Social Security Benefit Rights

HC Deb 07 July 1994 vol 246 cc513-52

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

7.27 pm

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

I beg to move, That this House would fully restore social security benefit rights to all 16 and 17 year olds. I was slightly surprised this afternoon when a message was received in our office which suggested that I speak as long as I like because there would be a dearth of other contributors to the subject. That reflects seriously on aspects of the policies of the other Opposition parties and on Government policy, because the issue is serious and affects many young people and families throughout of the United Kingdom.

I attach great importance to this aspect of social security legislation. It would not be amiss to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when you and I were 16 or 17 years old, we were living in the 1960s, when it seemed to young people that the world was their oyster. There were job opportunities in abundance and many of us, irrespective of background, could go to university, further or higher education, guaranteed a full student grant, and could find summer jobs with ease to eke out that grant. Those were very opportune times for many of us.

I am deeply concerned about what is happening to young people throughout the United Kingdom today. Our young people should be filled with optimism and idealism. But instead we seem to have a society where many of our youngsters feel that they are in a dead-end. They feel alienated from the democratic process and downtrodden, and the world no longer seems to be the oyster which we envisaged in the 1960s. It now appears to be a shark—often a loan shark.

In moving the motion, I shall quote several figures which I think are of relevance. [Interruption.] I note that there is an element of disrespect from the Government Whips and others on the Treasury Bench, but these are serious figures which should be taken into account.

Figures drawn up by Shelter, for example, show that one in four of Scotland's unemployed is between the ages of 16 and 25. Training allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds have not been uprated since 1989. In September 1992, a careers service survey showed that only one training place for every 26 young people was available if they were registered with that service, although I am sure that the Minister will argue about the importance that is attached to training schemes.

I shall quote from the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said: The YT guarantee is not being delivered in full and, without such a guarantee, the absence of a right to continuing entitlement to Income Support can leave vulnerable young people with no visible legal means of support… If the general exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from Income Support were removed, those in genuine need would be able to access Income Support quickly in the normal way. The reality is, of course, that those young people cannot access income support in the normal way. Forty-five per cent. of young people staying in emergency accommodation had previously slept rough. [Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would listen to the statistics. He is busy talking to somebody else, but I wish he would listen because the statistics are important and merit the attention of the House and of hon. Members who are present.

My colleagues from Plaid Cymru have spoken on the issue of homelessness. That is a very serious issue, because if people have neither a job nor a home, what kind of hope is there for them? Last year, 14,000 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland were out of employment, and it was estimated that 75 per cent. of them had no income whatsoever.

Throughout Britain, 122,500 16 and 17-year-olds were defined as jobless and, of those, 90,400 had no source of income. The reality is that 75 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds who are out of work have no source of income. They have no opportunity in society to find themselves a home or a job, and they have no income whatsoever. I suggest that the Government are driving them into despair.

In 1988, the Government removed the benefit from young people. No doubt the Minister's response—which has been presumably written for him in a departmental brief—will emphasise that income support is available in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside)

Hear, hear.

Mrs. Ewing

I notice the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside's comment. No doubt he is, as always, looking for promotion within the Government. May I remind him of those exceptional circumstances?

A 16 or 17-year-old might have access to income support if he is a parent, in physical or moral danger or if he is handicapped. That covers a small percentage of the number of people we are talking about and, of course, the bureaucracy ensures that many of the people who might be eligible in those circumstances do not apply. We will never know how many people do not apply for income support in exceptional circumstances; nor will we know the numbers who have been rejected.

No doubt the Minister will talk about the severe hardship allowance as a safety net established by the Government. Originally that was introduced as a stop-gap measure for young people, but it has now become a mainstay provision. In the first 12 months of the existence of the severe hardship allowance, 10,669 successful applications were recorded.

Let me remind the House of the mechanisms that young people have to go through to be succesful. A young person who wants to make a claim for income support under the severe hardship provision must register at the careers office and take his proof of registration to the unemployment benefit office. The unemployment benefit office will then issue the young person with a form to take to the local Benefits Agency office, where he will be interviewed. There are three offices through which any young person seeking that mechanism of support must pass.

In the four years since then, the numbers have increased sevenfold. That is an indication of the crisis that exists. I also link that with the issue of homelessness, because that is a major aspect of the problems that young people face.

The Scottish Council for Homelessness says clearly that one of the greatest problems that young people face is homelessness. It argues that we need to restore the claim to income support to 16 and 17-year-olds and ensure a single rate of income support for all those who are living independently, regardless of age.

Much has been made of the cardboard cities and the homeless in London, but it happens in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Stirling and any town within Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. What kind of life are we holding out to those young people? The attitude struck by the Government comes close to being criminal.

It will be interesting to learn what other hon. Members say in the debate, and there is a moral issue at stake for all of us as legislators. I started by saying that when you and I were 16 or 17, Madam Deputy Speaker, the world seemed to be full of opportunities. For many people now, the world is not full of opportunities. Young people throughout the United Kingdom are left in desperation, despair and hopelessness.

We have costed in our budget what it would cost to restore benefits to young people in Scotland, and we reckon it would cost £23 million. I believe that that would be £23 million well spent. It would enable young people to have dignity and the decency of an independent life.

I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who sit on the Opposition Benches: what exactly is the Labour party saying to 16 and 17-year-olds? Much play was made during the European elections of the Prime Minister's attack on beggars, people sleeping rough and people who have not had any other opportunity in life.

Yet when the Labour party was asked about what it would do, there were four different replies in one day. The acting leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), confused the issue when she said that there must be "good quality training" and "some assistance", but she refused to say what form that would take. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) intervened, saying on Radio 4's "World At One" programme: If more money is required that will have to be considered… The major point is that we are not going to be passive and simply criticise the results of present policy. But no indication was given of what position the hon. Gentleman would adopt as shadow Secretary for Social Security on that issue.

Labour's Treasury Spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that the Labour party would announce detailed plans "nearer the time" of a Labour Government. That, perhaps, was very optimistic from her point of view, because whether there will be a Labour Government is for the people to decide.

The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said: 'The benefits to the young, in particular, equalled the benefits in most of Europe. Yet the reality is that 16 and 17-year-olds in the U.K. do not have equality with their counterparts in Europe. Not only the Government but the official Opposition face the challenge of reviewing their policies towards 16 and 17-year-olds. The Opposition must come clean tonight on their policy. My party has made it clear that it will reinstate the benefit; we have costed it and it is within our budget. It is an important aspect of our policy.

There is an element within the House that does not understand the strength of feeling and passion within our communities about young people. Many hon. Members, particularly from Scottish constituencies, spent the past few weeks campaigning in the Monklands, East by-election. People regularly said on their doorsteps that they were deeply concerned about what was happening to youngsters in our society. From time to time, we talk about the problems of drugs, crime and deprivation, yet it is in our hands to ensure that money is made available to young people to ensure that they do not fall into those traps.

We must make clear our commitments, because principled guidance exists in our politics. I find it strange when I pick up The Herald and find that it carries the headline Blair accuses Tories of stealing Labour policies The newspaper reported: Tony Blair yesterday accused the Conservatives of getting ready to steal some of his party's clothes on employment and social policies. On the same page, under the headline Lang cautions against 'one more right turn' the newspaper reported: In fending off the challenges of a revitalised Labour party, which he accused of stealing Conservative policies in their quest for office, the Conservative party had to deal with voters wanting change. It seems weird to me that one party, the official Opposition, is accusing the Government of stealing their policies while the Government are accusing the other party of stealing their policies. Do we intend to address the issues that confront our society or are we just going to sit back and let 16 and 17-year-olds become the victims of unionist policies? I am not going to take any lectures from members of the Labour party in particular, but from any member of any unionist party about Santa Claus policies. The sum of £23 million is a small in comparison with the problems involved.

My party is totally committed, if the other parties are not, to the idea of social justice in our society. We will ensure that that is offered to young people as well. That policy will not be assimilated by the rather exclusive nonsense of the London parties, which seek power for themselves rather than power for the people.

My party believes that the packaging of the Labour party and of the Government are exactly the same—they just try to label it differently. I want to hear clearly from both of those parties tonight exactly what they will do for 16 and 17-year-olds.

7.42 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'recognises that vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds and those facing severe hardship continue to have access to benefits; believes that it is in the long term interests of 16 and 17 year olds that they do not go straight from school on to benefits, but into training, employment or further or higher education; and fully endorses the Government's training guarantee and the continued expansion of vocational, further and higher education.'. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Government's amendment.

For the past 15 minutes, I have felt like an innocent bystander at the clash of the tartan armies, because the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) were intended for consumption in an internal argument north of the border rather than to address the issues that should concern the House tonight.

The hon. Lady was a little ratty with me earlier when I was having a discussion with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security about a matter she had raised. I suspect that that was due to her chronic insecurity at being alone, at that time, on her Bench. No matter that the issue we are discussing is of great importance; alas, the sense of that importance was not shared at that time by her colleagues. I am delighted to see that the leader of the Scottish nationalists, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has arrived and I should be delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

I was absent because I was on St. Stephen's green giving an interview on the future of Rosyth. Given that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting next to the Minister, perhaps he could use this opportunity to enlighten us rather more than the Prime Minister was prepared to do when my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked him a question about it this afternoon. Is Rosyth naval base to close, which will mean that more job opportunities will be lost for young people and others in Scotland?

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I must point out to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the motion is narrowly drawn.

Mr. Burt

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is: good try. I am sure that that does not relieve the sense of insecurity that his hon. Friend felt at the beginning of her speech.

I was also delighted to listen to the hon. Lady's remarks about who is stealing whose clothes—whether the Labour party is stealing the Tories' clothes or the Tories are stealing Labour's clothes. All that is obvious is that no one is stealing the hon. Lady's clothes or those of her party, so it would appear that the paucity of her remarks tonight is reflected in her party's other policies. That is why no one wishes to steal them.

I should like to address the real issues, which are genuine and important. That is why I am surrounded by a number of my colleagues who share my interest in this subject.

Mrs. Ewing

Two thirds of my party are present.

Mr. Burt

Two thirds of nothing is nothing.

I accept that the motion tabled by the hon. Lady may be based on the best of intentions, but it is just one more example of how the Opposition parties fail to see how policy towards young people must be rather more than just a knee-jerk back to benefits.

Our policy is the only real one on offer. It is about education and training for young people, and developing a positive approach to life in a highly competitive world market economy. It is about helping young people fulfil their potential so they can live independent and productive lives. It is about the United Kingdom as a whole; Scots as much as anyone else.

If young people aged 16 and 17 are not yet in work, we offer them real options: Scottish highers and A-levels—as good as anything comparable anywhere in the world; general and national vocational qualifications, building up our vocational skills base; and youth training, also usually leading to NVQ level 2, which delivers a wide variety of courses to a wide range of abilities. All those options carry with them financial support in one way or another, either from the parents of those at school, employers or the youth training allowance. Those options are available to all young people; young women as well as young men and members of any minority group.

Given all this, I have to ask what is the point of reintroducing income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. All those not in employment, such as young mothers, are entitled to claim income support as of right already. So who would gain and what would be the effect if this apparently generous motion were actually put into effect? I suspect that, in terms of welfare, which presumably is the intended justification, the answer is "not much".

Mrs. Ewing

Would the Minister like to give us the latest training figures on the basis of how many people who apply for YT opportunities are offered places?

Mr. Burt

According to the figures for Scotland, there are more vacancies for YT places than there are people ready to take them up. At the end of the last monthly count, some 4,000 places were still vacant according to local enterprise companies. I do not believe that there is any doubt about the improved efforts of the Government and those who assist them to fulfil the YT guarantee.

If benefit were restored, a majority of those in education and training would continue as they do now, and be supported as they are now. Those waiting for a place on a YT scheme could claim for a short time while they waited, but those in severe hardship can claim now, as they could in the future. As a result of the motion, extra money would be given to some young people, many of whom will be from relatively well-off backgrounds living at home with their parents. From a welfare point of view, the measure would be ineffective.

What is worse, it would encourage those with less commitment to think they can give up their school, their course, their employer training and live on benefit. A wholly negative and inappropriate effect. During the mid-1980s, when the economy was moving ahead rapidly and unemployment falling—a look back, perhaps, to the halcyon time in her youth about which the hon. Member for Moray talked—claims from school leavers remained at a high level. That is an indication of the effect that easy benefit access can have. Perhaps even more significant, 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school would be able to go straight on to benefits with no incentive to do more. That gives exactly the wrong message and represents a sharp step away from the attitudes we should be trying to foster in this House.

Anything that undermines our skills effort in this way is a serious matter. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund have said that the United Kingdom is set to have the fastest growth of any major economy this year and next. This growth will be reflected in Scotland. Unemployment has been falling and employment rising—26 per cent. of employers expect to increase the number of jobs on offer this summer, the most optimistic figure for four years.

Especially important in the context of this debate is the forecast by the independent Institute for Employment Research that the number of jobs at technician level and above is expected to rise by 1.6 million during the 1990s. If we can educate and train our young people, the jobs will be there; and we will ensure that that education and training are available.

Our overall approach to unemployment and economic regeneration was recently highlighted by the OECD as the best way forward. The active policies that we are pursuing to help the unemployed were singled out in particular. We will not give up now on what is one part of a successful and coherent set of policies.

The future demands better educated young people, and young people are recognising that it is in their interests to get those qualifications. In 1992–93, 70 per cent. of 16-year-olds stayed on in full-time education—a 70 per cent. increase over 1979.

General national vocational qualifications have made an exciting start and are proving very popular. Action is in hand to ensure that they are rigorous and of high quality. They develop skills, knowledge and understanding in a broadly vocational context. We expect successful GNVQ students to go on to higher education and good jobs. NVQs—covering 80 per cent. of the work force—have now been accredited and will increasingly offer a firm basis for most job-specific training.

We have substantially improved the educational information and advice available, which allows young people to make informed choices about the school or college and type of course that best meet their needs. The local education authority, via the careers service, provides statutory vocational guidance and planning services for young people. Again, the publication of performance tables for schools and colleges has been an important step and now includes vocational qualifications.

Those steps should help us achieve a further aim—increasing the number of young people who continue to develop their knowledge and skills after their 16th birthday. The number has risen rapidly over the past few years—more than 20 per cent. since 1979, so that 87 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in some form of education and training. The target is 91 per cent. by 1995–96, and funding to the further education sector allows for a 25 per cent. growth in the numbers of their students from 1993–96. What a contrast to offer such a positive future, rather than turning back and offering our young people a future of benefits.

Training is the other arm of our success story. The quality of training is improving rapidly. The Government are committed to ensuring that young people not in work or at school will have a greater range of choice through youth credits, and the opportunity to become better equipped with high-quality skills and qualifications. That will be achieved through the introduction of modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships, which will provide high-quality, work-based training to NVQ level 3 for 16 to 17-year-olds. To enhance further the range of options available for young people, accelerated modern apprenticeships will also be available for 18 to 19-year-olds. The modern apprenticeship initiative should result in some 70,000 young people achieving NVQ level 3 or higher each year.

Youth training NVQs are a valuable step towards higher standards and there is evidence that young people are taking increasing advantage of the opportunities that we provide. The much higher standards now required by employers are resulting in many more higher level qualifications. For example, the proportion of all leavers gaining an NVQ qualification rose from 38 per cent. for leavers in 1990–91 to 67 per cent. in 1993–94.

In Scotland, our training policies have been centred on the creation of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with their unique remit to bring together training and economic development, and have produced good results for young people in recent years. In the Scottish Enterprise area, total vocational qualifications gained by trainees in youth training have risen by 50 per cent. from 7,015 in 1991–92 to 10,443 in 1993–94; there has been a 24 per cent. increase in achievement in youth training of vocational qualifications at levels 2 and 3, from 6,621 in 1991–92 to 8,211 in 1993–94; and the proportion of young people with employed status in youth training has risen over the same period from 25 to 41 per cent.

Mr. Salmond

I thank the Minister for giving us those statistics, but is he familiar with the statistic from Shelter, which estimates that last year, 5,000 young people slept rough in Scotland at some time? Will he explain why, in this land of opportunity that he is outlining to us, 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough last year?

Mr. Burt

We shall come to benefits and the safety and security of young people a little later. In contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Moray, I was offering a picture of how measures taken by the Government to improve education and training opportunities for young people were being accepted and taken forward. That is a much more positive picture than the hon. Lady was painting.

Mr. Salmond

Answer my question.

Mr. Burt

I shall come to the subject of benefits later. As the hon. Gentleman was late arriving, he can wait for me to come to his question a bit later.

Even better results have been achieved in the Grampian Enterprise area, where youth credits pilots have been running for three years. Here, training starts have almost doubled and the vast majority of trainees have employed status and are working towards a vocational qualification. Indeed, attainment levels among young people in Scotland generally are such that the Advisory Scottish Council for Education and Training Targets has launched challenging new Scottish targets for competitiveness to replace the 1991 national education and training targets.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken over responsibility for training policy in Scotland with effect from 1 April. He will work within our overall Great British strategy, published in December last as "Prosperity through Skills", but now has the opportunity to adjust and develop aspects of policy to reflect Scotland's distinctive institutional arrangements and levels of attainment.

My right hon. Friend is now reflecting on such adjustments and on the content of a package of training measures comparable in resource terms to that announced for England and Wales in the competitiveness White Paper. It is too soon to say what the package will include, but a number of areas are being looked at, including apprenticeship training and the guidance needs of young people.

The Government are also committed to making the YT guarantee work. The hon. Lady mentioned that matter. We are spending more on youth training this year than last; and in 1993–94, we spent £849 million, which is an advance on the previous year. In the future, we shall spend more per trainee. Broadly the same budget that covered 210,000 first-time entrants to the programme in 1990–91 will cover about 160,000 first-time entrants—more than 25 per cent. Fewer—in 1993–94. So, in spite of falling numbers in that age group, we are not only maintaining our investment in their future but increasing it.

We also recognise the practical importance of linking the training with employers. Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise councils in Scotland have conducted marketing campaigns to generate more employer-based training places; funded new workshop and initial training provision; and offered subsidies to offset employer costs of training places. And for trainees with special training needs, additional funds have been provided.

However, there will always be some people unable to take advantage of these opportunities, either in the long term or short term, and who need the help of the benefits system.

In 1988, we substituted the youth training allowance for supplementary benefit for unemployed young people. That was a sign of our commitment to invest in the future of young people and help them make the most of their potential, which is a stark contrast with the proposals apparently put forward by the Opposition's Commission on Social Justice. Their proposal seems to be that we should pay more money for less work with no end product in terms of training or qualification.

One of the most important policy aims of our programme was to ensure that those young people who could not take advantage of youth training, either through having to look after their child or because they were disabled or vulnerable for some other reason, were protected. We took great care to ensure that those vulnerable groups retained entitlement to income support at any time.

Since then, we have extended the length of time that child benefit could be payable by up to 16 weeks after the young person had left school. That enabled parents to continue to receive not only child benefit but other benefits such as dependant's allowances and family premium while their children looked for work or YT places or, indeed, waited to go back to school or on to college at the end of the summer.

In addition, where young people cannot stay at home to grow up in a stable and caring environment, we have given automatic entitlement to income support while they are in secondary education. Most important, we completed the safety net for vulnerable youngsters by introducing the severe hardship provision. That enables support to be given at any time to those in particularly difficult circumstances. To guarantee maximum flexibility, we made decisions under that provision discretionary. Each case is judged on its merits and, where there is a risk of severe hardship, benefit will be paid, normally until a job or training place is found.

Help can be given under that provision to young people irrespective of whether they are homeless, living independently or living with parents who are having difficulty supporting them, so help is targeted to where the need exists. Our monitoring shows that help is reaching those who need it.

Mrs. Ewing

Does the Minister accept that those discretionary payments must be backdated because of the nature of the award, so a young person in critical, emergency circumstances must apply for a social fund loan? Would not it be better if those youngsters received automatic payments without the backdating that leaves them in that vulnerable position for a period of time?

Mr. Burt

Having visited the Glasgow unit that deals with that when I was first appointed, I am immensely impressed with the speed with which severe hardship provisions are dealt with. It is probably the benefit with the fastest turn-around, and I suspect that in very few cases are people who need a severe hardship payment turned away or given a length of time to wait.

More important, as the hon. Lady knows, quoting the statistics, we are making more severe hardship awards than we did. We paid 118,000 young people under the provision in 1993–94, and we are currently dealing with about 11,000 claims a month, with a success rate of nearly 90 per cent.

I know something about that, too, because, when I was first appointed, I received representations from lobby groups representing young people throughout the country, and one of the things that worried them was the availability of severe hardship awards. Not only did it appear to be a difficult route to follow, but there was insufficient information about who was, and who was not, entitled to receive benefit. There was a widespread belief that one could not obtain that benefit when one was living at home.

I worked very hard, personally, with the lobby groups to explain that that was not necessary. We developed a new leaflet to publicise to young people's advisers that benefit would be payable even if the young people were living at home, if their parents were on benefit and they could not manage.

We took steps to ensure that that information would be made available in the places where youngsters go. We took steps in the Benefits Agency offices to ensure that one person in each office would be responsible for 16 and 17-year-olds, and that that person would develop expertise and skill in dealing with them and dealing smoothly and rapidly with the complaint. We ensured that the benefit was more widely available. The same criteria had to be met as previously to ensure that someone was eligible, but efforts were made to ensure that those people who were in need had the best opportunity of obtaining it.

I regard the increased figures as a reflection of the efforts that we took to make the benefit more widely available. I think that we did the right thing.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I am interested in what the Minister says, and I think that there is some truth in it. Things have changed—there is no doubt about that, for reasons that I may refer to later. However, does he recognise what an indictment it is of the original quality of the arrangements, and of the continuing claim that there is a guarantee to every youth, that there should be 11,000 claims a month for severe hardship, 90 per cent. of which succeed? How does that square with the idea that every one of those youngsters was guaranteed a training place in the first place?

Mr. Burt

They are guaranteed a training place and, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, the ability of the YT guarantee system to produce places has improved markedly in the past year. On the most recent figures, I think that we are down now to about 1,800 or 1,900 people who are left waiting for more than eight weeks—that is all.

A variety of different situations can give rise to a youngster feeling that he or she needs to make that claim. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Wilson

Neither can you.

Mr. Burt

No. What we say is—[Interruption.]—No. I do not believe that is true. The guarantee does work. We have an enormous of number of people in youth training places now. As I said, the figures for Scotland show that there are youth training place vacancies.

For a number of reasons, people might fall vulnerable and need severe hardship allowance. We make it available and have it as a safety net, but if no one was receiving it, I dare say that, as my colleagues appreciate, Opposition Members would argue that the benefit is so difficult to obtain that no one can claim it. Because we have taken genuine steps—I was grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—to try to make it more available to people in need, the hon. Gentleman criticised us because people actually take it up. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways.

We continue to monitor the arrangements closely and we have every intention of making further improvements where necessary, although we need to see how the job seeker's allowance will operate before making any further moves.

In conclusion, the Government have no plans to restore a blanket of income support to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Mr. Salmond

I have been listening carefully to the Minister, and I still have not received an answer to my very simple question. Why, in spite of the picture of a world of opportunity that the Minister has been painting, with all those improved schemes, does Shelter estimate that 5,000 Scottish youngsters slept rough at some time last year? It is a simple question. The hon. Gentleman is reaching the end of his speech. May I have an answer?

Mr. Burt

As I said earlier—when perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not quite concentrating—there is a variety of reasons why people might find themselves in need of severe hardship provisions. I am convinced that there is absolutely no reason why any single youngster should be on the streets of Scotland tonight. Assistance is available from the Government for benefit and for need. The numbers of people who might sleep rough on the street in any one night are hundreds rather than thousands. It is a matter of regret to all of us, but the hon. Gentleman knows of the variety of circumstances that lead people to be there, from the various surveys that are done.

The Government have played their part, by making resources available and pursuing initiatives to try to help find homes for single people. Statutory responsibility rests with housing authorities. They should review their policies and priorities to ensure that they deal effectively with the problems that confront homeless and roofless people.

However, being responsible for severe hardship allowance, knowing the way in which it has been applied in the past couple of years and knowing the efforts being made by hard-working and well-meaning staff to ensure that it is available for those who need it, I do not believe that anyone who is genuinely in need would be refused that benefit. The success rate of 90 per cent. shows that.

Mr. Wilson

I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall quote figures later that bear out what he said and show what an enormous change there has been in the way that severe hardship applications are treated, but the Minister should reciprocally recognise what a brutal policy that was in the first place, and what astonishing cruelty was visited on tens of thousands of young people before those changes took place. Those young people could not apply for severe hardship payments, and, as a result, they were cast thoughtlessly on to the streets.

Mr. Burt

No. Once again, with the great gift that seems to affect people who sit on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Gentleman is able completely to misinterpret what I said.

The benefit has always been available and could always have been applied for. My feeling, as perhaps one of the least brutal Ministers that the hon. Gentleman might come across—it is not my style—was that I saw a benefit that was available, about which the original intention of Government was entirely correct, but which, for some reason, was not working through to the people who needed it. That is part of the job.

Opposition Members constantly ask the Government about eligibility for benefits and the need to ensure that those people who are eligible can claim. Those Members speak about claimants' campaigns and everything else. I saw a position in which the benefit was there, in which people were in need and lobby groups would come to me and say, "I think this should be available, but I can't seem to get it and no one knows about it," and so on. I said, "It is there, and it can be done." Other people simply did not know that the benefit was available because they had not gone and obtained the information, and the information was not disseminated. So we worked to do that.

For me, that completed the circle. One has a Government who are offering, in a growing, expanding economy, jobs, training, further and higher education, which are being accepted by more youngsters than ever before. One has a positive picture for youngsters and, in addition, one has two safety nets—a safety net in statute for the vulnerable and a safety net through severe hardship benefit for others who have slipped through for any other reason. I think that that is the complete picture.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Is my hon. Friend aware that when the benefit was available freely to all, I had a large number of complaints from parents in my constituency whose daughters were staying on at school after 16, saying that they were shacked up in Morecambe with their boyfriends at the expense of the Department of Social Security? That was the type of thing that the Minister rightly has prevented from happening.

Mr. Burt

My hon. Friend is right and, indeed, as I mentioned earlier, there was a culture that, no matter what one's family background, if one was in a position to claim benefit, one did, whether one needed it or not. At the same time as politicians were walking the streets, urging people to ensure that their taxes were well spent, they were covering a position in which there was widespread misuse and no one wanted to do anything about it.

We ended that, I think, and I think that removing automatic entitlement to benefit for all 16 and 17-year-olds and replacing it with a system whereby we encouraged them to do their best, encouraged them to take advantage of the opportunities that we then increasingly made available, to improve their opportunities for jobs and skills in the future, was the best way forward. I still believe that, and I also still believe that we have protected the most vulnerable people and ensured that they do not slip through the net.

We have no plans to restore a blanket of income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. To do so would be to concentrate on the wrong area and would be poor targeting of resources. It is far better to invest in high-quality training than to provide benefit for people who are not looking for work or training, thus encouraging unnecessary reliance on the benefit system.

Instead, we are concentrating our efforts on more positive and productive policies, such as improving the education system to cater for young people's needs and abilities, and encouraging young people to make the most of their potential through education or training. We are providing good-quality training places to equip young people with the skills that they need to enter work and build successful careers. Those are the best ways for young people to begin to lead independent and productive lives.

The hon. Member for Moray spoke of young people being independent through having automatic entitlement to benefits. What sort of independence is it when one is dependent on other people? It is far better that we encourage young people to be truly independent and to have the skills that they need for the future. It is better for us to provide that so that they can participate in a growing and positive future.

8.10 pm

Mr. Henry McLeish (Fife, Central)

I always enjoy listening to the Minister. We play in the parliamentary football team together—I think that he plays inside left. However, what worries me is that the longer the Minister works in the Department of Social Security, the more like his boss he becomes. That is an alarming prospect, particularly for the Minister.

The intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) suggested that such mischievous prejudice promotes and fires Tory youth policy, which is shocking. It is a slur on young people to pretend that one can build a policy around so many prejudices when young people are looking not for a dependency culture, which the Government wean them on, but real opportunities. Those opportunities were not mentioned in the Minister's contribution today.

The subject is important because young Scots face a crisis, and their predicament is mirrored throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. An important process is at work. The youngsters of 16, 17 and 18 are making the transition from school to work—they are being integrated into society. The transition from childhood to adulthood should also be a transition from dependency on parents and others to independence. Such an important process shapes the formative years of virtually every youngster in Britain, but the Government have shocking policies to deal with it. It is vital that the Government take seriously all facets of the process.

The main question in today's debate is why young people in Britain are being sold short by a Conservative Government. No society, no Government and no political party can take the matter lightly. What happens in those critical two years can influence the nature and lives of young people. Equally important, it can influence the nature and lives of the wider community, so we must take the subject seriously. The Minister's comments smacked more of a smokescreen than of concern for the deep-seated problems in Britain.

The subject of benefits and financial support for young people is important. There is a crucial distinction between the old-fashioned policies of the nationalists and the prejudiced policies of the Tories. The Labour party wants opportunities for young people. We want to move the culture further on—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is, as usual, mouthing from the Back Benches, and saying that the Tories are for freedom, choice and independence. If that is true, why has the number of people on income support in Scotland, as compared with the number of people who were on the old supplementary benefit, increased by 88 per cent? Some 1 million Scots are living on the breadline because of the Tory Government. Does that suggest independence or greater dependency?

Mr. Kynoch

The hon. Gentleman was talking about different sorts of policies. What is the policy of the Labour party? As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, there is no Labour party policy.

Mr. McLeish

We shall never be disappointed with the Conservatives. We have the old alliance—

Mr. Burt

Answer.

Mr. McLeish

I shall answer. We have the old alliance between the Conservatives and the nationalists. The party of nationalism thrives on the back of Conservatives, who fear that the nationalists might desert them in difficult times.

I shall now explain Labour party policy. The position is clear: the Conservative party is the party of dependency. No matter what Conservatives claim, every fact suggests the opposite of what they say. I shall give the figures later to outline that point. I shall make Labour's position clear—I see that everyone is now sitting up. A Labour Government will ensure that there will be no young Scots, or anyone else in Britain, without a place in mainstream education, a place in further or higher education, a place in work with training, a training place or a form of income.

We must move the debate away from the old, tired view of dependency to talk about giving young people opportunities.

Mrs. Ewing

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burt

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish

I am being assaulted from all sides. I shall give way in a minute.

Unlike the present Government, we shall give young people the benefit of training opportunities. The best policy is to take young people seriously, not constantly to steep the argument in dependency.

Mrs. Ewing

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly in the light of the alliances that he and his party have had with the Conservative party over many years, including those in Tayside and in other regions of Scotland. They show where the Labour party stands. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party is committed to ensuring that benefits will be available to 16 and 17-year-olds at an uprated level? Is he prepared to give that financial commitment tonight on behalf of his party ?

Mr. McLeish

I will not take lectures from a party of protest when Labour is preparing to be a party of power. Will the financial commitment of the Scottish National party to Scotland's young people come after the funding of a separate Scottish army, separate Scottish navy and separate Scottish air force? It is vital not to get sidetracked by such issues.

A Labour Government will ensure that no young Scot is without a job, a training place, a place in education—higher, further or mainstream—or a form of income. That is crystal clear to me.

Mr. Burt

For those of us who are dimmer and have not quite got hold of what the hon. Gentleman said, may I ask him to repeat it and make it clear? Is he saying that there will be an automatic entitlement to income support for all 16 and 17-year-olds under a Labour Government—yes or no?

Mr. McLeish

I am surprised that the Minister should criticise himself as being dim, and I do not accept that he is. I shall clarify my remarks still further. I anticipated that the issue would rouse the sleeping partners on the Government Benches. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said: Labour's priority is to make sure all young people get work, or good quality training. But if they cannot there must be some assistance—we are looking at these issues through the Social Justice Commission at the moment. That is the important issue that develops the debate.

Mr. Burt

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my intellectual capabilities. Will he comment on a quote from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)? She said: If you're asking us what our plans will be on day one of a Labour Government, obviously we'll have to make the detailed plans nearer the time". Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that view of Labour party policy—which we think is closer to the truth—has been overridden by what he has said? The hon. Gentleman has still not said whether automatic entitlement to income support for 16 and 17-year-olds is to be restored. Will he answer yes or no?

Mr. McLeish

The Minister clarifies the point himself, by talking about drawing up detailed plans at a more appropriate time—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Retreat!

Mr. McLeish

There is no need for retreat, and I suspect that the Minister is now clear on the point that I have been trying to make, so we can move on to more important matters.

It is vital not to let the debate get bogged down in the Tory agenda. The dependency culture has always been alive and well under this Government, yet they seem to want to keep on talking about it—because as soon as they move to training or education they are on shaky ground. What is actually happening in Scotland certainly does not square with the Minister's speech this evening.

The self-worth of our young people is crucial both to society and to their sense of well-being. They want to work, as the Minister would agree. What is more, they want to be trained and educated. They want to be successful, to build up careers and to start families.

The problem with keeping the debate at a superficial level is that we may overlook the fact that young people are facing severe difficulties at a time of massive social, economic and employment adjustment. The labour market is changing. The Minister may say that a recovery is in progress, but looking around Scotland it is difficult to see where the jobs are being created. The Government's own quarterly employment figures show very little growth in employment. Young people now have fewer opportunities in the labour market, and it is changing qualitatively too. It is very difficult for them to break into it and—despite the rhetoric about skills—mass deskilling in much of our manufacturing base is also going on.

