not set out to offer people inappropriate jobs.

Having discussed the amendment, perhaps I can now examine the amazing claims that we have heard from the Opposition. First, they have consistently refused to tell us what the minimum wage will be. The Trades Union Congress wants to know what it will be; Conservative Members want to know what it will be; the country wants to know what it will be; businesses want to know what it will be; but still the Opposition will not tell us. Why is that? It is because they know that as soon as they do, the proper calculations on job losses will be done, and we shall then be able to estimate the size of what the deputy Leader of the Opposition has described as a shake-out. What will be shaken is people, and what they will be out of is jobs.

The Opposition have ignored the Government's creation of 1.5 million jobs over a complete employment cycle. They have ignored the fact that we have 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Union from the United States and Japan—and why is that? It is because we have a flexible labour market. The Opposition have ignored the OECD report, which said that the reason for the investment was our flexible labour market. They have ignored the report by the International Monetary Fund, which said that Europe should be considerably more flexible. They have ignored the fact that the take-home pay of the bottom 10 per cent. of full-time wage earners is 23 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979. Indeed, the figure fell between 1975 and 1979.

Will the Opposition apologise for their record? Will they look happy, for once, about the 36 per cent. rise in average disposable income that has taken place since we came to power? Will they welcome the fact that, following the abolition of the main wages councils, the pay of employees covered by those councils increased by 3.7 per cent.? Will they look at the facts? Will they welcome what we have achieved? Will they tell us what their minimum wage will be, and what the number of job losses will be? If they are not prepared to do that, will they at least stop spreading horror stories, start telling the electorate the truth and start preparing for the same fate at the hands of the electorate as they have suffered since 1979?

As is her wont when she is in trouble, the Minister ranted and raved. The fact is, however, that the Government's record on low pay is the worst in Europe. Ours is the only Government in Europe who make excuses for the ability of employees in privatised industries to earn £1 million overnight while others are forced to work for £1 an hour or less in other parts of the economy.

The Minister failed to give any answers about the Government's intentions in regard to the Bill. Before dealing with her speech, however, I should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) for her eloquent testimony to the Government's abandonment of the defence communities in Dunfermline and other parts of Scotland. Her speech was a brilliant exposé of the Government's attack on workers who have contributed thousands of pounds in national insurance, and who then lose their right to benefit when they are made unemployed. In the Bill, the Government are taking the first steps towards abolition of the contributory benefits system.

The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) served on the Standing Committee and he served his Government well during those eight weeks. He had only one problem today: like many barristers, he tried to make a good job of a bad brief—a Conservative central office brief. He failed to accept that, according to the Government's own figures, between March and December last year 78 per cent.—eight out of 10—jobs created in the British economy were part-time jobs. In the past decade, the Government have destroyed 3 million full-time jobs. They are the only Government in the western world to have seen no net employment gain during that period: indeed, there has been a net loss.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) presented a compelling argument in relation to the Government's proposals on low pay, and the way in which they are trying to use the unemployed to regulate the market by forcing down wages and allowing employers to engage in illegal practices and offer poverty pay. The Government's only purpose in abolishing the wages councils was to allow employers to pay wages which had previously been illegal. Under the present Government, poverty pay is legal: an employer can now pay £1.50 an hour without facing sanctions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) made a well-researched speech about investment in training-related research and development. He also made a good point about family benefits and benefit clawbacks. Rather than taking people out of absolute poverty in work, the Government have left people in poverty while subsidising bad employers. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Government. We shall use family credit and in-work benefits to lift people out of absolute poverty. The Government use that to maintain them there and to provide subsidies for cowboy employers. We shall put an end to that situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) argued eloquently for the principle of a wages floor in the economy. He was an articulate and enthusiastic supporter of a minimum wage, arguing that low pay was unfair and inefficient, and that a minimum wage was fair and efficient. The Minister, in her usual way, continued to dodge the issue. She has had several opportunities to respond and I ask her yet again: will she fix a wages floor?

No.

I am glad that the hon. Lady said that. She fell for the trap, which was set in Committee. The refusal to set a wages floor will mean—and she has admitted it—that under the jobseeker's agreement people will lose their benefit if they turn down a job that pays £1 an hour. No wages floor has been set at jobseeker's allowance level, at income support level, or at unemployment benefit level—not even £2.70 per hour, which was the level set by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment in his letter to the Financial Times.

The Minister has made it clear that the Government intend to ensure that people will be driven from the unemployment register into the hands of employers paying £1 an hour or less. I call on my hon. Friends to reject the Government's position on poverty pay and unemployment, to vote for the amendment and to support the unemployed and people on low pay.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 279.

Division No. 110]	[9.10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Adams, Mrs Irene	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ainger, Nick	Burden, Richard
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Byers, Stephen
Allen, Graham	Caborn, Richard
Alton, David	Callaghan, Jim
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Armstrong, Hilary	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ashton, Joe	Campbell-Savours, D N
Austin-Walker, John	Canavan, Dennis
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cann, Jamie
Barnes, Harry	Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Barron, Kevin	Chidgey, David
Battle, John	Chisholm, Malcolm
Bayley, Hugh	Church, Judith
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Clapham, Michael
Beggs, Roy	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Bell, Stuart	Clelland, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bermingham, Gerald	Cohen, Harry
Berry, Roger	Connarty, Michael
Betts, Clive	Corbett, Robin
Blunkett, David	Corbyn, Jeremy
Boateng, Paul	Corston, Jean
Bradley, Keith	Cousins, Jim
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Dafis, Cynog	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Dalyell, Tam	Jowell, Tessa
Darling, Alistair	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Davidson, Ian	Keen, Alan
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Khabra, Piara S
Dewar, Donald	Kilfoyle, Peter
Dixon, Don	Kirkwood, Archy
Dobson, Frank	Lewis, Terry
Donohoe, Brian H	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dowd, Jim	Litherland, Robert
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Livingstone, Ken
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Eagle, Ms Angela	Llwyd, Elfyn
Eastham, Ken	Loyden, Eddie
Enright, Derek	Lynne, Ms Liz
Etherington, Bill	McAllion, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)	McAvoy, Thomas
Fatchett, Derek	McCartney, Ian
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	McCrea, The Reverend William
Fisher, Mark	Macdonald, Calum
Fynn, Paul	McFall, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McKelvey, William
Foulkes, George	Mackinlay, Andrew
Fraser, John	McLeish, Henry
Fyfe, Maria	McMaster, Gordon
Galbraith, Sam	McNamara, Kevin
Galloway, George	MacShane, Denis
Gapes, Mike	McWilliam, John
Garrett, John	Madden, Max
George, Bruce	Maddock, Diana
Gerrard, Neil	Marek, Dr John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Godman, Dr Norman A	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Godsiff, Roger	Martlew, Eric
Golding, Mrs Llin	Maxton, John
Gordon, Mildred	Meale, Alan
Graham, Thomas	Michael, Alun
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Milburn, Alan
Grocott, Bruce	Miller, Andrew
Gunnell, John	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hain, Peter	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hall, Mike	Morgan, Rhodri
Hanson, David	Morley, Elliot
Harman, Ms Harriet	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Harvey, Nick	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Henderson, Doug	Mowlam, Marjorie
Heppell, John	Mudie, George
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Mullin, Chris
Hinchliffe, David	Murphy, Paul
Hodge, Margaret	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hoey, Kate	O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hood, Jimmy	O'Hara, Edward
Hoon, Geoffrey	Olner, Bill
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)	O'Neill, Martin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hoyle, Doug	Patchett, Terry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Pearson, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Pickthall, Colin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Pike, Peter L
Hutton, John	Pope, Greg
Illsley, Eric	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Ingram, Adam	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Primarolo, Dawn
Jamieson, David	Purchase, Ken
Janner, Greville	Quin, Ms Joyce
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Radice, Giles
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)	Randall, Stuart
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Redmond, Martin

Reid, Dr John	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Rendel, David	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Timms, Stephen
Rogers, Allan	Tipping, Paddy
Rooker, Jeff	Touhig, Don
Rooney, Terry	Turner, Dennis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Tyler, Paul
Ruddock, Joan	Vaz, Keitn
Sedgemore, Brian	Wallace, James
Sheerman, Barry	Walley, Joan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wardel1, Gareth (Gower)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wareing, Robert N
Short, Clare	Waston, Mike
Simpson, Alan	Welsh, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis	Wicks, Malcolm
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Wigley, Dafydd
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Soley, Clive	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
	Wise, Audrey
Spearing, Nigel	Worthington, Tony
Spellar, John	Wray, Jimmy
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)	Wright, Dr Tony
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Steinberg, Gerry
Stevenson, George	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stott, Roger	Mr. Eric Clarke and
Strang, Dr. Gavin	Mr. Joe Benton.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Chapman, Sydney
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Churchill, Mr
Alexander, Richard	Clappison, James
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Amess, David	Coe, Sebastian
Arbuthnot, James	Congdon, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Conway, Derek
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Atkins, Robert	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Couchman, James
Baldry, Tony	Cran, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Bates, Michael	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Batiste, Spencer	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Bellingham, Henry	Day, Stephen
Bendall, Vivian	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Beresford, Sir Paul	Devlin, Tim
Body, Sir Richard	Dicks, Terry
Booth, Hartley	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Boswell, Tim	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Dover, Den
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Duncan, Alan
Boyes, Roland	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Dunn, Bob
Brandreth, Gyles	Durant, Sir Anthony
Brazier, Julian	Dykes, Hugh
Bright, Sir Graham	Elletson, Harold
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Budgen, Nicholas	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Burns, Simon	Evennett, David
Burt, Alistair	Faber, David
Butcher, John	Fabricant, Michael
Butler, Peter	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fishburn, Dudley
Carrington, Matthew	Forman, Nigel
Carttiss, Michael	Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Forth, Eric

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Madel, Sir David
French, Douglas	Maitland, Lady Olga
Fry, Sir Peter	Malone, Gerald
Gale, Roger	Mans, Keith
Gallie, Phil	Marland, Paul
Gardiner, Sir George	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Garnier, Edward	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Gillan, Cheryl	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Mates, Michael
Gorst, Sir John	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Merchant, Piers
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mills, Iain
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Grylls, Sir Michael	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Moate, Sir Roger
Hague, William	Monro, Sir Hector
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith	Nelson, Anthony
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hannam, Sir John	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Harris, David	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Haselhurst, Alan	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hawkins, Nick	Norris, Steve
Hawksley, Warren	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hayes, Jerry	Oppenheim, Phillip
Heald, Oliver	Ottaway, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Paice, James
Hendry, Charles	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Pawsey, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Pickles, Eric
Horam, John	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Powell, William (Corby)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Rathbone, Tim
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Riddick, Graham
Hunter, Andrew	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Jack, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Jenkin, Bernard	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Jessel, Toby	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Sackville, Tom
Key, Robert	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom	Shaw, David (Dover)
Knapman, Roger	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Shersby, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Sims, Roger
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Legg, Barry	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Leigh, Edward	Soames, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lidington, David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lightbown, David	Spink, Dr Robert
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Spring, Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Sproat, Iain
Lord, Michael	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Luff, Peter	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Stern, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Allan
MacKay, Andrew	Streeter, Gary
Maclean, David	Sumberg, David

Sweeney, Walter	Ward, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Waterson, Nigel
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Watts, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)	Wells, Bowen
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Whitney, Ray
Thomton, Sir Malcolm	WhittJngdale, John
Thumham, Peter	Widdecombe, Ann
Townend, John (Bridlington)	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)	Wilkinson, John
Tracey, Richard	Wilshire, David
	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tredinnick, David	Wolfson, Mark
Trend, Michael	Wood, Timothy
Trotter, Neville	Yeo, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian	young, Rt Hon Sir George (Acton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Tellers for the Noes:
Walden, George	Mr. David Willetts and
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)	Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 6, line 35, after `referred ', insert 'forthwith'.

No. 9, in page 6, line 44, leave out first 'by' and insert `at the instigation of.

No. 10, in page 6, line 44, leave out second `by'— [Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 12

Effect On Other Claimants

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 22, at end insert—

'(aa) where the claimant and A are a married or unmarried couple, any portion of the applicable amount which is included in respect of them shall be reduced to one half for the period for which this subsection applies to the claimant.'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 12, 13, 39 and 40.

I understand that the Opposition are content for me to make only a short speech on amendment No. 11. The amendments are drafting and technical, but I should perhaps refer the House to amendment No. 12, where the first line includes the word "is", which is clearly a typographical error, and should be deleted. The amendment should read

"Where a reduction under subsection (2)(aa) would not produce a sum which is a multiple of 5p".

I confirm that the Opposition are content with the amendments, but I add the caveat that we are not content with the clauses to which the amendments relate. We opposed them in Committee, and we continue to oppose them. I do not want the fact that we are not pressing the amendment to a vote tonight to be misconstrued.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 10, line 40, at end insert—

'() Where a reduction under subsection (2)(aa) would not produce a sum which is a multiple of 5p, the reduction shall be to the nearest lower sum which is such a multiple.'.

No. 13, in page 10, line 48, at end insert—

'(5) Subsections (6) to (8) apply where an order made under section 150 of the Administration Act (annual up-rating of benefits) has the effect of increasing the sum prescribed in regulations made under section 4(5) as the personal allowance for a single person aged not less than 25 ("the personal allowance").

(6) For the sum prescribed in regulations made under subsection (2)(c) there shall be substituted, from the time when the order comes into force, a sum arrived at by increasing the prescribed sum by the percentage by which the personal allowance has been increased by the order.

(7) If the sum arrived at under subsection (6) is not a multiple of 50p—
(a) any remainder of 25p or less shall be disregarded;
(b) any remainder of more than 25p shall be rounded up to the nearest 50p.

(8) The order shall state the sum substituted for the sum prescribed in regulations made under subsection (2)(c).

(9) Nothing in subsection (6) prevents the making of further regulations under subsection (2)(c) varying the prescribed sum.'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 13

Severe Hardship

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 11, line 35, leave out 'has' and insert 'and "other assistance" have'.—[ Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 15

Circumstances In Which A Jobseeker's Allowance Is Not Payable

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 13, line 34, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.

No. 16, in page 14, line 19, leave out 'more' and insert 'both'.

No. 17, in page 14, leave out line 22.—[ Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 22

The Back To Work Bonus

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 18, line 3, leave out 'subsection (5)(b) and to'.

No. 19, in page 18, line 38, leave out from 'person' to end of line 44 and insert—

'(1) the whole or a prescribed part of a back to work bonus to be payable, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to such person, other than the person who is or had been entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support, as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 23

Employment Of Long-Term Unemployed: Deductions By Employers

I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 18, line 48, after 'allowance', insert

', invalid care allowance or a benefit paid by virtue of his incapacity for work'.'

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in page 18, line 48, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.

No. 4, in page 19, line 5, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.

No. 5, in page 19, line 10, after 'deductions', insert

'which may exceed the payments which he is required to make by way of secondary Class I contributions in respect of that person.'.

The Bill does a great injustice to disabled people and their carers. The national insurance holiday to employers who take on someone who has been unemployed is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Obviously, I should like a full benefit transfer scheme, but that is a debate for another day. The Bill would exclude those who care for someone, those who claim invalidity care allowance, those who claim benefits that are paid on the grounds that they are incapable for work and those who suffer an illness or disability that qualifies them to claim incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance.

The Minister may feel that he covered the amendment in Committee with the reply that he gave, but it was not adequate. He said:

"The basic principle is that it is a work incentive proposal and there is no obvious case for extending it to those who are incapable of work… There are other helps for disabled people to get back into work in the form of disability working allowance at a more generous rate than family credit. Housing benefit and council tax benefit contain extra premiums for disability, which again increases the amount of benefit that disabled people receive."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 February 1995; c. 640–41.]

I do not think that that is good enough, although there are provisions within the social security system to help disabled people back to work. The disability working allowance is one such thing, but it is unlikely to have any impact as a work incentive and the take-up rate is only 17 per cent. It would take another 25 years for the Government to achieve their target of 50,000 claimants.

The Minister missed the point in his reply in Committee. We are not talking about an incentive for those out of work. We are talking about an incentive for an employer to take people on. Employers can save about £6 a week. I do not see why that should not apply if they take on a qualified disabled person. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this. The amendment has particular value for carers who want to return to work. I know that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People talked about considering the position of carers who received income support but were exempt from the requirement to sign on at the unemployment exchange.

I hope that the Minister will clarify the position on carers and whether they could be included in the national insurance holiday. Could disabled people be included if they had been in receipt of incapacity benefit? If employers take on someone who is disabled could they be treated in the same way as if they had taken on someone who had been unemployed for two years? I hope that the Government will consider accepting the amendment. It would go a long way to helping disabled people and their carers.

9.30 pm

I add the Labour party's voice to this group of amendments and announce that I will try to divide the House on amendment No. 3.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 reduce from two years to one year the qualifying period under which a new employer would get the national insurance contribution holiday. Amendment No. 5 deals with the amount of the contribution rebate that clause 23 leaves to be prescribed in regulations and provides for the rebate to be more than the employer's contribution for the person in question.

