---

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Harman: In a moment.

The Tories have failed the young unemployed. It is a tragedy that so many of our young people feel that they have been thrown on the scrap heap before they have even begun; 600,000 people under 25 are unemployed--one in six. In some inner-city estates, half the people under 25 are out of work, and in London 60 per cent. of young black men are unemployed.

Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East): That is not correct.

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not correct, but the figure comes from an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled. Of the black men under 25 in London, 60 per cent. are registered as unemployed. The total cost of youth unemployment to the taxpayer in benefits, lost taxes and crime is £10 billion a year.

We have called for a windfall levy on the unfair excess profits of the privatised utilities so that we can use the money to get those 250,000 under 25-year-olds off benefit and into work or training.

Lady Olga Maitland: On trying to get young people back into work, does the hon. Lady accept that the

28 Nov 1996 : Column 499

minimum wage would mean increasing some salaries, and that one man's increase is another man's job loss? Far from achieving its objective, Labour would cheat people of jobs.

Ms Harman: There has to be a floor under wages--a national minimum--partly because of the spiralling benefit bill: one person's low pay is another person's tax increase. We cannot have a spiralling down of pay and employers expecting the taxpayer to pick up the bill.

Ms Eagle: On the windfall profits levy, does my hon. Friend realise that, today, United Utilities declared its half-year profits and that it is making £845 a minute, representing an increase of 34 per cent.? Does not that justify the measures that the Labour party has sensibly suggested?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of that money, which, after all, has come from the public via gas, water and electricity bills, should be ploughed back to deal with the urgent problem that is fracturing our society of a growing number of young people with no work, no training, no nothing, who feel that they have been thrown on the scrap heap. The Budget has done nothing to get them off benefit and into work.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Harman: I want to press on for a moment. I shall give way later.

The real map of poverty and unemployment stretches far beyond the official unemployment statistics. Among the poorest are those who are hidden from view because they are not in the official statistics, especially the lone mothers bringing up their children on the bread line.

The number of families headed by lone mothers is growing, and has reached 1.6 million. They are among the people who are dependent on benefits the longest. There are not only financial costs: such people bring up children who have never seen the world of work. Married women are increasingly going out to work, but lone mothers are falling out of the labour market. The proportion of married mothers in employment, whatever the age of their children, has increased since 1979, but the proportion of lone mothers in work has fallen.

Lone mothers want to work; they do not want to depend on benefit. The Government's policy for the past 17 years has been, "Here's your giro, come back when your youngest child is 16," and the taxpayer has had to pick up the bill. It is no wonder that the cost of keeping lone mothers and their children on benefit has reached £10 billion a year.

Mr. Jenkin rose--

Lady Olga Maitland rose--

Ms Harman: I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Can she point to one piece of reputable research that suggests that

28 Nov 1996 : Column 500

introducing a national minimum wage would make it easier for poor people to find jobs or reduce demands on the benefit system?

Ms Harman: We cannot use in-work benefits as a bridge for those who are out of work to go into work, as we should, if there is no floor under wages. Without such a system, the pay bill is simply transferred to the tax bill. I should have thought that hon. Gentleman would have understood that under the Government, the subsidy for low pay through in-work benefits has risen to more than £2 billion. That is one reason why he should agree with us about the minimum wage.

The way to get lone mothers out of poverty and cut spending on benefits for them is not by cutting the amount on which they have to live year by year and plunging them further into poverty.

Lady Olga Maitland rose--

Ms Harman: I have already given way to the hon. Lady.

The Secretary of State mentioned Europe. We need to help get lone mothers into work, as happens in the rest of Europe. In France, 82 per cent. of young mothers are in work; in Britain only 41 per cent. are. Only half of young mothers are in work; the rest have to depend on benefits. In all other European countries, lone mothers work and support their children, and do not have to depend on the taxpayer. In Britain, they are stuck bringing up their children on the breadline.

We believe that the best form of welfare for people of working age is work. That is why we have set out a package of measures to tear down the barriers that prevent lone mothers from moving off benefit and dependence on the taxpayer and into work and self-sufficiency. They need a benefit transfer scheme, a personalised job and training system such that in Australia and a network of after-school clubs. Having never talked about them before, the Secretary of State, as the seconds count away to the general election, has suddenly mentioned them.

Only one in 80 children has access to an after-school club. One of the biggest problems for mothers of school-age children who want to get back to work is the difficulty of matching work responsibilities with school hours, INSET--in-service training--days, half-terms and holidays.

Mr. Lilley rose--

Ms Harman: I welcome the Secretary of State as a new recruit to the enthusiasm that I have long had for after-school clubs. I look forward to his question on them.

Mr. Lilley: The scheme to encourage out-of-school places was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; it is she who has been trumpeting it most loudly. It is very successful, and an extra £20 million is to be put into it--making a total of some £64 million. Can the hon. Lady say whether she intends to give an extra penny to out-of-school clubs?

Ms Harman: We have set out our plans for financing a network of after-school clubs. We want to use benefit transfer and lottery money and charge those mothers who

28 Nov 1996 : Column 501

can afford it. We want to use public-private partnership. With a little help from government, the huge demand for such clubs means that they will spring up. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment knows about them. I have read all his speeches and press statements and he has not mentioned child care or after-school clubs. He only criticises lone mothers, and not until the eleventh hour did he recognise their aspirations to work. They do not want to be on the benefits that he has so grudgingly handed out.

Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Harman: I shall not at the moment because I want to finish discussing our proposals to enable lone mothers to go to work--as they do everywhere else in Europe.

We need targets for training and enterprise councils to train lone mothers. We need lifelong learning through individual learning accounts to help lone mothers get back into work. Instead of helping lone mothers get off benefit and into work, the Budget simply makes them poorer by cutting the value of one-parent benefit and lone-parent premium and eventually abolishing those benefits. The Secretary of State said in his press statement that the cut in benefits to lone mothers is part of his approach of being fairer to families, but it is not fair to the families of women who bring up children on their own. They will be worse off. If that is what he thinks is a family policy, he does not understand how families work. The cut in benefits to lone mothers will not cut the divorce rate or keep one family together. It will not prevent one divorce or separation--but it will make hundreds of thousands of the poorest children worse off.

The Secretary of State says that he is cutting benefits to lone mothers because they are at an advantage compared with married couples. The truth is that they are at a disadvantage. Perhaps he does not realise that when people move from being in a couple to being a lone mother, they become worse, not better, off. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was right. Some 47 per cent. of lone mothers live on less than £100 a week, compared with only 4 per cent. of couples.

Mr. Evennett: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Lady's comments. Does she pledge to restore lone parent premium in the unlikely event of her becoming Secretary of State?

---