HC Deb 24 March 1981 vol 1 cc899-906

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

10.30 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

It is appropriate that I should be raising the issue of the young unemployed being offered the chance of military training under a proposal by the Secretary of State for Employment immediately after the Liberals have presented their petition on unemployment. Young people are being driven out of work by the Government's policies, and the Government are driving them into military service as the only available alternative.

The matter arises out of the youth opportunities programme, begun two or three years ago by the Labour Government as a temporary way of providing alternative training and work experience for young people who were thrown out of work in what was thought to be a temporary recession. It is now clear that something more than temporary work experience and training are required.

In a perceptive analysis of the youth opportunities programme, the organisation Youth Aid says that there must be a new system of youth opportunities programme. It states: The aim of the new YOP must be to provide a range of training and educational opportunities to 16–18 year olds designed to enhance their personal development and increase their future employability. We do not believe that there is any real conflict between these two sets of objectives. In a statement, the Secretary of State supported that approach. He said that the Government were to introduce a new system of vocational training for all young persons between the ages of 16 and 18. He said that it was an extremely ambitious programme, and continued: It is nothing less than a new deal for the young unemployed and its success depends on full co-operation from all those concerned, particularly from employers, whose assistance in sponsoring projects is vital."—[Official Report, 21 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 205.] He might well say that that is necessary, because in the league table of training for young people Britain is the bottom in Europe.

In 1977 in Great Britain, 56 per cent. of young people in the appropriate age group left school and took up full-time general education, full-time vocational education, or apprenticeship. The rest went into either work or unemployment. In Germany the figure was 91 per cent. and in France 81 per cent. In such circumstances, one must ask what we are doing to help our young people to get work experience or training that is appropriate for their future development and to bring us up to the levels of the Germans and the French.

The proposal to adapt the YOP to a sensible system of providing work experience for all young people is a desirable development. However, the Government have a problem. They propose a YOP system that will give assurance to all children leaving school in July that they will obtain a place on the programme by Christmas if they are still unemployed. For that purpose, the Government are allotting between 400,000 and 440,000 places on the YOP. By July next year, about 600,000 of the 750,000 school leavers are likely to find themselves registering for employment because they will be unable to find a job when they leave school. It is conceivable that by Christmas they will have obtained some employment, but in the present climate and in the prospective climate for next year that is very unlikely. The shortfall might be between 100,000 and 150,000 places on the projected programme. In those circumstances, the Government have turned to the only device that Tories can ever anticipate—"Give them a chance to do military training."

When I first aired this proposal in the newspapers in February I was told by the Secretary of State for Employment: No proposal on these lines"—— namely, that young people on the youth opportunities programme should receive some military training in uniform—— has been submitted to the Manpower Services Commission, which administers the youth opportunities programme. However, the Ministry of Defence, which has been a sponsor under YOP since 1978, is considering what further help it might offer unemployed young people and we are in discussion with it about this."—[Official Report, 4 February 1981; Vol. 998, col. 138.] The Prime Minister, on 5 February, in response to a supplementary question, said: With regard to his point about opportunities being made available by the Ministry of Defence, such opportunities would, of course, have to comply fully with the youth opportunities programme. If they are able to do so, it would seem reasonable to offer young people that extra chance to work there."—[Official Report, 5 February 1981; Vol. 998, col. 401.] There are already some projects on military establishments where young people can get work experience and training in civilian occupations as civilians. It is quite a different matter to say that they should be recruited into the Armed Forces and that they should then be asked to be subject to the normal military discipline. Even as late as 17 March 1981, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army wrote to Youth Aid saying: Should we decide to offer places to unemployed young people on training courses given to Service men it would be necessary to require the extra trainees to wear uniform to ensure that they were treated no differently from the majority of people on the course. This would allow us to offer access to a greater range of training opportunities, and would simplify the basis on which the Ministry of Defence could offer help. Of course, all places offered under the YOP scheme have to be confirmed as suitable by the MSC and we are discussing with them the type of training we might offer. All those answers are untrue. The proposal that has been put to the Manpower Services Commission is that there should be about 1,000 places for young men aged between 17 and 19 who would serve for about six months. The volunteer trainees would spend a period of about six months with the colours, subject to normal military discipline, and would be selected to meet Service standards of physical fitness, character and other attributes. In itself, that requirement is against the proposals in the YOP. It restricts the kind of people who could take part in this kind of training.

Two types of training with the Army are envisaged. The first is skill-oriented training directly relevant to future possible civilian employment, which would be provided by the technical arms and logistics corps. It would be available to only 300 of the 1,000. In some senses, it may be argued that the 300 would be receiving training that would be relevant to some civilian occupation when they left the military course. It could not be said for the remaining 700 entrants. For them, the second form of training would be general military training. Spare recruit training capacity would be used, and the volunteer trainees would join Regular recruit intakes on GMT courses scheduled for 1981–82.

