§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Cope.]
11.45 pm§ Mr. Norman Hogg (Dunbartonshire, East)Youth unemployment is one of the most tragic consequences of the Government's failure to manage the Scottish economy. Factory after factory in Scotland has closed its doors, whole industries have vanished, and that has brought in its wake a crisis for young people.
Those of us who have attended end-of-term ceremonies at schools in recent weeks are familiar with the serious problems facing young school leavers and their parents. Confidence and youthful optimism have given way to the harsh reality of the current unemployment situation in Scotland.
The Government's economic policy has not worked in any region of Britain, as is evident from the most recent Department of Employment figures, which show that well over 3 million people—13.4 per cent. of all employees—are without a job. In Scotland, 348,831 have no job—15.6 per cent. of all employees. In Strathclyde the unemployment rate is 18.1 per cent., and figures published by the Department of Employment on 20 July show that 34.8 per cent. of the unemployed in Scotland are school leavers.
The Government cannot avoid the fact that they must take a major part of the blame for the present levels of youth unemployment. They have compounded the problems by attacking education and training. Cuts in the education provision at every level and the closure of 16 of the 23 training boards are examples of the Government's approach. The measures referred to in the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland's reply to my parliamentary question on 30 June are no substitute for real training and real jobs.
The Government have even attacked the young people who have jobs. Ministers have claimed that those in employment and engaged in apprentice training earn too much. They want cheap youth labour and they do nothing to find employment for young people, many of whom have good qualifications. We live in the age of the unemployed graduate.
As if all that were not enough, the Government have embarked on a young workers' scheme that subsidises employers who recruit young workers on less than £40 a week. That gives employers a financial incentive to exploit young people.
To return to the central issue of unemployment, 1 million young people under 25 are on the jobless register. Last year only one in two school leavers found a job. In 1983 the figure will drop to one in three and by this time next year 70 per cent. of young persons in Britain's inner city areas will have no job and no prospect of a job and will be left with no promise of future employment. The social consequences that could derive from such a critical situation are fearful to contemplate and neither the Government nor the House can avoid recognising the problem and dealing with it.
The crisis will be relieved only when we cease to have policies aimed at contracting the economy. Expansion would create jobs, but that is not the way of this Administration. I need look no further than my own constituency to see the extent of the crisis and the consequences of three years of Tory rule.
651 The total number of unemployed in Cumbernauld new town is 4,241–2,023 men, 1,519 women and the 396 young men and 303 young women who are wholly unemployed and on the register at the careers office. A total of 376 are on youth opportunities schemes, but that figure is artificially low and a number of schemes are being held back, awaiting the new training initiative. The number on such schemes is likely to rise to 500 when the school leavers qualify for a training place. I regret to say that the careers office in Cumbernauld never has more than one or two vacancies.
Unemployment in Kirkintilloch follows the same pattern, with adult male unemployment now at 1,506, adult female unemployment 800, young males 219, and young females I64—in othe words, 2,689 people have no jobs. In the Strathkelvin district, 384 are on YOP schemes, 462 youngsters have no jobs and no training places. That means that about 846 young people are wholly unemployed.
Now we find that in Kirkintilloch, Anderson Strathclyde, a most successful company, which is based and managed in Scotland, is faced with a takeover bid. I do not know any employee of the company who supports the bid, nor any manager, or even any Member of Parliament. My hon. Friends and I—and, indeed, Conservative Members—have made our position clear to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We oppose the takeover of the company, and see no justification for it. It would not be in the interests of the company, the work force or the Scottish economy. Indeed, Anderson Strathclyde has an excellent record of engaging young people and providing excellent apprenticeships.
Half our young people leave school without getting an apprenticeship or a vocational preparation. That compares badly with West Germany. Last year, the Scottish Select Committee, which undertook a study of youth unemployment and training, established that only 10 per cent. of Germany's young people go without some kind of formal training. It is under one-fifth in France. Last year, in the United Kingdom, apprenticeships fell by 30 per cent. to under half the level that existed in the 1960s.
My experience is that young people want to work, and I regard it as their right. They do not accept the fashionable argument that mass unemployment will always be with us. Neither do I accept that argument. They do not accept the trendy thesis that new technology means that some will always walk the dole queue. I do not accept that argument either.
Time and again, I have put these arguments to meetings and groups of young people in my constituency, and time and time again they have told me that they want full employment, training and skills. That is the view of senior school pupils. It is certainly the view of the Young Socialists, and it is the view of young people whom I have encountered in youth fellowships and church organisations. Youngsters from all social classes and different backgrounds are unanimous in that view.
We have had this debate several times this Session. The Minister is certainly familiar with the arguments and statistics, and with the catalogue of constituency points made in debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and elsewhere in the House. We are becoming increasingly familiar with the Government's demand that we on the Opposition Benches should say what we would do about it. I shall say a brief word about that. We have constantly argued for an alternative economic strategy, and it is 652 regrettable that the Government do not appear to listen to us. Our aim is to reduce unemployment to under 1 million within the first five years of a Labour Government coming to office. We shall do that, first, by public investment to create jobs and revitalise our industries and social services. We shall direct that investment to disadvantaged areas. We shall make provision for employment and training subsidies, to encourage firms to recruit and train additional workers. The Government's young workers' scheme will be abolished. We shall provide job creation allowances to assist new labour-intensive activities. These will help, in particular, co-operatives and municipal enterprises.
We shall make provision for training support to increase apprenticeships and off-the-job education and training as part of our wider policy for 16 to 17-year-olds. We shall reduce working time, to share the benefits of rising productivity and to ensure that economic growth creates as many new jobs as possible. The next Labour Government will provide all young people with the opportunity of further education and planned training. All 16 to 17-year-olds, whether in full-time education, at work or unemployed, will have the right to a State student traineeship.
Our proposals include the expansion and improvement of training schemes co-ordinated by the Manpower Services Commission; a statutory obligation on employers to provide training opportunities of an approved standard linked to day or block release; an adequate training allowance with increased scope for trade union negotiation on behalf of young people in employment and an education maintenance allowance of at least £20 per week to allow young people to stay on in full-time education. We shall have to do those things because the Government's economic policy has completely failed the young people of Scotland.
Young people in Scotland see no hope in the present situation. They have no confidence in the Government. I am particularly concerned at the frequent representations that I now receive from parents who have no confidence that when their youngsters leave school that they will obtain employment. There must be another way to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government intend to tackle the present morass into which we appear to have sunk. I am convinced that there must be an entirely different approach to this matter.
It is for the Minister to account for the mess that we are in. He must say what is being done to get Scotland's young people out of the job crisis. I, the trade union movement, indeed, the whole Labour movement, believe that the only way forward now is to adopt the alternative economic strategy for which we are constantly arguing. I hope that the Minister will say something new tonight on how he intends to approach this tragic situation.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) for raising what is undoubtedly one of the most worrying problems that we face in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom.
We can all remember how we felt when we left school, college or university, about our job prospects and the careers that we hoped to start. There is no doubt whatever that this is the most depressing time since the Second World War for young people leaving school. We all feel 653 heartfelt sorrow for the disappointments, frustrations and worries that young people face when they contemplate leaving school today. So many of them are afraid that, without proper qualifications, they may well find themselves unable to obtain a proper job and make their own way in the world. That is a cause of concern throughout the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that that concern is not confined to any party within the House.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of youth unemployment and attributed it, fairly and squarely, to the failure of the Government. He went on to say that it was the result of the failure of the Government's economic policy. I am bound to say that, despite the shared concern to which I have referred, the problem is not confined to the United Kingdom. It is apparent in other parts of the world—in France, the United States, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. Youth unemployment and the lack of job opportunities for young people, particularly those leaving school without qualifications, training or skills, make it extremely difficult to find a job.
It is not a problem that we face alone but one that we share with countries throughout the world. The Government refer to other countries not as an excuse for the situation in the United Kingdom but purely in order to put into perspective with those countries the problem that we face.
We know why the problem exists, in particular in the United Kingdom. Despite the fact that some Opposition Members appear rather bored when we talk about the lack of competitiveness of British industry—it is not a very exciting statement to make—the fact remains that too much of the demand that exists in the British economy is met by imported goods. That is because people prefer to buy, for example, a motor car made in Europe or Japan to a motor car manufactured in the United Kingdom. Too many people in the United Kingdom believe—and who is to question their judgment?—that they get better value for their purchases in that way. The same point applies to television sets and to many other consumer goods.
