|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever the unfortunate sequence of events that overtook Barings Bank, the Baring Foundation has over the years played a first-class role in supporting many charities and much valuable work? Perhaps one of the other oblique lessons of this is that other merchant banks might be similarly generous in a charitable sense.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Lord on that. However, I believe that there are two lessons which we can learn while we await the outcome of any review, and one is for charities not to become over-dependent on one source of income. That is important. The other lesson concerns diversification. The charitable foundation had begun to diversify, and it is because of that decision to diversify that £50 million has been saved, is invested and will be available to honour existing commitments. I must put on record that the new company which has taken over Barings has made an ex gratia payment to the Baring Foundation of £10 million, which will also help enormously.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am sure the whole House must have heard with great interest the comments of someone so intimately concerned with Barings Bank. But is it not the case that in spite of the Charities Acts of 1992 and 1993 there is still a real danger that trustees
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure whether I agree with the word "aggressive". Certainly it is responsibility that we want in managing the aims and objectives of the charity, taking proper advice on investment policy, noting the whole issue of not becoming over-dependent and watching out for the proper relationship between a foundation and an institution.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to say that I was puzzled by what the Minister said about charities not relying on a single source of funds. What does she suggest, for example, that the Rowntree Trust or the Gulbenkian Foundation should do?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I was saying was that Barings appeared safe but nonetheless, when it went down, many charitable organisations that were so dependent on that one source of income were badly let down. If it is possible to diversify sources of income, I believe that should be considered.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, workers at all levels have enjoyed an increase in real earnings since 1979. This has resulted from the Government's continuing policy of sound economic management. The country's improved competitiveness and productivity have brought about this welcome increase in earnings.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I find that Answer very unsatisfactory. I drew the figures in my Question from the labour force survey which indicates a widening gap in the period to which the Minister refers in the wages of the lowest paid and the highest paid. Is he aware that we as taxpayers are now having to pay £2.44 billion in benefit to top up low pay and that this is really a subsidy to low paying employers? Would it not be better if there were an obligation upon employers to pay a living wage and so relieve the rest of us from having to pay this subsidy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, wages can only amount to what it is possible for an employer to pay in any particular circumstance. As the work that the Government have done on the earlier Trades Union Congress proposal for introducing a minimum wage has shown, if that were introduced it would be likely to lead to about ¾ of a million extra people unemployed. It
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if wages councils were re-introduced and we had a minimum wage, unemployment would increase, as it would if the social chapter were accepted by the Government? Does my noble friend also agree that, as regards the minimum wage, there is a certain reluctance on the part of the official Opposition to fix a rate?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the Minister a little naive to say that employers will only pay what they can for labour? Is he not aware that a great many employers will only pay what they have to?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware what sort of wages are referred to in the report? Are they casual wages by the hour? Are they wages by the day? Are they weekly wages? What wages are they?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the report to which I understand the Question refers was produced by the Labour Party. Therefore, it is a matter for the Benches opposite to elaborate. However, I understand that they are hourly wages.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, as my noble friend made clear, the figures mentioned in her Question were produced by Her Majesty's Government, not by the Labour Party. Would the Minister like to withdraw his statement in answer to my noble friend that wages have increased at all levels? Is he not aware that the Rowntree Report on Income and Wealth demonstrated that for people in employment incomes have fallen for the lowest 10 per cent. and have remained stagnant for the next 10 per cent. of the labour force? Will he withdraw that false statement?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I served for many years on a wages council. Is the Minister aware that when this Government took the foolish step of abolishing wages councils they irritated many organisations on the employers' side? Here was a system whereby trade unions and employers came together and worked out some of their difficulties. Was it because they worked so admirably that the Tories got rid of them?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench regarding the Rowntree Report the Minister said that that was not his understanding of the report. Can he say what is his understanding of the report?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Rowntree Report is an interesting document which contributes to the debate in the country in general as well as in this House. It tries to focus on the problems of poverty in the country as it perceives them. However, in our view the report does not properly take into account many aspects such as the provision of education and healthcare which have meant that people's standard of living has increased.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government accept that wage levels of the order we are discussing are below the poverty level and that the Government themselves, through income support and family credit, subsidise those excessively low wages? Can he explain why, when a company is making enormous profits, the Government are prepared to use taxpayers' money to subsidise that employer who is paying wages below subsistence level?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in this context it is important to differentiate clearly between what people earn for doing a job and what may be provided by the welfare system so that the households of which they are part can have an adequate standard of living. Wages are determined by the marketplace. The level of income which is appropriate for households varies according to a variety of different criteria such as the number of people in the household. Therefore the two are calculated in a different manner.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balfour I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.