The trouble with interns

Martin Bright has done a couple of posts recently where he has highlighted Phillip Hammond's use of an intern and also his justification of this by claiming it would be an abuse of taxpayer's money not to use the free labour available.

Over the years I have seen this issue pop up from time to time. The main problem is that when a company to utilises free labour, the intern is effectively subsidising the company for a while. They can only do this if they have independent means and the young people who are able to tend to be from more privileged backgrounds where their parents can afford to subsidise them for a while. This seems unjust and means that people from poorer backgrounds are to an extent being shut out of certain professions (especially in say the media when internships are commonplace).

On the other hand companies I am sure would argue that they are giving a good opportunity to people that would not be available if the intern/unpaid route was not available.

I do think it is odd though that we have a minimum wage law in this country and yet we also have a way for companies to get round this and effectively pay some staff nothing at all. It seems a little inconsistent.

I have to say I do not know what the answer is to this. Banning internships is not a route I would be comfortable going down. At the same time, especially in the current economic conditions I fear that an increase in this sort of unpaid Labour is only going to be bad for social mobility.

I am interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

Bonfire of the Quangos?

The media have had some fun today with the Tories by contrasting David Cameron's rhetoric on Quangos with the fact that they have already pledged to bring in 17 new ones through various announcments. They are:

1. Office of Tax Simplification

2. Office of Budget Responsibility

3. Free national financial advice service

4. ‘Sports Commission’ (Australian model)

5. Office for Civil Society

6. Social Investment Bank

7. Skills advisory service for service personnel

8. Service for families of departing armed forces personnel

9. Military inquest family advisory service

10. International Aid Watchdog

11. Innovative Projects Agency

12. National Foundation for STEM

13. HealthWatch

14. Defence Export Services Organisation

15. All Age Careers Service

16. Voluntary Action Lottery Fund

17. A ‘development agency for libraries’

The most important thing for me about this though is what it exposes about government and bueraucracy. Politicians are always trying to be seen to be "doing something". Whatever crisis comes along, there will be some bueraucratic structure that can be erected which can then be pointed to as the solution to the problem. And from the politician's perspective they are the gift that keeps on giving. Because they are unelected and largely unaccountable it means that ministers no longer need to resign when things go wrong because there will be a Quango somewhere that should have done something (or it will be spun that that is the case). That's how we have got where we are today and as amusing as it is to see Andrew Neil skewer Phillip Hammond with these pledged Quangos, the main point to note is that they are endemic. The Tories have just proven that if anything the problem will get worse under them. I am not trying to make a party political point; it is a systemic failure.

There is no easy answer to this. Some Quangos are doubtless necessary but the problem is their lack of accountability. We need to find some way to change this, otherwise the public will continue to feel that nothing can or will change.

I fear that the "Bonfire of the Quangos" that we have heard called for time and again and the necessary restoration of this accountability will not materialise because of the vested interest in the current system.

Hattip to Guido for the above list which is sourced from the Labour Party press office

UPDATE: Edited to clarify my rather garbled late night first and final paragraphs!