|
Rob Marris: It sticks in the mind.
Mr. Francois: It certainly does.
Column Number: 25
The issue was also raised by a number of interested parties in their responses to the original consultation document and to the Bill when it was published. For instance, the Foyer Federation, in a letter written shortly before the draft regulations were produced, stated:
''We believe that the definition of a 'qualifying young person' set out in the Child Benefit Bill should include provision for young people living independently.''
In addition, Barnardo's, in its briefing note, pointed out that young people can sometimes in effect be estranged from their parents even when they are living at home. Its note summed the situation up rather well:
''Many young people will have to continue to pay board from any income of their own regardless of additional family income. There are significant numbers of young people who are not 'estranged' in that they do not live separately from their families or carers, but who may be 'estranged' in terms of their relationships within those families.''
Have the Government considered the possibility, in certain limited circumstances, of paying the benefit directly to qualifying young persons? The Paymaster General may wish to argue that that method of payment does not apply to child benefit, but it would at least be interesting to know the Government's rationale in response to that question, because this is a complex area of legislation and we would like to tease out the Government's thinking. I could say more, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has to leave in a little while and is keen to hear the Paymaster General's reply, so I shall curtail my remarks at this point.
Dawn Primarolo: When we started considering the Bill this afternoon, I erroneously thought that the hon. Members for Chichester and for Yeovil would engage in a debate. I realise that the hon. Member for Chichester had a long morning on another Bill today, and he must have decided to return to election mode. It is a shame that he does not direct his comments more to the Bill and the consultation than to the points that he might like to make in press releases. Let us be clear and go through the position slowly so that he understands exactly what it is.
There are no plans to means-test child benefit. On 31 May 2001 the Chancellor stated:
''Millions of families can be absolutely reassured that not only will child benefit not be taxed it will remain universal, but in the [next] parliament it will rise in line with prices.''
Every single promise has been kept. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to issue a challenge on child benefit. His Government made several attempts to undermine it and to take it into means-testing, which it was for the purposes of income support. We broke that link. They froze it for three years and reduced its value whereas we have increased it by 20 per cent. and rising.
The point about the consultation, which again did not fit with the political point that he or the hon. Member for Yeovil wanted to make, is how one defines independence. The consultation also deals with income and hours and will be reported on in the Budget. At what point is a young person independent and when are they still dependent on their carers or their parents? That is the point of the Bill, not the
Column Number: 26
mischief that the Opposition are trying to get up to with regard to child benefit. I hope that finally puts that issue to rest. The hon. Member for Chichester can squirm and try to get round this as much as he likes, but he is not doing any service to what is in the reports and the serious question of financial independence for 16 to 19-year-olds that those outside the House have asked us to address as parliamentarians.
The hon. Member for Yeovil, with a little bit of a sting in the tail, comes back to the 80,000 unwaged trainees. Whether he has me in front of him or a Department for Education and Skills Minister, he will get the same reply. There are no figures for unwaged trainees outside the Government schemes because they are small groups and there is at present no central mechanism for collecting information about training, who delivers it and what is going on the voluntary sector. There is nothing devious here. It is a fact of life. If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about it, I do not know why he did not raise this before instead or waiting for this Bill.
We then come to the alleged missing millions. First, the hon. Member for Rayleigh is talking about under-25s not 16 to 19-year-olds. Let us give him some facts that compare with the performance of his Government. The United Kingdom has the lowest youth unemployment rate at 11.8 per cent of any major European country apart from Germany, which has a rate of 9.9 per cent. The figure of 1 million is misleading because it considers only full-time education in total. Over 90 per cent. of 16 to 17-year-olds and nearly 90 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds are in education, training or employment.
4 pm
The real measure of the Government's success is the impact on long-term youth unemployment, which we inherited from his Administration in 1997. In October 2004, only 38,600 18 to 25-year-olds were, regrettably, claiming the jobseeker's allowance for more than six months compared with 163,300 in the spring of 1997 under the Conservative Government. There are now just over 6,300 18 to 25-year-olds who have been claiming the JSA for more than 12 months, compared with nearly 40,000 18 to 25-year-olds in Germany claiming the equivalent for more than 12 months. On that basis, the Government are making steady progress all the time.
