HC Deb 03 July 1984 vol 63 cc132-3
3. Mr. Martin

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people occupied on Government special employment measures; and how this number has altered since 1979.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

A total of 622,000 people in Great Britain were supported by the Government's special employment and training measures at the end of April 1984. This is an increase of 388,000 over the April 1979 figure.

Mr. Martin

Surely this shows that Government intervention can reduce unemployment. Therefore, the Minister should embark on schemes of public expenditure to help inner cities such as the area which I represent. Does he accept that he should embark on road-building schemes and perhaps even turn his attention to the sewerage systems in many major cities? That approach would help to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Gummer

I believe that we should seek every means of reducing unemployment, but it would not help to reduce unemployment by taxing successful schemes to produce jobs which would reduce the opportunities of employment in successful firms. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Thurnham

At what level does my hon. Friend envisage the total number on such schemes in future?

Mr. Gummer

We are examining the schemes, because we have to consider how we may improve them. I shall be happy to answer my hon. Friend's question when we have completed the investigation.

Ms. Clare Short

Is the Minister aware that in Birmingham we are gravely concerned about the operation of the largest of the schemes, the youth training scheme, because it appears that between two thirds and three quarters of those who have left it are unemployed? We are told by the local area board that the minimum criteria for renewal that it has set are not met by 40 per cent. of the schemes and that only 3 per cent. are better than the criteria.

Mr. Gummer

I ask the hon. Lady to help the young people concerned by supporting the schemes which we have introduced instead of constantly attacking them and making statements which seem not to tally with statements made in the Birmingham area.

Mr. Meadowcroft

Has any estimate been made of the net cost to public funds of these schemes? Even if there is a negative cost to the Exchequer, will the Minister accept that the community benefit of many of the schemes is such that he might be well advised to increase their number, rather than inhibit their growth?

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should consider the schemes from that point of view, and we are doing so. Each scheme has a different net cost, and sometimes net costs differ from one part of a scheme to another.

Mr. Lawler

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the MSC makes it clear to young people who are denied opportunities in the postal services, local and national Government service and in printing that they will not be able to follow schemes in those sectors because of politically motivated opposition from the trade unions?

Mr. Gummer

My hon. Friend has made an important point. However, I should much prefer Opposition Members to speak in a non-party political way about the youth training scheme. It is for that reason that I have gone in for a self-denying ordinance of not pointing out the outrageous activities of those who seek to oppose the scheme.

Mr. Evans

Will the Minister acknowledge that the job release scheme, introduced by a Labour Government, is one of the best and most imaginative of all Government schemes, but that, regrettably, more than 250,000 men between the ages of 62 and 64 no longer qualify for that scheme? Should not the Government have reduced the age of eligibility from 62 to 60, rather than increasing it from 62 to 64?

Mr. Gummer

I am sure we all agree that it is an imaginative scheme —so much so that the hon. Gentleman's party changed the rules four times. [Interruption.] I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we have to look at all the schemes together and decide how best the money should be spent. We have not at the moment any intention of changing the scheme.