Scotland and the Youth Unemployment crisis

September 27, 2012 4:48 pm

By Liam Byrne MP and Kezia Dugdale MSP

In May this year, a report by the International Labour Organisation declared youth unemployment a “crisis”. This is certainly a word used a great deal by politicians; but the fact that it is more than rhetoric is obvious. Is there anyone now who doesn’t know a young person looking for work?

And as sure as anything, from this crisis there continues to flow tragedy. The human cost is incalculable, taking a toll on mental and physical health; the trauma suffered by young people’s confidence – including those recycled from one 12-week training programme to another – takes a long time to heal.

It is a good bet that this morning, most of those one million young unemployed people got out of bed, turned on laptops or visited local libraries to check job websites and inboxes, for a sign that today things might be different. For more than 5000 young people in Scotland, this will have been a ritual repeated for over a year, with hope seeping away as each day goes by.

For some, they may have been lucky and snagged an interview, or perhaps beaten the tens or hundreds of other people chasing the same post and landed that long-awaited opportunity. But sadly for many this daily routine will go on.

With over one million young people unemployed, rightly they ask the difficult question of politicians like us: ‘when will there be jobs?’ Whether it’s graduate employment, unskilled work, or a first job in a shop or café, throughout the UK, youth unemployment remains a crisis.

ACEVO, the association of voluntary organisations, calculated earlier this year that youth unemployment would cost the Treasury £28 billion over 10 years. This has now been revised to £30 billion.

So the economic toll of this crisis is stark too. ‘Wage scarring’ is inevitable; a term used to describe how those who suffer unemployment in their early career go on to make less over their working lives than their more steadily employed counterparts.

We are therefore presented not only with a moral, but an economic imperative.

However to look at the reaction by the SNP at Holyrood and the Tory-Lib Dem coalition at Westminster, one would hardly know it.

When the youth unemployment rate went through the one million mark in November 2011, the coalition responded simply: “nothing to do with us, blame the Eurozone”.

In Scotland, Alex Salmond boasts proudly of appointing “the first Youth Employment Minister on these islands”. But a meagre budget spread over many press releases is not a policy, and his default position of “blame the London parties” is wearing thin.

The SNP’s flagship policy to tackle youth unemployment, delivering 25,000 apprenticeships each year of the parliament, has also brought more questions than it has answered. But in its zeal for a headline, what thought has been given to the industries of the future, and the hope for 100% renewable electricity by 2020?

The detail of the policy speaks volumes: 10,000 jobs rebranded as apprenticeships, going to those already in work for six months or more; construction, engineering and electrotechnical are now less than half what they were in 2007/08, as a percentage of total apprenticeships; retail and hospitality make up 20% of all apprenticeships; and spending is now £1000 less on each apprentice than in 2007/08.

Politicians have long been engaged in policy ‘bidding wars’, where the promise of x-thousand police and y-thousand teachers is pitted against z-thousand nurses, and so on. Johann Lamont this week rightly asserted this was not only unsustainable but dishonest.

The apprenticeship is a perfect example of this. Should greater numbers be sought at the expense of quality? What is the apprenticeship programme for, if not to produce the skilled workers, the engineers and technicians that are going to play a lead role in the economy of the future?

As politicians, we must be brave enough to lead the debate, and create the space needed to have a measured discussion about getting the most out of everything we spend and do, both for economic prosperity and to protect those most in need.

But right now, we are missing a trick: the potential of our young people is flowing away every day, untapped. And it isn’t just them that lose out, but our communities and our economy. Yes, the demand must be there, but smart, committed governments can create that demand. Only this will bear opportunities.

The human and economic cost of not doing something for our young people is unaffordable.

This country’s young people cannot wait for the Eurozone problem to resolve itself, or for an independence referendum that would supposedly bring only milk and honey with it. Youth unemployment is a crisis, and needs to be treated like one.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Youth unemployment is a crisis, and needs to be treated like one.

    That is certainly a true line, but as it is uttered by Labour politicians, it is also fair to ask what Labour’s plans are to address it?  

    Of course, this is a charge that must be laid upon the Scottish government, but in this case, Labour also needs to have a plan as it declares a “crisis”.  And a plan can only derive from policy, which is not there at all.

    After all, if it is a crisis, which it is, it cannot wait for several years until the next policy review concludes.  I am not up to date with Scottish politics, but my impression is that the Scottish Labour party waits until the national party has decided upon national policy before coming out with a Scottish version.

    So, a crisis, but no plan?

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      Perky Liam goes all Jeremy Clarkson on this one, he proposes to “put more fuel in the tank” of the back-to-work programmes. Starting with a tax on banker’s bonuses that could help provide the funds for a “construction boom” and also help to get “over a hundred thousand young people back into work”.

      Kezia proposes “a national Jobs Guarantee scheme like the Future Jobs Fund.”

      That’s the plan.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        On the face of it an annual bankers’ bonus tax receipt of £3.25 billion is just about enough money to fund the land, materials and labour costs of 25,000 affordable homes, given inputs of £100,000 per home for land and materials, and £30,000 for labour at minimum wage levels.  I don’t know how long house building takes, but that assumes 4 people to build each home, spread over 6 months.

