Senior Lib Dems oppose spend on Tory National Citizen Service

The party agreed to the Conservatives' plan to set up a personal development programme for 16-year-olds as part of the coalition agreement published in May. But with the coalition making larger public sector cuts than anticipated, a source close to the party has told CYP Now that opposition to spending Treasury money on a largely unproven scheme remains.

Liberal Democrat Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury and one of five government ministers overseeing the spending review, is among those believed to be against the plan. Other Liberal Democrat ministerial opponents are understood to include Business Secretary Vince Cable and equalities minister Lynne Featherstone, who has campaigned for investment in established youth work programmes.

The Conservatives estimated before the general election that it would cost £50m to set up pilot schemes for the first two years. Last month the Prime Minister confirmed at a reception at 10 Downing Street that the NCS pilot programmes would receive an unspecified amount of funding in the 20 October spending review.

Speaking in April before the coalition government was formed, Alexander described the NCS as a "multi-billion pound black hole". He added: "The Conservatives are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think they can provide a National Citizen Service on the cheap."

CYP Now understands there are concerns within the party that the NCS does not meet several of the criteria laid out in the coalition's Spending Review Framework published in June, including whether the activity can provide substantial economic value (see box). The party fears this could undermine its commitment to fairness.

Linda Jack, a former youth worker and chair of the Liberal Democrats Youth Policy Working Group, confirmed opposition remained within the party to the scheme. "NCS is an ambitious programme that must meet the test of fairness set by the government for the upcoming Spending Review. There is some unease in the party about whether an expensive universal service can be justified. If it goes ahead it must ensure that there is a continuity of service, especially for the most vulnerable young people."

Alexander, Cable and Featherstone were unavailable for comment.

The government spending criteria:

- Does the government need to fund this activity?

- Does the activity provide substantial economic value?

- Can the activity be targeted to those most in need?

- How can the activity be provided at lower cost?

- How can the activity be provided more effectively?- Can the activity be provided by a non-state provider?

- Can non-state providers be paid to carry out the activity according to the results they achieve?

- Can local bodies as opposed to central government provide the activity?

Source: Treasury