It is unfortunate that we have so little time to debate this important group of amendments, which deal with support for taking people off the long-term register and getting them back to work—one could describe it as pathways back to work.

When she moved amendment No. 41, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) referred to our debate in Committee. It is important that I point out that we moved an amendment at that stage to provide that income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance or invalid care allowance should be included as part of the two-year qualifying period.

As the Minister will know, I have corresponded with the Department during and since the Committee to try to clarify exactly how ex-carers and others who have been in receipt of incapacity benefits will be treated by the Bill and whether they will have the right to be included in any scheme that takes people off the long-term register.

Carers who have been undertaking the caring role and have not been available for work should not be discriminated against in any way when that caring responsibility ends and should not be excluded for two years—those are the Government's terms—from any help for returning to work. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us further details on that matter, because there is a general wish on both sides of the House to support people in those circumstances.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) in the Chamber. I tried to catch him before the debate started, as I did not want to do any further damage to his career by quoting him without giving him notice. His succinct and pertinent comments on Second Reading are worth quoting again, as they are relevant to amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. He was critical of the Government for failing to provide worthwhile incentives to employers to take on the long-term unemployed and his criticisms have a sound base. He said:

"The problem is that, although the Government have accepted the principle, their measures are wholly inadequate. The national insurance holiday for employers who take on those who have been unemployed for two years or more will offer employers just £6 a week. Employers have already made it clear that this is simply not enough and that it does not offer an incentive.

What is more, the national insurance holiday will not be introduced until April 1996. Why should the two-year unemployed have to wait to become unemployed for three and a half years before they get this measly incentive?"—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 61.]

We could not express the purpose behind our amendments more clearly than that.

There is a strong economic case for offering incentives to private sector employers to recruit the long-term unemployed. In the long run, that will allow the economy to grow faster while assisting the improvement of local economic activity in areas of social deprivation. The insecurity that people feel about their futures and the absence of the so-called "feel-good factor" are due to the chronic insecurity that people feel in their jobs.

The figures show for themselves why there is such debilitating uncertainty in the current climate and the current economy. Between 1993 and 1994, for example, 20 per cent. of all employees had left the job that they were in at the start of 1993. Similarly, people have a one in two chance of being out of their present job within two years. There are 1.5 million fewer jobs in the economy than in 1989, which means that 1.5 million jobs have disappeared during the recession and have not been replaced. In 1995, there are 3 million fewer full-time jobs than there were in 1979.

For two months running, the number of vacancies at jobcentres fell. Having fallen by 3,400 in January, they fell by more than 2,000 in February. If people are unlucky enough to lose their job, they have a one in three chance that their next job will be part time. Once they have shifted into part-time work, they are twice as likely to lose their job within a year as an employee in a similar full-time position. The impact of that insecure world of work which the Government have created is disastrous for families trying to plan for themselves and their children. Furthermore, nearly 11 million people—40 per cent. of the work force—have been out of work at some point in the past five years. Men are hit worst; 44 per cent. or 6.8 million men have been affected. The unemployment figure is still almost 1 million higher than it was under the post-war Labour Government.

All those figures and many more show that the current workings and deregulation of the labour market do not work. Long-term unemployment is grossly inefficient and unjust. There is a strong argument to support measures targeted at getting the long-term unemployed back to work. People who have lost their job in the past year have only a 23 per cent. chance of finding work within a month. If they are out of the labour market for a year, their chance of finding work falls to just 12 per cent.

Is the hon. Gentleman trying to argue that employers should keep people in work to stay inefficient and that people should be kept in employment to increase prices and to have inefficient industry? Is that the policy that the Labour party is putting forward? Is he saying that industry should not return to efficient organisation? Is that what the Labour party wants? If so, we want to know.

That intervention was quite amazing. The purpose of the amendments is to build on the Government's measures. They have recognised that they must create incentives to get the long-term unemployed off the dole queue. The right hon. Gentleman implied that he did not even support those modest measures and wants no help to be given to the long-term unemployed. He clearly does not understand the Bill before us, the clause that we are dealing with and the fact that the amendments that we are discussing would help people to return to work. He should concentrate his mind on those matters and even read the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the proposals.

In his Budget speech, the Chancellor recognised that the Government must introduce those measures, and they have been included in the Jobseekers Bill, the back-to-work schemes and the back-to-work bonus. The amendments seek to reinforce, improve and extend those measures to help people who, because they have been out of work for one or two years, stand little chance of getting back into work. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have felt some responsibility, given how long his party has been in government, for trying to help the long-term unemployed back into work. That is the sole intention of the amendments.

At the same time as the Chancellor announced his measures to help the long-term unemployed, we put forward the Labour party's eight pathways back into work. Given the intervention from the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), it is worth re-emphasising that clear Labour party policy to help the long-term unemployed. We strongly believe in the release of capital receipts to enable local authorities to build and launch small business expansion schemes, so that those businesses can expand and take on new workers. We shall introduce a benefit transfer programme for non-profit employers to help them to take on the unemployed in their areas. We shall propose an environmental task force, open to all young people. We shall look at tax rebates for employers who take on those who have been unemployed for two years or more. We shall look at modernising the benefits system so that we can ensure that people have pathways out of poverty through a combination of properly paid work and benefits.

We have just had an excellent debate on the minimum wage, which revealed that the Labour party is seeking proper wages for employment, topped up by benefits, rather than that people are ground down into poverty through the benefit system. We shall work to set up national child care systems to ensure that there are full opportunities for everyone to get back into employment.

We shall introduce many other measures when we are in government. At this stage, we want to ensure that the Bill provides the maximum opportunities to ensure that those who have been long-term unemployed and registered as such have the opportunity to benefit from the modest schemes that the Government have introduced. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are therefore designed to ensure that the Government include people who have been unemployed for between one and two years in the proposed new system. In particular, amendment No. 41 would guarantee that those people who have not been on the unemployment register but who have been unemployed through no fault of their own, because they have willingly undertaken the essential task of caring, also benefit from the Government's proposals.

As the hon. Member for Rochdale reminded us, in Committee the Government were not minded to look more sympathetically at the needs of the long-term unemployed or to consider lowering the unemployment threshold from two years to one. Since then, I hope that the Government have reflected on their position. I hope that they now appreciate that it is important that the plight of carers who, having undertaken caring responsibilities, face great difficulties when they try to get back into work, should be recognised.

More should be done to encourage the long-term unemployed back into work. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement by demonstrating that he has recognised the problem and by looking sympathetically at the amendments. I hope that he will accept them; otherwise we shall divide the House on amendments Nos. 41 and 3.

I begin with amendment No. 41, which is otiose because clause 23(6)(a) gives a power to prescribe circumstances in respect of people who do not satisfy the terms of clause 23(1). They can be treated as such. The necessary empowerment to make the regulations is already included in the Bill. Therefore it is unnecessary to pass the amendment in order to achieve the object that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), sought to persuade me to achieve.

I regret that I am not in a position to offer any satisfaction on the two policy matters that were mentioned. First, in respect of the disabled, the hon. Member for Rochdale fairly quoted me from Standing Committee, and the Government remain of the view that disabled people receive help to return to work in other ways. Disability working allowance is available at a more generous rate than family credit. Housing benefit and council tax benefit contain premiums for disability which also increase the amount of benefits that disabled people receive. Disabled people will qualify for the extra £10 premium in family credit or disability working allowance if returning to work for 30 hours or more a week.

9.45 pm

The Minister has not understood, as I said in my speech. We are talking about giving the employer an incentive to employ disabled people, not the other way round—not giving the disabled person the incentive to get into work.

The hon. Lady makes a fair point of analysis, but at the end of the day there is a question of money, whichever way round one tackles it. The Government's opinion is that the package announced in the uprating statement is an important, and indeed expensive, work incentive measure. The measures will cost an extra £300 million in benefit expenditure and will cut costs to business by a further £300 million when the national insurance reduction is taken into account. The Government's opinion at this stage is that we have gone a very long way. There is power in the Bill to go as far as the hon. Member for Rochdale wishes, but we do not propose to do so at the moment.

The second category, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Withington as well as the hon. Member for Rochdale, was that of ex-carers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has expressed sympathy. Indeed, he has written to the hon. Member for Withington, explaining that that category would not be entitled to the national insurance holiday, but expressing sympathy for the opinion that those who had received income support should be able to qualify and offering to consider the matter. I am not in a position to take the matter any further this evening, but that is the position as it stands.

The three amendments that the Labour party has tabled are extremely interesting and important. The purpose of amendments Nos. 3 and 4 is to make labour more attractive for hiring. The idea is that national insurance contributions are expensive; the employer has to meet them; if one gives a holiday from them, that is a direct incentive to the employer. The pair of amendments seek to extend that concession to employers from two years to one. The inexorable logic of the argument is that, by making labour cheaper, employers will have an incentive to take on more employees. Conservative Members strongly concur with that viewpoint.

