Young Workers' Training Schemes (Hansard, 26 January 1984)

§ Baroness Lockwood
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced in another place on 21st December that from 1st April 1984 the young workers' scheme will no longer be available in respect of 16 year-old school-leavers until they have been out of school for a year. There are, however, no plans for an amalgamation of the two schemes; in the Government's view they can and do complement one another.

§ Baroness Lockwood
My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply, and also welcome the steps that have been taken in ending the grant for 16 year-olds under the young workers' scheme. I wonder whether the Minister would again consider the possibility of incorporating the 17 year-olds into the youth training scheme—in particular those 17 year-olds who have stayed on at school for another year—where employers would qualify under the young workers' scheme for a grant of £15 per week. Would the Minister consider using this grant of £15 a week, together with the £100 million that it is estimated has been saved on the youth training scheme to expand the youth training scheme and to include the 17 year-olds?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the Government considered very carefully the Manpower Services Commission's recommendation to extend the eligibility to 17 year-olds. We came to the view that for 1984–85 it was right to concentrate on developing the quality of training offered and generally improving the existing scheme for broadly the present groups of eligible youngsters. The noble Baroness and the House will notice from my original reply that because the young workers' scheme has been withdrawn from 16 year-olds, and on its new basis will encourage the jobs of more 17 year-olds this should be of benefit to those people who are completing their year on the youth training scheme.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether these two schemes are administered by two different sets of civil servants within the same department; and, if so, what the cost of administration of each scheme is?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I do not wholly understand my noble friend's question. Both schemes 335 are administered by the MSC, and of course are overseen by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, my successor, is involved in particular monitoring of the schemes. There is a very clear management policy in the MSC. I do not think one hand is unaware of what the other is doing.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there will be a positive education training element in the young workers' scheme for the 17 year-olds; and, if so, how long will that education element be?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I think, with respect, the noble Baroness is confusing the young workers scheme and the youth training scheme. The youth training scheme is very specifically earmarked towards training both on and off the job. The young workers' scheme does not have that element.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, when the noble Earl the Minister says that the 17 year-olds would not be included but that the effort would be made to improve the quality, does he mean, that therefore more money will be spent on a smaller number of people which will be of benefit to the YTS, the number not being as large as was anticipated?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, it was always planned that the youth training scheme would involve 16 year-olds. As the noble Baroness is aware, we are constantly and permanently trying to improve the quality of the training offered to 16 year-olds. We think the modifications to the young workers' scheme will provide incentives to employers to take on those who have been through the earlier training scheme. In the long run what people want is real employment, so this should be a good idea.

§ Baroness Carnegy of Lour
My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is extremely unfortunate that this Question should speak of the "failure of the youth training scheme", when a radical and forward-looking scheme for mainly 16 year-olds at the present time, which is being watched by the whole of Europe and is in its first year, is being looked at by parents and by young people who will become eligible next year? Is it not unfortunate to do anything to suggest that this scheme is at the moment a failure?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I am altogether in agreement with my noble friend. While I recognise the genuine concern to improve the quality of schemes and to keep both the Government and the Manpower Services Commission up to the mark, it is unfortunate sometimes that the very people most interested in calling for youth training appear to the public at large to be most critical of it when it is provided.

§ Baroness Lockwood
My Lords, would the noble Minister agree that my Question says nothing at all about failure of the scheme? My Question refers to "the failure of the Youth Training Scheme to meet its target entry". Surely, he has himself admitted that the number of people taken into YTS is 300,000 instead of the 600,000 they were expecting.

A Noble Lord
Tories cannot read.

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the only criticism I would make of the noble Baroness's Question is the choice of the word "failure". In fact it is impossible to predict, and therefore to fulfill, exact targets. Apart from anything else, far more young people this year are getting real employment than last year, and we should all welcome that. I think it is the use of the term "failure" when the Christmas guarantee to 16 year-olds has been triumphantly met that causes my noble friend to make the criticism that she did.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, will the noble Earl be careful therefore if and when the scheme reaches target entry not to describe it as a success?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord and I, not for the first time in our lives, have totally different interpretations of what the word "target" means.