Previous Section Home Page

Column 312

voiced their opposition to it, and have demanded access to Channel 4. That view was reflected in a recent opinion poll conducted by the Gwent Gazette , which covers my constituency. The poll showed that more than 90 per cent. of my constituents demanded access to English language Channel 4. That and other opinion polls have showed the support for the position that I am arguing today. They also reflect the people's depth of feeling and anger at their exclusion from receiving that television channel.

While the opinion poll was conducted in Gwent, it must be remembered that the problem is not peculiar to Gwent, as only about 40 per cent. of Welsh people can receive Channel 4.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): My hon. Friend has referred to the Welsh people's depth of anger and frustration. As a Member of Parliament, I felt anger and frustration when Welsh language programmes were available on both BBC 1 and HTV. S4C was devised to serve two purposes: first, to allow Welsh language broadcasting to expand; and, secondly, to remove from the two major channels Welsh language programmes that were causing tremendous offence. I think that my hon. Friend should be reminded of S4C's dual purpose.

Mr. Smith: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I think that that situation was having a detrimental effect on the Welsh language. However, the present situation is having a similar effect. We have managed to contain the anti-S4C feeling, but, if the present situation continues, people will not call for Channel 4 in addition to S4C, but will demand it in place of S4C. I am certainly not of that view.

S4C has responded to my points by saying: if Channel 4 is available in Wales, should not Welsh language channel S4C be available in the rest of the United Kingdom? That is an interesting response. S4C says that it does not object to Channel 4 being provided in addition to S4C. It also states that approximately 70 per cent. of Channel 4's programmes are also broadcast on S4C. However, it is important to recognise the time of day at which those programmes are broadcast--it is very rarely during peak viewing time.

It is also interesting to note that the highest proportion of viewers who watch Welsh programmes on S4C regularly are those in managerial and technical occupations. Only 5.1 per cent. of those who are not in paid work watch S4C Welsh language programmes. Some 1.2 per cent. of those who cannot speak Welsh watch Welsh language programmes on S4C regularly, compared with 9 per cent. of the total population.

I have taken those figures from the Welsh Office social survey which was published in February this year. It is also interesting to note that only 4.6 per cent. of the population of Gwent bother to tune in to Welsh language radio. According to the Welsh Office survey, approximately 80 per cent. of the population of Gwent never watch Welsh programmes on S4C. The Broadcasting Act 1990 states that Channel 4 should be provided for

"so much of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as from time to time be reasonably practicable".

The legislation must be changed if areas like mine are to receive Channel 4 by right. I think that that would be fairly simple to do, as one could just replace the words "England, Scotland and Northern Ireland" with "United Kingdom".

Column 313

The matter may also be resolved through the use of additional transmitters. I know that S4C would say that there is a problem with cost. I do not wish to push the point too much, but I think that it is somewhat ironic that S4C should take that position, when one considers that it is probably the most subsidised of all the television channels. We should also consider the possibility of rescheduling, so that programmes can be televised at the same time but in different areas, depending on the language of a particular community.

It is also argued that we should wait for the digital system. I am sure that will result in major advances, but the decoders will cost between £200 and £500. Many communities in Wales that cannot receive S4C or Channel 4 English language programmes are also the poorest communities. I was interested to read an article by Andrew Neil in The Independent on 16 June, stating:

"There is every chance that the digital revolution will be dominated by Sky and its leading shareholders News Corporation, which control the essential system."

So there are problems ahead.

According to recent correspondence from representatives of S4C, they would be concerned if people's failure to receive Channel 4 led to an anti-S4C feeling. I have responded to that point, but I am aware that there is such a danger unless the problem is resolved. For some people, the only measure of Welshness is the Welsh language, so for them, the only television channel relevant to Wales is S4C. Such an argument insults the majority of people in Wales, who are English-speaking. When people talk about civil liberties, they mean civil liberties only for those who speak the Welsh language, whereas the rest of us recognise the value of both languages and the diverse cultures that make up Wales. We should build on that diversity and encourage it. Access to S4C for the people of north Wales is an issue of civil liberties and we ask them to recognise the civil liberties of those who wish to view the alternative Channel 4 in the English language.

1.41 pm

Mr. Don Touhig (Islwyn): I support my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), and I am delighted to give vent to the feelings of the people I represent. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Secretary of State for agreeing to share the time and allow me to take part in the debate.

Welsh, it is said, is the language of heaven. While I have no sure knowledge of that, I have no intention in my sojourn in this life of preventing it from being spoken. The deliberate suppression of the Welsh language in the last century was one of the worst acts of our Victorian forebears. If Welsh is to survive all the pressures, and not a few prejudices, of the 20th century, it should be encouraged wherever possible. Welsh medium broadcasting has a part to play in that.

I am proud of the fact that, in the past decade or more, Gwent, through the Labour-controlled county council, has invested large sums of money in education for young children who want to be educated through the medium of Welsh, but the language will survive and flourish only if people are encouraged to use it. If they perceive it as being foisted on them against their will, they will react accordingly. Recent history is proof of that.

Column 314

I remember as a young reporter on the Free Press at Pontypool writing about public protests over Welsh language broadcasting going out at peak times in English-speaking areas.

The emergence of S4C was a progressive and positive step. It encouraged the language, while removing the antagonism to it from many television viewers, but I fear that, unless we address the legitimate demands of the English- speaking Welsh people to be given the choice whether to watch S4C or Channel 4, we risk a renewed backlash. In an attempt to avoid that, I pressed S4C to consider the possibility of rescheduling, to which my hon. Friend referred. I asked S4C to consider rescheduling so that people in different parts of Wales could watch different programmes at different times. In that way, it would be possible for the English-speaking majority in south-east Wales to watch a programme in English, while in north and west Wales, where Welsh is often the first language, a different programme could go out in Welsh. I hope that S4C will respond positively to that suggestion, but I recognise that it is but a halfway house.

In an early-day motion last week on S4C in Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and I underlined our support for S4C, but in all honesty we had to state quite clearly that S4C does not cater for the vast majority of people in Wales whose only language is English.

My hon. Friend referred to a poll conducted by his local paper, which sought to obtain readers' views. The South Wales Argus , the local evening paper serving my constituency and much of Gwent, conducted a similar poll, showing that readers were overwhelmingly in favour of being able to watch Channel 4 as well as S4C. I do not consider telephone polls a wholly satisfactory method of measuring public opinion; they do little more than give the flavour. More significantly, some 8,000 people have already been prepared to put their names to a petition in support of choice, which I understand will be presented to the Secretary of State in October. It is not that English-speaking Welsh people in the south Wales valleys are against the language. They simply want the same facility as those who live in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, to watch both television channels. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the debate is not about replacing S4C with Channel 4; it is about giving the people of Wales the opportunity to watch both stations. I am fortunate that, in the part of Gwent where I live, I can already do that, but it is not the case everywhere. In the Graig area of Cwmcarn in my constituency, people are unable to receive any television, whether it is broadcast in English or Welsh. My constituents have to pay £100 a year to a cable company to pipe in the signal in addition to £100 for a television licence. As Mr. Ken James, one of my constituents, wrote to tell me, the quality of the television signal is appalling, and is affected by the strength of the wind across the local hills.

I have sought to give the Minister an idea of the feelings of people in my area on the issue. If we do not respond to public feeling, we are in danger of harming Welsh language broadcasting. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has already outlined a possible solution, although not a simple or cheap one--the development of digital television broadcasting. My hon.

Column 315

Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has secured an Adjournment debate on the issue tomorrow night, and I do not propose to stray into his territory. However, I would welcome a statement from the Minister about the early publication of a promised White Paper on digitalisation. It will help extend choice, but will not in itself solve the problem.

We also require a commitment from the Government to extending to Channel 4 the right to broadcast in Wales which is currently denied by the Broadcasting Acts 1981 and 1990. I understand that S4C may not necessarily oppose that.