        But the construction industry has shed 300,000 jobs since the financial crisis hit in September 2008, presumably all skilled and qualified, and many of whom may still be jobless.  As far as I am aware, house building is done by private companies, not a ministry.  

        So in effect, the policy is to hand to private industry £3.25 billion (in arrears), and ask them to ignore their old workers with skills, and to take on and recruit and train jobless young people, get them into fours and tell them to build a house, and then after 6 months to lay them off.

        All that would do is result in 25,000 homes of low quality being built by mostly unskilled young people who then join 300,000 other ex-construction workers on the jobless pile.  6 months pass by, and another 100,000 young people are taken on, employed to build another 25,000 new homes of equally low quality, then themselves laid off to join the now 400,000 ex-construction workers with no jobs to perform.

        As for the other practical problems of buying the land, planning permissions… and what happens if the construction companies actually re-employ all of their old workers who have good skills and who they know work hard and well, save on the training costs, employ no new young unemployed and build better quality houses? Is there to be a law against that? If a skilled bricklayer applies for an advertised job and is turned down in favour of a youth who has never laid a brick in his life, is that discrimination?

        • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

          It’s a matter of saying something is better than saying nothing, I think. Apart from ‘direction of travel’ indicators such as predistribution there hasn’t been much from the Parliamentary L.P. other than sloganised policy.

          I suppose they all look the part though, in their business suits, with heads wagging as they talk and hand gestures absorbed from long study of Blair’s speech videos.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            The policy sounds good, and can even be made to acceptably add up, at least for political purposes.  But, in the detail it is a rubbish policy, and it is distressing to see the low level of intellectual input into it.  It can be torn apart in seconds, as indeed can many policies of the tories and even the Lib Dems (not that anyone takes them seriously now).  

            You have to wonder if this is the influences of the “SpAds”, little children with no real world knowledge employed by the taxpayer to dream up nonsenses while they wait their turn to be selected for a safe seat of whichever party employs them.

            I forget the details of the particular policy proposal, but it was around A&E admission and treatment policy.   We had some “Fast Track” civil servants, and a couple of SpAds visit the department I worked in Darlington Memorial Hospital, back in about 2000 or maybe 2001.  The civil servants were there on a learning experience, and learned that Government policy on A&E is too big a hammer for hour by hour clinical priority management within individual units, but the Spads (2 of them) were not convinced, and thought they knew better.  I was told off by my director for being too abrasive in answer to stupid questions.

  • AlanGiles

    “It is a good bet that this morning, most of those one million young
    unemployed people got out of bed, turned on laptops or visited local
    libraries to check job websites and inboxes, for a sign that today
    things might be different.”

    Well, well!. Byrne has changed his tune somewhat – when he was so busy drumming up support for Purnell/Freud, he and his pals like Cooper and Blears liked to give the impression they didn’t get out of bed till afternoon, then sat about in their night attire watching TV.

    It would be nice to think the dissembling Byrne had seen the light, but this is just another example of his self-serving chutzpah.

    • rekrab

      Absolutely @Alan, a few days ago Lamont threw Scottish labour into pure chaos by signing up to the Freud, Byrne notions of cutting universal benefits in Scotland, Lamont wants to cut care for the elderly, tuition fees, introduce a sharp rise in council tax and adopt the English versions of GP practice, she has said every thing is on the table to be cut, some are saying (Labour MSP’s) that it’s the longest suicide note in Scottish labour history. I’ve be asking question but their seems to be a silent block on the John Smith house.Jeez! we’re all over the place up here as Lamont seems to be aligning Scottish labour with new labour all over again. 

      • John Ruddy

        I take it you didnt read the speech, just the right wing reporting of it – or worse the SNP spin on it?

  • Monkey_Bach

    Eeek. 

    I’m confused. 

    One minute Labour is banging on about a nebulous so-called ”responsibility agenda” where the Party says it’s all “for hard-working families” who “do the right thing” and are lucky enough to have enjoyed long-term secure employment and “against” benefit claimants be they young, old, sick, disabled – whatever! - deliberately casting doubt over the eligibility of such people to receive assistance from the State at every opportunity and blathering about punitive “workfare” and a “contributions based” welfare system where the more you put in the more you get out in order to penalise such people. (Which kind of makes you wonder how unemployed young people who have never worked will receive any income from the State whatsoever!) For years the Labour Party has sought to tar benefit claimants with a filthy brush loaded with poisonous fictional “scrounger” rhetoric. 

    Eeek. And now, judging by this article, suddenly, the Labour-minded are supposed to sympathise and feel sorry for young people whose lives are blighted by worklessness and want to help them secure some chance at a future worth living.Eeek.As I say, I’m confused.Does Labour now really sympathise with the unemployed and want to help rather than puish them in meaningful ways or still want to whip up suspicion as far as their honesty and worthiness goes by insinuating that such people “choose” to “scrounge” benefits from “responsible taxpayers” rather than work which money they then squander waste on cigarettes, booze and worse?Atrocious recent Labour populist follies that led to the horrors of ATOS, ESA and the hostile scrounger rhetoric pursued by every political party and the media always confused me… … but then I’m only a monkey… … and we monkeys, although lower forms of life, do not desert or eat our own. 

Latest

  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]

    Read more →