HC Deb 09 July 1985 vol 82 cc881-3
1. Mr. Park

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how he proposes to finance the second year of the youth training scheme.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King)

We are making some £925 million in 1986–87 and some £1,100 million in 1987–88 available for the new youth training scheme. Employers will also be contributing to its costs.

Mr. Park

What steps does the Secretary of State propose to take to bridge the gap between the current estimated cost of the one-year programme — £781 million — and the £925 million to which he has just referred? Has he received a commitment from the employers, or is this another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, to the detriment of the trainees?

Mr. King

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will find that the £925 million is only part of the cost for part of the year. The academic year overlaps the financial year. The hon. Gentleman knows that the proposals are the unanimous recommendation of the Manpower Services Commission, comprising the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and independent local education authority interests. I am pleased to support them and keen that they should be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Dickens

Is it not a fact that for the first time in the history of this country all youngsters under the age of 18 now have the opportunity to continue in full-time education, to take a job or to enter a training scheme that is relevant and flexible enough to suit their needs? This is something of which we ought to be proud and which my right hon. Friend ought to be saying from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. King

I try to say it on every possible occasion. This is a remarkable achievement, but we are not resting on our laurels. After the success of the one-year scheme we are introducing the two-year scheme. I hope that it will become a permanent feature and improve the training opportunities and work experience of every youngster who wants to take part in the scheme.

Mr. Mason

Is the Secretary of State aware that I have received complaints that 17-year-olds are being refused places on youth training schemes until all 16-year-olds have been catered for? Is that not foolish when young people have decided to take a further year of education to increase their 0-levels so that they will be better equipped for the YTS? Is this a Government directive or a matter for local decision?

Mr. King

They are not being refused places, but 16-year-olds have always been given priority. When we introduced the scheme we guaranteed a place upon it for every 16-year-old, but our ambition was to help as many 17-year-olds as we could. We have fulfilled the guarantee for both the 16-year-olds and the 17-year-olds. There may be a slight blemish in this respect. If the right hon. Gentleman has heard of problems, I hope that he will let us know so that there will be the minimum delay before 17-year-olds are provided with an opportunity to participate in the scheme.

Mr. Favell

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases the one-year scheme has proved to be very successful and that it does not appear to be necessary to have a two-year scheme? For example, in Stockport it is prophesied that over 80 per cent. of those who are on this year's scheme will have a permanent job at the end of it.

Mr. King

The figures for the number of entrants to the youth training scheme going on to full-time jobs are encouraging in many parts of the country. My hon. Friend will recognise that there is wide support among employers and those involved in training for the concept of a two-year scheme, which we are keen to see. I am glad that we have the support of hon. Members, I hope in all parts of the House, and certainly we have the unanimous support of the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Sheerman

The right hon. Gentleman knows that he will have the support of Labour Members if he moves towards a two-year quality training scheme. Is he not misleading the House, however, when the facts show that the present budgeting allows for only a one and a half year scheme, 30,000 places cut from the mode B provision and a reduction from 26 weeks off-the-job training, as recommended, to 20 weeks? That is not compatible with a quality two-year scheme.

Mr. King

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is already seeking to chip away from what is a determined effort to introduce a quality two-year scheme — [Interruption.] Waving a cutting from a newspaper does not demonstrably prove any argument. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our determination to introduce a quality scheme. We want to give the best possible opportunity to young people. We believe that the scheme, as brought forward unanimously by the MSC, contains within it the right framework to achieve that objective.