Taken together, those measures will answer the legitimate complaints of my constituents, and at the same time ensure that the development of Welsh medium broadcasting continues without antagonism and rancour.

1.47 pm

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I begin on a matter of some sensitivity. The reason why I have the pleasure of replying to the debate is that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is currently in South Africa supporting a rugby team. It is an important part of his ministerial duties to support our national teams. I am sure that I shall enlist the support of the Welsh Members present for wishing him Godspeed and improved fortunes in the remaining game for the English rugby team.

My first serious point is to say how much I agree with the basic line that the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) took about the importance of the Welsh language and ensuring that there is proper support for the development of Welsh speaking and proper respect for Welsh culture in Wales. As both hon. Gentlemen said, it is not a matter of a choice between S4C as an agency for the promotion of Welsh television and English-speaking Channel 4. They both presented the case that they wished to argue to the House in terms of extending choice and access to English- speaking Channel 4. It is not an issue of Welsh people or their representatives in the House being against S4C or Welsh-speaking television; it is a question of their English-speaking constituents not wanting to be denied the opportunity to see English-speaking Channel 4 on the same terms as are available to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a perfectly fair argument for representatives of English-speaking Welsh constituents to make in this House.

It is worth pausing at this point to reflect on the contribution that S4C has made to the development of Welsh speaking and of proper respect for Welsh culture. As Secretary of State for National Heritage, I think it important not to seek to create an homogenised, centralised culture in Britain, but to build one that respects regional and local diversity and traditions. I regard the fact that my Department is responsible for the public contribution, in terms of finance, to S4C as part of a wider contribution to the delivery of a varied and pluralist cultural life in Britain--one that respects the differing traditions of various parts of the United Kingdom. It is fair to record the fact that S4C achieves a significant audience share, not just among the Welsh-speaking population-- its share of peak viewing is nearly 19 per cent. of them--but among the whole population of Wales: its peak viewing share amounts to

Column 316

9.5 per cent. of them. As for audience reach, 66 per cent., or two thirds, of the people of Wales look at S4C at least once a week, although the programmes in question are not necessarily Welsh language ones. So S4C is not, as it has been constituted, a minority interest channel. It is a broadcaster that performs a service right across Wales, and it is used at different times in the week by two thirds of its population.

S4C has a distinguished record of developing various aspects of the cultural life of Wales. The reputation of its children's programming and its animation department spreads far beyond the borders of the Principality. Its animation programmes and its children's programmes reach audiences not just outside Wales but outside the United Kingdom.

S4C has also been an important contributor to the development of the independent production sector in Wales. It is clearly a Welsh-oriented station, and its support for the Welsh independent production sector has been an important factor in that sector's progress.

Finally, it is important to stress again that the easy availability of Welsh language broadcasting has made an important

contribution--possibly the decisive contribution--to halting the decline of Welsh speaking and to heightening perceptions of, and respect paid to, Welsh culture. I regard S4C as one of the Government's successes. We legislated for its existence in the Broadcasting Act 1980, and we continued its existence in the Broadcasting Act 1990. It has been the biggest single achievement in living memory to demonstrate real public support for Welsh culture as a living, developing entity, not just the pursuit of a tiny and shrinking minority. All in all, S4C makes a significant contribution to the life of Wales.

The problem which the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent and for Islwyn put to the House is that, when setting aside spectrum space to allow this broadcasting to take place, a choice had to be made about access to the spectrum and about the terms on which S4C would have the chance to deliver all the benefits that I have described. As both hon. Members made clear, it is not a straight choice between English language and Welsh language broadcasting. S4C's schedules include a large element of English language Channel 4 broadcasting. The objective is to deliver roughly 75 per cent. Channel 4 English language broadcasting over the S4C element of the network --that is, 75 per cent. excluding Channel 4's news programming.

