| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Feb 2003 : Column 641—continued
Youth Unemployment
16. Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): What assessment his Department has made of the effect which the new deal has had on youth unemployment. [96333]
The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Since 1997, youth unemployment has fallen by a third and long-term youth unemployment has been cut by three quarters. The new deal has played an important part in this success, helping almost 400,000 young people into jobs and improving the work prospects of many more. Independent research found that the number of young people unemployed for six months or more would be twice as high without the new deal.
In Scotland, the new deal has helped nearly 47,000 young people into work, and in my hon. Friend's constituency, nearly 800 young people have moved into work as a result of the new deal.
Mr. Davidson : Will my right hon. Friend agree that he is a fine man and that this is a fine policy? The impact on my constituency has been entirely beneficial, but does he accept that some youngsters still disappear off the registers and some are extremely difficult to help because of their educational or emotional difficulties? Extra effort should be put into helping such youngsters in constituencies such as mine. Does he not agree that it is about time we had a Jobcentre Plus centre in Glasgow, Pollok?
Mr. Brown: My universal experience in this place shows that a compliment is usually followed by a request. Although it is often polite, it is nevertheless a request. My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case for locating a new Jobcentre Plus outlet in the heart of his constituency, which has above average unemployment. The issue is being examined, and although I cannot make an announcement today, I should be happy to see my hon. Friend if he would like to discuss the matter as we approach making a decision.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given that, his panoply of statistics notwithstanding, the Minister would acknowledge that long-term unemployment among young people remains a significant problem, what proportion of the 1,623 long-term unemployed people who were diagnosed as requiring special assistance for a basic skills deficiency between September 2001 and April 2002 were youngsters? How many have been helped? To what extent has that assistance enabled them to secure continuing, durable employment?
Mr. Brown: Four or five thousand young people in this country could be deemed long-term unemployed. One of the successes of the Government's employment policy is in almost eradicating long-term youth unemployment.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant): Statistically impossible.
Mr. Brown: We have programmes to help those who are hardest to assist. When people have repeated short-term episodes of employment, other factors are usually at work. They include offending, problems with drugs or educational attainment and basic skills. The Government have programmes to help people with all those problems. The Government believe that those who can should work, and the jobs are there for them to be helped into.
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many traditions and conventions pertain in the House. Although many are written down in Standing Orders, many are not. I have noticed that, in the past few years, some of the customs have degraded and hon. Members have lost sight of them. For example, I have seen people move in the line of sight between you, the Minister, and an hon. Member who is asking a question. I have seen some hon. Members reading speeches and others leaving the Chamber without nodding to you. I do not believe that that is meant as a discourtesy to you. However, the large intake of new Members on both sides of the House after the past two general elections means that there has been no opportunity to explain to hon. Members what ought and what ought not to be done in the House. Do you believe that it is now time to produce a guidebook for Members of Parliament, old and new, on how to behave with courtesy in the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: I would not blame new Members. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. At the beginning of the Parliament, I issued to all hon. Members, old and new, guidance on the conventions and courtesies of the House. Perhaps some hon. Members have forgotten the contents of my letter. I therefore intend to issue a revised, expanded version to all hon. Members in the next few weeks. I hope that they will all read its contents with care.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order could hardly be on a graver matter. It concerns the misleading of Parliament and the people. Misleading the House of Commons could not be more serious. I refer to the document, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation." It claims that part two gives up to date details of Iraq's network of intelligence and security organisations whose job is to keep Saddam and his regime in power and to prevent the international community from disarming Iraq.
Surely plagiarising an out of date PhD thesis and presenting it as an official report of the latest British intelligence information reveals a lack of awareness of the disastrous consequences of such deception.
This is not a trivial leak. It is a document that is the basis of whether or not this country goes to war, and whether or not young servicemen and women are to put their own lives at risk and, indeed, put at risk the lives of thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of innocent civilians.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker that there really ought to have been, at the very least, a clarification of what has happened from a senior Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman applied for a debate on this very subject under Standing Order No. 24. I had a feeling that, because I had refused his application, he would raise a point of order on the subject. I do not really appreciate it when, after an application has been refused, the subject is then raised on a point of order. The Father of the House knows as
well as I do that these are matters that he can put to the Prime Minister whenever he catches my eye at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister said whether he intends to make a statement to the House about what he told the House last Monday? He said then
- "As the report we published at the weekend makes clear, and which I placed in the Library of the House, there is a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment designed to prevent the inspectors from doing their job."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 22.]
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Prime Minister has approached me. The answer is no, he has not.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order on the same matter?
Andrew Mackinlay: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Öpik.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): My point of order relates to the forthcoming business. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in their wisdom the Government have once again chosen to schedule a Northern Ireland debate on the Floor of the House at the same time as a debate on a statutory instrument on Northern Ireland matters in the Committee Corridor. I realise that the Government are under some pressure to pass legislation in Parliament during the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it strikes me as inappropriate that they repeatedly organise business that requires Members to be in two places at once. Although fortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) can cover one debate while I cover the other, I—along with others, I think, especially members of Northern Ireland parties—find that we are hindered from scrutinising Government legislation and proposals.
May I ask you to raise the matter through the appropriate channels, Mr. Speaker, and impress on the Government the difficulties they are causing with regard to scrutiny of Government legislation on Northern Ireland? I do not question the amount of legislation that is coming to us, but I do question the timetabling.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the second time in a week that this has happened. Last week we had the coincidence of consideration of a statutory instrument on Northern Ireland and a meeting of the
Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I entered a protest last week at the beginning of proceedings in the Statutory Instrument Committee.It is always possible to suppose that one unfortunate coincidence of that kind is a mistake, but for it to happen twice in a week looks remarkably like a systematic pattern. It looks as though the Government are actually delighted that those who take a professional interest in Northern Ireland will not be able to do their job of giving proper scrutiny to two different legislative proposals, because one will be dealt with in Committee while the other is being dealt with on the Floor of the House.
This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, from the point of view of the people of Northern Ireland and also generally, in the context of the way in which Parliament conducts its business under the rule of the Government's business managers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |