- (". —(1) If it appears expedient to the Secretary of State, he may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide for the total or partial exemption from the provisions of this Act of—
- (a) any area, sector of employment, trade or industry;
- (b) undertakings of different sizes;
- (c) persons of different ages; or
- (d) occupations or categories of persons.
- (2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to make such incidental, supplemental or transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
- (3) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section includes the power to vary or revoke its provisions or to limit its operation for a specified period of time by means of a further such order.")
§ 6.9 pm
§ The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartneyI beg to move, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
§ Mr. McCartneyWe have no hesitation in asking the House to resist the new clause introduced in another place—but, before doing so, I pay tribute to my noble Friends Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Falconer and Lord Haskel, who dealt with the Bill in a professional and effective way in that place.
For the life of me, I cannot understand or accept the sight of hereditary peers—the descendants of robber barons and cattle thieves—trying to deny people the national minimum wage. It is even more undignified when the Tories and their Whips arrange for people to come to the House of Lords, probably for the first and only time this year—some did not even turn their engines off while they went to vote before leaving the House again—for one simple reason: to pass a wrecking amendment to try to damage fatally the introduction of the national minimum wage for 2 million of the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers in Britain. The issue was further complicated by the Liberal Democrats, who should be ashamed of themselves for siding with sweatshop owners and backstreet exploiters.
Let us look at what happened in the House of Lords. We expected the Conservatives to try everything in a last-ditch attempt to get rid of the national minimum wage, and the Government were defeated by 58 votes. Of the 161 peers who voted for the new clause, 84 were hereditary—67 Conservatives, eight Liberal Democrats, eight Cross Benchers and one other. Counting the votes of life peers alone, the Government would have won the vote by 88 to 77—a majority of 11.
213 Some of those who voted against the Government were among the largest landlords and the wealthiest people in Britain. They came in to deny groups of workers the opportunity to have a national minimum wage from 1 April next year.
§ Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)Will the Minister not concede that, whatever took place in their lordships' House with hereditary peers, the amendments now under discussion would not require any derogation from the national minimum wage? They would merely provide the Secretary of State—who is now sitting at his left hand; we are pleased to see him in his place—the power to derogate if he considered it desirable.
§ Mr. McCartneyThe hon. Gentleman talks nonsense; he talks out of the side of his mouth. The amendments would allow a future Conservative Secretary of State—if such a thing ever befell the nation, which I doubt—to exclude areas such as Cumbria, the north-west, the north-east, Scotland or Wales. He or she could also exclude sectors, so all the hairdressers in Britain—the lowest-paid workers in the land—could be excluded from the minimum wage.
A Secretary of State could also exclude firms of different sizes, so all the hairdressers in small companies could be excluded. When we read the amendments in the context of what I am saying, we see that the proposals are designed to wreck the possibility of millions of workers in Britain benefiting from the national minimum wage. For the sake of expediency, at the whim of a Secretary of State and without further reference to Parliament, whole areas of the country could be excluded from receiving the minimum wage.
The clause does not improve the Bill. It does not make it operate better. It will not help a single worker to benefit. The amendments serve only to illustrate the lengths to which the Opposition party—indeed, in the House of Lords, the two Opposition parties—will go to undermine the principle of the introduction of the minimum wage.
§ Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)Will the Minister explain why the Minister of State, Lord Simon, did not attend to vote on that occasion? Does that not give the lie to his idea that all the problems arose from Conservative hereditary peers? Surely Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry could have offered some support.
§ Mr. McCartneySurely the right hon. Gentleman can come up with something better than that. My noble Friend Lord Simon, like all Ministers in the Department, goes out and does work on behalf of the Government, and that is what he was doing—unlike the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, when he was a Minister at the DTI, spent his time trying to close down British industry. Our job—that of my fellow Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of 214 State—is to rebuild industry and refashion it out of the shambles that the right hon. Gentleman left us after the election.
§ Mr. RedwoodCan the Minister explain why that vote was treated as so unimportant that the Minister of State did not need to attend to ensure that the Government won it?
§ Mr. McCartneyWriggle as the right hon. Gentleman might, the truth is that the Conservatives brought people to the House of Lords in their Ferraris, their Mercedes, or whatever other transport they may have had, to wreck a Government Bill for which we have a national mandate and which the whole of Britain, including two thirds of Conservative voters, supports. The right hon. Gentleman must live with the consequences of the Lords action of inserting into the Bill a new clause that undermines the whole concept of a national minimum wage.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Why should we complain about Conservative opposition to a national minimum wage? Should we not welcome it, at least from the party point of view, and wrap it around the Tories' necks at the next election?