Thus, S4C is an important transmitter and broadcaster of English language Channel 4 programme material, and there is no straight choice between English, represented by Channel 4, and Welsh, represented by S4C. The latter seeks to deliver its Welsh mission by mixing English and Welsh language programming but according a higher priority to Welsh language broadcasting than has been delivered by any other means in the history of Welsh broadcasting.

More than once, the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent and Islwyn sought to argue that the offer of a clear choice between the S4C schedule and a recognisably English Channel 4 schedule was restricted by costs--either costs incurred by S4C or costs incurred by some other, unmentioned body. In the present state of technology, the limitation on providing a clear choice between two complete schedules--one the same as Channel 4 and the rest of the United Kingdom, the other run by S4C--is

Column 317

not cost: it is technical feasibility, or the availability of spectrum, given the state of modern technology. That is the answer to the conundrum that both hon. Gentlemen described.

The world of broadcasting is on the verge of a revolution which will make broadcasting in 10 or 15 years' time unrecognisable. The introduction of digital technology, not simply to terrestrial broadcasting but to cable and satellite broadcasting, opens the door to a world in which it will no longer be correct to talk about spectrum as the limiting factor on access to audience for a broadcaster. Ever since the beginnings of broadcasting, the limiting factor has indeed been access to spectrum, but as technology has developed, so we have learned how to narrow the broadcasting signal and make more efficient use of the spectrum.

The digital revolution takes the process a dramatic stage further. We stand at the dawn of the digital age of broadcasting; and the effect, over a period, of the introduction of digital technology to radio and television broadcasting will be progressively to remove the block that has hitherto limited access to audience by broadcasters. In future we shall be able to move--rather more quickly than most politicians realise--to a world in which the limiting factor on the establishment of new choices for viewers, and the development of new broadcasting stations, will no longer be access to a bureaucratically allocated spectrum but the straightforward economics of broadcasting.

Column 318

Thus, a broadcaster who can find an audience prepared to pay for, or a sponsor prepared to support, a broadcast channel will find that spectrum is available. Then, subject to the regulatory regime for which the Government will remain responsible, a broadcaster who can design an economically sustainable station will be able to set up in business to demonstrate that his views on the viability of his station are correct.

Both hon. Members asked me what stage the Government have reached in delivering the promised White Paper on the introduction of the digital revolution. I can lift the veil concealing Ministers' diaries at least a little, and say that I shall be leaving this House to have a meeting on precisely that subject. I hope that the White Paper to which the Government are committed will be ready for publication in the next few weeks. It is quite close; it is in the final stages of preparation. It is the second stage of the changes that the Government plan to announce to the broadcasting world, following the media ownership changes that I announced at the end of May.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Dorrell: Very briefly.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the White Paper subsequently require legislation?

Mr. Dorrell: Yes.

In conclusion, hon. Members put a problem to the House. The answer to that problem lies in the recruitment of new technology to deliver greater choice to the consumer. That is an objective that the Government warmly embrace.

Column 319

Job Creation

2 pm

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject for debate today. It is one of those subjects on which it is extremely difficult to get any coverage whatever when things are going well, but when things are going badly tends to lead the news bulletins. Having said that, however, this morning, on page 2 of the Daily Express is an article entitled, "Boom-time Britain" in which it talks about the British economy being

"in fine shape, with soaring exports, falling unemployment and growing output".

An influential report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has stated that, not the Daily Express . It also states:

"Unemployment could fall by a further 300,000 over the next 18 months to just over two million".

That is excellent news.

If one looks at some of the recent statistics about unemployment, one will see that only last month it fell yet again by another 10,000 to 2.32 million--the 21st successive fall. Within the United Kingdom, the work force in employment now stands at 25.5 million, which is a superb figure. Manufacturing productivity in the three months ending April 1985 rose by 3.2 per cent. Export volumes, which are important, excluding oils and erratics, are up 11.5 per cent. in three months to March on the year earlier. Underlying inflation is at its lowest level since the 1960s. That is all good news for the economy. My constituency has the lowest level of unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, one might think it strange that I have decided to ask for this debate today. My constituency is blessed in having a very good and skilled work force. We have a good infrastructure--the motorways--in and around the Ribble Valley. The west coast main line could improve that infrastructure dramatically, and I hope to see further investments in that, which would encourage more people to travel by train, and more freight to be carried by train.

We are also blessed in having Manchester airport not too far away. It is one of the largest international airports in the world and provides great service for people in and around the region. I have a superb rural constituency, which attracts many tourists, and Blackpool is not too far away, which attracts many more tourists and conferences as well.

There is also tremendous manufacturing capacity within the Ribble Valley, and just outside as well. One leading firm, British Aerospace, is world- renowned, particularly with its carbon technology. It is a good supporter of the community, and I am extremely grateful for the work it does in supporting schools and technology, particularly the William Temple school in my constituency, which it supports with its technology courses. It has done much innovative work and has provided many jobs in schemes such as the European fighter aircraft, airbus, and, I hope, the future large aircraft and Tiger in future. We have some superb manufacturing skills. On top of that, my constituents also travel long distances to work. If they do not find work on their doorstep, they travel to places such as Manchester, Liverpool, throughout the north-west--wherever the jobs happen to be.

Column 320

In my constituency, there are also smaller firms than BAe, which none the less are vital. Ultraframe has to be one of the success stories of my constituency. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to come to my constituency, in the not too distant future, and visit Ultraframe, so that he can see for himself at first hand the successes that can be achieved when a firm is run by people with a belief in what they are doing, who are constantly reinvesting money back into their firm, a firm that has faith in the people who work there, and which not only ensures that they are properly trained in the work they do but encourages them to undertake national vocational qualifications.

In 1992, Ultraframe had 152 employees; in 1993, 207; in 1994, 293. It currently has 420 employees. It pays a lot of attention to exports as well, which is extremely important. Last year, its turnover was £25 million, and it is the UK market leader in conservatory roofing systems. It takes on a lot of youngsters from the schools at 16 or 18 and offers them jobs and training. It is a superb asset, not only to the Ribble Valley but to the United Kingdom as well, particularly with its exports.

We have to look at what we offer people in this country, to ensure that we have the right skills and a good work force that companies will want to employ, and at the encouragement that we give to businesses to expand. That means that we must have good schools and colleges, the right courses and relevant training. We must also ensure that the training and enterprise councils are delivering the right packages of training. There are 82 TECs. I am sure that they are not all of a superb level, but I hope that we will encourage those that are not as good to raise their standards to those of the best.

To see another reason why we are doing so well in this country one has only to look at the strike record. One can remember the 1970s, when strikes dogged this country. Businesses did not know whether they would be able to operate. Customers did not know whether they would be able to get their services. It was a blight. It was the British disease.

No longer is that the case. We now have one of the lowest strike records since records have been collected. That is important. We take that for granted, but we should not. We also have consistently low inflation. We should not take that for granted, because we can remember the 1970s, under the previous Labour Government, when inflation ravaged industry and people's savings.

We also have competitive interest rates, which are important for businesses, as they enable them to borrow with confidence to invest in their businesses, and they know that they will get returns. We also have low taxation. We can remember what taxation rates were like under the previous Labour Government. There was hardly any incentive to take risks, because the Government, if one made any profits, were taking the lion's share. That is no longer the case. I hope that we shall continue with our tax-cutting policies in future to ensure that people who take the risks in business are able to keep the lion's share, so that they can reinvest that money in their businesses.

We also have a policy of deregulation, which is vital. I sat on the Standing Committee last year that considered deregulation, with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). I believe that it is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have passed since I have been a Member of Parliament.

Column 321

One has only to talk to business people to know that the last thing they want is regulation after regulation heaped on them, for all sorts of reasons. Goodness knows why some of them are put into place. We have to appreciate that every rule and regulation imposed on business has a cost. Therefore, if we can lift the burdens of bureaucracy off the backs of businesses, they would be able to ensure that their businesses were more profitable, that they could expand and reinvest the money they make back into their businesses. I am not saying that I want to scrap every rule and regulation--some of them are there for good reasons-- but we have to look at each of the rules and regulations, particularly those that have been around for some time, and question their worth. There should be a cost-benefit analysis of some of those rules and regulations. We should remove as quickly as possible those that happen to be politically correct or those that are extremely expensive but show little or no reward.

