§ Mr. Brightasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many council house tenants entered the employment transfer scheme and were forced to abandon it because they could not be re-housed.
§ Mr. Jim LesterI am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the information requested is not available.
§ Mr. Brightasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present cost of the employment transfer scheme; and what plans he has for its future.
498Wwere imposed for each year since the Act's inception.
§ Mr. Jim Lester[pursuant to his reply 8 November 1979, c. 256–57]: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that failure of firms to employ their quota of registered disabled people is not an offence. However, those in this situation have certain obligations concerning the recruitment and retention of registered disabled workers. Infringement of these is an offence. Ten employers have been prosecuted under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 since its inception, and the table below gives the nature and result of each prosecution. Maximum fines were not imposed against any of the offenders.
§ Mr. Jim LesterIn the period 1 April to 30 September 1979, the total expenditure on schemes to assist geographical mobility of labour was £4,214,739, nearly all of which was spent on the employment transfer scheme. The estimated expenditure for the financial year ending on 31 March 1980 is £7,520,000.
The Manpower Services Commission will be reviewing the employment transfer scheme in December and, whilst it is expected that this scheme will continue, the amount of money available will be influenced by Government policy on public spending.
499W
§ Mr. Brightasked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether he has received any representations from the Confederation of British Industry or Trades Union Congress on the difficulties faced by council house tenants in making use of the employment transfer scheme;
(2) what representations his Department has received regarding the difficulties facing council house tenants in securing new jobs under the employment transfer scheme and in obtaining new accommodation for themselves and their families in the areas to which they move.
§ Mr. Jim LesterNeither my Department nor the Manpower Services Commission has recently received any representation from the Confederation of British Industry or the Trades Union Congress on the difficulties faced by council house tenants in making use of the employment transfer scheme. However, in the past two years the Commission has received three representations from Members of Parliament on behalf of constituents who had difficulty in obtaining accommodation after moving under the auspices of the employment transfer scheme.
§ Mr. Brightasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Manpower Services Commission has estimates of the number of council house tenants deterred from entering the employment transfer scheme because of the difficulties of obtaining council homes in the areas to which they might move; and, if so, what they are.
§ Mr. Jim LesterI am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that it has no such estimates of the numbers of council house tenants deterred from entering the employment transfer scheme because of the difficulties of obtaining council houses.
§ Mr. Brightasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Manpower Services Commission has figures for the number of council house tenants entering the employment transfer scheme; and, if so, what they are.
§ Mr. Jim LesterI am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that this information is not immediately available. Information is available only on the number500W of council house tenants entering the employment transfer scheme since May 1979 and I am arranging for this to be compiled. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as this information is available.