It is deeply ironic that the inexorable sanity and logic of that position has been denied for the rest of the evening, because the minimum wage that Labour Members have contended for would have the effect of making labour more expensive. Somehow the Opposition wish to have more people in employment by making labour cheaper by those amendments, but refuse to accept the corollary that, if one increases the cost of labour by introducing a minimum wage, it will have the opposite effect. That is cloud cuckoo land of a most extraordinary nature, and shows the fundamental failing to understand a free market economy that is endemic on the Opposition Benches.

The difficulty with amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which are well intended, well meant and no doubt efficacious in the sense that they provide a positive incentive to increase the amount of people employed by reducing the cost of labour, is that, unhappily, they cost the taxpayer a considerable sum of money. The effect of amendment No. 3 would be to increase the category of employees who would potentially benefit from about 120,000 to 500,000 to 600,000. The precise effects are not necessarily easy to predict, but it is obvious that an estimated cost to the taxpayer of about £45 million would increase to about £170 million to £200 million in the terms of those two amendments. I regret to say that the Government believe that a considerable amount of money has been spent on the issue and it is not appropriate now to increase the burden on the taxpayer. In Committee, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) proposed amendments to like effect and suggested that they did not represent a spending commitment.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that, because the cost would be met out of the consolidated fund—general taxation—it was a mere book-keeping exercise. Increasing the burden on general taxation would, as a consequence, increase the amount needed to be raised from taxpayers to cover the additional cost. In no sense was it a book-keeping exercise. The hon. Gentleman's logic in Committee was incapable of being followed. The reality is that, yet again, the Labour party is arguing for a substantial public expenditure commitment.

Amendment No. 5 is in a different category. I can happily say that it is otiose in the sense that the Bill contains the power to do the same thing in any event.

What does otiose mean?

Otiose, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, means unnecessary and repetitious. The power already exists—[Interruption.] I can say to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) that I shall be brief.

The Government expect to provide, in regulations, for the deduction to equate to the amount of the employer's national insurance contributions. But the Bill contains the power to make that amount more or less. It is likely that we shall make provision in regulations for employers who operate occupational pension schemes to claim an amount equal to their gross national insurance liability—the actual amount of contracted-out national insurance contributions paid, plus an amount equal to the employers' 3 per cent. contracted-out rebate. That puts all employers on an equal footing and encourages them to include employees who qualify for the national insurance contribution holiday within the pension scheme, which will be beneficial to them. If amounts in excess of the employers' contribution liability were generally to be available, that would increase the amount of money involved and increase the burden to the general taxpayer.

The national insurance contribution holiday scheme is intended to be easy for employers to understand and operate, and for the Department to administer, within a given cost. We are concerned to keep it on a broad basis and limit exceptions that would otherwise complicate a straightforward scheme. I invite the House to reject amendment No. 41 on the basis that, even if it is necessary and desirable to carry out the policy intentions urged on me, which I reject, the Bill already contains the power to take such action were the Government to be persuaded to change their mind.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are extremely expensive. The Government understand the logic of the desirability of making labour cheaper to encourage more people to be taken on. I remain baffled by the fact that that logic was missing in the earlier argument this evening.

I urge the House to reject amendment No. 5 on the basis that the Bill already contains the power. I have explained the way in which we intend to pursue the regulations.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, but I am not grateful for the fact that he has not accepted amendment No. 41, especially when the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said that he would consider it. I was hoping that we would receive a commitment tonight from the Under-Secretary of State further to the statement from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I am also worried that disabled people, along with carers, will not be encouraged to get work. If we had a national insurance holiday for carers as well, it would help them to get back into work.

The Minister also said that the scheme would cost a great deal of money. He seems to forget that it is cost-effective to get people back to work. It might cost money for the national insurance holiday to be extended to disabled people and carers, but we should think of the savings in benefit. If the people who are now receiving benefit got back into work, that would represent a great saving for the Treasury rather than a cost. It is a great shame that the Minister is not prepared to accept amendment No. 41 and I shall certainly wish to put it to the vote.

I was glad to hear the Minister's views on the amendments, although I am clearly disappointed by what he said. It is correct that I have been in correspondence with the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, as I thought I mentioned in my opening remarks on the amendment. I will continue with that correspondence in an effort to assist carers as much as possible within the benefit system and to try to ensure that they benefit from the Government's schemes.

The Minister was disingenuous in describing our proposals. We recognise—the shadow Chancellor stated it quite clearly at the time of the Budget—that extra expenditure will be required in the short term in order to extend the pathways back to work proposals. That will prove economically efficient in the long term.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand the force of his argument, but it may assist the House in forming a view about it if he were to estimate the short-term cost of the back-to-work package that he has described.

I urge the Minister to read the statements made by the shadow Chancellor at the time of the Budget when he presented the whole package. The Minister is welcome to come back to me if he thinks that the package will not prove economically efficient and at least cost neutral in the long term. It must be a better use of human resources to remove people from the unemployment register so that they stop claiming benefit and start paying taxes.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Lady has just wandered into the Chamber.

I have been here on and off.

That is certainly not true. I have been in the Chamber for six and a half hours and it is the first time that I have seen the hon. Lady here. She must have wandered in and out in a dream, because she has certainly not had anything to do with the debate.

I will quote from the Chancellor's last Budget speech in support of my views. He said:

"We must combine greater prosperity for the majority with measures to prevent the emergence of a deprived underclass, excluded from the opportunity to work and dependent on welfare".—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1079.]

Through our amendments, we are saying that the measures that the Chancellor has taken and those in the Jobseekers Bill do not go far enough. They scratch only the surface in tackling the problems of the long-term unemployed in this country.

If the legislation's intention was to create jobs, its thrust would be primarily towards measures to help people back to work. However, the Government's key measures cut the benefits that are available to unemployed people and undermine the basic contributory principles. They reduce from 12 months to six months the amount of benefit that people will receive from their payments through the national insurance scheme. The Bill's whole emphasis is wrong; we believe that the Government should look at further enhanced measures to help the unemployed back into the work force. That is why, after reflection in Committee, the amendments were tabled to allow the Minister to reconsider the opportunity to extend the proposals in the way that the amendments are framed. It is to be regretted that he has not taken that opportunity and in that light we shall divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 278.

