Hansard

I refute that entirely. If Ms Marra reads the entire quote that was attributed to Mr Smith, she will see that he was concerned about the lack of budget associated with the European youth guarantee. We now know that it has an associated budget. It is important for the record to note that Mr Smith voted for the European youth guarantee when he had the opportunity to do so in the European Parliament.

The United Kingdom Government states that it supports the aim of the youth guarantee, which is to reduce youth unemployment, but it does not support its adoption in the UK. That is disappointing for us because without the powers over tax, benefits and employment, we cannot fully deliver the terms of the youth guarantee. I accept that the European Council’s recommendation in favour of establishing the youth guarantee is non-binding on member states, but against the backdrop of the Prince’s Trust youth index report that shows that 40 per cent of unemployed young people say that they have faced symptoms of mental illness and that 21 per cent of long-term unemployed young people believe that they have nothing to live for, surely we must continue our efforts to persuade and encourage the Westminster Government to change its position on the youth guarantee.

In February, I wrote to Iain Duncan Smith urging that his Government should adopt the principles of the European youth guarantee. Last month, I wrote to the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves, seeking Labour’s support for the European youth guarantee, following a very public spat between her and Iain Duncan Smith. In both letters I suggested that the European youth guarantee offers us a solid base on which to build a cross-Government, cross-party and long-term plan to tackle youth unemployment. Although precise figures cannot be calculated until each member state has defined exactly how it will implement the scheme, researchers rate the benefits of the European youth guarantee much higher than the costs. However, the costs of not acting on the scheme are staggering. We should consider the youth guarantee as an investment in our young people.

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions—Eurofound—estimated the economic loss in the European Union from having millions of young people out of work, education or training to be more than €150 billion in 2011 alone, and that does not take account of the long-term costs of unemployment to the economy, society and the individuals concerned, such as the increased risk of future unemployment and poverty.

The United Kingdom Government cites the fact that more than 80 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds flow off jobseekers allowance within six months as evidence that it would not be cost effective for the UK to implement a four-month guarantee. It believes that the work programme and the youth contract better suit the national circumstances that are faced by young people in the UK. I do not dispute the off-flow figures, but I believe that failing to intervene at four months or earlier represents a missed opportunity for young people who need a helping hand. Surely it cannot be cost effective to wait six, nine or 12 months to support young people who need that help the most.

That point is an important one, because the youth guarantee does not ask that all young people receive the same level of support. Its purpose is to ensure that no young person is left behind and that young people can access the level of support that they need to move to a positive destination such as a job, an apprenticeship, a traineeship or a place in education. Interventions will range from careers advice for those who just need information all the way through to tailored interventions that tackle the serious barriers to employment that some of our most vulnerable young people face.

It is that second group who are being let down by the current arrangements. I do not think that it is acceptable and I know that it is not cost effective to play a numbers game by waiting before we offer help to those who need it most. The increasing numbers of young people who are moving to long-term unemployment is evidence of that flawed logic.

I believe that elements of our offer to young people that are delivered in partnership with local authorities, community planning partnerships, national delivery organisations such as Skills Development Scotland and a large number of third sector groups are already consistent with the EU youth guarantee. Our interventions are based on the principle that early intervention is key to avoiding young people becoming long-term unemployed.

I am frustrated that, without the powers of an independent member state, this Parliament cannot deliver the alignment of employment, skills, taxation and benefits policy that would allow us to deliver the guarantee in full to all our young people. However, within the scope of our current powers, we have already delivered a range of programmes. Opportunities for all is our unprecedented guaranteed offer of a place in learning or training for every 16 to 19-year-old, and our commitment to 16 to 19-year-olds has delivered record numbers of school leavers progressing to positive destinations. Our successful modern apprenticeship programme is meeting our commitment to deliver 25,000 apprenticeships each year.