---

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman go on to make comparisons between the figures that he has given for this country and the figures for youth unemployment in other European countries, which no doubt some Labour Members--if not he--would hold out as a model? I hope that he will then go on to tell us what impact he thinks that the statutory national minimum wage proposed by the Labour party would have on the very people whom he is identifying as being disadvantaged.

Mr. Davies: The Minister should recognise that the thrust of Labour party policy is in sharp contrast to what he has identified as his priorities. He seems to think that the issue in relation to 16-year-olds may be partially resolved by a small increase in the number of full-time jobs that require no training.

Labour Members say that there are clear solutions to the issues. We cannot have people in jobs without adequate training, and we cannot afford the substantial drop-out rates in education beyond 16. The simple fact--the Minister knows that it is the case--is that, in future, there will not be jobs for young people who have no educational attainments. Unskilled jobs are being swept away, year after year. We cannot conceive of solving the problem of increasing employment prospects if people do not have basic skills. That is why it is so important that we should direct ourselves to providing the necessary opportunities for educating and training our young people.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment, although I have given way several times already.

The Government do not recognise, and have totally ignored, the problem. We cannot ignore that policy inertia any longer. We must offer that group of young people new hope, which of course means improving staying-on rates in education for all our young people. It means

17 May 1996 : Column 1188

reaching out to those who are disaffected and do not participate, and, in particular, it means tackling the social inequalities that still scar our education performance.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. I would not belittle at all the danger of allowing so many young people to emerge from school without any significant qualification, but he should not over-egg the pudding. There is clear evidence--from experience and from figures--that a great many young people, once they have experience of the labour market and its disciplines, come back to take advantage of precisely the type of flexible education and training market that he spoke of at the start of his speech.

Mr. Davies: That was an extremely constructive intervention--the first from a Conservative Member today. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we create a framework in which people can re-enter education and develop opportunities after they have experienced employment. However, we are concentrating on this specific group of people because it is palpable that far too many of them drop out from education at 16. Given their disaffection with the education experience and the Government's limited efforts in the past to encourage them back into education and training, standards are lower than I should like them to be. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins me in realising that.

We must recognise that social inequalities still scar our education performance. To take the most obvious example, the gap has widened in recent years between the staying-on rates of students with the same GCSE results, according to their social background. In recent years, among young people with medium-range results at GCSE--which are five or more passes, but only one to four of those at grades A to C--the gap in staying-on rates has widened from 11 to 17 per cent., according to whether they come from better-off homes or socially deprived homes. We cannot have a situation in which education opportunities and training prospects are leaving people from the most disadvantaged groups further and further behind. If the Minister does not wish to intervene on that point, I shall explain to him precisely what we shall do to tackle the problem. I want him to recognise that the problem exists, and that he did not deal with it at all in his speech.

Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield): Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that his combined proposals to abolish child benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds while simultaneously introducing a national statutory minimum wage will shift the balance of advantage away from full-time education to employment, and therefore widen the gap to which he has referred?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman has not followed recent discussions on the development of Labour party plans in that area to understand how we shall increase resources for that disadvantaged group, he has not been reading newspapers and following the debate with sufficient care, as he should do.

The fact is that if educational attainment at GCSE level is poor, one has far less chance of staying on and gaining decent qualifications if one comes from a lower-income household. The situation is getting worse, which is why

17 May 1996 : Column 1189

the Labour party is directing a great deal of its attention to it. The shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has given particular emphasis to this issue.

Britain cannot meet national targets for education and training on current performance rates. Trends suggest that participation levels will continue to stagnate or even reverse without radical change. One academic commentator stated:

"To reach a standstill nationally in the mid to late 1990s"--

which is the current position--

"will mean falling further behind internationally as other countries continue to improve at a faster rate. The modest improvements which have taken place since 1987 will not produce any real competitive advantage."

I challenge the Minister to respond to that.

Today, the Minister mentioned the catalogue of the Government's achievements in developing skills in our young people, but the fact is that we are not keeping pace with our international competitors.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has challenged me, so on this occasion, I shall happily respond.

I am looking at the Labour party's document, "Labour's New Deal for a Lost Generation: Key Points", which states:

"Our education and training system must ensure 100 per cent. of young people are on the road to a qualification."

I assume that he will explain what that means.

Presumably, the hon. Gentleman will also answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). We are waiting anxiously for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how he will ensure that the differences in achievement between the different social groups that he mentioned a moment ago will somehow magically be eliminated, unless it is by reducing standards and compromising on qualifications to ensure that the people he approves of get qualifications of the type that he thinks are useful. Otherwise, what is the meaning of the expression:

"100 per cent. of young people are on the road to a qualification"?

Mr. Davies: That speaks volumes for the Minister's understanding of the problems that face us all. A large number of young people drop out of full-time education before they should for reasons related to the financial circumstances of their families. If the Minister does not realise that, I do not know which planet he lives on. Local authorities are losing their capacity to provide educational maintenance allowances, and transport support is in danger of collapsing.

I offer the Minister some figures. I am talking about the 16-plus group, not about students in higher education. I shall restrict my statistics to local authority support for the crucial group that we want to stay on in education beyond 16. The value of educational maintenance allowances paid to young people staying on after 16 declined by 20 per cent. between 1993 and 1994. So, owing to Government policies, young people discovered that they had even fewer opportunities to stay on in full-time education.

From time to time, Conservative Back Benchers draw the attention of the House to the parlous state of discretionary awards for young people. There has indeed been a huge decline in such awards in recent years. In

17 May 1996 : Column 1190

1992, they were worth £170 million, but that had declined by last year to £113 million. Yet that is essential support for the group to which we are supposed to attach priority.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman has told the House of his firm view that one of the problems in education and training relates to the difficult financial circumstances of families. I hope, then, that he may be able to enlighten us with his personal view of the suggested removal of child benefit. Surely that would worsen the financial circumstances of the very families about whom he is concerned.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will just contain himself, I shall identify precisely how we intend to increase resources to support those who need to keep their young people in full-time education.

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): The hon. Gentleman has made it very clear that the financial circumstances of the deprived parents who want to keep their children on in school are affected by the amount of cash that their households receive. When the hon. Gentleman comes to advise the House about his party's proposal, will he therefore give a categoric assurance that those families will receive an amount in hard cash equal to, or more than, they get at the moment in child benefit? Will he explain how that will work, and what the sums involved would be? That is crucial if his policy is to retain any credibility at all.

---