| Home Page |
Column 713
House of Commons
Tuesday 7 November 1995
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker -- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Education Authorities (Budgets)
1. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much more money would be available for schools if every education authority had a 95 per cent. delegated budget. [40039]
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): In 1995-96, some £650 million more would be in schools' budgets if every LEA were delegating 95 per cent. of its potential schools budget.
Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much we spent on schools, members of the shadow Cabinet would still send their children to grant-maintained or private schools, while promoting policies that deprive working-class children and their families throughout the country of the same choice and opportunity?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that the Secretary of State is in charge of Government policy, not Opposition attitudes or policies. He must ask questions that enable the right hon. Lady to explain her policies to the House.
Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, then, whether the leader of our party would send his child to the London Oratory school while telling all the kids in Islington to get stuffed?
Mrs. Shephard: So does my hon. Friend.
Unlike some Opposition Front Benchers, Conservative Members believe that grant-maintained schools provide diversity, choice and excellence. The point of my hon. Friend's question is that the money available for grant- maintained schools is not top sliced, so schools have the flexibility to handle all the resources to which they are entitled. It is that independence that makes them such a success, and so popular with parents-- including those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. O'Hara: Is not the truth behind the question that the real problem with education at present is central Government underfunding? Robbing Peter to pay Paul by diverting money from LEA budgets to delegated budgets would do nothing to stop those problems, but it would
Column 714
undermine core services such as those that deal with special educational needs--to which the Government pay cynical lip service--and advisory services, which are very important if the Government are serious about raising standards in schools.Mrs. Shephard: I wonder whether I might gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is missing the point. He needs to understand that, if the total amount available to schools is top sliced by LEAs before budgets are set--which happens in many LEAs--schools receive less money. That is what the Labour party's policy fails to address.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of bringing grant-maintained schools within the ambit of local authorities would take away their independence and their drive for excellence in teaching? That is why that policy must be resisted strongly by the Conservative party and the Government.
Mrs. Shephard: As the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has often pointed out, grant-maintained schools are state schools, but they receive 100 per cent. of their budgets rather than a percentage--however it is calculated--from LEAs. That gives them greater flexibility, and more independence to enable them to run their own affairs. That is what they prize, and what gives them quality.
School Funding
2. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from local education authorities concerning the funding levels for schools in 1996- 97. [40040]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Funding for schools is currently under consideration in the public expenditure survey. We have received a number of representations on levels of funding for 1996-97.
Mr. Ainsworth: The whole country knows that last year the Minister's policies deprived schools of £500 million, and led to the sacking of thousands of teachers. Does he intend to restore that money? If not, why not, and if so, why on earth was the action taken in the first place? Are we not in the same position? The Tory Government are cynically looking to cobble together a policy on a matter of public concern immediately before a general election.
Mr. Squire: As the House knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the public expenditure round for 1996-97; the hon. Gentleman and the House will have to be a little more patient and await its outcome. The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I am pleased that, under this Government, we have significantly increased funding for education. Despite its fine words, when it was in power the Labour party cut education funding in real terms. Although the current year's settlement was tight, it was manageable, as has been shown by the fact that many local authorities have managed to fund in full the pay and price increases arising.
Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that for education establishments with a degree of independence--for example, St. Vincent college in my
Column 715
constituency, of which I happen to be chairman and which in the past two years has found funds for a splendid new library and refectory--hands-on management is good for facilities, for morale generally and for education standards?Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right and I hope that the thrust of his point will be accepted on both sides of the Chamber because the success of local management of schools, of devolved budgets--we have already heard the advantages of grant-maintained schools--and the setting free of further education institutions has transformed those establishments and enabled them to achieve better value for money than under the previous system.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister confirm that local authority associations have advised the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that, even before inflation and the future teachers' pay award is met, a £1.3 billion increase in local authority budgets is required to enable education provision to remain at a standstill? Will he confirm that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces a budget increase of less than £1.3 billion, there will be real cuts in the education service?
