Community Programme

HC Deb 02 April 1985 vol 76 cc1048-9

4. Mr. Hirst

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to expand the operations of the community programme.

Mr. Tom King

I have asked the Manpower Services Commission to expand the community programme by a further 100,000 places by June next year. At that rate it will then be providing some 300,000 places on the programme in a full year.

Mr. Hirst

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and assure him that it will be warmly welcomed in the west of Scotland. What will be the geographical disposition of the extra places? If there is a surplus of unfilled vacancies in parts of England, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to allocate them to other parts of the United Kingdom where there is unfilled demand?

Mr. King

I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I can confirm that, because I have written a letter to the MSC asking it to consider ways in which the programme could be expanded. We shall be giving consideration to just those points, and to the fairest method of allocation of those additional places. I am sure that the whole House supports the expansion of the community programme. There may be differences about the extent to which it can be expanded, but it is widely welcomed, and we are anxious to see how effective we can make it in helping the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been a consistent advocate of the community programme in the northern region, particularly Cumbria, over the past few years? Will he assure me that the county of Cumbria, particularly west Cumbria, which includes my constituency, will receive a substantial increase in the number of community places?

Mr. King

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken as close an interest as any hon. Member in the programme. His criticism has been that he wants more places; it has not been of the programme itself. He will not expect me to reply in detail to the points that he made. We are not yet able to say what the exact allocation will be, but I take note of the points that he raises.

Ms. Richardson

Does the Secretary of State accept that nobody will believe that the Government intend to expand the community programe unless they withdraw the change in the rules that deliberately excludes married women from the community programme? Does he agree that that is simply massaging the figures? Does not the House agree that, as the Equal Opportunities Commission suggests, it is illegal?

Mr. King

Inadvertently, the hon. Lady was not correct in what she said. Of course, the scheme is limited to benefit recipients. The hon. Lady may say that that may tend to disadvantage married women, but it does not exclude married women per se from the scheme, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will tell her. The difficulty is that there are not as many places as people would like on the community programme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had to try to find a determinant of greatest need. That was how we determined benefit recipients in this case.

Sir Anthony Meyer

The expansion of this excellent programme is most welcome, but will my right hon. Friend consider allowing more flexibility in the period for which people may work in it and the length of time for which elderly workers have to be unemployed before they qualify for a place?

Mr. King

We do not propose any major changes in the rules at this stage, but I note the points raised by my hon. Friend. We have already announced two developments which I hope will be helpful. We are anxious that the programme should be expanded in the most effective way so that it will genuinely help the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Meadowcroft

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that restricting the period of employment to one year bears excessively heavily on voluntary bodies which use the programme to continue their project administration? Will he consider widening the rules so that such bodies can keep people in employment and continue their management projects?

Mr. King

I note that point, which has been raised with me before. I understand that exceptions have been made in certain cases, but we will certainly consider the matter again.