Child Benefit

Oral Answers to Questions — Social Security – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 10 December 1996.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Richard Spring Richard Spring , Bury St Edmunds 12:00, 10 December 1996

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds on the number of children staying in full-time education. [6851]

Photo of Andrew Mitchell Andrew Mitchell Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Social Security)

The proportion of 16-year-olds staying on at school is up from 42 per cent. in 1979 to 71 per cent. in 1995; for 17-year-olds, it has more than doubled from 27 per cent. to around 60 per cent.; and for 18-year-olds, it has nearly trebled, from 15 per cent. to 40 per cent.

Child benefit is a substantial part of the available financial support—last year, £644 million was paid to more than a million families with young people aged 16 and over in full-time education. It has provided, and will continue to provide, reliable and regular financial support, contributing £560 a year to the family income—and more than £1,000 if there are two such children in the family.

Photo of Richard Spring Richard Spring , Bury St Edmunds

Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many families, the sum of £560 makes the crucial difference between the education and non-education of their children? Can my hon. Friend confirm that that sum—£560 for parents with children at school over the age of 16—would be lost under proposals from the Labour party?

Photo of Andrew Mitchell Andrew Mitchell Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Social Security)

My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. Furthermore, Labour, having wrongly analysed the problem it sought to address, now compounds its error by proposing to take away more than £1,000 from parents with two teenagers. That is Labour's teenage tax and it is the equivalent of 5p on the income tax of such families.