Community Service

HC Deb 10 July 1981 vol 8 cc773-80

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

2.32 pm

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)

The justification for the proposal of a voluntary nationwide scheme of community service is contained in early-day motion 59, which I tabled on the subject and which has now attracted over 60 signatures. It says that the scheme would expand the horizons of young people in a manner that promoted concern for the wider community, reduce the two nations divide in society, and ensure that many additional worthwhile tasks are undertaken which would not otherwise be done". That objective is almost self-evidently desirable, but I am well aware that it has attracted criticism in certain quarters, much of it in my view wholly misguided. I shall answer the criticisms point by point.

First, objection is taken to the scheme as though it proposes a system of underpaid community service forced upon young people because there is no alternative—a system which is then treated as the answer to youth unemployment. Such a view can be described only as a parody of what is proposed. I shall deal with the compulsion point in a moment. I say unambiguously at the outset that this scheme is not proposed as, or intended to be, the answer, or even an answer, to the issue of youth unemployment.

Today there are nearly 1 million unemployed people under the age of 25. Everyone who signed my early-day motion would, like me, assert unreservedly that the only answer to mass unemployment of young people, as indeed of the rest of the population, is a complete reversal of the Government's cruel and brutish economic policies in favour of a steady but sustained expansion of the economy.

That point was explicitly taken on board by my early-day motion, which began by insisting that the fundamental priority for young people at this time is a major expansion of education, training and jobs and that escalating unemployment can only be brought down by alternative economic policies That is why the Labour Party is now firmly united behind an alternative economic strategy.

The scheme could not begin to solve the fundamental problem of youth unemployment. It would only remove youngsters from the unemployment registers for up to one year. It is not intended to be in any way an answer to youth unemployment. Nor is it, as some have alleged, compulsory. It is not intended to be forced labour, or the thin end of the nasty wedge of conscription. The fact that some Conservative Members favour that course is no reason for not putting forward a voluntary scheme which, despite superficial resemblances, has different motives and objectives. It is a reason for making clear why the Labour Party believes that this scheme is inherently desirable, irrespective of the level of unemployment. We would still support it if the level of unemployment were zero. We utterly reject any compulsory scheme with militaristic overtones, or any scheme which could be manipulated in that direction.

The scheme should be as universal in its take-up as a system of strong, positive incentives allows. The great merit of the scheme is that it brings together in a similar experience those from different classes, backgrounds and endowments. The middle-class Oxbridge aspirant will join the working-class youth from a deprived background in Oldham. If it is to do that, within the parameters of a voluntary scheme, the incentives must be powerful. I envisage that they would include the fact that potential employers or higher education authorities would regard favourably those who had satisfactorily completed such a period of service.

Even more would the proponents of the scheme reject any notion of compulsion if that was combined with militaristic overtones. We utterly repudiate any idea that the scheme should be seen to be, or used as, the thin edge of the wedge of conscription for the reintroduction of military service. I am well aware that some on the Conservative Benches see it as an opportunity to introduce the options of either compulsory military service or compulsory community service—military service for the barbed-wire and hair shirt characters with real virility and community service as a soft option for the trendies, lessimbued with patriotism.

I cannot too strongly emphasise my disgust and revulsion for any such concept. I am not suggesting that the Government share that view. In fact, I shall later say why they do not. It is the exact antithesis of the scheme that I am explaining. I hope that the Minister will eschew any such idea. However, we are not encouraged by the Secretary of State for Employment seeking to fill a number of youth opportunities programme places through the Ministry of Defence.

The scheme should not be seen as an answer to the ugly riots that have scarred the face of Britain during the past year, and more so during the past week. The causes of those riots are escalating unemployment, a crumbling urban decay in our inner city areas and—in certain areas such as Brixton—aggressive policing. Clearly, the remedies are a massive programme of job creation, especially in large cities. It would be wrong to manipulate schemes such as this for purposes for which they are not intended and which they would not satisfy.

I have rejected all the things that the scheme is not, and now I address myself to the issues tha it really is about. I fully recognise the genuine issues and problems that exist, and that that is why Youth Call is seeking to launch a genuine debate. One issue concerns payment, and the suggestion that has been made that this scheme represents exploitation of cheap labour. We are not helped by the Tory early-day motion, which speaks of "under-compensated public service", which has all the aura of exploitation about it. Nor are we helped by the suggestion that has been made that the Secretary of State for Employment favours the German scheme—that is what he is reported to believe; I shall say no more than that—whereby unemployment benefit is made dependent on accepting a job opportunities or training place. 'We deplore both such ideas. When society, as a result of current Government policies, treats young people so ruthlessly, there can be no question of not giving young people who undertake community service a reasonable and proper reward.

The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) mentioned £15 a week, which I am bound to say is totally unacceptable to us. Equally, the Government failed to raise the YOP allowance from £23.50 a week to the £28 which is due. I believe that a rate of about £30 a week would be reasonable. It would be well above the unemployment benefit level but could not be confused with the rate for the job, since—if it needs to be stated again—it is not jobs that are being filled but community service that is being undertaken.

Two other main issues should be faced and debated. One is the relationship of this scheme to the youth opportunities programme. I welcomed, and still welcome, the statement by the Secretary of State on 21 November last year, committing the Government to the provision of 440,000 YOP places, and now to the provision of training and job experience for all school leavers who cannot get jobs. Although I approve of those initiatives, which contrast with much else of Government policy, I acknowledge their drawbacks. One is that the Manpower Services Commission has acknowledged that a 30 per cent. job overlap is involved in the YOP scheme. Another is that quite a lot of placements turn out to mean work experience on the employer's premises. One must question the value of a placement which involves, for example, standing behind the counter at Debenhams. A third drawback is that an inevitable class bias is inherent in the YOP scheme because it is confined to the unemployed. By contrast, what I propose now embraces also the non-unemployed. It is that universal applicability across the nation which radically alters the whole concept of what is proposed in what I believe is a necessary and desirable way.

Then there is the very real and difficult question of ensuring that there is no loss of genuine fully paid jobs as a result of these placements. My initial answer to that is that this scheme would be organised with the closest consultation with trade unions, both nationally and locally, as well as with the employers, and that no slot would be filled, at least for a reasonable period—I envisage, say, six to 12 months—if the trade unions insisted that it be kept open because of the prospect of filling it as a regular, fully-paid job. If a negative veto of such a kind were nevertheless still insufficient, consideraton could and should be given to providing the trade unions with a job guarantee, whereby the acceptance of social or public service volunteers would be conditional on providing a non-redundancy pledge for existing workers—for example, in the home help scheme. Such job guarantees have already been operated successfully for similar schemes, for example, in Sunderland, and in my view no doubt they could be extended for this wider scheme.

One last issue on which I want to touch concerns whether it makes sense, when there are already dozens of voluntary schemes which could expand usefully but are desperately short of funds, to suck money away from the useful work that they are doing in favour of a national, bureaucratically organised, centralised scheme. It does not make sense, of course. But that is the opposite of what is being proposed—that these local voluntary schemes should remain and expand and that they should receive an infusion of central funds but that, subject to the overall parameters of the scheme, they would administer them themselves locally through their own agencies.

I believe, in a nutshell, that voluntary work should be part of the training for life and, subject to the qualifications which I have been careful to mention, I hope that the Minister will now seriously explore the practicalities of implementing such a scheme.

2.46 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has raised this matter on the Adjournment. He will not expect me to be drawn into dealing with his asides about the Government's economic strategy. We can leave that to another day. The subject that we are discussing is an important one, and I intend to limit myself to it.

It is fair to say that a national community service has always been a matter of substantial interest to me. I can recall that when I sat on the Opposition Benches quite soon after I was elected to the House in 1974, my first letter to a Prime Minister—in that case the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) —was on a matter to do with a national community service of some sort. I have searched in my files, but I cannot find it. No doubt if we looked in the annals of Downing Street we should find what I wrote and what the right hon. Gentleman wrote in reply.

In general, I have always thought that there was a need—perhaps today an even greater need—for our young people to understand what is involved in being part of a democratic society. By that I mean that there are duties and obligations which are incumbent upon every citizen, and those duties and obligations ensure the freedom that we all enjoy. Being a citizen is a two-way business. One has to put something in and, of course, one gets something out as well. But a contribution has to be made.

Judging by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he is as aware as I am that there are certain elements in Great Britain to whom any mention of a voluntary national community service is anathema. Subsequent to the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion, I have no doubt that he received a number of brickbats suggesting that he was barking up the wrong tree. The reason is that the hon. Gentleman's idea does not fit in with the general scheme of things of those elements. The one-nation concept, which I hold close to my political beliefs, is alien to their objectives. But they are not to the hon. Gentleman's.

It could be argued—and I have no doubt that it will be argued more and more vehemently—that in the light of the breakdown of law and order in some of our cities the need for a national community service of some sort becomes that much greater. It is a sad list—Bristol, Brixton, Southall, Toxteth, Moss Side and even, in a small way, my constituency yesterday evening.

I expect that there will be more expressions of opinion in favour of proposals on the lines of a national community service. However people react to these incidents, there can be no excuse, in my view, for what happened in the riots. There are no excuses. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman did himself justice when he sought to give explanations. To destroy the property and livelihoods of others—that is what has been happening in our country during the last week or so—is wholly unforgiveable, whatever the motives.

It is fair to say that the debate on a national community service was gaining momentum before these incidents took place. It is also fair to say that one of the first people to raise the matter publicly was my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). That was followed by the debating document from Youth Call to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That, in turn, was followed by the early-day motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir Hugh Fraser) and others of my hon. Friends calling for an investigation into the whole matter. That was, in turn, followed by the hon. Gentleman's early day motion, signed by many of his hon. Friends, which was followed by an amendment to his motion tabled by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).