Division No. 111]	[9.59
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Ashton, Joe
Adams, Mrs Irene	Austin-Walker, John
Ainger, Nick	Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Barnes, Harry
Allen, Graham	Barron, Kevin
Alton, David	Battle, John
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Bayley, Hugh
Armstrong, Hilary	Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Beith, Rt Hon A J	Gordon, Mildred
Bell, Stuart	Graham, Thomas
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Benton, Joe	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Bermingham, Gerald	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Berry, Roger	Grocott, Bruce
Betts, Clive	Gunnell, John
Blunkett, David	Hain, Peter
Boateng, Paul	Hall, Mike
Bradley, Keith	Hanson, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Harman, Ms Harriet
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Harvey, Nick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Henderson, Doug
Burden, Richard	Heppell, John
Byers, Stephen	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Caborn, Richard	Hinchliffe, David
Callaghan, Jim	Hodge, Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Hoey, Kate
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Campbell-Savours, D N	Hood, Jimmy
Canavan, Dennis	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cann, Jamie	Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Chidgey, David	Hoyle, Doug
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Church, Judith	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clapham, Michael	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hutton, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Illsley, Eric
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Ingram, Adam
Clelland, David	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Jamieson, David
Cohen, Harry	Janner, Greville
Connarty, Michael	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Corbett, Robin	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Corston, Jean	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cummings, John	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dafis, Cynog	Keen, Alan
Dalyell, Tam	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Darling, Alistair	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Davidson, Ian	Khabra, Piara S
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Lewis, Terry
Dewar, Donald	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dixon, Don	Litherland, Robert
Dobson, Frank	Livingstone, Ken
Donohoe, Brian H	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dowd, Jim	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Loyden, Eddie
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	McAllion, John
Eagle, Ms Angela	McAvoy, Thomas
Eastham, Ken	McCartney, Ian
Enright, Derek	McCrea, The Reverend William
Etherington, Bill	Macdonald, Calum
Evans, John (St Helens N)	McFall, John
Fatchett, Derek	McKelvey, William
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Fisher, Mark	McLeish, Henry
Flynn, Paul	McMaster, Gordon
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McNamara, Kevin
Foulkes, George	MacShane, Denis
Fraser, John	McWilliam, John
Fyfe, Maria	Madden, Max
Galbraith, Sam	Maddock, Diana
Galloway, George	Marek, Dr John
Gapes, Mike	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
George, Bruce	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Gerrard, Neil	Martlew, Eric
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Maxton, John
Godman, Dr Norman A	Meacher, Michael
Godsiff, Roger	Meale, Alan
Golding, Mrs Lin	Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Sedgemore, Brian
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Sheerman, Barry
Milburn, Alan	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Miller, Andrew	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Short, Clare
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Simpson, Alan
Morgan, Rhodri	Skinner, Dennis
Morley, Elliot	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Soley, Clive
Mowlam, Marjorie	Spearing, Nigel
Mudie, George	Spellar, John
Mullin, Chris	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Murphy, Paul	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)	Stevenson, George
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Stott, Roger
O'Hara, Edward	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Olner, Bill	Sutcliffe, Gerry
O'Neill, Martin	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Taylor, Mathew (Truro)
Patchett, Terry	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Pearson, Ian	Timms, Stephen
Pickthall, Colin	Tipping, Paddy
Pike, Peter L	Touhig, Don
	Turner, Dennis
Pope, Greg	Tyler, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Vaz, Keith
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)	Wallace, James
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Walley, Joan
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Primarolo, Dawn	Wareing, Robert N
Purchase, Ken	Watson, Mike
Quin, Ms Joyce	Welsh, Andrew
Radice, Giles	Wicks, Malcolm
Randall, Stuart	Wigley, Dafydd
Raynsford, Nick	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Redmond, Martin	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Reid, Dr John	Wilson, Brian
Rendel, David	Wise, Audrey
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Worthington, Tony
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Wray, Jimmy
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Wright, Dr Tony
Rogers, Allan	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Rooker, Jeff
Rooney, Terry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Ruddock, Joan	Ms Liz Lynne.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Brandreth, Gyles
Alexander, Richard	Brazier, Julian
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Bright, Sir Graham
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Amess, David	Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Arbuthnot, James	Browning, Mrs Angela
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Budgen, Nicholas
Atkins, Robert	Burns, Simon
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Burt, Alistair
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Butcher, John
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Butler, Peter
Baldry, Tony	Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Carrington, Matthew
Bates, Michael	Carttiss, Michael
Batiste, Spencer	Cash, William
Bellingham, Henry	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Bendall, Vivian	Chapman, Sydney
Beresford, Sir Paul	Churchill, Mr
Booth, Hartley	Clappison, James
Boswell, Tim	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Coe, Sebastian
Bowis, John	Congdon, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Couchman, James	Hunter, Andrew
Cran, James	Jack, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Jenkin, Bernard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Jessel, Toby
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Day, Stephen	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Devlin, Tim	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Key, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dover, Den	Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan, Alan	Knapman, Roger
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dunn, Bob	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Dykes, Hugh	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Elletson, Harold	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Legg, Barry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Leigh, Edward
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Evennett, David	Lidington, David
Faber, David	Lightbown, David
Fabricant, Michael	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lord, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley	Luff, Peter
Forman, Nigel	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric	MacKay, Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Maclean, David
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
French, Douglas	Madel, Sir David
Fry, Sir Peter	Maitland, Lady Olga
Gale, Roger	Malone, Gerald
Gallie, Phil	Mans, Keith
Gardiner, Sir George	Marland, Paul
Garnier, Edward	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gillan, Cheryl	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Mates, Michael
Gorst, Sir John	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Merchant, Piers
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mills, Iain
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Grylls, Sir Michael	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Hague, William	Moate, Sir Roger
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald	Monro, Sir Hector
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hampson, Dr Keith	Nelson, Anthony
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hannam, Sir John	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Harris, David	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Haselhurst, Alan	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hawkins, Nick	Norris, Steve
Hawksely, Warren	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hayes, Jerry	Oppenheim, Phillip
Heald, Oliver	Ottaway, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Paice, James
Hendry, Charles	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Pawsey, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Pickles, Eric
Horam, John	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Powell, William (Corby)

Rathbone, Tim	Sweeney, Walter
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Richards, Rod	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Riddick, Graham	Temple-Morris, Peter
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Robathan, Andrew	Thurnham, Peter
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Tracey, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Tredinnick, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Trend, Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Trotter, Neville
Sackville, Tom	Twinn, Dr Ian
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shaw, David (Dover)	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Walden, George
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Ward, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shersby, Michael	Waterson, Nigel
Sims, Roger	Watts, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Whitney, Ray
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Whittingdale, John
Soames, Nicholas	Widdecombe, Ann
Spencer, Sir Derek	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Wilkinson, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Willetts, David
Spink, Dr Robert	Wilshire, David
Spring, Richard	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Sproat, Iain	Wolfson, Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Wood, Timothy
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Yeo, Tim
Steen, Anthony	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Stern, Michael
Stewart, Allan	Tellers for the Noes:
Streeter, Gary	Mr. Derek Conway and
Sumberg, David	Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o 'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)

That, at this day's sitting, the Jobseekers Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 18, line 48, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.— [Mr. Bradley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 280.

Division No. 112]	10.17 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Bayley, Hugh
Adams, Mrs Irene	Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Ainger, Nick	Beith, Rt Hon A J
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Bell, Stuart
Allen, Graham	Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Alton, David	Bermingham, Gerald
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Berry, Roger
Armstrong, Hilary	Betts, Clive
Ashton, Joe	Blunkett, David
Austin-Walker, John	Boateng, Paul
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Bradley, Keith
Barnes, Harry	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Barron, Kevin	Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Battle, John	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burden, Richard	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Byers, Stephen	Hinchliffe, David
Caborn, Richard	Hodge, Margaret
Callaghan, Jim	Hoey, Kate
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hood, Jimmy
Campbell-Savours, D N	Hoon, Geoffrey
Canavan, Dennis	Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Cann, Jamie	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Hoyle, Doug
Chidgey, David	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Church, Judith	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clapham, Michael	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hutton, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Illsley, Eric
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Clelland, David	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Jamieson, David
Cohen, Harry	Janner, Greville
Connarty, Michael	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Corbett, Robin	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Corston, Jean	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cummings, John	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dafis, Cynog	Keen, Alan
Dalyell, Tam	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Darling, Alistair	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Davidson, Ian	Khabra, Piara S
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Kirkwood, Archy
Dewar, Donald	Lewis, Terry
Dixon, Don	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dobson, Frank	Litherland, Robert
Donohoe, Brian H	Livingstone, Ken
Dowd, Jim	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Loyden, Eddie
Eagle, Ms Angela	Lynne, Ms Liz
Eastham, Ken	McAllion, John
Enright, Derek	McAvoy, Thomas
Etherington, Bill	McCartney, Ian
Evans, John (St Helens N)	McCrea, The Reverend William
Fatchett, Derek	Macdonald, Calum
Fisher, Mark	McFall, John
Flynn, Paul	McKelvey, William
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Mackinlay, Andrew
Foulkes, George	McLeish, Henry
Fraser, John	McMaster, Gordon
Fyfe, Maria	McNamara, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam	MacShane, Denis
Galloway, George	McWilliam, John
Gapes, Mike	Madden, Max
George, Bruce	Maddock, Diana
Gerrard, Neil	Marek, Dr John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Godman, Dr Norman A	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Godsiff, Roger	Martlew, Eric
Golding, Mrs Llin	Maxton, John
Gordon, Mildred	Meacher, Michael
Graham, Thomas	Meale, Alan
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Michael, Alun
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Grocott, Bruce	Milburn, Alan
Gunnell, John	Miller, Andrew
Hain, Peter	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hall, Mike	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hanson, David	Morgan, Rhodri
Harman, Ms Harriet	Morley, Elliot
Harvey, Nick	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Henderson, Doug	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Heppell, John	Mowlam, Marjorie