Mr. Squire: I suppose that was a nice try, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that it is unrealistic to expect full uprating, year in, year out, for full pay and prices for organisations such as local authorities, which spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year. We expect them and other organisations to make efficiency savings, and we did so this year. If he is saying, in so many words, that he expects full uprating year in, year out for all these things, he is saying that there is no scope for efficiency savings, and that is why his party promises to tax much more.
Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be pressure next year on primary schools, especially where reserves have been used properly in the last year, and that growing concern exists about the discrepancy, which has arisen since the introduction of the national curriculum, between funding per pupil in the last year at primary school and funding in the first year at secondary school? Will he bear those points in mind in the forthcoming settlement?
Mr. Squire: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's points in mind and I emphasise that the attention that the Select Committee on Education paid to this point was reciprocated by the Government.
Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that salaries for teachers constitute about 60 to 65 per cent. of local authority education expenditure? If the Government persist in the injustice of not funding the increase that was agreed this year, and if there is no scope for efficiency savings--and there will not be, since authorities have suffered cuts in previous years--will not the Government fail to provide the means for the ends that they specify? Will he name a single Conservative-controlled authority that did not complain about the injustice of funding this year?
Mr. Squire: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if I cannot comment yet on the outcome of the 1996-97 settlement, it follows that I can comment even less on the outcome of the independent standing review body for teachers, beyond observing that, as in all past years, it will
Column 716
reach its conclusions in the knowledge of the settlement that has been announced. As for representations, without some notice obviously I cannot confirm to him what the comments of individual local education authorities have been.Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from Cheshire county council about the resources allocated to the education authority under the standard spending assessment, with particular reference to the fact that the area cost adjustment does not adequately reflect the costs incurred by my county? That view is shared across all the political parties in the county. Will my hon. Friend respond positively to my inquiry?
Mr. Squire: I can confirm that representations have been received. I can also confirm--it would be ungallant not to--that my hon. Friend has been indefatigable in pursuing this point with me in correspondence. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that recently my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced a full-scale review of the operation of the area cost adjustment and its impact within the standard spending assessment.
Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister realise how complacent those answers must seem to parents whose children are already in classes of over 40? As the Government are so keen on league tables, is not the Minister ashamed that his education cuts have put Britain at the bottom of the education spending league? Can he explain how he suddenly managed to find millions of pounds for assisted places and nursery voucher paperwork when he could not raise an extra penny for what parents really want--reduced class sizes?
Mr. Squire: The House will note that, not for the first time, Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are taking their cue from the National Union of Teachers. The hon. Lady could not be more wrong. The independent inspectorate, Ofsted, has confirmed that standards are rising at all ages. That is what parents want. They want to know that their children have the chance of a better education than they might otherwise have enjoyed. That is happening under this Government, as independent reports suggest. As the hon. Lady is aware, and as we have said many times, education receives the highest priority from the Government.
Spoken English
3. Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to improve the standards of spoken English in schools. [40041]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I attach a great deal of importance to spoken English, on which I recently made an announcement.
Mr. Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the inclusion of a standard mark for spoken English in GCSE certificates in future. Does she accept that the English language, both written and spoken, is our greatest national heritage and that the ability to communicate, which is demonstrated occasionally even in the Chamber, is the most important tool for our young people in an increasingly competitive world?
Mrs. Shephard: Yes. It is obviously important that young people and adults should be able to express
Column 717
themselves clearly and comprehensibly and that they should be able to demonstrate that they can do so. As my hon. Friend points out, employers have complained that job applicants cannot always communicate clearly. That must be put right and the work of the new campaign group, and all the other measures that we have put in place, will help towards that end.Mr. Mike O'Brien: How does it improve the standards of spoken English to impose on a county such as Warwickshire the financial crisis that it now faces in education? It faces the prospect of closing its nursery schools and of classes of over 40. Is that a record of which the Secretary of State is proud? What does she intend to do to improve the prospects of the children of Warwickshire?
Mrs. Shephard: The short answer is probably to elect a Conservative council. That was a nice try from the hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just said, and as the chief inspector has consistently reported, there is no clear correlation between class size and quality and rising standards. I accept that very large classes are difficult to handle, but the inspector consistently provides contrary advice. The findings at Hackney Downs school, which I am minded to close and on which I am consulting, are interesting. Spending there is exactly two and a half times the national average per pupil and the pupil-teacher ratio is 8:1. I wonder what lessons the hon. Gentleman draws from that.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if improvements in the standards of spoken English are to be achieved, that will require an effort much wider than just from our schools? If the presenters of children's television programmes were to set an example to our young people--such as used to be set by Auntie Muriel--would not that be one step in the right direction?
Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure that even I can remember Auntie Muriel, although I am sure I should, but my hon. Friend's point is well made. Effort across the community is clearly necessary. That is the point of the work of the group that will be campaigning for better standards. Representatives from business, the media, trade unions, sport and education have already been signed up.
Education Funding (Northumberland)
4. Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received about education funding in Northumberland. [40042]
Mr. Robin Squire: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I had a useful meeting with a delegation from Northumberland on 30 October to discuss education funding. We have also received a number of other representations.
Mr. Beith: Did the Minister understand from those representations the effect of standard spending assessments, the capping limit, the teachers' pay settlement and the problems of running an education service in a scattered rural area? Did he realise the desperate state to which those have reduced parents, governors and councillors of all parties, as they look to
Column 718
the hon. Gentleman to fight for an improvement in the funding for education in Northumberland after the Budget?Mr. Squire: I confirm that some of the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were raised at the meeting. I made the point then, and I repeat it now, that the one element within the standard spending assessment that is at a higher value than our research would indicate it merits is that for sparsity. That will be of particular benefit to a constituency such as the right hon. Gentleman's. I note that Northumberland, notwithstanding the difficulty of the settlement to which I previously referred, managed to increase its education spending this year.
Teachers (Maintained Sector)
5. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra teachers could be provided in the maintained sector by an input of £100 million. [40043]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The cost of employing the average teacher is about £25,000. That means £100 million would pay for about 4,000 extra teachers.
Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that parents are now beginning to realise that £100 million would provide another 4,000 teaching posts in LEA and grant-maintained schools? Is she further aware that parents are contrasting the approach of the Prime Minister, who put £100 million into extra places in private schools, with the approach of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that he would use that money to reduce class sizes in maintained schools?
Mrs. Gillan: The abolition of the assisted places scheme would not save £100 million as most of that money would be needed to pay for the children's education in state schools. If we spent £100 million in primary schools, it would reduce the average class size by only half a pupil.
Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend disregard the politics of envy from Opposition Members? Is she aware that about 750,000 of the nation's children are educated in grant-maintained schools and under the assisted places scheme? Is she further aware that one of those children happens to be the son of the leader of the Labour party?
Mrs. Gillan: I am aware of that fact. I hope that the parents of children on the assisted places scheme will note the Labour party's policy on that scheme. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said about class sizes. In Hackney Downs, the pupil-teacher ratio is 8:1 and the annual expenditure per pupil for the financial year 1995-96 is two and a half times that in GM schools. It is the quality of teaching that is important, not class sizes.
Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister tell the nation whether she thinks that it is a good idea for 60,000 pupils to be assisted to escape from what the Deputy Prime Minister described as inadequate inner-city schools or whether, instead, 2 million infant children should be allowed to be educated in classes of no more than 30 so that they can learn to read, write and add up without suffering from the
Column 719
cuts inflicted by the Government--cuts that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), when replying to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), confirmed will once again be inflicted through reductions in revenue support grant and in other services if the Government go ahead with their Budget proposals, as outlined to the press, on 28 November?Mrs. Gillan: It goes without saying that the assisted places scheme represents very good value for money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when Labour was last in power, there were twice as many pupils in primary classes of more than 35. Perhaps he should listen to voices such as those of Mr. Pollard of the Fabian Society, who has criticised the Leader of the Opposition for his policy to abolish assisted places.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: How much of the £100 million does my hon. Friend the Minister believe would get through to the schools to enable them to employ teachers? I cite the example of the Labour and Liberal Democrat- controlled Kent county council, which received a 2.1 per cent. increase in funding this year but nevertheless increased funding to Kent schools by only 1 per cent.
Mrs. Gillan: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and pupils, governors and teachers outside will do so too. We shall be doubling the assisted places scheme over time and there will, of course, be new money going into the scheme as well as the savings to the LEAs involved.
Unemployment
6. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who are currently unemployed have been unemployed since April 1992. [40044]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The latest available figures show that the number of people unemployed for three years and over is falling. It stands at 337,622.
Mr. David Shaw: This one is GMB sponsored.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with him on the next occasion. I want no parrot-fashion talk here. He will resume his seat; otherwise, I shall use the Standing Order against him.
Mrs. Prentice: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State feel no shame that more than 330,000 people have been and remain unemployed during the lifetime of this Government? Is she aware that another 8.5 million people have become unemployed twice in that time? Is not it time that the Secretary of State began to do something about long-term unemployment and insecurity at work, instead of continuing with the
self-congratulatory tone that is a shameful characteristic of Conservative government?
Mrs. Shephard: I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady does not express her delight about the fact that unemployment in her constituency has come down by 8 per cent. in the past year--what a pity. Clearly, I accept that unemployment, and especially long-term unemployment, is an extremely demoralising experience. Thankfully, the unemployed are not a static mass. Most people leave unemployment very quickly--half of them
Column 720
do so within three months, two thirds within six months and 80 per cent. within a year. However, it is clearly important to continue to push the trend downwards. We are committed to reducing long- term unemployment. We have a wide range of programmes to help the long-term unemployed and many have successful outcomes.Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the participation rate in the United Kingdom is very much higher than in almost any other European country? Will she also confirm that unemployment is very much lower in this country than in Spain, which follows the policies proposed the Opposition?
Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I can confirm that in the United Kingdom the proportion of people of working age in employment is, at 68 per cent., very much higher than the EC average of 60 per cent. That is partly because of the pursuit by some of our European partners of mistaken policies embraced by the Labour party, such as a national minimum wage, which causes unemployment. Any fool knows that, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) once memorably said.
Mr. Meacher: Was it not the Prime Minister who, in a speech on 7 April 1992 entitled "Ten Tory Truths for a Glorious Future", urged people to vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday? How does the right hon. Lady explain that, despite all the programmes to which she has just referred, more than a third of a million people have been continuously unemployed every day since the election? That is an increase of 128,000 since April 1992. Is not that yet another Tory broken promise? Far from producing a recovery, the Prime Minister has brought about the most massive increase in job insecurity since the war.
Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the hon. Member to the Dispatch Box. I am not quite sure in what role he appears--it does not seem evident to his hon. Friends--but his smiling demeanour is always a pleasure. I am surprised that, on his first appearance in his new role, he did not join me in welcoming the news that unemployment has fallen for 24 consecutive months and is now at its lowest point for four and a half years. I am sure that he will put that right next time.
7. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparisons she has made between the United Kingdom's record on reducing unemployment and that of other major EU countries. [40135]
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The United Kingdom is the only major European Union country in which unemployment is lower than it was three years ago.
Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the country as a whole, and, indeed, in my constituency, unemployment has fallen dramatically over the past two years? Does not that compare favourably with France and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, Spain, where unemployment runs at 22 per cent., but where youth unemployment, largely because of the minimum wage, stands at almost 40 per cent? When unemployment was going up, the Labour party complained and whined, but will my hon.
