North Norfolk Action (Hansard, 8 December 1993)

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth

[holding answer 6 December 1993]Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 8 December 1993: As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the savings on benefits incurred due to persons leaving the unemployment register after interviews and to persons obtaining employment after participating in the North Norfolk Action Scheme, stating the number in each case and the percentage this represents in each case to the number engaged on the scheme; what was the overall expenditure on North Norfolk Action up to 31 October; how much expenditure has been incurred on (a) provider fees, (b) extra allowances, (c) fares to work, (d) publicity, (e) evaluation and (f) employment service running costs showing overall figures and how the provider fees and extra allowances were arrived at; and what is the net saving to the public funds which has resulted from the first six months of North Norfolk Action. Up to 31 October 16 people had found work following participation on the North Norfolk Action programme which represents 13.3 per cent. of all participants. The number leaving the register to go into work following Supportive Caseload interviews was 120 representing 35 per cent. of all those given such interviews. 240W Overall expenditure on North Norfolk Action which had been brought to account by 31 October was £205,182. This was made up as follows: (a)Provider fees—£87,349. 1,770 trainee weeks at £49.34 (average cost) per week. (b) Allowances—£85,178. 741 payments (made fortnightly) x £114.94 (average fortnightly payment: represents £47.47 plus £10 per week). This does not include other payments such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit etc., which are not paid by the Employment Service. (c) Fares to work—£2,455. (d) Publicity—£1,500. (e) Evaluation—Work to start in 1994. (f) Running costs—£28,700. It is not yet possible to estimate what, if any, benefit savings have resulted from North Norfolk Action. This is because such savings would be achieved only if people leave unemployment quicker than they would have otherwise have done, but without displacing others, and remain out of unemployment for longer. These effects can be estimated only when we have the full results of our planned evaluation. An evaluation exercise of supportive caseload is being conducted by my Research and Evaluation Branch and external contractors will shortly be appointed to assess the effects of participation in North Norfolk Action. Results should be available during 1994. Nor is it possible to make an estimate of the net effect of North Norfolk Action on the exchequer. For example this would require information about how expenditure on North Norfolk Action might have affected unemployment if it had been used in other ways. I hope this is helpful. As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.