---

Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret that I shall have to write to my noble kinsman on that particular point.

We take the view that we should not encourage, at the expense of the taxpayer, the growth of single households of that sort. The proposed extension will be the subject of consultation with local authorities and the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Government will listen to representations made by the noble Lord and by all interested parties who provide housing in that area. Obviously that will deal with many of the concerns of the noble Earl.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about the effect of the Budget on youth training, and implied that there were further unnecessary cuts. Next year an additional £22 million--that is up 3 per cent.--will be available for the youth training programmes compared with the expected spend this year, rising to an additional £72 million--that is 10 per cent.--by 1999-2000. There will be an extra £128 million over the next three years compared with the forecast spend this year. There are sufficient resources next year for some 248,000 training places compared to about 240,000 this year. That sustains the guarantee of training for young people not in education or employment. The plans also provide for a continuing build-up of modern apprenticeships. That means that by the turn of the century modern apprenticeships will be achieving some 60,000 NVQs at Level 3 each year.

In the final analysis it is our educational system that can do most to equip young people to make their full contributions to society. I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, in that. I would underline to him that that is why we believe it is so important to invest in education. That is exactly what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear we were doing in his Budget Statement yesterday.

27 Nov 1996 : Column 309

We believe that those leaving school who are alienated, illiterate and with little idea of the world of work are unlikely--although there will always be exceptions--to make much contribution to society. They are much more likely, as others would put it, to be taking from society in some of the many ways that were alluded to earlier--through crime, demands on social security, ill-health or general anti-social behaviour. That is why it is so vitally important for the nation that as many young people as possible continue in education and in training.

I am pleased to say that participation rates are still growing. In 1995-96 86 per cent. of 16 year-olds participated in either education or training; the figure for 17 year-olds was 79 per cent.; and for 18 year-olds it was nearly 60 per cent. Almost one-third of young people are now entering full-time higher education compared with 12 per cent. in 1979. The total numbers over the past 17 years have doubled and doubled again. Higher education has changed from being an elite system to a mass one without, dare I say it, a decline in standards.

I noticed with enormous interest--and I do not know whether it is his party's policy--that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, claimed that we are now producing too many graduates. If the noble Earl thinks that, I hope that he will address those particular points to the Dearing Inquiry because I am sure that Sir Ron would be very grateful for his thoughts. But I would remind the noble Earl that even the CBI feels that that level of about one in three 18 year-olds is too low. They recommend a figure of some 40 per cent., a figure that we have already attained in Scotland. I would be very wary of the noble Earl saying that we have too many graduates when it is at that level when many others say that we have a need for more.

I do not accept the allegations of the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about student poverty. The noble Earl will be aware that we published our survey into student incomes only last week. That showed a growth in student incomes over the past few years. It is worth pointing out before the noble Earl interrupts me--which he is about to do--that we have possibly the most generous student support system in the entire world. I invite the noble Earl to ask, say, French students whether they can live away from home when they are away at university, as most English and Scottish students do.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I would like to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought my noble kinsman was about to intervene, which is why I gave way. I do have further points that I would like to run through before I give the noble Earl the opportunity to intervene.

Very briefly, I want to underline the importance that the Government place on education. That is why we have introduced reforms over the last few years to improve choice and diversity and to raise standards. That is why we have given more powers to schools;

27 Nov 1996 : Column 310

that is why we have allowed schools to create more diversity, as stressed by my noble friend Lord Pilkington; that is why we have given greater choice, greater power and greater involvement to parents. That is why we have provided far more information in the schools. That is why we introduced performance tables, and again I am grateful for the words of my noble friend Lord Pilkington who made clear just how useful they have been. That is why we have brought in inspection, and inspection on a very regular basis--roughly once every four years--for all schools. That is why we have introduced the national curriculum.

When one looks at the improved numbers of students going to university, the improved A-Level results, and the improved GCSE results--and it is wrong to undermine the commitment on the students taking those exams--it can be seen that we really have achieved a great deal in that field.

Perhaps I may deal with two particular points on schools which were put to me. First, I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Tope, about the selling off of playing fields. I dealt with that recently at Question Time. However, I must make it clear that we have laid down minimum standards for schools below which they should not go. The Prime Minister has made it clear that schools' needs should be retained; in other words, they must adhere to those regulations. But it would be wrong to lay down an absolute blanket ban on the sale of all playing fields where schools have more than they need. In those circumstances, in the interest of education, it can be for the benefit of either the school itself or the LEA that playing fields should be sold.

Perhaps I may deal briefly with exclusions, and I am talking about exclusion with a small "e" as dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Obviously exclusion from schools is not the answer, but it is important to put the number of exclusions into proper perspective. Ofsted says that the great majority of schools are orderly places. The latest data which we have in the department show the national total of permanent exclusions at some 11,000 in 1994-95 which represents 0.15 per cent. of the schools population. But I believe that schools must have that right to exclude that very small minority of pupils whose behaviour is so severely disruptive. I believe also that it is for the schools to recognise that they have a duty to promote better behaviour and as far as possible to avoid that need for exclusion they should use that power only in the most severe cases.

I appreciate that in the time available I have not been able to cover all the points which have been raised in what has been a very wide-ranging debate. However, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government have instituted a wide range of action designed to enable young people to make a full contribution to society. Had we not, our society would have been the poorer for it.

27 Nov 1996 : Column 311

I should like to conclude on a positive note by praising young people for their involvement in a way that enriches all our lives. As I said at the start, I believe that many play a very significant part and for most the opportunities are greater than they have ever been.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he give specific evidence to support his assertion that Labour-controlled local authorities reduced expenditure on the Scouts for politically correct reasons? In asking that question, I declare an interest as mother of three sons who were members of the Scout movement and as vice-president of that movement in Lancashire.

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness should take care to listen to what I say. I said that some local authorities have done that for what I thought were politically correct reasons. I did not say that it was Labour councils which were doing that, but I dare say that a great many are.

Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene because if they are not Labour-controlled councils, then the Minister must be implying that they are Liberal Democrat councils because there is only one Conservative local education authority left in the country. If he is to make those assertions, he really should be more specific rather than to condemn us all.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I can think of at least two Conservative-controlled LEAs. There is Westminster and Wandsworth and also Bromley. They all have the benefit of receiving children from Labour-controlled areas who have parents on the Front Bench opposite of another place who do not like the schools in their Labour-controlled education authorities.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I wonder what that has to do with grants for the Scout movement. Perhaps the Minister will answer the question which was put to him and will be more specific about those LEAs. I forgot about London, although why I should have done, I do not know. There are at least five Conservative LEAs. I assume that they are not the ones he was talking about. He said that he was not referring specifically to Labour LEAs. Therefore, he must be talking about Liberal Democrat LEAs, which I am certain is not the case. Will the Minister be specific about what he is referring to?

---