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 agains