| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1290
Whether this is the first, second or third time that it is being said does not matter for this purpose. It is up to Labour Members to clarify what they mean. Given the importance of the issue, it is vital that we understand fully what Labour means by a "statutory national minimum wage". Our estimate is that if it is applied at anything like the levels that the Labour party is talking about, even with the initial rate of 50 per cent., it will cost at least 750,000 jobs, and possibly as many as 2 million jobs if we go to the minimum of what is proposed. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West expressed sincerely his concern about the effects of unemployment on the social fabric, but for his party, in almost the same breath, to subscribe to a policy that may be well intentioned but would have the inevitable effect of raising unemployment by unimaginable levels is grossly irresponsible.Labour Members will have to face up to this point and answer it. They cannot argue that people should be given a certain level of pay as of right, regardless of productivity, performance or the ability of employers to afford it, and then complain about the undesirable and evil effects of unemployment on society. That is inconsistent, irresponsible and unfair. The sooner that Labour Members come clean on this, the better it will be for all of us.
It is worse than that, because the mechanism of the system that Labour is proposing will give rise to the "chasing of the tail" phenomenon. If a statutory minimum wage level is related to a median and then raised, and then differentials are introduced, which in turn will raise the median further, inevitably the minimum must be raised. With such a process, before we knew where we were, we would be caught in a vicious upward spiral whereby the minimum chased the median and vice versa. We would be locked into a process that inevitably meant rampant inflation and further job losses.
How all of this fits with a party which is allegedly concerned about the levels of unemployment is beyond me. It has not prevented Labour Members from taking part in the debate on the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, on anti-social behaviour, and talking glibly about the difficulties of society, and importing unemployment into it. Given their policies, that is an odd way to go about things.
What do the trade union leaders, who are allegedly supporters of the Labour party--perhaps it is the other way round--say about a national minimum wage? Mr. Bill Jordan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union has made it clear that he, on behalf of his members, would demand full restoration of differentials. His union would oppose any "squeeze on differentials". He has said :
"if the price of a national minimum wage is wage restraint for higher paid members, then our answer would be no."
Gavin Laird has said :
"no way are we going to agree to a standstill of craft differentials."
Roger Lyons, the leader of the Manufacturing Science Finance union has said that any idea that the unions could be persuaded to offer wage restraint under a Labour Government is deranged. Eric Hammond, general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union has said :
"we will oppose any restraint on differentials by any government and we will do all in our power"--
that power is considerable--
Column 1291
"to increase the reward for skills, qualifications and productivity, not just because it is in the interests of our members, but more importantly, because it is in the interest of our economy and country".What could be clearer? A series of senior labour leaders have come out and said that whatever any Government sought to do on a national minimum wage, they would step in with their union power and demand a restoration of the differentials that they expect for their skilled workers.
The first result of the proposal for a national minimum wage mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South in the motion would be the prospect of mass unemployment. The second result would be action to support the restoration of differentials. That, in turn, would lead to an increase in pay levels which, in turn, would lead to a further necessity to increase the minimum wage. What policy could be more damaging or irresponsible or have a worse effect on Britain's employment level and economic strength? That is a question which Opposition Members must answer. We are still waiting for an answer.
The next aspect of a national minimum wage was touched on by Opposition Members. The first myth that they propagate is the problem of low pay and that people are increasingly poorly paid in the British economy. It is an absurd analysis. As we all know, throughout the 1980s the general standard of living in Britain has risen. People on all pay levels have enjoyed higher pay, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham made very well. To suggest that there is a group of disadvantaged people at the bottom of the pile is absurd. The facts simply do not bear that out.
The second myth that is often propounded by Opposition Members is that the widening of the spread of earnings denies the fact that lower-paid people have improved their lot. They have indeed. Since 1979 average male earnings have increased by over 28 per cent. and average female earnings have increased by over 36 per cent. in real terms. That is ahead of any inflation level at any time, whereas in the years up to 1979 the figures were only a fraction of the increases since then. Lower-paid occupations have by no means received the lowest increase since 1979. The average level of pay for those in the bottom 10 per cent. of male earners has increased. The increases have taken place across the board and across the spectrum. The third myth that must be dealt with is that those on low earnings are a fixed group of people who are condemned for ever to be in low-paid work. That is not so. Many, indeed most, of the low paid and young have only recently entered or returned to the labour market. As their experience increases, they tend to move up the earnings scale. The position of young people in the employment market is already beginning to change in the light of significant reductions in the number of school leavers. Employers are increasingly offering favourable pay and conditions of employment simply to recruit young people.
