§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration could be given to merging the schemes operated by the DHSS and MSC which afford benefits to the unemployed and those threatened with redundancy (such as fares and interview expenses and grants for house purchase and removal) into a single comprehensive scheme administered by one department of state; and whether any amendment to such schemes is envisaged.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)My Lords, the schemes administered by the Manpower Services Commission to pay expenses such as fares to interviews to people who are unemployed or threatened with redundancy are designed to assist in filling jobs which could not otherwise be filled. The payments of supplementary benefit given by the Department of Health and Social Security are intended to help individuals who have the lowest incomes to compete in the job market. The possibility of merging the two schemes has in the past been considered, but the objects of the schemes are essentially different and the Government have concluded that it is better that the schemes should continue to he administered as at present.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. However, will he accept that it does not really come to grips with the substance of the Question? I should like to ask my noble friend whether the approximate grant under each of these three schemes for 1982–83 was of the order of £150,000, £150,000 and £5¼ million respectively? Can my noble friend tell your Lordships'House—and this is relevant to the Question which remains, in my submission, unanswered—the estimated cost of administration of each scheme? Can he also say whether a total grant of under £6 million justifies three schemes which overlap under the administration of two separate departments of state?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, my noble friend has given me a substantial number of supplementary questions to answer but I shall endeavour to answer them. So far as the administrative costs of the schemes are concerned, I have to tell my noble friend that, on very rough estimates—and the estimates are not very precise—the annual administrative costs of both the 724 MSC and the supplementary benefits schemes are £1.5 million and £100,000 respectively. Whether or not merging the schemes would produce administrative savings would depend upon what were the rules of any combined scheme. The fact remains that the schemes are different, and I am sorry that my noble friend is unable to accept that they are so. However, if I were to enlarge upon the two different forms of scheme—the one as regards the DHSS and the two Manpower Services schemes—I would probably be standing at this Dispatch Box for several more moments. It would probably be better if I write to my noble friend in more detail as regards both schemes.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, will the noble Minister be at least prepared to take to the Secretary of State the submission made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway? It appears to many of us who are interested in providing relief and help for the unemployed and for other people, that the proposals could do two things. First, they could streamline efficiency; and, secondly, they could increase the breadth of assistance so urgently required, particularly for the unemployed.
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, as I said in answer to my noble friend, the combining of these schemes has been looked at. Of course, the Government are prepared to help the unemployed in the ways in which they have already announced and which operate at present. As I have said, there are three schemes and those three schemes are in operation. Whether or not it would be sensible to merge them is something which has been considered and we have ruled that it would not be sensible to do so.
§ The Earl of LauderdaleMy Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether I heard him correctly? I thought I heard him say that the administration of one of the schemes costs £1.5 million, whereas the total value of all three schemes is not more than £10 million, which means that the administration accounts for more than 10 per cent. Perhaps I misheard my noble friend?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, what I said was that the annual administrative costs of both the MSC and the supplementary benefits schemes are £1.5 million and £100,000, respectively. The reason for the MSC schemes costing what they do is that one applies to travel only—that is to say, the benefits that come from the job search scheme cost £115,000. The other scheme—the employment transfer scheme—is the one which provides removal expenses as well and it costs considerably more.
§ The Earl of LauderdaleMy Lords, I must press the matter. Having heard that the cost is £1.5 million, did I understand my noble friend correctly to say that the whole thing cost less than £10 million, which means that the administration costs more than 10 per cent.?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I do not think I actually said that the whole thing was £10 million or less than £10 million; but I shall certainly read what I said and if I got it wrong I shall write to my noble friend.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, will my noble friend agree that, on inspection of the documents that I have received from the Ministry of Transport, there is a very substantial degree of overlap, and hence the Question remains, in my submission, unanswered in any reasoned fashion?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, there is no overlap because the DHSS scheme applies to those who are on supplementary benefit. Not everybody who goes in search of a job is on supplementary benefit.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, if I heard correctly that the cost is about £6 million in total, will the Minister agree that 25 per cent. is a very large percentage for administration?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, if it is 25 per cent.; but I do not think that the noble Lord's mathematics are right in this case.