§ 9. Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from voluntary organisations about the Government's community programme for unemployed people.
§ Mr. AlisonThe community programme began on 1 October 1982 and the initial response from sponsors has been encouraging. By 8 November 4,041 temporary jobs under the programme had been approved and 60,000 further jobs are being negotiated with project sponsors. I am satisfied that the representations from voluntary organisations, which I listed in a reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on 26 October, were based on a misunderstanding of the programme.
§ Mr. MarksIs the Minister aware that there is still considerable anxiety among voluntary organisations, which regard the scheme as cosmetic? They ask: what is the true cost of the scheme to the Government? Is it the same as for the original scheme that was announced? Will the Minister see the voluntary organisations on a national basis to consider the programme?
§ Mr. AlisonWe are always willing to see any voluntary organisation that wants to speak about the programme. There has been no concealment of the cost figures. The gross cost, including that of the current community enterprise programme, which will provide 130,000 jobs, will be £575 million in a full year. The on-cost of the new community programme will be an additional £185 million.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleIs my right hon. Friend aware that many people are glad that the new programme is available throughout the country, as it recognises the needs of the long-term unemployed? Is it possible to incorporate some form of retraining for certain skills in that programme? We shall want people to be available for jobs at the end of the programme.
§ Mr. AlisonWhen the programme was conceived it was thought that there should be a training element in it, if desired. The sum of £10 of the average of £60 a week per community programme trainee can be allocated to training. The whole of the £440 overhead annual costs per capita can also be allocated to training if desired.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonIs it correct that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised £150 million net expenditure for the programme the Manpower Services Commission proposed a scheme under which there could be another 100,000 full-time jobs at a wage of £90 a week, but that was rejected because the Secretary of State for Employment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to cut wages for people on the scheme and the average is now £60 for part-time employment?
§ Mr. AlisonNo, Sir. We have not cut the rate for the job, which remains the basic criterion. By averaging the funds available we have introduced the concept of part-time work. Some people will draw less than £60 a week, but many will draw the full average sum of £85 or £90 a week.
§ Mr. AdleyDoes my right hon. Friend accept that many preserved railways present good opportunities for employment and training, particularly for young people, in many skills connected with engineering? Will he make a direct approach to the Association of Railway Preservation Societies to see how the community programme can best be used both for the railways and the individuals concerned?
§ Mr. AlisonAs a fellow railway enthusiast, I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to keep an eye on that. I hope to visit the Didcot railway preservation centre in connection with the scheme before long.