Column 721
Friend explain why, now that it is coming down, the Labour party is still complaining, whining, whingeing, and running Britain down?Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. He is at least more gracious than Labour Members to welcome the fall in unemployment in his constituency, which, as he points out, has been substantial not only over the past year but over the past several years. That is in contrast to Labour Members who--again my hon. Friend is
right--persistently ignore the fall in unemployment, because, I suspect, they are embarrassed by it politically. The real truth is that our record of performance on unemployment--long-term unemployment, youth unemployment or unemployment among men or women--is better than that in most other European Union countries. That speaks volumes for our labour market policies and the strength of our economy.
Mr. Grocott: Instead of comparing unemployment rates in Britain and other countries of Europe, would not it be much more illuminating to compare unemployment rates under this Tory Government with those under Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s? Does the Minister recall, as I do, the job opportunities for school leavers in the 1960s and 1970s and the abundance of apprenticeships? In order to be precise about the extent of Tory failure, will he answer the following question? How many more years would it be necessary for present policies to continue for unemployment to fall to its level under Labour?
Mr. Forth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because in 1979--I pick the date more or less at random--UK unemployment was just below the average in the then European Community. Unemployment in this country today is substantially lower than the European Union average. I accept that the figure is higher now for the rest of Europe and for this country than it was in 1979. That says a lot about the difficulties of the global trading economy, but this country has sustained its record of keeping our unemployment rate below the European rate and has performed better on unemployment than our European partners.
Mr. Tredinnick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment in Leicestershire has been falling in the past two years? Is it not a fact that, not only in Spain but in Belgium, Italy, Germany and Portugal, unemployment is increasing? What impact would a minimum wage have in this country?
Mr. Forth: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents not only appreciate the fact that unemployment is falling but understand that our social chapter opt-out has given us protection against the high-cost regime which prevails in so much of the continental mainland and which, sadly, makes so many of our competitors and partners less competitive than we are. That is understood much more by my hon. Friend's constituents than it ever seems to be by the Opposition.
Mr. Janner: The Government do recognise that the current unemployment figures are open to question, to put it mildly, and have asked someone called David Steel to report to them by the end of January on the way in which unemployment figures are produced and on whether the method can be improved. As the Government have seen fit to attempt to abolish the Select Committee on
Column 722
Employment at the end of February or on 1 March, may we at least have a guarantee that the report will be out and available to the House, as promised, by the end of January?Mr. Forth: I am surprised, given the hon. and learned Gentleman's position on the Select Committee on Employment, that he is attempting to peddle the sad old story about the inaccuracy of the unemployment figures. He should know as well as I do--he obviously does not--that all the different measures of unemployment, including those internationally accepted by the International Labour Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, well demonstrate that the level of unemployment is what it is, that it is on a downward trend and that it compares favourably with the level in any of the countries that are our partners and competitors. Until the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that fact, we shall not get much further.
Mr. Day: Will my hon. Friend take note that, whenever the unemployment figures come down, the Labour party questions the method by which they are calculated? Has he noticed that, when unemployment rises, Labour Members say that the figures are accurate? They cannot have it both ways. Can they not accept that this Government's policies are working?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; what he describes appears to be the case. Opposition Members must sort out in their own minds what they accept in terms of a measurement of unemployment--the internationally accepted figures to which I referred a moment ago or something else. They would be much better advised to welcome the success we have enjoyed in recent years in bringing unemployment down, although, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we are by no means satisfied by the level. We have many innovative programmes in place to try to help people, especially those who suffer from long-term unemployment. These are working and will continue to work.
Craft Apprenticeships
8. Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many craft apprenticeships were offered in the United Kingdom in the last year. [40045]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Information on the number of craft apprenticeships offered during the year is not collected.