My Department's new earnings survey, which is based on the pay of a sample of individuals provides some striking evidence. The pay of a group of people identified in 1979 has been tracked over time. About half of them no longer appear in the survey, perhaps because they have left the labour force to retire or bring up children. They may have become self-employed or have been unemployed at
Column 1292
the time of the later survey. But we can compare the earnings of the remainder. We can compare the pay of the same individuals in 1979 with their earnings 10 years later.The figures show that over 70 per cent. of full-time workers in the lowest tenth of earnings in 1979 had moved up into a higher income group by 1989. Almost a quarter of them had moved into the top half of the incomes distribution. There is a particularly strong upward movement among new entrants and re-entrants to the labour market. Perhaps those are some of the yuppies to whom the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West took such exception earlier and then retracted-- [Interruption.] I wish it to be recorded in Hansard that he is now muttering about social engineering. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that people moving from their lower income groups of 10 years ago to higher income groups is social engineering, he has a sick impression of self-improvement.
Mr. Randall : That is nonsense. I have moved up and I commend it. We are talking about the way in which some London boroughs have removed older housing, but failed to replace it with housing to rent that people on low incomes can afford. As a consequence, people have been driven from the areas where they were brought up. That causes much distress, splits up families and has a detrimental effect on the social fabric. We know what the motives are.
Mr. Forth : The hon. Gentleman makes a different point from the one with which I was dealing. Examination of our exchanges will show that he is trying to duck the question. I am talking about the opportunities for self- improvement. In our society, which allows and encourages self-improvement, people are able to raise themselves from lower earnings groups to higher earnings groups.
Mr. Randall : Of course. This is obvious.
Mr. Forth : I am glad that, after further reflection, the hon. Gentleman seems not to disapprove of that. Perhaps if he thinks further, he will come round to our point of view that a national statutory minimum wage will cause higher unemployment and disadvantage the people whom he claims to represent.
The next myth is that low pay and poverty are one and the same thing and that all low-paid people are poor. That has never been true, and is not now. Households, typically, have income from several sources and, more often than not, from more than one earner ; young people still living at home and married women who work part-time contribute to living standards in the home and normally provide only part of the household income. Low earners, typically, are in those groups. Only 8 per cent. of the lowest tenth of full-time earners are in the poorest tenth of the population. The majority are in the top half of income distribution, with 5 per cent. in the richest tenth. It is absurd to count as impoverished by low pay a managing director's wife who chooses to earn £50 a week working part time in a local bookshop. Yet such people are often included in low-pay statistics by people who argue that there is a low-pay problem and that low pay and poverty are inevitably bedfellows.
The major factor in low income is not low pay but unemployment. The facts could not be clearer : 62 per cent. of people live in households headed by a full-time worker, and only 9 per cent. in one headed by an unemployed
Column 1293
person. In the poorest tenth of the population, only 23 per cent. live in households headed by a full-time worker, but 37 per cent. live in unemployed households. Having a job--even a lower-paid job--is always better than being unemployed. Most poor people are not low paid. Poverty has other causes, including old age, disability, unemployment, large families and lone parents. We must constantly be aware of those factors. We are, but Opposition Members are not. The hon. Member for Tooting made great play of the fact that, at the last count, 12,879 people are out of work in the borough of Wandsworth. No one can be proud of that figure, and I would not claim to be. I shall pick two years at random. In June 1983, 14,420 people were out of work in Wandsworth. In June 1987--I cannot imagine why I alighted on these dates, but they came handily to me-- 14,459 people were out of work in Wandsworth. Despite recent increases in unemployment in Wandsworth, the number of people without jobs is still significantly lower than in June 1983 and June 1987. I now know why I picked those dates ; they were when the Conservatives won large parliamentary majorities in general elections. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to reflect on that when he considers the impact of politics on Wandsworth or on the country as a whole.Mr. Cox : That is a pathetic answer. Does the Minister think that when his comments are read by unemployed people in Wandsworth, that will enhance the great image that the new Prime Minister is seeking to present and the notion of a citizens' charter? All the Minister can do is to tell us to look at what the figures were on two previous occasions. The fact is that now, in June 1991, there are people out of work with absolutely no hope of getting jobs. That is what the Minister should be concerned with, not going back to the figures of several years ago.
