| 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 Opportunities
1. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to extend training opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds. [29089]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): The Department will continue to offer and support a wide range of opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds, including specialist provision for those requiring basic skills training.
Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that that is the one group for whom unemployment has risen in the past few years? What does he have to say to young people in my constituency, where long-term unemployment has risen by a staggering 64 per cent? Is it not the case that they really are the lost generation, whose hopes and aspirations will never be achieved under this Government because, for them, it is still hurting and they are still not working?
Mr. Paice: I congratulate the hon. Lady on being able to read--obviously education does work for some. We are used to the Opposition twisting statistics, but it is relatively unusual to present statistics that are downright untrue. That age group has enjoyed a 10 per cent. fall in unemployment in the past 12 months, and a drop of 36 per cent. since the peak. It is an important group. That is why the Government give it special priority and access to our training programmes. Incidentally, the hon. Lady might like to take the matter up with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who criticised the Government only this February for giving that group priority.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that unemployment among 18 to 25-year-olds would be adversely affected by the introduction of the national minimum wage? Does he also agree that the problems of that group have been exacerbated by the failure of our education system, sometimes, to send them from school with the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic and that that problem was created by the late and unlamented Inner London education authority?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, where it exists--we must never ignore the fact that young people are still looking for work, and we are trying to help them--much of that unemployment stems from a lack of adequate education. That is why the Government have carried out many reforms, which my hon. Friend has rightly supported, and it is why we are carrying out further reforms as a result of the Dearing report to ensure that all those young people have access to the right education, through compulsory schooling and beyond, to equip them for the workplace.
Mr. Byers: The Minister speaks of figures. Is he aware that one in four of 18 to 24-year-olds in his constituency is out of work? Does he agree that special measures are needed to help that age group because the training needs of 20-year-olds differ from those of 40-year-olds? When will action replace neglect? Is not it time that the Government brought hope to the lost generation of young people by providing them with the training opportunities that they need to improve their prospects of finding employment?
Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman represents the lost generation of Labour Members who will never be Ministers. The training for work programme is flexible enough to respond to the needs of individuals. It is not a question of laying something down for 40-year-olds or for 20-year-olds; it is a flexible programme that can be adapted by the training provider to meet an individual's needs. If the hon. Gentleman cares about this age group, how can he support policies such as the minimum wage, the social chapter and the withdrawal of child benefit, all of which would destroy opportunities for advancement?
Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than 100 18 to 24-year-olds in my constituency would lose their jobs if the Government were to adopt a national minimum wage and we were to suffer the same level of youth unemployment as France--28 per cent? Even more young people would lose their jobs if we suffered the same level of youth unemployment--38 per cent.--as Spain, which also has a minimum wage. How many training for work, youth training and modern apprenticeship places have been provided by the Government for the coming year?
Mr. Paice: About 250,000 youth training places will be provided in the coming year and 60,000-odd modern apprenticeships will be available. My hon. Friend is right; we need to consider the impact of the minimum wage not only in our constituencies but in those countries where one is practised. That is what is so staggering about Labour's policy. It knows what is happening in other European countries, and wants to copy their policies despite the fact that they would lead to far worse unemployment.
Nursery Voucher Scheme
2. Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received about the nursery voucher scheme. [29092]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): There have been a number of representations on all aspects of the nursery education voucher scheme.
Ms Quin: Has the Minister had time to study the debate in the other place earlier this week in which, apart from the Minister, there was universal condemnation of the nursery voucher scheme? Is he aware that, in the Secretary of State's county, the scheme is described as "excessively bureaucratic"? Given the universal hostility to it, is it not time for a major Government rethink of nursery education provision?
Mr. Squire: I look forward to reading the account of the debate in the other place. I always listen with care to what their Lordships say. When the hon. Lady refers to Norfolk, the county of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, she must recognise that the take-up of vouchers is now 96 per cent, which suggests that her allegations about bureaucracy are overstated. We are witnessing in phase 1, and in due course will see with the second phase across the country, an increase in the number of quality places. That should be good news for everyone.
Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend accept that much misinformation is circulating about nursery vouchers? No doubt we shall hear some of it in later questions. Will he confirm that nursery vouchers will not damage existing local education authority provision, nursery education provision for three-year-olds or existing admission arrangements?
Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will remember that I have sought, in my modest way, to make public some of the myths and misconceptions that have been spread, especially by the Labour party. To take up two of his points, there is no reason why the education of three-year-olds should be affected. They are not covered by a deduction of local authority funding. Secondly, local authorities remain free to continue to spend, as most of them do, above the level of the voucher value because that money also is not affected.
Mrs. Mahon: Whatever happened to choice? Has the Minister received representations from head teachers, teachers, parents, school governors and just about everyone involved in education, including Conservative councillors, in Halifax who want the right to keep their own, excellent, nursery education? Why do not they have the right to choose?
Mr. Squire: It is surprising that the hon. Lady delivered her question without a trace of a smile, because it is quintessentially the existence of the voucher, which she and her hon. Friends object to, that is creating choice. Any parent, whether in her local authority area or others, who is satisfied with present local authority provision has simply to ensure that they take up that provision when the child is four. The voucher ensures that there will be greater choice throughout the country, and that, as I said a moment ago, should be good news. If the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends would listen to what is happening, they would be better informed.
General Certificate of Secondary Education Examinations
3. Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the benefits of GCSE examinations and of their future. [29094]
Mr. Paice: Since its introduction in 1988, the GCSE has been successful in raising the levels of performance and attainment of pupils of all abilities. The Government are committed to the GCSE as the principal means of assessing pupils at the age of 16.
Mr. Booth: May I inform my hon. Friend that the question on the Order Paper was drafted by the customers of the education system--some children in one of the most excellent schools in north London?
As a result of the main question, and what I am about to ask, will my hon. Friend accept that Conservative policy for the GCSE is soundly based on an excellent curriculum and on a desire to train children and prepare them for life, whereas the policies of the Labour party are divided and dither over the curriculum and the GCSE? Neither attitude would prepare children for anything.
Mr. Paice:
My hon. Friend is right to identify the question as coming from the most important group of people--the customers, the young people who are undergoing our education system--and to demonstrate the Labour party's U-turns on education policy during the past few years. Labour Members have opposed every reform that we have introduced but, ultimately, they begin to welcome some. Labour Members criticise us for the poor results in tables. If they had had their way, we would not even have had those tables, from which we can work out the improvement that needs to be made.
Mr. Barry Jones:
Why are there no jobs for our school leavers?
Mr. Paice:
How dreary. The reality, as I said a few minutes ago, is that unemployment among young people has fallen substantially--by 10 per cent. in the past year and by 36 per cent. since the peak. There are more and more jobs for young people. What really matters is what Labour would put in the way of those jobs. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long while, and still he espouses policies that would destroy jobs for young people.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |