| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make the point clearly to the noble Lord, Lord Dean. In retrospect, I do not believe that I did. I referred to the 15 journeys a year for which spouses of Members of
another place can claim and for which Members of the Front-Bench qualify. That is what the third paragraph refers to.As regards parliamentary occasions, I had thought that I had tried to answer that question in my introductory remarks.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to come back briefly on this point, but there is not a full category of those for whom Members in another place receive travel warrants. Each year they receive a number of travel warrants for their children and secretaries to make visits to the House of Commons. Therefore, if a Member's wife is his full-time secretary he has a glut of travel warrants. For that reason, I believe that we are treated tardily, even though we are now granted two.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion too much, although I recognise the noble Lord's concern. The two cases are not identical. The conditions attached to the use of 15 journeys per annum by Members of the Front Bench in your Lordships' House and the Government Front Bench are similar to those in force for Members of another place. The two journeys a year which are the subject of this Resolution are clearly drafted in order to implement the recommendation of the SSRB in full in this respect. Your Lordships have accepted in principle that it would be wise in matters of expenses for us to refer to an outside authority if only to deflect accusations of self-indulgence, however ill-founded, which unfortunately could all too easily come our way.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this but, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, it would be very helpful to Members of the House if the parliamentary occasion provision was more clearly defined. Those of us who travel long distances to come to this House are away from home a great deal in pursuing our duties in the House. I do not know why it is regarded as unsatisfactory simply to provide for travel expenses, which are considerable if you live 600 miles away. I do not know why this should not be granted in the interests simply of good, civilised marital relationships.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: One's wife should be able to come down here without a clear definition of a parliamentary responsibility. I urge the noble Lord the Leader of the House to provide a clearer definition. The vouchers that are applied next door do not define that the spouse of a Member of Parliament would qualify for a voucher to come down here only on a parliamentary occasion. It is regarded as sensible that vouchers should be supplied.
If two vouchers are supplied, I do not think we would be overdoing it to ask that travel arrangements for one's wife could be made without the necessity of the parliamentary occasion provision.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am getting a bit lost. I read this and it seemed to me to be quite simple
and self-explanatory. A parliamentary occasion, as I understood it, was an occasion which takes place in Parliament.Who decides what is a parliamentary occasion when they put in a voucher to claim for their spouse's attendance will be the individual Member himself or herself. In other words, if I am asking a Question on a Tuesday afternoon and I decide that that is, for the purposes of my wife, a parliamentary occasion that I wish her to attend, as I understand it she will be entitled to a voucher in order to come and listen to her husband make a fool of himself in public.
That applies to all Members of this House, in the same way as it applies to Members in another place. The difference is that we get two and they get 15. That can be a matter of grievance and irritation, not only for my noble friends behind me but for other Members of the House. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said earlier, Sir Michael Perry and the Senior Salaries Review Body are now looking at this whole matter again. The sensible thing for noble Lords to do at this stage is to grasp with both hands the opportunity of getting their spouses here on two occasions and allow those of us who will be going back to Sir Michael Perry to say to him: "Look, the House is grateful for two, but in the interests of the marital relations of their Lordships we think it should be more than two".
If that is the position--and that is how I understood it before this discussion started this afternoon--I have no hesitation in commending it to the House. If that is not the position, and we have to define a parliamentary occasion, that would be fraught with the most immense difficulty and is not a process through which I would care to go.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am particularly pleased to see this Resolution before us. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was sitting opposite until a few minutes ago, and I was reminded that many years ago, when he was Leader of the House, I led a delegation of Scottish Peers on this subject. We were very kindly received by him and strongly supported, and we thought a result was accomplished then. Unfortunately, the leadership changed and his successor did not feel able to pursue the matter. I am reminded that if one lives long enough the apparently impossible can be accomplished.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Young People
3.56 p.m.
Earl Russell rose to call attention to the practical problems which diminish the ability of young people to make their full contribution to society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I would like to say how warmly I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen. It seems barely a moment since I listened to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack make exactly the same wish to me. I am sure
that the noble Earl will find, as I did, that the reputation of this House for generosity to maiden speakers is entirely justified. I look forward to hearing him.I must declare a variety of interests. First, I must declare an interest as a parent of two recently graduated sons. I must declare an interest as a university teacher, and in many of the points I make I will be thinking of the experience of pupils to whom I have listened. I must declare a non-pecuniary interest as patron of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, by whom, among others, I am advised.
Any Liberal is used to addressing subjects in the Gladstonian language of rights. Any Liberal is used to warming at such language. I trust that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead will forgive me if I say that, on occasion, large doses of Gladstone may be like large helpings of Christmas pudding. But I say that as one who likes Christmas pudding.
Today I take the opening quotation--the theme of my remarks--from another flavour within the party, Lord Palmerston, on Catholic emancipation: it is not expedient to exclude so many able persons from the public service.
I am concerned with the difficulties facing young people in the way of achieving independence; an independent establishment, an independent job, earning their living. In the words of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, it takes longer to become independent these days. Speaking as a parent, I agree entirely.
The figures make some fairly compelling points. Unemployment among 16 to 24 year-olds is nearly double the national average; 15.4 per cent. against 8.5 per cent. The gap between the rate of youth unemployment and the national average rose in the three years between 1992 to 1995 from 67 per cent. to 81 per cent.
It is not only a matter of unemployment; there is also under-employment. The proportion of 16 to 24 year-old men in temporary jobs is more than four times as high as for 25 to 55 year-olds. One would expect a discrepancy, but not one quite so large. I do not believe that when I was that age the discrepancy was anything like as large. I did not know how lucky I was.
Among those earning £2.50 an hour or less, 16 to 24 year-olds account for one in every three. Young people's pay, as a proportion of adult earnings, fell between 1985 and 1995 by 6 to 8 per cent. for men and by 8 to 12 per cent. for women. That is a discrepancy to which I hope the Equal Opportunities Commission will pay attention. It must be of concern to any Chancellor of the Exchequer. The public sector borrowing requirement, which is still serious, even if not desperate, is something which needs attention, and it is a revenue problem as much as it is a spending problem. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on 13th November, challenged opposition parties to recognise and welcome the fall in unemployment. I am happy to do that; it gives me great pleasure. However, although the fall is genuine, it does not mean that we should be satisfied with where we find ourselves because it is not only a matter of total unemployment. It is also, as every young person
knows--usually from personal experience--a matter of gross under-employment. The economy does not seem to be creating the stock of reliable, permanent, full-time jobs to which people used to look forward. That may be partly a matter of what Professor Handy refers to as a portfolio of jobs. It may be partly insufficient economic activity. Either way it calls for adjustments which we have not yet made.There is, in fact, a phrase to cover low-wage, part-time temporary jobs. They have come to be known as "McJobs". The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be aware that a "McJob" does not usually yield as much revenue to the Exchequer as does a real job. Therefore, we need some real jobs.
It should also be causing us concern that among the people who appear as homeless in St. Mungo's Hostel no fewer than 20 per cent. have a university degree. We are producing more university graduates than the labour market is capable of mopping up; we should be thinking about that. The Trust for the Study of Adolescence says--I am sure, from my own experience, it is right--that one of the real problems which young people face is the attitude of adults who regard them as being irresponsible and immature. A young person accused of being immature may well fall back on the reply of Senator Fulbright, as he later became, who, on being taken to task for becoming a college president at the premature age of 30, said, "I understand objections are made against me on the grounds of my youth. I can only say that I am aware of the defect and daily efforts are being made to correct it".
There is nothing new about this, of course. I have a quotation here which shows just the same sort of attitude towards young people:
- "contempt of all dutiful submitting to supreme authority; as the want of that due discipline and correction, wherewith men ought to be framed and smooth in their minority, and tender age ... The coming generation will bring in such a torrent of vice and corruption, as will over-run the world, with rudeness, lewdness and extreme barbarity".
