| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
- Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
Oral Answers to Questions
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Training Objectives
1. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils to discuss the Government's objectives on training issues; and if she will make a statement. [14662]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): I regularly meet training and enterprise council representatives to discuss a wide range of topics, including the Government's objectives on training.
Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister consider extending the coal funding for training and enterprise councils beyond March this year? That funding was introduced to help train redundant mineworkers and other workers in coal areas where pits have closed. Less than a quarter of the work force in Wakefield has academic or professional qualifications. Cuts in vocational training services to help people into the next century will be devastating to Wakefield. Will the Minister ensure that there will be no cuts in training provision for Wakefield because the redundant mineworkers, the unemployed and the young will suffer more? Will he assure me that training programmes to help people obtain professional and academic qualifications will continue?
Mr. Paice: Officials in the regional office are currently in discussion with Wakefield training and enterprise council, as they are with all TECs throughout the country, about its contract for next year. Those discussions will take into account the unemployment situation and the perceived needs of every TEC. I therefore cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the budget for Wakefield TEC will be next year because it has not yet been resolved.
There is no overall reduction in the amount of money being made available to TECs this year compared with what we expect them to spend. We have increased their overall resources and made more available for modern apprenticeships, for example. Negotiations are continuing and I shall make sure that regional officers are aware of the situation in Wakefield which, as we understand, reflects the decline of the coal industry.
Mr. Byers:
Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by training and enterprise councils about the bureaucratic burdens that are imposed on them? Has he had an opportunity to examine the report of the Employment Select Committee on the work of TECs and, in particular, the evidence that individuals on training for work schemes have to complete no fewer than 31 separate forms and that training providers calculate that 40p out of every £1 allocated for training is eaten up by administration costs? Can the Minister explain how, at a time of training cuts, the Government are spending more on bureaucrats and administrators rather than providing for the training and skills needs of our people and our country?
Mr. Paice:
We had to wait for the soundbite at the end of that question. In reality, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), there are no cuts overall in training budgets this year. We are increasing TEC budgets by 5 per cent., which is considerably ahead of inflation this year. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the administration of training programmes is predominantly the responsibility of individual TECs, and we are pressing them to reduce the burden that they put on providers.
I have had a chance to study the Select Committee report briefly. Clearly, we shall examine the recommendations in considerable detail and respond to them in due course. That is the correct approach. My immediate reaction was basically that the report is extremely good in its attitude to training and enterprise councils and I welcome many of the Committee's supportive remarks. I emphasise that we are very much aware of the need to reduce bureaucracy for TECs. We are already dealing with that aspect and we shall obviously consider the recommendations in that light.
Mr. Sykes:
That was a good answer from the Minister. Does he not think it a bit rich to be taking lectures about bureaucracy from Labour Members, when they voted against the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill?
Mr. Paice:
My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly well. We hear so much about reducing the burdens when the Opposition think that it is someone else's fault, but when they are given the chance to do something about it, as in so many other cases, they are woefully lacking.
2. Mr. Janner:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she has had with other Government Departments about co-ordination on employment issues since the abolition of the Employment Department. [14677]
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard):
The merged Department for Education and Employment discusses employment issues with other Departments where appropriate, not least the policies which have been successful in reducing unemployment in the United Kingdom to one of the lowest levels of any major European country.
Mr. Janner:
Is the Minister aware that many people take the view that the Government's abolition of the Department of Employment--and with it the Select Committee on Employment, which will not now be in a position to consider the Government's response on training and enterprise councils--has something to do with trying to take the spotlight off employment issues and the existing level of unemployment, which is still well over 3 million in real terms? [Interruption.] They can wait until they get the next report from the Select Committee. Will the Secretary of State, who took a great interest in employment issues in her previous incarnation and was sometimes even constructive about them, at least admit that the five Departments among which the issues have been spread should meet to discuss them and try to formulate some policy on them?
Mrs. Shephard:
There are many regular contacts between relevant Departments--Trade and Industry, Social Security, Environment and the Treasury--and the Central Statistical Office, at both official and ministerial level. It is disappointing that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not only continue to peddle very curious unemployment statistics, but insist that what matters to unemployed people are the Whitehall committees which exist to examine their plight. I should have thought that what mattered was the rate of reduction in unemployment. It is truly extraordinary for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has close links with employment activities both within and outside the House, to focus on the machinery of government and not on the fact that, on a claimant count, unemployment fell to 7.9 per cent. last month.
Mr. Congdon:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in terms of dealing with unemployment and creating more jobs, having the right macro-economic framework in this country is far more important than the organisational structures of government? Have not the Government been uniquely successful in reducing unemployment? Would that not all be put at risk if they were foolish enough to adopt the minimum wage and the social chapter, as the Labour party advocates?
Mrs. Shephard:
The Government have indeed achieved an excellent record in reducing unemployment, and it is the envy of some of our major European competitor economies. As my hon. Friend says, we put that down to the pursuit of strong economic policies, the reduction of inflation and the rejection of a national minimum wage and of the provisions of the social chapter.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
The Opposition Front-Bench team is concerned that the new arrangements for the Select Committee will be insufficient to meet the necessity for thorough investigation of the incompetent Ministers across the Floor from us. An example of that must be the announcement that £500,000-worth of equipment has been lost by the right hon. Lady's Department in the past year while the Health and Safety Executive has managed to lose £800,000 worth of equipment in the past three years. Given the cuts in the budget, has there been an inquiry into those losses at the Department, and have the police been involved to try to find out what is going on? It seems that crime is the only growth industry in employment.
Mrs. Shephard:
The hon. Gentleman has quoted well from what may turn out to be the silliest press release of the year. With regard to his question about the Health and Safety Executive, I refer him to the Department of the Environment. If the hon. Gentleman is so expert in preventing crime and theft from Departments, he should offer his services to Scotland Yard.
Mr. Riddick:
Despite the fact that the Department of Employment has been abolished and merged with the Department for Education, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British people are fully aware of the fact that unemployment in France is 3 million and increasing and unemployment in Germany is 4 million and increasing, while this country compares favourably with unemployment at 2.2 million and decreasing?
Mrs. Shephard:
The Government have a strong record on employment and unemployment, particularly when compared with that of some of our European neighbours. For that reason, the Government have produced a booklet--which they have helpfully sent to all hon. Members--dispelling some of the myths that Labour Members try to convey. Our employment and unemployment records have been widely praised by other major European economies. For that reason, we have had the booklet translated into French and German the better to convey our message.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |