§ Mr. Don FosterTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the reasons for the Employment Service's failure(a) to meet its target for placing unemployed people into work and (b) to stay within its planned unit cost of placing unemployed people into work in 1997–98. [61074]
§ Mr. Andrew Smith[holding answer 30 November 1998]: The main reason for the shortfall was the introduction by ES—after the unemployed placing target was set—of a new, more rigorous, recording and validation system for job placings. Whilst improving the accuracy of performance information, this action reduced the number of job placings recorded. The welcome fall in unemployment during 1997–98 also meant there were fewer long term unemployed people for ES to help into work. The unemployed job placing target for 1998–99 has been set to take account of the new placing validation system, and the lower level of unemployment.
The 1997–98 planned unit cost of an unemployed placing was based on the assumption that the ES would achieve its placing target with the resources available. Due to the shortfall in unemployed job placings, the ES was unable to stay within its planned unit cost.
ES performance during 1997–98 should be seen in context of the excellent work it undertook to ensure the successful implementation of the New Deal programmes and other Welfare to Work initiatives.