Mudie, George	Skinner, Dennis
Mullin, Chris	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Murphy, Paul	Smith, Chris (Islton S & F'sbury)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Soley, Clive
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)	Spearing, Nigel
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Spellar, John
O'Hara, Edward	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Olner, Bill	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
O'Neill, Martin	Steinberg, Gerry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Stevenson, George
Patchett, Terry	Stott, Roger
Pearson, Ian	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Pickthall, Colin	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Pike, Peter L	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pope, Greg	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)	Timms, Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Tipping, Paddy
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Touhig, Don
Primarolo, Dawn	Turner, Dennis
Purchase, Ken	Tyler, Paul
Quin, Ms Joyce	Vaz, Keith
Radice, Giles	Wallace, James
Randall, Stuart	Walley, Joan
Raynsford, Nick	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Redmond, Martin	Wareing, Robert N
Reid, Dr John	Watson, Mike
Rendel, David	Welsh, Andrew
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Wicks, Malcolm
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Wigley, Dafydd
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Rogers, Allan	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Rooker, Jeff	Wilson, Brian
Rooney, Terry	Wise, Audrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Worthington, Tony
Ruddock, Joan	Wray, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian	Wright, Dr Tony
Sheerman, Barry	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Short, Clare	Mr. Joe Benton and
Simpson, Alan	Mr. Alan Ingram.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Browning, Mrs Angela
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Alexander, Richard	Budgen, Nicholas
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Burns, Simon
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Burt, Alistair
Amess, David	Butcher, John
Arbuthnot, James	Butler, Peter
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Atkins, Robert	Carrington, Matthew
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Carttiss, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Cash, William
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Baldry, Tony	Chapman, Sydney
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Churchill, Mr
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Clappison, James
Bates, Michael	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Batiste, Spencer	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Bellingham, Henry	Coe, Sebastian
Bendall, Vivian	Congdon, David
Beresford, Sir Paul	Conway, Derek
Booth, Hartley	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Boswell, Tim	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Bowis, John	Couchman, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Cran, James
Brandreth, Gyles	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Brazier, Julian	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Bright, Sir Graham	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Devlin, Tim	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Key, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dover, Den	Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan, Alan	Knapman, Roger
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dunn, Bob	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Dykes, Hugh	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Elletson, Harold	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Legg, Barry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Leigh, Edward
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Evennett, David	Lidington, David
Faber, David	Lightbown, David
Fabricant, Michael	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lord, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley	Luff, Peter
Forman, Nigel	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Forsylh, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric	MacKay, Andrew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Maclean, David
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	McLoughlin, Patrick
French, Douglas	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Fry, Sir Peter	Madel, Sir David
Gale, Roger	Maitland, Lady Olga
Gallie, Phil	Malone, Gerald
Gardiner, Sir George	Mans, Keith
Garnier, Edward	Marland, Paul
Gillan, Cheryl	Marlow, Tony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Gorst, Sir John	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)	Mates, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Merchant, Piers
Grylls, Sir Michael	Mills, Iain
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hague, William	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald	Moate, Sir Roger
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Monro, Sir Hector
Hampson, Dr Keith	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Nelson, Anthony
Hannam, Sir John	Neubert, Sir Michael
Harris, David	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Haselhurst, Alan	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hawkins, Nick	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hawksley, Warren	Norris, Steve
Hayes, Jerry	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Heald, Oliver	Oppenheim, Phillip
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Ottaway, Richard
Hendry, Charles	Paice, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Patrick, Sir Irvine
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Pawsey, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Horam, John	Pickles, Eric
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Porter, David (Waveney)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Rathbone, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hunter, Andrew	Richards, Rod
Jack, Michael	Riddick, Graham
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Jenkin, Bernard	Robathan, Andrew
Jessel, Toby	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd"n S)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Thurnham, Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Sackville, Tom	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Tracey, Richard
Shaw, David (Dover)	Tredinnick, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Trend, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Trotter, Neville
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Shersby, Michael	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Sims, Roger	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Walden, George
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Ward, John
Soames, Nicholas	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Spencer, Sir Derek	Waterson, Nigel
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Watts, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wells, Bowen
Spink, Dr Robert	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Spring, Richard	Whitney, Ray
Sproat, Iain	Whittingdale, John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Widdecombe, Ann
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Steen, Anthony	Wilkinson, John
Stem, Michael	Wilshire, David
Stewart, Allan	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Streeter, Gary	Wolfson, Mark
Sumberg, David	Wood, Timothy
Sweeney, Walter	Yeo, Tim
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Tellers for the Noes:
Temple-Morris, Peter	Mr. David Willetts and
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 26

Termination Of Awards

Amendments made:No. 20, in page 21, line 34, after `or', insert

'where he is a member of a married or unmarried couple'.

No. 21, in page 21, line 39, after 'or', insert

'where he is a member of a married or unmarried couple.'.

No. 22, in page 21, line 42, leave out from "'partner"' to end of line and insert

'means the other member of the couple concerned.'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 27

Inspectors

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 22, line 10, leave out 'he considers' and insert 'may be'.

No. 24, in page 22, line 19, at end insert

'but do not include a private dwelling-house unless the inspector has reasonable grounds for supposing that the dwelling-house is being used for the purposes of a trade or business.'. —[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 28

Offences

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 23, line 37, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'that section'.

No. 26, in page 23, line 38, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'section 23'.

No. 27, in page 23, line 44, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'section 23'.

No. 28, in page 24, line 7, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'section 23'.— [Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 29

Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 24, line 33, at end insert

'"employed earner" has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act;'.

No. 30, in page 25, line 12, leave out

'such meaning as may be prescribed'

and insert

'the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act'.—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Clause 31

Parliamentary Control

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 26, line 41, at end insert 'or'.

No. 32, in page 26, line 43, leave out from '29(1)' to end of line 44.

No. 33, in page 27, line 2, leave out from 'under' to end of line 6 and insert

'section 24 or paragraph (b) of the definition of "pension payments" in section 29(1).'—[Mr. Roger Evans.]

Schedule 1

Supplementary Provisions

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 31, leave out lines 41 to 45.

No. 35, in page 32, leave out lines 15 to 21.— [Mr. Roger Evans.]

Schedule 2

Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 33, line 26, at end insert—

'The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (C 49)

. In section 78(2A) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (relief from payment of contributions in respect of children subject to supervision requirements etc.), after "income support" insert ", an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)".'.

No. 37, in page 34, line 5, at end insert—

'The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (C 44)

. In section 53(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (school meals), after "income support" insert "or of an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)" and for "it" substitute "that benefit".'.

No. 38, in page 34, line 14, at end insert—

'The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (C47)

The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 is amended as follows.

In section 8(b) (availability of advice and assistance), after "income support "insert", an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)".

In section 11(2)(b) (contributions in respect of advice and assistance), after "income support" insert ", an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995)".'

No. 39, in page 35, line 21, after 'to', insert 'half'.

No. 40, in page 35, line 22, leave out 'the claimant' and insert 'them'.— [Mr. Roger Evans.]

Further consideration adjourned.— [Mr. Bates.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Petition

South West Water

10.29 pm

I wish to present a petition which has been collected by the Sunday Independent newspaper on behalf of the South West Water consumers in my area who are deeply concerned that their water bills have doubled since the privatisation of water, and who know that their bills are to rise further and that they have to pay more than any other region in the country.

To the Honourable the commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of the people of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset sheweth that water consumers in the south west of England have seen their bills double since 1989 and are burdened with the highest water bills in the whole country.

Wherefore your Humble Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take urgent action to prevent further water price rises for domestic users in the south west and will ensure that South West Water considers the plight of domestic users as well as the interests of its shareholders and businesses in the region.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

The petition has been signed by 42,511 people.

To lie upon the Table.

Penalties For Crime

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

10.31 pm

I must point out to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that the case of PC King is sub judice, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not include any reference to it in his speech.

I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We have heard a lot recently about the rights and welfare of offenders, but, as Members of Parliament, we have a much higher priority, which is a responsibility to the law-abiding public and to the victims of crime. We have a responsibility to protect them from the offender and from those who would threaten violence.

There is too much excusing of bad behaviour and not enough unequivocal condemnation of it. The public are sick to the back teeth of thugs laughing at justice as they walk free, while the Crown Prosecution Service—in its politically correct way—pursues those who seek to defend the public. The public have a clear view of crime and punishment, and their perceptions are worthy. First, they want the CPS to exhibit more common sense in its prosecution policy and to pursue the real villains who go out to cause mischief and mayhem, and not good people. Secondly, the public believe that when the courts find people guilty of a serious crime, they should give tough sentences. They also believe that Parliament should provide a more effective range of sentences for the courts to use. Thirdly, people think that when villains are sent to prison, they should endure a tough and stark regime which will deter, as well as rehabilitate. There can be no place in prison cells for television sets, home comforts and drugs.

We are making good progress on fighting crime, not least because of the sound guiding hand of men such as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is to reply to the debate. My hon. Friend is greatly admired by his Dorset constituents. I know that because I represented those people on the police authority in Dorset, and also as a police cells lay visitor.

Crime figures are now significantly down—particularly property crime—and my hon. Friend may be able to give us the statistics. That welcome fall in crime is due to a number of factors which are worth examining. The work of the police in targeting persistent offenders has been important, and courts have done their duty by increasingly putting habitual thieves into prison. My constituents know that prison works, not least because the villain cannot prey on the vulnerable while he is locked up.