Mr. John Sykes (Scarborough): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. We are all pleased to hear that he has been made a privy councillor. I wonder whether he knew that Small Business News has awarded him a privy councillorship. I think that it is richly deserved.

Will my hon. Friend contrast the levying of regulations in this country with the manana attitude towards regulation by some of our so-called partners in the European Community, some of whom do not even obey their own laws, never mind directives from Brussels?

Mr. Evans: First, my hon. Friend and the bureau are somewhat premature in their congratulations to me on being made a privy councillor. Secondly, I fully appreciate that, in the United Kingdom, we have a structure in place that demands that, when we sign up to rules and regulations, we enforce them.

Many other member states of the European Union are happy to sign up to almost any rule or regulation, and they do not read the small print. They are not bothered about that, because they will not enforce the rule or regulation with the rigour of the United Kingdom. Perhaps we should approach some rules and regulations in the same way. It would be better, however, if other member states' enforcement was the same as the UK's. If that were their approach, they might think twice before signing up to more rules and regulations in future.

I am glad that we are able to gain so much inward investment. It takes place in the north-west, as it does throughout the country. We received 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe. Close to 40 per cent. of the investment made by the United States in Europe comes to the UK. Why is that? Overseas companies have confidence in investing in the UK, because they know that they will not have social on-costs heaped on them, as happens in other parts of the EU. Levels of unemployment elsewhere in the EU are telling.

In Spain, unemployment is 23 per cent. Youth unemployment is a staggering 43 per cent. In France and Belgium, it is 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. The EU average is 10.8 per cent. How grateful I am that unemployment in my constituency is 2.7 per cent., and 8.3 per cent. is the average throughout the UK.

Column 322

We must ensure that we have proper training. General national vocational qualifications are vital, and superb work is being undertaken at St. Mary's college, Blackburn. We must ensure that job clubs and our various schemes provide relevant advice and proper guidance.

I hope that we can do more to encourage employers not to adopt agism within the work force. Far too many people are unable to obtain work when they are in their 40s and 50s. In fact, they have a wealth of experience. We must do more to convince employers that they should not turn their backs on older prospective employees. We have a flexible work force, which means that someone who starts work at 18 will not be in the same job until he is 65. It is more likely that employees will have several careers during their working life. I hope that employers will stop using advertisements in newspapers that state that they are interested only in people who are under 30 or over 25. It is wrong to take that attitude. It gives no encouragement to people in their 50s and 60s, and the country suffers because a wealth of experience is not being used properly. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fought hard within the EU to ensure that we had opt-outs from the social chapter. If we had signed up to the chapter in its entirety, companies would have looked beyond Britain when investing in the EU. Without opt-outs, the chapter would have been extremely expensive. I see no reasons or advantages in being a signatory to it without opt-outs.

Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend does not need any additional information, but he might be interested to know that, in my constituency, a large food manufacturer that normally supplies the home market decided that it could not afford to build a factory in France, and so doubled its production line at Scarborough, much to the benefit of my constituents who work for the company, whose jobs are now guaranteed. What does that say for the social chapter?

Mr. Evans: It says everything for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister having won opt-outs. My hon. Friend has given a constituency example. I am sure that it is one that could be replicated throughout the country. So many businesses have decided to contract within other parts of the EU and to expand in Britain. Companies outside the EU decide to come first to Britain. They take full account of the advantages of investing in Britain. I think that it was Jacques Delors who said that it would be to experience paradise to engage in inward investment in Britain. Instead of following Britain's lead, the rest of the EU decided to try to get us to follow them. That was ridiculous.

