---

Unemployment Statistics

5. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the effect of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance claimants on the unemployment figures since October 1996. [11730]

Mr. Forth: Unemployment is falling primarily because more jobs are being created by enterprise and business in an environment created by the Government. The jobseeker's allowance will help unemployed people to find work and get better value for money for the taxpayer.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is hardly anyone in Britain, apart from the Tory bunch opposite, who does not realise that the jobseeker's allowance is another one of the many fiddles--there have been about 30 in all--used by the Government to kid people that there are only 1.8 million people out of work? The truth, as the News of the World reported on 17 November, is that 4.1 million people are out of work.

However, I can tell the Minister that good times are coming: I have just left a meeting of the Labour party national executive committee and we have decided to keep the jobseeker's allowance just long enough to clear the Tories out of office and make them stand in line--unless they moonlight--so that they will know how it feels to have to queue up to receive the paltry amount of money that the Tory Government offers. After that, we shall abolish the jobseeker's allowance.

Mr. Forth: I assume from the hon. Gentleman's comments, while he still has a meaningful voice on the national executive committee--

Mr. Skinner: Consultations are still taking place.

Mr. Forth: The House eagerly awaits a statement from the hon. Gentleman about what occurred in the national executive committee today. Perhaps he will catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I assume from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that, were there to be a Labour Government, one of its first actions would be to declare that there are more than 4 million people out of work. That would be an interesting proposition. That is the logic behind the hon. Gentleman's comments.

The fact is that the Labour party believes what the International Labour Organisation and the European Commission have signed up to, which is that the labour force survey shows that about 2 million people in this

29 Jan 1997 : Column 347

country are out of work. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take that issue up with his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench: I will leave them to sort it out among themselves.

The jobseeker's allowance is a genuine attempt to ensure that unemployed people who expect support from the taxpayer through benefits are available for and actively seeking work. If they are, they will have the full support of the Employment Service. I am delighted to say that, as a result of that measure, unemployment continues to fall.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that getting rid of a helpful allowance is an interesting proposition which would bring back the winter of discontent and the good time that we all enjoyed under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Most hon. Members remember very clearly what happened under the Labour Government--that is to say, the winter of discontent. It will be interesting to hear what the Labour party says in the next few weeks and months about its commitments on trade union and industrial relations law and on the jobseeker's allowance. That will be a key test of Labour's proposals. I await a statement from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to clarify the position.

Mr. Pearson: Is the Minister aware of the widespread dismay felt by jobseekers in the west midlands at recent reports that half of manufacturing companies are experiencing recruitment difficulties while those jobseekers have not had even the merest sniff of a job? Why does not the Government scrap crap schemes--[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]--such as project work and provide real assistance to people who are out of work?

Mr. Forth: That was obviously an example of new Labour, new language. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is in close collusion with his hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who are constantly telling us about literacy and higher educational standards. If what he has just said is an example of their drive for higher standards, it does not bode well for the future.

Education Funding (Lancashire)

6. Mr. Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received from Lancashire county council about education funding. [11731]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Lancashire county council has recently made a number of representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about education funding. I met representatives of Lancashire county council's education committee on 20 November last year to discuss funding for education in Lancashire.

Mr. Atkins: Is it the case that Lancashire county council received a 3.8 per cent. increase this year on top of a 5.5 per cent. increase last year and earlier increases, largely as a result of pressure from the county's

29 Jan 1997 : Column 348

Conservative Members of Parliament? Does not the Labour county councillors' whingeing for more money fly in the face of the oft-repeated statements by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor that there will no more money for local councils under a Labour Government? Should not Lancashire county council's Labour-controlled education committee rearrange its priorities so that it puts our schoolchildren before its dogma?

Mr. Squire: My right hon. Friend is right in every respect. I congratulate him and my hon. Friends in Lancashire on the representations that they have made to the Government on education funding. He is also right to point out that, in the past two years alone, Lancashire has received increases of some £45 million in its education standard spending assessment. It is now up to the council, given its total resources, to determine its priorities. I hope that, like the Government, it will put education first.

Mr. Pickthall: Will the Minister confirm that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, from 1992-93 to 1996-97--which is a realistic period to take--the weighted increase in primary and secondary standard spending assessments per pupil in Lancashire was 3.7 per cent., while during the same period cumulative inflation in the education budget was 13.3 per cent., so that under the Government Lancashire has had to wrestle with a reduction of 10 per cent. in its schools budget? To fill that gap, it has had to rip all its non-statutory education obligations to bits. Will the Minister advise the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) to talk to the treasurer's department in Lancashire, which will gladly provide him with those figures and a lot more besides?

Mr. Squire: I certainly will not confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures without notice, but if he wants confirmation from me, he need only table an appropriate written question. As for the wider issue, he clearly overlooks the fact that, throughout the period that he mentioned, and for many years before that, the county council has been responsible for determining its priorities. Nothing in the sums given by the Government requires it to make the cuts in primary expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Primary School Funding (Cheshire)

7. Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on primary school funding in Cheshire. [11732]

Mr. Robin Squire: Cheshire's provisional standard spending assessment per primary school pupil in 1997-98 is £1,976. That is £73 per pupil, or 3.8 per cent. more than this year. Now it is up to the authority to ensure that the increase in spending power that we are providing reaches the schools.

Mrs. Winterton: Given that we are spending more per pupil than ever before, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Cheshire county council has increased spending on primary education and is now halfway up the shire county league table rather than bumping along at the bottom, as it was under the last Labour administration at county hall? Will he now implement the recommendations of the area

29 Jan 1997 : Column 349

cost adjustment review--notwithstanding the opposition of the four local government associations, which are dominated by Labour and Liberal administrations--so as to ensure that both primary and secondary schools in my constituency of Congleton receive further fully justified additional finance?

Mr. Squire: I congratulate Cheshire local education authority, under its Conservative chairmanship, on giving education higher priority. As for the review of the area cost adjustment, my hon. Friend will be aware that we decided not to implement the recommendations in 1997-1998 essentially because more work needs to be done on the review team's findings. My hon. Friend is also aware--she referred to it in her question--that, when we consulted the four local authority associations, not one of them wanted the review to be implemented in the coming year.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that Cheshire primary schools now have real problems because of consistent underfunding of the county? That has not just happened; it has been the case for a long time. Moreover, the imposition of the voucher scheme has considerable implications for both primary and nursery school places. Will the Minister now admit that his education policies are failing the children of Cheshire?

Mr. Squire: On the contrary--to cite, in particular, the policy to which the hon. Lady adverted, far from damaging education in Cheshire, the nursery voucher scheme gives Cheshire and every local education authority an opportunity to enhance current pre-school provision. In the hon. Lady's constituency, more vouchers will shortly be going out than there are currently places for four-year-olds. That will provide an opportunity for her local education authority, along with all the others, to play a part in the expansion.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: In connection with education funding in Cheshire, some of us are becoming tired of the continual argument between local authorities and Government about education spending--I certainly am. Does my hon. Friend accept that some hon. Members still believe that education funding should be taken out of local government altogether?

Mr. Squire: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. It would clearly reduce the number of questions that I have to answer, so I can see an advantage there.

As my hon. Friend knows, thanks to his wide and long experience in education, there will always be discussions between Government and local authorities. We have a national system that seeks to distribute funds fairly throughout all authorities. Most important, since taking office the Government have increased funds per pupil in all our schools by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms. That is a tremendous achievement, of which I may need to remind Opposition Members continually.

---