There can no better time than an approaching General Election to launch grandiose new policies, designed to attract votes. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak thus took to TikTok on 27 May 2024 to introduce a “bold new model” for National Service, in the hope of reaching out to his core voters, many of whom favour a revival of the scheme and would also not be required to contribute to the same. Enthusiasm for the concept among government circles appears to have been boosted by an article entitled ‘Great British National Service’, published in August 2023 by centre-right think tank Onward.
In its most recent form, National Service was introduced in the UK in January 1949, courtesy of the National Service Act 1947. All “able-bodied” males aged between 17 and 21 had to serve in one of the Armed Forces, for 18 months to begin with, and for two years from 1950 onward. Upon completion of National Service, recruits remained on the reserve list for another four years. The scheme ended in 1960, and the last servicemen were discharged in 1963.
Under the current proposals, “mandatory” National Service will apply to all 18-year-olds, regardless of gender. The majority of teenagers would be expected to “volunteer” for one weekend a month for one year, to a total of 25 days, in worthwhile community projects. A further 30,000 would spend a year serving full-time in the Armed Forces or UK Cyber Force, contributing to logistics, cybersecurity, procurement, or civil response operations. The £2.5-billion scheme will be funded from the post-Brexit UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which was set up to help Level-Up regional inequalities (£1.5 billion), as well as from the redirected proceeds of tax avoidance and tax evasion (a further £1 billion).
Various models of National Service already exist, many of which include compulsory military service, mostly for reasons of national security. According to the World Population Review, sixty-six countries have some form of conscription, including Israel, Switzerland, the Scandinavian nations (Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark), the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Russia, Egypt, Iran, Thailand, Vietnam, and South and North Korea, among many others across the world. The volunteering element of UK’s proposed National Service has its parallels in Universal National Service (Service Nationale Universel) for all 15-to-17-year-olds in France, which was introduced by President Emanuel Macron in 2018.
There are recent precedents for national civic service in the UK. The Millennium Volunteers were conjured up by Education and Employment Secretary David Blunkett in 1999, to provide nine months of full-time community service by self-selected 16-to-24-year-olds. The Millennium Volunteers scheme was taken over by the newly established charity ‘V’ in 2007, and currently exists in its original form only in Northern Ireland. A scheme to “develop character and bridge social divides” took shape as the National Citizen Service (NCS), which was part of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ idea in 2010. The NCS is administered by the NCS Trust, a not-for-profit organisation which was incorporated by Royal Charter in 2019. Over 750,000 young people, mostly 16-to-17-year-olds, have participated in NCS programmes to date. These programmes include community and online experiences, which are free of charge, and subsidised ‘away from home’ experiences, which are delivered by “outdoor education providers, charities, youth organisations, social enterprises, blue chip companies, and Community Interest Companies.” Away from home, five-day residential courses are aimed at developing leadership and teamworking skills. But despite its good intentions, the NCS has been a victim of both low take-up and, ironically, of substantial cuts in government spending.
Historically, each successive generation has had problems with its younger folks, dating back to at least the times of Socrates, if an often-quoted statement, but most likely misattributed, about “disrespectful” youngsters can be believed. In some quarters, particularly among older conservative voters, many of today’s younger citizens are considered feckless, ill-disciplined, and workshy- in dire need of corrective treatment. The reality is somewhat different. Young people are often victims of changed circumstances. Poor employment prospects, a lack of meaningful training opportunities, insecure and poorly paid jobs, high costs of living, a shortage of housing, and mounting student debt have all widened the growing intergenerational divide, while a retreat of the forces of law and order has made young people more vulnerable to the undesirable effects of casual crime.
National Service, as currently proposed, can be considered a poorly conceived yet ambitious experiment in social engineering, ostensibly designed to encourage civic duty, to promote social cohesion, to develop key skills, and to improve the mental well-being of younger people. However, taking on unpaid work in place of paid weekend work seems unlikely to benefit the economy as a whole or the financial circumstances of individual participants. Key skills are better achieved through paid apprenticeship schemes and other vocational training initiatives. Furthermore, the previous period of National Service did not demonstrably enhance social cohesion-at best it enabled a spirit of camaraderie among fellow recruits. Yesterday’s National Service, which is often viewed through rose-tinted glasses by those nostalgic for past glories, is not the answer to today’s “youth crisis”, which is a symptom of wider societal malaise under modern conditions. Structural changes in the economy, skills-based training, and better access to mental health care are needed to improve the lot of young people, so that they can then contribute more effectively to economic growth.
Ashis Banerjee