§ 3.19 p.m.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy 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 they have studied the survey of the Merseyside Trade Union Unemployed Centre and what conclusions they have drawn from it.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)My Lords, we have seen a report from this organisation about the Restart programme in Merseyside. It gives a totally misleading impression of the aims and effects of the Restart programme.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, if the noble Lord has seen the report, does he recall the allegation in it that on Merseyside 10 times as many people have had benefits stopped as were found work during the first half of the scheme which ends this month? I believe that this is a wild exaggeration—
§ Lord Hatch of Lusby—but can the noble Lord tell us whether it is the case that more people on this Merseyside scheme have had benefits stopped than have been placed in full-time employment under an employer?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am rather surprised that the noble Lord should bring to the attention of your Lordships' House a report of this nature which among other things alleges that a few weeks ago when I introduced a six-month Restart programme, I introduced a work-for-benefit scheme. The report contains figures which are misleading; the total impression is misleading. If the noble Lord wishes to ask me how many people go into employment as a result of Restart, he may put down a Question. Restart, as a programme, has now been accepted even by noble Lords opposite, or at least by 292 their party. It is doing a great deal to reverse the direction of long-term unemployment, and I, for one, regret that the noble Lord should bring documents of this nature to your Lordships' House.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question? Is it the case that more people on Merseyside have had benefits stopped during the first half of the scheme ending this month than have been placed in full-time employment under an employer?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, perhaps I may remind all in your Lordships' House that no one in this country has his benefit stopped unless his circumstances are such that he is not entitled to claim benefit in the first place. There are many cases where people are claiming the wrong benefits and are entitled to sickness or disability benefits. Those people are steered on to the right sort of benefits. Restart is not an employment programme. It is a programme which acts as a gateway to the many programmes and help provided by my department. We never publish employment figures out of Restart. I am quite content to look at the national figures for the long-term unemployed and let those decide.
§ Lord McCarthyMy Lords, will the noble Lord try to answer the question? Is it a fact that more people were taken off the register than were given jobs; not unlawfully or wrongfully taken off the register, but taken off the register in Merseyside? Can he answer that? Does he also want to say that a positive answer will he given to the letter he received earlier this week from the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress asking for an objective, independent study into Restart and other employment creation programmes?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, the noble Lord strays very widely from the point. Perhaps I may say that 1,249 people have been disallowed for failure to attend within Merseyside out of the 74,598 people who were interviewed up to 12th February. Those who go into jobs are not included in the statistics for this programme. I am quite happy to look at the figures for employment as a whole.
I have received two letters from the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress. If I may paraphrase the first letter slightly, it says that young people should receive benefit if they decide that they do not want to go on to YTS. The other asks a series of questions about the Government's statistical service. I am looking carefully at that letter. I shall reply to the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress as soon as I have studied the contents. It is an allegation about the Government's statisticalservice. It is not directed at myself or any other Minister.
§ Lord StallardMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this survey is also reported as saying that the Restart scheme is a way to fiddle the jobless figures? Does he accept that the sentiment has been expressed not only about the Restart scheme but about the other 19 changes that have taken place under the present Government in the method of compiling the statistics? Is he aware that because of the widespread view about these changes, which all resulted in a reduction in the 293 numbers, his replies to any questions on employment have been rendered almost totally incredible?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am aware that it has caused a certain amount of dismay to noble Lords opposite that for the past seven months the unemployment figures have been going down, as has unemployment. I am also aware of the 19 changes which it is alleged have occurred, although even with the greatest work the unemployment unit counts it as 16. Some of the changes, as I reminded all in your Lordships' House during the debate on it, included items such as the strike in the Newcastle office in 1980 when statisticians reduced unemployment by 20,000. When the strike ended they made an adjustment and put that number back. There have been three major changes in the unemployment count, and not one has taken place since the figures changed direction last July. Unemployment is going down in this country. It will continue to go down despite the great dismay and disappointment of those opposite.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, the report says that £94 million is to he spent on the Restart programme nationally this year. Is that figure correct? If it is correct and if it is divided by the number of people who have been placed in full-time employment, how much is it costing to create a real job for each worker placed in full-time employment?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I do not know how many times I have to repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that this is not an employment programme. You may as well divide the cost of Restart by the number of people who eat chocolate sundaes, because that has no relevance to it at all. I shall just remind noble Lords of two simple facts. Only since we started the Restart programme has long-term unemployment started to go down. Only since we started the Restart programme have we discovered that one in four of the long-term unemployed is illiterate. Only since we started the Restart programme have we been in the position to say that we have now met and helped all of the long-term unemployed in this country. I stand very proud of the Government's programme of work which is now the envy of other countries with high unemployment. We have seen the results so far. We shall continue to see the results as this Government will continue with Restart.
§ Lord McCarthyMy Lords, is it not unfair to say that noble Lords on this side—
§ Baroness SeearMy Lords, does the Secretary of State agree that the main criticism of Restart is not that it is now doing the job it is but that it was not begun a very long time ago? Is it not extraordinary that the long-term unemployed were left without this kind of contact for so many months?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, I am grateful to be criticised on that score, considering how I was criticised on the day I stood in your Lordships' House to introduce the programme. At least the House 294 should give us credit for conceiving the idea of Restart and introducing it. Long-term unemployment is 61 per cent. of the total unemployed in Belgium. It is high in every other country in Europe. The idea has not been thought of there, and those countries are now watching what we are doing and copying it.
§ Lord McCarthyMy Lords, is it not the case that the answer to the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is £ I 8,000 a job?
§ Lord Young of GraffhamMy Lords, it is absolutely true to say that that is the figure mentioned in this pamphlet. It is totally untrue to say that that is the cost per job as a result of Restart. Restart is not an employment programme and perhaps I may explain why. We interview people. We put people into job clubs. We never count the two-thirds of people who go into employment from job clubs. We put people on training programmes. We never count the people who go into employment on training programmes. We put 70,000, 80,000, 90,000 people a year on to the community programme. We never count those who go into jobs out of that programme.
Why do we do this? Because Restart is about remotivating people who have lost their enthusiasm from being out of work. It is about getting them into schemes. It would be an unprofitable road down which to travel to try to say that Restart has a cost per job. It clearly does not. It was not designed for that, and I am quite happy to be judged by all the other programmes of my department.