The demand exists and our difficulty is that too much of that demand is being met not by British industry but by foreign competition. Therefore, we have to recognise the root cause of our unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and its relation to the lack of competitiveness of British industry. It is only by recognising that point, making ourselves aware of it and tackling the problem, as the Government are doing, that we can hope to revive job opportunities for young people as they come on to the job market.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government were failing to provide sufficient funds for education and training. I must take issue with him on that point, because the funds that are made available by the Scottish Education Department for school education and further education in Scotland have been maintained at a very high level, despite the financial constraints under which the Exchequer is bound to operate in these times.
I draw attention to the expenditure per head of the school population. The further education population has never been higher, pupil-teacher ratios have never been better, and we are most anxious that young people should take every opportunity to stay on at school, to go to further education or to take part in one of the several training 654 schemes that the Government have made available. Apart from the provision of funds through the education budget, very substantial funds—more than £1 billion in the current year—have been made available, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, for the various special programmes and youth training schemes in particular.
The youth training scheme, which is a new initiative, is aimed at making young people better prepared for employment opportunities. There are the changes in the apprenticeship provision which we have planned and are introducing, so that the old-fashioned restrictions which have hindered apprenticeship for so many years will be overcome. That is a result of joint effort and joint negotiation in the Manpower Services Commission, where representatives of employers and trade unions have reached agreement. It is very important for this House and for the country that agreement has finally been reached to modernise our apprentice training and to relate it to standards rather than to time served, and to remove also the very strict age limitations on apprentice training that the old system has maintained for so many years.
It is also encouraging—although it is not surprising at this time—that more young people are staying on at school and that more young people are taking opportunities in further education than ever before. Indeed, the United Kingdom has some leeway to make up in this respect, because there has been too high a proportion of our young people leaving school and not taking the advantage of any further education or training thereafter. The Government are taking those positive steps both in further education, training, apprenticeship schemes and in the special schemes that will provide better opportunities for youngsters to train themselves for employment as and when jobs become available.
The hon. Gentleman was critical of the young workers's scheme and suggested that it was aimed at suppressing wages. It cannot be denied that the wage expected, or paid, to youngsters must affect their job prospects. If one compares the wages paid to young people who have no skill or training and who have left school at 16 with those paid to similar youngsters in Germany, one finds that our wages are too high. Young people have a market value in employment. If, because of practices that were established largely through trade union negotiation, those wages reach a level that employers find unattractive, it adds to the number of those who cannot find employment. The purpose of the young workers' scheme is to reduce the cost to employers of employing young unskilled people. It has become much too expensive to employ them. Young people are competing, not just with other youngsters, but with married women whose families have grown up or are at school and who, because of their previous experience, may be more attractive to an employer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the takeover bid for Anderson Strathclyde. I am aware of the anxiety about the proposed merger with Charter Consolidated, especially about its effect on employment and on the Scottish economy. Anderson Strathclyde is one of Scotland's largest independent manufacturing companies. I welcome the recent decision of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
§ Mr. HoggI assure the Minister that my hon. Friends and I will make submissions to the commission spelling out the reasons why we are opposed to the bid.
§ Mr. FletcherI appreciate that and I am sure that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be delighted to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
There is no doubt that young people are anxious about entering the job market. Of course they wish to work and I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. I hope that he will agree that the countries with the lowest unemployment are those with the lowest inflation and those that have made the most use of modern technology, such as West Germany and Japan. With that lesson clearly in mind, the Government have made their target the reduction of inflation which will, we hope, lead to lower interest rates and also give every incentive to companies to introduce new technology. The Government believe 656 that this must be the mainstream of economic policy if we are to provide the job opportunities that young people have every right to expect.
I shall not dwell on Labour's alternative policies, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I understand the obligation that he must feel to describe these policies, even in a short debate. Everything that he says and everything I have read about these policies suggests that the Labour Party has learnt nothing from its experience in Government, when inflation and unemployment increased. I hope that the lessons of the need to reduce inflation to the lowest possible level and so provide better job opportunities will not simply be learnt on the Government side of the House but that they will also be learnt by the House and the country as a whole.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o' clock.