§ 8. Mr. CanavanTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce measures to improve educational, training and employment opportunities for young people. [11733]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice)Our White Paper, "Learning to Compete", the first ever on policies for the 14 to 19 age group, sets out a coherent approach to maximise the potential of young people and their readiness for work.
§ Mr. CanavanIs it not one of the great national scandals of our time that about a third of unemployed people are under 25? Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that this Tory Government offer no hope to those young people, who need the election of a Labour Government committed to using a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to provide real training opportunities and real jobs for 250,000 unemployed young people, whom the Government have deprived of the right to work?
§ Mr. PaiceThe statistics with which the hon. Gentleman started his question are spurious. The proportion of young people who are unemployed is considerably lower than the figure that he gave. The figure that he and his colleagues continually quote includes a substantial number of full-time students who may be looking for a part-time job, but no one in any other country or in any walk of life other than that of a Labour politician would classify them as unemployed. Those are labour force survey statistics.
I am sure that we are all delighted to hear that the Labour party is at least sticking to its policy on the windfall tax, but the number of items that the tax is apparently going to pay for is amazing. Labour has clearly costed all the items that the tax will pay for, but it is unable to tell us how much it will be and who will pay it.
§ Sir David MadelWill my hon. Friend confirm that, as long as standards go on rising in schools, the Government will continue to support the expansion of university education?
§ Mr. PaiceClearly, we want standards to go on rising in schools and, as my hon. Friend says, our policies are achieving that. As he knows, we have asked Sir Ron Dearing to undertake a full study into all aspects of the future of higher education and, clearly, its expansion is one of the points that he will address.
§ Rev. Martin SmythDoes the Minister agree that there may be an opportunity for more firms throughout the nation to follow the example of a firm in my constituency, which brings in school children one day a week, employs them during holidays and pays them a reasonable wage? As a result, the children are trained in work skills in a real situation and are prepared to take jobs in that industry. Does that not help in relation to their training and opportunities?
§ Mr. PaiceThe hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is precisely the sort of arrangement that we envisage in part of the White Paper to which I have referred. Building links between individual businesses and their local schools enables young people to grow up and obtain the traditional academic skills from school while learning the essential skills that will equip them for work.
§ Mr. HawkinsWill my hon. Friend confirm that youth unemployment in Britain is one of the lowest in the 351 European Union, entirely as a result of the Government's policies, but that that would be undermined by the Labour party's proposals? Did my hon. Friend see last weekend's interesting interview that Mr. John Humphrys conducted with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Labour party spokesman, who made the astonishing claim that paternity leave as proposed by the Labour party would not cost anything because it would be unpaid? Does my hon. Friend agree that that astonishing economic illiteracy shows the bankruptcy of all the Opposition's plans?
§ Mr. PaiceI am afraid that I did not see the interview to which my hon. Friend refers—I try to avoid such nightmares—but I am not a bit surprised by the economic illiteracy that was apparently demonstrated. It is clear that many policies under the heading of European Union social policies, which the Government have resisted, but to which the Labour party is apparently committed, would destroy jobs and would cause youth unemployment to rise rather than continue to fall.
§ Mrs. MahonIs the Minister aware that Calderdale council, with all-party support, has twice tried to get a regeneration bid for Ovenden based mainly on employment and training? As Ovenden in my constituency is an area of high unemployment, will the Minister lend his weight to the next bid?
§ Mr. PaiceAs I am sure the hon. Lady realises, no Minister can commit himself to supporting a bid that has not materialised. Obviously, I am interested in what she says, but she will appreciate that there are many competitive bids for single regeneration moneys. They are judged at regional level and on merit. Without further knowledge of the case, I cannot say more.
§ Mr. GarnierHas the Department studied the likely effect of the removal of child benefit for over-16-year-olds on educational, training and employment opportunities?
§ Mr. PaiceI do not think that it takes a great deal of research to realise that the confiscation of more than £1,000 per family in respect of an offspring who is about to study for A-levels or enter post-16 education is bound to have a deterrent effect on the future of further education and the achievement of qualifications. It is confiscation—there is no other word for it. That is Labour's proposition, and it sits ill with the party's proposals to help young people to get into work.
§ Mr. BlunkettThat, of course, is not our policy at all. Did the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) constitute the Government's response to the heartfelt appeal by the Rev. David Shepherd, the Bishop of Liverpool, earlier this week in relation to unemployment and the despair and feelings of the quarter of a million young men and women under the age of 25 who have been out of education or employment for more than six months? Will he confirm that the use of our proposed windfall tax to put them back into work would not only give them hope of being able to earn their living and create families, but would give their younger brothers and sisters hope that, 352 if they work at school they too will not be alienated and disaffected by being set aside by the Government and society?
§ Mr. PaiceIt is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman speaks of about 245,000 young people being out of work, whereas the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that it was somehow a third of 1.8 million.
§ Mr. CanavanThe total is 600,000 under 25.
§ Mr. PaiceI think that I detect a split coming on.
Of course we do not want young people to be out of work, but for the hon. Gentleman to use hyperbole undermines not only our efforts but the truth. The vast majority of young people who are out of work have had many jobs. They go in and out of work quite frequently: that is in the nature of being young. There is a hard core of young people for whom the education service has not fulfilled its obligations, and they find it difficult to break into the world of work.
We do not want such a hard core, and that is why we announced in the White Paper the relaunch strategy, which will bring together many good schemes that are already on the ground and encourage more. That will reach out to these people, many of whom have lost contact with what is going on in society and will bring them back into the world of work. By using hype and hysteria, the hon. Gentleman is devaluing the work that thousands of good people are doing to address this issue.