The Government do not talk about apprenticeships these days. Although they have introduced a new concept using that name, they do not collect the figures any more. We know that there has been a massive reduction in the number of quality training places in manufacturing. Apprenticeships in my constituency were often the avenue of progress for many young Scots.

The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) highlighted the problems of homelessness in Scotland, but the Government will not acknowledge that the nature and structure of families are changing. There are hon. Members on both sides who want to moralise about that, but the hard facts, meanwhile, have to be dealt with in public policy development. I refer to the linking of homelessness with family breakdown and other family difficulties. All this is part of the changing culture of Scotland and of Britain, and it reinforces my point about treating issues affecting 16 and 17-year-olds with sensitivity.

There is mass unemployment in Scotland. Even on Government figures—manipulated and altered 30 times in 15 years—nearly 3 million people in Britain and 250,000 Scots are out of work. What kind of environment does that offer young people? When I was 16 or 17—or when the Minister was, come to that—we could choose from quite a large number of jobs. There was no housing problem either, and probably no difficulty with finding training. Now, mass unemployment has changed everything. I must tell the House with some passion that bright, dedicated youngsters in my constituency who want to work are painstakingly looking for work, but in Fife there were only 18 vacancies, at the last count, registered at the careers service. I appreciate that they were not the only vacancies available, but looking for work is a soul-destroying business nowadays.

Mr. Kynoch

How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the unemployment rate among those under 25 in the United Kingdom in April 1994 was 5 percentage points better—that is to say, lower—than the average rate in the European Union? Is he aware that a recession has been going on around the world, and that the policies of this Government have generated greater employment and prospects for our young people?

Mr. McLeish

In the world that I inhabit, in my constituency, those sort of comments do not square with the facts of life. We can talk about differences between European nations, but the figures are compiled differently —[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may hum and haw all he likes, but he clearly does not want to hear the answer. The Italian and Spanish figures show up significant differences for this age group, but the figures are compiled quite differently. What matters is that young people in my constituency want jobs and are little interested in what happens elsewhere. We should therefore dispense with bogus analogies that do not stand up to examination.

Another point about unemployment is that youngsters are trading down their expectations, and that is bad for their sense of self-worth. Young people in my constituency who have qualifications are doing jobs that require none, and those who have been doing jobs that needed no qualifications are doing no work at all. That depresses them, and it should give us cause for concern.

Another problem derives from people's attitudes to young people—a point emphasised by the intervention from the hon. Member for Lancaster. People have their prejudices and then build them into sweeping generalisations, which can then sometimes motivate public policy. I do not believe that young people in Britain have changed, but they are surrounded by great change, and we have a Government who have walked away from facing up to the consequences of that change.

I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is here for the debate. Ministers often talk about youth unemployment. I have with me some figures from the Department of Employment computer which have not been published. They show that, at the last count, nearly 10,000 young Scots were classified as unemployed but not included in the official figures. Why not? The Government believe in an opportunity-led, laissez-faire, free-market Scotland, so perhaps they can explain the discrepancy in the figures.

I have another question for the Minister. Unpublished figures from the Scottish Office show that, on 14 March 1994, 7,831 young Scots were eligible for youth training, 5,551 were covered by the guarantee, but 5,428 were without a start date. How does that fit in with the central proposition by the Secretary of State for Employment, who speaks eloquently about only 150 young people in England and Wales not having had their requirements met by the guarantee? If that number is right, why is the number 5,500 in Scotland?

The hon. Member for Moray also discussed the severe hardship allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has already pointed out that the benefit is widely available and its take-up is being increased, but that many young Scots, not because they are in desperate hardship but just because they need the money to live on, are applying for it. If the Government view the benefit in that light, why cannot they take a more enlightened view of the whole question of financial underpinning for young people? Figures supplied by the Department—an excellent Department it is—suggest that between 500 and 600 young people each quarter are applying in my constituency for the allowance. Multiplied by a factor of 15, we arrive at a crude figure for the whole of Scotland of about 8,000 applications for the SHA.

Mr. Salmond

The hon. Gentleman is approaching a point at the heart of this debate with which I strongly agree. What he is saying is that, because of the pressure of events, this selective, discretionary benefit is becoming a universal benefit. That being so, why do we not agree to make it a universal benefit, end the pretence and stop people slipping through the safety net?

Mr. McLeish

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) agrees with the central theme. A central problem for the Government has now been raised by the Opposition parties. The benefit is now available although it was applied brutally at the start. Young people were coming to me who simply could not get hardship allowance on any criteria because the Government were pushing their free market ideology and hoping that the benefit would not have to be paid. That has changed dramatically and I leave it to the Minister to think through the ultimate consequences.

The other important point about the financial support of young people is that it is simply a mess. The Government tinker with child benefit and extend it; they have a bridging allowance which moves like a ship at sea; there is severe hardship allowance and then there is youth training allowance. Does the Minister think that the incoherent application of public money in such a way is the best and most productive method of helping young people and society? I suggest that it is not.

To finish my catalogue of concern about young people in Scotland, why do the Government provide no minimum wage protection for young people in the workplace? They decided to get the wages councils off the backs of young people and let the market flourish—in their eyes—knowing full well that for young people it meant simply a cut in wages and further exploitation in the workplace.

Why do we have the poorest employment conditions for young people in Europe where rights are undermined and access to tribunals is simply non-existent? It is obvious that there are major problems for young people in Britain. Their greatest worry is the central problem of lack of economic independence and from that flow all the consequences in terms of poverty, homelessness and, in some inner cities, crime-related difficulties.

Mr. Burt

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I am following his argument closely. I cannot see, however, that if he tries to return to a system of universal access to benefit, he is helping with the problem of dependency. If the opportunity exists and is provided universally, the determination to be on training schemes and the like may not be there. I do not see how making the benefit universally available would get over the problem of dependency. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be some form of selection, to what extent is he offering something different from what the Government are offering?

Mr. McLeish

The Minister may have been following the arguments, but that is not the issue at stake. The Government sought to strike up a partnership with young people after the abolition of universal entitlement in 1988. They have not honoured their commitment to young people. On 14 March, 5,500 young Scots had been guaranteed training, but the Government have reneged on that guarantee. That issue has to be taken seriously. It is not about universality or the dependency culture; it is about the Government who have simply sold young people short and reneged on their commitments.

We are concerned about reneging on commitments because we need training and access to employment opportunities in every facet of Scottish society. The Government cannot have it both ways and most young Scots are being denied, or having to go through obstacle courses to get, certain forms of minimum income. At the same time, they are being denied opportunities for training that they were promised in 1988 and beyond.

The Government have smashed any partnership and destroyed young people's confidence in their ability to deliver. The debate is about moving the country on so that we do not patronise young people, but see them as a positive resource; it is all about encouraging opportunity and getting away from the sole issue of trying to make it as difficult as possible for young people to be financially independent. A YTS place paying £29.50 does not provide independence, but it produces self-worth by putting young people in a workplace environment; they are meeting other workers and are seen to be building and shaping their own future.

The Government must appreciate that it should be the right of every youngster between 16 and 18 to be given a chance. They should not be bogged down with keeping young people without financial support, and as part of that, reneging on their guarantee. That is unforgivable and the Government stand condemned. If they want to practise as well as preach independence, choice and freedom for young people, it must be about positive opportunities rather than keeping them hooked on dependency culture.

We need a complete rethink on youth policy in Britain. A number of facets of that crisis have been identified tonight—some of them have been raised by hon. Members —but we need an inquiry into the condition of young Scots and a fundamental review of youth training.

We hear nonsense from the Minister about there being more places available than young people taking them up. In my constituency, there are a large number of YT places, but no one in his right mind would want to go anywhere near them. That experience is mirrored throughout the country. Volume has to be linked to quality and when the Minister makes statements about large numbers of vacancies, he should look at the quality of vacancies and ask himself the following question: if he were that age, would he be happy to go into an environment where health and safety protection is non-existent and exploitation is high on the agenda? That is the nature of some of the YT places.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it is totally out of proportion to suggest that health and safety protection are non-existent in any training place in any factory, given the interest that the health and safety inspectorate takes in every workplace in the country? Has not he gone over the top?

Mr. McLeish

If the hon. Gentleman had listened properly, his comment about going over the top would not apply. I made the point in response to the Minister's claim that there was a massive number of vacancies. I could take the hon. Gentleman to so-called vacancies in Scotland; young people are right not to go near them. Careers services are often coerced into putting such places into the statistics to satisfy the Government, but, given a free rein, they would not do so. There are places where young people are being exploited and lack of health and safety provision is one aspect of that. I did not say that it was the same in every workplace, but a large number of vacancies are in that category.

I made the point that youth training needs a fundamental review. We have to change our attitude to young people. It must become more positive and less prejudiced and we should think in terms of opportunity rather than dependency. We also need to move to the concept of making young people as fully productive as possible. It is all about full employment in a modern context and allowing the self-worth of all youngsters to be generated in the way that they want—not in the way that Governments or employers determine—and to allow them to work in an environment of opportunity to give them the best possible start. We want positive young people with potential to be able to develop that to the fullest.

We believe that the Government's current policies on benefit and training simply do not satisfy the wishes of young people and, of course, we want the Government to tidy up their act on statistics to give us more facts and less smokescreen.

8.38 pm

Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside)

I come to the debate on three different footings: first, as a former employer in Scotland; secondly, as a former director of a local enterprise company in Scotland—Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey local enterprise company; and, thirdly, as a parent of a daughter aged 20 and a son aged 17. One of my children has passed through the 16 to 17-year-old stage and the other has just left school and wants to go on to further education, so I am sympathetic to the problems that 16 and 17-year-olds have to face.

I am also here as an hon. Member representing constituents, seeing just what is happening in my constituency and my part of Scotland. The unemployment rate in the Grampian area, for example, at about 5.4 per cent. at present, is the best in Scotland.

This debate is not about costs but about the completely different attitude to employment and life in general of Conservative Members on the one hand and Opposition Members on the other. The Opposition parties have different complexions. At the Monklands, East by-election the Labour party fought hammer and tongs with the Scottish National party. I give my condolences to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for not quite making the winning post. However, I must also extend my condolences to the Labour party for its significantly reduced majority.

Mr. Wilson

Do the hon. Gentleman's condolences to the nationalists extend to regret that the 799 Tory votes did not go to the Scottish National party, in which case the Labour majority would have been lower?

Mr. Kynoch

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I was not responsible for the way in which Conservative voters voted in Monklands, East. However, general elections can often be a completely different matter from by-elections. I am drifting slightly from the point, but I am sure that the by-election concerned the employment prospects of young people and the way in which they are treated in Monklands, East.

Mr. Gallie

Does my hon. Friend agree that many in Monklands, East simply were not Tory voters—probably gey few. Is not the Scottish National party now seen as the tartan socialists, the real socialists in Scotland, and was that not a factor in the election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. That is sufficient on the Monklands by-election. Let us return to the motion.

Mr. Kynoch

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has a valid point. The Scottish National party is clearly the Scottish socialist party. The philosophy that it is putting forward today is one of total dependency. Young people who are leaving school are being offered the chance to go on to social security immediately. They have no incentive to make their own way.

