Opposition Day Debate: Youth Unemployment

On Wednesday I attended the Opposition Day debate on youth unemployment and jobs, and have been reflecting on the proposals and arguments that were made in the debate over the past days. In Salisbury, we are fortunate that unemployment is relatively low, with a Jobseekers Allowance claimant rate of 1.8%. However, any unemployment, though, is a tragedy and a waste of potential. This is especially true of youth unemployment, and 34% of JSA claimants in my constituency are under the age of 24.

Without experience of work at an early stage, our young people risk getting trapped into patterns of joblessness and poverty. This can sadly lead to low self-esteem, poor mental health and other problems. More than this, if we do not take measures to reduce youth unemployment, or allow young people to develop the skills needed to compete in the labour market, we are not just failing them: we are compromising the future of our economy.

The approach that Labour is offering does not stand up to scrutiny. One of the opposition's proposals is to tax bank bonuses to guarantee 100,000 jobs for young people. Government does not exist to create artificial jobs – jobs that don't add value to the economy. We could spend money today to create temporary jobs for tomorrow, but what we need are jobs that are sustainable and of real value to the economy well into the future.

We should not have micro-managing government, but enabling government. The solution is to create a framework – of a stable economic climate, low regulation for businesses, low interest rates and wide education opportunities.

The government is cutting red tape for businesses, for example, by exempting micro-businesses from some EU accounting rules, planning to reduce the number of SMEs who have to undertake a full financial audit, and exempting micro-businesses from all new domestic business regulation in the next three years. This reduces their financial and administrative burden to allow them to take on and retain staff. In April, the government will also change employment law to increase the period before unfair dismissal claims can be brought – decreasing the risks for businesses taking on new staff.

This is not to say that there is no more that can be done. I urge the government in consulting on flexible paternity leave to realise that complex regulation on family leave can be a real concern for small businesses in taking on staff, as I heard in a meeting with small business owners at Ambassadors' business breakfast just a few weeks ago. There is a need for clarity over the length and timing of leave to which employees are entitled so that small businesses can plan for this – and as needs will vary between individuals, autonomy should be given to businesses over what form these flexible arrangements can take.

I have also heard concerns over a trend of increasing administrative burdens on businesses over national insurance. The government should resist the urge to pass costs on to businesses – particularly as small businesses do not have the capital base or the capacity to deal with increasing regulatory burdens.

I urge the government to be bold in continuing an authentic Conservative approach. Big government sponsoring jobs is not the solution: it is this government's policies to create an attractive economic climate for businesses that will do justice to our young people and secure our future competitiveness.

Back to all posts