Youth Training Scheme (Hansard, 19 June 1984)

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie):
My Lords, I am pleased to report that about 350,000 young people entered the Youth Training Scheme in 1983-84. The resistance to the scheme by some trade unions, mostly at a local level, has clearly not diminished the interest of young people in entering the scheme, nor has it prevented its successful operation.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer, which sounds encouraging, but is it not a fact that the non-co-operation of certain unions locally, at branch level, must be having an adverse effect on the development and continuation of the scheme in its second year? Is this not a serious matter, at any rate for the young people who are denied those opportunities? Could he therefore tell the House to what extent the loss of more than 9,000 places between the end of March and the end of April is attributable to the withdrawal of union support? And how many places are likely to be lost following the decision of the Union of Communications Workers to instruct its executive to withdraw support from the scheme?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I am wholly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if I understand his inference aright, that it would be a very great pity —indeed, a tragedy—if political considerations usually connected with issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with youth training stopped unions from helping, as we all must help, young people who through no fault of their own are caught up in a great crisis in the jobs market. As to the specific point he made, my advice is that so far the scheme has not been adversely affected; but in relation to the Union of Communications Workers—the Post Office workers, as we think of them—they did pass a resolution at a recent annual conference instructing their executive to withdraw from the scheme. It is too early to say how this resolution will in practice affect the scheme, and initially, of course, that will be a matter of negotiation between the union and the 146 management at the Post Office. I appeal to all those involved not to let external considerations interfere with the need for the whole community to help the young.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, would the noble Earl not think that this has come about as a result, not just of political considerations but of economic considerations, and the fact that certain members of the UCW might think that the Youth Training Scheme has become a cheap labour scheme? In this connection, would it not be better if the Government were to support the efforts of the TUC and, for example, raise the £25 limit, which has been exactly the same since 1982?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I think I have seldom heard, even from the Dispatch Box opposite, two more contradictory statements. The whole point of the £25 allowance is that it is an allowance, and not wages. If it were wages, there might be some justification for the line that the noble Lord was taking about cheap labour. In fact, it is not a cheap labour scheme; it is a training scheme, and should be treated accordingly.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, is it not the case that the figure of 350,000, which I think the noble Earl gave, was in fact the throughput over a whole year, whereas the number of young people actually in place on training schemes was something in the region of 250,000 according to the Manpower Services Commission's latest quarterly labour review? Would the noble Earl like to comment on that?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I think I would have to have notice of that question. My advice is that 350,000 young people entered the training scheme in 1983ߝ84, which is what I was asked.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, the word he used is "entered". Some of them obviously left, too. Will he look at the MSC's latest quarterly labour review, in which I think he will find a figure which approximates to the one I have given?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I will indeed look at it, but I am also advised by the MSC that there has been an encouraging take-up into real employment of those leaving the scheme, and in some areas the employment prospects for young people have, I am glad to say, improved considerably.

§ Lord Blyton
My Lords, will the noble Earl say how he expects to get the co-operation of trade unions in any scheme that the Government bring forward when we have had six years of trade union "bashing" from the Conservative Party on the Front Bench?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the noble Lord is, I fear, living in a dream world. There has been no trade union "bashing", and there will be none.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree, however, that even a training scheme allowance deserves to be updated for inflation? Therefore, why 147 will he not answer my suggestion that it should now be £31 and not £25?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, the level of the allowance has had no deterrent effect on young people entering the scheme. They are entering the scheme for training, not for wages.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, in view of the severity of the problem of unemployment among young people, can the noble Earl assure us that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to any recommendation that may come from the Manpower Services Commission to extend the eligibility for entry into the Youth Training Scheme to more young people aged 17?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord that if a young person aged 17 is unemployed and if places are available, he or she will become eligible for a place on the scheme, and that we do have 17 year-olds on it. In respect of the future and eligibility as of right, so to say, that is under review at present.

§ Lord McCluskey
My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the allowances for Members attending this House have been raised since 1982? If so, can he explain why the Government should not raise the allowances for these youth by the same proportion?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, that is a wholly different issue. I suggest that the noble and learned Lord puts down a Question on the allowances, when it will be answered by the appropriate department.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, would the noble Earl be kind enough to remind the House of the reasons which prompted the Government to suggest such a living allowance on the purchasing power of £25 at the time it was first determined? Could he also say what are the reasons why they now believe that the purchasing power of a smaller allowance is appropriate?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, as the noble Lord, with his financial background, will be well aware, the Government are moving most of their budgeting into cash terms, and that is one of the many reasons why the Government have been successful in improving the rate of inflation.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, reverting to my earlier supplementary question, in view of the fact that the TUC pledged its full support for the scheme at its inception, and accepting my figure of about 2,500 places which may be lost following the decision of the Union of Communications Workers, would the Government consider using their good offices with the TUC in order to persuade that trade union and any other union in a similar position to reverse their attitude in view of the adverse effect on the training of young people, which is so badly needed for this country's potential economic performance?

The Earl of Gowrie
My Lords, it is no secret, I think, that there are many items of disagreement 148 between the TUC and the Government. The point I was trying to make, very much in support of what the noble Lord had said, is that these disagreements have nothing to do with the issue of training for young people. In general, the unions have been supportive. I very much deplore those who have not, but I hope that they, too, will follow the general TUC line.