§ 7. Mr. SpringTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds on the number of children staying in full-time education. [6851]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell)The proportion of 16-year-olds staying on at school is up from 42 per cent. in 1979 to 71 per cent. in 1995; for 17-year-olds, it has more than doubled from 27 per cent. to around 60 per cent.; and for 18-year-olds, it has nearly trebled, from 15 per cent. to 40 per cent.
Child benefit is a substantial part of the available financial support—last year, £644 million was paid to more than a million families with young people aged 16 and over in full-time education. It has provided, and will continue to provide, reliable and regular financial support, contributing £560 a year to the family income—and more than £1,000 if there are two such children in the family.
§ Mr. SpringDoes my hon. Friend agree that, for many families, the sum of £560 makes the crucial difference between the education and non-education of their children? Can my hon. Friend confirm that that sum—£560 for parents with children at school over the age of 16—would be lost under proposals from the Labour party?
§ Mr. MitchellMy hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. Furthermore, Labour, having wrongly analysed the problem it sought to address, now compounds its error by proposing to take away more than £1,000 from parents with two teenagers. That is Labour's teenage tax and it is the equivalent of 5p on the income tax of such families.