§ 6.15
§ Mr. McCartneyI am happy to wrap things around the necks of the Tories between now and the next election. Why miss the opportunity?
The point was made during a recent debate when the right hon. Member for Wokingham and I had a short intercourse on issues relating to—
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)I think that the Minister means "a short exchange of views".
§ Mr. McCartneyNo, I choose my words carefully.
That evening, the right hon. Gentleman made a fundamental comment about how the Conservatives, in this Parliament and in the run-up to the next election, will deal with the new employment rights that the Government provide for vulnerable people in Britain. He made it clear that he will go into the next election on a policy of the abolition of the national minimum wage. What he is offering millions of people in Britain is, "Vote Conservative and take a wage cut."
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would review all the other minimum standards and new employment rights that the Government are introducing—with the support, I may add, of large parts of British industry, sick and tired of the Tories' low-pay, low-investment economy, and looking to an ultra-modern economy with good standards of pay, good conditions and investment in the workers, in employment rights and in standards of skill.
In that debate, the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to show once and for all that the Conservatives accept the fact that the British people overwhelmingly want good minimum standards in the workplace, and do not expect Her Majesty's Opposition to threaten them with withdrawal of those rights, especially when some of them will have a significant pay 215 increase under the national minimum wage, because they are now being paid as little as £1.20, £1.30 or £1.40 an hour.
For the right hon. Gentleman—who, for a part-time, two-days-a-week job receives £12,000 a year—to stand at the Dispatch Box and try to deny the minimum wage to low-paid workers is nothing short of a personal scandal. Under no circumstances can he wriggle out of the decision taken in another place—a decision clearly calculated to assist his campaign to ensure that the national minimum wage is not implemented by 1 April next year.
We have no hesitation in opposing the new clause and the other amendments. We were elected to introduce a national minimum wage, and that is what we shall do. We made the Government's position clear in earlier debates, and I shall not weaken now, at the final hurdle. The new clause would provide the Secretary of State with wide-ranging powers to make exemptions whenever he or she felt it expedient. That approach challenges the fundamentals of the policy behind the Bill.
The House will appreciate that the Bill has been designed in a way that rules out the possibility of exemptions according to sector, region, size of firm or occupation. It permits, in specific circumstances, exemptions or modifications according to age. We received recommendations on that from the Low Pay Commission, which we accepted and which we shall implement.
The new clause proposes something completely different from the limited range of exemptions or modifications in clauses 3 and 4, and opposing it presents me with the opportunity to reiterate the Government's commitment to a single national minimum wage that will be universal in its application.
Our approach is diametrically opposed to the direction suggested in the amendment. We want an inclusive policy; we do not want to exclude whole swathes of people. The idea is to provide a floor across the board so that we can get rid of poverty pay. We also want to provide a level playing field, so that companies can compete fairly on the basis of quality, not on the basis of excessively low wages.
Hon. Members know what our inheritance was after the general election. Whether in the regions of England, in Scotland, in Wales or in Northern Ireland, people suffered as a result of endemic low pay—2 million people earned £2.50 an hour or less. Some people, having worked full time for a week, had to suffer the indignity of having to claim additional benefits simply to live or to make ends meet.
§ Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South)Is my hon. Friend aware that when, two years ago, one of my constituents raised the issue of his pay—which was £1 an hour—he was told to apply for family supplement?
§ Mr. McCartneyWe know that the Conservative Government encouraged such Arthur Daley employers. We remember the advertisements, such as the one for a night shift security guard job, offering 50p an hour and saying: "Bring your own dog and uniform." That was the reality of Britain under the Tories. They made this country the sweatshop capital of Europe, and they were proud of it. They boasted about it across the world, saying: "Come to Britain and pay your workers £1.20 or £1.30 an hour." 216 Thank goodness inward investors came to Britain for different reasons; they pay their employees good wages and provide good working conditions.
We do not want to go back to the Tory years, in which there was a downward spiral of wages. The Tory policy was not to create an economy of high-quality goods and services, in which people's employability is based on the quality of their training and knowledge. The Tories undermined good companies and good company practice; they made companies compete against one another on the basis of a free-for-all downwards wages spiral.
Tory Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment defended the advertisement of jobs at as little as £1 an hour. The Tory Government, of which the right hon. Member for Wokingham was a member, took away the last vestiges of protection for home workers. The Department of Trade and Industry received evidence that women working for home working organisations were earning as little as 38p an hour. That was not in 1888; it was in the last year of the Tory Government. That is the legacy that the Tory party left this Government to clear up, and we have no intention of allowing the new clause to damage our capacity to do so.
The limitations in clauses 3 and 4—which the new clause would remove—are necessary. They defend the integrity of the national minimum wage. Despite the widespread acceptance of, and support for, our policy from business and from the electorate as a whole, and despite the broad acceptance of the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, I regret to say that the policy still seems to need defending against Conservative Members, who are hanging on to the idea that we in Britain can somehow succeed by paying people as little as 38p an hour. What an outlook for Britain in the new millennium! It beggars belief that the right hon. Member for Wokingham and his colleagues actually ran the economy.
The nightmare years are ended—we shall introduce the national minimum wage, and we shall do so on 1 April next year, as we said we would. We have made it clear several times that variations of rate by sector, region, size of firm or occupation would be unfair and unworkable. The same applies even more strongly to exemptions on those grounds, which is what the new clause would provide a power to make.
There is no doubt about the inevitable unfairness and inequity of the new clause. It is deliberately designed to remove from the Bill's protection the very people whom the minimum wage would most help. The Opposition should be ashamed of themselves, as everybody else is ashamed of them.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to introduce, for the first time in this country, a national minimum wage that is truly national and that will make a difference to the many workers who strive to exist on poverty pay. It marks an historic step to bring rights to British workers that many of their counterparts in other countries have enjoyed for decades.
The Bill's fundamental approach is inclusive, but the new clause attacks head-on that approach and the Government's philosophy, which the electorate fully supported. I urge the House to save the Bill, and to reject the amendments.
§ Mr. RedwoodI urge the House to keep the very sensible amendments that were made in the other place. 217 Once again, the Minister has been extremely disappointing. He has not listened to any of our arguments in the House or in Committee. He dramatically misrepresents the Conservative position. I have never said that we shall abolish the minimum wage; I have said that we shall review the whole raft of regulations and legislation that we inherit, and then decide what needs changing to create more jobs and more prosperity in our country.
I have never said that we want low pay. We want people to be well paid and to have a good standard of living. It is most important, however, that people are not moved from low pay to no pay—that is the main point that we have urged on the House. The new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), is well aware of that point.
§ Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not stated categorically that a future Conservative Government will abolish the minimum wage. Will he give a guarantee that they will not abolish it?
§ Mr. RedwoodOf course not. We shall review it, to establish what is best for the country.
The minimum wage will do most damage on its introduction. That is why we have opposed it. On its introduction, bad employers may decide to sack people rather than to pay them extra. I do not think that the Minister will enjoy meeting people across the country who have lost low-paid jobs as a result of the Bill. Moreover, there may be a wages explosion when the Bill is implemented, as better-paid people will demand large increases to maintain differentials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer warns about job losses arising from wage inflation, yet the Minister is introducing legislation that will trigger it.
§ Mr. Ian McCartneyThe right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have taken account of economic circumstances, and are introducing the minimum wage sensibly. That is why the overwhelming majority of employers and those involved in British industry support the concept of a minimum wage.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain an historical point. Is it not the case that, after the Conservative Government abolished the wages councils, removing basic employment rights that ensured minimal standards and a minimal floor in the labour market, unemployment rose to 3 million?
§ Mr. RedwoodThat is not cause and effect. The Minister's attempt to make an historical point has misfired. Unemployment rose to too high a level at one point under the Conservative Administrations because we adopted the exchange rate mechanism policy that was strongly recommended by the Labour party, even though it was a mistake. The Minister and I have often debated that point, and I think that I should be straying out of order if I went further into the matter.
We are not urging lower standards. We want better pay and better standards of living. The debate is about how that can be achieved. We believe that it can be achieved 218 by more flexible markets, not by more Government. We are certainly not out to deny workers fair pay; we want them to keep their jobs.
In a previous debate, the Minister grotesquely misrepresented my personal financial affairs. I notified him of that privately, in the hope that he would have the decency to correct the record. I live in hope that he will, as it does not do justice to debates in the House to mislead people in such a way.