We heard on "Kilroy" last Thursday that the one thing which really deters young villains is the shock of a custodial sentence. Ex-villains made that point graphically in the evidence which they gave on "Kilroy". They said that they laughed at probation officers and community orders, but that they did not laugh at prison. Some of them thought that they had been robbed of years of their lives because they were not given proper punishment early enough. The mother of one of the young offenders made a plea from the heart for her son to be dealt with more harshly, so that he could learn the real lessons of life. I shall return to that point later.

I must stress the importance of parental responsibility. Society must do more to reinforce that responsibility both by empowering courts to enforce it more effectively and by helping more vulnerable parents to cope.

Crime prevention has an important role. Castle Point's local crime prevention officer, Gordon Sinclair, is worth his weight in gold. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) agrees with me on that. Mr. Sinclair is the local catalyst in partners against crime. He has launched successful industrial estate watch schemes and even developed an innovative neighbourhood cluster security scheme which has rightly received Home Office commendation.

Recent Home Office achievements include tougher standards for community sentences, new guidelines to limit repeat cautioning, new parish councils, less paperwork for the police so that they can get out on the streets and additional powers for the Attorney-General to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. Of course, we now give better treatment to victims.

In the Government's legislative programme key issues have been firmly tackled. For instance, a move has been made to give custodial sentences to persistent 12 to 14-year-old offenders. There has been a crackdown on bail bandits. The Government have reformed the right to silence rule, which benefited the professional crooks. A new DNA database has been established to help detect serious crime. Those are all sound measures. It is a great pity that Opposition Members are so churlish about them.

For less serious crime, we need non-custodial sentences, but they must be more rigorous and effective and better focused on the needs of the law-abiding community as well as dealing with the offenders with understanding, compassion and thoughtfulness, of course. So I welcome the Green Paper "Strengthening punishment in the community". It foreshadows the replacement of the soft, easy option of current community punishments and empowers the courts to be more innovative and focused in sentencing. In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan, it lets the punishment fit the crime, and about time too.

Let me give an example of how the proposed single integrated community sentence might operate. I take the case of a drunken fool who goes out late at night to damage people's property by spraying graffiti. The court could specify all or any of the following. It could require reparation to the community by ordering 50 hours' clean-up work, including graffiti removal. It could restrict the offender from returning to the homes or the area that he damaged. It could impose a curfew order on the offender of, say, 9 o'clock so that he was back at home and not out in the dark doing his mischief. It could also order his attendance at an alcohol abuse clinic, giving an element of rehabilitation and hope to the offender. All this is common sense and therefore it has my backing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Orange county in California graffiti vandals have six strokes of a rattan cane and in St. Louis they are considering putting this on television? I proposed at the weekend that we should consider seriously the use of a rattan cane for our very violent criminals. Perhaps the Minister might take that on board.

My hon. Friend is never knowingly oversold when it comes to defending vulnerable people in our society against those who would go about with villainy in their mind. I congratulate her on her efforts on behalf of vulnerable people and her constituents.

We need to go further and provide a greater range of alternatives to gaol—non-custodial sentences. So I welcome the trial of the so-called boot camp philosophy, which also comes from the American experience. We should focus on the best of that experience to give a tough and rigorous reforming regime for our wayward youngsters. It must inject discipline into vulnerable young lives which have had little structure and which social systems have betrayed by withholding timely and effective punishment and strict frameworks of behaviour.

I should also like to look again at the short, sharp shock of incarceration, but not the old 46-day model, which failed. It was too long. It gave the youngsters time to settle down, to achieve a pecking order and to learn from each other. We need a new, five to seven-day model—much shorter and infinitely sharper.

We must let youngsters know with absolute certainty and at the earliest possible stage in their careers in crime what the future would hold for them. To treat young offenders with inappropriate kindness and understanding is often to deceive them into a life on the slippery slope of crime and to betray them in the way that we betrayed our youngsters in education, with a politically correct and totally counter-productive, progressive social and education system.

I welcome the Government's move to resist solutions such as that of Essex social services, under a now disgraced Labour and Liberal pact, where young thieves and thugs were sent on foreign holidays and were thereby positively encouraged and reinforced in their wayward ways by misguided social workers.

Some hon. Members advocate bringing back flogging, as we just heard—

Caning.

My hon. Friend advocates caning. If we do it, we should do it properly and it should be a real deterrent on the Singapore model. Any hon. Member who thinks that it would not work and would not deter thugs and vandals should go to Singapore, where they will see women walking in the streets safely at night. They will not see any cars being vandalised on the streets and the only joyriders are young children playing on the carousel in safety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) has done the House a great service by raising that important issue, and I congratulate her. She found a most novel and effective way to bring the matter to public attention.

For most serious crimes, I want the most serious punishment. I want hanging for certain types of murder and I do not say that lightly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the restoration of capital punishment for pre-determined murder would act as an effective deterrent? Does he also agree that, if it saved one life, it would be worth while? Finally, does he agree that, by failing to vote for its restoration, the House has let the British people down and has damaged our sense of fairness and of making the punishment fit the crime?

My hon. Friend makes his point most eloquently and persuasively. He is absolutely right, as always. He will have noted a week or so ago that a murderer, who had murdered his girlfriend, done his sentence and been let out, then murdered his next girlfriend. No doubt he will be back in prison and I wonder whether we will let him out a second and a third time. That is a very good point.

On armed robbery, villains are going equipped with firearms to commit an ever-widening and ever more petty range of crimes. They even go armed with guns to rob sweet shops. They take guns only after careful planning and deliberation. The one who carries the gun should add this to his deliberations—if convicted, he will go down for a statutory minimum of 10 years, and probably longer. There will be no remission for good behaviour, but only longer for bad behaviour. There will be no mitigating circumstances and no argument of, "It was his first offence, M'lud." That would have a salutary deterrent impact on the villain's decision to tool up. It would make society a safer place, make life safer for police and it would help Parliament to withstand pressure to arm the police, which would be wrong.

On the killing of Tony Martin, my 17-year-old constituent, the judge said of the guilty man, 31-year-old Andrew Osborne,

"you opened that knife and plunged it into a 17-year-old boy's body."

He received six years' imprisonment and may serve only four, which is not enough to serve as a sound deterrent and to protect society.

The thug was convicted of manslaughter—a verdict that many of my constituents think was a travesty. I will not comment on it.

I have the first instalment of a massive local petition, which I shall present to the House once it is complete. It calls for the sentence to be referred to the Court of Appeal. We cannot bring back young Tony Martin, as much as our hearts and sympathies go out to his loving and caring family, but we can help them in their grief by giving them hope that other young people will be safer in the future. We can do that by making it a much more serious offence for knives to be taken to places of entertainment where young people congregate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental reason for the ridiculous circumstances that we find ourselves in is that we have had a succession of weak-kneed Home Secretaries since the war—one after another? Are not civil servants in the Home Office to blame for that state of affairs? When will the present Home Secretary show his true colours and get hanging and corporal punishment restored and castration introduced? If someone rapes, castrate him! When will we start to have Conservative principles, not the wishy-washy politics of the lot that sit opposite?

My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic firmness, and I agree with much of what he said. I cannot agree with his criticism of the Home Secretary, however, as his decisions must reflect public opinion. I want, with my hon. Friend, to influence public opinion to ensure that the public force us to take the action that they want us to take, which is to get tough on villains. That is the message that we receive.

I refer to recent cases of police officers who have been charged with assault having dealt with hooligans and serious thugs. I have such a constituency case, but the attorney informed me this afternoon that an appeal has been lodged. The matter is therefore sub judice and I shall respect that. I hope that, if necessary, I can bid again for a suitable occasion to raise that specific constituency matter. Tonight, however, I shall speak generally.

It is said that the law is an ass; I say that people who interpret the law badly and in defiance of justice are the asses. Society expects the police and all good citizens to step in to save a child, an elderly person or a youth from the violent threat of a thug. We certainly do not want a constable to stand back and wait for that threat to become a reality, and an elderly person to be cast to the floor, or a baby to be thrown from a train. If a police constable reacts to a situation not of his making and without malice, exerting reasonable force in response to a violent threat to the public, he should not risk losing his job. That would be unjust and disproportionate.

If a constable were to lose his job in such circumstances, the message to every police officer would be crystal clear. It would be, "Don't get stuck in to protect a threatened, vulnerable member of the public. Stand back. Wait for the thug to do his worst and convert his violent threat into violent action. Then politely ask the thug if he would care to accompany you to the station. Show him your warrant card and hope that he will be impressed by that"—I doubt it in this day and age— "and if you do step in, remember: you may lose your job."

Society must avoid sending out that message. We all accept that the police rely on community, co-operation and confidence to do their job effectively. Serving police officers, politicians and communities across this nation have watched those cases develop with great concern. They have written in their thousands in support of accused policemen, particularly in recent weeks, but they need have no fear—

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but he seems to be describing a particular case, even though he has not mentioned it. Will he get away from that case?

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to steer my speech in more general terms.

Police commissioners, if not all courts, are sound and sensible. They know that the PC Guscott precedent must weigh heavily. Commissioners of police are experienced, good men, with a clear sense of justice.

A court might assume that a policeman, observing a violent threat, should walk away or try to reason with the thug and that that thug, left to his own devices, would not carry out his original threat, nor subsequently harass or pick a fight with another person. The policeman would not have the time or hindsight enjoyed by a court that subsequently decided on the matter. That policeman must decide, on the spur of the moment, what to do and he may decide that safe is better than sorry and remove the threat by using reasonable and proportionate force. That is what I and other hon. Members would want him to do.

The courts should take into account not just the probability of outcome, but the gravity of it. Let me explain that complex evaluation of a decision with an illustration. A 100 per cent. probability of a £1 outcome has less worth than a 1 per cent. probability of a £1 million outcome. We all understand that, so let me take that illustration further. Where the thug threatens the most grievous harm and the policeman takes minor physical action to remove that threat, those facts must weigh heavily when judging the reasonableness of the policeman's decision. The slaughter of a child would be a grievous threat, as would a threat to attack an old person.

If doubt remains in the minds of hon. Members, let me add a second and rather chilling thought. What if a citizen or an off-duty policeman had been in the pub when 17-year-old Tony Martin was knifed on Canvey island? If he heard the escalating threat and moved in to stop the developing fracas, he might have hit a thug and made an arrest, if he thought that that was reasonable. The CPS may have prosecuted that bobby for common assault, particularly if an independent witness stood against him. We should, of course, ask searching questions about any so-called independent witness's experience of the police.

After the event, the CPS and others in the court might argue that, in any case, no one ever believed that real harm had been intended. Perish the thought. People had merely made boastful threats and no one in the pub would have done anyone else any harm. Of course not. But Tony Martin died that night. If an off-duty policeman had been in that pub, Martin might have lived. Perhaps that is why we should not judge the police too sanctimoniously when they act genuinely to meet the threat of violence, and they, rather than the thug, end up in court. If, on the spur of the moment, the police make an error of judgment—I am not saying that they do—they should not lose their jobs.

I welcome the Government's sound crime and punishment policy. I encourage them to be even tougher in the future. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your patience.

10.52 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on losing no time in securing an early opportunity to debate penalties on crime following the publication, last week, of the Government's Green Paper on community punishments.

My hon. Friend's concern for law and order is well known and well respected and is as one would expect from a former county councillor for God's own county of Dorset. It was remarkable to me, but not surprising, that he was supported in the excellent debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). They added their support for punishment for graffiti vandals and capital punishment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield offered us the three Cs—capital, corporal and castration. The only source of disagreement with my hon. Friend is that he referred to "the lot sitting opposite"; but Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have noticed, as I have done, despite my not-perfect sight, that no Opposition Members are present for this debate on law and order. Law and order are of the greatest concern to my hon. Friends and I deeply regret that no Opposition Members are here to join that debate. Naturally, I was pleased to note my hon. Friend's strong support for the general thrust of Government policy on law and order, and I shall do my best, in the moments that remain, to respond to as many of those arguments as possible.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point knows, the Government's approach to tackling crime has sought to ensure, first, that a proper emphasis is given to the prevention of crime; secondly, that the police have adequate powers to apprehend the guilty; thirdly, that justice is fairly as well as efficiently done; and, fourthly, that the courts have the necessary powers to deal effectively with those who are convicted. We are also committed, as my hon. Friend noted in his speech, to providing better treatment for the victims of crime.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining some of the Government's significant achievements. As he says, it is a pity that not everyone in the House—one looks at the empty Opposition Benches—has the interest to be with us tonight or has supported the measures that we have introduced. Indeed, most of our difficult but necessary measures have been introduced in the House in the teeth of fierce opposition by our Opposition opponents.

At the outset of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned three specific public anxieties about law and order. The first of those concerned the prosecution policy adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that anxieties are sometimes expressed by members of the public about cases that have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as about some cases that have been taken to court.

It is not for me, as a Minister, to comment on the way in which the independent CPS makes its decisions, but the general policy of the CPS appears to be pretty sensible—to prosecute all offences where the evidence provides a realistic prospect of conviction and where it is in the public interest to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also mentioned that the public believe that those found guilty of serious crimes should be given tough sentences. The Government entirely agree that those who commit serious crimes should be properly dealt with by the courts. Indeed, so that long sentences can be imposed, we have ensured that tough penalties are available for the most serious crimes. Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder and the maximum for other grave crimes such as manslaughter, rape, wounding with intent and robbery. We are committed to keeping penalties under review to ensure that they remain appropriate. Where changes are needed, we do not hesitate to make them.

Sentencing in individual cases must be a matter for the court that has heard all the evidence in a case. The sentencing framework in which the courts operate does, however, explicitly link the type of penalty that will be appropriate with the seriousness of the offence committed. The length of a prison sentence, where one is imposed, will similarly be affected by the seriousness of the offence.

The Government are aware that unduly lenient sentencing in serious cases undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. That is why we introduced the power that the Attorney-General now has to refer serious cases to the Court of Appeal if it appears that the sentence is unduly lenient. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point rightly notes, we have recently extended that power to include a wider range of offences.

Towards the start of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the crime figures and asked whether I could provide the most recent figures. For the 12 months to June 1994, 5.4 million crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales—a 5.5 per cent. decrease on the previous 12 months. The figure for property crime, to which my hon. Friend especially referred, decreased by 6 per cent., for burglary and theft by 8 per cent. and for vehicle crime by 9 per cent. As he knows, we have been very encouraged by recent decreases in recorded crime. We know, however, that there is no room for complacency. It remains of great concern to the Government that crime is a reality for far too many people. The tough stance against crime and the criminal must continue.

I was pleased to note my hon. Friend's support for the use of community sentences for less serious crime. As he rightly said, we have recently introduced tougher national standards for existing community sentences. I was equally pleased to note his support for the proposals outlined in the Green Paper that we published last week.

My hon. Friend also suggested that a further look should be taken at the short, sharp shock of incarceration. He rightly acknowledged that the experiment with such regimes during the 1980s was not a success. He suggested a different approach that would simply give young offenders a taste of what prison was like to discourage them, at an early stage, from pursuing a life of crime.

My hon. Friend mentioned a recent case in his constituency involving the death of a young man. I recognise the strong feelings so understandably felt by Mr. Martin's family and friends, and by other people in the area. I appreciate that it can sometimes be difficult for people to understand why there has been a manslaughter verdict in such cases. The position in law is that where, on a charge of murder, there is evidence on which a jury can find that the person charged was provoked—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

Volume 257: debated on Wednesday 22 March 1995

House Of Commons

Prayers

Falkland Islands

Training And Enterprise Councils

Housing (Uttlesford)

Baby Milk

Septrin

Oral Answers To Questions

Scotland

Nhs Trusts

Lockerbie

Labour Statistics

University Budgets

Local Enterprise Companies

Scottish Assembly

Value-Added Indicators

Private Residential Homes

Scottish Economy

Road Improvements

Scottish Economy

Highlands And Islands

Hospital Construction Costs

National Parks

Fishing

Welsh Grand Committee

Points Of Order

School Transport Safety

School Transport Safety

Orders Of The Day

Consolidated Fund (No 2) Bill

Jobseekers Bill

New Clause 7

Expedited Claims For Housing And Council Tax Benefit

"Expedited Claims For Housing And Council Tax Benefit Disclosure Of Information By Authorities

New Clause 2

Sick Or Disabled Persons

New Clause 4

Availability For Employment: The 21 Hour Rule

New Clause 5

Loans For Back To Work Expenses

Clause 5

Duration Of A Contribution-Based Jobseeker's Allowance

Clause 6

Availability For, And Actively Seeking, Employment

Clause 7

The Jobseeker's Agreement

Clause 12

Effect On Other Claimants

Clause 13

Severe Hardship

Clause 15

Circumstances In Which A Jobseeker's Allowance Is Not Payable

Clause 22

The Back To Work Bonus

Clause 23

Employment Of Long-Term Unemployed: Deductions By Employers

Clause 26

Termination Of Awards

Clause 27

Inspectors

Clause 28

Offences

Clause 29

Interpretation

Clause 31

Parliamentary Control

Schedule 1

Supplementary Provisions

Schedule 2

Consequential Amendments

'The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (C 49)

'The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (C 44)

'The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (C47)

Petition

South West Water

Penalties For Crime