I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) when he talks about the transition period for 16 and 17-year-olds between full-time education and going out into life as adults, having to pay their way and live in the outside world unprotected. It is important that there should be a gradual transition. They should not be given an easy route forward. They should not be given a benefit and do nothing in order to claim it. We need to provide the right environment in order to encourage Scots to better themselves and lead the industries of the world, as they have done in the past.

Mr. Salmond

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kynoch

I should like to carry on for a minute.

Not every 16 and 17-year-old needs to go down the benefit route. Many go on to higher education. The Government have already achieved their goal to have 30 per cent. of young people in higher education by the end of the century. In the 1970s, under a Labour Government, the proportion of young people in higher education was a mere 17 per cent. We must be doing something right in encouraging people to do what is better for them.

The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is no longer in her place, but she talked about when she was at university with a full grant. She said how things had changed and how students were no longer able to exist on their meagre takings through the grant or the loan system. I was at university at approximately the same time and I can remember only too clearly that when they were at university all students picked up part-time work. The hon. Lady implied that that was no longer possible, but my daughter, who is now at Heriot-Watt university, and her colleagues all manage to find part-time jobs. They do so because they want to and because they want extra pocket money. They want to go out and do it themselves; they do not want it handed to them on a plate as Opposition Members seem to wish.

Mr. Salmond

I am sure that Opposition Members will think, "Jolly good for George's daughter." The hon. Gentleman refers to young people in Scotland as "them". Will he consider the logic of his argument about the dependency culture? Why should his argument stop at withdrawing benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds? Would not the logic of his argument be to pick on the adults as well as the young people? What defence does he put for the safety net of universal benefit provision for adults? Is not the logic of his argument to withdraw it from everyone?

Mr. Kynoch

The hon. Gentleman is trying to say that we should be encouraging people to get off benefits, with which I heartily agree. It is right that we should try to have an economic environment in which we can get conditions right so that we can get employment up and unemployment down so that benefits are not required. However, we must still have that safety net for those undergoing severe hardship. That is exactly what the Government have done. It is hypocritical for the Opposition parties to talk about the dependency culture as they have when they want a dependency culture.

Mr. McLeish

This is an important point. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of what proportion of Scots between 16 and 18 do not want to work? What is soul-destroying about a debate such as this is the presumption that young people do not want to be trained; do not want to work; do not want to get up in the morning. My experience is the opposite. I believe that the overwhelming majority of young people have enterprise and initiative. The predicated argument is always that in some way we must do down young people by putting them through a rigorous, punitive, coercive benefits regime because otherwise they may become dependent on benefits and may not want to go into the outside world.

Mr. Kynoch

I never said that. The hon. Gentleman talked about the difficult transition from the dependent, protected society of school life into the outside world. If young people are suddenly cast into the outside world without the gradual transition of guidance and encouragement to better themselves through training or further education, the tendency for some is, unfortunately, to fall into the trap of dependency on the state. That would not be serving our young people to the best advantage. It would not be fair on young people and it would not fulfil the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has tried to put forward tonight.

I followed part of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the big problem with the Opposition parties is that one has clearly made a commitment and has said that in the unlikely event that it was in power in any shape or form it would have universal benefits—the nationalist party. I must be significantly dimmer than my hon. Friend the Minister because I am not clear whether the Labour party is advocating universal benefits. If it is, the hon. Member for Fife, Central would have his fingers smacked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) because there is the edict that the Labour party cannot pledge anything at present. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is doing a wonderful presentation job with no substance. Like the hon. Member for Fife, Central, he, too, would gloss over an issue such as this and we would hear nothing of substance.

We are talking about more than just benefits. We are not talking about costs. We should not be looking at costs; we should be trying to provide an environment in which British industry becomes more competitive so that it can flourish and gain trade in opposition to other nations. Page 30 of the Government's recent competitiveness White Paper, "Helping Business to Win", states: Hard working people with high skills and the knowledge and understanding to use them to the full are the lifeblood of a modern, internationally competitive economy. I could not agree more. I come from the highly competitive textile industry in Scotland, which has passed through incredibly difficult times because of competition from low-wage countries in the far east, where products can be produced significantly cheaper. The Scottish industry had to produce something different. As time passes, British manufacturing industry must ensure that it produces quality products manufactured by skilled operatives, using the latest technology. It is imperative to provide the facilities that will allow youngsters to be trained in the proper skills and technology that industry requires.

I repeat that it is a question not only of costs but of producing a premium product that can command a premium price. Scotland in particular has the skills. Locate in Scotland has been incredibly successful in attracting investment because of the skills available there. If those skills are to be nurtured to make employment potential even greater, we must create a training environment such as never before.

Since the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies, training opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds have increased significantly with local interpretation.

Mrs. Ewing

Evidence taken by the Employment Select Committee on 21 October 1992 showed that 7,946 young people in the youth training guarantee group in Scotland were without a training place. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is progress?

Mr. Kynoch

Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait to hear my further remarks about training. I would refer to her constituency in particular, but, to be fair, her LEC bridges both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I shall refer to the benefits of the skill seekers operation pioneered by Grampian Enterprise.

Some of the problems of the YTS scheme have been addressed by the skill seekers scheme. The Government have tried to introduce the right environment. They should not interfere and coerce industry to improve training, but cajole it into providing opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds.

Local enterprise companies face the difficulty that much of business is reluctant to train. That is sad—but in recessionary times, short-sighted companies cut back and do not provide training places. It is important to place greater emphasis on youth training and I welcome Government expenditure in that direction. Expenditure on training throughout the United Kingdom in 1993–94 totalled £844 million and it will remain at approximately the same level in 1994–95—despite the fact that the number of 16 and 17-year-olds is falling and a higher proportion are remaining in further education.

In Scotland, the youth training and skill seekers budget totalled £86.5 million in 1993–94 and is forecast to increase to £93.5 million in 1994–95. We are seeing greater Government commitment to better training.

Grampian Enterprise pioneered skill seekers and training credits. In 1990, the Department of Employment offered the then Training Agency area offices the opportunity, in the run-up to the establishment of LECs, to pilot a system of training credits. Grampian Enterprise seized that opportunity, realising that there could be major benefits compared to the youth training to which the hon. Member for Moray referred. Youth training relied heavily on non-employed placement and disestablished the normal relationship between the employer and young employee. In Grampian, that resulted in a drop-out rate higher than 40 per cent.

Most young people leaving YT did so to enter a real job rather than the indoctrinated job that YT offered, so that they would have something of a future. They entered that job without substantial training, which was most unfortunate. With skill seekers, Grampian's primary objective was to re-establish the principle of real jobs with real training. Since 1991, the turnover of 16 and 17-year-olds in training has significantly improved.

When Grampian ended the YT scheme, there were 1,900 people in training. Only 32 per cent. of them had employed status, and those working towards a vocational qualification accounted for 50 per cent. The number of leavers achieving a vocational qualification was pitifully low, at 8 per cent.

Six hundred employers contracted to operate youth training schemes. The company that I operated took YTS youngsters and employed every one. We used it as a pilot skill seekers scheme. Having put those young people through training, we felt that we could then offer them jobs. Almost all of them accepted positions with the company.

After three years of operating skill seekers in Grampian, almost 4,000 young people are in training compared with 1,900 on 1 April 1991—of which 95 per cent. are employed. Ninety-five per cent. are working towards a vocational qualification and 54 per cent. of leavers achieve a qualification. The number of employers contracted to the scheme is 2,200, compared with 600 before. There is much greater co-operation with local industry. [Interruption.] I hear sedentary suggestions that my comments may be having a negative effect on some people. I am sure that, if they are having any effect, they are probably making youngsters—wherever they may be listening—rush off to Grampian Enterprise to take advantage of its skill seekers scheme.

I mentioned the number of trainees on that scheme who were aiming for recognised vocational qualifications. Many are seeking such qualifications at level 3—craft level —or above. The figures for YT are not currently available, but we know that more than twice as many trainees are now aiming for higher-level qualifications.

I believe that Government intervention—if we are to call it that—in the youth labour market is helping employers to train young employees and direct them towards recognised vocational qualifications, thus enhancing the skills pool. The Government have provided an opportunity for all youngsters to go out and better themselves, preparing themselves more effectively for the outside world with better skills and better equipment to provide British industry with higher-quality, improved products and more efficiency—thus bringing about a better economy, a better Britain and a better Scotland.

8.59 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for opening a debate on a subject in which I have been very interested for a long time. I am sorry that her speech had to include the ritualistic attack on the Labour party, but I suppose that she can hardly refrain from that. Among other things, there was also the usual build-up in Scotland, using radio, television and other parts of the media to attack Labour. I find that sad: I should have thought that the obvious culprit responsible for the plight of 16 and 17-year-olds was the Tory party. It is rather pathetic that the hon. Lady aimed so much of her fire in the wrong direction.

However, I have no interest in bandying words with the nationalists tonight, because I know that the guilty people are the Government. I also know that, if ever there was an issue that demonstrated the silliness of nationalism in the United Kingdom, it is this one. The tragedy is that many of the young people who are sleeping rough in England's towns and cities—indeed, within a few hundred yards of where we are now—are Scots, people from our constituencies. Those young people have enough going against them; making them foreigners in the cities whither they have been cast out is surely an additional folly.

Mr. Salmond

That is a remarkable statement, coming from someone who was not going to make any attacks. I should have thought that it was an argument for a better economy in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman was correct about one thing, however: he has been interested in this issue for a number of years. In his Adjournment debate in 1988, he said: The only urgent answer is to restore income support to youngsters who do not have jobs or YTS places".—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 144.] When did he stop believing that that was the only urgent answer?

Mr. Wilson

I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman's party; I was attacking the concept of turning young Scottish people into foreigners in this city. That is not an attack on a political party. If the hon. Gentleman's party stands for that, it is his party's problem, but it does no favours to the young people whom we are discussing.

Mrs. Ewing

Answer the question. Will you pay the benefits?

Mr. Wilson

With respect to the hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman asked two questions. I shall answer the second in my own way and my own time.

I did not use my Adjournment debate to attack any minority party; indeed, I was pleased to allow Mr. Jim Sillars, then Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Govan, a few minutes in which to speak. To his credit, he did not use that time to attack the Labour party; he attacked the Tories. Perhaps, as someone looking for votes in west central Scotland, he had a better idea of where the blame lay than the current members of the Scottish National party.

I do not believe that the past should be swept away. I believe that we owe the young people who have suffered under the current legislation more than that. We cannot simply move on, saying that things have changed and citing the reforms to which the Minister referred. In 1988, largely as a result of the efforts of a then junior social security Minister—the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—what I described then as an evil piece of legislation was introduced. That legislation withdrew the right to benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds. The Government did that without thinking of the human consequences and the damage that would be done to young people.

I believe that that legislation should be permanently hung around the Prime Minister's neck. He was the Minister who was primarily responsible for it, and for the vast reservoir of human damage—indeed, the ending of life—that resulted from it. The Prime Minister did that on his way up the greasy pole; he should never be allowed to forget that he was responsible for that damage.

Mr. Kynoch

The hon. Gentleman seems to be neglecting all the safety net provisions that my hon. Friend the Minister outlined earlier. He is speaking as though the safety net was done away with, but it was not.

Mr. Wilson

I was about to deal with the safety net.

In my Adjournment debate in 1988, the Minister who replied was the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who has moved on to kicking the crutches away from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. He went through the litany of justifications for the measure. He said: I can think of nothing more debilitating for the mass of youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world than to have automatically to depend on state benefits. I can think of something more debilitating: to leave young people without a job, without a training place and without a penny of legal income. That is what the Government did. He went on to say: the offer of a YTS place is guaranteed. That was a falsehood then and, to a lesser extent, it is a falsehood now.

The Minister continued: In the 12 weeks since the new provisions took effect, 1,688 applications under the severe hardship provision have been received. In 1,139 cases, a direction resulted and in 549 a direction was refused."—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 147–48.] The Minister said tonight that 11,000 severe hardship applications are made each month, 90 per cent. of which are accepted. But in the crucial early months and years of the legislation, about 500 applications a month were lodged. Five hundred people got through the hoops to make the applications, a third of which were disallowed. That prevailed for some two or three years, a little while before the present Minister took up his job, and no doubt he has made some useful changes.

That is where my description of the legislation as evil is justified. In those years, tens of thousands of young people were recklessly cast aside without a job, without a training place, without a pretence that the guarantee would be fulfilled and without the severe hardship allowance, to which at least many of them are now entitled. The measure was one of the cruellest and most despicable acts of the Government under Baroness Thatcher, but we should never forget the role of the present Prime Minister.

What brought about the change? Things were so bad, the human debris that was created was so extreme, that the Department of Social Security felt obliged to commission a survey from MORI, which drew some remarkable conclusions and which bear out what I have said. MORI conducted a survey of 500 youngsters, a self-selecting group because they had found their way into social security offices in the first place. The survey showed that 500 destitute youngsters had claimed for discretionary severe hardship payment. Almost half of them had slept rough. One in five had been sexually abused before leaving home. One in three of the boys had stolen or begged to obtain money. One in six was literally penniless when arriving at a DSS office, usually directed there by charities. That is what Conservative Members voted for in 1988. That is the scheme that the Prime Minister conceived and it had to be sorted out because of the wreckage that it had created.

Mr. Kynoch

Do I therefore take it that the hon. Gentleman, if not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), is advocating the universal restoration of benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds?

Mr. Wilson

I shall answer that question by referring to the original purpose of the measure. It was never about saving money because the money involved was not large, and it is not large now. It is a diversion to talk about the cost of restoring this benefit.

There are three potential explanations showing why this was done in the first place: first, it would save money, which is a relatively unimportant argument; secondly, there were competing philosophies of what should happen to 16 and 17-year-olds, and whether they should be in the benefits system; and, thirdly—this was the major argument—with a stroke of the pen, the Government got all the 16 and 17-year-olds off the unemployment statistics. That is what they were doing in 1988 with the social security legislation. In one blow, they got 100,000 people off the unemployment statistics by the cruellest of logic.

As we all know, they are not unemployment statistics. They contain only those who are unemployed and eligible to claim benefit. If, by definition, we say that 16 and 17-year-olds are not eligible to claim benefit, no 16 or 17-year-olds show in the unemployment statistics. That is what the legislation was primarily about in 1988. To this day, I regard that as the biggest insult to 16 and 17-year-olds—those who still have no job, no benefit and no training place, and who are not even considered to have the human worth in this society to be counted in the unemployment statistics. Yet that is what was done, and it is one of the ways in which the unemployment statistics have been reduced. There is an army of 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds out there who have none of those things and who do not even count as an unemployment statistic.

I say this to any journalist who may hear this debate and who covers the subject of unemployment statistics: never again talk about the number of unemployed; talk about the number out of work and claiming benefit. As soon as one accepts the Tory terminology, one wipes the 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds from the face of the earth. That is what the social security legislation was about.

Labour will not fiddle the unemployment statistics. We will not leave anyone destitute in the streets. We will fulfil a guarantee—replacing the bogus guarantee that was given by the Government either to give proper training to young people or to make one of the other provisions available to them. I shall ask the Minister a direct question.

Mr. Kynoch

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson

No; I must watch the time.

Things have moved on a great deal. Instead of 500 applications a month for severe hardship, a third of which were refused, the Minister proudly—and with some reason for that pride—told us that there are now 11,000 applications a month, of which 90 per cent. are accepted. As the Minister was not here, I shall repeat that the gap between the two statistics is two thirds of 500 and 90 per cent. of 11,000. That is the difference between the evil of what was done between 1980 and 1991 and the improved system which now functions. To that extent, the Minister is due congratulations. If he had anything to do with the earlier regime, he is due none. There has therefore been some change in that direction.

I shall ask the Minister a direct question: if roughly 10,000 youngsters a week are, to all intents and purposes, getting benefits through the system, do they count in the unemployment statistics? Are they regarded as unemployed people who are eligible to claim benefit? Is severe hardship allowance a benefit for that purpose? I am sure that the answers would be interesting. If not, it is simply another sleight of hand to keep them off the unemployment statistics.

I have some sympathy with the argument that it is not the best thing for young people to go straight on to benefit. I should prefer it if they went into training places or jobs. I invite Tory Members to come to my constituency and see the training centre at Moorpark house at Kilbirnie which is run by Cunninghame district council, where first-class training is given. It is not true to say—and no hon. Member has said it tonight—that all training is third rate or is exempt from health and safety or anything else. Some training is third rate, but training is good where proper resources are put in. That is the best thing for 16 and 17-year-olds—that or real jobs. But what must be in place is a real safety net for every 16 and 17-year-old who has neither.

Mr. Kynoch

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he realise that skill seekers, which was pioneered in Grampian and to which I referred, will be available throughout the local enterprise company structure in 1995?

Mr. Wilson

I have discussed the question of skill seekers with Ayrshire Enterprise. The scheme has some worth, as many of the schemes and many of the people who are trying to implement them have worth. No one is denigrating training. We are saying that we should have more and better training and stop the pretence that everyone already has access to training.

I shall finish by referring to the statistics for my constituency. I obtained today the Scottish Office careers service management returns for my constituency. At the Ardrossan office, 59 youngsters are in the guarantee and are registered for youth training. Twenty of them are due an offer of a place which starts immediately and do not have one. At the Irvine office, which covers the Garnock valley, 80 youngsters are in the guarantee and registered for youth training. Thirteen are due a place immediately and do not have it. In Ayrshire as a whole, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), 335 youngsters are in the guarantee and eligible for a place and 111 do not have a place. That accords closely with the figures for Scotland which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted.

However, the argument is not about numbers. If one innocent youngster since 1988 under the legislation has been offered the guarantee of a youth training place and then denied it, was not given the financial support and was put in the position described in the MORI survey, it was an offence against the House and against humane government.

Yes, there have been improvements, but the scheme is based on a flawed concept. If there is a guarantee, everyone should have a place. If there is not a guarantee, let us hear it honestly tonight and let us create the missing thousands of places. The fact that so many youngsters have suffered under the scheme should be acknowledged historically. A Labour Government will fulfil that guarantee and no one will be left destitute.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not care if the nationalists attack the Labour party until they are blue in the face. It does not seem to do them a great deal of good. People in Scotland and the rest of Britain—it is a British issue—understand that Labour will not leave young people in that position. There will be a guarantee. No one will be left destitute. There will be good training, real jobs and a genuine safety net. That is what Labour offers and I am proud to offer it. The historical judgment of what was done in 1988 by this Government and this Prime Minister to that generation of young people should never be forgotten.

9.17 pm

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

It disappoints me to find so few Members in the Chamber tonight. Representatives of the Scottish National party are here, although only in the latter stages of the debate have they managed to bring in all the SNP Members. There are no Plaid Cymru Members present. There are no Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour party Members. Only three socialist Members have been present during the debate at any one time. There are no Liberals in the Chamber. Perhaps that reflects the words of the motion and suggests that it was defeated even before it got off the ground and even before the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) rose to her feet to advance the argument.

In recognising that people felt that it was not worth while coming to the Chamber for the debate and despite the passionate words, to which I well relate in some respects, of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I suggest that if we went back to the past we would do no favours to the 16 and 17-year-olds. As the hon. Member for Moray said, there is something wrong about a system which allows idle hands. It creates a dead-end society. There is something fundamentally wrong with allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to lie in their beds and expect the state to pass cash to them.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North suggested that the 1988 legislation took 100,000 young people off the unemployment lists. I dispute the figures that he used earlier. My contacts in the enterprise companies, whether in the north or south of Scotland assure me that they can guarantee places for every youngster who comes to them. No youngsters are turned away.

Given the words of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, if a youngster were turned away with no place, the Government guarantee and the contract would be broken at that point and the youngster should be entitled to benefits. If they want to work, but cannot, that is a different matter, but that is not the case. Youth training, in whatever guise, instils discipline and interest in youngsters. I fully appreciate that it is not all top class, but it is worth while because of the great range of opportunities offered to young people throughout the country by people who have put much effort into training initiatives.

Yesterday, a question was asked in the House about the opportunities for engineering apprenticeships in Scotland —they are still alive and kicking. One company in my constituency Aviall, which maintains aeroplane jet engines, is recruiting more and more engineering apprentices every year. They are highly skilled and the apprenticeships highly valued.

When I listen to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and other Opposition Members, I wonder how many of them had spent time in a workshop, a factory or on the industrial scene. Many of them seem to come straight from education to this place and they miss out. I must inform the hon. Member for Fife, Central—despite the fact that he is not here at present—that his comments on safety are not recognisable, when one takes into consideration the role of health and safety inspectorates in the modern industrial world. Young people, in particular, are guarded within the United Kingdom workplace. Ill betide any employer who contravenes the United Kingdom's health and safety regulations.

To return to Aviall and the apprenticeships that it is offering, 80 per cent. of its apprentices achieve higher national standard. That is not something to hang our heads in shame about when we discuss youth training. It was not achieved in the past and it offers much for the future. It says a lot, not merely about the training skills and education facilities available, but about the quality of our young people.

As I recognise that there is only limited time, I shall refer briefly to youth training. Back in the early days, when youth training schemes first started, I took on such a scheme. Not all the youngsters involved gained employment with the company that I represented, but they all certainly gained work experience and moved on to other workplaces. About 75 per cent. of them achieved jobs, and that was on what was considered to be an underrated youth training scheme.

Today, we have moved much further forward. Huge numbers of youngsters go into higher education in Scotland and that, in itself, is a tribute to the facilities that the Government have put on offer.

Earlier we heard about student grants and students' difficulties. If we analyse what happens in other European countries, we recognise that our young people are not all that badly done by.

I shall mention one point regarding the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. He said that there was a suggestion that Conservative Members believed that young people did not want to work. Quite honesty, that is totally untrue. Conservatives believe that people should use their resources to the maximum, and that there is no more important resource in this country than our young people. Conservatives desire to put them to work.

It is all right for Opposition Members to come out with woolly words, saying that we need to give youngsters real jobs. The Government have created employment opportunities in this country and, while employment is falling in every country across Europe, it is rising in this country. That is important, and it offers hope to our young people.

The Scottish National party motion is a total waste of time, and the absence of hon. Members from the Chamber is recognition that it makes a valueless contribution to the debate. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion.

9.25 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

I shall try to answer the final comment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). He was self-contradicting, as that was not how he started his speech.

The Scottish National party took this subject matter for our supply day debate this evening for three main reasons. The first was that it is a hugely important issue in its own right, and the fact that the Chamber is not stuffed to the gunnels is more of a comment on hon. Members than it is on either the issue or the motion. If we were to apply "Gallie's law" to the various subjects that are talked about in the Chamber, we would rapidly draw the conclusion that most hon. Members do not believe that any Scottish subject is worth while on any occasion. The Government Benches are seldom full when we debate a Scottish issue.

The second reason why we chose the subject—I admit it openly—was that we wanted to tease out some of the neanderthal attitudes towards young people that have been displayed in the speeches of the hon. Member for Ayr and other Government Members. Their idea is that if people were entitled to benefit, they would somehow be tempted away from training places or the hope of career, that they would want to lie in their beds all day if they got benefit and that they would not have an incentive to get out in the big wide world. [Interruption.] I Those phrases have come up during the debate.

The hon. Member for Ayr said that he resented the impression given by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that the idea among Conservative Members was that young people did not want to work. What other impressions can there be if the underlying argument of those who oppose the motion is that if young people are entitled to benefit, they will not go on a training scheme and will not go out to start a career?

Mr. Gallie

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his assumption is totally wrong. Conservatives have been providing training opportunities that will give value to youngsters in the years ahead. We want to ensure that youngsters do not grow up with the dependency tendency that is so often encouraged by socialists and by the hon. Gentleman. The opportunities given to youngsters these days demonstrate that we value youngsters and that we are attempting to achieve the best from them.

Mr. Salmond

Even the hon. Gentleman's interventions are self-contradicting. That is exactly the point. The argument that underlies his attitude is that somehow if people were entitled to the princely sum of £27 a week, of automatic benefit, they would veer away from a training course or a future career. That is a remarkable comment on the Conservative party's attitude towards young Scots and to young people elsewhere.

The third reason why we chose this subject for the debate—again, I openly admit it—was to try to tempt some firm commitment from the Labour party, but I am afraid that the debate has failed on that. There should be a firm commitment on that issue. I wish that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had been able to give tonight the same commitment that he managed to give as a Back-Bench Member in 1988. It is entirely legitimate for one party to ask another what commitment underpins its attitude, if anything, and what underpins its policy, if anything.

When I was preparing for this debate in the Library, my musings were interrupted at various times by the stamping of feet from above. I was informed by an aggrieved librarian that that was the typical antics of the 1922 Committee at its end-of-term bash. I thought that the only thing that could possibly provoke such unanimity from the 1922 Committee was the resignation of the Prime Minister, but, no, apparently the Prime Minister did not resign this evening.

Two things struck me about that enthusiastic foot stamping. First that, obviously, Rosyth had not been raised as an issue at that meeting—or perhaps Scottish Conservatives were elsewhere. Secondly, no one in that end-of-term rally could have reminded the Prime Minister that he was the Minister who withdrew benefits from youngsters in 1988. It is this Prime Minister who made one of the most disgraceful interventions during the European election campaign, when he argued that there should be a criminal offence of "aggressive begging". My party and the other Opposition parties believe that if any criminal offence was committed, it was committed by those Tory pickpockets who removed benefit from young people. That is the offence, not the consequences of it that we see, with so many youngsters on the streets in Scotland and elsewhere.

The heart of the debate falls into two parts. First, the Minister failed to give a satisfactory answer to my repeated intervention asking for his explanation of the Shelter estimate that, last year, up to 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough at some time. That is related to a number of factors—for example, housing provision. One quarter of homeless applications come from young single people aged between 16 and 24. More than 10,000 young people applied as homeless to district and island councils in Scotland in the previous financial year. Of those, only 3,000 were deemed to be in priority need and, of them, just 1,900 secured permanent accommodation. There is simply not enough emergency accommodation in Scotland, because only one in five of young people who apply for it is admitted. It has also been revealed that 45 per cent. of those staying in such accommodation had slept rough at some time. That is the basis for the Shelter estimate that up to 5,000 youngsters in Scotland slept rough at some time last year was reached.

The Minister said that there was a variety of reasons for that appalling statistic. I suggest that the reason that up to 5,000 young people slept rough in Scotland last year is that those young people had no houses, no jobs, no available training and, in many cases, no hope whatsoever. As the Minister and his Scottish colleagues bear the burden of the responsibility for the inter-reaction of housing provision and benefit, would it not be reasonable to acknowledge that, if 5,000 youngsters are sleeping rough in Scotland, the system for which the Minister claims so much credit is not working in practice on the streets of Scotland?

The second issue at the heart of the debate is whether a discretionary or universal scheme provides sufficient protection. There has been a massive growth in the number of people applying for, and getting, severe hardship payments in the 16 to 17-year-old category. However, that payment was never envisaged as a mainstream provision for such significant numbers. It has been used to mop up the effects of recession and the failure to meet the guarantee of a YT place for all who want one.

During the debate, I was struck by the way in which the hon. Member for Fife, Central and other Opposition Members have referred to the thousands of young people who are in the qualification category for a guaranteed training place but cannot get one.

Mr. Gallie

That is not true.

Mr. Salmond

The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but those details have been offered for constituencies and in global figures. Those details have even been given by local enterprise companies in evidence to a House of Commons Committee. If the hon. Member has not bothered to read the detail on offer, there is little that we can do to educate him. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that thousands of youngsters cannot get the training place which the Government originally guaranteed?

Mr. Gallie

I dispute that. The Scottish Select Committee and I have been in touch with enterprise companies throughout the country and they advise us that a place is available for any youngster who wants to go on a youth training scheme. If all the places were taken up, there may not be enough, but places are certainly available on Ayrshire Enterprise for youngsters now applying.

Mr. Salmond

Every time the hon. Gentleman intervenes or makes a speech, he contradicts himself in the process. He should accept that a mountain of evidence shows that thousands of youngsters in Scotland cannot get training places. He says that if every youngster available for a training place wanted to take it up, there would be a shortage of places. He thereby admits that the devil's bargain struck by the Government when they withdrew benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds, on the basis that a training place would be available for everyone, has not been kept.

Mr. Kynoch

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with a fax that I received today front Mr. Bruce Armitage, director of training at Grampian Enterprise, about the enterprise company in the hon. Gentleman's area of Banff and Buchan, which has the highest number of youths undergoing skill seekers training of any district council. It says; In holding a firm line on employment with training we have not experienced any Youth Guarantee difficulties. At the end of March 1994, we had only 12 young people awaiting an offer under the Youth Guarantee. Will the hon. Gentleman respond to that?

Mr. Salmond

I was making a general point. I am extremely pleased that youngsters in my constituency are finding things better than others elsewhere in Scotland. Unemployment in my constituency is lower than the Scottish average—it is rising fast now because of a number of factors in fishing and other industries—but it cannot be considered typical of the whole of Scotland, which is what we are meant to be debating.

In evidence given to the House of Commons by local enterprise companies, it was estimated that up to 9,000 youngsters in Scotland at that time—admittedly, it was 1992—had not gained access to the training place which they were guaranteed.

Mr. Kynoch

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond

I have already given way generously to the hon. Gentleman. I shall make the point once again that the bulk and burden of evidence are crystal clear.

Thousands of youngsters in Scotland have found the offer of a training place meaningless because a place has not been offered.

Before those interventions, I was saying that the nub of the debate was whether a universal or a discretionary benefit was appropriate under those circumstances and I pointed to the massive growth in the number of people applying for severe hardship payments. Benefits Agency figures show that, in 1989, 10,609 successful applications were made for severe hardship payments in the UK and that, by 1992, that figure had risen to 77,906. There are two ways of looking at those statistics. First, one can argue that the severe hardship payment, which was originally a selective means of assistance and a discretionary benefit, has effectively become a safety net provision. For that reason, while the problem has not gone away, it has been ameliorated compared with a few years ago.

I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North an injustice, but that was his basic argument. He was giving the Government too much credit because credit is not due. Clearly, tens of thousands of youngsters suffered when no effective safety net was in place. It can be argued that, because the severe hardship payment has become more than a temporary provision, some safety net is now in place. However, another way to look at the matter is to say that if the emergency and severe hardship payments have become a universal benefit, the argument for not having a universal benefit in the first place has been removed.

If we concede this point of principle on the issue of 16 to 17-year-olds, it will be replayed throughout the income support and social security system. If it is conceded that discretionary benefits can be fair to everyone and provide an effective safety net, we shall witness the end of the universal benefit system, not only for 16 and 17-year-olds, but for whole categories of the population.

As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who seemed to attribute qualities of self-reliance to people if benefits were withdrawn from them, it would be as appropriate to argue that of an adult Scot as it would be to argue it of a 16 to 17-year-old Scot. If he picks on the 16 to 17-year-olds—if that is the underlying argument behind the policy prescription that the Government are following—why not pick on a range of other groups of the population?

My warning to those people who are not sympathetic to the argument in the motion would therefore be that if it is accepted that a selective discretionary benefit can provide an effective safety net for 16 to 17-year-olds, that argument will be replayed throughout the social security system, and sooner rather than later. It has been accepted, at least in some parts of the Labour Benches, that it is not a financial issue. The sums involved are minor in the global public finance sector. A philosophical question is at stake.

It is argued by Conservative Members that youngsters, if given the option of a safety net, will accept that comfortable safety net and stay in their beds, as was said earlier, instead of going out into the big, bad, wide world and finding a career or training place. That argument underlies the Conservative party position.

The Labour party's position is that it cannot give a spending commitment on anything. Why not?

Mr. Wilson

If the hon. Gentleman has just recognised that it is not primarily a spending issue, why does he immediately afterwards attack the Labour party for not giving a spending commitment? I have given, and other Labour party spokesmen have given, a clear guarantee that every youngster will be covered in one of the various ways mentioned. Any sensible party should devise the best modern way to assist all those youngsters. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is not primarily a spending commitment, I find it difficult to understand what he disagrees about.

Mr. Salmond

That is exactly the point. I accept that it is not basically a financial issue. The sums involved are incremental in public finance, but there is a question of the philosophy of the Labour party at present, which unfortunately means that no spending commitment, however minor, can be given to any group of people, because it breaks the shadow Treasury law that one must not give a spending commitment on anything.

The Labour party was thrown into confusion about that subject. It should have had the political initiative, as a result of the Prime Minister's disastrous intervention—about beggars in the street—in the European election campaign. However, within days, the Labour party's iron law on spending commitments had thrown the Opposition on to the defensive. In the immortal words of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, something must be done as long as there are no budgetary implications.

Some issues inevitably have budgetary implications, even if those are minor as regards total Government finance, and this is one of them. At base, it is not an issue of finance or Budgets or money, but a moral issue about the withdrawal of benefit from young people in 1988—a wrong that was done to tens of thousands of youngsters, for whom the consequences have been severe—and about how it can possibly be claimed that an emergency provision can fulfil the safety net role which, elsewhere in the benefit system, depends on a universal benefit application.

Why on earth should 16 to 17-year-olds, of all people, some of whom are the most vulnerable groups in the population and 5,000 of whom ended up sleeping rough in Scotland at some time last year, be singled out for the trial run of the selective benefits system down to which the Conservatives will undoubtedly drag this country?

If the Labour party surrenders that principle to the Conservative party when there is very little finance involved, how on earth will it make a stand on any other principle? It is time to treat the subject as a moral issue, not a financial one. It is time for other hon. Members to justify themselves to 16 and 17-year-olds by joining my hon. Friends and me in the Lobby tonight.

9.44 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague)

This has been an interesting debate. It was opened by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who began by deploring the absence of hon. Members from other parties. The effect was slightly lessened at the time by the absence of any other hon. Members from the Scottish National party. The hon. Lady has since been joined by some colleagues.

We have had a full debate with some excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). We also heard some interesting speeches from the Opposition.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

The reason why I was not present earlier in the debate was that I was away defending people against another aspect of Government policy—the withdrawal of the ability of adult trainees to train. The Government's attack on adults is mirrored by their attack on youth. I am here to support the Scottish National party, which believes in defending all people who need help and are being denied it by the Government.

Mr. Hague

I am glad to have been of service to the hon. Gentleman by providing him with the opportunity to state his case and show his presence in the debate. His remarks tie in with some of the more outlandish comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who tried to portray the Government's policy on 16 and 17-year-olds as a sign of the Government's intention towards the rest of the population. The difference between 16 and 17-year-olds and the rest of the population is that we can guarantee that they will have education or training places. He said that there seemed to be a presumption by the Government that people do not want to work—

Mrs. Ewing

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague

Let me make a little progress and then I shall give way. I want to answer as many points as possible in the time available.

The Government presumption is the opposite of that suggested by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. They presume that people want to work, obtain education and training. Now, the overwhelming majority in that age group are able to do so.

We should knock on the head at the outset the argument advanced at various times in the debate that the youth training system—the guarantee—is not working and large numbers of people are unable to obtain a place. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside spoke of his experience in regions of Scotland, including the Grampian region. He mentioned that in one instance only 12 people could not be found a place.

The most up-to-date overall figures for Scotland—for which I think the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) asked—are that, as of 31 May, there are 4,308 people in the guarantee group, more than 1,000 of whom have been waiting for more than eight weeks. The number of vacant training places is more than 4,000. It takes time to fit some people into the right places, but those are the overall statistics, which we should bear in mind. Where problems arise, resources are directed at them. Fife Enterprise has allocated an additional £500,000 to increase by 400 the number of youth training places available in the Fife region. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will welcome that.

The hon. Member for Moray asked about the cumbersome claims process. Most of the decision-making on severe hardship has been devolved from the central unit in Glasgow to local offices. That makes the process quicker and the local office can respond to local circumstances. We want to be particularly careful that vulnerable young people receive appropriate support. We have nominated an officer in each Benefits Agency district office who has special responsibility for 16 and 17-year-olds.

We have improved training to make staff more aware of the specific needs of young people and how to deal with them sympathetically. We have also issued a best practice guide to staff, stressing the vulnerability and sensitivity of the group. We have improved contacts with voluntary organisations and local groups that deal with young people so that they are aware of the support available.

The Benefits Agency's plans to introduce a one-stop service will be particularly relevant to people in that group. They will eventually be able to have all their benefits business dealt with at one time, in one place and by one person.

Mrs. Ewing

The Minister quotes figures for the youth training guarantee, but the fact is that many young people are not guaranteed a place on YT, and they certainly do not have a job at the end of it. He also talks about a one-stop agency for young people, but when will it start? The three offices that young people have to go through now deter many of them; it is a very bureaucratic process, and difficult to understand. We need a date.

Mr. Hague

The guarantee is available to all who wish to take advantage of it, and most young people go on from training to get a job, or they undergo further education or training. The process is succeeding.

The Benefits Agency's plans to introduce a one-stop service were announced some months ago and are proceeding. We cannot give a date by which the whole process will be finished, but there will be established in the agency a one-stop shop, and that is the ultimate objective of the agency's work.

For the moment, the Glasgow unit remains responsible for decisions not to pay and for complex cases. It also closely monitors decisions that are taken. We are reviewing more effective procedures for claiming income support under severe hardship as part of our deliberations on the operations of the job seeker's allowance.

The hon. Member for Moray claimed that other European countries were more generous to young people. I must take this opportunity to put her right. In most EC countries, social assistance benefits are not generally payable to young people under the age of 18. In Belgium, they are usually payable from 18, except also to people who are pregnant or looking after a child. In Spain, they are payable from the age of 25, except to people looking after a handicapped person or child. In France, they become payable from the age of 25, and are also payable to those looking after at least one child. In Ireland, 18 is the relevant age, in Luxembourg, it is 30 and in the Netherlands, it is 18. Hence the hon. Lady's assertion that other European countries are more generous to young people of this age group does not quite correspond with the facts. I hope that she will study with more care some of the figures from the Community.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked about the quality of training places on YT. Stringent requirements are placed on TECs and LECs in respect of the quality of training places. The types of places are geared to the needs of the local labour market. Seventy-six per cent. of those completing training enter jobs, further education or training. Seventy-four per cent. of YT leavers completing their training in July 1993 gained a qualification or credits towards one. That is evidence that the quality of training is good, and local enterprise companies are required by contracts with Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise to offer high-quality training appropriate to the needs of the local labour market. If contracts are being breached, cases should be brought to the attention of the relevant chief executive.

Mr. Salmond

If the Minister is correct and all these training places and opportunities are available to young people, will he answer the question that his colleague could not? In Hague's promised land, why were 5,000 youngsters in Scotland, according to Shelter, sleeping rough last year?

Mr. Hague

There is no question of "if it is right that these places are available". They are available. There is no reason for anyone to sleep rough on the streets of Scotland tonight. It is, in any case, rather misleading to talk about 5,000, because it is an estimated figure for the whole year. At any one time, the number is probably nearer several hundred. There is no need for any of those people to be there. Severe hardship payments are available for those who need them and there is a guarantee of education or training for the whole of that age group.

Mr. Salmond

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague

No, I really must get on. The hon. Gentleman made a 20-minute speech before I began my wind-up and I have answered his point to the satisfaction of a large proportion of the House.

The idea that the offer of a guaranteed place is a falsehood is not true. All 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed a YT place and a training allowance. If some choose not to take advantage of the opportunities available, it is their choice. The Government believe that young people should make a positive choice for training rather than becoming dependent on benefit. The overwhelming majority make that choice and want to take up education and training.

We want young people to make the most of the opportunities provided. That is consistent with the policies that run through the current review of social security—focusing benefits on those who need them, removing disincentives to work and making sure that social security is affordable.

We believe that young people should start their adult lives equipped for the future and not dependent on benefits. They should not be encouraged to be dependent on the resources of the state. It is better to train in new skills and increase their ability to earn for themselves. That view has wide support on all sides of the House and Labour Members have expressed support for it in principle this evening.

It adds up to a sensible strategy of offering education or training to all, removing any financial incentive not to take up training, creating the right attitude and leaving only a tiny percentage of the total in the age group suffering hardship and making special provision for them if they do.

I wonder what Scottish National party Members think would be gained by a change of the kind they have advocated? Have they thought through the consequences? What would happen if their proposals, such as they are, were agreed to? What would happen if we were to tell 16 and 17-year-olds that they would be better off than they are today if they left home? What would happen to the quality of our work force in future if we told 16 and 17-year-olds that the state would support them, irrespective of their willingness to be trained? What sort of nation are SNP Members trying to build?

We also have to ask how the SNP proposes to pay for it. Labour Members were asked to state their policy this evening. With all due credit to the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who made clarification upon clarification of his party's policy, he retreated into a fog of obfuscation. There is no clear Labour party policy on the matter.

We are debating a motion which is only one sentence. The Scottish National party is clearly in favour of it. The Government are against it. We do not know whether the Labour party is for or against it, even though we had a lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Fife, Central. It is even more disturbing that Labour Members do not know whether they are for or against it; they are waiting for the Social Justice Commission to make some pronouncement and, even then, we do not know whether they will be for or against it.

At least we can give SNP Members some credit for being consistent and knowing what they want to do. It is a pity that they have so many competing spending priorities, such as the commitment to a new national household minimum income or to campaigning for a common Euro-pension of £90 for a single person and £130 for a couple. I do not know how they propose to pay for that, particularly in an independent Scotland. None of it was thought through before they tabled the motion.

It is strange that the SNP chose this subject for its Opposition half-day debate. Why did it not choose to debate the Scottish economy? Presumably, because it is improving. Why did it not choose to discuss unemployment in Scotland? Presumably, because it is falling. Why did it not choose to debate inward investment in Scotland? Presumably, because it is so substantial.

Instead, the SNP chose to debate a policy based on misconceptions. It would be damaging in its effect, it is out of step with the policies of other countries, its consequences have been ill-thought-through and it is put forward without the slightest indication of how it is to be financed. It thoroughly deserves to be rejected.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 121.

Division No. 291]	[10.00 pm
AYES
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Tellers for the Ayes:
Skinner, Dennis	Mr. Alex Salmond and
	Mr. Andrew Welsh.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Alexander, Richard	Burns, Simon
Amess, David	Burt, Alistair
Arbuthnot, James	Butterfill, John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Carrington, Matthew
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Carttiss, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Chapman, Sydney
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Coe, Sebastian
Bates, Michael	Conway, Derek
Bellingham, Henry	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Cran, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Devlin, Tim
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Dover, Den
Booth, Hartley	Duncan, Alan
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Bowis, John	Elletson, Harold
Brandreth, Gyles	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Brazier, Julian	Fabricant, Michael
Bright, Graham	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Browning, Mrs. Angela	French, Douglas

Gallie, Phil	Richards, Rod
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Gillan, Cheryl	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hague, William	Sims, Roger
Harris, David	Speed, Sir Keith
Hawksley, Warren	Spencer, Sir Derek
Heald, Oliver	Spink, Dr Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Sproat, Iain
Hendry, Charles	Steen, Anthony
Hicks, Robert	Stephen, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Stewart, Allan
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Streeter, Gary
Jenkin, Bernard	Sweeney, Walter
Jessel, Toby	Sykes, John
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Kilfedder, Sir James	Thomason, Roy
Kirkhope, Timothy	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Knapman, Roger	Twinn, Dr Ian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Viggers, Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Walden, George
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Legg, Barry	Waterson, Nigel
Lidington, David	Watts, John
Maitland, Lady Olga	Wells, Bowen
Malone, Gerald	Whittingdale, John
Merchant, Piers	Widdecombe, Ann
Mills, Iain	Willetts, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Wilshire, David
Moate, Sir Roger	Wolfson, Mark
Neubert, Sir Michael	Wood, Timothy
Nicholls, Patrick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Tellers for the Noes:
Pickles, Eric	Mr. Andrew MacKay and
Rathbone, Tim	Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House recognises that vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds and those facing severe hardship continue to have access to benefits; believes that it is in the long term interests of 16 and 17 year olds that they do not go straight from school on to benefits, but into training, employment or further or higher education; and fully endorses the Government's training guarantee and the continued expansion of vocational, further and higher education.

Mrs. Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the importance that many hon. Members attach to policy matters, is it in order for the official Opposition in particular, but also the Liberal Democrats, to abstain in such a vital vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Lady is an experienced campaigner in the House; she knows that that is not a point of order for me.