Local Authorities (Employment of Apprentices) (Hansard, 27 October 1982)

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage local authorities to employ apprentices in their direct labour departments. In moving this motion, I do so deeply conscious that this small measure may appear almost insignificant in the context of the curse of mass unemployment which the Government have inflicted on men and women of all ages since they took office in May 1979.

As The Guardian this morning so pointedly put it: Today's record unemployment is part of the price that we are continuing to pay for this Government's mistakes". However, it is the intention behind this measure to extend just a little help and some hope to a number of young people among that grim total. of 1,297,000 under-25s at present unemployed. It is ironic that that is almost identical to the total number of unemployed under the Labour Government in May 1979. The figure for total unemployment then was 1,299,000.

The present legal provisions introduced by the Government's legislation effectively inhibit the power of local authorities to initiate special building apprenticeships. Such schemes are primarily designed to alleviate the problem of youth unemployment and are also aimed at providing a pool of trained workers in the building industry for the future benefit of both the private and public sectors of that industry.

This must be seen against a background of a catastrophic decline in the number of apprentices that is now taken on by private industry. For example, in the Kirklees authority in Huddersfield, an engineering town, the number of engineering apprentices has dropped from 357 in 1978 to 113 in 1981. However, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the regulations laid under that Act, particularly circular 6/82, have placed severe constraints on the ability of local authorities to pursue this policy.

This morning, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities gave evidence that one large Yorkshire authority has had the number of apprenticeships slashed' from 126 in 1980 to only 20 in 1982. In 1979, 164 young men and women were employed under this scheme in Manchester, but the figure has slumped to 39 this year. Sunderland has been badly hit by unemployment. In 1980, there were 122 real apprenticeship opportunities in that town, and that figure has now dropped to 10. In Birmingham, where there will be a by-election tomorrow, the figures are just as catastrophic.

The special apprenticeship schemes with which I am concerned here are quite separate from the normal apprenticeship schemes which operate in direct labour organisations. My Bill seeks to separate one from the other. The Government's intention was to put a 5 per cent. return on capital requirement on direct labour organisations, but surely at no time was it their intention to deprive local authorities of the ability to provide proper apprenticeships for young men and women. These are real apprenticeships. They are for three, four or five years. They are not new training initiatives. They are not for six months or a year. They represent real training that leads to a job, a craft and .a skill. 1073 Here direct labour organisations are normally expected to compete with outside contractors on an equal basis. The cost of training apprentices is to be borne by the DLOs, just as it would be borne by a private contractor. I do not query that. However, private contractors do not have the same responsibilities as local authorities in providing facilities to help unemployed people find new skills, and in providing a pool of workers for the future when prospects for the building industry improve—possibly under the next Labour Government.

In Kirklees, my own authority, the council operates a special apprenticeship training scheme under which 50 building apprentices were to be recruited by the building services direct labour organisation in three consecutive years—1981, 1982 and 1983. That had to end, although it was a scheme for 150 young men and women, in addition to the 20 normal apprentices in that organisation. It was intended that the cost of those apprenticeships would be recharged from the DLO to the budget of the resources and planning committee. However, the combined effect of the 1980 Act and the regulations under it make that impossible.

The special training budget would have been charged direct to the general rate fund. The only alternative would be to have the training budget charged to the DLOs' client committees. Those of us who have been in local government know that the inexorable result of that policy would be to force the housing revenue account to bear the brunt. It would mean that the real cost of the scheme to provide employment for all the people's children would be borne by the rents. That would result in a catastrophic rise in rents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out in his application under Standing Order No. 9. Rents would go up again, although they have already gone up 117 per cent. since this Government came to power.

This modest little Bill is an attempt to provide young people with jobs and to give them a future. I hope that the House is with me in that intention.