I am grateful that the hon. Member for Hartlepool is in the Chamber to hear this debate, although I should have liked to hear him, rather than the Minister, move the motion. I offer my hearty congratulations on his appointments to the Privy Council and as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. His arrival at the Department will be welcomed by many, as many people felt that the outgoing President of the Board of Trade—as the job was known—let down British business in a big way, and came forward with a large number of bad proposals, including the proposal for a national minimum wage. Business is desperately in need of a change of policy.
I had hoped that the new Secretary of State, who arrives at his Department well briefed on the minimum wage because of his active participation in policy discussions in his previous job, would tell us that he welcomed the Lords amendments, which, as we know from leaked correspondence and from his confessions to The Guardian, are precisely the type of amendment for which he argued when he was Minister without Portfolio. I imagine him arriving at the Department of Trade and Industry, elated at achieving his life's ambition of joining the Cabinet, clutching his model of the dome—where the Secretary of State goes, the dome goes too—but nervously asking why the previous incumbent had had such a short stay.
We have all read in today's newspapers authoritative briefings saying that the Secretary of State has arrived to win back the business support lost by the previous incumbent. In particular, the trade union and minimum wage reforms proposed by the outgoing President of the Board of Trade must be modified, said the briefings, in order to win back business support.
6.30 pm
Why is the Secretary of State not standing before us to offer proposals that would modify the impact of a Bill that many in the business community think will do more harm than good? Why has he not come to welcome Lords amendments that would give him the very flexibility in his new role that he formerly sought for someone else in all his interesting correspondence?
The House may wish to be reminded of what the hon. Gentleman said when he debated these matters from his previous vantage point. In his letter to The Guardian, which explained leaked Government correspondence, he stated:
The point I raised in correspondence on this issue with colleagues was a practical one, as to whether the draft Bill as worded allowed ministers sufficient flexibility to refine policy in the light of experience with the actual functioning of the National Minimum Wage.I open my dealings with the new Secretary of State in precise agreement with him. I find myself urging the very case that he urged when he was Minister without Portfolio.219 The Secretary of State's letter went on to imply that flexibility was necessary in case jobs were lost. He said that he wanted a lower rate of pay for young people—in those days that meant everyone under 25, although the age has come down to 18 in subsequent discussions. As Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Gentleman saw the point that young people, those without skills and those who needed further training, might be thrown out of their jobs if the minimum wage were introduced in the wrong way. He felt that it would be better to allow flexibility so that they could get a decent start on the ladder of opportunity and employment, and, if necessary, top up their inadequate remuneration with benefits.
I have often debated that point with the Minister of State, who attacked the previous Conservative Government for saying that low pay should be topped up with benefits. We felt that policy only reasonable, because some rates of pay could not sustain decent family life. Now we discover that the Government have invented a far bigger and more expensive system for doing exactly the same thing—the working families tax credit. On the Minister's own admission, he and the Government propose to subsidise what he calls poverty pay.
§ Mr. Ian McCartneyLet us get one thing straight. The previous Government proposed benefits instead of pay. We propose a package of measures that make work affordable. There is an important difference. The previous Government drove down pay, first by eliminating people's entitlement not to be paid below a certain rate through their abolition of the wages councils, and, secondly, by manipulating the benefits system and allowing high levels of unemployment. They drove people to take wages lower than £1 an hour in many cases.
That is the legacy that we have had to deal with, and that is why we have introduced a range of measures to make work affordable. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that we want a minimum wage to be part of the package, while the right hon. Gentleman wants no level to be set, and would use the benefits system to subsidise poor-paying employers.
§ Mr. RedwoodThe Minister can rant all he likes, but this Government, like the previous one, admit that there will be people whose pay is not adequate for their family circumstances. We can see from the Chancellor's forecasts that they admit that, even after the minimum wage has come in, large sums will have to be paid as tax forgone or as actual benefits, or as a combination of the two, to top up wages.
The Minister protests too much. There is not as much difference between Conservative policy and Government policy as he pretends. Both major parties know that, in a free-enterprise market, not everyone will get adequate remuneration for their family circumstances for all their working lives. It is a duty of a civilised society that taxpayers should top up or contribute to incomes in those circumstances.
The row tonight is about whether the Minister of State and his new-found hon. Friend the Secretary of State are taking too many risks with too many jobs. We submit that, without the Lords amendments, the risk is too great. The Minister would lose nothing by accepting the amendments. The Secretary of State would be given the power to make a judgment. If he judged in future that 220 my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were wrong, and that no jobs had been lost, he would not need to make a move. If we were right, however, and the amendment was included in the Bill, it would be easier for him to make the changes necessary to avoid the loss of so many jobs.
§ Mr. BercowMy right hon. Friend has helpfully reminded the House of earlier contributions to the minimum wage debate by the Secretary of State in his previous capacity as Minister without Portfolio. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Secretary of State has a shred of self-respect, he will speak at the Dispatch Box before the debate ends to explain whether he now believes that there is no justification for exemption from or variation in the rate of the minimum wage by age, sector, region or size of undertaking. What has caused the hon. Gentleman suddenly and spectacularly to change his mind? Why has he not felt it necessary to explain his thinking to us?
§ Mr. RedwoodIt is quite extraordinary that the Secretary of State has not done so. It is even more extraordinary in the light of spinning in the press to the effect that the new Secretary of State will be business-friendly in a way in which the outgoing President of the Board of Trade is admitted not to have been.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman did his own spinning. We have not been told whether he remains spin doctor extraordinaire as well as Secretary of State, or whether he will have to rely on others to do his spinning. Whoever did it today, the intention was clear. Downing street has not denied that the Secretary of State is appointed to go to war with his Minister of State, and to overrule him. He is appointed to put a little common sense into the minimum wage and into trade union reforms.
The Secretary of State sits there, looking as if he has not a care in the world, grinning benignly, but quite unable to intervene decisively at the very moment at which he has his last chance to improve the Bill to give him the flexibility that the spin doctors tell us he will need and will achieve. Does he really think it amusing that many people may lose their jobs as a result of the policy that he and his hon. Friends intend to rubber-stamp through the House? Has he thought at all about the wise words—on this occasion—of the Chancellor about wages? The Chancellor has spelt it out to all and sundry that, if wages go up too much over the next two or three years, jobs will be lost.
For once, I agree with the Chancellor, and I suggest that the Secretary of State might do so, too—a rare event. If the Chancellor is right, what action will the Secretary of State and his colleagues take to make sure that people do not put in a large number of differential pay award requests for those on earnings much higher than the minimum wage? How will he sort out the mess that Labour policies are already creating? There is a huge gap between the rate of increase in private sector earnings—up 16.4 per cent. since 1995, and accelerating under the Labour Government—and public sector earnings that have gone up by only 8.5 per cent. in the same time. The gap is growing wider under the Labour Government.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the point will soon come at which public services are short of labour in many parts of the country because wages have fallen too 221 far behind? Will not the minimum wage help to trigger a whole series of differential, catch-up and comparability pay increases as it unravels before us? That will undoubtedly destroy jobs. The golden economic legacy of the previous Government will be frittered away on higher wage inflation, and the minimum wage will partly be the reason.
I therefore urge the new Secretary of State to agree with the Chancellor on this matter, to disagree with the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's economic strategy in the name of standing up for manufacturing and business, which are being throttled and killed by the current economic policy mix, and to come to the Dispatch Box before this short debate concludes and say that he still believes what he claimed to believe when he was Minister without Portfolio. I also urge him to be grateful to the Conservative Opposition in another place—for thinking of him and helping him out of the his difficulty by offering him greater flexibility—and to overrule his Minister of State before No. 10 tells him to do just that.
§ Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)The Minister of State's remarks—I should use a stronger word to describe them—had a touch of "holier than thou" about them as he set out what he considered to be the arguments advanced by the Liberal Democrats. We debated the issues long and hard in Committee and on Second and Third Reading, and while it may be a habit of politicians to rewrite history, it is surprising to find it being rewritten quite so soon. The record clearly shows the arguments that we put forward at great length and with great thoroughness to demonstrate our concern at some aspects of this legislation.
The Minister well knows that we have never disagreed in this place about the principle of a national minimum wage. Our argument has concerned how and where it should apply.
§ Mr. Ian McCartneyI think that the hon. Gentleman believes in a national minimum age, but does he not accept that it was a gross error of judgment to support a Conservative amendment that would wreck the whole concept? It is one thing to say that one proposes regionalisation and another to put one's name to an amendment that would prevent millions of low-paid workers from getting the wage.
