§ Mr. Tom ClarkeTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the levels of benefit savings stemming from the introduction of the access to work scheme; and if he will make a statement on the expected effect on these savings of changes to the access to work scheme between 18 December 1995 and April 1996. [8154]
§ Mr. PaiceI have been asked to reply.
Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under it chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Tom Clarke, dated 9 January 1996:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about benefit savings stemming from the Access to Work programme.We do not calculate the social security benefit savings accruing from disabled people making use of the Access to Work programme in order to take up work. Help is given based on ability to work rather than on entitlement to a benefit so the pattern of benefit savings, if any, will be dependent on the circumstances of the individual case. For example, people in employment continue to receive any in-work benefits they were entitled to as well as Access to Work help.For any labour market programme, simply setting the cost of the programme against possible gross savings in social security payments, is not an accurate indicator of net costs. Access to Work would present still further difficulties in any such calculation because it supports people when they are in employment, as well as those seeking work.174WFor estimates of the net cost to the Exchequer of any labour market programme, the cost of the programme has to be set against potential savings. This would require various assumptions about what unemployed people would earn in work, and how their gaining employment might affect employment and output elsewhere. Providing support in instances where it would have been provided anyway, or where it reduces opportunities for other people in the labour market, reduces net savings.For Access to Work even more sweeping assumptions would be necessary. The same problems would arise as for any labour market programme. In addition because Access to Work pays directly for the extra costs of disabled people who are in work, it would be necessary to make further assumptions about the likelihood and duration of these people continuing in work, in the absence of support from Access to Work.For these reasons, we do not believe that calculations of net benefit savings flowing from support under Access to Work would be especially useful, either for the period before 18 December or afterwards.I hope this clarifies the position.