Most damaging of all policies for our future economic prosperity is the minimum wage. We all know that socialism is a creed that dare not speak its name. The minimum wage is a concept that dare not name its price. If it is such a good idea, why should its level remain a secret?

It is rather like a perverted form of the "Price is Right" approach, except that the losers in the minimum wage game will lose their jobs. It will be a case not of low pay but of no pay. Silence on the level of a minimum wage is not for the virtuous reason that there should be consultations with the unions and employers. To say that such consultations should take place is to put up a smoke screen. The present vacuum allows an unpriced product to be shown in a shop window. If anyone has to ask how much it is, he should know that he cannot afford it.

Column 323

A menu without prices means that Labour spokesmen can say to employers, "We are new Labour, not old. Don't worry about the level of the minimum wage. It will be so low that it will have no effect on the profitability of your business. We want only to catch a few cowboys who are paying poverty-level wages."

At the same time, Labour spokesmen are saying to the unions, their paymasters, "Don't worry about new Labour tosh. It is just to con the public into thinking that we have changed. We can't set a level for a minimum wage. If we do so, employers will be able to work out how much it will cost them and how many jobs they will have to shed. Obviously, we are going to look after you. After all, you look after us." The only losers in the game will be those whose jobs disappear in the black hole of socialist dogma. As many as 1.8 million jobs could be lost.

I watched the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) being interviewed on "On the Record" on Sunday. John Humphrys gently savaged the hon. Lady to pieces. It was a cruel display by Mr. Humphrys, who had the effrontery and cheek to ask the hon. Lady a few elementary, simple and straightforward questions on the minimum wage. How dare he? Whenever she was unsure of what to say, she resorted to making a dash behind the name of Winston Churchill, who was the saviour of many people. Never was his name called on so many times in such a short time as by the hon. Member for Peckham.

When the hon. Member for Peckham said, in her Mother Teresa demeanour, that she wanted to get rid of poverty, she should have started with the poverty of her argument. Winston Churchill was a great man, but not even he could have saved the hon. Lady or her feeble argument on Sunday.

Two further complications with the minimum wage are the black economy and differentials. We would be stupid to ignore the fact that the black economy exists. Indeed, it existed to a greater extent in the 1970s under the Labour Government, when taxation was so high. If we introduce a minimum wage, many cowboys will still pay poverty wages. They will do so in an underhand manner and behind the back of the Inland Revenue. Without a minimum wage, we have a transparency in the system.

No one--especially not a member of the Labour party--should be allowed to hide behind the argument that his role is to look after only the poorer sections of society, those who are earning £1 an hour or less. If a minimum wage is introduced, those who are earning £4, £5 or £6 will want to ensure that differentials continue. The unions have said as much. The result will be demands for inflationary pay increases.

It will not be only those who are earning £1 or £2 an hour who will lose their jobs. Jobs will also be lost by those who are earning £4, £6 or £8 an hour. It has been estimated that a minimum wage of about £4.15 will cause about 800,000 people to lose their jobs. That would cost £2.2 billion in additional unemployment benefit expenditure. It is pointless to argue that the taxpayer is subsidising low pay for many people. A minimum wage will mean that the taxpayer will have to subsidise many more unemployed people. When Bill Clinton was campaigning to become President, he said that he would increase the minimum wage in the United States. He has not done so. That was even before the rise of Newt Gingrich. The President knew how many jobs an increase in the minimum wage would cost.

Column 324

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that he was aware of the consequences of a minimum wage. He told us that any silly fool would know that there would be a shake-out. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking the truth.

Does the Labour party, which treats the country with contempt, really think that the wages of some people can be jacked up without job losses, shorter hours, loss of differentials and the fuelling of the black economy? The higher the minimum wage, the higher will be the number of job losses. The Labour party fails to tell us what price is worth paying in terms of job losses to fulfil its bargain with the trade unions.

We must continue with the successful policies that the Government have followed in the past 16 years, which are leading to more job creation, more inward investment, more job expansion and more employment generally, with unemployment coming down. We must continue with the deregulation policy and ensure that the town halls, Whitehall and the know-alls of Brussels take into account the fact that businesses are there to ensure that jobs are available and to produce goods and services; they do not need such people coming on with a tirade of bureaucracy, rules and regulations.

