Employment (Hansard, 22 March 1985)

§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)

I beg to move, That this House, recognising the considerable achievements of Government policies in increasing the numbers in work by 340,000 in the year to September 1984 and of the successful launch of the Youth Training Scheme, urges the Government to exploit fully the opportunities to reduce the level of unemployment by developing the Youth Training Scheme into a two year course, leading to levels of skills comparable to those obtained from a 'time served' apprenticeship, with a heavy emphasis on the new technologies, developing the re-training facilities offered by the Skillcentre Training Agency to increase the relevance and acceptability of the training offered, reducing the burden of employment bureaucracy on employers, particularly small and medium ones, encouraging wholeheartedly worksharing by abatement of income tax and national insurance contributions, both employer and employee, for part-time half-time employees earning less than half the average wage, preparing the workforce for a shorter working week and creating circumstances favourable to flexible early retirement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for summing up his important debate with such brevity. It gives me a few moments to offer some thoughts to the House on the changing structure of employment. It must be rare for a Back-Bench Member to put down for the first time a motion on the Order Paper to be debated later in the week, but appearing for the first time on Budget day, and to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer concede almost all of his demands within eight hours. That is my happy position, and I am much encouraged by that demonstration by the Chancellor of his willingness to listen to advice from these Benches and to act so speedily.

Cynics might insinuate that I had taken many well-thumbed suggestions and cobbled them together in one of those composite motions so loved by the Trade Union Congress at its annual meeting, but they are wrong. While the youth training scheme proposal, the income tax threshold decision and even the alleviation of employment bureaucracy have been well trailed, the Chancellor appears to have added his most radical proposal—the eminently sensible reform of national insurance—at the end of his speech and without great promptings from either the press or pressure groups. I am entirely persuaded that my motion brought about those welcome reforms. Any suggestion that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had anything to do with it, I discount entirely.

Enough of the frivolity. I tabled my motion because I am one of the few hon. Members who still run their own businesses day by day in addition to their parliamentary duties. I employ 50 people and have an active part in running my business. I am therefore familiar with the problems that confront all businesses today. I tabled my motion also because I represent a constituency in the south-east which has a high rate of unemployment—17 per cent. —much of which was caused directly by the closure of a major Government establishment — the Royal Navy base and dockyard at Chatham. I am therefore familiar with the changing structure of employment and persuaded of the need for it.

The Government have initiated many major schemes of training and community employment which are to be applauded. It is hypocritical of the Opposition to sneer at the fragility of make-work schemes and to call for the creation of real jobs, whatever that may mean. That is 1155 dishonest and disingenuous. When the Labour party was in government it was pleased enough to massage the unemployment figures with many work experience schemes which had almost no training or employment content.

The Government's youth training scheme is the most exciting new training initiative for several decades and has the potential to replace the almost defunct time-serving apprenticeships. I am delighted by the decision to extend it to two years and to introduce a recognisable qualification for those who complete their training successfully. I hope that the enormous potential of the excellent ITeCs, of which one of the best is in my constituency, can be fully exploited, with more advanced courses leading to qualification.

Time will not allow me to say a great deal about the skill training agency centres, although I also have one in my constituency, and fortunately it will survive the present rationalisation. The present steps are necessary to make the centres more relevant and to narrow what seems to be a credibility gap in relation to the training offered.

I have concentrated on training because I am convinced that the work force at all levels must become more skilled. I am reminded of a visit to a local factory where I watched in horror and fascination as a man lifted a heavy crate from a pile, turned through 90 degrees and put it on to a conveyor belt. He repeated the operation several times a minute and was due to perform that dreadful monotonous task for several hours before his break.

That factory is now closed, and even if it were to reopen I am certain that that man would be replaced by a comparatively simple machine. One can argue whether he was better off performing that mindless job than on the dole looking for a scarce new position. What is not in doubt is that we shall not create new jobs which can be performed by today's machines better, more cheaply and without industrial hassle. Our manufacturing base has been eroded, but any new manufacturing that we undertake will be much automated and we will not create the sort of jobs that that man was doing.

The other side of the equation is that new jobs will come from service industries, and we must apply our training schemes to them. A word here on training boards, which are so beloved of the Opposition. I have dealt with a training board for more than 10 years. Despite the helpful, friendly and courteous relationship with my advisers during those years, I am convinced that the impact of the training board on my trade—the licensed trade—is, at best, peripheral. Perhaps other sectors enjoy a more positive contribution from their training boards, and I can hope only that the increasing emphasis on training brings with it an increasingly relevant role for the training boards.

I come now to what I would call the employment bureaucracy that confronts employers. There are simply too many officials charged with administering a part of the employment function; and I could name all of those with whom I have had to deal, but that would take too long. One of the major problems of the employment bureaucracy is that employers view the army of officials with increasing suspicion. There is a feeling that officials are interested only in catching out employers to justify their continued existence. There is a real need for a complete change of attitude among the officials of the employment bureaucracy. They should seek to understand the problems 1156 that confront employers and help employers to overcome those problems. I mentioned earlier my enthusiasm for the raising of tax thresholds and the reduction in national insurance contributions. As one who still regularly does his company's payroll, I appreciate the nonsense of a system that allows me to pay someone £33.99 for part-time work and charge him no tax or insurance, whereas if I paid him a penny more he would lose £3.06 in national insurance contributions, and it would cost me £3.55. I welcome the Chancellor's determination to resolve that problem.

Also on national insurance, I welcome the new arrangements for the self-employed. I put down a question last year and received a slightly bland answer, but I am delighted, as I am sure the self-employed will be, by the Chancellor's determination in this matter.

My last two requests are for items which might more properly be put forward by the TUC. They are for shorter working hours and for more flexible arrangements for early retirement and retirement in general. Too often, early retirement involves substantial financial hardship, which acts as a great disincentive to those who might otherwise be interested in releasing their jobs. Both considerations demand a fundamental review by the Department of Employment.

I am certain that this year's Budget is a Budget for jobs and will make significant inroads into the unemployment figures. That will bring some scorn from those who aspire to miracles, but then miracles have a tendency to turn to ashes quickly. There are no easy panaceas. What is needed is a better-trained work force spurred to greater productive efforts by a less crushing tax regime, working for employers who are less burdened by the bureaucracy; workers who earn a good wage without synthetic overtime hours and who can look forward to sensible and flexible retirement arrangements.

I am delighted that my motion has been overtaken to such a dramatic extent by Tuesday's Budget for jobs.