| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Education Statistics (Accuracy)
13. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new proposals she has to improve the accuracy of education statistics. [3880]
Mr. Robin Squire: The Department has a continuous programme to ensure the accuracy of statistics.
Mr. Flynn: Can the statistics be improved to show the huge increase in the number of children in care being excluded from grant-maintained schools? In one district where all but one of the schools are grant-maintained, only the one local authority school is now admitting children in care. The police have pointed out that the huge increase in exclusions--a result of the schools' league tables--is causing great problems to society, and is adding greatly to the distress of young people who have suffered unfairly from all the misfortunes that life has thrown at them.
Mr. Squire: My Department has no evidence to suggest that grant-maintained schools, any more than LEA schools, are excluding pupils disproportionately. If the hon. Gentleman has such evidence, I invite him to send it to the Department. All the comments from the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members suggest that the Opposition's claims that they support grant-maintained schools are based on fragile ground.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than calling for new and improved statistics, the Opposition should perhaps spend more time studying the statistics that are available? Do not the statistics show that the Opposition's determination to abolish the assisted places scheme is irrelevant to the quality of education of our young people? Do not they show that thousands of less well-off families benefit from the scheme? Should not the Opposition learn a lesson from the statistics?
Mr. Squire: Like my hon. Friend, I remain optimistic that the lesson may be learned by the Opposition, but there are no encouraging signs. He is right that the assisted places scheme has assisted children from households who would otherwise have no chance to take advantage of that good education.
Youth Unemployment
14. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new measures she plans to take to get unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds into work. [3881]
Mr. Paice: We propose to continue policies and programmes that have seen unemployment among this age group fall by 225,000, or 28 per cent., since the recovery began.
Mr. Jones: Are not 650,000 people in this age group unemployed, of whom 150,000 have been out of work for more than a year? Today, 350 people have lost their jobs in MANWEB as a direct consequence of privatisation and the Scottish Power takeover. Does he accept that the Government's policies are laggardly and hesitant, and that only a general election will help the unemployed?
Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend think that it is interesting that youth unemployment in France is 25 per cent. and in Spain is 40 per cent., whereas in this country it stands at about 15 per cent.? Is it not also interesting that in France, which has a similar population to this
country, there are 2 million fewer people in work. Is it not a fact that, while France and Spain have adopted the social chapter and the minimum wage, we have not?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend properly reminds the House that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds in Britain is, on comparable statistics, 7 per cent. lower than the European average. He also reminds the House of the difference between this Government's policies and those of many Governments in Europe. In particular, they have adopted the social chapter and the minimum wage-- policies that the Opposition espouse. The Opposition pretend to care about young people's unemployment, but they espouse policies that would destroy jobs, as they have destroyed jobs in many other countries throughout Europe.
Mr. Byers: Will the Minister confirm that more than a quarter of all unemployed claimants are aged between 18 and 25? Does he accept that, in the past 12 months, unemployment in this age group has increased by more than 100,000? Given those facts, does the Minister accept that urgent action is needed? Why do not the Government impose a windfall tax on the newly privatised utilities to finance a programme of training and job creation, as proposed by the Labour party? Are the Government
simply prepared to stand to one side and watch a whole generation of young people become the innocent victims of the Government's failed economic and social policies?
Mr. Paice: Let us deal first with the facts. It is a fact that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds--the group about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned--has fallen by 225,000 in three years. The number of them who have been unemployed for six months or more has fallen by 106,000, a 30 per cent. decrease. The number of those unemployed for a year or more has fallen by 54,000, a decrease of 27.5 per cent. That improvement is dramatic, and hardly what one would expect from a Government who do not care.
I wonder how many times one can spend a windfall tax. Every time we challenge the Opposition to tell us how they would fund one of their programmes, they say through a windfall tax. It will be the most swingeing tax that any Government have ever imposed, should the Labour party ever have the chance, because the programmes that it will have to fund are legion.
I have to ask the hon. Gentleman--
Madam Speaker:
Order. It is the Government's business to answer questions, not to ask them. We now have a statement.
Madam Speaker:
I regret to have to report to the House the death of Sir David Lincoln Lightbown, Member for South-East Staffordshire. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman):
With permission, I wish to make a statement about the Government's plans for the future of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and how the plans might affect Parliament.
For most of the past 200 years, HMSO provided free supplies to Departments and to Parliament, charging its costs to funds allocated in the Vote. In 1980, HMSO began recovering its costs. Within two years, Departments were freed from their obligations to purchase from HMSO, which then had to compete with private sector suppliers. HMSO and its staff met the new challenge, and the business became increasingly commercial, competitive and productive. In 1988, HMSO became an executive agency. I pay tribute to the management and staff of HMSO for their commercial success in recent years.
The public sector market in which HMSO competes is shrinking. Between 1990 and 1994, HMSO's turnover fell by more than 10 per cent. Job losses are likely unless HMSO is able to seek new sales opportunities.
Against that background, the Government plan to privatise HMSO by means of a competitive tender offer. The business will benefit from access to wider markets. Its staff will benefit from the increased security of a thriving business. Customers such as Parliament will benefit from an accountable, commercially enforceable relationship with a supplier well positioned to reduce costs.
We intend to retain in the public sector only a small residual body, which will continue to bear the name Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Its responsibilities will include Crown copyright. The residual body could also administer parliamentary copyright if Parliament so wished. Retaining responsibility for copyright in the public sector will allow us to sustain and improve the accessible and affordable publication of Government information.
The remainder of the business, which is the bulk, will be offered for sale under the name "The Stationery Office". We shall seek a buyer who will maintain the independence and integrity of the present HMSO. Under no circumstances will we offer the printing and publishing businesses separately. I placed earlier today in the Library of the House the information pack that we are using to elicit market interest.
Our objectives will be to maximise value for money for the taxpayer; to ensure that staff are treated fairly and that their rights are respected; to ensure that the needs of Parliament and other customers, such as Government Departments, are satisfied; and to complete the privatisation as soon as is practicable.
Madam Speaker, you have rightly stressed the importance that you attach to the maintenance of a first-class service to Parliament. Your letter of 28 November to the Leader of the House was published in the Official Report of 11 December. I have sought to reassure you, Madam Speaker and, with your agreement, I shall place a copy of my letter of 12 December in the Library of the House. The key point is that the buyer must be fully acceptable to Parliament. With that in mind,
I intend to publish the shortlist of bidders in due course, and I shall involve parliamentary officials in the selection of the successful candidate.
Parliament's requirements will be enshrined ln a binding and enforceable contract, based on the new supply and service agreements between HMSO and Parliament that take effect from 1 January 1996. The contract could include the provision that any future changes in the structure or operation of the Stationery Office should take account of Parliament's requirements. Potential purchasers will have to honour recently negotiated improvements such as reductions in the price of publications, and, I hope, negotiate further reductions.
Parliament benefits from the dedication of trained and experienced staff in HMSO. The type of sale that we envisage would mean the buyer taking on HMSO's staff with their existing terms and conditions.
3.31 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |