HL Deb 14 November 1983 vol 444 cc1067-70

3.25 p.m.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I beg to move that the Travel Concessions for the Unemployed Bill, to permit an extension to be made in assisting the unemployed when seeking gainful work, be now read a second time. It would be inconsiderate of me if I took up a great deal of your Lordships' time, particularly as this Bill was debated eight months ago and then delayed. However, I believe I have a responsibility to adumbrate some of the fundamentals in the Bill and also to lament, I hope on behalf of us all, that unfortunately there has not been any sizeable reduction in the number of our fellow Britons who are out of work since the last time I sought to have the approval of the House in moving that the Bill be read a second time.

I thought of this yesterday when, as vice-president of the Greenford branch of the Royal British Legion, I was laying my wreath, and then afterwards talking to many of the chaps from different regiments in the Army, or who had been in the Navy or the Royal Air Force, and were regretting the fact that they had now been out of work for six or seven months and sometimes as much as a year. They had never believed that the time would come when, just as they are getting to the awkward age of 60, they would be flung onto the scrap heap. While no one argued that they had been deliberately flung onto the scrap heap, naturally they had become a little impatient.

We must understand that it is not simply a question of being without a job; it is also the economic factors that play on the nerves and the emotions of the man who is out of work and his family. What hurt me was to hear some of the things said yesterday, on that great day, and to wonder whether they were said at Westminster, at the Cenotaph, or in the thousands of other remembrance services held throughout the country. There is the other extreme of seeing young cadets, marching proudly to honour those who gave their lives in two world wars for this nation, some of whom are unemployed. That cannot be a good thing.

I want the House to realise just a few important features. First, the cost of looking for work has become more expensive since the last time this Bill was debated, but there has been no corresponding increase in unemployment benefit. The unemployed are naturally asking, "Are we now in the new army?" At one time it was said that the Burma army was the forgotten army, but is the forgotten army of the British nation now the army of the unemployed? This afternoon we have a wonderful opportunity to say, "You are not forgotten". Are the Government going to tell me, as they did eight months ago, that if this Bill is enacted it will cost the country another £90 million a year? That is roughly £20 per unemployed per person a month, and one is not going to travel very far in Great Britain in a month for that amount. That is how the men and women of this awkward age, and the young people, look at it. This matter is viewed by both the CBI and the TUC with grave concern.

I must once more point out that the whole idea of these travel concessions for the unemployed was the result of concern expressed by Manchester City Council, which instructed its transport executive to see whether it could work out a scheme whereby the unemployed could be assisted. That, roughly, is the essential reason why the Bill was introduced, although it can affect so many.

I have to make this point. I have taken legal advice and I am told that in no way does the Bill say this. This relates to the same thing as the Transport Act. It may be that we shall not get the full co-operation immediately of all local authorities. We can make very certain of this at the Committee stage. It was submitted in argument against this Bill that there exist among the unemployed a number of cheats who will use the Bill, for example, to travel from Scotland to London to see an international football or rugby match or to see relatives in different parts of the country. That argument is in the previous Second Reading debate. It is suggested that they would abuse the concession. That would be impossible.

The quintessential point of the Manchester City scheme was this, and I endorse it thoroughly. If the Bill became law no unemployed person would get a concession of one halfpenny until he had sought employment. He would have to take a pro forma with him. The CBI pointed out that there is support for this. The prospective employer would have to sign to say, for example, that the person had come from Hammersmith in West London to the London docks in East London and that it had cost £4. He would have to certify that the person had done that. The person could then make application to recover some if not all of that fare. What is wrong with that?

There are attitudes to this Bill similar to those propounded by the massive ignoramuses inside and outside Parliament when the legislation on the National Health Service was introduced. It was argued that there would be floods of all sorts of medicaments. As we all know, a person cannot get one aspirin on the National Health Service unless a doctor signs for it on the prescription record. Will all the employers cheat and connive with the unemployed? That argument is not worthy of being entertained. The prospective employer will be a witness that the job was advertised and that a number of people came to be interviewed. He might even regret that he could not give them all work. He might say that he had difficulty in making the ultimate selection but that these people did apply. Let us not make it an offence to seek gainful employment. Let us not prohibit it by making it too expensive to seek gainful employment.

This Bill is particularly relevant in our great connurbations. Lots of former dockers live in Fulham, Hammersmith and even Greenford. Many of them know only that great trade and skill. There might from time to time be pro tem employment. There may be a rush to the dock. It may interest your Lordships to know that to travel on public transport from Hammersmith, Fulham or Greenford to our great dock areas will make a big dent in £6. To do that two or three times a week would make a massive hole in a man's unemployment benefit, unless he happened to be on special supplementary benefit—and I do not think that we intend that should happen.

The former Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Tebbit, asked everyone to get on their bikes to look for a job. That may be a very good idea, but I do not believe for one moment that his father cycled 40 miles there and 40 miles back looking for a job every day of the week. The idea is to get out to look for work. I do not suppose a person would mind looking round most parts of Manchester or of many other big cities, but to look for work in Glasgow or Clydeside a man could walk nearly 100 miles in a day. To look for work in our capital city—in Greater London—he could walk or bicycle 100 miles a day if he could not afford the Underground or the bus. That applies to Glasgow, Sunderland, Swansea, London and even in Manchester. I hope that that point will be seriously considered.

From reading the previous debate and from conversations, I can readily understand that there are genuine apprehensions in the breasts of many who would like to support the measure. I am equally convinced that they can be overcome in Committee. This happens in practically every Bill. From my not inconsiderable experience long before I came into the other place of examining in detail parliamentary Bills, particularly if I thought that they affected Fulham Borough Council or any other council, I know that is so. Later in the other place I examined Bills and watched the changes in Committee. Many of them were for the good. I believe that that argument still applies. Many of the apprehensions could be overcome in Committee.

I also acknowledge that there might be genuine criticisms of the unemployed. I do not think that they are meant in a mean manner. There are arguments in local newspapers. There are about 20 to 25 local newspapers in London alone; and the same may be argued about Glasgow, South Wales or the Midlands. There are a number of job vacancies. But there may be a chap living at one extreme point of London and looking for a job that might suit him. He might like to try for it but he cannot afford the expense of travelling. He might have been out twice that week and already spent £15. This Bill would assist him. The employers argue that it would be an additional aid to make the unemployed more mobile. The employers and the unions say that we cannot tell people that they have no right to look for work beyond the immediate vicinity of their home.

I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that the House will support the Bill on behalf of the unemployed to show them that we acknowledge their endeavours to find employment. Despite the large number of unemployed, the case is advanced by employers that there are a number of vacancies which people do not want, perhaps because they cannot afford to travel or wonder whether it is worth it. The cost of the Bill is trivial when one considers what mass unemployment is costing this country. It is not unlikely that we could recoup the cost of this little Bill in 12 months with all the extra jobs being filled. The measure is supported by the unemployed, by the professions and by the trade union movement. It has the wholehearted support of the CBI and the chambers of commerce. Everyone who has anything to do with commerce and industry thinks that it is a good idea. All I ask, my Lords, is that, given that all those sectors of British commerce and industry believe it is a good thing, I hope that your Lordships will as well and will give this little Bill a Second Reading.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Molloy.)