§ 3. Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the job release scheme.
§ Mr. Alan ClarkYes, Sir. We shall continue the full-time job release scheme on the present basis for a further year. We shall be making changes to the part-time job release scheme designed to improve its attractiveness and the help that it can give to reducing the problem of unemployment.
§ Mr. KnoxDoes my hon. Friend agree that the job release scheme is one of the best schemes for alleviating unemployment and that too few people are involved in it? Is there not a strong case for expanding it substantially?
§ Mr. ClarkI understand my hon. Friend's views, which are echoed in many parts of the House, but the question of how resources are allocated within the total of over £2 billion for employment and training measures is a matter of priorities. My hon. Friend should reflect on the fact that the net cost per person taken off the register by the enterprise allowance scheme is about £650, whereas the cost of taking someone off the register through the job release scheme is £1,630. When the money is allocated, such considerations have to be borne in mind.
§ Mr. MeadowcroftIs it not rightly baffling to many people that the better-off, especially in the public sector, are retiring ever earlier while poorer people cannot take advantage of the job release scheme because the age limit has been raised? Should it not be reduced?
§ Mr. ClarkEarly retirement, at whatever level, is a matter for employee and employer. People who wish to take advantage of the job release scheme have only the last year of their working life in which to do so because we have made a judgment as to the allocation of resources under special employment measures.
§ Mr. EvansDoes the Minister acknowledge that job release is a popular and excellent scheme which reduces unemployment? Will he also acknowledge that the scheme was introduced by a Labour Government, who improved it three times in as many years, unlike the present Government. who earlier this week devalued the scheme by increasing the participation age to 64?
§ Mr. ClarkOf course the scheme is valuable and the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that his party changed the rules three times.
§ Mr. ClarkHowever, his party did not promulgate the enterprise allowance scheme, which is much more cost-effective and has the additional advantage of being job-generative.