§ Mr. ChidgeyI thank the Minister for that intervention, as it brings me to my next point. Throughout many weeks of debate in this place and the long, or extended, Committee stage—which, on occasion, ran through the night to the next lunchtime—the Government, who claim to have consulted and to consult all and sundry, have refused to listen to any of our arguments. I think that I am right in saying that, throughout those deliberations, the Government accepted only one amendment.
Is it surprising, then, that, when our arguments for flexibility and variation were totally ignored, they should have been put forward again in their lordships' House to give the Government one last chance to rethink their views? I can understand the frustration that was felt in the other place, which led it to make us deal with those issues again.
222 One aspect that is so frustrating is that, although the Government claimed to be consulting by setting up the Low Pay Commission, they failed to take on board its full recommendations when it reported. The Government cherry-picked what proposals to accept. As the Minister knows, I asked him time and again, in questions in the House and in interventions, whether the commission would be a fully independent, permanent body, able to monitor and implement recommendations, but he never answered me directly. I am therefore not at all surprised at the frustration that has been felt in Parliament as a whole.
I was glad to see the Secretary of State on the Front Bench. Sadly, he has left us already—perhaps he has already found the task a little too demanding—but nevertheless, he will know, I trust, having done his research and read the reports of our debates on the minimum wage in the months that have gone by, that the Liberal Democrats have long argued for variations and flexibility in the introduction of a national minimum wage. He also knows that we are extremely concerned about low pay, as he is, but we are also concerned about employment. Those arguments are on the record—one does not have to rewrite history, as they are there and they are clear. Our arguments have not been confounded by the Government.
To summarise, we have long argued that the Low Pay Commission should have the freedom to examine the issues. It should be a permanent body, and the Government of the day should listen to it and accept what it says. That is the true measure of consultation and of understanding the concerns of those who seek and deserve decent wages and those who employ them. I shall continue to press the Government to recognise those points and allow us to ensure that the secondary legislation that follows the Bill, which will presumably become an Act, starts to listen to the people who matter.
§ Mr. Alasdair MorganI shall be brief, and I am sorry to take some of the Minister's time for his reply.
Tonight we have simply heard a reiteration of what we heard every day in Committee and on Second and Third Reading. The arguments have not changed—we have merely had Conservative attempts to undermine the fabric and principle of the Bill. We did not get much in the way of argument tonight—at least in Committee, we had arguments ad nauseam. Today, we merely had the bald statement that the minimum wage would cause unemployment, and the Conservatives certainly know all about how to do that.
The arguments that we are meant to accept would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. They would allow a future Conservative Administration—should this country ever be unfortunate enough to suffer again from that—to destroy the Bill piece by piece in every profession and every part of the country.
§ Mr. RedwoodIs the hon. Gentleman saying that he disagrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that higher wages mean fewer jobs?
§ Mr. MorganI disagree with the Chancellor about many things, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will not be surprised to learn. I certainly concur with the proponents of this Bill that the way to 223 create employment is not by running a sweatshop economy. Low wages do not create jobs; they mean that we will end up with the sort of economy that we should not be seeking.
The Government's case would have been even stronger had they grasped the nettle and allied any reduced or second rate for young people to training, instead of the compromise that they produced after the Committee stage. That apart, we must reject the Lords amendments. This Session, many unfortunate amendments have been agreed in the Lords, and these, like most of them, should be consigned to the dustbin.
§ Mr. Ian McCartneyThe hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), speaking for the Liberal party—
§ Mr. ChidgeyThe Liberal Democrats.
§ Mr. McCartneyYes, I do realise that there is a difference, on occasions. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with arguing, as he has done—he has been defeated intellectually and on economic grounds on each occasion—that certain people should get less than others in another region. He did not set out in any detail why a hairdresser five miles inside one region should be paid less than another hairdresser five miles down the road in another region.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman gave no indication of what regionalisation would mean for the benefit system and for those in the regions. It is one thing to table an amendment to put one's case, but it is another to sign up to some of the biggest landowners in Britain and their allies, who come to the House of Lords with no mandate and vote to smash this Bill. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has a responsibility to low-paid workers, and his party failed that test in the House of Lords. Tonight, he has a chance to apologise and to reverse that decision, by joining the Government.
§ Mr. ChidgeyI am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I know he wants to proceed, but I must remind him that, in Committee, I gave some convincing evidence of the differing costs of employment in different parts of the country. As he knows—it is on the record—independent research has shown the different costs to businesses and small firms of different levels of pay. The argument is sound, and the evidence is there.
§ Mr. McCartneyThe hon. Gentleman tries hard, but his proposals are flawed. Since the publication of the report by the Low Pay Commission, business after business and company after company have supported the recommendations that it put forward and the Government have accepted. Those organisations and companies range from the CBI to convenience stores and those in the hospitality sector. Across the economy, employers in low-paying sectors support the Low Pay Commission's proposals and want to ensure that they are implemented effectively and fairly.
Once again, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has shown his true colours. He could not bring himself, even once, to be on the side of low-paid workers. He has pontificated since the election. The debate reveals one simple fact—the Tories have learnt nothing from their defeat and nothing about why they 224 were defeated. One reason why people voted them out is that they are the party of the few, and do not give a damn or a whit about the life style of millions of low-paid workers. Thank goodness the right hon. Gentleman is on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, because the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment means that low-paid workers will at last get justice.
§ Question put, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 121.
227| Division No. 349] | [6.50 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Clelland, David |
| Ainger, Nick | Coaker, Vernon |
| Alexander, Douglas | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Allen, Graham | Cohen, Harry |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Colman, Tony |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Connarty, Michael |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Ashton, Joe | Cooper, Yvette |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Corbett, Robin |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Banks, Tony | Corston, Ms Jean |
| Barron, Kevin | Cousins, Jim |
| Battle, John | Cox, Tom |
| Bayley, Hugh | Crausby, David |
| Beard, Nigel | Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Cryer, John (Homchurch) |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Cummings, John |
| Beggs, Roy | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Dalyell, Tam |
| Benton, Joe | Darvill, Keith |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
| Berry, Roger | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Best, Harold | Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) |
| Blackman, Liz | Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Dean, Mrs Janet |
| Blizzard, Bob | Denham, John |
| Boateng, Paul | Dewar, Rt Hon Donald |
| Borrow, David | Dobbin, Jim |
| Bradley, Keith (Wrthington) | Donaldson, Jeffrey |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Doran, Frank |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Dowd, Jim |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Drew, David |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) |
| Browne, Desmond | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
| Burden, Richard | Ennis, Jeff |
| Burgon, Cohn | Ewing, Mrs Margaret |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Fitzpatrick, Jim |
| Byers, Stephen | Flynn, Paul |
| Caborn, Richard | Follett, Barbara |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Foster, Rt Hon Derek |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Foster, Michael J (Worcester) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Foulkes, George |
| Cann, Jamie | Fyfe, Maria |
| Casale, Roger | Galbraith, Sam |
| Caton, Martin | Gapes, Mike |
| Cawsey, Ian | Gerrard, Neil |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Chaytor, David | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Godman, Dr Norman A |
| Clapham, Michael | Godsiff, Roger |
| Clark, Dr Lynda | Goggins, Paul |
| (Edinburgh Pentlands) | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Grogan, John | Mandelson, Peter |
| Hain, Peter | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Hanson, David | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Marshall-Andrews, Robert |
| Healey, John | Martlew, Eric |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Meale, Alan |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Merron, Gillian |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Michael, Alun |
| Heppell, John | Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley) |
| Hewitt, Ms Patricia | Milburn, Alan |
| Hill, Keith | Miller, Andrew |
| Hinchliffe, David | Mitchell, Austin |
| Hodge, Ms Margaret | Moffatt, Laura |
| Hoey, Kate | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Hood, Jimmy | Moran, Ms Margaret |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Hope, Phil | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) |
| Howarth, Alan (Newport E) | Morley, Elliot |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Mudie, George |
| Howells, Dr Kim | Mullin, Chris |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretlord) | Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Norris, Dan |
| Hurst, Alan | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Hutton, John | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Olner, Bill |
| Illsley, Eric | Pearson, Ian |
| Ingram, Adam | Pendry, Tom |
| Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) | Perham, Ms Linda |
| Jamieson, David | Pike, Peter L |
| Jenkins, Brian | Plaskitt, James |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Pollard, Kerry |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Pope, Greg |
| Jones, Ms Jenny | Powell, Sir Raymond |
| (Wolverh'ton SW) | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Prescott, Rt Hon John |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Jowell, Ms Tessa | Purchase, Ken |
| Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Kemp, Fraser | Radice, Giles |
| Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) | Raynsford, Nick |
| Kidney, David | Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N) |
| King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) | Robertson, Rt Hon George |
| Kumar, Dr Ashok | (Hamilton S) |
| Ladyman, Dr Stephen | Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) |
| Laxton, Bob | Rogers, Allan |
| Leslie, Christopher | Rooker, Jeff |
| Levitt, Tom | Rooney, Terry |
| Lewis, Terry (Worsley) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Liddell, Mrs Helen | Rowlands, Ted |
| Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) | Roy, Frank |
| Love, Andrew | Ruane, Chris |
| McAllion, John | Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Salter, Martin |
| McCabe, Steve | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| McCafferty, Ms Chris | Savidge, Malcolm |
| McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) | Sawford, Phil |
| McDonagh, Siobhain | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Macdonald, Calum | Shaw, Jonathan |
| McFall, John | Sheerman, Barry |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| McIsaac, Shona | Singh, Marsha |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Skinner, Dennis |
| McLeish, Henry | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) |
| McWalter, Tony | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| McWilliam, John | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Mallaber, Judy | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Spellar, John | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Squire, Ms Rachel | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Vaz, Keith |
| Stevenson, George | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Stewart, David (Inverness E) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Stewart, Ian (Eccles) | Welsh, Andrew |
| Stinchcombe, Paul | White, Brian |
| Stott, Roger | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Straw, Rt Hon Jack | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Stringer, Graham | (Swansea W) |
| Sutcliffe, Gerry | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann | Wills, Michael |
| (Dewsbury) | Wilson, Brian |
| Taylor, David (NW Leics) | Winnick, David |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) | Wood, Mike |
| Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) | Woolas, Phil |
| Timms, Stephen | Worthington, Tony |
| Tipping, Paddy | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Todd, Mark | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Touhig, Don | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Truswell, Paul | Mr. Clive Betts and |
| Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) | Mr. Robert Ainsworth. |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Hayes, John |
| Amess, David | Heald, Oliver |
| Ancram, Rt Hon Michael | Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David |
| Arbuthnot, James | Horam, John |
| Bercow, John | Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Hunter, Andrew |
| Body, Sir Richard | Jack, Rt Hon Michael |
| Boswell, Tim | Jackson, Robert (Wantage) |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Johnson Smith, |
| Brady, Graham | Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Brazier, Julian | Key, Robert |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
| Burns, Simon | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Cash, William | Leigh, Edward |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney | Letwin, Oliver |
| (Chipping Bamet) | Lidington, David |
| Chope, Christopher | Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) |
| Clappison, James | Loughton, Tim |
| Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington) | Luff, Peter |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| (Rushcliffe) | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | MacKay, Andrew |
| Cran, James | Maclean, Rt Hon David |
| Curry, Rt Hon David | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham) | Malins, Humfrey |
| Day, Stephen | Maples, John |
| Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen | Mates, Michael |
| Duncan, Alan | Maude, Rt Hon Francis |
| Duncan Smith, Iain | Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian |
| Evans, Nigel | May, Mrs Theresa |
| Faber, David | Moss, Malcolm |
| Fallon, Michael | Norman, Archie |
| Flight, Howard | Ottaway, Richard |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Paice, James |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | Paterson, Owen |
| Fox, Dr Liam | Pickles, Eric |
| Gibb, Nick | Prior, David |
| Gill, Christopher | Randall, John |
| Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Gray, James | Robathan, Andrew |
| Green, Damian | Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) |
| Greenway, John | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Grieve, Dominic | Ruffley, David |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie | Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian |
| Hammond, Philip | Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk) |
| Hawkins, Nick | Soames, Nicholas |
| Spicer, Sir Michael | Waterson, Nigel |
| Spring, Richard | Wells, Bowen |
| Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John | Whitney, Sir Raymond |
| Steen, Anthony | Whittingdale, John |
| Swayne, Desmond | Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann |
| Syms, Robert | Wilkinson, John |
| Tapsell, Sir Peter | Wilshire, David |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton) | Woodward, Shaun |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Yeo, Tim |
| Taylor, Sir Teddy | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Tredinnick, David | |
| Trend, Michael | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Tyrie, Andrew | Mrs. Caroline Spelman and |
| Viggers, Peter | Mr. Tim Collins. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendment disagreed to.
§ It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.