HC Deb 25 October 1988 vol 139 cc153-5
1. Mr. Patrick Thompson

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representions from the National Union of Public Employees concerning the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

2. Mr. David Nicholson

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representations from the National and Local Government Officers Association concerning the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler)

I have received no individual representation, but I very much regret that these unions and the Trades Union Congress have decided to oppose employment training. In doing this they are attempting to deny long-term unemployed people the opportunity of training that will help them back into jobs.

Mr. Thompson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that NUPE is wrong to suggest that this scheme, which will benefit 600,000 unemployed people with training in a year, is just working for benefit? Should it not take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and give the scheme its wholehearted support? Does my right hon. Friend expect that view to be supported by Opposition Members this afternoon?

Mr. Fowler

On the latter point, we shall have to wait and see. I confirm again that this is a voluntary programme. So far about 130,000 long-term unemployed people have said that they are interested in employment training, and 60,000 are in training, so the programme is off to a good start.

Mr. Nicholson

Given the undoubted value of employment training, does my right hon. Friend agree that trade unions and local authorities that are opposed to it are betraying the unemployed? Is he satisfied with the conversion of expressions of interest into genuine training courses?

Mr. Fowler

The early indications are that the answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. We believe that things are going satisfactorily and encouragingly. By their votes during the autumn the TUC and the Labour party have turned their backs on the long-term unemployed. They have done that when there are 700,000 vacancies in the economy. That is what they have to explain.

Mrs. Mahon

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this silly game of union bashing has to stop and that a considered decision was taken by the TUC and NUPE on the employment training scheme? They would not subject the unemployed to a workfare scheme that would force people into slave labour the like of which has not been seen since the 19th century.

Mr. Fowler

The hon. Lady must decide whether she is backing the leader of the Opposition, for it was he who urged the TUC to back employment training. Had we had an ounce of leadership from the Opposition Front Bench, the TUC vote may have gone a different way.

Mr. Andrew Welsh

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties that community care schemes experience in obtaining funding under the new employment training scheme? What steps is he taking to secure the future of such schemes, which help the elderly, the handicapped and other important groups? The schemes are valuable to individuals and families. How can their long-term future be secured?

Mr. Fowler

I shall consider any individual cases, but the figures available so far show that voluntary bodies have about 100,000 places on the new employment training programme. In other words, more places are given to voluntary organisations under ET than under the old community programme.

Mr. Burt

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and disappointment for those who were expecting training in the Bury metropolitan area, where the labour-controlled council, which previously expressed its desire to join the scheme, only last week took a policy decision to make a U-turn, no doubt under the influence of some Opposition Members and some members of the TUC? Is that not a denial of essential training for people in my constituency?

Mr. Fowler

Yes. It is regrettable when that takes place. The only thing that can be said is that we are finding it possible to provide training to replace the training that would have been provided by the local authorities. However, nothing that I say takes away from the blame that should attach to local authorities which have turned their backs on unemployed people.

Mr. Meacher

If ET is so good, why in many areas is the drop-out rate more than 50 per cent. after the first interview? Is it because the training is of such poor quality, is it because the allowances are so insultingly low, or is it because there is a smell of creeping compulsion about this scheme? Will the Secretary of State give the House what he has so far consistently refused—a guarantee that the scheme will remain voluntary at least for the lifetime of this Parliament; and if not, why not?

Mr. Fowler

In answer to the first question, I said that it was a voluntary programme, but it is subject to the normal availability for work rules. That is the normal condition for any receipt of social security benefit. The fact that 130,000 people have expressed interest in the programme at jobcentres and that 60,000 are now on the programme speaks for itself. At some stage the hon. Gentleman has to tell the country whether he backs the Leader of the Opposition, who supported employment training. His weakness in leadership has put the Labour party and the TUC in an utterly ridiculous and impossible position.