That was the vicar of St. Giles-in-the-Fields preaching in his parish church in 1627.
There really is not anything new about it. I once listened to a very fascinating reading of a paper at my postgraduate seminar by an American colleague from Colorado who traced back into the Middle Ages what she described as outbreaks of social control--complaints against the young, complaints against mobility, complaints against sexual manners, discipline, compulsory work and training, and so on. She said that those occurred at regular intervals but always mirrored, not a change in the behaviour of young people, but economic dislocation, social mobility, geographical mobility and changes in employment patterns. I am glad to say that her research showed that none of those outbreaks lasted longer than 20 years. Time is nearly up because we have now had 17 of those years.
When I listen to my own pupils, I find a generation of undergraduates who are a good deal more moral in their attitudes than we were at the same stage. They are quarrying out a morality in which the two key virtues are kindness and honesty. One could do a great deal worse.
There are two areas of irrevocable change. One is in the matter of sexual morals. We must accept, whether we like it or dislike it, that contraception has changed sexual morals as irrevocably as nuclear weapons have changed war. If anyone makes a complaint against me for moral relativism, I shall claim to be in good company. St. Augustine, in the city of God, discussed why God had given a dispensation for polygamy to the patriarchs and then withdrawn it. He said it was because God needed to increase the number of chosen people but when God had done so he withdrew the dispensation. If that is not moral relativism, I do not know what is.
On matters of morals, one thing we can do that is really worthwhile is to lead by example. "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you", is the most impossible advice that can be given to the young and I shall not go in for it. The other thing we can do is to attempt to remove obstructions. The immense problem of student poverty has been displaced into the immense problem of student labour. If your Lordships hope to meet any of my pupils, you are likely to do so, over the next month, in Harvey Nichols, Liberty's or Waitrose where they can be found on average for 10 or 12 hours a week; otherwise they cannot afford to do their courses. That is not merely an interruption of their education. No new jobs are created. So, for every job a student gets, somebody else goes onto income support. There is no resultant saving of public money.
I shall not dwell on the problem of 16 and 17 year-olds. Your Lordships know my opinions and they have not changed. However, I believe that it is pushing a great many people off the ladder which leads into regular employment. They disappear from the statistics, which is why the Government do not know about them, and they never get back in. I hope that in the course of the debate someone will dwell on the terrible problem of what is happening to care leavers, among whom 90 per cent. are unemployed and 23 per cent. have no income from any source.
I shall not dwell at length either on the lower rates of income support for under-25s. My noble kinsman Lord Henley knows what I think about that. I know what he thinks about it too. He says that it is because they have low expectations. But that is precisely what this debate is designed to complain about: they do have low expectations and I wish that they did not. That is our problem.
As an example of discrimination against the young, I was going to use the new system of housing benefit for under-25s which confines them to shared accommodation. You could have knocked me down with a feather when I looked at what was in the Budget. Obviously, the Chancellor simply has not taken in what was said because he is now proposing to extend that system to all single people under the age of 60. It was already clear that there was not enough shared accommodation in the whole country to cover all the under-25s. There was a shortfall in Torbay, for example, of about 100 per cent. The department, believe it or not, had absolutely no information on the extent of the shortfall. That is criminally irresponsible legislation. But
now this type of system is to be extended to all single people under 60. That will create an impossible situation.
I should like to hear advocates of family values acknowledge that it is better to be single than to burn. If we do not put this matter right, people in their 40s now can go whistle for their pensions. Helmut Kohl recently pointed out that one of the big disadvantages of it taking so long to get people into employment is that the problem of financing pensions gets worse. It is not just a problem of the number of old people; it is a problem of the ratio between old people and people in employment. If we do not get our young people into employment, we are wasting a scarce resource. That is irresponsible budgeting. I beg to move for Papers.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page