In Europe, 20 million people are unemployed. The rest of Europe should consider what we are doing in this country, find out why we are so successful, and start to put our policies into place. The choice is simple. We know what is happening in this country. We have the job and wealth creation; the evidence is there for all to see. The choice is either sticking with that and with something that is successful, or listening to the Labour party, which is offering something for nothing.

2.20 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for choosing this subject. He is well known as an hon. Member with great knowledge and understanding of the issues involved.

My hon. Friend mentioned at length the effect of a minimum wage on jobs. He was correct to point to the unemployment level in Europe, because every one of those European Union countries with minimum wages that are set at significant levels has higher unemployment, and particularly higher youth unemployment, than Britain. The figures that are quoted are based on the International Labour Organisation international standard for compiling unemployment statistics, so the claim that Opposition spokesmen sometimes make--that those figures are fiddled--is nonsense.

Every one of us wants low-paid people to earn more, but it is unfair and deceitful to the less well-off for politicians to pretend that they can wave some magic wand and raise wages without any cost to the economy. What we can do, and have been doing since 1979, is to continue to make the economy more competitive, to improve training and education, to create the conditions for sustainable non-inflationary growth, and to give people the chance to be more productive so that they can really earn more on a sustainable basis. As my hon. Friend rightly said, his constituency has a fine record of good quality employment. It has that record because people in that region are productive and work for

Column 325

companies that produce goods that people want to buy. That is the only honest way for us politicians to say that people will be able to earn more, and that better-quality jobs will be created on a sustainable basis.

The Labour party's minimum wage policy is doubly dishonest. It pretends to the less well-off that there is some easy, cost-free method of raising their pay, and then it will not even say what the minimum wage will be until after the next election. It gives the less well-off a menu with no prices, in the hope that they will not discover the true cost in jobs, as my hon. Friend rightly said, until after the next election.

No wonder the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) got in such a mess in "On The Record" last Sunday. I found it probably the best comedy programme of the year. I think that my hon. Friend, as a Welshman, probably thought a better comedy occurred on ITV an hour or so later, but I did not find that show quite so funny.

During the programme, the hon. Member for Peckham said that she could not set a minimum wage level until after the election, because Labour could not meet employers to achieve consensus until it was in government, but when John Humphrys said that the reason Labour was waiting until after the election was that it could never achieve consensus--as too low a rate would annoy the unions and too high a rate without regional variations would worry employers--the hon. Lady suddenly changed tack and said that Labour had been meeting employers, and that there was a great deal of consensus. If that is the case, fine, but why cannot she now tell us what the minimum wage level would be? No wonder she kept harking back to 1906. If that is new Labour's idea of progress, how far back would old Labour have gone for inspiration?

During the programme, the hon. Member for Peckham insisted on repeating several myths. She said that we are alone among European Union countries in not having a minimum wage. That is wrong; only seven EU countries have national minimum wages. She also said that pay had fallen in wages councils sectors since we abolished the wages councils. She should know the answer to that, because she asked me a written question in which the labour force survey, which both the Labour party and the unions say they find fully reliable, showed that pay for workers formerly covered by the wages council was rising at double the rate for the economy as a whole.

The Opposition say that the minimum wage would end what they term the £2 billion taxpayer subsidy for low pay in the form of in-work benefits such as family credit, but, as Andrew Dilnot of the Institute of Fiscal Studies said, even if a minimum wage were set at £8 an hour, many families would still receive family credit, so the Opposition are wrong on that point as well.

Labour--and, again, the hon. Member for Peckham during that programme-- persisted in claiming that pay had fallen in Britain and that Britain competes on the basis of low pay, yet pay has risen at all levels since 1979. The real take-home pay of a single low-paid man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 more than inflation since 1979. It actually fell by £1 under the last Labour Government.

Next Section

  Home Page