The hon. Gentleman touches on what is commonly known as the NEET group, consisting of the most vulnerable. If he cares to read the financial review for 16 to 19-year-olds, he will see the complexity of the challenges of dealing with those vulnerable men and women and the steps that the Government are taking to deliver, jointly across a number of Departments. Instead of trying to pretend that the Bill does it all, or that they can see some devious move ahead by this Government, Opposition Members should look at what is before them in the context of the wider picture and go back to where they started, which was to agree with the Bill and work with the Government to take it forward.
Column Number: 27
Mr. Tyrie: I only intend to make one brief response, which is that the Paymaster General has gone into hyper-election mode, accusing Opposition Members of being devious. She really just needs to read the words of her own document, which she clearly did not do before it was published. It refers to:
''Support paid to the family, dependent on household income with threshold applied to young person's income.''
Any reasonable person reading that would conclude that, somewhere or other, some means-testing is going on. That is all I referred to; the Paymaster General said that sounds like electioneering. It sounds to me like means-testing, and it will sound like means-testing to any reasonable person. She has now given us a categorical, cast-iron assurance, but it still leaves on the record her longer-term policy, which appears to point in a different direction.
Mr. Francois: We appear to have had a more lively debate this afternoon than we had anticipated, which is healthy. Will the Paymaster General respond to the point I made during the clause stand part debate, when I asked her about whether consideration had been given in principle to paying child benefit, in certain circumstances, directly to the young persons involved, where there may be some problem? I do not think she covered that, and I should be grateful if she could.
Dawn Primarolo: Yes, this was raised by Centrepoint, and it was considered to be completely inappropriate. Child benefit is not designed for that reason, or for the reasons given by hon. Gentlemen. It proved to be impossible. The primary legislation states that child benefit is paid to a parent or carer, not to the child, so there is no way that that could be ordered. After careful reflection and discussion with Centrepoint, it was agreed that we should proceed on the question of financial independence, and whether there were other methods of achieving it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Persons for whom child benefit may be claimed: Northern Ireland
Amendment made: No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, after '16', insert 'or'.—[Rob Marris.]
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
<<28>>Clause 6
Commencement
Mr. Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 6, page 2, line 37, leave out '2006' and insert '2005'.
As I indicated earlier, I shall touch on something the Paymaster General said about announcements that may be forthcoming in the Budget. The associated draft regulations that accompany the Bill do not specify under the heading ''Siting: Commencement and Effect'' the date on which the regulations shall come into force. That is left blank. The regulations state that they shall have effect on and after 10 April 2006.
The amendment would bring the Bill's provisions into effect at the start of the forthcoming financial year—in April 2005, as opposed to April 2006. It is an attempt to probe the Government's thinking on the timing of the Bill and some of the related elements that were mentioned on Second Reading. The Government have been working for some time on a changed suite of financial support for young people. Part of their rationale for doing so is the complexity of the current system, which was almost universally accepted on all sides of the House on Second Reading. That is not a point of contention.
One issue here is the progress made by the Government on the rest of their proposed changes. During the winding-up speeches on Second Reading, I pressed the Economic Secretary on whether we could expect a more definitive announcement in the 2005 Budget. He did not appear able to answer my question and rather glossed over it, so we intimated to the Government that we were likely to press the matter further in Committee. I am grateful to the Paymaster General that the Government have taken some notice of the fact that we wanted to concentrate on this point. She has come up with an announcement that we can expect further news on all those subjects in the Budget for 2005, so we look forward to that in due course.
I appreciate that the Paymaster General will not want to pre-empt the Budget announcements entirely, but it would be helpful if she could give us an intimation of whether we can expect some further incremental announcement in the Budget, or if we are likely then to receive the complete package, as it were. There was some mention on Second Reading of a White Paper, unless I am mistaken. Perhaps the Paymaster General will confirm whether a White Paper on these matters is likely to be issued with the Budget, even if she is not able, for obvious reasons—although it would be lovely if she could—to tell us this afternoon what exactly that White Paper is likely to contain.
In addition, if the Government's intention in the Bill—which, I reiterate, is meant to be an interim measure—is to correct an anomaly, why is it that the changes are not to be introduced as soon as practicable, at the start of this financial year? We appear to be in the curious position of trying to rush a Bill through the House—we are certainly not taking it in slow time—only to wait more than a year for its
Column Number: 29
provisions to come into force. It would be helpful to have some explanation from the Government of why they are pursuing their course of action at such a pace. There may be some who wonder whether there is an electoral reason for all this. Over the next few months, people will be looking for electoral motivations in all sorts of Government announcements. Will the Paymaster General tell us whether there is some other rationale for what the Government want to do?
| 
