Youth Unemployment

David Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is a fellow graduate of the university of Bradford. I shall cut to the chase. I have quite a lot to say about the schemes to help young people aged 18 to 24, but that is not the contribution that I want to make. I want to follow on from some of the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about those in the school system. The Minister may say that I am making my speech to the wrong Minister, but in some ways that is the problem. There is a lack of joined-up thinking between Ministers.

The Secretary of State recently came to Bradford. I say Bradford, but it was Ilkley, where there are no NEETs, absolutely zero, and to Bingley where there are 19, but in my constituency, the average secondary school, let alone ward, has more young people than that on a reduced timetable and receiving specialist provision. I am not speaking behind the Secretary of State’s back because I have spoken to him about this, and I hope that he will remedy it with a visit to some parts of Bradford in the future.

The issue that I want to focus on is not what we do post-18 or post-16, but what we do from birth and certainly from the ages of 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. At that point, although there are still many problems to be faced, there is a chance with appropriate and skilled intervention to do something about the future life chances of young people. A reduced timetable tends to be the answer, but we are often dealing with teachers who simply do not have—why should they?—the necessary skills set to deal with often difficult young people.

The consequences of failure are there to see in the statistics on NEETs post-16, and teenage pregnancies. In my area, 20% of DWP claimants aged 16 to 24 are lone parents. The other consequence—this is stark language, I know—is the number of young people who end up in Armley prison. That is how serious the issue is.

The main problem seems to be that we burden the post-16 world with remedial work as a consequence of a failure to support structured interventions pre-16. The pre-16 work is often unco-ordinated and insufficiently funded. It involves a mixture of separate units and reduced timetables, as I mentioned. I am sorry to have to say that for many schools it is simply a case of getting a young person through, without losing track of them, to the age of 16, when they can pass them on to someone else because it is no longer their responsibility.

Why is no permanent, mainstream, funded provision available? Within these four walls, that has repercussions. There is additional funding for pupils who have English as an additional language, but none for white working-class pupils, whose literacy skills may be just as bad and whose oral skills are often deplorable. No wonder we have issues with the British National party and the English Defence League in some of our white communities. We need to have a positive response to that.

The answer to the question that I have posed is that often the provision is regarded as just a temporary measure. We see schemes in schools that involve a pilot followed by another pilot. A short-term pot of funding is available and then another one needs to be found. There is no continuation and certainly no mainstream funding available. However, until we deal with the high levels of deprivation in some of our communities, there will be a constant flow of disaffected young people who end up requiring post-16 and post-18 support, which by then will be of no value.

Some schools are doing well. Carlton Bolling college, a secondary school with which I was involved, provides an example of sustained effort. That includes off-site provision; learning support units; timetables that are reduced but with a mixture of provision; and the development of a vocational curriculum. However, those options are expensive and are all without additional funding. The Ilkley grammars of this world have the same level of funding per pupil, but do not have the problems that a school such as Carlton Bolling college has. It is hoped that the pupil premium will provide support, but that should not be required. What is really required is intensive, integrated multi-agency work, and much of that has to involve family interventions. That work is difficult and expensive, but the cost to society of not doing it is of course even greater.

We must consider how we assess our schools. How will we ever adequately fund measures to deal with some of these issues when we assess and evaluate schools based on league tables that reward a school that lifts a young person from a grade D to a C, but does nothing at all to acknowledge the fact that to get someone from nothing to something—G or above—is often a far more prestigious accomplishment? Again in stark language, how will we ever adequately fund such measures when a school receives more credit for converting a student from a D to a C than for diverting a student from a life of crime?

Much work needs to be done. No doubt the Minister will say that he is not personally responsible for the group to which I am referring. However, the conveyor belt of failure has to be picked up by the Minister. We need clear evidence first that the Minister is aware of it and then that measures are being taken to join up the provision required to stop that conveyor belt.