§ Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Paymaster General whether his Department will conduct an investigation to estimate how many of the long-term unemployed leave the register as a result of the normal inflow and outflow compared with those leaving as a direct result of the restart interviews over a controlled period of six months; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI doubt whether it is possible to carry out a controlled experiment to monitor the precise effects of restart. There are significant variations in the normal flow into and out of unemployment because of changing labour market conditions and variable seasonal influences. These make it very difficult to provide a reliable estimate of what the position could have been without restart. We are considering ways of assessing the impact of the scheme, but we are not yet sure that a reasonably accurate assessment of its direct employment effect can be made.
§ Mr. Terry Fieldsasked the Paymaster General how many unemployed people have been offered jobs as a 539W result of restart training schemes in the (a) Liverpool travel-to-work area and (b) Broadgreen constituency area; how many people have had benefit suspended having failed to attend restart interviews in (i) Liverpool travel-to-work area and (ii) Broadgreen constituency area; and how many people have had benefit suspended for not meeting the requirements of the new availability for work test in (1) Liverpool travel-to-work area and (2) Broadgreen constituency area.
§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke[pursuant to his reply, 12 December 1986, c. 258]: We have no means of knowing how many people are offered or obtain jobs as a result of their participation in the restart programme, which is designed to improve their prospects of employment.
No one can lose his benefit entitlement solely as a result of the restart programme. Under long-standing legal rules, people can lose their entitlement to benefit if they fail to attend an interview, are not available for work or refuse an offer of suitable employment.
We cannot provide information about loss of benefit in the exact form requested as it is not possible to equate precisely unemployment benefit office areas within the locations quoted. Failure to attend an interview has always resulted in disallowance of benefit, not suspension, but up to 13 November 1986 the number of people in what is broadly the Liverpool travel-to-work area who failed to attend a restart interview and as a result had benefit disallowed by independent adjudication officers was 666. Of these, 196 were in the unemployment benefit office areas that largely covered the Broadgreen constituency. Subsequently, 469 and 157 claimants respectively had benefit reinstated after attending a restart interview.
The improved procedures for testing the availability for work of new claimants in accordance with long-standing legal rules, which I announced on 28 October, at columns 175–87, are a separate arrangement from the restart programme, which is for long-term unemployment people. Up to 5 December 1986, in the areas of Liverpool and Broadgreen respectively, 155 and 28 people who were making a fresh claim had their benefit suspended after completing the availability questionnaire, pending a decision on their entitlement by the independent adjudication officer.