Mr. Touhig: Craft apprenticeships were once the core of British industry. In 1965, British industry offered 125,000 craft apprenticeships; they have now all but disappeared. The result is a skills shortage which is harming our economic recovery. Will the Under-Secretary explain why Britain is experiencing a massive decline in skills training? Will he comment on an article in the Industrial Relations Journal which says that the Government have become increasingly less helpful in supporting craft apprenticeships and that Tory Governments are concerned about craft apprenticeships because they associate them with the craft unions? Is this
Column 723
another example of Tory right-wing dogma harming British industry and threatening the skills of our work force?Mr. Paice: I am afraid that it is a clear example of the hon. Gentleman not having done his homework properly. The fact is that he asked how many craft apprenticeships were offered. Those statistics are not and, to the best of my knowledge, never have been collected. If the hon. Gentleman had asked how many people were on craft apprenticeships at any particular time, I would have told him. The most recent labour force survey, in spring this year, showed that 191,000 people declared themselves to be on apprenticeships and that, of those people, 101,000 were on craft apprenticeships. The labour force survey is the means by which the measurements are collected, and it has been for many years.
Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the decline in the building industry could be put down to bad workmanship resulting from the lack of a thoroughgoing apprenticeship scheme? Such an apprentice scheme was the backbone of the building industry at one time. Is there any way in which we can encourage more apprenticeships in the building industry?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will be aware that the building industry is the only remaining industry with a compulsory levy and a statutory training board, and apprenticeships are still offered in all aspects of the construction industry. The real problem is not the absence of apprenticeships but the trend towards more subcontract work throughout the industry. That matter is now being addressed by the construction industry training board as it reviews its training programmes.
Mr. Byers: The Minister failed to refer to the Government's modern apprenticeship scheme in relation to craft apprenticeships. Was that because of the widespread failure to recruit due to weaknesses in the scheme, with only 4,000 places being filled nationally? Does the Minister acknowledge that training and enterprise councils have had their budgets cut by some £200 million this year? How will a combination of a lack of apprenticeships and training budget cuts give our people the skills they need to get them back into work and to bring prosperity back to this country?
Mr. Paice: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. His appointment perhaps accounts for the vast number of questions that he constantly tables on these issues, despite the fact that virtually all the information that he requests is available in the Library.
I did not refer to modern apprenticeships, because nobody asked me about them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me about the scheme, because it did not go unnoticed that he tabled a question yesterday about the number of modern apprenticeship starts. The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that the figure of 4,000 starts was for the first month of the scheme-- it had only just started. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate his totally unjustified challenge, and the reality is that a vast number of employers are keen to take on employees. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Government hope to get about 30,000 starts in the current year. That statement is already on the public record, and I am happy to reaffirm it to the hon. Gentleman.
Column 724
As for cuts for TECs, the hon. Gentleman needs to do his homework better. There have been no cuts in the budgets for modern apprenticeships and youth training.Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that any decline in craft apprenticeships and training occurred during the years when the smokestack and labour-intensive industries were phased out and when the Labour party, in collusion with the unions, forced the wages of apprentices to levels that made their employment no longer viable?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is quite right. Most reasonable people agree that the wages of people who are learning should be commensurate to their status, but that, as they develop and improve-- [Interruption.] On the subject of learning, I am pleased to welcome the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), as he might learn something. The right hon. Gentleman said that any fool knows that a minimum wage will cause a shake-out, and that is precisely the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is referring. If there is a minimum wage which applies to everybody regardless of skill levels, how does one address the need for differentials for those people who have been through apprenticeships? The Opposition have failed year in, year out to answer that question about their minimum wage proposals.
Economic Regeneration, Wolverhampton
9. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contribution her Department is able to make to economic regeneration in the travel-to-work area containing British Steel Tubes Division, Wolverhampton. [40046]
Mr. Paice: This Department makes a major contribution through the activities of the Employment Service and Wolverhampton training and enterprise council, which has formed a task force with other bodies to help those who are made redundant by British Steel.
| Next Section
| Home Page |