The training would last for a maximum of about 20 weeks and the volunteer trainees would then be posted to Service units at home and in the BAOR for a further short period of between six and 12 weeks to complete their six months' opportunity. During that period they would be employed in the same way as their Regular counterparts. That seven-tenths of the 1,000 intake would be square-bashing. After that, they would be put on normal military duties.

That is not what the YOP was ever intended for, nor is it consistent with the philosophy of the existing YOP. Still less is it consistent with the philosophy of the new YOP that the Seretary of State outlined in his November statement. It is intolerable that such a proposal was put forward. The outcome of the proposal is that £2 million will be used to provide those 1,000 places. The £2 million could have provided 2,000 civilian places on the YOP, because the cost of a place on this scheme will be twice as much as the cost of a place on a YOP scheme.

Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

Am I right in saying that the people serving in the 1,000 force will receive £23.50 a week, plus food, whereas Regulars will receive £72 a week? In many cases, they will be asked to do the same work, thus undercutting their pay—in fact, scabbing.

Mr. Lyon

That is absolutely true, the emphasis being on the fact that they will be doing the same work.

The YOP was never intended for that kind of training. It could be argued that to take £2 million out of the Ministry of Defence budget and use it for this purpose was at any rate within the ethos of the Ministry of Defence allocation. But to take it out of the YOP means that 2,000 young people are being denied the chance of getting relevant civilian training and work experience. It is quite unacceptable on that basis alone.

It is unacceptable because the links with the local labour markets will be weakened, especially during service overseas. Moreover, it will be impractical to undertake a serious job search or for advice and counselling to be provided by the careers service. Kids who come back from BAOR will be dropped into the unemployment pool with no job training or experience to equip them to find a job. At the moment, kids who come off YOP have that advantage, and a substantial proportion of them manage to find jobs.

It is also relevant that most of the training provided will be specific to Army needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) says that those who serve would get only £23.50 compared with the higher sum for Regular recruits. There is a further element; they would be getting £23.50, but if they were not on the YOP and not in military service they would be getting supplementary benefit, which is about £8 less than the YOP figure. That is a substantial proportion.

If a young man is faced with the alternative of either going into military service because there are no places on the YOP or staying on supplementary benefit, which will he choose? To say that he is then a volunteer for military service is a misnomer. It is not voluntary military service; it is forcing kids into the Army because they are being forced out of jobs, because there is not the economic atmosphere in which there are jobs for all our young people and, moreover, because the system of work-saving and experience promised by the Secretary of State is not available.

In my judgment, the scheme is nonsense and should be dropped. I hope that the Minister will say that he intends to go no further with it. The Secretary of State said today that he was waiting for the response of the MSC. The MSC is wholly opposed to it—and not only the MSC, but all the participating members of the special programmes board, including the CBI. Youth organisations are opposed to the proposal. I have had letters from different youth organisations all over the country that are opposed to it. If the proposal is forced through, it will be forced through in the teeth of opposition not only from the official Opposition but from all interested bodies throughout Britain. I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight that he will drop the proposal.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) for raising this important matter. Although the House is rather sparsely attended, the matter is of great concern throughout the country. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, it is a question of what jobs and opportunities will be provided for school leavers during the next year.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is in the Chamber I listened attentively to the question that he put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during Question Time this afternoon. The hon. Member is a prominent member of his party. He is a member of the Labour Party national executive committee, and when he speaks he does so with great authority on behalf of the Labour Party.

The hon. Member for York knows that the youth opportunities programme is voluntary. It is not compulsory in any way, shape or form. For the hon. Member and his hon. Friends to suggest that we are forcing young men into the Army is wrong. Any man or woman who has joined the youth opportunities programme has done so because he or she decided so to do. To suggest that we are forcing people into the Armed Forces could not be further from the truth. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the pay for someone on the youth opportunities programme was £23.50. That is correct. But these people will join the Armed Forces only if they are prepared to take that pay. It is similar to the pay offered in other programmes in industry generally.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I do not want the youth opportunities programme—regardless of what opportunity is available—to be anything other than voluntary. We shall adhere to that. We do not want any element of compulsion. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is an expanding programme. This year, 320,000 youngsters will take advantage of what the Government are offering on a voluntary basis. By the end of the year, 440,000 youngsters will be involved in the programme. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a shortfall of 150,000 places on the target of 440,000. I do not know how he arrived at that figure. I accept that the target is ambitious, but the MSC is doing everything in its power to achieve it—in the way that it has done everything in its power to achieve this year's target—which it will do, give or take a few thousand.

I hope that both the hon. Member for York and the hon. Member for Salford, East agree that the important point about any programme under the youth opportunities scheme is that it should be of lasting good to the participants. As a result of taking advantage of the youth opportunities programme, school leavers and 17 and 18-year-olds should be more likely to obtain a lasting job. I trust that that is common ground, although I doubt it, judging from the recent words of the hon. Member.

I assure the hon. Member that no decision has yet been taken. As he rightly said, the MSC has still to give its views on the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I am sure that the MSC, because it is a highly responsible body which wants to do the best for the young school leaver, will want to take into account the views of employers—that is to say, the potential employers of young men who have come out of schemes. It will want to think carefully about what those employers will be looking for in 17 and 18-year-olds. That is the best way in which it can help them. It will also want to take carefully into account, as I am sure it is doing, the views of the young people.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

As the CBI representatives are opposed to the scheme, will the Government also listen to the views of those employers and drop the scheme?

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman appears to know more than I do. I do not know whether the CBI representatives are opposed. The hon Member is apparently all-knowledgeable about things about which I am not all-knowledgeable. The CBI is not the eventual employer, but the eventual employers are small business men throughout the country and big companies such as Marks and Spencer and General Electric. Those people will pay and employ the young people who come out of the youth opportunites programme. I am more concerned about those people, for the sake of the young people.

Not only those people are important; so are the young people themselves. The hon. Member said that every youth organisation he had talked to was opposed to the proposal. That may or may not be so. However, I take more interest in what the young people want. If the school leavers want to join such a scheme, they should have the opportunity so to do.

We have a highly professional Army, Navy and Air Force, which, for understandable reasons, do not want to be too bothered with amateurs. It is admirable that they are prepared to play their part because of the results of the recession. They are prepared to say that there are school leavers in difficulies, who cannot find jobs, and that they are prepared to do something about it.

The hon. Member referred to the proposals put to the MSC. I am not sure where he obtained that information. I do not know whether the proposals were published, but such things happen.

I shall reply to the points made by the hon. Member. Because recruitment in the Armed Services has been restricted, there are under-used training facilities which will be of great interest and use in the long term, were the young people to go on such a scheme. Were such a scheme to be approved by the MSC, it would be only a pilot scheme and it would—I concur with the hon. Gentleman—include only 1,000 young men between the ages of 17 and 19. That would be for the year 1981–82.

The third thing—entirely endorsing what the hon. Gentleman was saying—is that two types of training would be envisaged. First, there would be the skill-oriented training, which, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, regardless of the military side, would be of great value to these young people in terms of their civilian future, and then there would be the general military training.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman—he did not actually say this, but he implied it—that every applicant who was involved in what I have described as the general military training should be told before he decided to go on such a programme exactly what it involved. It would be quite wrong if he were not told, in terms of not anticipating what could happen. I also agree that it would be wrong if a volunteer—and he would be a volunteer in these circumstances—were not able to terminate his service with the Army, Navy, Air Force, or whatever it was. Certainly, it is right that participants in a voluntary scheme should be able to terminate.

Mr. Frank Allaun

The new scheme will clearly involve a lot of trouble, new ideas and arrangements. Does the Minister feel that all this trouble will be worth while if the scheme is limited to what he himself says is the very small number of 1,000 men? In other words, I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether this is not really a trial which, if it comes off, will be extended to thousands and thousands of young men who will be under pressure to do this. I can tell him that in the Manchester area no military recruitment officers are allowed in the schools.

Mr. Morrison

I think that it would be totally worth while. If 1,000 young men aged 16,17 or 18 are to be given an opportunity to do something as a result of which they will gain a proper job because they have learned certain skills, of course it is worth while, even if it is only a pilot scheme; and perhaps it will grow, on a voluntary basis. It certainly is worth while to help young men to find their feet in the world, and I have no doubt whatever that the vast majority of the people in the country feel exactly the same as I do.

I return to the point about employers, because employers are the key if the young men are to find their feet and find a job. I know that it may sound old-fashioned or out of date, but I believe that what I am about to say is new-fashioned. What employers look for is self-reliance, the ability to work in a team, alertness and punctuality. The hon. Member for York smiles, but it is true. If only more people who are involved in education and training understood that they would be able to do a far greater service to the school leavers and, indeed, to schoolchildren. It is unfair not to tell them what life is all about. It is old-fashioned, perhaps, but in my book it is quite new-fashioned.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for York for raising this matter. It is a matter of political divide which I quite understand. The hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East and I do not agree on it, but that is why, unusually in an Adjournment debate, we can have an interesting discussion. The country will decide, no doubt, who is right and who is wrong.

I fully agree with the Opposition, in that I would be the first person to say that it should never be compulsory but should be on a voluntary basis—and it is on a voluntary basis. Surely it is right to give the opportunity to young men to help themselves. One of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen earlier today said that he believed that the youth opportunities scheme was a good scheme and was right.

Opposition Members want to help young men as much as I do. I believe that this proposal could help young men in a quite significant way.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock