Youth Unemployment

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It makes no sense at all.

I have a theory. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that apprenticeships are by far the best way of delivering long-term, sustained career opportunities for young people, but the future jobs fund was introduced a few months before the general election, and it was designed to move a large number of young people into temporary placements. He will form his own judgments as to what might have motivated that decision.

The reality is that, in early tracking—and I accept it is early tracking—of outcomes from the future jobs fund, the very first data showed that a substantial proportion, about 50%, of people who had been on the scheme were already back on benefits seven months after they started; and that did not take into account the fact that in many areas local authorities had extended future jobs fund placements by two or three extra months. In April, we will get a sense of the scheme’s real impact, but the first evidence suggests to me that it has not proved to be any more effective than previous new deals or other similar schemes that cost much less money.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

On that point, do the Government honestly believe that for 50% of young people to be in work a full month after their future jobs fund placements—

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

That’s not what he said.

[Pamela Nash]

My point comes from the same statistics. Do the Government honestly believe that 50% of young people being in full-time work a month later is a failure? In our opinion, it is a great success for the fund.

[Chris Grayling]

If that were the case. In reality, we know that a number of placements continued for seven, eight or nine months after being funded by local money, so the first indications are that the final outcome of the future jobs fund will be no better than other employment programmes, but involve a much higher price.