Mr. Forth : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because I shall now respond to it. I was going to anyway, but I shall do so now even more happily. He raised an interesting and relevant point and asked what the Government were doing about those who had the misfortune to lose their jobs or had difficulty finding jobs in Tooting or anywhere else. I shall now give him an answer. Every newly unemployed person now receives an in-depth advisory interview, during which all the opportunities for getting back to work are discussed-- [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Tooting is not giggling.
Mr. Cox : I am no more giggling now than the Minister was giggling when I was making my speech about the problems in Wandsworth. I shall listen to the Minister with great interest, and I hope that he tells me and the unemployed people in Wandsworth what the proposal will bring, because that is what we want to know.
Mr. Forth : I do not claim to be a creator of jobs. I hope to avoid destroying jobs and have spent some time explaining how the Labour party has the potential to destroy jobs. That is not the business that the Government are in ; they are in the business of creating an environment that not only allows jobs to be developed--mainly by the
Column 1294
private sector--but, more importantly, gives the maximum support, through the services provided by the Department's Employment Service, to those who need it in the locality.First, we ensure that the unemployed are given an understanding interview in order to establish their circumstances and potential for work. We also try to arrange that the same adviser is constantly with newly unemployed people to ensure that their problems are fully understood and dealt with on a continuous basis.
We have introduced special advisory interviews that are available after 13 weeks of unemployment for people whose skills are in demand locally. Extra help is given to the long-term unemployed who do not take up places in employment training, either through job clubs, which have proved a great success, or other offers. Intensive help with job-search from trained advisers is now available over several weeks for those who have the misfortune to be out of work for two years.
In addition, in March my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced an extra £55 million of funding for the Employment Service to ensure that standards of customer service to the unemployed are maintained and, where possible, improved and to provide extra support for people who cannot find work in the first few weeks of unemployment. Some 25 per cent. of people who lose their jobs are off the register again within a month, and 50 per cent. are off it within three months. That illustrates very well the fact that, fortunately for all of us, the unemployed are not now and never have been a static group of people with no hope. The unemployment register changes by up to 300.000 people every month because although, regrettably people lose their jobs, fortunately they find other ones--some of them do so very quickly. Our aim in the Department of Employment is to do our best to ensure that the process continues as rapidly as possible, but we have not rested there. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, announced another set of measures only last week. As unemployment has been increasing, it has become apparent that the most effective help that we can give some unemployed people is work experience to keep their skills up to date. The main element of the further measures announced last week was a new programme called Employment Action. That will provide work experience on local projects for 60,000 unemployed people in a full year. It will be targeted on those who have been unemployed for six months or more, particularly those living in our inner cities.
The training and enterprise councils, which are starting to become operational in London, will be a major contributor to that programme's process. Equally, the number of places available on ET has been increased so that an extra 15,000 people can this year learn new skills to help them find a job.
Through the measures that I have described, job clubs and other policies, the Department of Employment is taking positive action to address the exact difficulties highlighted by the hon. Member for Tooting. I hope that he did not regard the way in which I gave the figures as complacent--I wanted to set them in context. It is vital that we not only continue to take the problem seriously, but do everything we can to help people find work.
In the time available I have tried to resond to the important points raised in the excellent motion tabled by
Column 1295
my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. I have tried to place the problem in context and, given my Department, I have tried to spend some time on the employment aspects of the issue. I did so largely in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West to show him the error of his ways. I hope that the Labour party will reconsider its potentially disastrous policies. I hope that it appreciates that the policies that I have outlined are positive and helpful. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South will agree that the response right across different Departments to the problems raised by his motion has been a positive one, to which he can give his support. 2.5 pmMr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : I take great pleasure in being here today. When I read the first part of the motion I jumped on a train from the midlands and came down straight away. That first part is excellent and it could have been written by Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen. I part company with Conservative Members on the second part of the motion. As I listened to the Minister's speech it became clear why that second part had been added. It was done so that a party-political point could be made, but that detracts from the problem that has been set down for discussion.
It was a bit misleading of the Minister to come to the House to try to put the blame for high unemployment on a future Labour Government. He said that the consequences of a Labour Government would be mass unemployment, but we have mass unemployment now. There are millions of people unemployed without taking into account those thousands who have been taken off the register through calculation methods and Government policies. To blame today's mass unemployment on a Labour Government of the future is absolute nonsense.
Twelve years of Tory rule has given us mass unemployment, which is getting worse day by day because the Government continue to follow the wrong economic policies. The Government have forced up interest rates to such a level that every working day many businesses are going bankrupt. The owners of those firms supported the Conservative party in previous elections, but they are now going out of business because of that support.
I pay credit to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) for tabling the motion which has enabled us to debate this important subject. I intend to be brief because I know that other hon. Members on the Conservative Benches wish to participate, albeit briefly.
The first part of the motion says that one way in which to solve anti- social behaviour is to pursue
"sound long-term employment measures".
I agree. The problem is that for many years the Government have pursued short-term employment measures and some of our major industries have suffered because of that. The hon. Gentleman comes from my area, the east midlands, where some major industries have been devastated. More than 150,000 jobs have been lost in coal mining, tens of thousands of jobs have gone in steel making and an equal number have been lost in the railways and in other public service sectors.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South was right to talk about the need to examine the way in which we give priority to housing and use the housing stock. The best
Column 1296
way to tackle the housing problem in my part of the world would be for the Government to adopt a different attitude towards public housing. I welcome some of the actions that the Government have taken, for example, in encouraging new house builders, such as housing associations, to establish housing areas in which people can participate in the management of their homes.In my constituency, and in that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, a massive amount of public housing is going down the tubes because of Government policy. Nearly 5,000 council properties have been sold in my area. I am in favour of tenants of council houses who wish to buy being able to do so, but the Government must not insist on retaining legislation that prevents local authorities from using the money obtained from the sale of council houses to build more property to house people who are in the same position as the original tenants who bought their homes. If councils cannot build new property, the problem continues to grow. In my area, millions of pounds are being held in the coffers of authorities and cannot be touched. There are 868 registered homeless people in my constituency. They could be housed if the Government allowed authorities to construct more houses. It is no answer to say that there are many empty properties in the Mansfield district council area which could be given to the homeless, because there are 9,226 people on the waiting list, 2,700 of them with special needs, some of them terminally ill, some disabled, some severely disabled and many of them pensioners. With an average ratio of 40 empty properties a week, we cannot keep pace with the level of homelessness.
It is a bit rich for the Government to say that they are doing well on the environmental health front. Air pollution inspectors now operate under the auspices of local district authorities and there are inspectorates at the regional level. They have been cut to the bone and the point has been reached when all they can do is drive from one disaster to the next. Do the Government really claim to be sorting out that problem?
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South was right to refer to mental health. It is a scandal for any Government, of whatever political persuasion, to introduce policies that dump the mentally ill back on to the community without the necessary support facilities being provided. It is a disgrace to close hospitals and push the mentally ill on to society when social services departments in shire county council areas cannot cope because of lack of resources. I am aware of the problems that have been created in Nottingham because of the Government's policies for the mentally ill. There are similar problems in my constituency.
It is right that some people who have been in mental hospitals should be returned to the community, but to do that willy nilly without providing extra resources for management is disgraceful. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South on this debate because we should have discussed the problem much sooner. However, the problems that have been expressed clearly on both sides of the Chamber must be dealt with by those in charge. The only way to do so is to provide the resources and be determined to sort out the matter.
Column 1297
2.15 pmMr. Jack Aspinwall (Wansdyke) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for his consideration. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on initiating this important motion, which has given me the opportunity to present an example of anti-social behaviour which has caused much distress and heartache to many households in my constituency in the past few weeks. My constituents have had neighbours imposed on them--I refer to the influx of nearly 3,000 hippies, who have descended on the peaceful rural communities of Avon county and other west country areas, creating mayhem and havoc.
I strongly support helping those who, through no fault of their own, get into financial and social difficulty. I have always tried to be as helpful and reasonable as possible, as have the local councils and agencies in Avon county. However, the experience that many of my constituents have endured has been unbearable.
