---

Young People (Opportunities)

8. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce measures to improve educational, training and employment opportunities for young people. [11733]

29 Jan 1997 : Column 350

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Our White Paper, "Learning to Compete", the first ever on policies for the 14 to 19 age group, sets out a coherent approach to maximise the potential of young people and their readiness for work.

Mr. Canavan: Is it not one of the great national scandals of our time that about a third of unemployed people are under 25? Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that this Tory Government offer no hope to those young people, who need the election of a Labour Government committed to using a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to provide real training opportunities and real jobs for 250,000 unemployed young people, whom the Government have deprived of the right to work?

Mr. Paice: The statistics with which the hon. Gentleman started his question are spurious. The proportion of young people who are unemployed is considerably lower than the figure that he gave. The figure that he and his colleagues continually quote includes a substantial number of full-time students who may be looking for a part-time job, but no one in any other country or in any walk of life other than that of a Labour politician would classify them as unemployed. Those are labour force survey statistics.

I am sure that we are all delighted to hear that the Labour party is at least sticking to its policy on the windfall tax, but the number of items that the tax is apparently going to pay for is amazing. Labour has clearly costed all the items that the tax will pay for, but it is unable to tell us how much it will be and who will pay it.

Sir David Madel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as long as standards go on rising in schools, the Government will continue to support the expansion of university education?

Mr. Paice: Clearly, we want standards to go on rising in schools and, as my hon. Friend says, our policies are achieving that. As he knows, we have asked Sir Ron Dearing to undertake a full study into all aspects of the future of higher education and, clearly, its expansion is one of the points that he will address.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that there may be an opportunity for more firms throughout the nation to follow the example of a firm in my constituency, which brings in school children one day a week, employs them during holidays and pays them a reasonable wage? As a result, the children are trained in work skills in a real situation and are prepared to take jobs in that industry. Does that not help in relation to their training and opportunities?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is precisely the sort of arrangement that we envisage in part of the White Paper to which I have referred. Building links between individual businesses and their local schools enables young people to grow up and obtain the traditional academic skills from school while learning the essential skills that will equip them for work.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that youth unemployment in Britain is one of the lowest in the

29 Jan 1997 : Column 351

European Union, entirely as a result of the Government's policies, but that that would be undermined by the Labour party's proposals? Did my hon. Friend see last weekend's interesting interview that Mr. John Humphrys conducted with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Labour party spokesman, who made the astonishing claim that paternity leave as proposed by the Labour party would not cost anything because it would be unpaid? Does my hon. Friend agree that that astonishing economic illiteracy shows the bankruptcy of all the Opposition's plans?

Mr. Paice: I am afraid that I did not see the interview to which my hon. Friend refers--I try to avoid such nightmares--but I am not a bit surprised by the economic illiteracy that was apparently demonstrated. It is clear that many policies under the heading of European Union social policies, which the Government have resisted, but to which the Labour party is apparently committed, would destroy jobs and would cause youth unemployment to rise rather than continue to fall.

Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that Calderdale council, with all-party support, has twice tried to get a regeneration bid for Ovenden based mainly on employment and training? As Ovenden in my constituency is an area of high unemployment, will the Minister lend his weight to the next bid?

Mr. Paice: As I am sure the hon. Lady realises, no Minister can commit himself to supporting a bid that has not materialised. Obviously, I am interested in what she says, but she will appreciate that there are many competitive bids for single regeneration moneys. They are judged at regional level and on merit. Without further knowledge of the case, I cannot say more.

Mr. Garnier: Has the Department studied the likely effect of the removal of child benefit for over- 16-year-olds on educational, training and employment opportunities?

Mr. Paice: I do not think that it takes a great deal of research to realise that the confiscation of more than £1,000 per family in respect of an offspring who is about to study for A-levels or enter post-16 education is bound to have a deterrent effect on the future of further education and the achievement of qualifications. It is confiscation--there is no other word for it. That is Labour's proposition, and it sits ill with the party's proposals to help young people to get into work.

Mr. Blunkett: That, of course, is not our policy at all. Did the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) constitute the Government's response to the heartfelt appeal by the Rev. David Shepherd, the Bishop of Liverpool, earlier this week in relation to unemployment and the despair and feelings of the quarter of a million young men and women under the age of 25 who have been out of education or employment for more than six months? Will he confirm that the use of our proposed windfall tax to put them back into work would not only give them hope of being able to earn their living and create families, but would give their younger brothers and sisters hope that,

29 Jan 1997 : Column 352

if they work at school they too will not be alienated and disaffected by being set aside by the Government and society?

Mr. Paice: It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman speaks of about 245,000 young people being out of work, whereas the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that it was somehow a third of 1.8 million.

Mr. Canavan: The total is 600,000 under 25.

Mr. Paice: I think that I detect a split coming on.

Of course we do not want young people to be out of work, but for the hon. Gentleman to use hyperbole undermines not only our efforts but the truth. The vast majority of young people who are out of work have had many jobs. They go in and out of work quite frequently: that is in the nature of being young. There is a hard core of young people for whom the education service has not fulfilled its obligations, and they find it difficult to break into the world of work.

We do not want such a hard core, and that is why we announced in the White Paper the relaunch strategy, which will bring together many good schemes that are already on the ground and encourage more. That will reach out to these people, many of whom have lost contact with what is going on in society and will bring them back into the world of work. By using hype and hysteria, the hon. Gentleman is devaluing the work that thousands of good people are doing to address this issue.

Primary School Funding (Staffordshire)

9. Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per primary school pupil in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figure was in 1978-79, at constant prices. [11734]

Mr. Robin Squire: In 1994-95, the latest year for which data are available, Staffordshire spent £1,645 per pre-primary and primary pupil, in 1996-97 prices. In 1978-79, the equivalent figure was £1,240.

Sir David Knox: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although expenditure per primary school pupil in Staffordshire is lower than the national average, there has nevertheless been a very significant increase in expenditure under this Government, whereas there was a real-terms reduction in expenditure under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, who has been a Member of Parliament for many years, well remembers events under that Labour Government, and he is absolutely right. One can reach only one conclusion if one compares the Government's dedication to funding education and commitment to higher standards with our predecessor's: do not trust another Labour Government.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister realise that primary schools in Staffordshire could be assisted greatly if the £2 million of taxpayers' money that is being paid under

29 Jan 1997 : Column 353

the assisted places scheme to the St. Joseph's school and the Newcastle-under-Lyme school were redistributed to provide 100 more primary school teachers?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman repeats Labour's pledge--some would call it vandalism--to abolish assisted places. However, he has not repeated the fact that, in the first year, abolition of the scheme would save under £5 million. As he knows--because it has been reiterated by Labour spokesmen--that £5 million is somehow supposed to produce class sizes of no more than 30, whereas the minimum cost of doing so would be between £150 million and £180 million. It does not add up, and it is a deceit on parents across the country.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the case that the Government provide more money per pupil than ever before in the nation's history, and that the reason why results are not as good as they should be is half-baked 1960s teaching methods, which still find favour with so many left-wing authorities, and waste of taxpayers' money by those very authorities?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is completely right about the highest-ever sums being spent on education. On standards, whether we are considering examination results or unauthorised absences from school, time and again Labour-controlled authorities are at the bottom of every table. Far from providing an answer on how to raise standards in our schools, Labour demonstrates by its actions that it has no idea what standards in school really mean.

---