Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Not only are unemployment and youth unemployment falling—thankfully—from the very high levels we inherited from the Labour party, but we have had to make savings in the 16-to-19 budget. We think it is fair to make this change affecting those who have already had two years of post-16 learning; many 18-year-olds in full-time education do not study as many hours as 16 or 17-year-olds. I also say to the hon. Lady that her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said on television earlier that she wanted the deficit to fall faster. I am not sure that she got the memo from the shadow Chancellor, but Labour has opposed every single cut, no matter how difficult.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

College principals from around Southampton have been keen to emphasise the valid reasons why 18-year-olds may need an additional year at sixth form, which include ill health, their possibly suffering from disabilities, and, of course, the need to improve GCSE results so that they can go on to study their A-levels. What reassurance can the Minister give me that these young people, who are in need of the most support, are not going to be penalised? They are the most at risk of becoming NEETs—those not in education, employment or training.

[Matthew Hancock]

When my hon. Friend sees the impact assessment, I think that she will be reassured on some of those points. As I have said, this is a difficult decision and not one that we will take lightly, but the alternatives are also difficult, and 18-year-olds have already had two years of study post 16 and, indeed, they often study for fewer hours than 16 to 17-year-olds. I look forward to discussing with her, once we have published the impact assessment, exactly why that decision was made.