There have been intrusions on at least 15 privately owned sites. A large number of people have descended illegally in a wide variety of vehicles. Some are families with children, and packs of dogs including rottweilers and bull terriers are running uncontrolled about the sites. Intimidation of ordinary people, who wish peaceably to enjoy their homes, has caused anger and nearly led to violence. The operation of moving hippies into an area has not happened by chance but is a highly organised event. Land is identified by scouting groups who test local reaction and can apparently find sites, the ownership of which is in dispute, or which belong to the Labour and Liberal Democrat controlled Avon county council. Some of those hippies are sophisticated and legally knowledgeable, with modern aids such as mobile telephones, CB radios, fax machines and a wide network for the distribution of leaflets and other material. Their arrival at sites is not by chance. The operation is well planned and carried out in such a way that it is extremely hard for the law to be enforced. Carlingcott--a lovely, peaceful village inhabited by decent, ordinary people--was chosen because there was an ownership dispute over two nearby fields and probate had not yet been granted in an estate, which gave no firm definition to enable legal proceedings or proceedings by the police to commence.
Avon county council has a chosen policy not to take proceedings against hippies who settle on council land because the county council has not complied with the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which behoves them to provide suitable sites. Avon county council has been a soft touch in the hippy world. It is a flagrant breach of duty to the vast majority of the people of Avon not to attempt to prevent the current problems, which continue to worsen.
I have received many letters containing heartbreaking stories from people who do not deserve the problems imposed on them partly because of the council's doctrinaire view. When I visited a hippy site last weekend and asked whether itinerants would be prepared to settle on a well-prepared site with running water and sanitary conditions, they laughed openly. How can the county council ignore the wishes of the vast majority of people for whom it has a duty of care ?
Column 1298
The financial implications of the intrusion of hippies are enormous. To contain a site of 2,000 hippies and nearly 400 vehicles, with all the problems involved, costs more than £60,000 in police time alone for a weekend's cover. Other parts of the community have to suffer reduced manning levels to enable a proper police presence to be available in case of an outbreak of violence.I wish to place on record my thanks to the Avon and Somerset constabulary who deal with the problems arising from the presence of the hippies. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding among those who suffer from the effects of the hippies and the police do not seem to respond rapidly to a situation. I will tell the House of the difficulties encountered in an operation of the complexity and magnitude of that in the Wansdyke constituency, on Charmy Down, Peasesdown St. John and other sites.
A common allegation is that vehicles are untaxed, uninsured and unroadworthy. I am strongly assured by the police that all the vehicles in the county are checked thoroughly for ownership proof, insurance, tax and roadworthiness. If vehicles are found to be unroadworthy and if the law is breached, arrests are made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The police can use section 39 of the Pubic Order Act 1986 to remove people from sites. The Act provides them with discretionary powers to order trespassers to leave land in certain circumstances. If trespassers knowingly fail to obey such an order, they commit a criminal offence. Trespass is a most complicated matter which usually rests with the civil courts and is certainly not a criminal offence. There is the additional problem of huge numbers of people congregated together. I wonder whether the wisdom of confrontation would prove beneficial to the community in the end.
The police can make arrests under section 39. I ask the House to imagine 2,000 men, women and children, as well as dogs and so on, the men being arrested, the degree of force that would have to be used, and the women and children being left on the site and becoming the subject of local social services and education departments and everything that the public expect, followed by the likelihood that the arrested persons could plead not guilty, be bailed and returned to the site. The police have no powers whatever to move the vehicles. In such circumstances, striking the balance between the freedom of the individual and the well-being of the community loses some of its meaning. There must be a way of solving this difficult problem which is creating further anti-social behaviour.
It is well know that a major source of income is the benefits cheques which are collected from the local social security office. Perhaps sanctions would help. For example, the payment of resources could be stopped until certain conditions are observed, such as residency or registration as being able and willing to work. I have seen various types of hippies. During my visit last weekend to the Peasedown St. John site I met some young people who were reasonable, clean, interesting and could have been the sons and daughters of any family in the land. I asked them why they had come to the hippy site. They said that they had heard through the grapevine that there was to be a pop festival and that they were going to enjoy themselves. I might add that the media sometimes lose the balance between providing news and dealing with community interests. Widely publicised through television, radio and the press, the Peasedown site became
Column 1299
national news. It was easy to tell from the programmes exactly how to get to the site, which added to existing problems.We must find places that are sufficiently remote and away from the general population where sites can be prepared, perhaps on a seasonal basis, with adequate toilet facilities, water, and perhaps even electricity, so that young people can attend pop festivals with little or no interference to ordinary people. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the noise baffles used at major airports could be adapted to prevent objectionable noise over wide areas. Noise is another form of anti-social pollution on hippy sites and it is extremely difficult to control it.
The environmental health officers erected noise detection meters, but the legislation is ponderous and it would have been extremely dangerous for a small number of police officers and environmental health officers to enter a site. Even if they were able to serve abatement notices, nothing in the legislation empowers them to deal quickly with noise pollution. It is difficult to overestimate the effects on small villages in which people live peaceably in their homes of incessant beating of drums and loud music disturbing the peace night and day. The effects on ordinary people--on elderly people, children and shiftworkers--are unacceptable.
Anti-social behaviour has many effects on society and it is always the law- abiding people who suffer. The added problems caused by drugs, excessive alcohol, noise, uncleanliness and unlawfulness and by damage to persons and property all take their toll on sites such as those that I have described. It is every citizen's right peaceably to enjoy his life and home. Anti- social behaviour imposed on others by itinerants is wholly unacceptable. I welcome today's motion, which has enabled me to express these views.
2.26 pm
Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) made his speech long merely because he was awaiting my arrival in the Chamber and I apologise for not hearing all of it. I shall toss my notes aside and truncate remarks which could have filled one and a quarter hours so as to fit them into three and a three quarter minutes.
We should be in no doubt about why the Fabian Society rightly concluded that a national minimum wage would cost nearly 1 million jobs or why the Government concluded that it would cost almost 2 million jobs. The reason has perhaps not emerged from today's debate, but I can give practical examples of how it works.
I well remember in my old constituency of Oxford, East going to see a lady who had decided to convert her front room into a hairdressing salon so that she could practise a profession that she had learnt before she married and had a family, and so that she could give employment to a couple of her friends--and, more importantly, offer a service to people in the area which they could never have afforded at some of the larger shops. They wanted to enjoy having their hair done by neighbours in a friendly atmosphere.
Column 1300
Along came a man from the wages council saying, "I am terribly sorry, my dear, but you cannot possibly do that--you are not paying your neighbours enough." "How do you mean?" she asked--"I do not draw as much as you are asking me to pay these ladies out of the business myself ; I am doing it for fun because I can do it here at home and because my neighbours can earn themselves a little money. We are not doing it to make the difference between life and death. We simply want to afford one or two luxuries in life." "I am sorry," he said, "That is no business of mine--You either pay these ladies the money, or you close down." So she closed down, thereby losing out herself and disadvantaging her neighbours who had helped her in the shop for a bit of pin money and all the people on the estate who used to enjoy a good value-for-money service.We have heard a great many assertions about how hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, but there is no secret about the sort of example that I have cited. It is terribly sad ; I have every sympathy with those who believe that minimum wages are a standard to be borne by those who care about the poor, but it is necessary to think through the argument. Doing that makes one realise that poverty is best alleviated by creating real job opportunities. We should remember that more than a million people have jobs now who did not have jobs when the Government came to office.
Secondly, nothing is more likely to create a fear of crime and to worry and frighten elderly people than the sight of sacks of rotting rubbish left in the streets, of broken glass, of windows boarded up, of graffiti and vandalism. As we know from research--this is not a bland assertion--those signs of a lawless, anarchic society are exactly those which make an elderly person fearful of leaving their own home and a prisoner within it. That is the result when a local authority such as Liverpool, Lambeth or Hackney loses control--and that is how anti-social behaviour can be genuinely defined. That appalling neglect is the record of those Labour authorities, and I hope that the electorate of Walton at least will take account of it when they vote on 4 July.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South on the way in which he framed his motion--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sixth item to be considered on today's Order Paper, the Commonwealth of Britain Bill, has against it the words,
"Queen's Consent to be signified."
I have a letter from the Home Secretary indicating that the Queen has given her consent to the Bill, and I wonder whether it would be in order for that consent to be indicated by a Privy Councillor before the Bill is put before the House for consideration.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : I note the right hon. Gentleman's point, but we have not reached that item.
Column 1301
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Bills
HARE COURSING BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee).
Order for consideration read.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Objection taken. Consideration what day?
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 5 July. Consideration deferred till Friday 5 July.
RIVER SAFETY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.
MARINE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.
COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 July.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I raised the question of the Queen's consent having been signified before the Bill was put to the House. There is present in the Chamber a Privy Councillor authorised to give the consent.
Madam Deputy Speaker : The objection was raised before that point was reached.
EDUCATION PROVISION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : With the agreement of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 5 July.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.
| Next Section
| Home Page |