The Government genuinely welcome this debate. At the end of the day, however, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, we need what I would describe as positive conclusions. The Government would like a set of proposals which they can examine closely and then decide upon. I intend to raise now certain questions that will be discussed in the debate throughout the country. The first is whether any such scheme should be voluntary or compulsory. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that, in his view, it should be voluntary. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are opposed to a compulsory scheme. It is fair, however, to ask whether the young people who would benefit from such a scheme might decide not to participate. One questions, therefore, whether those who would gain the greatest advantage might not slip through the net.

I put as a debating point whether the wish for the scheme to be as widespread as possible, is compatible with the desire for it to be voluntary. Another question to which we have to address ourselves is whether there is scope for a national scheme of community benefit. Are there enough positions or jobs—call them what you will—for participants to take up? It would seem at this stage—I say this advisedly—that there are. A recent report by Enrico Colombatto of the London School of Economics, suggests that there are 850,000 such placements in community work. However, we need more information.

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made about substitution. I hope that he accepts that if there are any complaints under the youth opportunities programme about substitution they are immediately investigated by the Manpower Services Commission. If the allegation proves correct, such a scheme comes to an end.

The hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree that through the youth opportunities programme the community enterprise programme and Community Industry there will be 150,000 participants this year in the placements under these programmes. He will also agree that there are numerous charities and voluntary bodies up and down the land which already provide many more such opportunities. I think that it is impossible to calculate how many there are because they are, by nature, private organisations.

The third question is what the cost of a national scheme of community service would be. Taking a figure of 800,000 places in the scheme—which may be an overestimate—the estimated cost is more than £600 million. It is very much an estimate at this stage. That is to be compared with the cost of the YOP this year, with 450,000 places, of £320 million, and it does not take into account the fact that there may be residential costs in addition to the cost of the programme.

The next point at which we must look is whether such a scheme could be run efficiently and effectively. We believe that it would need a very large number of supervisors—perhaps as many as 80,000. For the scheme to be effective. they would need to be of very high calibre. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I would disagree about that.

However, it is fair to say that in other countries such exist, although they may be of a slightly different kind. As a result of the general debate taking place, I hope that we shall have evaluations of these schemes. It would be sensible to examine their workings carefully.

In the event that we go down this road, we must do so only in the sure knowledge that we are creating something that will be properly run and of benefit not only to the community at large but, particularly, to the young people concerned. In that context, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be a great mistake to abandon what I would describe as successful programmes—the YOP in particular—only to put in their place something which had not been properly thought out at this stage.

The quality of the YOP has increased very substantially. I pay my respects to those who have operated that programme, because it has grown apace. At the same time as growing in quantity, it has grown substantially in quality.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the allowance of £23.50 a week. I should like to leave that debate to another day. However, despite what he and several of his hon. Friends say about the allowance of £23.50, the present estimate is that some 9,000 young people per week are joining the programme. If the sum of £23.50 were a major deterrent, the numbers joining would not be anything like as high.

I reiterate the Government's welcome to this debate today and the debate in the country at large. In a veiled way, the hon. Gentleman referred to what I would describe as the wholly negative attitude displayed by some bodies, such as, for example, Youthaid, to the early-day motion, and indeed, to the general debate. I reject that negative attitude, too, although I suppose that it is fair to say that, having read the letter from the director of Youthaid to The Guardian in May, I am not entirely surprised by it. When she said I find it entirely amazing that people like David Steel, Michael Meacher, Cardinal Hume, Peter Parker, and Mrs. Jane Prior are willing to associate themselves with such a debate it seemed to me to demonstrate a somewhat closed mind. Let us face the fact that the people concerned come from all parts of the political spectrum. They are leaders in their own way. If they have come together to discuss something, there must be a reason for that debate, because they are wholly reasonable people.

I hope that the debate will continue in the country at large and that positive conclusions will come forward. At that stage the Government will consider whether to proceed on the lines set out by the hon. Gentleman, to expand the number of YOP places or to take another course. That is the position which I hold.

Mr. Meacher

I thank the Minister for an extremely positive, constructive and helpful speech. I listened to his reply carefully. If those who wish to advance the scheme that I have described were to undertake an examination of the possibility of pioneering the scheme and were to pay particular attention to quantifying the results, costs and inputs, would the hon. Gentleman value that approach?

Mr. Morrison

I do not wish to pour cold water on anything. Much would depend on the nature of the scheme, the area in which it was contemplated to pioneer it, and how many people would be involved. I am a reasonably open-minded guy. I always say that I operate an open-door policy. I do not know what will be involved in the scheme. I have to consider the balances. The hon.

Gentleman is an ex-Minister and he will understand that as well as I do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see me about such a scheme, I shall be pleased to see him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.